Vocal Minority

Sensible Liberal: Jon Stewart

You know, Jon Stewart drives me the frick crazy. I usually find him an obnoxiously spouting liberal talking points to a cackling audience of liberal sheep. But, more than once in while, he razzes the leftocracy when they need a serious razzing.

And so the other day, here is Stewart spanking Brian Ross of ABC news for erroneously identifying the Aurora, CO shooter with a man of the same name, who happens to live in Aurora and is a member of the Tea Party. [h/t The Blaze]:

The Daily Show

Sensible Liberal: Jon Lovitz

I think actor Jon Lovitz has been mugged by reality!

Over the weekend the self-described liberal Democrat and Obama voter, had some harsh and profanity-laced words for President Golden Calf.

Click here for story and audio [LANGUAGE WARNING].

But my question isn't what took Jon Lovitz so long to realize Obama was trouble. My question is why is the rest of Hollywood still so freaking clueless???

 

Sensible Liberal: Bill Maher (Well, Sorta) and Kirsten Powers

I'm just letting you I still think Bill Maher is an un-funny foul-mouthed G~d-hating dimwit and he's probably just covering his own rear end. But he does deserve props for devoting time on his Friday show to defend Rush Limbaugh's free speech and call on offended liberals to chillax:

“I got crap from both the left and the right this week because — OK, let me address the left first, because I found this more disheartening,” Maher said. “They were very mad at me because I tweeted that people like Rush Limbaugh — who I absolutely disagree with, I’ve never said a good word about him, I did a whole monologue about what an asshole he was only a week ago — but I said I don’t like it that people are made to disappear when they say something or people try to make them disappear when they say something you don’t like. That’s America. Sometimes you’re made to feel uncomfortable, OK?” ...

“Can we put this in perspective?” Maher said. “No one died. A guy made a bad joke, a bad joke because a — it was a disgusting sentiment that he was evoking and also because it wasn’t even a joke. It’s a stupid fat fuck who is not funny and it annoys me that people who cannot keep two disparate thoughts in their own mind lump me in together with him and say I’m defending him. I’m not defending him. I’m defending living in a country where people don’t have to be afraid that they might go out of the bounds for one minute. Do we all want to be talking like White House spokesmen?” ...

“Let me give you a quote from the ACLU, liberals,” he said. “[T]he ACLU — what more liberal bastion is there than that? ‘It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something that many find reasonable, but the defense of freedom of speech is more critical when the message is something that most people find repulsive.’ We’re looking at you, Rush Limbaugh. But you know what? I would rather put up with Rush Limbaugh and live in a country where we all do have freedom of speech. And the people who I’ve heard say, when they put pressure on his sponsors, the system is working. No it’s not. That’s the system being manipulated. I lived through that 10 years ago.” ...

Maher also reasoned that neither he nor Rush were "misogynist," but merely "potty-mouths." He then offered a cool apology for making statements about Sarah Palin that were construed as anti-woman.

Liberal Democrat Kirsten Powers also wrote an op-ed, not to defend Rush, but to point out there are plenty of liberal men who also owe women apologies for their remarks.

But even though Powers was right not to exonerate liberals, I think Maher is right in that neither he nor Rush were misogynistic, just foul mouths.

Let's be honest though: Maher uses more foul language in one hour than Rush in a year.

P.S. For the record, at 6:43 PM on Saturday, March 10, Rush has 1,042,063 Facebook fans.

Sensible Liberal: Susan Estrich On OWS

I'm sure Susan Estrich is a very nice lady, but whenever she appears on Hannity or any other show where she debates conservatives I find myself talking to the TV screen asking, What color is the sky in your liberal fantasy world???

Still, just as a broken clock is still right twice a day, Estrich makes some valid points in her latest NewsMax piece about the filthy (physically and metaphorically) Occupy Wall Street protests:

... [T]he problem with the occupation of Wall Street as a solution goes beyond partisan politics. If class warfare could solve this country's economic problems, it would hardly matter which candidate it would help or hurt. It won't. If anything, it could exacerbate them. 

Political instability is not good for the economy: How many times have we seen that around the world? Does anyone really think that protesting against business — or even just big business — is going to lead those companies to hire more people? Does anyone really think that this is how we boost consumer confidence? Just the opposite.

Not only is class warfare dangerous and counterproductive, but it's not even right. As in accurate. Yes, there are some folks on Wall Street who make ridiculous amounts of money. But there are more who are sitting at computers hoping to hold on to their jobs — making the coffee, sweeping the offices, counting themselves lucky to be employed. And there are more who went to school and worked hard, hoping to be employed on Wall Street, to find a job at one of those companies, to work at one of those law firms, and have found their hopes dashed as well. 

Shut down Wall Street, and the price will be paid not by those who already have millions but by those who are only a little bit luckier, if at all, than the folks who are protesting.

Our political leaders — both Republicans and Democrats — need to understand just how angry and just how frustrated people are. Watching both sides play chicken in Washington feeds that frustration. The only answer to hardship is hope. Without hope, why not take to the streets? Without hope, why not find someone to blame?

Sensible Liberal: Jon Stewart

Jon Stewart of The Daily Show has drawn both criticism and praise on this blog. He skewers conservatives/Republicans something fierce; however, unlike other left-leaning commentators, he will call out his own if they act stupidly.

In this refreshing and humorous clip Stewart shows himself as one of those rare liberals/Democrats who is sick of the race-baiting that his been occurring on his side of the aisle for some time now. His audience thought it was funny. Let's hope they realize the huge kernel of truth underlying his point:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Race Card Is Maxed Out
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Sensible Liberal: Elton John

Last week I was gratified by El Rushbo’s story about Elton John performing at his wedding, and about the events leading up to their unlikely friendship. (In a nutshell, they “met” while staying at the same hotel in Hawaii at the time Rush had his heart scare.). John apparently has gotten a lot of flak from his fellow ohh-so-tolerant liberal friends for befriending such a supposedly Neanderthal homophobe. So much for that “can we all get along” thing. John actually walked the walk, and gets criticism for it!

In any case, John has not been a fan of American Republicans/conservatives before. He was particularly vocal in his distate for George W. Bush.

Because of his politics, I don’t know what exactly motivated Elton John to reach out to Rush in Hawaii. But the fact that he did and the friendship that developed is very telling of John’s character. For that alone he deserved a “Sensible Liberal” post, but being on my blog vaca (which I’m still on, technically!) I didn’t get to write one.

Well, here’s one for him now, because for the second time this month he’s dared to go against the global Leftist grain:

Elton John rocks Israel after other artists cancel
Jun 18, 4:16 AM (ET)

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) - A concert by Elton John has given Israelis a boost after a string of cancellations by other world-famous artists.

The British rocker performed late Thursday in front of a screaming crowd of nearly 50,000 fans at a Tel Aviv stadium.

John, who wore blue-tinted sunglasses, told the audience those cancellations “ain’t gonna stop me from playing here, baby.”

Recent cancellations by the Pixies and Elvis Costello, who cited Israeli government policies, have added to Israel’s growing sense of isolation.

John swiped at those artists, saying, “We do not cherry-pick our consciences,” before hitting the opening chords of his 1972 hit “Crocodile Rock.”

To say the least, this whole thing with Israel–“peace” flotilla thing is so infuriating. Israel is the most democratic and humane country in the Middle East, and are in the Leftist world’s crosshairs because they have the audacity to defend themselves when agitated by the thugs that surround them. And I personally take the Left’s aversion toward Israel as veiled anti-Semitism. Helen “Go back to Poland” Thomas might agree.

It might sound cliché, but I consider this is a very dangerous time for Israel. Not only is the world on its back for perceived indiscretions, but she no longer has its most stalwart and powerful ally—the U.S.—on its side.

I just came back from a conference of several hundred Jews where I was virtually the only right-of-center person there. While I didn’t push political conversation, it was a very safe bet that I was the only one who didn’t vote for Obama and the only one who regrets that he is the president. President Golden Calf’s ultra-liberalism trumps all other transgressions to my fellow Jewish friends. And his treatment toward Israel, especially in light of the beating she’s taking from the rest of the world, is proof of that.

Is Elton John still a flaming (bad word choice?) liberal? Of course he is. But that doesn’t make these actions any less honorable.

Meanwhile, I wonder if my friends will have second thoughts about any artists who might have cancelled concerts in Israel.

Or will they keep them on their iPod’s singing along with them about love and peace and unity and togetherness. All while riding along in their fuel-efficient cars which still don Obama-Biden bumper stickers.

Oy.

Sensible Liberal: The New York Times

Yes, friends. Somewhere pigs are flying and Hell is one huge glacier.

Shortly after doing this post quoting an article by Kris Kobach on Arizona S.B. 1070, I discovered this: The New York Times, to its credit, published this Opinion piece from Prof. Kobach, which contains even more liberal myth-busting.

Why Arizona Drew a Line
April 28, 2010

… Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.

Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:

It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.

“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.

The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.

State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.

And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

Congrats.

Who the heck at the NYT allowed this to go to print!?

Sensible Liberals: The 34 Democrats Who Voted NO

The health (s)care bill last night was actually bi-partisan—bi-partisan opposition, that is. For what it's worth, these are the 34 Dems who voted no yesterday. And if any of them are in your district, call and thank them. They deserve it:

Rep. John Adler (N.J.), Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.), Rep. Michael Arcuri (N.Y.), Rep. John Barrow (Ga.), Rep. Marion Berry (Ark.), Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.), Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.), Rep. Bobby Bright (Ala.), Rep. Ben Chandler (Ky.), Rep. Travis Childers (Miss.), Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.), Rep. Lincoln Davis (Tenn.), Rep. Chet Edwards (Texas), Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), Rep. Tim Holden (Pa.), Rep. Larry Kissell (N.C.), Rep. Frank Kratovil (Md.), Rep. Dan Lipinski (Ill.), Rep. Stephen Lynch (Mass.), Rep. Jim Marshall (Ga.), Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Rep. Mike McMahon (N.Y.), Rep. Charlie Melancon (La.), Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho), Rep. Glenn Nye (Va.), Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.), Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.), Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.), Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.), Rep. Zack Space (Ohio), Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.), Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.), Rep. Harry Teague (N.M.)

Sensible Liberals: 9th U.S. Circuit Court Upholds "Under God"

Freedom 1, Michael Newdow 0 (well, technically 1)

The Creator, to whom our Founders looked to for guidance in the formation of their fledgling republic, is surely smiling down on us today. A double blow was handed to athiest Michael Newdow and those who have sought to pervert the notion of “Separation of Church and State”—which doesn’t even appear in the Constitution but in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson decades after the Constitution was ratified.

Yesterday evening AP reported:

Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional.

In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected arguments by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the phrase violates the separation between church and state.

Newdow’s previous lawsuit against the pledge in public schools reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004. But the high court said he didn’t have the legal standing to make the challenge on behalf of his daughter.

So Newdow, who is a doctor and lawyer, filed a similar challenge on behalf of other parents who objected to their children being required to recite “under God.”

In a separate ruling Thursday, the appeals court also upheld the use of the phrase “In God We Trust” on coins and currency.

These two rulings are tremendously surprising, to say the least, given they were made by the notoriously leftist 9th Circuit Court. Then again, even a broken clock is still right twice a day.

Greg Halvorson at American Thinker quips:

The Court set Mike down. And the reason is that the Founding Fathers embraced God. Separation of church and state, constitutionally, meant that no specific religion was to be sanctioned, and that worship should be local and free of coercion. 

In more news (bad, if you’re atheist), the Court also upheld “In God We Trust” on coins and currency. Looks like Mr. Newdow will have to write checks.

And Robert Moon at the Conservative Examiner says:

Imagine that. “Pro-tolerance,” “pro-diversity” liberals really don’t have a constitutional right to deny everyone else free religious exercise.

Indeed.

By the way, can—and will—Newdow appeal? Any Constitutional law scholars out there?

Sensible Liberals: Starbucks Refuses to Cave to Gun-Control Crowd

I would think it be safe to say that Starbucks is a liberal “crunchy granola,” “save the planet,” “we are the world” type of company. That doesn’t stop me from being a complete Starbucks addict. Yes, it’s a little pricey, but I looove the stuff.

But the company is actually the classical liberal type. That is, they actually support the civil rights for Americans of all stripes, unlike the modern leftist liberal who believes dissent is patriotic and free speech is protected for them, but for no one else (namely: conservatives).

Starbucks proved this already when they adorned their cups with quotes from various personalities—both liberal and conservatives. That was their shout-out to the First Amendment of our Constitution.

Now Starbucks is giving a shout-out the Second Amendment. In typical modern liberal fashion, gun-control nuts have been putting pressure on the company to refuse to serve customers bearing (legal) firearms, despite the fact that these customers are in compliance with local and state open-carry weapon laws.

But Starbucks isn’t caving to this ban-happy fascist movement:

Starbucks Sticks to Gun Rights Policy at Stores
Wednesday, 03 Mar 2010

Coffee chain Starbucks Corp. is sticking to its policy of letting customers carry guns where it’s legal and said it does not want to be put in the middle of a larger gun-control debate.

The company’s statement, issued Wednesday, stems from recent campaign by some gun owners, who have walked into Starbucks and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry weapons openly in public places. Gun control advocates have protested.

The fight began heating up in January in Northern California and has since spread to other states and other companies, bolstered by the pro-gun group OpenCarry.org.

Some of the events were spontaneous, with just one or two gun owners walking into a store. Others were organized parades of dozens of gun owners walking into restaurants with their firearms proudly at their sides.

Now, gun control advocates are protesting the policy. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, launched a petition drive demanding that the company “offer espresso shots, not gunshots” and declare its coffeehouses “gun-free zones.” And Wednesday, that group planned to deliver 28,000 signatures to the coffee giant’s headquarters in Seattle. …

More than a dozen pro-gun supporters, some with Starbucks coffee cups in hand, chanted during the press conference, at points interrupting speakers.

“I think the (Brady campaign is) trying to strong-arm private businesses into banning the rights of the people,” said Bev Carman of Everett, Wash. Carman held a sign that said: “Criminal Control not Gun Control.”

Businesses can choose to ban guns from their premises. And Starbucks said Wednesday that it complies with local laws in the 43 states that have open-carry weapon laws.

“Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position,” the company said in its statement. …

But leftists don’t care about the law, let alone the Constitution. They have an agenda to pursue. And if they want something banned—whether it be guns or salt or trans-fats or incandescent lightbulbs or SUV’s or plasma TV’s or conservative talk-radio—they will do whatever it takes to get it banned. (Not abortions though. That’s a right. And besides, how dare you impose your religion on them!) And they will seek to destroy whatever individuals or businesses don’t get on their fascist bandwagon.

Hey lefties, if you don’t like Starbucks allowing customers who are in complete compliance of the law, then get your coffee somewhere else. It’s a free country. (And that’s not a cliché; you truly need to be reminded.) I, on the other hand, will be doing by best to continue patronizing this chain with gratitude.

And for any of you who get your coffee outside the home, visit your local Starbucks and buy a cup—in the name of liberty.

Sensible Liberal: Jon Stewart

Jon Stewart is no fan of conservatives/Republicans. But yesterday he had a little to say to Keith Olbermann following his immature rant and ad hominem attacks against Scott Brown [h/t RealClearPolitics]: Click here for the video.

On his impression of him, Olbermann gave Stewart a B-.

Sensible Liberal: Joe Lieberman

Joe Lieberman is the quintessential sensible liberal. Politico and others reported yesterday:

Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid has said the Senate bill will.

“We’re trying to do too much at once,” Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now.”

Asked about Lieberman’s threat to filibuster a final vote on the Reid plan, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “I haven’t seen the report from Sen. Lieberman or why he’s saying what he’s saying. I think Democrats and Republicans alike will be held accountable by their constituents who want to see health care reform enacted this year.”

Lieberman said that he’d vote against a public option plan “even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line.”

And here’s an interesting little tidbit:

His comments confirmed that Reid is short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill out of the Senate, even after Reid included the opt-out provision. Several other moderate Democrats expressed skepticism at the proposal as well, but most of the wavering Democratic senators did not go as far as Lieberman Tuesday, saying they were waiting to see the details.

This just underscores what conservative pundits (e.g., here) have been pointing out for months: It’s not the GOP would put the nail in the coffin of ObamaCare; it’s moderate Democrats! Even the NY Times can’t ignore this inconvenient truth this morning.

Ever since Lieberman sided with George W. Bush on Iraq, my lib-Dem friends and relatives have been calling him “crazy.” (That’s what lefties seem to call their opponents when they run out of other names. Sarah Palin, according to many, was “crazy” too.) Yet this is the party that threw Lieberman under the bus, while embracing megalomaniacal totalitalitarians like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Hope&Change (not to mention Arlen Specter!)

Speaking of crazy, Meir Finkelstein at NewsBusters reports that Keith Olbermann accused Lieberman of being on the take from insurance companies in his state, and that’s why he’s threatening to block Reid’s irreproachable plan. OK, Keith, now how do you explain all the other Democrats’ opposition?

Keep speaking truth to Democrat power, Mr. Lieberman. I don’t agree with you on everything, but I agree with you on this.

Sensible Liberals: House Dems Against ObamaCare (23 of Them!) [UPDATE 9/9: Make that 44!]

Here’s a dirty little secret. If H.R. 3200 does not get passed, it won’t be because of the Republicans; it will be due to the lack of Democrat support:

Already, 23 Dems have said they will vote ‘no’ on healthcare reform
By Mike Soraghan and Michael M. Gleeson - 09/08/09

At least 23 House Democrats already have told constituents or hometown media that they oppose the massive healthcare overhaul touted by President Barack Obama.

If Republicans offer the blanket opposition they’ve promised, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can afford to lose only 38 members of her 256-member caucus and still pass the bill.

Most Democrats opposed to healthcare reform argue it costs too much, imposes a new tax and fines businesses that don’t provide insurance to employees. Some fear that the bill would subsidize abortion. […]

The following Democratic lawmakers have indicated opposition to the healthcare plan moving through the House.

John Adler (N.J.)
Jason Altmire (Pa.)
John Barrow (Ga.)
Dan Boren (Okla.)
Rick Boucher (Va.)
Allen Boyd (Fla.)
Bobby Bright (Ala.)
Travis Childers (Miss.)
Jim Costa (Calif.)
Henry Cuellar (Texas)
Parker Griffith (Ala.)
Frank Kratovil (Md.)
Betsy Markey (Colo.)
Eric Massa (N.Y.)
Jim Matheson (Utah)
Charlie Melancon (La.)
Walt Minnick (Idaho)
Tom Perriello (Va.)
Earl Pomeroy (N.D.)
Heath Shuler (N.C.)
Bart Stupak (Mich.)
John Tanner (Tenn.)
Gene Taylor (Miss.)

Warner Todd Huston at the Publius Forum blog writes:

One of the standout quotes from The Hill’s coverage is a Pelosi spokesman’s reply to reporters about the bill:

“The Congress will pass and the president will sign this year health insurance reform that will lower costs, retain choice, improve quality and expand coverage,” said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

Think about the utter illogic in this sentence.

The bill will lower costs? But, won’t that mean cuts so that costs go down? Yes, of course it will.

Yet…

The bill will retain choice? Wait a minute, if costs are cut, then services will have to be made harder to get or even non-existent! How do you cut costs but keep all “choice” the same?

Yet…

The bill will improve quality? For everyone? But how can we do that when we’ve slashed prices and cut services?

Yet…

The bill will expand coverage? After cutting costs and services, how is it possible to expand any thing?

This is Congressional falderal at its worst.

Falderal? I actually had to look that word up. You learn a new thing every day!

The "magic" number is 38: If 15 more House Dems decide to oppose the bill, Nancy and pals will be in trouble. So it's an important fact to know: This debate does not cut as clearly along party lines as some opportunistic liberal/Democrat politicians and commentators would have us believe.

If any of these Dems represent your district, call them and thank them!

UPDATE 9/9: Make that 44!

Sensible Liberals: Helen Thomas and Chip Reid

This, in my opinion, is quite a story. A blasting of the Obama administration came from an unlikely source yesterday: Two mainstream and notably liberal White House reporters - Helen Thomas and Chip Reid - turned the tables on the Obama head propagandist Robert Gibbs, charging the administration with fixing the health care town hall meetings, "pre-packaging" questions, and essentially controlling the whole thing.

The video of the confrontation is absolutely delicious:

Why would two notoriously liberal establishment journalists suddenly turn on an administration they've heretofore been cheerleading for? My guess is it's an ego/pride thing. The rigging of the Huffington Post "reporter" by the Obama team must have infuriated professionals like Thomas and Reid. And if there's one thing you don't want to do, it's upset a news media type with a holier-than-thou complex.

No doubt this confrontation makes the Obama administration look very bad. How it will affect them in the long run might be too soon to tell, but I wouldn't skate on thin ice with Helen Thomas. The woman's been a White House fixture since JFK. She even invoked Nixon, saying: “Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control [the media]. They didn’t try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets?They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them." Damn, that's serious! Careful, Obama, your approval numbers are slipping as it is. And you know what they say: Once you've lost "Aunt Helen," you've lost America.

Sensible Liberal: Keith Olbermann

Pigs are flying outside my window as I write this, but one thing I strive for on this blog, aside from the passionate expression of my views, is intellectual honesty.

So when Keith Olbermann criticizes Wanda Sykes for her Rush Limbaugh comments, I am compelled to acknowledge it.

>

Granted, Olbermann said Sykes was “99% within the bounds of good taste and within the bounds of the funny.” If that were an actual calculation, Sykes would have had to speak for an additional hour and a half. It was more like 75-80%. But anyway … better than nothing.

That isn't to say Olbermann is completely off the hook in my book. He's recently called Miss California Carrie Prejean a “Nazi” for opposing same-sex marriage (which makes Barack Obama and tens of millions of other Americans Nazis too, I guess.) and has been waging this bet for Sean Hannity to be waterboarded.

So, it seems Olbermann has taken the first step is to acknowledge a fellow liberal has gone over the line. Next step: Buy yourself a mirror, and look into it.

Sensible Liberal: Camille Paglia

Salon editorialist Camille Paglia might very well be the last remaining liberal in the true sense of the word—as opposed to the liberty-suppressing “progressive” leftists who now occupy the White House and dominate both Congress and the mainstream media.

Why? Because Paglia is actually a liberal/Democrat who opposes the “Fairness” Doctrine! I know, I know, you’re shocked. I was too.

The blog Freedom’s Lighthouse posts this statement by Paglia:

If there’s anything that demonstrates the straying of the Democratic Party leadership from basic liberal principles, it’s this blasted Fairness Doctrine—which should be fiercely opposed by all defenders of free speech. Except when national security is at risk, government should never be involved in the surveillance of speech or in measuring the ideological content of books, movies or radio and TV programs.

Broadcasters must adhere to reasonable FCC regulations restricting obscenity, but despite the outlandish claims of Democrats like Sen. Charles Schumer, there is no analogy whatever between pornography and political opinion. Nor do privately owned radio stations have any obligation to be politically “balanced.” They are commercial enterprises that follow the market and directly respond to audience demand. The Fairness Doctrine is bullying Big Brother tyranny, full of contempt for the very public it pretends to protect. […]

Instead of bleating for paternalistic government intervention, liberals should get their own act together. Radio is a populist medium where liberals come across as snide, superior scolds. One can instantly recognize a liberal caller to a conservative show by his or her catty, obnoxious tone. The leading talk radio hosts are personalities and entertainers with huge rhetorical energy and a bluff, engaging manner. […]

Talk radio is a major genre of popular culture that deserves the protection accorded to other branches of the performing and fine arts. Liberals, who go all hushed and pious at Hays Code censorship in classic Hollywood, should lay off the lynch-mob mentality. Keep the feds out of radio!

Wow, how refreshing! Can you imagine any other liberal/Democrat actually opposing the free-speech-suppressing, First-Amendment-violating government-imposed “Fairness” Doctrine? ‘Cause I can’t. Doesn’t happen! If you are a liberal/Democrat and oppose it, then please, at the risk of isolating yourself from your ideological brethren, let me know!

Freedom’s Lighthouse also provides the audio from Paglia’s most recent appearance on the Mark Simone Show, during which she “blasts her fellow Democrats for even suggesting the idea of limiting Talk Radio or monitoring it in any way. She says they are ‘betraying the very soul of the party’ by suggesting such a thing.”

Ms. Paglia, hunker down in your bunker now. Because the Democrat destroyers of free speech (under the guise of “the public good,” of course!) will be coming for your head very soon!

Sensible Liberals: Wendy Button (Formerly?) of HuffPo Jumps Ship to McCain

Remember last week’s media fanfare when former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell jumped ship and endorsed Barack Obama? Notice we don’t get the same coverage when a former (or current!) Democrat endorses John McCain. At least an article exists when it happens; last month MSNBC had a story on some Hillary campaign staffers who rejected Obama for McCain.

Now, until yesterday I never even heard of Wendy Button, one of the many writers on the far-left Huffington Post webstie. And to be sure, she’s not as well-known as Colin Powell. But her message is just as strong. When she wrote this article on The Daily Beast, it certainly rustled feathers on the left, and warmed hearts on the right.

The article is quite long, but I think it’s too important to abridge it.

So Long, Democrats

Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not after the election of 2008. This transformation has been swift and complete and since I’m a woman writing in the election of 2008, “very emotional.”

When I entered this campaign, it was at the 2006 Edwards staff Christmas party. My nametag read “Millie Worker.” When former Senator John Edwards read it, he laughed and said, “That makes you like my parent.” He went on to say, “Would you please come down to Chapel Hill so we can talk about what’s coming up.” I sat in John and Elizabeth’s living room for two and half hours. I left North Carolina, energized about politics for the first time in months.

I didn’t hear from anyone for three weeks.

When I finally received the official offer, it was the kind of political offer that said, “Go away.” That happens. It’s their campaign and I just assumed that I had been pushed out. The problem was that I had canceled a number of freelance writing jobs because I had assumed that when John said, “Start right away” I would. I needed a job right away and so I took the one in front of me with Senator Barack Obama.

When we first met, Obama and I had a nice conversation about speeches and writing, and at the end of the meeting I handed him a pocket-sized bottle of Grey Poupon mustard so he wouldn’t have to ask staff if it was okay to put it on his hamburger. At the bottom of the bottle was the logo for “The South Beach Diet” and he snapped, “Oh so you read People magazine.” He seemed to think that I was commenting on his bathing suit picture.

I helped with his announcement speech and others. I worked in the Senate when he was in D.C. One day after a hearing on Darfur, we were walking back to the office. I was still hobbling from a very bad ankle injury and in a very kind and gentle way he offered his arm when we approached the stairs. But later in debate preps and phone conversations and meetings, I realized that I had made a mistake. I didn’t belong. No matter how hard I tried, my heart wasn’t in it anymore.

See campaigns get complicated when you’ve written for so many Democrats. Not only had I written for Senator Edwards, but I had also been Senator Hillary Clinton’s speechwriter. Senator Joe Biden is a “good looking” man and his care after my father almost died from an aneurysm is the kind of kindness you never forget. When I saw Edwards at a traffic light in D.C. about a year after our meeting, he asked for help and I did and it was an honor to help him with his concession speech. And when the primary ended, it was a privilege to help Michelle Obama with a stump speech, be considered as a speechwriter for the V.P. nominee again, and send friends in Chicago ideas until the financial crisis hit. This is what the Democratic Party has been for me; it’s family. Now, it doesn’t even feel like a distant cousin.

This drift started on a personal level with the fall of former Senator John Edwards. It got stronger during the Democratic National Convention when I counted the substantive mentions of poverty on one hand and a whole bunch of bad canned partisan lines against Senator John McCain. Some faith was lifted after Senator Hillary Clinton’s grace during a difficult hour. But that faith was dashed when I saw that someone had raided the Caligula set and planted the old columns at Invesco Field.

The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.”

Having worked in politics, I know that absolutely none of this is on the level. This back and forth is posturing, a charade, and a political game. These lines are what I refer to as “hooker lines”—a sure thing to get applause and the press to scribble as if they’re reporting meaningful news.

As the nation slouches toward disaster, the level of political discourse is unworthy of this moment in history. We have Republicans raising Ayers and Democrats fostering ageism with “erratic” and jokes about Depends. Sexism. Racism. Ageism and maybe some Socialism have all made their ugly cameos in election 2008. It’s not inspiring. Perhaps this is why I found the initial mocking of Joe so offensive and I realized an old line applied: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.”

The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.

Our economy is in the tank for many complicated reasons, especially because people don’t have enough money. So let them keep it. Let businesses keep it so they can create jobs and stay here and weather this storm. And yet, the Democratic ideology remains the same. Our approach to problems—big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies—is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?

That’s not exactly the philosophy of a Democrat. Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton “dishonest.” They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over “Bros before Hoes” or “Iron My Shirt.” Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She’s human.

But here we are about a week out and it’s déjà vu all over again. Really, front-page news is how the Republican National Committee paid for Governor Sarah Palin’s wardrobe? Where’s the op-ed about how Obama tucks in his shirt when he plays basketball or how Senator Biden buttons the top button on his golf shirt?

Oh right, this story goes to the sincerity of her Hockey Mom persona. What planet am I living on? Everyone knows that when it comes to appearance, there’s a double standard for women politicians. Remember the speech Speaker Pelosi gave on the floor the day of the bailout vote? Check out how many stories commented on her hair that day and how many mentioned Congressman Barney Frank’s.

Here we are discussing Governor Palin’s clothes—oh wait, now we’re on to the make-up—not what either man is going to do to save our economy. This isn’t an accident. It is part of a manufactured narrative that she is stupid.

Governor Palin and I don’t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor. I was one of those initial skeptics and would laugh at the pictures. Not anymore. When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper. When someone fights her way to get scholarships and work her way through college even in a jagged line, that shows determination and humility you can’t learn from reading Reinhold Niebuhr. When a mother brings her son with special needs onto the national stage with love, honesty, and pride, that gives hope to families like mine as my older brother lives with a mental disability. And when someone can sit on a stage during the Sarah Palin rap on Saturday Night Live, put her hands in the air and watch someone in a moose costume get shot—that’s a sign of both humor and humanity.

Has she made mistakes? Of course, she’s human too. But the attention paid to her mistakes has been unprecedented compared to Senator Obama’s “57 states” remarks or Senator Biden using a version of the Samuel Johnson quote, “There’s nothing like a hanging in the morning to focus a man’s thoughts.”

But thank God for election 2008. We can talk about the wardrobe and make-up even though most people don’t understand the details about Senator Obama’s plan with Iraq. When he says, “all combat troops,” he’s not talking about all troops—it leaves a residual force of as large as 55,000 indefinitely. That’s not ending the war; that’s half a war.

I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.

I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.

Before I cast my vote, I will correct my party affiliation and change it to No Party or Independent. Then, in the spirit of election 2008, I’ll get a manicure, pedicure, and my hair done. Might as well look pretty when I am unemployed in a city swimming with “D’s.”

Whatever inspiration I had in Chapel Hill two years ago is gone. When people say how excited they are about this election, I can now say, “Maybe for you. But I lost my home.”

Ms. Button, congratulations, you’ve passed the test. You’ve finally “grown up.” Now you just need to start looking for a new job. See, they don’t tolerate dissent on the left. For telling the truth, you’re about to find that out the hard way.

Sensible Liberals: Orson Scott Card & Michael Malone

As promised from the previous post, here are two articles by liberal/Democrat journalists who call on the carpet their own fellow liberal media brethren to cut the bias crap and get back to objective reporting before their profession is irreparably damaged. Needless to say, neither article appeared in a nationwide or large city paper.

The first article appeared already two weeks ago in the Greensboro, NC Rhinoceros Times:

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
Orson Scott Card

October 09, 2008

An open letter to the local daily paper—almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor—which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house—along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" (http://snipurl.com/457to): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign—because that campaign had sought his advice—you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension—so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie—that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad—even bad weather—on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth—even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time—and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter—while you ignored the story of John Edwards' own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women (NOW) threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe—and vote as if—President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats—including Barack Obama—and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans—then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.

The second one was published just this Friday at a Silicon Valley-based technology news website called Edgelings. It isn’t it telling that such important writing has to be relegated to the barely unknown regions of the media world?

[UPDATE 10/27: My bad. It also appeared on the ABC News website Friday.]

Editing Their Way to Oblivion: Journalism Sacrificed For Power and Pensions
By Michael S. Malone

The traditional media is playing a very, very dangerous game. With its readers, with the Constitution, and with its own fate.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer”, because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist.

You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I’m cut. I am a fourth generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kansas during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian). My hard-living - and when I knew her, scary - grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I’ve spent thirty years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national by-line before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I’m deeply ashamed right now to be called a “journalist”, you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

Now, of course, there’s always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you ten different ways to color variations of the word “said” - muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. - to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom. But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against their unconscious.

But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible. That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views, and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can’t achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty - especially in ourselves.

For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions. But I always wrote it off as bad judgment, and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy. Sure, being a child of the ‘60s I saw a lot of subjective “New” Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from ‘real’ reporting, and at least in mainstream media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth. I’d spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else’s work - not out any native honesty, but out of fear: I’d always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense . . .indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.

And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes - and if they did they were soon rehired into an even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who’d managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation’s leading newspapers, many of whom I’d written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

But what really shattered my faith - and I know the day and place where it happened - was the War in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia only carried CNN, a network I’d already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse. I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story ... but it never happened.

But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current Presidential campaign. Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass - no, make that shameless support - they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press. I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather - not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake - but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Gov. Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the Big Leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play. The few instances where I think the press has gone too far - such as the Times reporter talking to Cindy McCain’s daughter’s MySpace friends - can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha Bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side - or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for Senators Obama and Biden. If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as President of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography. That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: his job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote McCain’s lawyer, haven’t we seen an interview with Sen. Obama’s grad school drug dealer - when we know all about Mrs. McCain’s addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Senator Biden’s endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber. Middle America, even when they didn’t agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a Presidential candidate. So much for the Standing Up for the Little Man, so much for Speaking Truth to Power, so much for Comforting the Afflicted and Afflicting the Comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a manner that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it’s because we don’t understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide - especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50:50.

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes . . .and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain’s. That’s what reporters do, I was proud to have been one, and I’m still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren’t those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don’t see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn’t; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay-out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you’ve spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power ... only to discover that you’re presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn’t have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you’ll lose your job before you cross that finish line, ten years hence, of retirement and a pension.

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe -and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway - all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself: an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career. With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived Fairness Doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe, be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it’s all for the good of the country ...

Well-thought-out and truthful words from two diamonds in the rough. Unfortunately, I am convinced it will fall on the deaf ears of the liberal mainstream media, who has decided to abdicate all semblance of objectivity in this presidential campaign.

Sensible Liberals: Boston Women's Shelter and Atlantic Magazine Put Principle over Politics

Just to clarify, I’m not claiming women’s shelters are inherently “liberal;” I’m simply making an educated guess that the folks running such a place in a city like Boston likely vote Democrat. (What woman in their right mind would vote for an evil, sexist Republican anyway, right?) One can also safely bet that The Atlantic is a magazine both written and read mostly by liberal Democrats.

In any case, it’s nice to know there are some who still put principle over politics. It’s also nice to know that sometimes being a Hollywood celebu-tard doesn’t guarantee you a free pass when you say something mean-spirited and offensive, even against a Republican.

The first story is about obnoxious and talentless actress Sarah Bernhard (yes, actRESS, okay, Hollywood? She’s not an actOR. An actor is a man; an actress is a woman. Get it? Here they are used in a sentence: “It’s hard to decide who is more annoying, the actor Rosie O’Donnell or the actress Alec Baldwin.” So get over yourselves.).

Where was I? Oh yeah. Last month Bernhard said something about Sarah Palin being “gang-raped by my black brothers.” As a result, was disinvited to a benefit by a Boston women’s shelter:

BOSTON (AP) - A women’s shelter on Wednesday cut headliner Sandra Bernhard from its annual benefit after she said Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin would be gang-raped if she ever visited New York.

Bernhard’s made the remarks last month during her one-woman show in Washington before Palin visited New York to campaign. Bernhard said Palin would be “gang-raped by my big black brothers” during a diatribe in which she also criticized Palin for opposing abortion rights.

Many guests at Rosie’s Place, a Boston shelter, have been victims of violence, public relations director Leemarie Mosca said.

“In light of our mission, we don’t think violence against women is a laughing matter,” she said. […]

In a statement on her Web site, Bernhard said the gang-rape comment was part of a larger piece from her show about “racism, freedom, women’s rights, and the extreme views of Gov. Sarah Palin - a woman who doesn’t believe that other women should have the right to choose.”

“I certainly wish Gov. Palin no harm - I’d just like her to explain to me how she can hold such outrageous views ... and then go back to Alaska,” she said.

Yeah, right. Whatever helps you sleep at night, sweetie. The truth is, if Palin were swept up tomorrow by a NYC street cleaner, you’d be singing “Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead” along with your other We-don’t-mean-any-harm Hollyweird buds.

The second case is from a couple weeks ago. Photographer Jill Greenberg let her liberal politics trump her professionalism when she was hired by The Atlantic magazine. She boasted on her blog that she tricked McCain into posing in certain lights so that he looked dark, ominous, and evil. She also posted shots she doctored and added offensive speech bubbles. Kudos to The Atlantic for refusing to use her pictures, and for her photo agency Vaughn Harrigan for canning her. Even Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg—not a McCain/Palin supporter in the least—admitted on his own blog that she deserved to be fired for her lack of professionalism.

Sensible Liberal of the Week: Newsweek

We haven't had this segment for a while, mainly because there haven't been many sensible liberals or liberal institutions!

But it's true. The journal of über-leftists Evan Thomas, Jonathan Alter, Eleanor Clift, and Anna Quindlen actually has a FactCheck.org segment correcting the lies about Sarah Palin that apparently originated on the left-wing web and made their way to the mainstream media. (Of course, it was neither Thomas, Alter, Clift, nor Quindlen who wrote the segment, but ...)

Here it is:

Sliming Palin
False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.
Brooks Jackson, Jess Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller and Lori Robertson | factcheck.org Updated: 6:55 PM ET Sep 8, 2008

Summary
We've been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain's running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn't cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She's been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesy" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

We'll be looking into other charges in an e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.

Correction: In our original story, we incorrectly said that a few of the claims we examine here were included in the e-mail by Kilkenny. Only one of the claims – about the librarian's firing – was similar to an item in that e-mail. We regret the error.

Clarification: The summary originally said that Palin "tripled" per-student funding. The bill Palin signed will triple per-student funding for what Alaska calls "intensive needs" students, but has not done so yet. We also reworded that sentence to make clear the tripling is for funding for special needs students with particularly high costs. Special needs funding overall increased as well.

Analysis
Since Republican presidential nominee John McCain tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, information about Palin's past has been zipping around the Internet. Several claims are not true, and other rumors are misleading.

No Cut for "Special Needs" Kids
It's not true, as widely reported in mass e-mails, Web postings and at least one mainstream news source, that Palin slashed the special education budget in Alaska by 62 percent. CNN's Soledad O'Brien made the claim on Sept. 4 in an interview with Nicolle Wallace, a senior adviser to the McCain campaign:

O'Brien, Sept. 4: One are that has gotten certainly people sending to me a lot of e-mails is the question about as governor what she did with the special needs budget, which I'm sure you're aware, she cut significantly, 62 percent I think is the number from when she came into office. As a woman who is now a mother to a special needs child, and I think she actually has a nephew which is autistic as well. How much of a problem is this going to be as she tries to navigate both sides of that issue?

Such a move might have made Palin look heartless or hypocritical in view of her convention-speech pledge to be an advocate for special needs children and their families. But in fact, she increased special needs funding so dramatically that a representative of local school boards described the jump as "historic."

According to an April 2008 article in Education Week, Palin signed legislation in March 2008 that would increase public school funding considerably, including special needs funding. In particular, it would increase spending for certain special needs students that Alaska calls "intensive needs" (students with high-cost special requirements) from $26,900 per student in 2008 to $73,840 per student in 2011. That almost triples the per-student spending in three fiscal years. Palin's original proposal, according to the Anchorage Daily News, would have increased funds slightly more, giving intensive needs students a $77,740 allotment by 2011.

Education Week: A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs [the intensive needs group] to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.

Unlike many other states, Alaska has relatively flush budget coffers, thanks to a rise in oil and gas revenues. Funding for schools will remain fairly level next year, however. Overall per-pupil funding across the state will rise by $100, to $5,480, in fiscal 2009. ...

Carl Rose, the executive director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, praised the changes in funding for rural schools and students with special needs as a "historic event," and said the finance overhaul would bring more stability to district budgets.

According to Eddy Jeans at the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, funding for special needs and intensive needs students has increased every year since Palin entered office, from a total of $203 million in 2006 to a projected $276 million in 2009.

Those who claim that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent are looking in the wrong place and misinterpreting what they find there. They point to an apparent drop in the Department of Education and Early Development budget for special schools. But the special schools budget, despite the similar name, isn't the special needs budget. "I don't even consider the special schools component [part of] our special needs funding," Jeans told FactCheck.org. "The special needs funding is provided through our public school funding formula. The special schools is simply a budget component where we have funding set aside for special projects," such as the Alaska School for the Deaf and the Alaska Military Youth Academy. A different budget component, the Foundation Program, governs special needs programs in the public school system.

And in any case, the decrease in funding for special schools is illusory. Palin moved the Alaska Military Youth Academy's ChalleNGe program, a residential military school program that teaches job and life skills to students under 20, out of the budget line for "special schools" and into its own line. This resulted in an apparent drop of more than $5 million in the special schools budget with no actual decrease in funding for the programs.

Not a Book Burner
One accusation claims then-Mayor Palin threatened to fire Wasilla's librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication. The librarian was fired, but was told only that Palin felt she didn't support her. She was re-hired the next day. The librarian never claimed that Palin threatened outright to fire her for refusing to ban books.

It's true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla's librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time. But, as the /Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman/ (Wasilla's local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "

Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following her administration's agenda. Palin described her questions to Emmons as "rhetorical," noting that her questions "were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city." Actually, true rhetorical questions have implied answers (e.g., "Who do you think you are?"), so Palin probably meant to describe her questions as hypothetical or theoretical. We can't read minds, so it is impossible for us to know whether or not Palin may actually have wanted to ban books from the library or whether she simply wanted to know how her new employees would respond to an instruction from their boss. It is worth noting that, in an update, the Frontiersman points out that no book was ever banned from the library's shelves.

Palin initially requested Emmons' resignation, along with those of Wasilla's other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all of them (except one, whose department she was eliminating) to retain their positions. But in January 1997, Palin fired Emmons, along with the police chief. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons' firing, but said she didn't feel she had Emmons' support. The decision caused "a stir" in the small town, according to a newspaper account at the time. According to a widely circulated e-mail from Kilkenny, "city residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter."

As we've noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We don't know if Emmons' resistance to Palin's questions about possible censorship had anything to do with Emmons' firing. And we have no idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply isn't any evidence that we can find either way. Palin did re-hire Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the librarian's backing. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.

So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken "from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board"? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books, none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn't published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simple cut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology library Web page, which presents the list as "Books banned at one time or another in the United States."

Closet Secessionist?
Palin was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party – which calls for a vote on whether Alaska should secede from the union or remain a state – despite mistaken reports to the contrary. But her husband was a member for years, and she attended at least one party convention, as mayor of the town in which it was held.

The party's chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman Lynette Clark told the New York Times that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times and others that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology on the AIP Web site.

The director of Alaska's Division of Elections, Gail Fenumiai, confirms that Palin registered to vote in the state for the first time in May 1982 as a Republican and hasn't changed her party affiliation since. She also told FactCheck.org that Palin's husband, Todd, was registered with AIP from October 1995 to July 2000, and again from September 2000 until July 2002. (He has since been registered as undeclared.) However, the AIP says Todd Palin "never participated in any party activities aside from attending a convention in Wasilla at one time."

There is still some dispute as to whether Sarah Palin also attended the AIP's 1994 convention, held in Wasilla. Clark and another AIP official told ABC News' Jake Tapper that both Palins were there. Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla two years later. The McCain campaign says Sarah Palin went to the 2000 AIP convention, also held in Wasilla, "as a courtesy since she was mayor." As governor, Palin sent a video message to the 2008 convention, which is available on YouTube, and the AIP says she attended in 2006 when she was campaigning.

Didn't Endorse Pat Buchanan
Claims that Palin endorsed conservative Republican Pat Buchanan for president in the 2000 campaign are false. She worked for conservative Republican Steve Forbes.

The incorrect reports stem from an Associated Press story on July 17, 1999, that said Palin was "among those sporting Buchanan buttons" at a lunch for Buchanan attended by about 85 people, during a swing he took through Fairbanks and Wasilla. Buchanan didn't help matters when he told a reporter for the liberal publication The Nation on Aug. 29: "I'm pretty sure she's a Buchananite." But in fact, she wasn't.

Soon after The AP story appeared, Palin wrote in a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News that she had merely worn a Buchanan button as a courtesy to her visitor and was not endorsing him. The letter, published July 26, 1999, said:

Palin, July 26, 1999: As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect.

Though no reporter interviewed me for the Associated Press article on the recent visit by a presidential candidate (Metro, July 17), the article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla. As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla.

Palin actually worked for Forbes. Less than a month after being spotted wearing the "courtesy" button for Buchanan, she was named to the state leadership committee of the Forbes effort. The Associated Press reported on Aug. 7, 1999:

The Associated Press, Aug. 7 1999: State Sen. Mike Miller of Fairbanks will head the Alaska campaign chairman for Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes, campaign officials said. Joining the Fairbanks Republican on the leadership committee will be Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin, and former state GOP chairman Pete Hallgren, who will serve as co-chairs.

Still, after nine years, the truth has yet to catch up completely.

No Creationism in Schools
On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.

In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:

Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.

A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:

Palin, Oct. 2006: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.

After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. ... It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." The article was headlined, "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years.

That E-mail Author
Switching gears: Almost 100 readers have written to ask us if the many claims made about Palin in an e-mail written by someone named Anne Kilkenny are true. We can tell you that Kilkenny is a real person. (She was quoted by the Chicago Tribune, as we said above.) According to the New York Times, she's a Democrat. According to Kilkenny herself, Palin "has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship."

We're still analyzing Kilkenny's claims, and we will be posting something on this soon.

Republished with permission from factcheck.org.

Update, Sept. 9: We have revised this section dealing with accusations that Palin wanted to ban books from Wasilla's library to include more detail about what transpired at the time.

Sources
Sutton, Anne. "Governor signs revamped education package into law." Anchorage Daily News, 28 Mar. 2008.

Holland, Megan. "Intensive needs funding examined." Anchorage Daily News, 12 Jan. 2008.

Cavanagh, Sean. "Alaska Legislators Overhaul Funding." Education Week, 29 Apr. 2008.

Hawkins, John. "This Is The Sarah Palin Bikini Shot You Are Looking For And, No, It's Not Real." Right Wing News, 2 Sept. 2008.

Godel, Addison. "elizabeth - american flag bikini rifle." Posted on flickr Web site, accessed 8 Sept. 2008.

Joling, Dan. "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." The Associated Press, 3 Sept. 2008.

Hayes, Christopher. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite." The Nation "Capitolism" Web site, 29 Aug. 2008.

Palin, Sarah. "Letters from the People." Anchorage Daily News. 26 July 1999; 5B.

The Associated Press: "Forbes sets Alaska leadership team," 7 Aug 1999.

Kizzia, Tom. "'Creation science' enters the race." Anchorage Daily News, 27 Oct. 2006.

Paulson, Michael. "Sarah Palin on faith, life and creation." The Boston Globe, 29 Aug. 2008.

Tapper, Jake. "Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention." ABCNews.com, 2 Sept. 2008.

Tapper, Jake. "Members of 'Fringe' Alaskan Independence Party Incorrectly Say Palin Was a Member in 90s." ABCNews.Com, 1Sept. 2008.

Komarnitsky, S.J. "Wasilla Keeps Librarian, But Police Chief Is Out." 1 February 1997. The Anchorage Daily News, 8 Sept. 2008.

Stuart, Paul. "FROM THE ARCHIVE: Palin: Library Censorship Inquiries 'Rhetorical'." 18 December 1996. Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, 8 Sept. 2008.

White, Rindi. "Palin Asked City Librarian Whether She'd Ban Books." 7 September 2008. The Chicago Tribune, 8 Sept. 2008.

©2008