Right Wing Nation

Captain Ed has linked to the latest Editor and Publisher stats for newspaper circulation, and given the numbers, the title of the story is, er, interesting: ABC Reveals Big Drops in Circ in Spring 2007.

Let’s look at the data ABC released:

And the chart:

Note that not all circulations declined. Also note which newspapers lost circulation: The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, and The Boston Globe. Granted, that’s most of the papers listed.

Note which papers increased their circulation: USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, and New York Daily News. Are you seeing a pattern? Not yet? Then let me help.

All of the newspapers that lost circulation are well-known for their reliably liberal editorial policies. The New York Times (and its child, The Boston Globe). The Los Angeles Times. The Washington Post. The Chicago Tribune. The San Francisco Chronicle. Let’s contrast these with the papers that increased their circulation.

USA Today is a balanced, centrist paper, and publishes both liberal and conservative editorials and columns. The Wall Street Journal has a reliably conservative editorial page. The New York Daily News, like USA Today, has a balanced editorial page. But the biggest increase in circulation is the New York Post, which has possibly the most in-your-face conservative editorial page of any paper in the nation. The New York Post publishes editorials like this (emphases mine):

May 2, 2007 — President Bush last night resolutely vetoed an Iraq-war-funding bill that would have tied the hands of his military commanders and forced a U.S. capitulation to bloody-handed terrorists in a matter of months.

“This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops,” Bush said. “[That] makes no sense.”

Indeed it doesn’t.

Bush noted that congressional Democrats had made their point - they’re against the war - and that now it is time to move forward and fund U.S. troops.

He’s right. But it hardly undoes the damage Democrats already have done.

Senate Majority Leader Harry “White Flag” Reid and House Speaker Nancy “Miss Syria” Pelosi knew very well that they didn’t have enough votes to override Bush’s long-promised veto of their bill.

But they passed it and sent it to Bush - solely to score political points.

It was meant as a symbolic gesture - as indeed it was.

A symbol . . . of weakness.

Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and others will surely interpret a bill calling for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq before it has been stabilized as a sign that this nation has gone all wobbly.

In Iraq and the Middle East, in particular, the mullahs and Islamists can fairly conclude it’s only a matter of time before Democrats force defeat upon America.

And that the next stage of their war against the West can soon begin.

It also sends a message, as Bush noted, to America’s allies: When the going gets tough, America - with the Democrats leading the way - starts running. So why fight by America’s side?

And one more thing: Congress’ passage of the bill - Bush’s veto notwithstanding - does enormous harm to the troops in theater themselves.

Not only because it delays urgently needed funding for equipment and munitions to support them.

But also because it gives such encouragement to the very people trying to kill them.

Now Congress will go back and finally get serious about funding the troops.

But much damage has been done.

The Democrats - Reid and Pelosi, in particular - have dealt the troops, and the nation, an enormous setback.

They’ve made victory in Iraq harder to achieve. All for political motives.

Democrats ought to be ashamed.

And Americans should take appropriate note.

The New York Post increased their circulation by 7.6%, significantly more than any other paper. And note where that circulation is: New York City. Not Utah, not Indiana, not Alabama. New York City.

Coinkidink?