Covering for Chuck

Let's stipulate that the New York Daily News is a dreadful paper. It's news gathering ability is a sorry third -- behind the Times and the Post. There is nothing in that paper that you cannot get elsewhere on the Internet. And their columnists are all Jimmy Breslin - wannabes without any of the talent. (You'll recall that after Breslin won his Pulitzer, he got the heck out of Dodge.)

Their sports section, for a time, was the best. Now it's merely a shell of itself passing off conventional wisdom as incisive analysis.

(At the end of the day, you think that maybe Mort Zuckerman owns its so he can pass himself as a media titan rather than a real estate developer.) Note to MZ -- guess what -- nobody reads a two page editorial, so why do you insert them into USN&WR?

What's troubling are the editorials. The paper was totally in the tank for Obama (however, the gutless wonders over there opted to use the word "expect" when talking about The One.) Moreover, they covered up the bad stuff and had both guns blazing on McCain and Palin as if they were Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. OK, I don't agree but I understand.

But if they are going to push the change and hope mantra, you have to ask yourself -- why are they in the tank for Representative Chuck Rangel?

In today's editorial, they list the various ethical charges against the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. (Most of them discovered by the Times or the Post.) If the NYDN was really into this hope and change business, they would be raking him over the coals. But no -- they say that Rangel's aides and the Manhattan DA offer a plausible explanation for one of Rangel's misdeeds. (Tell me what the explanation is and I'll determine if it's plausible, OK?)

The editorialist, however, focuses on one issue -- ignoring the others -- and claims that Rangel, "should have known better."

The Washington Post, however, offers a different view. In fact, they discuss the particulars of one of Rangel's ethically-challenged actions and it's anything other than plausible. Moreover, the WP strongly recommends that Rangel stand down as the chair of the committee.

So you have to ask yourself -- why is the Daily News covering for Charles Rangel? Incompetence can only be part of the explanation.