The most telling thing about the media hullabaloo over statements left-wing bloggers and pundits claimed were made by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh was how quickly “journalists” at CNN and MSNBC were to report them to their wide, but dwindling, audiences:

Funny how both of these networks found a quote that happened to be useful in bludgeoning a prominent conservative too good to check. I wonder when was the last time they got the same fact wrong when reporting a political story.

Emphasis added.  A statement “too good to check,” kind of reminds me of defense of shoddy reporting, “fake, but accurate.”

MSNBC’s David Shuster refused to apologize for claiming the conservative talker said something which he denied saying and which the network was “unable to verify“.

In their rush to report Rush’s racism, Shuster et al. ended up revealing their own real prejudices.  A prejudice, let me remind you, is

2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

These folks have a preconceived notion about conservatives in general and conservative talk show hosts in particular.  They think they’re racists!  They rush to report the quotes attributed to Limbaugh before (and without) having “sufficient knowledge” of the facts.  They base their hostility against Rush on his supposed characteristics.  There is no evidence from any of his public statements (delivered 3 hours a day, five days a week for twenty-odd years now) and writings that he supports slavery or defends the man who murdered Martin Luther King, Jr.

As Rush himself said:

I never said I supported slavery and I never praised James Earl Ray. How sick would that be? Just as sick as those who would use such outrageous slanders against me or anyone else who never even thought such things.

And how sick that people would use such spurious statements to smear Rush Limbaugh.  This is not to say one should never criticize the man, but criticize the words he actually spoke, in the context that he said them.  These pundits may have tried to smear Rush, but, in the end, they only tarnished their own reputations and revealed their own prejudices.  They have as narrow an opinion of conservatives as they allege Rush has of racial minorities.

When I read that GOP leaders in upstate New York had tapped a state legislator who backed the Democrats’ spendthrift “so-called stimulus,” I was astounded both how out of tune they were with the rank and file of our party and how clueless they were to the concerns of independent voters. They probably thought that by picking a social liberal, they could appeal to more moderate voters, as if the entirety of there party’s problems were related to its backing of social conservative causes and candidates.

Well, since Ms.Dede Scozzafava, the aforementioned state legislator, backed the “stimulus,” let’s check Recovery.gov to see just how this $787 billion plan is working out for her state.  With the Empire State receiving $59,970,000 in federal funds (of $750,000,000 awarded from this budget boondoggle, 656, that’s right, 656 jobs, by the government’s count, have been created (or saved).  That’s only 17.644 fewer jobs than the number of private sector jobs lost in the month of September (2009) alone.  That’ll should put a big dent in the state’s 8.9% unemployment rate.

That should provide one clue why rank and file Republicans (as well as a plurality of independents) aren’t satisfied with the GOP nominee in the upcoming special election in the state’s 23rd congressional district?

Ever since my Mom first read Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are when I was quite a young lad, I have loved the book. Indeed, it ranks as one of the favorites of my childhood. When I took some Facebook quiz to determine which character from children’s literature I most resembled, I came out as Max, the hero of this tale.

So, naturally, I’m excited to see the movie (now in theaters), perhaps as soon as this weekend. I have absolutely loved the trailer, perhaps that’s because of the absence of CGI to which we’ve become accustomed in so many movies which attempt to realize imaginary realms on the silver screen.

This trailer has a neat look, with these giant “puppets” prancing around in natural settings.  Now, just because the movie has a good look on a trailer doesn’t mean it will be entertaining, but the preliminary reports I have heard have all been good.

I wonder if the trailer would look as good as it does to eyes less acclimated to computer generated images of imaginary realms.

It is amateurishness, wrapped in naivete, inside credulity.

–Charles Krauthammer

If you want to understand why the Republican Party has been having difficulty in recent years convincing the American people that it stands for something, take a look at how Empire State Republicans have picked their candidates for two successive special elections.

Earlier this year, Republican leaders* in the state’s 20th congressional district tapped Assembly Republican Minority Leader Joe Tedisco to fill the seat of Kristen Gillibrand when Governor David Paterson picked her to replace Hillary Clinton in the United States Senate.  That political insider waited until about two weeks before the March 31 election to come out against the spendthrift “stimulus.”  His refusal to say how he would have voted on the biggest legislative initiative of that time period cost him the support of many Republicans (as well as fiscally conservative independents) and dampened the enthusiasm of others.

After initially leading in the polls, he lost by a whisker to Democrat Scott Murphy.

Party leaders in the adjacent 23rd District don’t seem to have learned much from this spring’s results when they picked a candidate to fill the seat of Rep. John McHugh, recently sworn in as President Obama’s Secretary of the Army.  Instead of tapping a fiscal conservative, they tapped another squishy Republican insider, state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava “easily,” according to the Wall Street Journal‘s John Fund, “the most liberal member of the GOP caucus in the state legislature, scoring a 15% rating on the Conservative Party’s scorecard.”  Apparently, party leaders thought support for “abortion-rights” could help her “appeal to independents.”  Well the latest poll has her “running third among independents.”

And the one who leads among voters unaffiliated with either party is Doug Hoffman running the Conservative Party ticket after party leaders tapped the more liberal Scozzafava (instead of him) as the party’s nominee. (more…)

Every now again, politicians get a gimme, an opportunity to show just how noble and broad-minded they are, how they can stand up to bigotry and narrow-mindedness without fear of hurting themselves politically.  Bill Clinton had that in 1992 when he condemned the race-baiting lyrics of Sister Souljah.

President Obama had just such an opportunity yesterday when Louisiana’s Republican Governor joined him at a town hall in New Orleans yesterday.   As this video from Politico shows, some people in the audience booed that good man and the President took them to task.  Well done, Mr. President, classy.

Perhaps, the President learned from his failure on Inauguration Day to quiet the boos against his predecessor, the then-outgoing President of the United States.  That was also a gimme.  He might on his first day in office have really inaugurated a new era of civility had he taken to task those who would so rudely register their disagreement with a hard-working civil servant.

Had he given that good man credit, he would have taken a huge step to fostering a new spirit of comity in our nation’s capital.

All that said, he did act with grace yesterday and defended the efforts of a member of the opposing party.  And such classy acts, even if easily performed, should not go unnoticed.  Kudos, Mr. President.

Already “subject to persecution and arbitrary arrest in Uganda,” gays could see their freedoms even further curtailed if a new bill becomes law.  Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, “includes a section that would introduce the death penalty for the offence of ‘aggravated homosexuality’“:

The bill proposes stricter penalties for homosexual acts, already illegal in the East African nation, and the death penalty for anyone who engages in same-sex relations with children under 18 and disabled people or who is HIV-positive while having gay sex.

Not just that, the bill would impose a seven-year jail sentence for the “promotion of homosexuality.”

Almost throughout human history, we’ve seen such laws.  And as gay advocates abroad work for their repeal, let this also serve as a reminder of how singular have been the cultural changes in Western societies these past few decades, allowing us to express ourselves without fear of prosecution and to live freely and openly without censure or stigma.

With California’s unemployment rate the highest it’s been since the year our junior Senator, Barbara Boxer, was born, I was wondering (yet again) what, in her 17 years representing the state in the United States Senate, that Democrat has done to create jobs in the Golden State.  Last month the LA Times reported, “There is no obvious engine of job growth to put California’s more than 2.2 million unemployed residents back to work quickly.”

2.2 million people out of work?  Well, the “so-called stimulus” which Mrs. Boxer supported did create 36,083 jobs, cutting that number by about 1.6%.  Oh, wait, that figure refers to the jobs created nationwide.  How many were created out here in the Golden State?  Well, let’s see Jim Geraghty was able to find out how many jobs were created in New Jersey and Virginia by going to Recovery.gov. so, let’s go there.  So, we find 2,260 jobs created (or saved) in the Golden State.

2,260 jobs created or saved, why that’s a whole one-tenth of one percent of the total unemployment in California.  Wonder if that will make up for the jobs lost by the climate control legislation she’s sponsored with John Kerry.

So, for voting to busy the federal deficit and racking up the debt to be passed on to her grandchildren–and their peers–Mrs. Boxer has helped create (or save) a paltry 2,260 jobs in a state with over 30 million people.  That’s about one-fifth the number of “net 12,300 jobs” California employers slashed in August alone.

And we don’t know how many jobs the Golden State will lose if her latest big government scheme is enacted.

Let’s hope we never find out.

Maybe gay rights advocates aren’t among the ten least powerful people in Washington.  Though I don’t think we should remove them from that list until we see a timeline for the introduction of, debate on and congressional vote for repealing the Clinton-era Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy.

Still, there is another sign (following its efforts to recruit Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman spearhead repeal efforts in the Senate) that the Administration may be working toward fulfilling the president’s campaign promise.  Over at Politico, Ben Smith reports that the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) has hailed the “appointment of retired Marine General Clifford Stanley as Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.”

Smith reports that SLDN spokesman Kevin Nix welcomes the move:

There were indications of seriousness of purpose on DADT repeal today by this White House with its intent to nominate an Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Dr. Stanley is likely to be the President’s key Pentagon player in the DADT debate and will be critical for the President in getting military uniform buy-in. Historically, the position of Under Secretary of Defense provides oversight of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

According to Smith, it would be Stanley’s job to implement — or repeal — DADT.  This definitely seems like a step in the right direction, so let’s hope the President makes a public statement indicating he has made repeal a priority.

I have now both skimmed (online) and read (a hard copy of) Zomblog’s post (which John linked yesterday) considering whether Kevin Jennings,Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools (AKA ”safe schools czar”) knew about the involvement of Harry Hay, a pioneering gay activist who inspired him, with the North American May Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a group which promotes sexual relationships between adults and teenagers.

There are two issues which come to mind.

First, did Jennings ever countenance Hay’s involvement in NAMBLA?   And from everything I’ve read (and I’ve read quite a bit & not just this article), there is no evidence that he did, none whatsoever.

Second, when Jennings offered effusive praise for the aging Communist, was he aware of his involvement in NAMBLA?  And if so, should he have made clear to denounce that involvement when he praised the man?

Here, the answer is not so easy.  There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest he was aware.  Jennings included a chapter from Stuart Timmons’ 1990 book, The Trouble with Harry Hay, in an anthology, Becoming Visible, which he compiled and edited.  Timmons’ book includes a section on Hay’s support of NAMBLA.  Zomblog suggests he must have read the entire book, but I wondered if it were possible someone had alerted him to the chapter and he read it without reading the entire book (as I often do when I find a section in a scholarly book relevant to my dissertation).

A second piece of evidence is that Jennings lived in New York in 1994 when an issue du jour in the gay community was Hay’s “very public spat with major mainstream gay organizations over their planned decision to ban NAMBLA from marching in the ‘Stonewall 25′ pride march in New York on June 26, 1994.”   (more…)

As part of the new spirit of comity which has defined American politics since the election of Barack Obama last November ushered in a “new kind of poiltics,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (of Obama’s political party) once again lashed out at health insurance companies:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., mounted a strong defense of a public plan at a news conference, contending that recent attacks from the health insurance industry should dispel any doubts about the need for it.

“Our House bill will have a public option,” Pelosi declared.

She referred to an industry-funded study that said insurance premiums would rise under the Senate Finance bill, and also referenced an insurance industry ad campaign targeted at seniors.

The speaker has been on the attack against health insurers for months, but the latest developments clearly strengthened her resolve to make them pay. She also said the House was considering adding to its health care bill a $6.7 billion annual fee on insurance companies that is part of the Senate Finance package.

Well, Nancy, if you’re going to “make them [the insurance companies] pay,” they’re going to have to get the money to foot your bill somewhere.  And how do such companies make money?  Got a clue, Madame Speaker?  Let me help you out here.  They get it from the premiums they charge.  So, if you make ‘em pay, they’re going to make us pay.  And that means, insurance premiums will rise,

Sounds like one of those self-fulfilling prophecies of which we’ve heard tell.

Oh, and notice something else in the article quoted above (and the reason we include this article in our “Media Bias” category). Yep, that’s right, the AP described the study as “industry-funded.”  When, however, you see a study which reaches a conclusion favored by the Democrats and authored by a left-wing think tank, they tend not to identify it as such.  Only studies they want to discredit are so labeled. (more…)

Few writers have defended first candidate, then President, Barack Obama as has scholar Camille Paglia.  But, she’s smart enough to realize his many errors.  And these she blames on a clumsy, smirky amateurish staff.  When one of her readers took issue with this defense, asking, “Has it occurred to you that maybe that is just who he is and the people he surrounds himself with are just a reflection of himself?“, she indicated she is beginning to lose patience with the Democrat:

You are correct to argue that the cluster of appointees around a person in power reflects his or her belief system and modus operandi. However, it is a mark of leadership to recognize the need for professional evolution beyond an old comfort zone. Obama is approaching a turning point which will define his political future, if he has one. He is surrounded by some mighty small potatoes who need shoveling into the dumpster. The petty provincials need to go, and far more sophisticated and world-savvy analysts must urgently be brought on board.

Emphasis added.  Wondering if the President has a turning point.  And she’ not sure that he does, meaning she’s not certain he may be able to fulfill his potential.

In the balance of her reply to the reader quoted above, she defends Obama the man while remaining “very critical” of many of his “actions or evasions.”  Wonder if her fellow Obama supporters will be calling her anti-American for cheering “when splendiferous Rio de Janeiro rightfully got” the Olympics and for faulting the president’s staff for sending him on a “fool’s errand” to beg for them.

And sounding like a lot of conservatives (and a number of liberals too), she questions his receipt of recent honor, contending that Obama

he has accomplished nothing thus far and did not remotely deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, a gift carrying a terrible curse. The Nobel should have been the crown of Obama’s career and not the butt of jokes.

Camille has much more, much much more and (as always) her posts merit your attention.  She is clearly losing patience with the man.

Her posts do show is that this Democrat has incredible appeal, even to thoughtful intellectuals like Paglia.   (more…)

Glenn Reynolds links an article which reports that First Hard Stimulus Data Finds Only 30,000 Jobs Saved or Created.

The Administration, however, cautions that this ”data was partial  – it represented just $16 billion out of the $339 billion awarded — but they said it exceeded their projections.”

Let’s see how much that is per job created (or saved).  When we divide $16 billion by 30,083, we get about $531,861.85 So, in the seventh months since the “stimulus” passed, the federal government has spent over half-a-million dollars for each new job, er, and, each job that might otherwise, just possibly have been lost.

UPDATE:  It exceeded their expectations that they would spent half-a-million dollars for each new job created or saved.  That’s government efficiency for you!

*I corrected the original figure in the title because I initially divided $16 billion by 30,000, leaving out 83 jobs.  I have since added them back in to my calculations.

In his campaign for the special election in California’s Tenth Congressional District, to fill the seat vacated when its then-representative Ellen Tauscher became Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, the Democratic candidate, California lieutenant governor John Garamendi accused his Republican opponent David Harmer of supporting “off shoring jobs,” citing a story from Utah’s Deseret News from April 23, 2004.

Problem was “that story wasn’t about the David Harmer running for Congress; it was about Utah’s executive director of the State Department of Community and Economic Development David Harmer.”

So, what does the Democrat do when alerted to this error?

Well, he takes a page from the playbook of the Democratic National Committee. He attacks his Republican opponent, you know the one whose campaign alerted him to the error:

The important point is that David Harmer opposes President Obama’s efforts to create jobs in the 10th congressional district, provide for our schools and children, repair our roads and highways, deliver much needed medical services, and fund research programs. The bottom line is that David Harmer’s positions are just out of touch with the people of the 10th congressional district.

Note the clever wordsmithing–he says opponent opposes President Obama’s efforts to create jobs.  And well, those efforts don’t seem to have amounted to much at least not in the Golden State.  If the number of new jobs in the state’s Tenth Congressional District is anything like the number of new jobs in the state at large, more jobs (many more) have been lost than have been “saved or created.” (more…)

Do you think President Obama would say during a nationally televised press conference that the NFL “acted stupidly” in its reaction to false statements attributed to Rush Limbaugh?

Of course not.

Racial politics is only one-sided these days in Obama’s America.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Wonder if White House Communications Director Anita Dunn’s afffection from Mao Tse Tung has any bearing on her animus against FoxNews.  That Communist oligarch didn’t have much stomach for an opposition press either.

In a speech earlier this year, she called the man who led a regime that murdered tens of millions of Chinese one of her two favorite philosophers, one of the two to whom she turns to most:

(Okay, okay, I agree Glenn Beck’s rant was a little over the top, but he did uncover and promote the video.)

Today, she claims she was joking.   Sure doesn’t look like it when you watch the clip.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post runs a puff piece on Dunn.  And  to show just how balanced that paper is (perhaps we might call it “the research, the communications arm” of the Democratic National Committee), they include a quote from Beck to show that people have been criticizing her.  Oh, and note how they describe talk show host, “the alternately rabid and weepy commentator“.

No wonder she doesn’t like FoxNews.  They don’t offer the same coverage of the White House as do her underlings in the White House press office.

With the Dow reaching–and remaining above–the 10,000 benchmark, there are signs of a “fledgling economic recovery.”  Inflation remains low meaning consumption to tick up.  Not just that, new “jobless claims [have] dropped to the lowest level since January.”  Still, “the drop isn’t yet steep enough to signal new hiring”.

Now, I’m sure the Administration is spinning this news as success for its “so-called stimulus.”  Even an AP reporter covering the economy echoes its talking points:  ”businesses that received federal contracts under the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus are reporting more than 30,000 jobs saved or created in the first months of the program.”  Emphasis added.  It’s the Obema team who came up with that impossible-to-prove assertion about jobs created or saved.

Perhaps, had the Administration not fallen for a Miss R. Scenario, they might have more credibility today.  Recall, the promises they made about what would happen if the “stimulus” were defeated.  We’d see unemployment rise to the level of the lighter blue line.

Well, the “stimulus” passed.  And unemployment has exceeded even that level.

Had the Preident lowered its expectations, not promising a quick reduction in unemployment and counseled patience, he might have more credibility  today on the economy.   There are, to be sure, clear sings of recovery.  But, even a news report, giving the Administration’s policies a favorable spin can’t find any real evidence of new jobs being created.

And with its assurances that unemployment would start declining this fall, that’s just what President promised.

(H/t for chart:  Gateway Pundit)

Can you imagine that in the dark days of the Bush Administration, AP had ran an article on how the Vice President was redefining the role of his office and primarily interviewed political aides to the then-President and their supporters and read like it had been drafted in the West Wing, with one critical quote added in for “balance.”

Well, take a gander at this puff piece on Joe Biden which lead the news on Yahoo!’s main page Wednesday night.  Here’s the toughest criticism of the Delaware Democrat we get.

South Carolina Comptroller Richard Eckstrom, who oversees stimulus spending in his state, says Biden may be “giving it all he’s got,” but states haven’t been given the tools they need to meet federal requirements, in particular reporting rules that arrived without money to help states meet them.

“Nebulous Washington didn’t think this one through very well,” Eckstrom said.

No mention of how his comments on jobs* being created are at odds with increasing job losses across the country.  No mention of fraud in the distribution the “stimulus” funds he oversees.  Only that one mention above of delays in the distribution of transportation funds. An attempt to downplay his gaffes as if they’re just representative of his honesty and bluntness.

No mention of how he’s gotten nearly every foreign policy issue wrong (not to mention most domestic ones) over the course of his 36-year tenure in the seat.  No tough questions asking if he’s learned from his mistakes.  Instead, we just learn that “Biden’s vice presidency is shaping up as a mix of his two Democratic predecessors, two of the most influential vice presidents after Cheney.”

Guess if your name isn’t Cheney and you serve under Obama, then there’s no need for tough criticism.

————–

*You  know that “three-letter word” about “the number one job facing the middle class.”

UPDATE:  This piece makes me wonder if the AP functions as the research and communications arm of the Obama White House (to borrow an expression from the President’s Communications Director).

Zomblog presents a very convincing case that Jennings may indeed have known about Hays’ support for NAMBLA when he publically praised the man years ago. Until now I’ve seen most of the criticism directed at Jennings as being sketchy and partisan in nature. While this too may be influenced somewhat by politics, there is persuasive evidence to back up the accusation. I would encourage everyone to read this post for yourselves.

If it is true that Jennings knew of Hays’ connections to NAMBLA and ignored them when he praised the man, that is indeed a legitimate issue of concern and one which rightly calls his appointment in the Obama Administration into question. Jennings’ refusal to comment on the growing controversy is unwise and will only cause it to fester even more. If there is one thing that the Roman Polanski arrest has shown us it is that outrage and disgust over child molestation/rape transcends political lines which in the case of Polanski caused a very-noticeable rift on this issue between some liberal elites and liberal rank-and-file. Jennings himself isn’t a child molester/rapist and Hays too might not have been. Yet Jennings may have knowingly and publically praised a supporter of child molestation/rape.

This charge to me is the most damaging of all the ones I’ve seen made online about Jennings. I doubt I’m wrong in saying that like most Americans, I cannot and will not support anyone in a position of public trust who is either in favor of groups like NAMBLA or knowingly praises those who are. It doesn’t matter to me what their political affliation is. Partisan wrangling means squat when the lives and welfare of children are involved. Jennings owes the American public an immmediate explanation or he failing this, perhaps even depending upon what he says in his defense, he should definitely lose his job.

– John (Average Gay Joe)

When I look at the recent polling trends and see how Americans are growing increasingly skeptical about the Democratic Party and the growth of government, I become optimistic about the future of my party.  But, then, when I hear some of our leaders try to articulate their opposition to a particular Democratic initiative, I begin to despair once again.

So it was when I read House Minority Leader John Boehner’s attempt to explain his opposition “to House passage of a bill that would expand hate crime laws and make it a federal crime to assault people on the basis of their sexual orientation.”  You see, Boehner doesn’t oppose all hate crimes legislation, indeed, according to hi spokesman Kevin Smith, the Ohio Republican “supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics.”

Huh?

Sorry, that just doesn’t wash.  Religion seems pretty “mutable” to me as evidenced by my evangelical cousin, a newly Jewish friend (and blog-reader) and my eldest sister-in-law (to name just three people who pop into my head).

Seems that instead of taking a principled stand, Boehner is trying not to upset certain interest groups which might be persuaded to vote for the GOP (while offending one which seems fully ensconced in the Democratic Party).  He’s putting politics before principle.

Fortunately, there are Republicans, indeed on Boehner’s own leadership team, who do get and can articulate the principled opposition to this gratuitous and possibly unconstitutional legislation:

Rep. Tom Price, who heads the GOP conservative caucus, also complained last week that the expansion of hate crimes legislation amounted to “thought crimes,” and he labeled the bill’s passage – tied to a defense bill – an “absolute disgrace.”

But contacted about his position on hate crimes legislation overall, Price took a different position than Boehner. According to Price communications director Brendan Buck, the congressman opposes all hate crimes protections, including existing ones. (more…)