What A Difference Eight Years Makes

Just in case this email wasn't forwarded to you & you still think the media treats both parties & ideologies in an even-handed, fair manner:

January 21st
1. Outgoing President George W. Bush quietly boards his helicopter and leaves for Texas, commenting only: "Today is not about me. Today is a historical day for our nation and people."

Eight years ago:
1. Outgoing President Bill Clinton schedules two separate radio addresses to the nation, and organizes a public farewell speech/ rally in downtown Washington D.C. scheduled to directly conflict with incoming President Bush's inauguration ceremony.

January 21st:
2. President Bush leaves office without issuing a single Presidential pardon, only granting a commutation of sentence to two former border patrol agents convicted of shooting a convicted drug smuggler.

He does not grant any type of clemency to Scooter Libby or any other former political aide, ally, or business partner.

Eight years ago:
2. President Clinton issues 140 pardons and several commutations of sentence on his final day in office. Included in these are: billionaire financier, convicted tax evader, and leading Democratic campaign contributor Marc Rich; Whitwater scandal figure Susan McDougal; Congressional Post Office Scandal figure and former Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski; convicted bank fraud, sexual assault and child porn perpetrator and former Democratic Congressman Melvin Reynolds; and convicted drug felon Roger Clinton, the President's half-brother.

January 21st:
3. The Bush daughters leave gift baskets in the White House bedrooms for the Obama daughters, containing flowers, candy, stuffed animals, DVD's and CD's, and heartfelt notes of encouragement and advice for the young girls on how to prepare for their new lives in the White House.

Eight years ago:
3. Clinton and Gore staffers rip computer wires and electrical outlets from the White House walls, stuff piles of notebook papers into the White House toilets, systematically remove the letter "W" from every computer key-pad in the entire White House, and damage several thousand dollars worth of furniture in the White House master bedroom.

Headlines 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Headlines January 21st:
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $170 million"
"Obama Spends $170 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration.

[ed. note: per an earlier correction to an earlier blog post, the $170 million spent on Obama's inauguration included security costs, etc., not included in the $42 million total spent on Bush's]

(h/t Valerie V.)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

What Does $170 Million Get You? (UPDATED)

In 2005, the leftists and the media (but I repeat myself) complained about the $42.3 million price tag of President George W. Bush's 2nd inaugural. They trotted out all sorts of numbers about how much body armor that money could buy, how many children it would insure, etc., etc.

Barack Obama's inaugural will cost $170 million.

Where are the critics now? How much body armor, kiddie insurance, recession relief, whatever, would $170 million buy?

The truth is this: I don't begrudge Democrats their little self-congratulatory post inaugural parties. Live it up & enjoy it while it lasts.

All I'm asking for is a little less hypocrisy out of them and their fellow travelers in the media.


20 January 5:28pm BST: Catherine C. emailed and corrected my math. According to the article I cited, the party/parade portion of Bush's 2nd inauguration was $42.3 million & Obama's is estimated at "roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more." No word on the security costs associated with Bush's inauguration.

OK, so the 4-1 spending difference was inaccurate, but the point remains. In 2005 the Democrats & the media (again, repeating myself) hammered on the Bush administration for the extravagance in a time of war.

4 years later, we remain at war in Iraq & Afghanistan. Add to that the current economic crisis. Things have improved (vastly) in Iraq but remained the same or gotten worse in Afghanistan. Is Obama's inauguration cost any less extravagant? Yet the tone of the media has changed. "For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy."

Again, I don't begrudge the Democrats their party day. It's private money, let them spend it how they like. I'm just calling for a little more equity, a little less hypocrisy, a more evenhanded evaluation by the liberal media. That's all.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Democrat Double Standards (UPDATED)

Rich Lowry:

The three most prominent Democrats in national politics during the past two years -- Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton -- are all ascending from the U.S. Senate to the executive branch, creating open Senate seats for Democratic governors to fill. And, oh, what a spectacle it is -- of corruption, insider dealing, treacly dynastic politics and rank nepotism. . . . We might be witnessing the most brazen bout of cronyism since Napoleon made his relatives and minions rulers of conquered Europe. Or at least since the Kennedy family arranged in 1960 to have John Kennedy's pliable Harvard roommate keep his Massachusetts Senate seat warm until Ted turned 30 and could inherit -- er, get elected to -- it.

These things, these double standards, sometimes appear so blatantly obvious, I wonder if I'm playing the role of Captain Obvious when I bring them to your attention.

There are two groups who apply double standards to questions of nepotism, cronyism, & corruption in politics--they are, of course, the Media and the Democrat party. I get that these things afflict both parties (it's why Republicans got tossed out in 2006), my only point is that the response to them is not the same.

Democrats and their fellow travelers in the press do all they can to explain things away (see Rod Blagojevich, Caroline Kennedy--exhibits 349, 350) or, failing that, just drop their party identifier--the big "D" for Democrat--when they write about them in an article.

If, reading your local crappy newspaper, you start to think to yourself, "Wow. Republicans are always committing crimes and whatnot and are corrupt nepotistic hypocrites." Just remember, add the D for Democrat anytime you can't find the party identified and that ought to even things out.

(h/t Scott L.)

UPDATE 8:50pm PST: (h/t Ace) More Evidence: Ohio Attorney General, Mike Dann (D), is one of those corrupt Democrats I wrote about above. Some 20% of MSM reports about the man mentioned his party affiliation. Yup. I know.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Joe The Plumber Is Awesome

This is a great example of media bias and liberal attitudes towards blue collar workers wrapped up in one clip.

You mean you don't want to take other people's money? Why not, Joe?

"Principles."

Notice the liberal CNN talking head's complete disdain for Joe's dreams of owning his own plumbing business.

"You're nowhere near having enough money to do that!"

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Media Bias In Virginia

This is suppression of speech. There are already so few conservatively inclined news outlets, once Obama signs off on a new Fairness Doctrine, even the wildly successful conservative talk radio will be lost to Democrat regulators' definitions of equal speech. And you thought this stuff only happened in Soviet Russia.

Brendan Miniter from todays WSJ Political diary on the depth and breadth of liberal media bias:

This presidential campaign has seen its share of biased reporting in favor of the Democratic candidate, but two Virginia newspapers have done something that was suppose to be taboo in journalism. The Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Virginia Pilot knocked down the wall separating the newsroom from the ad department. But instead of the ad men pressuring news reporters, it was the newsroom dictating terms to the ad department.

The National Rifle Association sought to take out ads in the run-up to Election Day criticizing Barack Obama's record on guns. According to Editor & Publisher, the pro-gun ads were to run in at least three states, printed on the plastic bags in which subscribers receive their morning newspapers. One state targeted by the NRA was Virginia, which Mr. Obama hopes to poach from the Republican column tomorrow. But the Virginia Pilot rejected the ad outright, while the Times-Dispatch initially accepted it and then changed its mind.

What happened? The ad met a wall of resistance from the paper's newsroom and some in the executive suite. In a story explaining why it eventually rejected the ad, the Virginia Pilot quoted its own business development manager Alan Levenstein: "We want to make sure that we provide equity for all sides, make sure that there is a level playing field."

Huh? Issue ads aimed at influencing the political process are routinely published by newspapers. If readers might misconstrue an ad as an editorial endorsement, editors afford themselves the right print the word "advertisement" prominently on the ad. And anyone with an opposing view is free to take out their own ad or write a letter.

Thankfully, some newspapers understood the real issue here: editorial bias. The Lexington Herald-Leader told its readers that, unlike the Virginia papers, it had "decided to distribute the bag because of [the paper's] belief that free speech extends to advertising."

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Media Bias Re: Bill Ayers & Barack Obama

So strong is the media inthetankedness for Barack Obama that they are now claiming (see CNN) that a magazine outing the relationship between Obama and unrepentant former terrorist Bill Ayers--National Review--actually debunked the relationship. Um, no.

See Stanley Kurtz, leading researcher on this question, at NR's The Corner:

A CNN article on Sarah Palin’s criticism of Barack Obama’s relationship to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers actually cites National Review as one of the publications supposedly debunking Palin’s point. How CNN can cite National Review this way is a mystery to me. Maybe we’ll have to set up an NR "truth squad."

I was very briefly on CNN immediately after the McCain campaign called for me to be given access to UIC library. A CNN reporter interviewed me, and almost every question was an attempt to challenge the significance of the Obama-Ayers link. I answered every query in detail. When the report finally aired, my points about the significance of the Obama-Ayers connection were cut. And now, CNN is actually claiming NR as an ally in its effort to undercut Palin. Incredible.

You can't make this stuff up.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

2008 Vice Presidential Debate Live Blog

8:39pm: I'm off to dinner with friends. More thoughts and analysis when I get back.

8:37pm: I'm biased. I like Sarah Palin. But I was nervous about how things were going to go down tonight. I think she did really well--really, really, well. She matched up with Joe Biden. All she needed to do was play to a draw or lose slightly. I think the objective analysis will show that she did at least that and maybe even beat the 35 year senator.

8:34: Check out The Corner, if you can get it to load, for additional debate analysis.

8:31pm: Another reader texts: "I actually really like both of them. Biden is an effective politician, and very likeable."

I agree. I prefer Biden to Obama.

8:29pm: Palin does a better job hammering the core points and staying on message than her top-of-the-ticket runningmate does.

8:25pm: Sarah Palin's consistent effort to look into the camera and address the American people is effective. It's as though the parties flipped positions on this from last week. Obama was the one who looked in the camera and McCain addressed the moderator. Now, Biden addresses the moderator and Palin addresses the people. I think I like the latter style.

8:14pm: Palin: I would lead in energy policy--energy independence--and reform of government.

8:12pm: Same reader texts: "I feel like Biden is trying to sell me a used car."

Are you buying?

8:10pm: There's already a poll up at Drudge on who won the debate and, surprise, Sarah Palin is winning.

8:05pm: When Sarah Palin responds to questions with related examples from her time as Governor, that comes across as substance versus the "campaign promises" of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

8:02pm: Joe Biden: "...Serbs, Croatians, & Bosniacs."

Are they related to Obamaniacs?

8:01pm: Joe Biden is clearly smart and has a command of the issues, but his responses feel like Washington DC. His qualifications, obfuscations, caveats and nuance are diminishing his responses.

7:55pm: Taking a page from Al Gore's book, Joe Biden lets out a big, long sigh.

7:53pm: "No one in the Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden." Says Joe Biden. I love it when athletes and actors speak in the 3rd person.

7:49pm: Sarah Palin is a strong advocate for Western Civilization, America, & conservatism. She's doing better this week than McCain did last week.

7:46pm: I'm glad to hear Biden speak so strongly in advocating support of Afghanistan and fighting terrorists. I think they'll quickly withdraw and not stick to talking points if/once they're elected, but still, I'm glad to hear it.

7:45pm: A reader texts: "She looked nervous at the first and is now getting into a groove." Yup.

7:42pm: This debate is not going how Biden's handlers told him. He underestimated her. His advisers underestimated her. And she's taking it to him. Personally, I blame the media. Democrats' friends in the MSM lulled them into a false sense of security. Again.

7:36pm: "All of the above" is a great energy soundbite.

7:33pm: One of my friends here watching comments: 'Last week we got to see Barack Obama and John McCain. I want to see what Joe Biden and Sarah Palin are about. And I think Sarah Palin is doing a better job of telling us who she is and what she's done.'

7:20pm: Biden isn't smiling anymore. Looks like Sarah Barracuda has got him rattled.

7:16pm: Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor--income redistribution--is, in the words of Joe Biden, "fairness." This harks back to Barack Obama's insistence in the primaries that he would raise taxes on the rich purely because of "social justice."

7:08pm: This is the Sarah Palin I saw at the RNC.

7:04pm: This is the Obiden talking point: Blame the crisis on the last 8 years of economic policy. It's not true, but it's an easy, simple narrative.

7:02pm: No admission from Gwen Ifill about her book.

6:56pm: Carl Cameron: Look for Sarah Barracuda to come out swinging.

6:52pm: Dick Morris: Obama peaked too soon.

6:27pm: I really, really dislike Barney Frank. He has been Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac's biggest single House enabler. Even when Democrats weren't in the majority, he led Democrats in their efforts to stonewall Bush's reform efforts in 2003 and McCain's efforts in 2006. Since he's been chairman, he's done no better.

I don't like Bill O'Reilly's politics and I think he could do a better job of hanging this stuff on Barney Frank, but at least his target is the right one. Barney Frank is a bad, corrupt congressman.

6:24pm: Orrin Hatch thinks the Ifill thing is a joke, too.

6:11pm: Karl Rove on O'Reilly: 'Biden has said a lot of things over the last few weeks that would sink another Vice Presidential candidate.'

6:01pm: Just took a call from a reader who observed that these debates are one of the things that make this country great. It's true. While many complain about the combativeness of American politics, I think it's a great thing. In this country we fight it out in debates and columns and speeches.

Tonight, 60+ million Americans will watch Sarah Palin and Joe Biden--without the media filter--and decide for themselves.

5:52pm MDT: In today's edition of the WSJ Political Diary, John Fund opines on Gwen Ifill:

The McCain campaign says it has no problem with PBS newswoman Gwen Ifill serving as moderator of tonight's vice presidential debate despite the fact that she has written a glowing portrait of Barack Obama that will be published on Inauguration Day. Obviously, her sales will be higher if Mr. Obama wins -- a glaring conflict of interest for a supposedly neutral moderator.

Why the sanguine reaction of Team McCain? "It's probably not the greatest thing on Earth that she is in that role and it's probably going to really force her to be fully even-handed," Thomas Patterson, professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, told the Boston Herald. "If anything, she's got to be really careful with her questioning of Sarah Palin."

Indeed, one GOP campaign veteran recalled a similar concern during tense negotiations in 1980 over who should moderate a debate between then-Vice President George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. Debate organizers were certain the Bush forces would veto Dan Rather, the famously liberal CBS Evening News anchor. But actually they had no problem with him. "Earlier that year, Bush had had his famous on-air confrontation with Rather during which he had chided him for his lack of objectivity and recalled how he had left the news set during a live broadcast out of pique," the veteran told me. "We knew then that if Rather were the moderator, he would be hemmed in and would be forced to be fair."

In the end, the duties of moderator went to someone else, but the lesson applies to this year's debates. Ms. Ifill will likely be on her best behavior precisely because of the controversy over her book.

UPDATE 5:35pm MDT: Shepard Smith just posed the hypothetical on Fox News: 'Can you imagine if it were a conservative reporter writing a book about John McCain or Sarah Palin?'

Such a scenario would never occur because they would scream bloody murder.

Here's the thing about Gwen Ifill: The fact that everyone now knows she's writing an Obama book (to be released on inauguration day) will probably neutralize her in-the-tankness for Obama. At a minimum, people are now aware of her bias.

McCain on Fox News: 'I Wish They Picked A Different Moderator'

So that problem is resolved.

But how about the basic dishonesty of using her position as a moderator for profit? There is no doubt that if the debate commission knew she were writing a book about Presidential politics--especially Barack Obama--that they would have chosen someone else.

Whatever credibility this woman once had, it's gone. Along with the rest of the pro-Obama media.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

NewsBusters, Iowahawk, &c.

Just posted my latest piece at NewsBusters. In it, I look at a new web-service--SpinSpotter--which claims to be able to detect spin and bias in the media. Hopefully it can live up to its promise.

SpinSpotter: Exposing Media Bias or Reinforcing It?

And in other news, Iowahawk listed his latest bit of satire. This time he extols the many virtues of pigs. Enjoy!

Pigs are intelligent! Say what you what you will about pig noises and eating habits, one thing is certain: pigs are smart. In fact, scientists estimate that on average pigs have three times the intelligence of the pit bull, and this is why the hog shed is often referred to as "Harvard of the barnyard." Despite their undeniably superior mental powers, pigs somehow still trail dogs in popularity, which can only be attributed to America's pernicious anti-intellectualism.

Regarding lipstickgate: Obambi backers, do you think your guy is the smartest candidate for POTUS in the history of candidates for that office, or don't you? If he's so smart, do you really think he's not going to get the verbal association of "bulldog w/ lipstick" and "lipstick on a pig?"

Like I said yesterday, I don't care, really, that he resorts to personal attacks. Why shouldn't he? His followers (correction: supporters) at DU, dKos, & HuffPo all do it when they get beat, it's only fair he get to do so too.

Or, as Jim Treacher puts it:

I'm having second thoughts. I think he meant exactly what the crowd obviously thought he meant, because it fits a clear pattern of behavior.

Putting aside the astonishing smear campaign against Palin, which is definitely not grassroots, just look at some of Obama's past antics. In no particular order:

* What was the Obama camp's initial reaction to Palin's announcement?

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same."

Yeowtch! And her palmprints on the podium were still warm. (Quite a contrast to McCain's ad, less than 24 hours earlier, congratulating Obama on his achievement.) But then, later that same day, Obama walked it back:

"I think that... campaigns start getting these hair triggers and the statement that Joe and I put out reflects our sentiments," he said, according to the pool report, apparently criticizing his staff for going overboard, as he did occasionally in the primary.

So he's not the hostile, panicky jackass. It was his staff's fault. Yes We Can... Pass the Buck!
[...]

And he goes on from there to list numerous other examples.

Obama and his campaign are far too calculated and clever for this to have been unintentional.

Finally, for anyone who cares, or who also happens to be a fan of a sucktastic baseball team: What it's like to be a Mariner's fan.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.