Do we have a "Closet Conservative" as the Executive Editor of The New York Times?

Byron Calame, The Public Editor at The New York Times has finally uncovered the truth about the timing of the decision regarding when to publish the story on the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program.

The bottom line of Calame's report? New York Times' Executive Editor, Bill Keller, lied to his paper's readers when he said (in a Dec. 16, 2005 article) that The Times had "delayed publication for a year", which meant no such action had occurred prior to the 2004 presidential election.

As Keller recently told Calame, "It was probably inelegant wording,"..."I don't know what was in my head at the time."

Having admitted to Calame that The Times was dealing with the "publish or not" question prior to the 2004 election, Keller later said "I can't remember" when asked if the wording and the sensitivity of the election-day timing issue were discussed internally at The Times.

As Calame writes...

It was more than inelegant, however, to report flatly that the delay had lasted "a year." Characterizing it as "more than a year," as Mr. Keller and others later did, would have been technically accurate. But that phrase would have represented a fuzziness that Times readers shouldn't have to put up with when a hotly contested presidential election is involved.

Given the importance of this otherwise outstanding article on warrantless eavesdropping -- and now the confirmation of pre-election decisions to delay publication -- The Times owes it to readers to set the official record straight.
----------------------------------------

Well, there's something else I think The Times owes to its readers...to really "set the record straight". And that's the answer to the question "Is Bill Keller a Conservative?"

This may seem like a ludicrous question. And I almost wonder if Keller himself is unconscious to that question's real answer. But I think the answer is, sadly, "Yes."

My reasoning stems not just from the lie he told to his readers but also from the reason Calame gives for taking another look at the whole publication delay issue again...

-------------------------------------------------------
My decision to take another look at the extent of the delay came after reading Mr. Keller's response to an online question in April during "Talk to the Newsroom," a feature on nytimes.com. Eric Sullivan, from Waunakee, Wis., commented: "I'd like to know why you sat on the N.S.A. story. You probably changed the course of an election and likely history to come."

Mr. Keller's rather matter-of-fact acceptance of Mr. Sullivan's presumptions caught my eye: "Whether publishing earlier would have influenced the 2004 election is, I think, hard to say. Judging from the public reaction to the N.S.A. eavesdropping reflected in various polls, one could ask whether earlier disclosure might have helped President Bush more than hurt."

In my humble opinion, only a Conservative could have such a "the voters might give Bush the benefit of the doubt and still re-elect him" reaction to this question. Heck, if Senator Spector was outraged by the news...(and Spector said so publicly)...you can bet that enough voters would have been outraged to change the outcome of the election....especially if John Kerry had had the back bone to take this issue to the people in the last days of the campaign.

But Bill Keller doesn't think so. And Bill Keller lied about what The Times knew prior to the 2004 elections.

And Bill Keller doesn't know what was in his head at the time.

Well, all I can say is that I'm having a really bad feeling about this. I think I know what was - and is - in Bill Keller's head.

I think we've got a "closet Conservative" as the Executive Editor of The New York Times.