In what can only be viewed as an abandonment of fact for the purpose of Obama advocacy, the New York Times is reporting falsehoods about McCain campaign manager Rick Davis.  The denial from the McCain campaign is pretty categorical.

Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis — weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual — since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times‘ reporting, Mr. Davis has never — never — been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with…Paul Begala.

Again, let us be clear: The New York Times — in the absence of any supporting evidence — has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain’s long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006.

It’s not just misreporting but non-reporting that the Times is guilty of; both of the positive things that McCain has done, and of the negative connections to Obama.  Michael Goldfarb, in this statement, lists a few, but also the full Ayers connection that Mark linked to earlier.  If this tenuous connection to Fannie and Freddie is worth reporting on, certainly that should as well. 

The advocacy journalism of the Times is their right.  Pretending to be nonpartisan is not.

When even the New York Times suggests that we might be winning, or indeed may have already won, the major part of the war in Iraq, that’s saying something.

When I left Baghdad two years ago, the nation’s social fabric seemed too shredded to ever come together again. The very worst had lost its power to shock. To return now is to be jarred in the oddest way possible: by the normal, by the pleasant, even by hope. The questions are jarring, too. Is it really different now? Is this something like peace or victory? And, if so, for whom: the Americans or the Iraqis?

The answer is, “Yes, all of the above.”  Could it break down at a later date?  Yes; no peace this side of eternity is eternal.  But I would be extremely surprised if it breaks down back to rape rooms and all out firefights among Iraqis in some sort of true civil war.  (One militia a la Al Sadr does not a civil war make.)

This article, according to the bottom of the web page, appeared only in the local New York edition of the paper, as if only New Yorkers would be interested in it.  When the news agrees with the editorial page, it’s on the front page.  When it doesn’t, it’s relegated to a spot somewhere around the Parade magazine insert.  That’s what passes for “balance” at the New York Times.

On fault I have with many progressive/liberals blogs. By and large they fence with the wrong parties. They comment on and discuss conservatism by arguing with the current proxies, such as Mr Bush, Mr McCain and the host of pundits. Who they don’t attack or discuss are the ideas and arguments of the actual conservative foundational thinkers, that is economists like Friedman, Mises, and Hayek, or the social theories of Nisbet or Solzhenitsyn or the political ideas of Jouvenel and so on. On this part, I’d like to make it a more general plea. Liberals (Progressives) and Conservatives alike mourn the fact that the “other side” is bereft of “ideas”. If any of you out there know of a liberal or progressive blog offering counter arguments to those like Friedman, Hayek, Solzhenitsyn and so on, please let know. I’m starving for that sort of encounter in the ’sphere.

First, the New York Times, from July 3, 1984, on Geraldine Ferraro and the question of experience.

Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President? Surely Ronald Reagan does not subscribe to that maxim. Or where is it written that mere representatives aren’t qualified, like Geraldine Ferraro of Queens? Representative Morris Udall, who lost New Hampshire to Jimmy Carter by a hair in 1976, must surely disagree. So must a longtime Michigan Congressman named Gerald Ford. Where is it written that governors and mayors, like Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco, are too local, too provincial? That didn’t stop Richard Nixon from picking Spiro Agnew, a suburban politician who became Governor of Maryland. Remember the main foreign affairs credential of Georgia’s Governor Carter: He was a member of the Trilateral Commission. Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy. One might even say demography is destiny: this candidate was chosen because he could deliver Texas, that one because he personified rectitude, that one because he appealed to the other wing of the party. On occasion, Americans find it necessary to rationalize this rough-and-ready process. What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen. This rationale may even be right, but then let it also be fair. Why shouldn’t a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow? We may even be gradually elevating our standards for choosing Vice Presidential candidates. But that should be done fairly, also. Meanwhile, the indispensable credential for a Woman Who is the same as for a Man Who – one who helps the ticket.

(Emphasis added by NewsBusters.org.) 

And now, the New York Times, from September 11, 2008, on Sarah Palin and the question of experience.

It is well past time for Sarah Palin, Republican running mate, governor of Alaska and self-proclaimed reformer, to fill in for the voting public the gaping blanks about her record and qualifications to be vice president.

[…]

Voters have a right to hear Ms. Palin explain in detail her qualifications to be standby president with no national or foreign policy experience. More is required of any serious candidate for such a high office than one interview with questions put by one selected source.

The paper of record can’t seem to get its story straight.  Any wonder the old media is losing its credibility?

The Corner today points out a interesting survey done by David Frum. The Corner poster, Jim Manzi does some additional statistical musing and comes to a similar conclusion. However, this should cause a lot of consternation and navel gazing by anyone considers right vs left or conservative vs liberal a straightforward set piece ideological struggle. Consider that post in the light of two additional pieces of data:

1. This divide has been stable for some time.
2. and locally speaking therefore the policies set in place must therefore be supporting the stability of that divide.

The problem is that the Democratic states have been espousing policies that value equality and should be normalizing that which divides us. The GOP is ostensibly the free market party and supports business more and therefore should one would expect would widen the divide between the haves and have-nots.

However, the demographic data contradicts this. The Democrats are stronger in areas that are more divided and the GOP in areas with more equality. If this is stable … then there is an essential problem here.

Which means one might conclude that GOP policies do more to reduce the divisions between us and the Democrats reinforce them. So either politicians of both parties are lying all the time of that everyone is wrong about policy. That is, the policies that are assumed to reduce division in fact acerbate them and which are assumed to divide, don’t.

To restate, if you the reason you are a Democrat is because of the stated desired results that the Democratic platform espouses, you should switch parties because the actual entrenched policies of the other side empirically do what you find desirable and the policies of your party are empirically harmful. If on the other hand, you are rich and you want to get richer (and if it’s at the “expense” of the other guy you don’t care) then you should vote Democratic, because it is their policies which have been most effective at achieving that goal.

Mr Boonton (?) has offered that the Bush Doctrine would be an interesting topic for debate (This was originally written for my blog. If Dan Trabue, a frequent commenter here, who thought this style of debate has merit, wants to take this up here and on his blog … I’m game). I’ve suggested that a better method of debate might be for each side to express the other’s point of view. This might be viewed as a “scholastic” debate in that the medieval scholastics such as St. Thomas Aquinas used something like this dialectical method in their writings (they expressed their point, raised all the objections which and countered them in turn at which point the issue was proven). So, I suggest that my interlocutor and I enter into a short experiment in this sort of debate. I will restate the Doctrine as I understand it and then proceed. My suggestion would be that in the comments of this essay, I be corrected by my interlocotur and any number of other commenters until the expression of their objections (they are the “con” side) are represented. Then, I will restart their case (as amended) and offer a short rebuttal. It will then be my interlocutor’s opportunity to offer (on his blog) the case for “pro” side. I will correct, he will restate and rebut.

There is an understanding between nations that sovereign states cannot be attacked, and that any such attack is morally wrong earning at the least the condemnation of other nations and at the worst causes that state itself to lose the protection sovereign nations enjoy from such attacks. There are actions within a state that a state may take which cause that state to lose that protection, such as engaging in genocide within its borders. The Bush Doctrine holds that harboring and supporting terrorist organizations within a states borders is such an action which causes it to lose that protection.

The left and progressives hold the “con” position. That is, the support and harboring of terrorists within one’s state is does not cause that state to lose the protection from attack granted to sovereign states. I will now (below the fold) enumerate the reasons why. Commenters should either add reasons which I miss or correct my wording and correctly state the reasons I give.

Read the rest of this entry

For 8 years, liberals have accused George W. Bush of “shredding the Constitution”.  But as Rasmussen Reports notes, Obama supporters don’t even seem to take the Constitution seriously.

OK, civics question:  The job of the Supreme Court is to … what?  What is their primary purpose?  Wikipedia tells us that, while the Court’s purpose was a bit hazy during the early years of our country, it finally congealed.

Initially, during the tenures of Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court lacked a home of its own and any real prestige.

That changed during the Marshall Court (1801–1836), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison) and made a number of important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional balance of power between the federal government (referred to at the time as the “general” government) and the states. In Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts. Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Supreme Court was the body entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.

The Supreme Court is to rule on the constitutionality of the cases, and the laws involved with them, which are brought before them.  That’s their job.  But then, if you don’t know that, or consider the Constitution to be two-century-old Silly Putty, that may alter your perception.

Which takes us back to Rasmussen, where, for starters, the overall numbers seem passable, but not what I would have hoped.

Most American voters (60%) agrees and says the Supreme Court should make decisions based on what is written in the constitution, while 30% say rulings should be guided on the judge’s sense of fairness and justice.

But take a closer look, and you’ll note that one’s perception of the Constitution alters your vote.

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

The better your grade in social studies, or the better you know how the US government was intended to work, the more you’re likely to vote Republican.  If you think that, in order to change the laws, you just need to change the courts, you’re both badly mistaken from a civics point of view (that’s for the legislature) and likely to misuse the system (e.g. gaining same-sex marriage by judicial fiat rather than legislation). 

And you’re most likely a liberal.

The recent buzz around the conservative blogosphere (and a bit on the liberal side, too) is that Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews will no longer be anchoring MSNBC’s election coverage specials. 

I have never considered hosts of opinion shows — including Matthews and Olbermann, as well as O’Reily, Beck and Dobbs — as examples of bias at a network one way or the other.  The sum total of “opinionators” and their leanings at a network might be indicative (i.e. if they all lean one way or the other), but their specific pronouncements never seemed to me to be fair game for claiming bias.  Of course they’re biased; that’s their programs’ stock in trade.  They have an opinion, and it comes out in their “Talking Point Memo” or their interviews or whatever.  The bias is the purpose for the show.

On the other hand, bias when it comes to those in the more pure journalistic endeavors — news anchors and reporters — those folks have a higher standard to attain to.  Their stock in trade is their even-handedness and objectivity.  When they abdicate that responsibility, then I see it as fair game for scrutiny.

In this, MSNBC crossed way, way over the line putting Matthews and Olbermann in the anchor chairs for their convention coverage.  The idea that they thought they could get away with this and still insist they’re objective and balanced strained credibility to the breaking point.  All the networks had other opinion folks on to give their takes on the events of the day, and that’s fine, too.  But MSNBC put guys with their own opinion shows in the anchor chair during two events that are already very partisan.  This says a lot about the editorial leanings at the network.  At least they’re doing the right thing now, though why they thought this was ever a good idea is beyond me.  The liberal bias in the editorial room is probably mistaken for “mainstream”.

Ed Brayton, normally quite accurate in his reporting, titles a post of his, Another Palin Lie. Ed states,

And Stephen Foley, at The Independent, has an article titled, Sale of Alaska’s state jet on eBay revealed as a lie. From Foley’s article,

Yet, here are the lines from Sarah Palin’s speech, at the RNC, in which she references said plane:

That’s it. No other references to the sale of the jet was made in her speech. Astute observers will note that she does not state that the plane was sold on eBay, nor does she state that it was sold for a profit.

It ain’t there, fellas.

Do you think, just a thought here, that her intentions (at that point in the speech) were to emphasize her attitude towards wasteful spending, and not to give a detailed accounting report of how Alaska unloaded it’s luxury jet?

Did she imply, in her RNC speech, that she had actually sold the plane on eBay? Could be. Yet, did any intrepid journalists or Democratic party operatives, armed with the not-so-secret data of the plane’s actual sale, trap Palin by asking her for specific data on how the plane was sold? Are you kidding? That would mean actually trying to get to the truth of the matter.

Truth be told, we must rewrite Foley’s paragraph, from above, as follows:

Sarah Palin bolstered her reputation as a reformer – and got one of her biggest cheers in her Republican convention speech last week – when she said she had sold put the governor’s official jet on eBay as her first act on taking office in Alaska.

Words… just words.

Note: However, John McCain’s statement, referenced above, seems to be a different matter entirely. Maybe he should just let Sarah speak for herself.

Sarah Palin is confusing the Left and the mainstream media.

And should we be surprised? In their myopic view of the world, they lack the ability to focus in on anything but that which surrounds them – anything but that which they are already engaged with. Within the realm of their understanding it seems to be nothing short of ludicrous that John McCain would seriously present the likes of Sarah Palin as candidate for Vice President of the United States. Their refined rationalism recoils at the thought of a right-wing, former small-town mayor, gun-lovin’, pro-life, Bible-believing woman being second in command – a mere heartbeat away from becoming POTUS. Indeed, the vile attacks levied against Palin, since her addition to the ticket, are all too telling.

John Podhoertz links to a NY Times article (HT: Crunchy Con) which illustrates the myopia of the media. From the NY Times article,

You mean that, as a Christian, she believes that the sovereign God (of the Bible) has… a will? That said God also has… a plan? And that we are to pray to said God for his will to be done through… his plan?

Horrors!

Perhaps the reporters for the NY Times piece, in their zest for research, should do a bit of it on what constitutes the Christian faith, not to mention finding out what the Bible says on the subject.

Better yet, how about they take Melinda’s suggestion, and listen to some of the sermons from the pastor at the church which Palin attends (sort of an end-around on the whole Jeremiah-Wright thing).

Or, maybe, listen to the excitement of the people…

I read this post on the TalkLeft blog by “Big Tent Democrat” last Sunday.  It’s regarding the issues surrounding Sarah Palin’s reassigning of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, allegedly because he wouldn’t fire Palen’s sister’s estranged husband.  BTD takes fellow liberal blogger Josh Marshall to task for his coverage of the issue, specifically over the fact that Marshall seems to take all the accusations against Palin at face value (guilty until proven innocent) and Marshall’s contention that this kerfuffle may hurt Palin politically.

For starters, the Left seems to see this entirely in a political lens.  BTD notes:

Let’s face it, Marshall’s interest, and everybody’s for that matter, is almost entirely based on the political implications of this story. And here is what Marshall is missing – the story is likely to have little political implications for Sarah Palin. And if there are any, they are likely to be positive.

Quite an honest admission from BTD, who reiterates this point at the end of the post.  Not mentioned in this post or Marshall’s is that, while there has been an investigation opened into this, Palin hasn’t been subpoenaed — because she’s been so forthcoming!  This is another example of what I’ve noted before; Palin seems to be the kind of politician everybody says they’d like and wish there were more of.  And indeed this corruption-fighting, cooperative governor enjoys 80%+ approval from her constituents.

But Big Tent Democrat goes over the accusations and the facts of the case and find no “there” there, which to me is the larger point.  So many on the left smell blood in the water, because it’s all political.  In the meantime, there’s no credit given for the unusual openness shown by Palin simply because she’s of the wrong party.

Hey liberals.  You’re watching the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and booing Jimmy Stewart (in a brilliant disguise).

UPDATE: John Hinderaker at PowerLine notes that the NY Times called itself “squeamish” about covering the John Edwards “love child” story, and had to (in their words) devote more time to the “big issues facing the country”.  But today, they had 3(!) front page stories on Bristol Palin.

Times’ Public Editor Clark Hoyt said of the Edwards coverage, “I do not think liberal bias had anything to do with it.”  I’m sure he said it with a straight face, too.

The Catholic church has had to correct the thinking of some Democrats in the past in reference to the church’s position on abortion.  (Well, they’ve spoken out in the past; there’s no evidence yet that the actual thinking was corrected.)  Most recently, the Speaker of the House herself has come under fire for misrepresenting Church teaching in order to buttress her own views.

Politics can be treacherous. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi walked on even riskier ground in a recent TV interview when she attempted a theological defense of her support for abortion rights.

Roman Catholic bishops consider her arguments on St. Augustine and free will so far out of line with church teaching that they have issued a steady stream of statements to correct her.

The latest came Wednesday from Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, who said Pelosi, D-Calif., “stepped out of her political role and completely misrepresented the teaching of the Catholic Church in regard to abortion.”

It has been a harsh week of rebuke for the Democratic congresswoman, a Catholic school graduate who repeatedly has expressed pride in and love for her religious heritage.

Enough “pride” and “love” for her to, y’know, accept her Church’s teaching?  Apparently not.  The “steady stream” of corrections don’t seem to do much.  More below the fold…

Read the rest of this entry

If Barack Obama can only answer the question,

“At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”

with,

“Answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade,”

Then he is declaring at least two things:

1. he does not have the ability, knowledge, or wherewithal to determine the answer, and
2. he is incapable of understanding any answer that he may eventually determine, or be educated on

That he is incapable of determining any answer stems from the fact that the question Rick Warren posed was improperly qualified with a subjective “in your view” loophole. Such a loophole opened the door for a subjective, “I’m personally opposed to abortion…”, rhetoric. Yet, despite the loophole, Obama could do no better than give a non-answer, thereby displaying either supreme ignorance, or supreme deceit.

Mr. Obama, if you cannot determine, even within the vagueness of an “in your view” opinion context, when a baby gets human rights, how can you justify supporting an abortion-friendly policy which could very well, and indeed does, violate the human rights of “babies” across this country? Wouldn’t the mere fact that you proclaim ignorance on the issue mandate that you take the safer stance of protecting the rights of the unborn?

Yes, Mr. Obama, the answer to that question is way above your pay grade, as is the office of President of the United States. You, sir, are either an ignorant fool, or a self-serving, platitude preaching, substance devoid politician, attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of many an American citizen.

Matthew Yglesias:

Watch in amazement as John McCain condemns Russia for having the temerity to cross an international boundary — “in the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”

We all recall, of course, John McCain’s outrage when the United States violated this rule back in 2003.

So James Taranto’s prediction has quickly come true.  Which got me wondering; how many dozen UN resolutions does it take before an invasion is OK by international standards, and how many resolutions was Russia enforcing when it invaded the Republic of Georgia?

[tags]Mathew Yglesias,John McCain,Russia,James Taranto,Best of the Web Today,United Nations,Republic of Georgia[/tags]

James Taranto, writing for the Wall St. Journal, tried to anticipate an argument by anti-war types:

Here’s what’s going to happen next: Someone will argue that America lacks the "moral standing" to oppose Russian intervention in Georgia, because we intervened in Iraq "without U.N. approval." When the U.S. liberated Iraq, of course, it was acting to enforce the Security Council’s own resolutions. So America’s acting to overcome U.N. fecklessness will be invoked as an excuse for Russia’s unprovoked violation of another country’s sovereignty. U.N. idolatry runs counter to the U.N.’s own purported reason for existing.

As blogger TigerHawk notes, though, they may not ever make that argument because they won’t have much of anything to say.  After checking off the many groups that have nothing to say about it (and crediting the one that did), he concludes:

So far, at least, it is safe to conclude that these organizations are not so much anti-war as they are anti-American and anti-Israeli. It is useful to clear that up.

Since that post, two sites have said at least something about it.  Democracy Now has conducted an interview with a retired Air Force Colonel about the history in the region.  The Stop the War Coalition has an opinion piece that essentially states that Georgia is as much to blame for the conflict.  But there is still basically no real outrage.  Pretty much all quiet on the anti-war front.  And if the only wars that they are against, or even bother to work up a sweat about, are those involving the US or Israel, then I’d say they need to relabel themselves or lose their own moral authority.

[tags]moral authority,anti-war,Democracy Now,Stop the War Coalition,James Taranto,Best of the Web Today[/tags]