NY Times political bias showing through

I was not particularly surprised this morning to see that the New York Times, which at the outset referred glowingly to the immigration proposal as a two-party deal (Senators in Bipartisan Deal on Immigration Bill, NY Times, May 18, 2007) and praised Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy's statesmanship and influence, now highlights that the “Bush immigration bill” has been solidly defeated. In today’s front page story, you didn’t even see that Kennedy played a key role until deep into the story. It reminds me of when Bill Keller, the N.Y. Times' Executive Editor, came to speak in Portland and heralded how his paper had no political agenda and was as balanced as could be. I was tempted to stand up and ask him if he ever read his own paper.

Take a look at the initial part of the NY Times story from today's (June 29) paper and ask yourself if the treatment is balanced:

Immigrant Bill Dies in Senate; Defeat for Bush

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

By ROBERT PEAR and CARL HULSE
Published: June 29, 2007
WASHINGTON, June 28 — President Bush’s effort to overhaul the nation’s immigration policy, a cornerstone of his domestic agenda, collapsed Thursday in the Senate, with little prospect that it can be revived before Mr. Bush leaves office in 19 months.
The bill called for the biggest changes to immigration law in more than 20 years, offering legal status to millions of illegal immigrants while trying to secure borders. But the Senate, forming blocs that defied party affiliation, could never unite on the main provisions.
Rejecting the president’s last-minute pleas, it voted, 53 to 46, to turn back a motion to end debate and move toward final passage. Supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to close the debate.
Mr. Bush placed telephone calls to lawmakers throughout the morning. But members of his party abandoned him in droves, with just 12 of the 49 Senate Republicans sticking by him on the important procedural vote that determined the fate of the bill.
Nearly one-third of Senate Democrats voted, in effect, to block action on the bill.
The vote followed an outpouring of criticism from conservatives and others who called it a form of amnesty for lawbreakers.
The outcome was a bitter disappointment for Mr. Bush and other supporters of a comprehensive approach, including Hispanic and church groups and employers who had been seeking greater access to foreign workers.
Supporters and opponents said the measure was dead for the remainder of the Bush administration, though conceivably individual pieces might be revived.
The vote reflected the degree to which Congress and the nation are polarized over immigration. The emotional end to what had been an emotional debate was evident, with a few senior staff members who had invested months in writing the bill near tears.
“The bill now dies,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who helped write the measure.
The outcome also underscored the challenge that Mr. Bush faces in exerting authority and enacting an agenda as members of his party increasingly break with him and Democrats no longer fear him. Having already given up on other ambitious second-term plans like overhauling Social Security, the administration has little prospect of winning any big new legislative achievements in its final months.
The collapse also highlighted the difficulties that the new Democratic leadership in Congress has had in showing that it can address the big problems facing the nation. In this case, Democratic leaders asserted that the failure of the immigration bill reflected on Mr. Bush, and not on their party.