{"id":128,"date":"2008-07-29T10:16:41","date_gmt":"2008-07-29T14:16:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/?p=128"},"modified":"2008-07-30T10:17:52","modified_gmt":"2008-07-30T14:17:52","slug":"what%e2%80%99s-the-matter-with-the-new-york-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/2008\/07\/29\/what%e2%80%99s-the-matter-with-the-new-york-times\/","title":{"rendered":"What\u2019s the matter with The New York Times?"},"content":{"rendered":"

July 29, 2008
\nUnion Leader Blog<\/a>
\nDrew Cline<\/p>\n

On its blog yesterday, The New York Times editorial board posted a misleading commentary about Sen. Judd Gregg in particular and New Hampshire in general. Following is my humble attempt at a response.<\/p>\n

Under the condescending headline, \u201cWhat\u2019s the matter with New Hampshire?\u201c, the editorial writers held forth the following:<\/p>\n

\u201cSen. Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, set himself apart on Saturday \u2014 and not in a good way.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe was the lone New England senator who voted to prevent consideration of a bill that would have released more than $2 billion for the low-income energy assistance program (LIHEAP) an estimated $27 million of which would have gone to help poor people in the Granite State.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne oddity about his position is that Mr. Gregg was one of the bill\u2019s original sponsors.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe other odd thing about his vote is what it means for a group of cold, not especially well-off people: his own constituents.\u201d<\/p>\n

OK, stop right there. New Hampshire residents are \u201cnot especially well-off\u201d? Since when? Last year New Hampshire ranked 7th in the nation in per-capita income.<\/p>\n

The NY Times stereotypes rural America as poor America. It isn\u2019t true. But at the Times editorial board, there\u2019s no getting in the way of a good stereotype. Let\u2019s continue.<\/p>\n

\u201cMost New Hampshire residents are concerned about the doubling of home heating oil prices in the last year, and for good reason. About 58 percent of the state\u2019s households rely on oil heat to keep warm in the bone-chilling New Hampshire winters.\u201d<\/p>\n

Well, according to the state\u2019s Office of Energy and Planning, the most recent figure is 55.3 percent. But who\u2019s counting? I guess the Times simply assumed that since most NH households use home heating oil, \u201cmost New Hampshire residents are concerned about the doubling of home heating oil prices in the last year.\u201d By the way, prices have almost doubled, but again, who\u2019s counting?<\/p>\n

\u201cUnless prices fall significantly, they will pay nearly $1,000 to fill a tank of oil which might keep their homes warm for about a month during the coldest part of winter.\u201d<\/p>\n

How would prices fall significantly? By increasing supply. But The New York Times opposes Republican efforts to do that by letting oil companies drill offshore, even though offshore drilling has a 99.999 percent safety record.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe energy-assistance bill failed 50-35, ten votes short of the 60 votes needed, after the White House threatened to veto the legislation and Republicans decided to use the issue to demand lifting the bans on offshore drilling and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.\u201d<\/p>\n

No, the bill didn\u2019t fail. It\u2019s still alive. The motion to vote on it immediately on Saturday, while the Senate Democrats\u2019 own bill to crack down on commodity speculators was being considered, is what failed. And Republicans didn\u2019t just decide to use the issue to demand more drilling. They offered to vote on LIHEAP if Majority Leader Harry Reid allowed votes on amendments to the speculation bill. Reid refused. He also refused to allow votes on amending the LIHEAP bill.<\/p>\n

I wonder if the Times is aware that the LIHEAP bill was introduced 21 days before the speculation bill was introduced. Reid is the only senator empowered to bring bills up for a vote. Why did he wait a month to bring the LIHEAP bill up for a vote, and then do it during consideration of the speculation bill, which he had scheduled first?<\/p>\n

He did it because he knew an unquestioning press would report that Republicans voted against LIHEAP expansion. And sure enough, The Times reports exactly that and does not question why Reid sat on the supposedly \u201cemergency\u201d LIHEAP bill for a month before bringing it up for a vote.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo matter that additional drilling would do little to lower the price of gas at the pump or oil in the furnace, and certainly not in the short term.\u201d<\/p>\n

Again, not true. A large future boost in the energy supply would likely have an immediate and significant impact on prices. Such a large future boost in the energy supply would come from expanding offshore drilling and nuclear power. (More nuclear plants in the Northeast would reduce the need for home heating oil here. That is one of the amendments Republicans wanted to offer to the speculation bill.) But The Times doesn\u2019t want to allow policies that would actually lower oil prices. Instead, it wants more federal subsidies. Go figure.<\/p>\n

\u201cA few years ago, in his book \u2018What\u2019s The Matter With Kansas?,\u2019 Thomas Frank asked why the largely blue-collar voters of Kansas regularly voted for Republican elected officials who worked against their economic interests.\u201d<\/p>\n

Neither Frank nor the Times gets that blue-collar voters in places like Kansas understand that high-taxes and big government work against their interests, not for them.<\/p>\n

\u201cNow, the same question could be asked about New Hampshire. What are the state\u2019s voters thinking, sending a Senator to Washington who is working to ensure that they or their neighbors won\u2019t be able to afford to turn on the heat this winter?\u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s just shockingly ignorant. Did Gregg really work \u201cto ensure\u201d that Granite Staters \u201cwon\u2019t be able to afford to turn on the heat this winter?\u201d Considering that A) he co-sponsored the bill to double LIHEAP funding, and B) his vote on Saturday was not to kill the bill, but to stick to Harry Reid\u2019s original calendar, which had the LIHEAP bill going after the speculation bill, the answer is obviously \u201cno.\u201d The bill remains alive and can be brought back up for a vote. So, what, exactly, was Sen. Gregg\u2019s sin, in the eyes of the Times editorial board?<\/p>\n

Apparently it was voting against Harry Reid\u2019s scheme to postpone indefinitely any vote that might result in higher domestic energy production and lower energy prices. (And that includes, by the way, votes on Democratic proposals to clamp down on oil speculators.)<\/p>\n

The New York Times editorial board evidently hates, or at least has a low opinion of, New Hampshire. It continually writes ignorant and hostile pieces about this state. This is only the latest. It sure won\u2019t be the last. It would be nice, though, if members of the board bothered to try to understand this state, its people, and its issues before writing about them. It would help, too, if they tried to understand legislation in Washington before writing about it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

July 29, 2008 Union Leader Blog Drew Cline On its blog yesterday, The New York Times editorial board posted a misleading commentary about Sen. Judd Gregg in particular and New Hampshire in general. Following is my humble attempt at a response. Under the condescending headline, \u201cWhat\u2019s the matter with New Hampshire?\u201c, the editorial writers held […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles-us"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=128"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}