Don't Just Take Our Word For It

Thanks to John Fund and the folks at Political Diary (h/t: S. Lybbert) for bringing this fantastic quote to our attention--further illustrating the degree to which the MSM has become a shill for Pope Barack Obama I:

I think that the coverage [Barack Obama] is getting is beyond presidential. It's papal. I mean, a president never has all three anchors on the way with him. . . . If you needed any evidence of how much in the tank the mainstream media are, this is it.

This, in addition to the NYT's refusal to print Senator McCain's op-ed unless he conform to their preferred policy, well, can we make it any clearer than that? The one redeeming glimmer of a silver lining is the fact that John Q. Public seems to be wise to the machinations of the Democrat Party's media-arm. Per Rasmussen by way of Politico:

In an automated survey of 1000 likely voters, Rasmussen found that 49 percent of respondents believed reporters would favor Obama in their coverage this fall, compared with just 14 percent who expected them to boost Sen. John McCain. The number of Americans who see pro-Obama bias in the press has increased by five percent in the last month.

According to Rasmussen’s numbers, less than a quarter of voters – 24 percent – now trust the press to report on the election without bias

Click this link to get the full Rasmussen report.

So much for objective journalism. Of course, we kind of expected this from the NYT. After all, this is the same New York Times that gave a price break to the Moveon.org slander of General Petraeus last September.

We take some comfort in knowing that the NYT's stock price is at a 20 year low.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

McCain's New York Times Op-Ed

We woke up this morning intending to write a kind of an update about Iraq and how much things had improved over the last 18 months, 12 months, and 6 months. We were going to talk about how courageous Senator McCain had been to defend The Surge just over a year ago when it was so unpopular and looked like it would probably cost him the Republican nomination.

All of those things remain true--and Senator McCain should be rewarded for taking an unpopular stance that has proved right and good.
(something like this: Victory in Iraq)

But it's all been kind of preempted by the New York Times' refusal to print Senator McCain's op-ed just a week after printing Senator Obama's. This doesn't surprise us. It fits right into the ongoing narrative of Obama's fawning press coverage. At this point, can anyone deny it?

Obama commits gaffes every day ('I'll be President for 8-10 years') but it is not reported the way it would be if Senator McCain made the same remark. And if the shoe were on the other foot about Iraq--if Senator McCain were the one who wanted to abandon Iraqis to civil war and sure genocide, you better believe every liberal talking head would write numerous 'I told you so' op-ed pieces about how The Surge proved him wrong.

And the New York Times won't even print an op-ed piece in which Senator McCain challenges Senator Obama on Iraq. He challenged Obama the way the MSM should have been doing all along--by pointing out that Obama has been and remains wrong about Iraq. That his policy does not match reality. That he said ridiculous, unsupportable things in the primary ('I will withdraw within 16 months regardless of what's happening on the ground or what my commanders tell me') to get elected by the Leftists in his party.

Is it too much to ask that his press entourage actually ask Senator Obama a tough question? Is that allowed?

Oh well, the least the rest of us can do is link to the text of Senator McCain's op-ed piece at Drudge. Check it out here.

This is just another example of Barack Obama, Guitar Hero candidate:

He's plays well to a crowd, but give him a real guitar and he's a disaster.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Memorial Day 2008

As citizens of the freest, greatest country in history, we express our gratitude for those who throughout our history, have paid the last full measure so that we, collectively, could enjoy the fruits of liberty.

Thank you also to the many men and women--among them, some of our friends--who even now defend the freedoms we hold so dear. May we never take our liberty, or those who defend it, for granted.

*UPDATE 2:53pm MST: Congressman Sam Johnson, Air Force vet, on what you can do to support the troops this Memorial Day.

**UPDATE 5:27pm MST: In today's New York Times, ignore the main op-ed and read Bill Kristol's piece about remembering Memorial Day.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Weekend Links

It's not much of a link post--just three articles. But all three are very good.
(edit: 5 articles)
(2nd edit: 6 articles)

- First up, "Why $70 Million Wasn't Enough." This was maybe the most entertaining article we read last year. It's tangible proof of something we've discussed with the guys at Pendulum Politics--specifically, that CEO pay has to compete with the guys in hedge funds and private equity.

- Next, an enlightening article about Bill Cosby and black conservatism. It's good and informative, but reader beware w/regards to the author's interpretation of African American history.

James Q. Wilson has shown that slavery caused by far the greatest damage to the black family. And Thomas Sowell's research has proven that African American families were gaining ground economically on white families prior to Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" and some of the other bad policy to come out of that era.

- Finally, from Commentary magazine, an in depth look at "the anatomy of The Surge."

*UPDATE 11 May 11:58pm MST: (hat tip: S. Lybbert) A friendly reminder for those who still think we should/could exit Iraq and everything would be hunky-dory. Popular historian Arthur Herman wrote in the Wall Street Journal about the lives lost after the US withdrew its support in Cambodia and Vietnam. Democrats can close their eyes and plug their ears but it wasn't pretty.

In other news, we still fail to understand the logic of those who argue for intervention in Darfur, but want the US to immediately withdraw from Iraq. Uh, ok.

**UPDATE 11 May 11:59pm MST: (hat tip: Matt Lybbert) We're not experts, but we are economically literate. Check out this article by David Leonhardt in the New York Times on the future potential of economics to solve social problems. (yes, that New York Times)

***UPDATE 12 May 1:03pm MST (h/t: Matt Lybbert): Which of the three remaining candidates is least populist? We think that award should go to John McCain. You see, McCain remains in favor of Nafta and is one of the few and definitely the most visible politician arguing for the virtues of free trade. Check out this article, another from the NYT.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

New York Times: Playing (Republican) Politics

The big theme of this election is identity politics. Whether the voters is a woman, African-American, or Evangelical, it is automatically assumed that the voter will vote for the candidate that matches their minority profile. (we've mentioned it here and here)

But only some of these assumptions are somewhat true. As with any generalization, these broad brush strokes miss many of the other factors that play into a voters decision for whom to vote.

African-American voters in this election will tend to vote for Barack Hussein Obama to a greater degree than women will for Hillary Rodham Clinton or Evangelicals will for Mike Huckabee. MSM focuses many of their articles on the supposed breakup of the conservative coaltion less because it is an actual reality than because it is what they see in their own party of choice. If there is this much discontent and dissension in the Democratic party, then there must be the same thing going on with the Republicans. And even if it's not, they will play up any little bit of drama they can because, well, they can't afford to lose another Presidential election.

This is the same reason they play up an overblown division between the Republican presidential candidates. It is no secret that Mitt Romney is not John McCain's favorite person. Supposedly Mitt forgot to call McCain after his win in New Hampshire, or something. You'd think this was the party of teenage girls. It's also worth noticing that supposedly the "ill will" was precipitated by Mitt's money. This is taking populist class warfare to a whole new level. Now, not only do we have John Edwards "two America's," but we also have the New York Time's "two Republican parties." Right.

With the Democratic parties propaganda machine, er, the New York Times, even if there is no smoke, there's still a fire. And if they can report that money or religion or whatever is splitting Republicans, they will.

What they forget (and this is where we get back to indentity politics) is that most Republicans are not just social conservatives or fiscal conservatives or foreign policy hawks. Many, if not most, fit more than one of these categories. We, for example, fit all three. That said, when it comes time to vote, people will naturally gravitate to the party that answers the call of their highest order political priorities.

Peggy Noonan may be right; George W. Bush may have frayed the Reagan coalition. At the very least, they were disillusioned during the 2006 Congressional elections. But this does not mean that those principles ceased being important or that they wont turn out when they find a conservative candidate strong fiscally, socially and on social policy.

John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney are all capable of rallying these three groups. On one or more issues, they may have less appeal than another of the candidates or conservative pundits would like, but by and large they will be able to do what is necessary to appeal to those voters--especially when matched up against Hillary or Barack.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Maureen Dowd is a hack

This morning we received the following email, having been forwarded to us mass-style:

Hello Everyone:

New York Times columnist Maureen Down wrote a hateful, offensive, and untruthful article about the Mormon Church yesterday (Sunday, Dec. 9th). In it, she describes Church leaders as "authoritarian", asserts that the Church today does not "grant[] women and blacks equal status", and declares that Joseph Smith was a "lusty, charismatic Prospero." (Prospero, in case you are not aware, is a character in Shakespeare's The Tempest that uses sorcery to control the play's other characters.) She exclusively quotes Jon Krakauer (author of "Under the Banner of Heaven") as her "expert" on Mormonism.

Ms. Dowd's column falls far below the standards of professional journalism. She is loose with the facts. Her disdain for Mormons is apparent. You may recall that radio talk-show host Don Imus was forced to publicly apologize and leave his job for calling the women of the Rutgers basketball team "nappy-headed hoes." Ms. Dowd's comments were equally offensive to Mormons. I believe that she, like Don Imus, should apologize and lose her job.


Please take a few minutes to complete the following three steps:

1. Read the article entitled "Mitt's No JFK"

2. Send one short, RESPECTFUL email to publisher@nytimes.com and president@nytimes.com requesting that Ms. Dowd apologize and step down from her position.

3. Forward this email to all potentially interested friends/family in your email list.

Our first reaction to this email was surprise. We can't believe anyone still reads Dowd--a columnist whose scurrilous and spurious work would fit in better over at the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post.

If this email writer or anyone else thinks this is the first or worst or last of these types of columns, they had better brace themselves. Attention: much, much more to follow.

When you do write your email to the NYT publisher and president, make it a form letter. You'll be filling in a lot more names before this campaign is over.


***Update 1:26pm MST: From the Washington Post, a more "balanced" look at Mormonism (you know, one that doesn't rely on sensationalist John Krakauer for its information) by Michael Otterson entitled "Are Mormons Christians?"


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

A Few Good Democrats

Never say we don't give credit where credit is due.

On Monday, an Op-Ed by two long-time Democratic critics of the war in Iraq was published in the New York Times. It bears repeating that Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack are neither neoconservatives nor Republicans. They are Democrats. Add them to the short list of Democrats* who recognize the importance of winning in Iraq and see the progress made by Gen. Petraeus' surge strategy--the positive results of which we noted yesterday.

Their Op-Ed is worth the read. We also suggest reading a review of their article by a number of writers over at National Review Online.

Among the best responses to the article was one written by Senator John McCain, Republican Presidential candidate. We quote in full:

Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack have uncovered a truth that seems to escape congressional Democrats: General Petraeus’s new strategy has shown remarkable progress. Earlier this month, on my sixth trip to Iraq, it was evident that our military is making dramatic achievements throughout the country.

Despite this progress, Democrats today advocate a precipitous withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. They are wrong, and their approach portends catastrophe for both Iraq and the United States. To fail in Iraq risks creating a sanctuary for al Qaeda, sparking a full scale civil war, genocide, and violence that could spread far beyond Iraq’s borders. To leave prematurely is to ensure just one thing: that we will be back, in more dangerous and difficult circumstances. We cannot and must not lose this war.

We must prevail. General Petraeus and his troops have asked Congress for just two things: the time and support they need to carry out their mission. They must have both, however much the congressional Democrats seek to withhold them. That is why I will keep fighting to ensure that our commanders have what they need to win this war.

I cannot guarantee success. But I do guarantee that, should Congress fail to sustain the effort, and should it pay no heed to the lessons drawn by Mr. Pollack and Mr. O’Hanlon, then America will face a historic and terrible defeat. Such a defeat, with its enormous human and strategic costs, will unfold unless we do all in our power to prevent it. I, for one, will continue to do just that.

If even some Democrats are willing to acknowledge the improvement in Iraq, we are left to conclude that the surge must be working.


*Isn't Senator Lieberman great?


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Pardon Libby

We've been reading the op-ed "soundoffs" section over at the Seattle P-I. It's part of our effort to avoid becoming as insular our liberal friends who continue to drink the kool-aid over at Daily Kos, The Nation, NYT op-ed, Washington Post op-ed.... uh, yeah, it might be a quicker exercise to list only the conservative outlets.

Predictably, they are all foaming at the mouth about the 30 month sentence given to Scooter Libby yesterday. Never mind that there was no original crime committed. Never mind that the prosecutor knew it wasn't Libby who leaked the information to the press, but rather Bush administration critic Richard Armitage. Never mind also that Libby's only crime was not being able to remember from whom he first heard about the leak. None of that matters. For the loony left, it's far more important that facts are bent to fit the conspiracy theories that soften their reality.

Kind of like the loony left's favorite accepted notion about Castro's Cuba--specifically, that health care down there is awesome(!!). Michael Moore produced his latest docu-drama based on that "fact." Forget for a moment that all the information we have about Cuba's health care comes from Castro's propaganda machine. He wouldn't lie about this stuff, would he?

But, like Miller, we don't want to get off on a rant here. The point is that the loony left substitutes "liberal talking points" for "facts." Kind of like the dustup between whacky Rosie and Elizabeth Hasselbeck on The View we watched on Youtube yesterday. Kind of like the ideological differences between the Democratic candidates in the debate the other day (sarcasm in print just doesn't work; there were no differences). All of this from the party that insists it is open minded and intellectually diverse. Has "pro-life Democrat" become an oxymoron yet?

So, for now, they get to rant about how Libby is the first of the administration "criminals" to face prison time. Hopefully, President Bush will soon pardon Libby, so then the loony left can add another layer of complexity to their favorite campfire conspiracy stories.


***Remember: D-Day Anniversary, 6 June 1944.***


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.