Post-Election Day 2009 spin and bias from The Usual Suspects

First, sorry for the light blogging today. Was hectic at the 8-5 and I’ve got a bit of a headache coming on this evening.

Ok on to the media bias and lefty spin post-Election Day (but I repeat myself …)

—– In light of the big GOP wins last night in VA and NJ, you’d think even a paper as solidly liberal as the LA Times would have no choice but to make those wins their top headline, right? Wrong. Patterico has the screencap from the LAT’s website from this morning where the top headline was …. “Democrats win Congressional victories in California, N.Y.” The smaller subheadline read, “The GOP fares better in Virginia and New Jersey as both states elect Republican Governors.”

As of this writing, the direct link to the article sports the same headline and subheadline.

Think there were a few sour grapes in the LAT’s newsroom overnight last night? Yup – me, too.

—–Obama-loving journo and MSDNC commentator Andrea Mitchell was feeling and showing some major love for Obama’s senior advisor David Axelturf this morning during an interview in which she invoked the classic movie Casablanca in discussing both HBO’s loving Obadocumentary (which aired last night) and the NY-23 race. The money quote? “Well, we loved you in the HBO documentary, and we’ll always have the New York 23rd.” Nudge nudge, wink wink! Watch the laughable exchange here.

—– And speaking of MSDNC, OlbermannWatch writes about how MSDNC’s election coverage was inadequate, even for MSDNC, and noted that liberal icon Keith Olbermann was not around to do the “special live 10:00 PM edition of Countdown.” Come to find out, KO was visiting his dad in the hospital, which is understandable but still doesn’t explain why MSDNC chose not to have someone else fill that timeslot on a big election night. Show of hands how many of you think they would have had last night been huge for the Dems? (Looks around) Yep, that’s all of you.

—– A “senior administration official” told Jake Tapper that last night’s Dem victory over Doug Hoffman meant that Democrats were “2-0” versus Sarah Palin. Huh? Even if that could be called a “victory” against Sarah Palin, wouldn’t that make it 1-0? Well, considering this administration can’t count worth a crap when it comes to – for example – how much money their healthcare plan will “save” over a several year period (in reality, there will be no “savings”) and how much it will add to the deficit (in reality, it is definitely not “deficit neutral”), I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised.

—– Jonah Goldberg calls out multiple media outlets and pundits on their declarations that last night’s elections were more “anti-incumbent” than anti-anything else. As Goldberg correctly notes, it was Democrat incubments who lost in VA and NJ. Duh.

—– William Jacobson tackles the lefty spinsanity that yesterday’s elections were allegedly “good” for Democrats, especially on the healthcare issue, because they picked up an additional seat in the House. Some lefty bloggers were actually suggesting that the Dems picked up two seats last night, but the CA-10 race was one which stayed in Democrat hands.

There they go with that counting problem again.

—– And finally …. and surprisingly without spin, the NYT reported today on some surprising Republican gains in some local races in NY. Wonders never will cease …