Recently in Liberal Media Category

Are they prepping for an announcement? The headline sure makes it look that way: The era of big Clintons is soon over.

There's been a Clinton running for the White House or living in it for approximately forever. Bill, it could be said, was born to run. Running became Hillary's destiny, too.

One quarter of Americans have never known life without a Clinton trying for or having the presidency. Millions have gone from diapers to diplomas in the time of the Clintons.

When Hillary Rodham Clinton finally exits the 2008 Democratic presidential race, she will end a decades-long, power-couple streak of unique political energy, savvy ideas, colossal policy flops and raw ambition dressed in pants suits and briefs, not boxers.

"Every day is an adventure," Bill said cheerfully at the start of it all. And how.

By now, the Clintons have been assigned mystical qualities of perseverance. The notion that the adventure is over is almost beyond comprehension.

"I never quit," she says. "I never give up."

Even in defeat, Hillary Clinton has made history as the first woman favored for a major party presidential nomination — the first with a real shot at the presidency.

Or maybe it's AP's way of telling us that they, like Jimmy Carter, aren't endorsing either Democrat.

Spend a little time over at Newsweek and you might wonder if they have any time left over for journalism. Their left-leaning bias has been obvious in recent years, but they've finally shed any pretenses. Their current cover story is not even a news story, but a long memo to Obama with heart-felt advice on how the Messiah should run his campaign and win this fall. I'm still digesting it, but here's a little jewel from page 2 (emphasis mine):

It's also important for you not to play the race card yourself. You can't imply, or be seen to imply, that anyone who criticizes you is a racist, closeted or otherwise.

The addition of the word "yourself" is telling. Newsweek is actually suggesting that it would be bad for Obama should he play the race card himself, but it's OK through others. What others? Why, Newsweek, of course. The entire issue is devoted to the subject, and they've even developed a whole new poll just to suggest that anyone not voting for Obama just might be racist:

Even as he closes in on the Democratic nomination for the presidency, Sen. Barack Obama is facing lingering problems winning the support of white voters--including some in his own party. In a new NEWSWEEK Poll of registered voters, Obama trails presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain 40 percent to 52 percent among whites.

This even as Newsweek warns Obama that "You will never get the real racists to come around." The poll itself is here, and includes a "Racial Resentment Index" based on the following list:

Disapprove of racial preferences (Q17=2)
Less qualified people hired often (Q18=1)
Whites lose out (Q19=2,4)
Gone too far pushing rights (Q20a=1)
Poor too dependent on government (Q20b=1)
Blacks responsible for own condition (Q21=2)
Disapprove of interracial marriage (Q22=2)
Few things in common with blacks (Q23=3)
Would mind if black person moved close (Q24=1)
Would be upset if daughter dated black (Q25=2,3)

It would be difficult to imagine how they could be more incendiary in their questioning.

NewsBusters notes that there's only one side of the story in the Newsweek poll:

This raises two important questions for Newsweek:

1. Why wasn't it concerned about McCain's lingering problems winning the support of black voters?
2. Why didn't it measure a Racial Resentment Index for the non-whites that participated in the poll, especially for the blacks that overwhelmingly support Obama?

Good questions. The answer is that their interest in McCain is how best to defeat him. In the same issue, Newsweek raises issues about McCain's age and health. Unable to find a smoking gun of imminent Alzheimer's or cancer, they conclude in one article:

But the eventual winner of the election—no matter who it is—should be forewarned. Roizen has assessed data on presidential health back to the 1920s and finds that the stress of the job takes a toll. "Every year in office, you age two years," he says. It's not hard to calculate the effect this would have on McCain. After two terms, his calendar age and Real Age would be right back in line.

And in another, they just go for negativism in the title: "An Answer for Every ‘Little Jerk’" Again, failing to find anything bad in the medical records, they feel compelled to insinuate that McCain's gaffe last December was directed at anyone who showed curiosity about his age and health.

It's sad that any news organization would go to these lengths to promote a political agenda. Sadder still is that this type of in-kind campaign donation posing as journalism will increase as November nears.

AP reaches way down to dredge up some gratuitous victimization sympathy for Obama:

HONOLULU - Growing up as a young man of mixed race, Barack Obama benefited from the spirit of tolerance that defined Hawaii's racial climate.

His childhood in the country's idealized melting pot was far from painless, though.

As part of the islands' small group of black Americans in the 1970s, he encountered racism and struggled to form a black identity.

Obama's experience in Hawaii is echoed by other blacks, including some of his schoolmates, and challenges the state's vaunted image of racial harmony.

"A big joke amongst the brothers was you could be anything else but a brother and have free rein of the world in Hawaii," said Rik Smith, a black former schoolmate of Obama's at Punahou, an elite private school in Honolulu. "When it comes to people of color, black people, there's a huge amount of racism."

Obama has carefully avoided making his race the main issue, but his surrogates and the media use it at every turn. One has to wonder if there will be a backlash against the continuous drumbeat of "If you don't vote for Obama you're a bigot", which the above-quoted article serves to underline. This is a major expansion of the theme, showing Obama as a life-long victim of racism, and the votes that aren't cast for him are just a continuation of that same injustice.

In discussions with friends and around the workplace, I've heard lots of reasons for not supporting Obama. His race isn't among them. If Obama's supporters in the media keep pushing this theme, that could change. Fostering racial division isn't the best way to win folks over.

In a story about old atrocities committed in another country by non-Americans, you'd think the title would identify the perpetrator of the atrocity directly. Not AP, though. Check this headline:

Here's some of the article itself, nearly as bad:

DAEJEON, South Korea - Grave by mass grave, South Korea is unearthing the skeletons and buried truths of a cold-blooded slaughter from early in the Korean War, when this nation's U.S.-backed regime killed untold thousands of leftists and hapless peasants in a summer of terror in 1950.

With U.S. military officers sometimes present, and as North Korean invaders pushed down the peninsula, the southern army and police emptied South Korean prisons, lined up detainees and shot them in the head, dumping the bodies into hastily dug trenches. Others were thrown into abandoned mines or into the sea. Women and children were among those killed. Many victims never faced charges or trial.

There's always a way to blame America, isn't there?

You could also see this as a "name that party" exercise from history - can you guess who, in 1950, was in charge of the US military and his party affiliation from the article?

And the Politico article on the subject goes nicely with the image above - "Hillary turns fire on media". Read it all, but here is the thrust of it:

Clinton has long complained that the media have treated her more roughly than Obama. But the campaign began courting a media backlash as a central strategy after her surprisingly narrow win in Indiana and crushing loss in North Carolina, which together were characterized by the press as sealing the Democratic presidential nomination for Obama.

Campaign aides were particularly livid at Russert's election night declaration on MSNBC that, "We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be, and no one is going to dispute it" - even before the network called Indiana for Clinton.

Ironic that for years she's complained that the media existed as a right-wing attack vehicle, only now does she learn the truth. Maybe she should try clinging to... well, you know.

The MSM is going scorched earth on Hillary. As she trounces Obama by a greater than 40 point margin in W. Va., an Obama-smitten media is going where they've never gone before in order to minimize the victory - racism in the Democrat party. From the New York Times, we're treated to this wrap-up on W. Va.:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton won a lopsided victory on Tuesday over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary, where racial considerations emerged as an unusually salient factor. Mrs. Clinton drew strong support from white, working-class voters, who have spurned Mr. Obama in recent contests.

The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls.

Besides a few hints at the end, the article doesn't really say why the 80% for whom race was not an important factor voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. You'd think that would be the bigger story - that, for example, 53% of West Virginia voters felt that the Messiah was dishonest, apparently so much so that 8 of 10 of those actually favored the heroine of the Tuzla Dash at the polls.

For another good example, take this article by the Washington Post with the loaded title "Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause" filled with examples of Obama workers being treated to racism as they courted registered Democrats for the Indiana primary:

Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: "It wasn't pretty." She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County, her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"

You might think the "ugly truths" I reference in the title is that Hillary's base (and by proxy the Democrat party in general) is swimming with racists. Nothing could be further from the truth. (Both parties do have some individuals who are racists, although those of us on the right have argued for years that the Democrat party's policies are racist, as they discourage assimilation into and participation in the American dream.) No, the "ugly truth" is that the media is willing to paint large parts of the population as racist in order to secure the victory of a favored candidate.

Willing, too, is Obama's campaign. All of this is telegraphing Obama's (and the fawning media's) strategy for the fall, as hinted to by Obama's own campaign manager, David Plouffe:

I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already.

If the Obama camp and the media are willing to go this route in a blue on blue contest, imagine what we'll see in the Fall. In spite of all the pretty rhetoric about new politics and civility, this is starting to shape up as the nastiest Presidential campaign in history.

H/T Hot Air, here's Kerr saying that it ain't vegetable:

Regardless, he's a partisan attached to the Clinton campaign, in spite of his insistence that he only lent his name at the request of a couple of friends:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced today the formation of “LGBT Americans for Hillary”—a national steering committee made up of more than 65 LGBT leaders (full list included below), all of whom have personally endorsed Clinton for president.

If he had any problem with his name used that way, he had ample time to detach it before he allowed it to happen a second time.

It's still possible that he's a plant, but not Hillary's or CNN's. He's also attached to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (he's on their advisory council), self-described as:

SLDN is a national, non-profit legal services, watchdog and policy organization dedicated to ending discrimination against and harassment of military personnel affected by "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and related forms of intolerance.

From their press release today that appears to take credit for Gen. Kerr's performance:

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla., Nov. 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination expressed support this evening for the federal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law which bans openly lesbian, gay and bisexual personnel from the armed forces. The candidates were queried on the topic by retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr, CSMR (Ret.), a member of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's (SLDN) military advisory council who 'came out' in 2003 and identified as a Republican voter. General Kerr served for 43 years in the military, including as Commanding General of the Northern Area Command of the California State Military Reserve. His question was part of this evening's CNN/YouTube debate of Republican presidential contenders.

By the way, CNN could have easily found out about his ties to SLDN. It's expected that partisans with an ax to grind would try to participate in the YouTube debate. It was CNN's job to vet the questions and questioners, and whether intentional or no, failed miserably.

Update: Here's a post from SLDN's own blog posted prior to the debate.

Wow, I missed all the fun by going to bed. Having a job that gets you up early can be a handicap for a blogger.

Remember how CNN trotted out "undecided voters" in the last Democrat debate that turned out to be somewhat less undecided than advertised? While I was sleeping, folks all over were demonstrating their google-fu on the questioners at last night's debate. So far, at least 4 of the questioners were either declared hyper-partisan lefties or actual campaign workers for Dem candidates! Details at Michelle Malkin(who is apparently still awake and posting) here and here.

The most egregious of the plants is the gay retired general, who is on a steering committee for Hillary Clinton. His performance started the ball rolling on the outings, as suspicions arose when CNN brought him in to the auditorium to flog the candidates after they gave answers that he didn't like. As Kevin at Wizbang puts it:

Anderson Cooper would have you believe that a network that could select this question, find that 13-year-old Romney quote, create the trap for Romney (which he fell face first into), and (presumably) fly Kerr to the debate, could not type "Keith Kerr, retired Colonel" into Google and find the link to the Hillary Clinton press release, which prior to the debate appeared in the first 10 results for that search?

Yeah, right...

I think Kerr was simply too good to check. Imagine the CNN question pickers' joy at finding Kerr, who has victim status as a gay, and the absolute moral authority of being a veteran? The question could have been asked by anyone, CNN chose Kerr because it would put the Republican candidates in the worst possible light. I don't recall any equivalent popping up at the Democrat Debate - I'm sure CNN could have found a few had they tried.

As to the subject of winners and losers of the debate itself - John Hawkins (whose live-blogging I followed) thinks McCain won. I heartily disagree. Each of the candidates put in a poor performance compared to the previous debates. I'd have to say nobody won. Expect the recent polling success of the 5 top Republicans to dissolve over the next few days.

It wasn't a complete rout, however. As I said in a previous post, McCain did get the best soundbites out of the debate, particularly the exchange with nutjob Ron Paul over Iraq. Here's the clip where the only comeback from Paul is a weak retort about campaign contributions from some military officers:

Getting campaign contributions from some military folks doesn't translate into all the troops supporting you, Ron. It's stupid to suggest so. And by the way, Ron - where were you over Thanksgiving? Not in Iraq getting opinions firsthand from the troops, I'll wager. Here's Ron again, seemingly saying that we're occupying Saudi - skip to about 2:40:

Here's my wrap up and grades:

McCain - C-. He had some good moments, especially when dealing with security issues. That was tempered by his remarks about torture, where he appears to be too personally attached to be objective or rational, and his inability to see shamnesty as the mistake that it was.

Thompson - C+. Had good answers, but no fire. CNN did him a favor by giving him less air time than the other front-runners. He made a serious blunder by submitting an attack ad for the debate.

Tancredo - C. He's still a one-issue candidate, but gives good answers when given a chance.

Romney - D. I agree with John, he can't take a punch. This is going to hurt him if he makes it to the general election, where he needs to be a whole lot more nimble when attacked.

Guliani - D. Everyone knows he was Mayor of New York by now. Also, he came off as a little harsh in his exchanges with the other candidates.

Huckabee - C+. Good speaker, mostly good answers. Although the religious right loves him, he scares a lot of center and left-leaning folks when he starts getting preachy.

Hunter - C-. Did he get any questions? I can't remember.

Paul - D-. CNN obviously intended to waylay him with the conspiracy question early in the show, and in spite of Paul's attempt to moderate the tone of his answer, got what they wanted. Later rants from Paul only cemented the impression of being crazed, as his demeanor became less and less presidential and more unhinged. I'm sure his supporters will give him an A+, though. Update (11/29/07, 7:36 AM): Glenn Reynolds on Paul's demeanor - "His voice is too high, he can't remember who the Kurds are, and he often comes off like a crazy old man in a bus station." LOL.

CNN - D-. The real winner of the debate, if you ask me. Although their moderation was incompetent (remember when they used to keep the audiences quiet?), and their bias was too clear for even the most rabid partisan lefty to miss, they managed to set up a successful venue in which to make the Republicans look bad - not that they needed the help.

Overall, the performance of all the candidates was sub-par. They all have a lot of work to do on both message and presentation if they want to defeat Hillary or Obama.

I'll give more in the morning, but I think Huckabee was very strong, McCain had the best sound-bite moments, Romney was clearly off his game.

Ron Paul would have won if judged by audience reaction. Fortunately, we grade candidates on other criteria. Ron said it best when he said he was lucky to be in the middle of his own campaign. I agree, he has no business being there and is lucky that he is for the short time it's gonna last.

CNN couldn't resist another "diamond or pearls" question - since no women on stage, they disguised it as a sports question.

Thompson has all the right answers, but no fire. Everyone's getting another beer while he speaks, no matter how right he is, it's not compelling when he says it.

More tomorrow, folks. Good night!

8:00 EST on CNN. I'll be watching, will you? As mentioned on lots of other blogs, CNN's teaser gives the impression that their bias will be showing in the choice of questions.

Since I don't type fast enough to live blog, I'll save my impressions for a post-debate post. If you're interested in live-blogging, I recommend John Hawkins, who hears that candidates asked for CNN to give them serious questions instead of going for laughs with snowmen and rednecks. I wonder if CNN can resist the temptation, though.

Update: I had a comment on this post flagged as spam due to an excessive number of links. I had considered approving the comment, but after reviewing the comment and the links decided to leave it alone. If you want to discuss, fine, but if you're just buzzing through to drop links to your site, that's spam. I don't do it on your site, please don't do it here.

At the dishonest comment deletion tactics allegedly in use at the San Francisco Chronicle(H/T Glenn Reynolds) and Think Progress(H/T Charles Johnson). However, browser caches can be unruly beasts, so I'm not yet ready to call foul.

If true, it just follows a pattern on the left of squelching any speech that does not agree with their own. This is no different than shouting down a speaker giving a speech, and belching "freedom of speech!" in the attempt to deprive the speaker of his. What makes it particularly nasty is that the commenter at SFC or TP don't know they've been shouted down.

Of course, no one at SFC or TP is compelled to publish any comment they find objectionable for whatever reason. They also have the right to ban commenters at will for any reason they like. What's repugnant about this tactic (again, if true) is the dishonesty in allowing someone to believe they're being heard when they aren't.

I does occur to me that this would be fairly easy to implement, though, through multiple methods. Expect to see a lot of site administrators (and bloggers, too) try this now that the idea is floating around.

Update: Apparently very easy to implement - Charles duplicates the effect by altering 6 lines of code.

Yeah, I watched it. Here are my impressions:

The first 10-15 minutes were exciting due to the backbiting. After that, they settled down into the familiar Bush-bashing pattern.

Hillary was on-game. She needed to be aggressive without coming off as nasty and largely succeeded. She's still going to be the front runner for a while yet. The audience booed twice when Hillary was attacked. Playing the gender card is apparently effective.

Chris Dodd and Joe Biden gave some good answers - particularly Dodd when answering about security vs. human rights. Making sense is death to your campaign when running with this crowd, though. Biden got bonus points for giving a one-word answer.

Obama had a very bad night. It took Wolfe nearly 5 minutes to get an answer about the drivers license issue. He also slipped and referred to illegals as "illegal aliens". That'll piss off the open borders crowd.

Speaking of pissed, Kucinich was. And with good reason, too. He had to prompt Wolfe to let him have a chance to answer a question. No matter how loony he is, as long as he's on stage with Hillary and Obama, and deserves equal time and consideration. Of course, it won't happen, since Democrats really don't care about fairness.

Edwards loves pandering to the nutroots. I heard him repeat the word "neocon" a few times, that resonates with the delusional fringe. He also mentioned Cheney a few times, which gets the nutroots speaking in tongues. He'll be the winner with the Daily Kos crowd.

Richardson pandered as well. He even managed to invoke "Haliburton" in an answer that had nothing to do with it.

Hypocrite alerts - Hillary for saying she's not playing the gender card and following with something that sounded a lot like "vote for me because I'm a woman". Dodd for saying he has no litmus test for judges then saying he won't appoint a pro-lifer.

The second half was interesting - CNN wanted the Dems to look good, as they lined up victims one by one. One said he was a victim of racial profiling caused by the Patriot Act, no one called him on it. Update (11:28 PM): One of the CNN's "victims" is a war protester. And that's CNN's idea of an "undecided voter"? And why isn't Dan Riehl on my blogroll? Fixed.

Also, what idiot let the question about jewelry get asked?

If I had to pick, I'd say Biden won - at least in debate terms. Since he doesn't have a chance, though, that matters little. What does matter is who lost - Obama. Most folks have open minds, if he had taken a decisive stance on the illegal alien question and attempted to explain why he felt that way, folks would have respected it. Instead, he wasted everyone's time trying to avoid being pinned down to an answer on a question that wasn't difficult. It made him look especially bad after attacking Hillary on the exact same thing for the past 2 weeks.

Since Obama's loss is likely to be Hillary's gain, she'll emerge as the apparent overall winner through default - even though she didn't win through her answers.

Posted on Delaware Watch is the below video on Diego Garcia. I'm not studied on the primary subject of British policy in Diego Garcia, but the second minute of the piece paints the US military as baby killers. Sadly, this kind of disgusting totally untrue smear of the troops happens far too frequently in leftist circles. It is beyond dispute that no military in history has worked harder than ours to avoid civilian casualties.

The piece does show what appears to be horrible treatment of the indigenous population of Diego Garcia. However, its view of the U.S. military is so dishonestly wrong that the rest of the piece is highly suspect.

There's a lesson here. Journalists who really care about exposing injustices should check any ideology at the door else risk discrediting any good they might accomplish. Same goes for those who spread it.

Update: If the atrocities outlined in the film are real, then notable are the dates - the key years for the United States' involvement are between 1961 and 1968 - all during Democrat administrations.

I'm sure that makes it all OK, right? Since it was for the "common good", after all...

This post was blocked by Blogrolling.

Unless you're not paying attention, the over-expansion of SCHIP has little to do with children and more to do with the gradual implementation of socialized medicine. If the Democrats fail to provide President Bush with a veto-proof bill, they'll need a replacement to further their desire for increased socialism. If they succeed, they'll need another target to exploit. Where will that target come from? Win or lose, SCHIP will soon be difficult, if not impossible, target for further expansion - at least the short term. The next target might be a perennial favorite - veterans.

Friday's New York Times offers an unsigned editorial giving us a heads up on what might be next on their agenda:

Although many Americans believe that the nation’s veterans have ready access to health care, that is far from the case. A new study by researchers at the Harvard Medical School has found that millions of veterans and their dependents have no access to care in veterans’ hospitals and clinics and no health insurance to pay for care elsewhere. Their plight represents yet another failure of our disjointed health care system to provide coverage for all Americans.

The new study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, estimated that in 2004 nearly 1.8 million veterans were uninsured and unable to get care in veterans’ facilities. An additional 3.8 million members of their households faced the same predicament. All told, this group made up roughly 12 percent of the huge population of uninsured Americans.

First, the study (which can be found here) is very specific that the numbers are for those who don't qualify for VA medical care in the first place. Yet the Times neglects to mention it, leading the uninformed to believe that we have soldiers maimed in combat going without medical care.

The VA provides medical care to those with service-related illness and veterans who are demonstrably poor. All other veterans used to be able to seek care on a space-available basis - these are known as "group 8", and are defined as follows by the VA:

Group 8: All other non service-connected veterans and zero percent, non-compensable service-connected veterans who agree to pay co-pays.

Note that families are not included in the definition.

Group 8 veterans were seen less frequently in VA hospitals as the draw down during the 90's reduced the number of facilities while increasing the number of veterans, and the VA stopped enrolling Group 8 vets in 2003.

Even the number of uninsured veterans isn't necessarily the tragedy that the Times wishes you to believe. The study, although newly published, is itself not new. One of the authors, Stephanie J. Woolhandler, testified before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs back in June of this year. She admitted to the true nature of these uninsured vets:

Only about half of the 1.8 million uninsured veterans are classified Priority 8, Woolhandler said. The rest may technically be eligible for some VA care but live too far from its facilities for it to be a real option, she said.

In other words, even if they were eligible they likely wouldn't be getting VA health care, due to lack of either capacity or proximity.

We're also provided some insight in to the Ms. Woolhandler's motivations as well:

Woolhandler is a well-known advocate of guaranteeing access to health care for all Americans through a government-run national health insurance program.

Also, the study includes this graph showing that veterans have a measurably lower uninsured rate than the general population, and rate of increase in number of uninsured correlates to that of the general population as well:

Match the graph to the alarmist Bush bashing in the author's press release:

“Since President Bush took office the number of uninsured vets has skyrocketed, and he’s cut eligibility, barring hundreds of thousands of veterans from care. This administration has put troops in harm’s way overseas and abandoned them and their families once they got home,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, co-author of the study and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program. “We need a solution that works for veterans, their families, and all Americans - single payer national health insurance.”

While the version of the study published in the American Journal of Public Health doesn't have an overly-large agenda-driven bent, this version of it does, as its conclusion illustrates:

We believe that only a single payer national health insurance system can affordably cover all Americans – including veterans.

The NYT finishes this disingenuous editorial with this:

An even better solution would be some form of universal health coverage for all Americans. Then even veterans who live far from a V.A. facility, and a host of dependents who are not now eligible, could get the care they need.

So here we have the New York Times using a highly agenda-driven study with politically-motivated conclusions as evidence that we need socialized medicine. In true form, they ignore the parts of the study that conflict with their assertions. Despicably, they're using veterans and their families as their vehicle of choice to advance their socialist agenda. Don't be surprised if this becomes the replacement for SCHIP in the Democrat's march to socialism.

Funny how much they love the troops when it advances their agenda, isn't it?.

This post was blocked by Blogrolling.

This online film from Nickelodeon has to be seen to be believed. I can't understand the mental process that drove them to feature children being utilized as unwitting tools by the anti-American World Can't Wait (WCW).

While it's to be expected from WCW (they've targeted young impressionable minds before), for Nickelodeon to glorify this kind of disgusting propagandizing of children is beyond reprehensible.

Goodbye, Nickelodeon. You're no longer welcome in our home.

BTW, I don't place all the blame on Nickelodeon. Simple decency prevents me from expressing my feelings about this child's parents - he surely didn't sink into the WCW cesspool on his own.

h/t Michelle Malkin and ArmyWifeToddlerMom

Via Instapundit, this from the American Thinker:

Two days after the mid-terms, the New York Times discovers that Democrats can be corrupt, too. Who knew?

If the NYT had their heart in it, though, shouldn't they have written "Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida, the disgraced former federal judge who was impeached on bribery charges and removed from the bench"? You know, like they do for all the Republicans?

Just asking...

The Johnstown Tribune-Democrat weighed in yesterday with their thoughts on the Murtha - Irey Congressional race, and it's not pretty (H/T Irey campaign). Unlike the NYT editorial endorsing Lamont, this one actually talks about the candidate they endorse - and they have little nice to say about him besides approving of his "cut and run" war stance. Emphasis added:

On his famous love for pork:

While we endorse the local congressman in his re-election bid, we fear the spending spree that might result from a shift in power...

On his smearing of the troops, which has made him very unpopular with the military:

We would also urge Murtha to sit down with area veterans who clearly have different views on the Iraq conflict than he does.

On his alignment with the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party:

We are frightened by Murtha’s willingness to align himself with California Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Clearly, Murtha is hoping that relationship paves the way for his ascension to a position of higher power in the House. But we don’t believe our region’s values match well with Pelosi’s, and we don’t see much good coming for the 12th district – even if the relationship benefits the congressman.

Beyond that, Murtha has endeared himself to liberals on both coasts – raising money for his allies in California, New England and elsewhere. We hope he can keep these “friends” and their spending ways in check if the Democrats retake the House.

They even acknowlege how corrupt he is, hoping he can restrain his urges:

But we urge him to remain faithful to his fiscally and socially conservative western Pennsylvania roots – even if it costs him in personal gain and national influence.

Read the whole editorial. It's painfully clear what the Tribune-Democrat is saying here - "Murtha sucks, but vote for him anyway 'cause he's a Democrat."

The Tribune-Democrat's editorial staff has surely reached new lows when their bias toward the left causes them to endorse a candidate whom they acknowlege is unsuitable in most ways. Do they really believe the voters in Johnstown are dense enough to buy it?

Update: Those troops that Murtha rushes to condemn have a few thoughts about cutting and running (H/T Captain's Quarters). The Tribune-Democrat is right, the troops simply don't agree with Murtha.

If something that even hints at a success for the administration rears it's ugly head, count on our supportive MSM to cast it in the worst possible light. Via CBS News:

(CBS/AP) In a world sharply divided on Iraq since the U.S.-led war began in 2003, Saddam Hussein's death sentence Sunday unleashed fears of fresh violence and new questions about the fairness and impartiality of the tribunal that ordered him to hang.

Underscoring the fault lines that split the international community and widened the divide between Muslims and Christians, Islamic leaders warned that the verdict could inflame those who revile the United States — undermining U.S. policy in the volatile Middle East and inspiring terrorists to strike.

"The hanging of Saddam Hussein will turn to hell for the Americans," said Vitaya Wisethrat, a respected Muslim cleric in Thailand, where a bloody Islamic insurgency is raging in the country's south.

"The Saddam case is not a Muslim problem but the problem of America and its domestic politics," he said. "The Americans are about to vote in a midterm election, so maybe Bush will use this case to tell the voters that Saddam is dead and that the Americans are safe. But actually the American people will be in more danger with the death of Saddam."

Stepping up to the plate for their pals.

Dan Rather is on Fox News as I write this, he's questioning the timing. Hope someone got video - I'll link if it's out there.

Like it would be a surprise to anybody:

On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.

Pulling out the stops for their pals.

That's what the headline should be. But instead, we get:

US military newspapers to demand Rumsfeld's resignation

As if the military runs the papers and reflects the views of the troops. It does not, and yet the story has already found the most ignorant and gullible to prey on:

– The US military — every branch — is asking that Donald Rumsfeld be fired. Now. And so are the pro-military newspapers that serve them.

News to you folks: These are civilian papers. They are not written, edited, or published by the U.S. Military. Editorial content like this, this, this, and this are not reflective of the views of the actual military members that the papers are marketed to.

Instead of reading something into this story about the troops that simply isn't there, you should be asking instead why the premier publications marketed to a military audience is willfully trying to undermine the troops' chain of command. That's the real story. And if you missed it, then you just didn't want to see it.

Update: Bryan at Hot Air finds another gullible soul - though I think Sullivan is being gullible by choice.

Early yesterday morning I emailed another blogger on an unrelated topic, but included my thoughts on the NYT's story:

I'm staying away from the NYT nuke story for now. The article was clear that the documents were pre-gulf war, I think some of the arguments being made on the right are a little thin. More info is sure to come out, maybe I'll be proven wrong. I hope so. Right now, though, I see this as a negative, albeit a minor one that probably won't have much effect on the election.

I think the Times' story hasn't even lived up to my mild prediction, as apparently the story hasn't gained much traction. Indeed, Dan Riehl notes:

More than 12 hours after the New York Times dropped perhaps what they thought was a nuclear bomb on the Bush administration four days before the coming election, a look at Google News puts the story at second tier status with no more than 265 additional stories linked to the breaking news.

The argument from the left that this somehow helped Iran will sway few outside the BDS echo-chamber. Iran has worked on their program for years with plenty of help, it's unlikely these old Iraq documents will help them.

As for the right side, while I feel that there should now be some increased attention to all the captured documents, the notion that the Times has somehow validated all 48,000 boxes of them is somewhat silly. I would like to think we can come up with a better vetting standard than the New York Times. (yes, I know, Ed isn't being entirely serious with this. But he was among the first to say it, and many other blogs are flogging this as if it's a big "gotcha", and I simply don't think it is.)

Folks on my side are also hyping the fact that the documents place yet another dagger in the heart of the "BushLied" meme. ""Iraq is a year away from building a nuclear bomb" was supposed to be a myth, a lie that Bush used to trick us into war."

True, but there were more than enough daggers in that heart already, and yet the "BushLied" meme is still alive and well. It's a comforting and fun rallying cry for the anti-Bush/anti-war crowds, they're not going to stop beating that drum no matter how much truth they ignore. Just this week, Kerry repeated it:

John McCain ought to ask for an apology from Dick Cheney for misleading America. He ought to ask for an apology from the president for lying about the nuclear program in Africa.

Of course, when the higher levels on the left still say it, the low will follow. For example, this deserter:

"The whole story behind it, it all feels like a big lie," Glass said. "I ain't fighting for no lie."

Hmmm. Kerry might have been right about this particular fellow - he's obviously not applied himself to his studies. Point is, though, the article in the Times turned out to be a big, fat, hairy zero.

If this is the best the NYT can muster, maybe Tuesday won't be such a disaster after all.

Oh - something struck me as I read the response to the article by Rep. Hoekstra, specifically this paragraph:

"With respect to the possibility that documents may have been released that should not have been released, I have always been clear that the Director of National Intelligence should take whatever steps necessary to withhold sensitive documents. In fact, as of today the DNI had withheld 59 percent of the documents that it had reviewed, and has become more risk-averse over time. If the DNI believes that the documents that were released were in the safe 40 percent, imagine what the 60 percent being withheld must contain.

Am I the only one who thinks Rep. Hoekstra isn't waxing rhetorical? And could the media be sedate in their coverage of this because they fear being thrown off track by that "60 percent"?

Just asking...

When Lynne Cheney was ambushed last Friday on CNN, she make Blitzer look like an idiot. So it should be unsurprising that CNN would retaliate:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Lynne Cheney is deflecting talk of the sexual content in her novel "Sisters," a 25-year-old book that resurfaced in a campaign Friday and is stirring up controversy.

The novel, featuring a lesbian love affair, was brought up Friday amid a contentious Senate race in Virginia. Soon a Democratic committee and Cheney herself -- in an interview on CNN -- were weighing in.

This is probably one of the weakest hit jobs ever, though. The author of the article clearly has not read the book "Sisters", makes no quotes to back up the assertion, and is confident that you won't be able to either:

Readers will have a hard time judging the content of the book for themselves. The few copies available are selling for hundreds of dollars each.

On Amazon.com Sunday, four used copies of "Sisters" were being sold, ranging from $695.95 for one in "acceptable" condition to $999 for a copy in "collectible -- good" condition. Ebay had two copies available, with requested opening bids of $200 and $500. Froogle.com, on Sunday afternoon, found the cheapest copies available barely under $300.

Some of these prices were set before the latest blow-up over the work of fiction. It was not immediately clear what impact the last few days have had.

So where does CNN expect you to get the information to judge for yourself? The Democrats:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent out a news release listing sexual passages in books by Cheney and other GOP conservatives, including Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The DSCC said Cheney's books featured brothels and attempted rape.

'Cause we all know the Dems would never say anything mean or untrue about a Republican, right? And after all, that seems to be where CNN gets much of their news nowadays, so why shouldn't you?

The NYT today wrote an endorsement of Ned Lamont that strangely mentions almost nothing about Ned Lamont. For the NYT, it all boils down to one thing:

He and Mr. Bush are still on the very same page, encouraging the American people to believe that there is a happy ending for American involvement in Iraq, and that all it takes is the perseverance to keep marching toward the end of the rainbow.

Save for the war, Ned Lamont's positions are not mentioned. For that matter, Leiberman's aren't either. The entire endorsement is a nutty wild-eyed "Leiberman = Bush so vote Lamont because he's not" rant.

It's so pathetic and narrow I'd be surprised if it wasn't taken as an insult by Connecticut voters.

BTW, I cheer for neither. Lieberman, despite his views on the GWOT, is a liberal through and through. Ned Lamont is simply an empty shirt who apparently can't form complete sentences without his handlers flapping his lips. I just think it's a pity that the NYT apparently thinks the voters in Connecticut are that one-dimensional.

Update: What does Ned Lamont's biggest fan and full-time cheerleader think of the Times belittling the voters of CT as sad one-dimensional comic-strip characters mindlessly blinded to all but the NYT's BDS-driven hatred for Joe? No surprise here:

"I think this rocks."

And from the comments, a somewhat dark and disturbing reason to vote for Lamont. Well, what apparently passes for one from this FDL commenter:

...Joe has a lot of nose hairs and that really bothers me.

Hmmm. Is that what it really sounds like?

Gee, I sure hope not. Such tolerance. Very, very sad.

Update 2: Here's an example of an endorsement that actually considers the candidate being endorsed.

Update 3: Come to think about it, I can't imagine this spurring a whole lot of high-fiving over at Lamont headquarters. Lamont can't be happy about getting an endorsement based on nothing more than "we hate Joe". Kinda like being the next to the last guy picked at a sandlot game - nobody wants him, but they want the last guy even less....

And the Democrats are outraged. How do we know they are outraged? Because they leaked it:

A conference call to the committee's nine Democrats on Wednesday to inform them of the aide's suspension prompted outrage, said two congressional officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal committee business.

The officials said that the National Intelligence Estimate was marked "secret," rather than "top secret" or another more restrictive classification. As a result, thousands of people would have had access to it, including the intelligence, armed services and international relations committees of the House.

While I'm encouraged that some effort is being made to determine the sources of the leaks, this story is near zero for me. Why? 'Cause there is nothing but suspicion here so far. The Democrats correctly state that a large number of people have access to the NIE, and we don't know if the staffer ordered the report for someone else or for himself.

What I still don't get is why Congress ignores the press (and their role) in all of this. Classified information requires controls and boundaries. Once it crosses outside of those boundaries, it's no longer classified information - it's stolen classified information. One would think the government could leverage this to compell reporters to reveal the leakers as part of a criminal investigation, since receiving stolen goods is a crime. Until we do, the leaks will never stop. And while the left may think it's cute to leak classified data for political purposes, the fact is that it harms our country when they do so.

So until I see someone being prosecuted, I'm going to have to assume that this staffer suspension (along with all of the promises of investigation for past leaks) is simply intended to be eyewash - red meat for the base.

For me, though, it's a flavorless meal that leaves me not just unsatified, but starving.

A terrific column about the Harry Reid real estate scandal by Ed Morrissey (of Captain's Quarters fame): Reid's Smelly Windfall.

Anchoress: "…something is not sitting just right with me."

I tend to agree. As I theorized yesterday, the House's investigations will lead nowhere. Unless Hastert buckles under pressure and resigns, the damage will be limited to one Republican gone in shame, and a few points lost in the polls. There's still plenty of time for the numbers to recover, so what did the Dems purchase with all this effort?

Anchoress thinks the current Democratic vapors about the Foley mess might be a diversion to keep the GOP busy while they prepare something else. I considered that too - the question is what? Voter fraud occurs every election cycle, I can't imagine how this could provide cover for it. But I won't rule it out, either.

Of course, this may not be the "true" October surprise we've all expected, and the Foley thing was meant just to tank the career of a single Republican. The story subsequently grew much longer legs than anyone anticipated, thus encouraging more attention from the Dem leadership than originally planned - hence the ham-handed and hypocritical rantings from the left that we've all been exposed to.

So is there another shoe yet to drop? Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what it might be?

in Larry Margasak's AP article:

WASHINGTON - The House's investigation of a page sex scandal has only one certainty: Former Rep. Mark Foley will escape punishment by his peers.

Escape? He's under investigation by Florida and the feds. He resigned in disgrace. He's become the poster child for a variety of ills that Americans passionately despise. I'd say that so far he's escaped little. And while I feel he deserves far worse than he'll ultimately receive, he'll get the maximum our laws and our society can dish out. It'll have to be enough.

Unfortunately, the optimism in the article about the ethics probe won't pan out:

Unlike the committee's usual practice of identifying the investigative target at the outset, this probe is wide open. Anyone who knew of Foley's salacious messages before the story broke at the end of September has reason for concern.

Larry's (and apparently AP's) optimism is that Republican leadership will be shown to have known all the graphic details from the very first IM and turned a blind eye or even actively enabled Foley. I'm confident that this will not be the result, as it's become obvious that the early emails were unactionable and Hastert and crew's reactions were appropriate. But it's unfortunate that the damage will already have been done long before that result is reached.

Also unfortunate because it appears that those who knew (and hid for months) the true nature of Foley's disgusting advances towards young men weren't in Congress, therefore beyond the reach of the ethics committee. Democratic leadership may have been aware, but the trails the emails and IMs followed to the media were sufficiently distant from the House that no prominent Dem will be successfully called to task. Such a small number of Americans pay close enough attention to politics that few will connect the dots to see that a political party desperate for power is more than willing to place children at risk while they patiently bide their time for the moment with the most political effect.

It's a pattern we've all seen before in politics. Rarely does an elected official have to dirty his/her own hands, there are plenty of folks willing to do it for them. As a result, the ones responsible almost never face consequences. Does anyone really this will play out otherwise? I have a bridge for sale if you do...

From this morning's AP coverage of the video of the two mutilated soldiers:

It said that as soon as fighters heard of the rape-slaying, "they kept their anger to themselves and didn't spread the news, but were determined to avenge their sister's honor."

The 4:39 minute video shows two bloodied bodies in torn military uniforms lying near a curb on a bridge over a canal. One of them, partially naked, has been decapitated and his chest cut open. The other's face is bruised, the jaw apparently broken, and his leg has long gashes. Fighters are shown turning the bodies over and lifting the head of the decapitated man.

I don't know about you, but when I see this, I have a hard time thinking of those that did it as "fighters".

Via AP/Yahoo, in an article that tries to blunt the message as best as possible:

WASHINGTON - The federal deficit appears on track to register less than $300 billion for the budget year ending Sept. 30, as surging tax revenues continue to signal significant improvement over White House estimates released in February — though only modest gains over last year.

Modest, eh? Later in the article:

Indeed, tax collections are surging at a 13 percent growth rate, reflecting particularly strong growth in taxes paid on corporate profits and income taxes paid by wealthier people and small businessmen who pay taxes quarterly instead of having them withheld by employers.

Since when is 13 percent "modest"? For those of you in the "we can't afford tax cuts" club, please stop lying about the effect of tax cuts. Spending is the problem.

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - U.S. employers added a disappointing 121,000 jobs last month, wary of bulking up payrolls with the economy slowing and energy prices rising. Wages rose sharply, fanning inflation worries.

We're still at near-historic lows in unemployment, and for months the complaint was that wages weren't keeping up. Now wages are increasing, and that's suddenly a bad thing?

This revelation from Bill Keller as to who the White House supposedly asked to intervene on the lastest exposure of secret anti-terror programs.

Are you ready?

Jack Murtha.

Yeah, the one and only.

Keller insists that "not all of them urged us not to publish". Bryan at Hot Air deduces that Murtha was the odd man out.

If this is the case, Murtha has some big-time 'splainin to do. But don't count on the NYT to tell us - Keller doesn't mind publishing national security related secrets, but considers his conversation with Murtha to be confidential.

The NYT is exposing yet another classified program (H/T Polipundit):

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic