Libertarian Leanings

So much for speaking truth to power

In 25 years in the new business, technology journalist Michael Malone has seen nothing to match the journalistic malpractice we are witnessing this year.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

The few instances where I think the press has gone too far -- such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain's daughter's MySpace friends -- can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

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

Joe the Plumber

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

Malone thinks media news editors are desperate.  Facing career catastrophe in a dying industry, they hope a Hail Mary play will bring home a miracle. 

And then the opportunity presents itself -- an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.

With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

But miracles take more than just a few flexible politicians.  Public opinion must be marshalled behind the kind of legislative miracles big media is looking for, and that takes money.  In a Washington Times editorial Richard W. Rahn, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth, explains where the money might come from, and why certain extraordinarily wealthy people seem oddly willing to hold still for what ought to be a very painful bite from tax hikes.

Have you ever wondered why billionaires like George Soros financially support politicians who say they will "increase taxes on the rich"?

The answer quite simply is that the tax increases are most often put on people trying to become rich, not those already rich. Hence, the rich, big government advocates can gain far more by "buying" the politicians. The "bought" politicians then provide them with confidential information about administrative decisions, which these donors then use to place big bets in the market, making themselves much richer. If you have deep financial pockets and inside information, you can make huge amounts of money when markets drop.

Mr. Soros, the Democrats' financial angel, is often referred to as the "man who broke the bank of England" in the 1992 Sterling crisis. During that episode, he made $1 billion in one day at the expense of British taxpayers. The relevant question is, did Mr. Soros bet a couple of billion dollars on mere guesses of what the German, French and British officials would do, or did he have inside information?

A reference to www.capitalresearch.org in Mr. Rahn's column pointed me to an article by Matthew Sheffield and Noel Sheppard entitled from Inside the Disinformation Machine: A Look at the Left’s New Media Operation. The authors describe how the super rich help their politicians by assisting journalists in a more direct way.

ProPublica, a new nonprofit journalism outfit funded by the Sandler Family Supporting Foundation ($1,250,000 in fiscal 2007), proposes to sustain “investigative journalism in the public interest” by supporting journalists who will write stories that have “moral force.” This no doubt means articles attacking what liberals consider social injustice. Ironically, the nonprofit group Pro Publica, Inc.’s donors are Herb and Marion Sandler, who have arguably profited from homeowners’ distress. In May 2006 they fortuitously sold Golden West, their California savings and loan, to Wachovia for $25.5 billion—just before the credit crisis swamped Wachovia, which had foolishly acquired Golden West’s adjustable rate mortgage portfolio.

The super wealthy have always managed to get key politicians in their pockets.  Once journalists decided that they, themselves, were the real movers and shakers in this world, shaping public opinion as they do, the super rich decided it was time to start pocketing journalists.  They've gotten pretty good at it.  It's not media bias.  It's corruption.

Tightening up in New Hampshire

According to Rasmussen's presidential polling, Barack Obama's 10-point lead in New Hampshire has now been cut to four. 

The presidential race in New Hampshire has grown closer, with Barack Obama now leading John McCain 50% to 46%, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state.

At the beginning of the month, the Democrat held a ten point lead over his opponent, which shifted New Hampshire from “toss-up” to “leans Democratic” in the Rasmussen Balance of Power Calculator. In the eight polls prior to October, Obama has held the lead in five, McCain in three.

Voters in New Hampshire are divided on who they trust more on the top issue of the economy, with Obama holding the edge, 46% to 45%. While 43% agree with Obama’s idea that spreading the wealth around would be good for everybody, 44% disagree.

Voters trust McCain more on national security and the War on Terror by a 53% to 43% margin.

It speaks volumes that the economic meltdown has not worked more to Obama's benefit than it has.  Why is there still a race?  Well, for one thing, reality may finally be sinking in.  Obama is an attractive candidate whose election would send a positive message to the world about the kind of country the U.S. really is.  The fact is, that message has been sent.  Obama is a great symbol, but now people are beginning to recognize that Obama, the man, has next to no resume, and what little there is on it does not resonate with poeple.  Mix in his gaffe prone running mate who warns that a crisis is waiting to pounce within the first six months of an Obama presidency, and voters become understandably worried.  They ought to be.  We have a disaster waiting to happen.

It's about time - but will there be payback?

The threat to the American business climate posed by a Democratic sweep in this year's election has finally aroused survival instincts in U.S. Chamber of Commerce members.  So writes Kimberly Strassel.  The organization has historically been non-partisan, but with so much at stake this year it has finally joined the fight with its own ad campaign.

It also unveiled the season's most humorous ad, entitled "Meet Bill." It features real-life union boss, Bill, caught assaulting a cameraman ("I'm gonna' take this camera and stick it somewhere you don't want it!"). It points out that it would be Bill who, under card check, would get to monitor votes in a union drive.

This is brave stuff, especially given Democratic admiration for Bill-like tactics. Chuck Schumer, who is leading the Senate effort to turn Democrats into masters of the universe, is livid. All the more so, given he's spent the past year threatening the business community with dire retribution if it doesn't support his party. (Weren't they listening?) He recently ripped the group as nothing more than a "wing" of the GOP, and has made clear he'll remember the slights.

Apparently the Chamber's historically non-partisan stance is maintained in hopes of avoiding the kind of political retribution Senator Schumer is said to have threatened.  Could it be that their their fears were well founded? 

An important angle in the IndyMac failure that may get lost in ominous headlines tonight and tomorrow: federal regulators pointedly cited U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in explaining the bank's failure. In simple language, federal regulators blamed Schumer for a run on the bank.

Here's from the press release issued by IndyMac's regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision: "The OTS has determined that the current institution, IndyMac Bank, is unlikely to be able to meet continued depositors’ demands in the normal course of business and is therefore in an unsafe and unsound condition. The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The letter expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts."

Was it payback the led to the release of Schumer's letter of alarm?  Who at IndyMac might have gotten on the wrong side of Senator Chuck?  (Boldface in the original above, and the link doesn't work.)

Surprising origins of hope for Iraq

Strategy Page reports on the Americanization of Iraq:

October 23, 2008: Many Iraqis have become infatuated with the American military. Not just the efficiency with which they fight, but also how they go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties, and try to help Iraqis recover from decades of tyranny and terrorism. This doesn't get a lot of publicity, but it is changing Iraq on a fundamental level.

The new Iraqi Army wants to be just like their American counterparts. Iraqi military uniforms look very much like the U.S. ones. The weapons and vehicles are the same. And the Iraqis are emulating how U.S. troops move, as well as how they look. In combined operations, it's often difficult to tell, at a glance, who are the Americans, and who are the Iraqis. More than once, during a firefight, an American soldier dives for cover next to what he thinks is another G.I. But when he talks to the other "American", he comes face-to-face with an Iraqi face talking back to him in Arabic. Fortunately, both armies use the same hand signals (a form of sign language used during combat, when voice commands cannot be heard, or when you want to maintain silence.) So the two will communicate with hand signs and get on with the battle.

Read the rest at Strategy Page.

Principled positions

Fred Barnes has the quote of the day.

Liberals--or I could say Democrats, since the terms are now synonymous--are fun to watch because they're so un-self aware. They switch positions on a dime whenever it serves their political purposes and always consider themselves to be standing on the high moral ground. Of course that's where they thought they were standing before they changed positions.

Barnes notes the latest change.  With the Democrats poised to win a super majority, Obama's promises of bipartisanship are fading into the distant past.

One Democrat's open letter to the press

Orson Scott Card, a Democrat and newspaper columnist, accuses the press of dishonesty and dishonor in an open letter to the local daily papers in America.

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

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

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

That's where you are right now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where the press has really outdone itself for craven corruption is in its glossing over of ACORN's ongoing voter registration fraud.  We are witnessing a challenge to the integrity of our electoral process casually dismissed by journalists who evidently fear that honest reporting on it might reflect badly on the candidate of their choice.  Not only are our media luminaries dismissive of ACORN's admitted criminal activity, they become positively vicious when a Republican voices alarm over it.  I couldn't agree more with Mr. Scott.  In this election year the liberal press has gone well beyond bias to outright dishonesty and dishonor.

The coming lawsuits

Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus of The Washington Times, says he is unimpressed by Colin Powell and his endorsement of Barack Obama.  But he makes another observation, sort of an aside, about what will come of ACORN's voter registration creativity.

Some Democrats are complaining that the Republicans are trying to disqualify voters the Democrats, through their surrogates at ACORN, qualified illegally.

A Florida lawyer says he has assembled 5,000 lawyers to monitor voting stations, "assist" voters who may be turned away for lack of proper qualifications, and, if all else fails, paper the dockets with hundreds of lawsuits.

"On Election Day," says Charles Lichtman, "I will be managing the largest law firm in the country."

ACORN is paving the way for those inevitable accusations by Democrats that Republicans are suppressing the minority vote.  If the election is close, look to the Democrats to try to win it in court.

Obama's true believers

Thomas Sowell:

Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.

It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts.

Indeed they do.

McCain edging closer

A Rasmussen report on swing state polling shows McCain gaining on Obama.

Fox News/Rasmussen Reports polling this week in Colorado, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio shows a slightly improved situation for John McCain compared to a week ago. However, the underlying dynamic of the race still favors Barack Obama.

The biggest change is found in Florida where it’s now essentially even with McCain at 49% and Obama at 48%. A week ago, Obama was up by five points and the week before he held a seven-point lead. The current polling shows McCain’s support at its highest level since mid-September.

McCain also moved slightly ahead again in Ohio with a 49% to 47% advantage over Obama. A week ago, those numbers were reversed and Obama had the two-point advantage. As in Florida, the current poll shows McCain at his highest level of support since mid-September.

"Malicious" McCain

An L.A. Times editorial today calls John McCain "malicious" for comments he made about ACORN's ongoing voter registration fraud. 

John McCain committed a malicious misrepresentation in the last presidential debate when he claimed that ACORN, the liberal activist group, "is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."

As ACORN acknowledges, it has collected voter registration forms with bogus signatures. But even when they aren't winnowed out by election officials, transparently invalid registrations don't lead to fraudulent voting. Even the most lax poll worker wouldn't allow "Mickey Mouse" or "John Q. Public" to cast a ballot.

There's a case to be made for cracking down on errors and, yes, fraud in election procedures, and the FBI reportedly is conducting a preliminary investigation of whether ACORN, the Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now, encouraged its canvassers to falsify signatures. But wild claims like McCain's undermine reform efforts and make it harder to hold ACORN accountable for its real faults, including providing a financial incentive for canvassers to fake signatures.

The Times thinks this debate about election fraud is is a very complicated.  While dismissing voter fraud as virtually impossible -- this is on the strength of its dubious prediction that Mickey Mouse would be prevented from voting if he turned up at the polls -- the Times laments Democrats' too easy dismissal of the possibility of fraud.  Listen to this beauty of a sugggestive sentence that pretty much says nothing while reaffirming a supposed evil in Republicans.

Republicans claim to be concerned about widespread fraud, but aren't bothered if their alarms discourage Democratic-leaning blocs from voting.

What the Times doesn't bother to explain is how Republican concerns about fraud will persuade anybody to stay home on election day, be they minority voters or anybody else.  But voter discouragement is the ulterior motive that the Times devines in this "complicated" debate.  Naturally, at the Times it's a given that Republicans only "claim to be concerned" about fraud. 

So the L.A. Times comes out with a lukewarm acknowledgment that voter registration fraud is, well, maybe not such a good thing.  And yes, we really ought to try to prevent it.  But, in this soon-to-be-most-perfect-of-all-worlds (assuming as the L.A. Times does that Obama will win the election), actual voting fraud simply can't happen.  Voter registration fraud can run  rampant.  Who cares?  The real crime, actual voting fraud, is an impossibility -- according to the editors at the L.A. Times.  And according to editors at the L.A. Times, John McCain reveals his malice by disagreeing with them on this point.  But then, editors at the L.A. Times think this is a very complicated debate.