Joust The Facts

... And Then You Start To Wonder

Could they possibly be willing to sacrifice their credibility completely for ideology?

The "they" in this case is big media outlets like CBS, ABC, NBC, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc.  There was an "anonymous" email sent to Glenn Reynolds (note: Mr. Reynolds knows who it is, but the author of the email asked for anonymity if it was published) says that major media is "in the tank for O."

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: "Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working." I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.

I know, I know, anonymous source and all that.  But then you find out that at ABC some comments have been "disappeared." (HT: Gateway Pundit and Ace)

After I posted this comment, I noticed another commenter included the same link. I went back to look at the reactions to both comments - and one at a time - they were both pulled from the comments. My original comment was time-stamped 7:42:49 PM - and as you can see below there is no remaining comment for that time. It was removed...

It is really pathetic. Not only is the mainstream media not reporting crucial facts for this election, they are affirmatively patrolling their own user comments to remove material detrimental to the chosen one ... Barack Obama. This sort of nonsense is not fitting the fair reporting done by Jake Tapper so far during this presidential campaign.

And you witnessed the different approaches on "The View" to the two candidates.  And you recall the different type of interviews ABC's Charlie Gibson and CBS' Katie Couric have given to candidates, both showing blatant disdain for Gov. Sarah Palin and near-worship of Barack Obama.  And you realize that NBC continues to tolerate the naked partisanship of Keith Olbermann.  And you read that the Washington Post took John McCain to task for a campaign ad that quoted ... the Washington Post.

And then you start to wonder.

10/1/08 0640: And you notice that Gwen Ifill, of all people, is moderating the VP debate on Thursday.  The effect of the moderator should be to blend into the background, putting the focus on the candidates.  We'll see.

Ifill and her publisher are banking on an Obama/Biden win to buoy her book sales. The moderator expected to treat both sides fairly has grandiosely declared this the “Age of Obama.” Can you imagine a right-leaning journalist writing a book about the “stunning” McCain campaign and its “bold” path to reform timed for release on Inauguration Day – and then expecting a slot as a moderator for the nation’s sole vice presidential debate?

10/1/08 0650: Some mainstream news outlets may occasionally man-up and admit an error of bias, and try to correct their ways.  I'm hopeful, but that won't happen in the U.S. until after Nov. 4.

Leadership Lacking

After witnessing today's developments in the "bailout" bill** I can draw really only one conclusion.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, if I had anything to say about it, wouldn't even be running the Tilt-A-Whirl at the local fun park, never mind the House of Representatives.  She has elected to be not the Speaker of the House, but rather the Speaker of the Democratic Caucus. 

Here's her diatribe before the vote: (courtesy Michelle Malkin)

Yes, that was before the vote.  I don't even know where to begin on this piece of garbage.  Let's leave aside the fact that she conveniently glossed over the collapse of the tech bubble and the downturn in the economy during the latter half of 2000 before Pres. Bush was elected.  Let's further leave aside the tremendous hit to the economy that occurred with 9/11, in both concrete and abstract terms.  Let's also leave aside the fact that reduced defense investment, the "peace dividend," was largely the reason for surpluses.  Let's leave aside the fact that Mr. Bush's tax rate cuts took effect finally in 2003 and that the surplus was long gone before that, but that it was necessary to cut them (and worked) to get the economy moving again.  Finally, let's leave aside the fact that those supposed $5 trillion surpluses generated under the Clinton administration were projections to 2010, and that they went "poof" as soon as the economic downturn in late 2000/early 2001 happened.  What really frosts me is the chutzpah that she shows in the incredibly negative tone she took in discussing the bill itself.  If she really wanted to lead, wanted to pass the bill, and wanted bipartisan support for it there were certainly better ways to express herself.

Karl Rove tells you that there were a lot of Democrats - 95 in total - who received a pass to vote no while Ms. Pelosi browbeat the Republican caucus.  He's right.  That's not leadership.  She and her team have been playing politics with this issue from moment one.  From Sen. Harry Reid trying to slip in a ban on shale oil (as if that has anything to do with this) to the giveaway to a liberal interest group, ACORN, which for Democrats would have been the gift that keeps on giving, to failing to invite Republicans to the negotiating table as the bill was being crafted this has been one big partisan joyride for the Speaker.

Let's not forget that this problem stems from largely Democratic policies.  Here's a refresher.

Seriously.  Not even going to let her run the Tilt-A Whirl.  Doesn't work and play well with others.  Rep. Frank?  A lot of gall considering his role in defending the mortgage giants from regulation.   I might let him take tickets at the gate, or serve the fried dough.

**On which I'm still not going to demonstrate my ignorance of global macroeconomics.  Yes, I understand the arguments of both sides.  Yes I understand the threat that a complete meltdown of the credit market can pose.  I just don't have an experience and knowledge base on which to opine intelligently.  Unfortunately there are oh so many who lack that base but still feel comfortable offering their opinion pontificating.

9/30/08 0705: Via Ace, a sign that I'm not alone among Americans.

9/30/08 0725: And hey, where was Mr. Obama on all this?  He's been voting "present" all along, still not coming out with a definitive "Yes, I'm for it."

Mr. Obama had said he was inclined to support the bill that failed Monday. But it remains an open question how much political capital he will seek to expend, or how invested he wants to become, in helping Democratic leaders win passage of a bill.

Political capital?  What political capital?  You get that after you accomplish something, don't you?  Notice: He's "inclined to support" it, not that he does.  Plausible deniability, here we come.

Another Girl!

We've got an announcement to make!  Giacomo and Gwendolyn (and the little jesters) are very proud and happy to say that ... it's a girl!  Yes, another one.

(photos and more after the break)

"Eddie, You're A Born Loser"

George C. Scott may have been right about Eddie Felson, but that didn't apply to the actor playing Felson.  Paul Newman has passed away after battling cancer at the age of 83.  Just a couple of weeks ago I saw, for the first time in about 15 years, his memorable tour de force as Fast Eddie Felson in The Hustler, with Jackie Gleason playing Minnesota Fats.  If you haven't seen this superb film noir, do yourself a favor and cue it up on Netflix.

Brilliant performance.  For me it's a tough call between Newman and Clint Eastwood as my favorite actors.  Newman's filmography includes The Verdict, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting, Cool Hand Luke, Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, The Long, Hot Summer, Slap Shot.  He did the voice over for the Hudson Hawk in Disney Pixar's Cars.  While not every Newman film was a great film, every Newman part was made his own; you'd be hard pressed to imagine any other actor playing the part.

"Newman's Own" brands has a tribute page up to their founder, noting that all profits for the company are donated to charity.

Paul occasionally referred to Newman's Own as the "joke that got out of control" and would express astonishment at its success. Despite this humorous approach, Paul was committed to the company's business and to providing top-notch quality – he brought all-natural food products to a wide audience long before it was fashionable. And he was one of the greatest recyclers, giving back to charity all the money he earned from the sale of Newman's Own products.

That's charity unlike what Sen. Joe Biden envisions - higher taxes coercing the money to be funneled through government filters.

I haven't decided yet which of his films I'll watch tonight.  But I'll watch one.  Bet on it.

Root Causes

Chagrined beyond belief that I would point fingers at the Clinton administration's home ownership policies?  The NY Times wassn't 9 years ago. (hat tip: Ace, who apparently has been up all night and did the heavy lifting finding this story, so he gets the link, not the Times).

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

[...]

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

There's your setup.  Now for a little "news analysis."

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry."

The AEI has some really smart fellows, eh?  Ah, but they're free enterprise conservatives, and they're just evil, so the Times would never quote them approvingly now.  Is is too late to insist that Mr. Raines give back his $90 million in fraudulently and damagingly obtained bonuses?

The Politics Of The Bailout

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in macroeconomics or government finance - which is why I haven't written much about the $700 Billion (plus? minus?) bailout.  Or the alternate proposal of improving the market climate by suspending capital gains taxes.  Or the political posturing of Senator Present and Senator Country First; the former is observing the machinations with concerned detachment, while the latter has suspended campaigning while doing what politicians usually do - scare us into support of the plan.

At least he's not one of those who got us here in the first place, the Clinton administration officials who thought that having people who couldn't afford to buy a house buy a house was a good idea.  This, of course, led to large numbers of iffy mortgages, which were then financed with massive amounts of even iffier mortgage-backed securities.  You can number in that crowd that produced the problem Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, who seemingly single-handedly fought off the barbarians at the gate, including Senator McCain, who wanted to regulate the mortgage giants Fannie & Freddie, and force them to squeeze back on those bad investments.

But now we're in Washington, and the proposal is for the taxpayer, i.e. me, to pony up a large sum to buy at a discount those "toxic" securities to take them off the market and allow financial institutions to re-capitalize themselves.  Frankly I can't afford them myself; I'll need a little help.  The government may be able to re-sell them down the road and make back some or perhaps all of that money.  There's a lot of speculation, tied into presidential election intrigue, and partisan posturing, and ...

Bleccchh!!!

The Wall Street Journal has a good take today on the poltics involved.

Whatever the motive, this is not what the country expects from its Presidential candidates. The Administration and the Congress have a responsibility to negotiate legislation, and we can only hope it isn't carbuncled to a point that makes it impossible for Treasury to hold a decent mortgage-backed securities auction, or allow markets to clear. As Senators, Messrs. Obama and McCain also have a responsibility to give us their up-or-down verdict on the bill as it emerges. If they have specific differences or suggestions, they certainly have a large megaphone to broadcast them.

As candidates, however, they are not serving the public by hiding behind a fog of faux bipartisanship that obscures their core economic principles and their approach to governance in times of crisis. Far from being an issue that is above electoral politics, the financial panic is too serious not to have a serious discussion about. President Bush gave both candidates a hand last night by inviting them to a White House meeting on the legislation today, but this looks more like political theater than it does actual governing. Both candidates are angling to get some credit for being in on the deal, whatever it might be.

And, I might add, to have it look like each deserves more credit than the other.  Having come to Washington, Mr. McCain now needs to be at the debate; Having committed to the debate, Mr. Obama needed to be in Washington and he shouldn't have been hesitant due to political considerations.  It's probably too much to ask that they do their jobs while running for office.  The rest of us multitask, and we do so without pointing fingers of blame at the family across the street.

This damn campaign has already gone on six months too long.

The Media Presses Obama

It's taken a while, but finally the media has stepped up and asked Barack Obama questions, questions that matter to Americans, questions that simply must be answered.  Well, one of those important questions anyway.  But this is a big one.  It could be the key that unlocks the White House front door.

As we zipped along Constitution Avenue, Jen Psaki, an Obama spokeswoman, briefed in the van on what happened inside Obama's Senate office building. She said he met only with staff and interns. "No members of Congress stopped by," she said.

Now the news: apparently there were a few Capitol Hill reporters waiting outside his office. He was asked by one whether he was a Rolling Stones or Beatles guy. "Stones," Obama reponded to a CQ reporter, per Psaki.

Whew, that's a relief.  I was afraid he was a Wham! fan.  Or, maybe he didn't mean "The Rolling Stones," but rather meant he's a Rolling Stone fan.

Someone Finally Writes About Obama And Ayers

And it's Stanley Kurtz, hardly a "far right-wing" ideologue, writing in today's Wall Street Journal.

In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? "I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk's, "Sixties Radicals," at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.

[...]

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

Well worth reading it all.  The interesting point in the article is highlighted in the second paragraph excerpted above.  The schools did not receive direct grants from the CAC.  Rather, leftist community groups were funded preferentially over "external partners" that could have helped with things that might be worth teaching.  Like, oh, say, math and science.

You can be absolutely certain that Mr. Obama does not want to answer questions about the time he spent with the organization, what the goals and principles were, and about his association with this "guy who lives in my neighborhood," unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers.

Buffett Buys In

Why do I get the feeling that this investment is going to make Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway even more money?

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N) (BRKb.N) will invest $5 billion in Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N), in a major boost for the Wall Street bank from perhaps the world's best-known investor.

[...]

Shares of Goldman had fallen 50 percent from their record set last Oct 31, as credit markets tightened and investors worried about the viability of U.S. investment banks.

On Sunday, Goldman said it would become a bank holding company, enabling it to accept deposits and killing the investment bank model that dominated Wall Street for decades.

Buffett, for his part, has built his reputation on investing in companies he considers undervalued.

"Goldman Sachs is an exceptional institution," Buffett said in a statement. "It has an unrivaled global franchise, a proven and deep management team and the intellectual and financial capital to continue its track record of outperformance."

Buy low, and either sell high or hold.  My guess is hold - he's buying $5B of preferred stock paying a 10% dividend.  Must be nice to have $5 Billion cash on hand for a buying opportunity.

The Sox Are In!

Tonight the Boston Red Sox clinched their spot in the '08 playoffs with a home win against the Cleveland Indians, 5-4.  I'm watching the team celebrate on the field, spraying each other with carbonated beverages, enjoying themselves like the little kids they are, playing a game for a living. 

It's been a tough road, and now having gotten to the playoffs the road doesn't get any easier.  The LA Angels and the Tampa Bay Rays are both solid teams, with good pitching and are good run producers.  The Sox right now are in wild card position, and barring a collapse by the Rays they'll travel to LA for the division series, facing a tough lineup, a tough pitching staff, and a sharp manager in Mike Scioscia.

Still, they've clinched a spot and can enjoy the final week of the season with the pressure off.  They'll have a chance to set up their pitching staff, and going into the playoffs with Josh Beckett, Jon Lester and Daisuke Matsuzaka (Dice K) they'll have their own strong front three starters.  The bullpen is okay, but not a strength this year.  The offense has continued to produce with the addition of Jason Bay and despite the subtraction of Manny Ramirez.  They do have one key injury to deal with, a bad hip for 3B Mike Lowell.

The defending champs are in.  Let's go Red Sox!

Mesmerized By The Ryder Cup Matches

The U.S. Team brings it back home!

The heavily favored European team lost because of a determined and enthusiastic group of motivated newcomers, newly energized veterans like Furyk and a creative captain in Azinger.

"I poured my heart and soul into this for two years, and my players poured their hearts into it for this past week, and I couldn't be prouder of them," said Azinger, his voice cracking with emotion. "The golf was spectacular on both sides, and our guys just came out on top."

Led by the rookies Anthony Kim, 23; Hunter Mahan, 26; Boo Weekley, 35; and J.B. Holmes, 26 - who combined for 11 of the team's 16½ points - the U.S. team never stopped coming at the Europeans. At the same time, the European Ryder Cup stalwarts Padraig Harrington, Sergio García and Lee Westwood failed to win a match.

It should also be mentioned that veterans Justin Leonard and Phil Mickelson both got smoked in their matches on Sunday, so the Harrington, Garcia and Westwood werent the only "stalwarts" struggling.  The golf by the other players was, in a word, amazing.  Both teams threw birdie after birdie at each other, and it was truly impressive to see 300+ yard drives striping the middle of the fairways and long irons and wedges stuck like darts in birdie range.  And many holes were "halved" with birdies.

Robert Karlsson and Ian Poulter for the European Team were particularly impressive, while brash 23 year old Anthony Kim tore up Garcia and Hunter Mahan played very solidly against Paul Casey.

"I got chills up my spine the whole day today," Kim said. "And I'm loving every minute of it. I wouldn't trade this for $10 million. This has been an experience of a lifetime."

These guys got game!  Mahan had the match 1 up going to 18 after sinking a remarkable birdie putt at 17, but then couldn't quite get his emotions in check and got a little quick with his body, fanning his tee shot at 18 into a lateral hazard on the right.  Still, these two American rookies played solidly all three days.  Jim Furyk was also very good, making numerous birdies, and winning the Cup-determining point for the U.S.

I was at The Country Club in Brookline, MA on the final Sunday in 1999 watching the matches, and was at 17 when Leonard curled in his long putt against Jose Maria Olazabal.  Since then I've been a Ryder Cup groupie.  And now all I want is time to work on my own game.

The Story You Won't Read

Astroturf stinks.  Led to the development of Field Turf due to increased knee injury rates, among other things.

There's your tease.  Investigative journalism often uncovers the stories behind the big stories, shedding much light on everyday developments.  Well, it did so again.  But it had to do with the appearance of planted Sarah Palin smear videos on YouTube, and, well, you know who that helps.  So the investigative work had to come from someone without a yearning for an Obama administration.  Someone with the ability to look past the superficial smears, to see the forest for the trees on that side of the political equation.

Someone who doesn't work in the MSM.

If you want the whole story, go read Jawa Report and then the two stories at Ace of Spades.  They deserve the traffic.

Always hated astroturf.   MSM yawn coming in three ... two ...

9/22/08 1015: Dan Riehl wonders if the Obama Campaign "funded" this.  I doubt we'll find their fingerprints on a money trail.  Call it "plausible deniability."  This is likely more of an unrecorded campaign "donation" from Winner & Associates.

9/22/08 1020: Here's Memeorandum on the matter.  Not one link to an MSM report.  They won't until the Obama campaign tells them what they should write.  Newsweek, for example, is heavily researching the number and types of cars owned by the candidates - as if that matters a whit.

My Response To An Economist Who "Plays Dumb"

Paul Krugman finds a snippet of a John McCain article on healthcare that he finds amusing.  It's a short, snide comment, so I'll quote most of it.

Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago — and promising that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!

I strongly doubt that my comment will be approved.  Mr. Krugman  couldn't possibly be as stupid as he's playing it here. Here's the comment I left:

Playing dumb is unbecoming for a celebrated economist, Mr. Krugman.  The problem is not with the banking system, or the "choices of innovative products."  The problem is with MBS (mortgage backed securities) backed by bad subprime mortgages, the fruit of the Clinton administration's push for homeownership by those who really couldn't afford to purchase homes.

Is this really an issue of banking deregulation, or rather is it an issue of improper regulation of housing combined with Enron-style bookkeeping by Franklin Raines' Fannie Mae?  Go ahead, you can say it.

You do realize that your paper reported in 2003 on the Bush administration efforts to increase oversight and regulation of Fannie and Freddie, don't you?  You do realize that the Times report on that occasion credited Congressional Democrats with blocking the [proposed] bill, right?

I should add that Mr. McCain sounded warnings about Fannie and Freddie back in 2006 - and got no backup from the now suddenly concerned Mr. Obama, who instead suckled mightily at the teat of Fannie Mae political donations.

I should also add that Mr. Krugman is wrong about healthcare, too.  But that's an argument for another time and place.

9/20/08 2150: Tom Maguire analyzes Mr. Krugman's next utterance, and, you know what, he may not be "playing dumb."

9/20/08 0740: minor edits for clarity

Karen Tumulty Is A Race-Baiter, IMHO

Witness this bit of nonsense.

When politicians interject race into a campaign, they seldom do it directly. Consider McCain's new ad, which the campaign says it will be airing nationally.

She then inserts the McCain ad tying Barack Obama to Franklin Raines, who was the head of Fannie Mae as the problems there were brewing.

This is hardly subtle: Sinister images of two black men, followed by one of a vulnerable-looking elderly white woman.

Oh, Ms. Tumulty, you were just itching for this, weren't you?  Just couldn't wait to call Senator McCain a racist.  This meme has been the one the press has been dying for, to influence all of those Americans who aren't racist not to associate themselves with those awful racist Republicans.  I had no idea Mr. Raines was black until I saw the ad, and having seen it, it's an irrelevant factoid.  The problem is the fraud and the $90 million he walked away with from this quasi-governmental agency.  Hot Air has the details, including the Washington Post's original reporting of Mr. Raines association with the Obama campaign.  Is quoting the MSM itself the problem?  He didn't mention Jim Johnson in the ad?  Don't worry, that one is likely coming.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

9/19/08 1330: Ms. Tumulty based her preposterous attack in part on the absence of Jim Johnson in the ad.  Ask and ye shall receive.  Given its release today the ad was in the works way before Ms. Tumulty jumped off the race tracks

Lying Liars

The blithely marginally aware Joy Behar accosted Senator McCain on "The View" last week.  The accusation: lying in campaign ads.  Let's have a look.

Of course, Ms. Behar is wrong, lying about lies.  Byron York reviews it on NRO.  I can't do justice to the piece but the concluding paragraph is a fine summary.

Obama’s explanation [that he only wanted kindergarten children advised regarding inappropriate touching] for his vote has been accepted by nearly all commentators. And perhaps that is indeed why he voted for Senate Bill 99, although we don’t know for sure. But we do know that the bill itself was much more than that. The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten.  Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.

What was in the bill?  The details can be found at the link, but here's the salient point.

* In the Illinois State Legislature, Barack Obama voted for legislation to alter Illinois' Sex Education standards to include instruction in any grade from Kindergarten through 12th grade. The legislation passed Barack Obama's Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee that he chaired. As the Chicago Daily Herald stated, "the legislation included a provision to allow students from kindergarten through fifth grade to be added to the middle and high school students receiving sex education."

Mr. Obama's campaign has howled at the "lies" in this ad, and Ms. Behar repeated those talking points.  Perhaps if she finds the time she can ask Mr. Obama about these lies.  In the interest of being perceived as "fair and balanced," you know.

First of all, tying Sen. McCain – especially on the issue of immigration reform – to Limbaugh is unfair.

Limbaugh opposed McCain on that issue. Vociferously. And in a larger sense, it’s unfair to link McCain to Limbaugh on a host of issues since Limbaugh, as any even occasional listener of his knows, doesn’t particularly care for McCain.

Second, the quotes of Limbaugh’s are out of context.

Jake Tapper of ABC - who seems more even-handed than I would have guessed in holding both campaign's feet to the fire when they err - details the quotes from Limbaugh and their misuse.  Ms. Behar made a national spectacle of Obama campaign talking points, beclowning herself even more in the process.  I'm fairly certain she's bought the campaign's Dowdification of Limbaugh hook, line and sinker as well.

Exit question:  Most of the commentators that have accused McCain's ad of lying about this Illinois bill have used Senator Obama's denial itself as the refutation, as the NY Times does here.  I assume that Mr. McCain will be allowed to have his word as the final say in controversies regarding his positions, no?

Joe Biden Questions My Patriotism, And Other Tax Stories

I must be some kind of Philistine.

CANTON, Ohio - Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden on Thursday called Republican John McCain's answers to the current economic crisis "the ultimate bridge to nowhere" and said paying higher taxes would be patriotic for wealthier Americans.

[...]

In an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Biden said wealthier taxpayers would indeed pay more under the proposals of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Under his plan, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said. Of those who would pay more, he said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

Thanks, Senator.  I feel so ... un-American.  On the other hand, there's a boatload of economists who disagree, and have put their name to their disagreement.

[John McCain's] plan would keep taxes from rising, because higher tax rates are exactly the wrong policy to restore economic growth, especially at this time.

His plan would reduce tax rates by cutting the tax that corporations pay to 25 percent in line with other countries, by completely phasing out the alternative minimum tax, by increasing the exemption for dependents, by permitting the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology, and by making permanent a reformed tax credit for R&D

So this group of 460 economists is saying it would be a bad thing to raise taxes in a down economy?  Somebody better tell Joe Biden.  Oh, wait, never mind, the guy at the top of the ticket already knows.

Language is a funny thing.  When you talk about cutting taxes for 95% of taxpayers you may also wish to inform your audience that the lowest 40% already pay no income tax.  If you claim to be lowering them for that group you're not.  You're handing them a check.  Newt Gingrich spells it out.

The latest data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Internal Revenue Service show that the lowest 40 percent of income earners as a group actually receive net payments from the federal income tax system. (They get 3.8 percent of total federal income tax revenues instead of paying any income taxes.) The middle 20 percent of income earners pay 4.4 percent of federal income taxes. Thus the bottom 60 percent of income earners together, on net, pay less than 1 percent of all federal income taxes. (These workers earn 26 percent of national income.)

[...]

Barack Obama claims to be proposing income tax cuts for low and moderate income and middle class workers, but Reagan Republicans have already eliminated most of their income tax liability. What Obama is calling tax cuts for the middle class is really a slew of refundable federal income tax credits that would primarily go to those who are paying little or no federal income taxes now. Such credits would primarily not reduce tax liability, but instead be checks from the federal government for child care, education, housing, retirement, health care, even outright giveaways. These are not tax cuts. They are new federal spending programs hidden in the tax code.

When Obama says that he will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, he is talking about his proposal for a $500 refundable income tax credit for all but the top 5 percent of income earners. For the bottom 40 percent of income earners, this will be just another check from the federal government rather than a reduction in tax liability. It is another sharp increase in government spending rather than any sort of tax cut. An arbitrary cash grant does not, moreover, do anything to improve the economy or incentivize productive business. That only comes from cutting tax rates. What Obama is proposing here is really quite similar to George McGovern's 1972 plan to send everyone a $1,000 check, which voters rightly saw as a crass vote-buying scheme rather than serious policy.

Obama also proposes to increase the top marginal tax rates for virtually every major federal tax. These increases would not come remotely close to financing the trillion dollars of increased direct federal spending Obama is promising--including a new national health insurance entitlement that would be bigger than any of the massive entitlement programs we already have and already have trouble paying for. Indeed, if the tax rate increases cause a serious enough economic decline, they will lose revenue on net.

I hereby call on Sen. Biden to do his patriotic duty - and renounce his boss's tax plan.  Hey, if he can question my patirotism ..

Reagan Democrats And 2008

This ought to be cut into a campaign ad.  Why can't Republicans get eloquent spokespersons on the air like Lynn Forester De Rothschild?

Oh, that's right.  She's a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter now moving to Senator McCain, not just a Republican "hater."  So she gets a platform, and the time to fully embellish her thoughts.

In an earlier post I wrote, "What I believe is that Mr. Obama would win if he were a) more experienced and b) more a centrist."  Those positions would prevent classic "Reagan Democrats" from moving to the candidate who's stronger on national security and more centrist on economic positions.  I'd say she agrees.  Interesting how she called out Democrats for scaring women on abortion rights.

(HT: Gateway Pundit)

It's All Morally Relative

For a liberal, if the target is the Republican candidate for VP, then breaking the law and inviting the scrutiny of the Secret Service and the FBI is worth it.

I read though the emails… ALL OF THEM… before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor…. And pictures of her family

Well, it's not as if there isn't evidence that suggests he's just part of the herd.

A study by professors published in the American Taxation Association’s Journal of Legal Tax Research found conservative students took the issue of accounting scandals and tax evasion more seriously than their fellow liberal students. Those with a “liberal outlook” who “reject the idea of absolute truth” were more accepting of cheating at school, according to another study, involving 291 students and published in the Journal of Education for Business.

A study in the Journal of Business Ethics involving 392 college students found that stronger beliefs toward “conservatism” translated into “higher levels of ethical values.” And academics concluded in the Journal of Psychology that there was a link between “political liberalism” and “lying in your own self-interest,” based on a study involving 156 adults.

Liberals were more willing to “let others take the blame” for their own ethical lapses, “copy a published article” and pass it off as their own, and were more accepting of “cheating on an exam,” according to still another study in the Journal of Business Ethics.

But breaking into her email isn't really illegal, or cheating, or a sign of poor ethics.  After all, she's a "rethuglican," a "wingnut."  Definitely subhuman.  It's okay to squash slime like that.

9/18/08 0815: Redstate's Moe Lane summarizes the trouble he sees:

Let me put this succinctly: everybody who had a hand in this is [expletive deleted]ed.

Have a nice day!

Moe Lane

I'm not sure thats true.  Republicans don't know how to play electoral hardball with this.  Any action will definitely be buried until after the election.

And there's this perceptive tie in to the war on terrorism from AJ Strata:

So here we have the brave screwed world of the left. If Palin emailed a known terrorist and the government intercepted them (but kept them from the public for privacy reasons) it is a crime by the government against the citizens. But if Palin emails her family and some cyber-yahoo intercepts them and splashes them across the globe it is a beautiful thing.

Every one got that?

The Definition Of Airhead

Mr. Clinton's former Secretary of State, on what's important to her in choosing the next president.

Albright, a Democrat, surprised no one by endorsing Barack Obama. "It would be sending a message of diversity" to the world, she said, drawing cheers from an audience of dozens of diplomats and hundreds of students.

"A message of diversity."  To the world.  As if diversity should be a primary concern even on the list of concerns.  That and $1 will get you a cup of coffee.  I know I should have something incisive or amusing to add, but she's left me scratching my head in wonderment.

Soft Racism And The Black Candidate

Randall Kennedy writing in today's Washington Post advances the same tired political arguments and racial grievance politics in his discussion of "The Big What If."  What if Obama loses?

The senator's progressive politics, cosmopolitan ethos and pragmatic style have turned me into an enthusiastic supporter, and I savor the prospect of his triumph...  And I know that the conclusion to this electoral drama is far from determined. Yes, political gravity would seem to favor the Democratic candidate after two terms of Republican control of the Whit House. Yet the possibility is very real: Barack Obama could lose.

If that happens, then what? How will I feel? How will other black Americans feel? How should people like me feel

Yes, Mr. Obama could lose.  He's working on doing just that right now, and despite a mainstream press that is nearly 100% behind him throwing all manner of poo against the walls of the GOP house hoping it will stick.  His campaign has been stuck recently.  He picked an uninspiring, gaffe-prone VP.  He's even had to back away from the essence of his economic proposals, increasing taxes on the wealthy.  He was wrong 18 months ago about pulling out as the solution in Iraq.  He is one of, if not the most, liberal Senators we have.  He has no executive experience, and less than half a year in the Senate before he started his presidential bid.

So there are a host of reasons why Mr. Obama may lose on his own.  There are others that have to do with his opponents, particularly the provocative and fascinating choice of VP for Mr. McCain.  There's the fact that Mr. McCain was right about Iraq 18 months ago.  And there's the basics of the electorate, that Americans in general are not nearly as liberal as the east and west coast elites and the journalists who live among them, or the college faculties among which we find Mr. Kennedy.

But to Mr. Kennedy, it's much more about race.

Whether black onlookers believe that this election was decided "on the real issues" and that Obama was "judged fairly" will be shaped in part by future developments, including the nature of the campaign in its closing weeks (will race-baiting intensify?) and the demographics of the final voting tally (will people who have traditionally voted Democrat vote differently this time around?).

I anticipate that most black Americans will believe that an Obama defeat will have stemmed in substantial part from a prejudice that robbed 40 million Americans of the chance to become president on the day they were born black. They will of course understand that race wasn't the only significant variable -- that party affiliation, ideological proclivities, strategic choices and dumb luck also mattered. But deep in their bones, they will believe -- and probably rightly -- that race was a key element, that had the racial shoe been on the other foot -- had John McCain been black and Obama white -- the result would have been different.

Let's address this point by point.  "Will race-baiting intensify?"  I haven't seen any so far, except for some wolf-crying over non-racist differences of opinion.  "Will people who have traditionally voted Democrat vote differently this time around?"  No, I suspect that blacks will support Mr. Obama even more than their traditional 90%.  The non-black vote has always been much more fluid.

Finally, disagreeing strongly with Mr. Kennedy, I suspect that were Mr. McCain the black candidate and Mr. Obama the white candidate the result would be a McCain presidency.  Black Americans would have been peeled off from that solid voting block for Democrats, Republicans would hove voted for the more conservative candidate, and some of the non-fire-breathing liberals would have found it refreshing to vote for the black candidate as a statement, just as many women are drawn to the GOP team now.

Do I believe that there are no racists in America?  No, there certainly are.  What I believe is that Mr. Obama would win if he were a) more experienced and b) more a centrist.  Mr. Kennedy does redeem himself somewhat as he concludes, still convinced that soft racism was a major factor.

Even if Barack Obama loses in November, he will have bequeathed to all America something that should bring comfort and pride to even the most disappointed of his followers. He has reached the edge of the pinnacle. And shown that we can stand atop it.

Exactly.  Early in the article, Mr. Kennedy writes, "But I'm watching this election very closely as I teach a course about it this semester."  It's easy to see what tack that course will be taking. I'm hoping that the final point of this piece is his ultimate destination.

Who's Brett Favre?

Maybe, after all, the Green Bay Packer brass knew what they were doing when they handed the reins to Aaron Rodgers.  I have to admit that I had strong doubts he was capable of living up to the years of excellence of the future hall-of-famer, but ...

Week 1: Last Monday night vs Minnesota.  24-19 win.  Rodgers: 18 for 22, 178 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT.
Week 2: Today at Detroit.  Leading 27-9 near the end of the 3Q.  19 for 27, 245 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT.

Not. Too. Shabby.

9/14/08 2125: Rodgers finishes 24 for 38, 328 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT.  Packers win 48-25.  Brett's Jets lose to the Patriots in New Jersey, 19-10, with Matt Cassel doing just enough to keep the Patriots in front.  Favre: 18 for 26, 181 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT.

Politicians Are Politicians

The NY Times and Washington Post deputized Democratic opposition research teams have been sniffing around Alaska for a trail of "dirt."  From the NY Times we learn that Mrs. Palin hired some people she knew well for state jobs; from the Post we learn that some of the people she fired didn't like it very much and speak ill of her.

Errr, do the names Webster Hubbell and Billy Dale ring a bell?  You guys are going to have to do better than this.

A good roundup of the NY Times nonsense over at The Right Coast.

9/14/08 1505: Bob Owens, noting the Times' displeasure at a politician replacing political appointees upon taking office:

"I can only assume that they will protest loudly if the next President does not keep President Bush's appointees once he takes office.  It's good to know they support such a continuity in government, doesn't it?"

The Issue Is Taxes

I've already written that Barack Obama has as much as admitted that his economic proposals for taxing the wealthy will hurt the economy, as outlined in this WSJ editorial.  Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe notes that the tide has seemingly turned against Mr. Obama on his economic proposals.  Americans seem to be sensible enough to realize that raising taxes in a down economy is not a good idea.

All through the spring and summer, opinion polls tracked a growing confidence that Barack Obama could handle the economy better than John McCain. Just before the Democratic convention in August, Gallup had Obama leading McCain on the economy, 54-38 - a 16-point margin. But now Obama's lead has nearly vanished. Gallup's latest numbers show the candidates nearly tied. Just 48 percent say Obama would be more adept at superintending the economy; 45 percent choose McCain.

That's not the most interesting section of Mr. Jacoby's piece, however.  He reviews Mr. Obama's interview with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News and finds the following nugget.

"Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill," Obama replied. "Teddy Roosevelt supported a progressive income tax." He acknowledged that he doesn't enjoy paying taxes either - "you think I like writing the check?" - but that "there are certain things we've got to do." His tax proposal, he explained, was a matter of civility:

"If I am sitting pretty and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can't, what's the big deal for me to say, I'm going to pay a little bit more? That's neighborliness." If that is Obama's rationale for making the tax code even more steeply progressive than it already is, it's no wonder voters are having second thoughts about his economic aptitude.

Funny, it doesn't seem voluntary to me when I calculate my taxes each spring and send off the paperwork to the local IRS facility.  But, here it is, out of Mr. Obama's mouth.  It's "neighborly."

No, it's not voluntary or "neighborly."  It puts Mr. Obama and the federal tax bureaucracy in the position of determining how much each taxpayer really needs to keep.  If he wishes to help out the poor in his community, to reach into his own pocket a bit deeper, so be it.  I do for mine.  This is a frequent liberal fallacy, the belief that whatever I, as an enlightened and educated liberal, think should of course be certified by federal law.  In the case of income taxes it leads to an ever increasing redistribution of income, an ever enlarging government and bureaucracy all in the guise of "doing what's right," and of course "what's right" are always left-wing big government programs.

I'm not in favor of a progressive income tax.  I favor a flat tax with a large primary deduction of $40,000 - $50,000.  We could certainly adjust the rate up or down a few percent to make it revenue neutral.

Do Democrats really want to court the middle class?  Then show them that if they are more successful in the future they won't be penalized for it.  How about a flat tax with a $40,000 exemption?  Let's guess at a rate of 20%, for the sake of simplicity.  Those truly at incomes less than twice the poverty level would pay nothing in income tax.  Zip.  None at all.  Those who make $80,000 would pay $8000 (effective rate 10%)  Those who make $240,000 would pay $40,000 (effective rate 16%).  And those who make $440,000 would pay $80,000 (effective rate approaching 20%).  Not "progressive" enough for you?  That's precisely why Democrats have this problem.

Each additional dollar earned would be taxed at the same rate, 20% in this example.  And about Mr. Obama's "charitable" nature, Mr. Jacoby informs us that until he began running for president it wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Taxation is not generosity, it is confiscation at gunpoint. Does Obama not understand the difference?

Perhaps he doesn't. Eager though he may be to compel "neighborliness" in others, he has not been nearly so avid about demonstrating it himself. Barack and Michelle Obama's tax returns show that from 2000 through 2004, when their adjusted gross income averaged nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year, their annual charitable donations amounted to just $2,154 - less than nine-tenths of 1 percent. Not until he entered the US Senate in 2005 and began to be spoken of as a presidential possibility did the Obamas' "neighborliness" become more evident. (In 2005-2007, they gave 5.5 percent of their income to charity.)

And Everyone Knows It

Rasmussen Reports on the public perception of press bias, and which direction it runs.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of voters think most reporters are trying to help Obama win versus 11% who believe they are trying to help his Republican opponent John McCain. Twenty-six percent (26%) say reporters offer unbiased coverage ...

Just last week a Rasmussen Reports survey found that 51% of voters believed reporters were trying to hurt McCain’s running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, with their news coverage.

Interestingly, while 83% of Republican voters think most reporters are trying to help Obama, 19% of Democrats agree, one percentage point higher than the number of Democrats who believe they are trying to help McCain. Unaffiliated voters by a 53% to 10% margin see reporters trying to help Obama.

Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats say most reporters are providing unbiased coverage in the current presidential campaign, but only 20% of unaffiliateds and nine percent (9%) of Republicans agree.

Allow me to translate, and let's not even look at Republicans surveyed.  Only one of five unaffiliated voters think the press is playing it straight.  It's 5:1 in this group that they're working to help Mr. Obama.  Even among Democrats just as many think they're helping one as the other.

I don't think this helps the guy they think they're helping.  Americans like a fair fight.

Can We Please Get To The Campaign?

It doesn't seem so.  I've been holding back on this, hoping beyond hope that the insanity that has sprung forth from the minds of the media and the activist left-wing of the Democratic party (referred to in other locations as the "netroots" and in others as the "nutroots") would resolve.  I hope no more.

It seems that Palinmania is not just the excitement generated among Republicans by the nomination of this accomplished and strong woman.  Yes, I wrote "accomplished and strong."  It's not just any mom of five who starts with a stint on the PTA and ends up nominated for VP, succeeding, to the tune of 80% approval ratings in her home state, at every step of the way.  Palinmania appears to also be the development of an obsessive derangement with psychotic tendencies among that group of left-wing activists and much of the traditional media (but I repeat myself).  You may wish to compare the list of questions given to Mrs. Palin by Charles Gibson of ABC in the recent interview vis-a-vis questions given to Mr. Obama three months ago, as The Anchoress did (hat tip: Ed Morrissey, who explores it's meaning).  There was some "liberal" editing of the interview, as well.

The Definition Of A Fact

In a column musing about the ability of lies to persist, Michael Kinsley writes in today's Washington Post:

John McCain was not offended when Barack Obama described McCain’s policy agenda as putting “lipstick on a pig.” I can’t prove that, but it seems so obvious to me that it’s more like a fact than an opinion.

No, Mr. Kinsley, a fact is not defined by what "seems so obvious to" you, particularly if you can't prove it.  This is a misunderstanding that so permeates much of what is written in the press and on blogs today, particularly on the left, that it needs to be addressed.  However clearly you may think you view the world, your interpretation of an event is still just that, an interpretation.  A fact is a fact, inviolably fixed in time and character.  If Mr. Kinsley wishes for this interpretation to be seen as fact (as opposed to, say, the interpretation of a Michelle Malkin or a Tony Blankley), he'll need to follow up with an explanation of what makes him the final word.

Mr. Kinsley then veers into more interpretation, which again we are to take as the final word, statements of "obvious" fact.

Nor could McCain possibly have thought that Obama was calling McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, a pig, since Obama didn’t even mention Palin. If Obama had even thought that his words would be misinterpreted as calling Palin a pig, he wouldn’t have said them. That also seems obvious. The whole controversy is ginned up, a fraud, a lie. All obvious.

This is all pretext, of course, for calling Senator McCain a liar, and for lying much more than Senator Obama and his minions.

No, really.  Don't laugh.

That's not to say that I approve of lying.  I don't.  I don't think either side should be doing it about the other, particularly in deeply personal matters like, oh, collaboration with the enemy, for example.  The problem is when a left leaning media is willing to air and explore the lies from one side while feigning outrage over perceived "lies" from the other side that are in reality disagreements of opinion.

It is Michael Kinsley's opinion that the three instances he cites above are disingenuous, and he's entitled to his opinion and his faux outrage.  Your mileage may vary.

Yahoo Forgets

Without further comment, a screenshot of the Yahoo front page.

9/11/08 10:15: Okay, they've improved it.

But look who they highlighted reminding people of the anniversary.  Hmm, I think there's another guy at that joint Ground Zero appearance, John McSomething-or-other.

There Are Some Things We Probably Shouldn't Forget

 

Click the image to view the video at YouTube.  The lyrics:

I hear people saying we don't need this war
I say there's some things worth fighting for
What about our freedom and this piece of ground
We didn't get to keep 'em by backing down
They say we don't realize the mess we're getting in
Before you start your preaching let me ask you this my friend

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin laden
Have you forgotten?

They took all the footage off my t.v.
Said it's too disturbing for you and me
It'll just breed anger that's what the experts say
If it was up to me I'd show it everyday
Some say this country's just out looking for a fight
After 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin laden
Have you forgotten?

I've been there with the soldiers
Who've gone away to war
And you can bet that they remember
Just what they're fighting for

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin laden
Have you forgotten?

Have you forgotten all the people killed?
Some went down like heros in that pennsylvania field
Have you forgotten about our pentagon?
All the loved ones that we lost and those left to carry on
Don't you tell me not to worry about bin laden
Have you forgotten?

Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten?

There are some out there who not only forgot, they never got the message.  Or, rather, they got the wrong message.  We'll have a look at some of them later today.

Earlier Posts on 9-11's past:

2007: We Remember

2006: A Transforming Dawn

2005: Why?

9/11/08 1050: Another reminder video from Hot Air.

The First Step ...

... is admitting you have a problem.  It looks like the house Democrats just admitted they have one.  They're on the wrong side of the energy production issue, and they know it.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Monday morning that the newest Democratic energy bill will be brought to the floor under normal rules and will be subject to a vote on a Republican alternative that is likely to call for even more drilling than Democrats are prepared to swallow...

Now that Democrats are introducing their own proposal to allow drilling of the coasts of a handful of Gulf Coast states, they believe they can hold back the GOP energy bill, which calls for opening up both the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Despite this tacit admission of a political liability, this will be dicey politics for Republicans.  If they can't get their wider bill passed but go along to get some additional drilling allowed then they'll take the drilling issue off the table for November.  If they hold out for ANWR and the OCS then Democrats will demagogue them as blocking drilling.

It may be too much to ask for a majority of American people to recognize just who's being cynical here.  Republicans will have their work cut out for them in educating the public.

To Err On The Side Of Caution

In medical terms erring on the side of caution would be a possibly unnecessary biopsy taken in an effort to increase the level of certainty in the diagnosis.  "Is that irregular calcification on the mammogram an early cancer?  I don't think so, but it's suspicious.  We need to take a biopsy to be sure."  Would you want that from your doctor, or would you prefer a pat on the back and "see you next year?"  Sometimes the biopsy is negative - no cancer.  Is that unnecessary surgery?

Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic writes in the NY Times today on national security and the threat of WMD terrorism, as we approach the seventh anniversary of 9-11.  He notes that Al Qaeda is not the Soviet Union, where MAD could keep the worst impulses on both sides in check.  "Though Al Qaeda cannot destroy the world, it will destroy what it can, when it can."

That is why it was so disconcerting to hear Barack Obama, on the ABC program “Nightline” in June, commend the virtues of the federal response to the first World Trade Center attack, in 1993. “We were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial,” he said. “They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.”

This is entirely true, and yet there is no better example of why law enforcement is inadequate to the demands of effective counterterrorism today than the prosecution of the 1993 bombers.

And why is that "no better example" of the inadequacy of arresting and trying terrorists?  Because the WTC came down 8 years later in another attack.  So erring on the side of caution might, in that situation, have meant not only searching for perps but more aggressively anticipating the desire and the reach of Al Qaeda to do further harm to America, and acting pre-emptively.

Let's move forward eight years.  9-11 happens, just under 3000 lose their lives, and two monstrous skyscrapers are turned to ash, twisted metal and a huge hole in the ground.  A nuclear device could certainly have made things a lot worse, and President Bush knew it.  Mr. Goldberg knows it.  But - and here's the disturbing thing - he's not sure that Mr. Obama knows it.

In my conversations with Senator Obama, he seems to understand the menace — early last year, even while trying to secure the support of his party’s left wing, he told me the possibility of a terrorist group obtaining a nuclear weapon was “the No. 1 threat” facing America. But does he understand that this threat cannot be neutralized mainly by law enforcement; that it must be anticipated by intelligence agencies, and eradicated by the military? The paramount goal is not prosecution, but pre-emption.

Ah, pre-emption.  That was the reason for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.  Now, in hindsight with no WMD located following our arrival in Iraq, it's easy to point the finger at President Bush for the folly of going after Saddam Hussein - and Mr. Goldberg, almost on cue, does.

Did I say “pre-emption”? The doctrine that shall not be named? The Bush administration did the nation no service by pre-empting an Iraqi weapons-of-mass-destruction program that no longer existed in any meaningful way.

But the lack of WMD was not known prior to the invasion despite inspections.  It could easily be argued, again recalling the two toppled towers and the possiblity of even greater destruction and death, that Mr. Bush was simply acting on what were the common intelligence understandings at the time.  Could he take the time to be Goldilocks, looking for the just right porridge before settling in for a snack?  He didn't think so; his job was to make sure Americans were safe.  Further, the ISG report linked above found that once sanctions were lifted Saddam had intentions to reconstitute weapons programs.  If you don't depose Saddam and the sanctions get lifted, then what?  Monday morning quarterbacking is easy, isn't it?

It's a dangerous world.  Sometimes the lesion is so suspicious it requires a wide-margin biopsy in order to err on the side of caution.  In the case of threat of nuclear weapons, our leaders might need a bit more latitude in assessing and then neutralizing perceived threats.

In Need Of Editorial Supervision

I shouldn't have to explain this to a newspaper editor ...

A Detroit Free Press editor expressed regret Monday that left-wing and anti-war activists were included in a focus group of so-called independent voters the newspaper interviewed during the political conventions, but said he didn’t see the harm in having a “radical leftist or two” in the group.

In response to questions posed to the would-be independent panel, two members of the anti-war group CodePink — as well as two other liberal activists — offered praise of Barack Obama after his Democratic presidential nomination acceptance speech. A week later they turned the tables and ripped into Republican Sarah Palin’s vice presidential nomination acceptance speech. Their comments appeared online and were excerpted in the Free Press’ print edition.

“I wish that it weren’t the case that there were two people from an activist group and we didn’t know about it,” assistant managing editor Randy Essex said of the CodePink members.

Nonetheless, Essex defended the panel’s results.

“If there is a radical leftist or two in the group, I don’t care,” Essex told FOXNews.com. “I want a robust conversation, a complete range of political viewpoints.”

The four activists were part of a group of seven self-described “independents.” Nine Republicans and 11 Democrats were also on the panel.

... but I will.  Let's start at the bottom here, and work up.  With the four "activists" you've mistakenly (dishonestly?) included in the independent group your panel is actually 9 republicans, 3 independents, and 15 democrats.  That is unbalanced.  Further, the four are actually on the far left of the political spectrum, and being members of an activist group like Code Pink are much more likely to give opinions that are pointed and agenda-driven.

Then there's the problem of fooling readers who, when you tell them that a group of voters is "independent" or "undecided" actually believe what you tell them.  I know, the rubes!  Still, some people actually don't surf the 'net and pick up every debunking that occurs.  "Hah, almost put one over on me.  I saw that report in the DFP and reconsidered my opinion on Mrs. Palin's speech, but you know Dan Riehl found out that one of the people who ripped her is from a far left activist organization.  Those jokers at the Freep almost had me."

This may come as a surprise, Mr. Essex, but people would really rather you be honest with your journalism.  Speaking of journalism, could Fox News at least have the courtesy to credit the blogger who first found it?  Kind of like I did.

Willful Blindness

This is amusing.  Mark Leibovich writes in the NY Times a navel-gazing look at media-bashing at the Republican convention, but fails to spot the enormous ball of lint growing in that orifice with each days publication of his own paper.

Ms. Palin capped off a succession of speakers, Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney Mike Huckabee — who took turns pummeling their favorite target, the news media, which in turn gave the news media the chance to talk about its favorite subject all week (the news media).

We have played this video game before. Indeed, the Republican tradition of media-bashing goes back decades, at least to the convention of 1964 when former President Dwight D. Eisenhower called out "sensation-seeking columnists and commentators," and the Cow Palace in San Francisco burst into jeers and catcalls at the reporters there. The sentiment was immortalized in Richard Nixon’s vice president Spiro Agnew who memorably charged that many in the press corps were mere “nattering nabobs of negativism” — and for good measure — “an effete corps of impudent snobs.”

In other words, the bashers and bashees have been through this and know the drill. There was an almost homey familiarity to the ritual. And despite the hot words from the podium, it was hard to find a journalist last week who felt any unusual sense of siege or discomfort.

It would be too tiresome, and yet also too easy, to point out the many instances in Mr. Leibovich's NY Times over the course of the last eight years where they have jumped on thin information to try to do damage to both specific Republicans and Republicans in general.  So let's just point out for Mr. Leibovich a very recent example, one with which he should be quite familiar.

ST. PAUL -- Yesterday the McCain camp hit back hard on this front-page NYT story by Elisabeth Bumiller reporting that Sarah Palin had been a member of the Alaska Independence Party in the 1990s. Today [Sept. 3], the paper writes:

...The information in the Times article was based on a statement issued Monday night by Lynette Clark, the party's chairwoman, who said that Ms. Palin joined the party in 1994 and in 1996 changed her registration to Republican.

On Tuesday night, Ms. Clark said that her initial statement was incorrect and had been based on erroneous information provided by another member of the party whom she declined to identify.

That retraction by her own source was not enough for Ms. Bumiller, however.

However, Bumiller, according to Howard Kurtz today, remains "completely confident about the story."

"Completely confident" in a story that her own single source has since retracted.  Is it any wonder there's some media bashing going on?  Mr. Leibovich could have, perhaps addressed some of these "mistakes" in the course of his piece.

Welcome Back, NFL

The NFL is back, and as a New Hampshirite the Patriots loss in the final game of last season still sticks a bit in my craw.  Sure, the Giants played a very solid defensive game, and they managed themselves well offensively.  But for a sack that should have been followed by a Manning-to-Tyree pass that should have finished its course rolling on the ground instead of being trapped against Tyree's helmet the Patriots would be the Super Bowl champions, a phenomenal 19-0 record to stand on throughout history.

New seasons bring new chances, and the Pats take on KC today in the home opener.  They're better at running back and linebacker, and weaker - possibly - in the secondary.  The big questionmark will be Tom Brady's health, and if prior Belichek-coached teams are an indication we will really never know just how his foot/ankle is, as he plays each game telling all he's "fine."  But Brady didn't play a snap in a pre-season game, and the Patriots lost all four.  The outlook for a Brady-less Patriot offense is considerably darker.

Based on last year's records New England has a relatively easy schedule this year.  But remember the phrase "On Any Given Sunday."  (Or Monday.  Or Thursday.  Or Saturday for that matter.)  The league is full of great athletes and playmakers, and every team has a few of each.

9/7/08 1325: Well, we'll find out about the backups.  Brady just limped off to the locker room.

9/7/08 2045: It appears that Brady suffered a season-ending torn ACL in his knee.  Ugh.  Looks like it's Matt Cassell or bust.  Today it worked for them - barely.  Obviously we'd like a little more certain confirmation than an anonymous "team official" making a brief offhand comment.

Tearing your ACL affects knee stability.  There are a lot of things you can do with a torn ACL, like swim, ride a bike, (usually) walk, and lift weights.  There are a lot of things that are very risky with a torn ACL, usually involving cutting and planting, quick stops and starts, jumpin (and landing from jumps), and pivoting.  Without the ACL the tibia can slide under the femur and give way as the alignment of the joint strays from the normal alignment too far.  The proverbial "trick knee."

It's smart to stay out in football, which like soccer, basketball and other high velocity sports puts the knee at high risk for instability episodes.  Each episode can do even more damage to the knee, from torn meniscus tissue to damaged joint surfaces.  And no, though braces help a bit, they won't prevent the episodes from occurring.

So get it fixed, Tom, and shoot for next year.

I have no idea why, but there are an awful lot of people who have posted videos of themselves and/or family members and/or friends tearing their knees up.

That Didn't Take Long

There was a 'gotcha!' attempt earlier this week when ABC's Jake Tapper and MSNBC's Mark Murray interpreted a Sarah Palin fundraising letter narrowly in order to ... hmm ... yell "A ha!" I guess.  (We won't even ask the question of how they came to find this rather minor point worthy of reporting.  Email fundraising letters are rather notorious for their liberal appeals - that's liberal in the traditional sense of the word.)  From Mr. Murray's report:

"I cannot tell you how special last night was for me and how enthused I am to be John McCain's running mate," Palin said in the email solicitation, adding: "Unfortunately, as you've seen this week, the Obama/Biden Democrats have been vicious in their attacks directed toward me, my family and John McCain. The misinformation and flat-out lies must be corrected."

Unless we're mistaken, neither Obama nor Biden nor the campaign has attacked Palin's family.

Let's not get into the fact that the email cites "Obama/Biden Democrats" which could most generally be interpreted to refer not to Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden and their campaign staff exclusively, but in addition to any of a number of Democrats and affiliated media outlets (cough ... Kos ... cough) who support that ticket.  (I think we can all think of some examples that represent attacks and lies from that broader group).  While technically true that, at that time, "neither Obama nor Biden nor the campaign has attacked" Sarah Palin's family, it is no longer true.  Political Punch:

"I'm saying the proper criticism is not that it's a woman or man – it doesn't matter whether it's Todd or Sarah," Gutman said. "Think of how many politicians have said it's not the right time in my family's life for me to run."

Gutman cited approvingly Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., in 2004 and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner in 2008, both of whom said they weren't going to pursue the presidency because it wasn't the right time for their families.

"They put their family above their career," Gutman said. "Your responsibility is to put your family first."

"So you're saying she's not putting family first," Ingraham said.

"Absolutely not," Gutman said. "If you take a daughter who's got this emotional strife and subject her to the most intense scrutiny of the world at this time in her life, I think you've put your career above your family."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton, asked to respond to Gutman's remarks, said "Obviously these comments do not reflect our frequently stated views that families of the candidates should be off limits."

Maybe, perhaps, consider the possibility that she's weighed the plusses and minuses of running and has decided the balance weighs in favor of putting "country first."

By the way, Mr. Gutman is one of those lobbyist types that Mr. Obama doesn't have donating to him.

9/6/08 1845: Speaking of lies and attacks, here's a pretty comprehensive list, along with debunkings and dissmissive "you must be an idiot to believe some of these" snark.

44.    yes, she has a college degree in Journalism, but I won’t hold that against her, as she seems to have found honest work as well

50.    yes, she want to a bunch of colleges before getting a degree. No, that’s not illegal. Yes, she seems to have made something of herself anyway.      

Feminists? What Feminists?

Barbara Amiel, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed connecting the dots between Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin, writes:

American feminists have always had a tough sell to make. To the rest of the world, no females on earth have ever had it as easy as middle-class American women. Cosseted, surrounded by labor-saving devices, easily available contraception and supermarkets groaning with food, their complaints have always seemed to have no relationship to reality.

Education was there for the taking. Marriages were not arranged. Going against social mores had no serious consequences. Postwar American women (excluding those mired in poverty or the odious restrictions of race) have always had the choice of what they wanted to be. They simply didn't decide to exercise it until it became more fashionable to get out of the home than to run it.

Sarah Palin has put the flim-flam nature of America feminism sharply into focus, revealing the not-so-secret hypocrisy of its code and, whatever her future, this alone is an accomplishment. As she emerged into the nation's consciousness, a shudder went through the feminist left—a political movement not restricted to females. She is a mother refusing to stay at home (good) who had made a success out in the workplace (excellent) whose marriage nevertheless is a rip-roaring success and whose views are unspeakable—those of a red-blooded, right-wing principled pragmatist.

The metaphorical hair stood up on the back of every licensed member of the feminist movement who could immediately see she was a monster out of a nightmare landscape by Hieronymus Bosch.

[...]

The hypocrisy was breathtaking. Only nanoseconds before the choice of Mrs. Palin as VP put her a geriatric heartbeat away from the presidency, a woman's right to have a career and children was a shibboleth of feminism. One always knew that women with views that opposed those of official feminism were to be treated as nonwomen. To see it now out in the open was the real shocker.

That Gloria Steinem herself took less than 24 hours to lambaste her presumptiveness, trying to turn her into a tool of the patriarchy, confirms the observation.  By the way, love the Hieronymus Bosch reference.

Read it all.

Journalism 101: Sexism And Female Politicians

Here's another.  Apparently the AP's Ron Fournier, in more deep "analysis," is offended that the McCain campaign thinks that some of the scrutiny Mrs. Palin is receiving is sexist in nature.

McCain's wife, Cindy, said she was insulted by suggestions that the demands of caring for five children makes Palin a poor choice. "These questions would not be asked if she were a man," she said.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani toted his feminist talking points around to no fewer than five morning TV interviews.

[...]

And that's the point. McCain wants conservative voters, many of whom were lukewarm toward his candidacy, whipped into high dungeon in defense of Palin, angry at the media and the unnamed liberal elites who are denounced by most every convention speaker.

Absolutely.  [The absolutely refers to the charges of sexism, not Mr. Fournier's conclusions about frenzying the conservatives.]  And, Mr. Fournier, the McCain campaign has some allies in this.  Unusual ones, to say the least.

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Sarah Palin found some unlikely allies Wednesday as leading academics and even former top aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton endorsed the Republican charge that John McCain’s running mate has been subject to a sexist double standard by the news media and Democrats.

Georgetown University professor Deborah Tannen, who has written best-selling books on gender differences, said she agrees with complaints that Palin skeptics — including prominent voices in the news media — have crossed a line by speculating about whether the Alaska governor is neglecting her family in pursuit of national office.

“What we’re dealing with now, there’s nothing subtle about it,” said Tannen. “We’re dealing with the assumption that child-rearing is the job of women and not men. Is it sexist? Yes.”

“There’s no way those questions would be asked of a male candidate,” said Howard Wolfson a former top strategist for Clinton’s presidential campaign.

There should be for women an assumption, similar to what is assumed for a man, that she would not be accepting the position and the responsibilities if she hadn't considered the effects of candidacy and office on her family.  That's it.  The answer to any such "how will this affect your ability to raise your family" question should be a blank stare, followed by "I can't even believe you're stooping to ask."

9/4/08 1345: edited with brackets (above) for clarity

9/4/08 1730: ABC has asked some completely neutral independent voters what they thought of Gov. Palin's speech.  Then the media asked some random "men on the street."  Strange that the real one is almost as funny as the parody.  See if you can tell the difference.

Earlier: Journalism 101: The Families of Politicians

Journalism 101: The Families Of Politicians

Check me if I'm wrong on this.  During the Democratic convention, didn't Barack Obama's daughters find themselves onstage in front of delighted delegates with their mom, a cute, early part of the understandably positive run-up to the Thursday night speech by Mr. Obama?  Yeah, I thought I remembered that scene.

Does that mean that those children are fair game for political hits?  If you write for the Associated Press, apparently it does.

Analysis: GOP contradicts self on Palin family

ST. PAUL, Minn. – People: Make up your minds.          

For two days, the chorus from Republicans on TV news and in the halls of the convention has been resounding: Back off and let the Palin family be. "That's out of bounds," said Minnesota's Republican governor, Tim Pawlenty. "There's no need to be intrusive and pry into that."

Yet Wednesday found the following scenes unfolding:

Sarah Palin's pregnant, unmarried 17-year-old daughter and probable future son-in-law stood in a nationally televised, politically packaged airport receiving line to meet and greet the Republican candidate for president.

[...]

"Either the children are out of bounds, and you don't put them in the photo ops, or you don't complain when somebody wants to talk about them. You can't have it both ways," said John Matviko, a professor at West Liberty State College in West Virginia and editor of "The American President in Popular Culture."

Absolutely wrong.  The Obama kids are just as off limits for attacks, like, say, leading the paragraph about Bristol Palin with "pregnant, unmarried 17-year-old" - as are the Palin kids, and for that matter the McCain and Biden kids.  The kids, like it or not, are part of the family, and therefore part of the campaign, but they are off limits for political hits, particularly from journalists.

Clueless.  And reprehensible.

She's A Natural

On a night of very well delivered speeches from experienced politicians like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani, Alaska Gov. and Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin was the star.

(Reuters photo - more at the link)

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin exceeded expectations Wednesday night in her highly anticipated acceptance speech, skewering Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, slamming the news media, painting herself as the ultimate Washington outsider, and touting the military service and reformer record of her ticket-mate GOP presidential candidate John McCain.

I was impressed mostly with her delivery and poise.  The delivery since it contrasted so starkly with the traditional Hillary Clinton approach of empha - sizing - each - and - every - word - in - dreary - mono - tone.  The poise was remarkable for a political babe - that's babe in the "new-to-the-game" sense so calm yourselves.  She'll be a breath of fresh air in the campaign.  Gwendolyn, who is generally not that politically involved, was jazzed watching the speech.

After hearing this self-described hockey mom speak tonight, there are two words most appropriate.

"Game on."