Libertarian Leanings

When You've Lost Kirsten Powers...

When Kirsten Powers appears on the Fox News Channe,l it's usually her job to represent the liberal viewpoint.  But in the clip below she slams the mainstream press which won't break from campaigning 24/7 on Obama's behalf to adequately cover the anti-American rioting in the Middle East.

Admittedly, Kirsten's brand of liberalism is not the rabid left-wing idiocy that's characteristic of the current Democratic leadership.

The Devastating Wit Of Michael Ramirez

Doesn't Michael Ramirez perfectly capture media infatuation?  No one personifies it better than this guy.

Journolist and What Passes for Ethics Among Progressive Journalists

James Taranto has more on Ezra Klein's now defunct Journolist.  Journolist, an online message board for elite lefty journalists, was recently shut down when one of it's presumably less ideologically committed members leaked some inflammatory emails posted by David Weigel, who up until that time was a Washington Post reporter.  He was was actually forced to resign because of those emails.

The fact that Journolist was terminated is a sure indication that Weigel's online diatribes were the rule rather than the exception.  But what Taranto reports is very nearly incredible.   

One quote from the Caller piece, however, went too far even for an opinion journalist:

After Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat, threatening to kill the health care legislation by his presence, Weigel stressed how important it was for reporters to highlight what a terrible candidate his opponent Martha Coakley had been.

"I think pointing out Coakley's awfulness is vital, because it's 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats," Weigel wrote.

Remember, Weigel's supposedly off-the-record audience consisted of hundreds of journalists, both left-wing and purportedly objective. What it appears he was doing was not merely expressing an opinion but engaging in partisan politics--i.e., advising other journalists on how they should tailor their coverage so as to avoid "doing more damage to the Democrats."

So much for progressive claims that there is no media bias.  That lefty journalists would engage in this kind of coordinated slanting of the news comes as no surprise.  Shocking that one of them feels secure enough in the practice to say it out loud.

Journolist Is Dead. Long Live Journolist.

Ezra Klein, the lefty opinion writer at the Washington Post who founded Journolist, says he has decided to shut it down.  Or not.  In the next breath he predicted it would reassemble itself in a new venue.  But for now, the original Journolist is gone.

Journolist is done now. I'll delete the group soon after this post goes live. That's not because Journolist was a bad idea, or anyone on it did anything wrong. It was a wonderful, chaotic, educational discussion. I'm proud of having started it, grateful to have participated in it, and I have no doubt that someone else will re-form it, with many of the same members, and keep it going.

Journolist, in case you are wondering, was a online message board where elite lefty journalists and pundits could exchange lofty notions insulated from all but like minded savants, predisposed to agree.   

At the beginning, I set two rules for the membership. The first was the easy one: No one who worked for the government in any capacity could join. The second was the hard one: The membership would range from nonpartisan to liberal, center to left.  I didn't like that rule, but I thought it necessary: There would be no free conversation in a forum where people had clear incentives to embarrass each other

Diversity in the eyes of Jlisters meant macho far left lefties would tolerate the mere liberals.  Barred from the Jlist were and conservatives or libertarians who might poke holes in liberal to Marxist prejudices, or who were likely to be Journolist targets.

Journolist became an embarrassment anyway, though it took two years before anybody not on the list got wind of it.  In March, 2009 Michael Calderone wrote an article about it in Politico headlined JournoList: Inside the echo chamber.

POLITICO contacted nearly three dozen current JList members for this story. The majority either declined to comment or didn’t respond to interview requests — and then returned to JList to post items on why they wouldn’t be talking to POLITICO about what goes on there

In an e-mail, Klein said he understands that the JList’s off-the-record rule “makes it seems secretive.” But he insisted that JList discussions have to be off the record in order to “ensure that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff analysis and instant reactions.” 

One byproduct of that secrecy: For all its high-profile membership — which includes Nobel Prize-winning columnist Paul Krugman; staffers from Newsweek, POLITICO, Huffington Post, The New Republic, The Nation and The New Yorker; policy wonks, academics and bloggers such as Klein and Matthew Yglesias — JList itself has received almost no attention from the media.

The secret was out.  Shortly after Calderone's article appeared Mickey Kaus got hold of thread from the list and posted it on his blog.  Now that was embarrassing.  Get a load of the backbiting.

From: Jonathan Chait <jch...@tnr.com> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Local: Tues, Mar 24 2009 2:27 pm Subject: Re: BREAKING: Marty Peretz is a Crazy-Ass Racist  Perhaps, if his work is going to be brought up here  2 or 3 times a
week, he should be invited on the list. Or is the point of this to
create a forum where certain people can be criticized (or, more
precisely, called names) without the criticizer having to fear a
response? I do recall Eric Alterman going after Eve Fairbanks, and
then -- when Eve mounted a defense -- confessing that he didn't know
she was on the list, and only criticized her because he thought he was
speaking behind her back.
Is Michelle Cottle on this list? She's criticized less frequently
here, and I don't think this sort of thing interests her, but her
presence would definitely improve the list. There seems to be a junior
high quality to this list with regard to TNR, where if you're not on
it you get sniped at constantly, but if you are on it you're mostly safe.

[...]

From: Eric Alterman <era00...@aol.com> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Local: Tues, Mar 24 2009 2:56 pm Subject: Re: BREAKING: Marty Peretz is a Crazy-Ass Racist  Quit lying about my record, Jonathan Chait.
Or at least check the archives before descinding into Kirchickism.
What I posted about Eve was an article I PUBLISHED. It could hardly
have been going behind her back to PUBLISH an article, could it? What
I explained when you last leveled this false accusation ... [SNIP] ...  was the fact that had I known Eve was on the list, I
would not have posted it here, even though it was relevant to the
discussion at hand, because a) I had no wish to hurt the feelings of
someone I had never met, and b) this is no less important, I respect
the value of civility on this list. As you well know, there are plenty
of attacks going on between yourself, Matt, Ezra, Spencer, and myself
that do not make it onto this list because we respect the importance
of civility here. Or at least we did....
I expect Ezra will want to intervene here, but please do feel free to
forward our exchange to Marty. I can only imagine how proud he'd
be....
n Mar 24, 2:51 pm, Michael Cohen <speechbo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -

From: Chris Hayes <christopherlha...@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: BREAKING: Marty Peretz is a Crazy-Ass Racist  There's a lot of people on this list routinely criticized who are not
on it, Jon. That said, I'm more than happy to call Marty Peretz a
racist to his (electronic) face.
-c

So lefty bloggers and journalists compared notes, refined their messages, and generally engaged in group think.  They argued among themselves about which conservatives were more racist, more anti-Semitic, more deserving to be smeared. 

Ezra Klein, blogger for the "liberal" American Prospect, got caught by Politico coordinating his stories with other liberal bloggers and journalists. Exposed for being a journalistic fraud, Klein needed an enemy. He found Ann Althouse. Althouse, who has a very popular blog, could be considered "conservative" (as in, when a law professor doesn't kneel at the alter of Obama, she is a "conservative").

Althouse's crime? She linked to the Politico story in a post at 8:54 a.m. on March 19, 2009 under the title "The Journolist." Althouse's blog gets tons of comments, unlike mine, which only gets a lot of comments when there is an Instalanche. Apparently, some of the comments were hostile to Klein, so Klein decided to take out Althouse by smearing her as an anti-Semite.

No, Klein didn't say that "Ann Althouse is an anti-Semite." The obvious weasel that he is, Klein did it indirectly under a post at 1:50 p.m. on March 20, 2009, titled "Are Ann Althouse's Commenters Anti-Semites?" Klein did a simultaneous Tweet with the same title. [Correction 3/21, 3:50 p.m.: The sequence was Klein tweets, Althouse objects, Klein posts the full post.]

This is how the left does it. When you can't find racist/sexist/anti-Semitic/homophobic comments by a conservative, you impugn their reputation by finding some lunatic in a crowd (or in blog comments) who did make such a comment.

Smearing techniques must have been what Klein was talking about in his farewell to Journolist blog post when he said, "It was a wonderful, chaotic, and educational experience."  It must have been.  

And we can be sure it's not over.  Son of Journolist is on the rise in this very moment, if not fully operational.  Lefty journalists and pundits will gather in secrecy to discuss how better to present their message so that the rest of us can "get it."  Thomas Frank wrote a book describing their quandary.  He called it "What's The Matter With Kansas."  Kansas, a hotbed of radical socialism a hundred years ago, twice voted for George W. Bush.  How could that have happened?  It was truly baffling!

So the quest to advance the progressive message continues.   Journolist arose as a forum for plotting strategy and pondering the impenetrable:  Why aren't those racist, anti-Semitic, rubes more receptive to progressive messages of hope, love, and equality?  Progressives continue to ponder.

Well, they're lying of course...

When it got out that the Washington Post was selling access to media and political elite, White House officials claimed that the administration had no idea what the Post was up to.

The Washington Post has long prided itself on its access to the capital's elite. Now, it appears, the paper is willing to sell that access.

In a flier circulated to Beltway lobbyists, the Post touted a "salon" program which gives "exclusive access" to "Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds" for between $25,000 and $250,000. (View an image of the flier.)

White House officials said privately Thursday that the administration had no idea that the Post was peddling access to its officials.

The first event, entitled "Health-Care Reform: Better or Worse for Americans" is scheduled for July 21, at the home of Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth.

"Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No," the flier states. "The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it."

The Post denies the denies that it would ever refrain from confrontational questioning.

"We will not participate in events where promises are made that in exchange for money The Post will offer access to newsroom personnel or will refrain from confrontational questioning. Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable," Brauchli's e-mail states. "There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values."

Are they trying to tell us they don't participate in White House press conferences, or are those dog and pony shows their idea of being tough on Obama?  Nobody controls the media like Obama. 

Updated 4:10pm

Media: Desperately In The Tank

Coverage gets little coverage

According to Robert Samuelson the press is in a state of denial over the glowing coverage it continues to give Obama.  A study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows that he has gotten more favorable press treatment than any president in recent history.  It comes as no surprise, the study received little coverage in the press.

'Are his proposals practical, even if desirable? Maybe they're neither? What might be unintended consequences? All "reforms" do not succeed; some cause more problems than they solve. Johnson's economic policies, inherited from Kennedy, proved disastrous; they led to the 1970s' "stagflation." The "war on poverty" failed. The press should not be hostile; but it ought to be skeptical.

Mostly, it isn't. The idea of a "critical" Obama story is a tactical conflict with congressional Democrats or criticism from an important constituency. Larger issues are minimized, despite ample grounds for skepticism.

Obama's rhetoric brims with inconsistencies. In the campaign, he claimed he would de-emphasize partisanship -- and also enact a highly-partisan agenda; both couldn't be true. He got a pass. Now, he claims he will control health care spending even though he proposes more government spending. He promotes "fiscal responsibility" when projections show huge and continuous budget deficits. Journalists seem to take his pronouncements at face value even when many are two-faced.

The cause of this acquiescence isn't clear. The press sometimes follows opinion polls; popular presidents get good coverage, and Obama is enormously popular. By Pew, his job performance rating is 63 percent. But because favorable coverage began in the campaign, this explanation is at best partial.

Perhaps the preoccupation with the present economic crisis has diverted attention from the long-term implications of other policies. But the deeper explanation may be as straightforward as this: most journalists like Obama; they admire his command of language; he's a relief after Bush; they agree with his agenda (so it never occurs to them to question basic premises); and they don't want to see the first African-American president fail.'

The current level of media malpractice is worse than the campaign coverage.  The consequences could be disastrous.

Panetta fires back. Pelosi has problems.

Thursday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the Central Intelligence Agency of lying to congress, which is a criminal offense, by the way.   

'QUESTION: Madam Speaker, just to be clear, you’re accusing the CIA of lying to you in September of 2002?

PELOSI: Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States, misleading the Congress of the United States. I am'

Friday Leon Panetta, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, took issue with that reply. 

'WASHINGTON -- The Central Intelligence Agency's chief fought back Friday against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assertion that the CIA "was misleading" Congress, issuing a memo defending the integrity of its employees and contradicting her assertion that she wasn't told about agency's use of waterboarding to interrogate suspected terrorists.

[...]

"CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed,'" Mr. Panetta wrote in a memo to agency employees. He was referring to an alleged senior al Qaeda detainee in CIA custody in September 2002, when Ms. Pelosi attended a briefing in her capacity as the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

"Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress," he wrote. "That is against our laws and our values."

Other intelligence officials also contradicted Ms. Pelosi's account of the briefing, saying her assertion that she wasn't told waterboarding was in use at the time is wrong. "That's 180 degrees different from what the CIA's records show," an intelligence official said. Mr. Zubaydah was waterboarded, which critics say is torture, 83 times during the month before Ms. Pelosi's briefing in September 2002.'

Ms. Pelosi's press conference bordered on the incoherent.  Quite frankly, the old broad needs new tricks, but there she is back at the same old well, which is beginning to show signs of running dry.  She accused the Bush administration, which is out of office by they way, of trying to shift attention away from the real issue.

'So -- so let’s get this straight. The Bush administration has conceived a policy, the CIA comes to the Congress, withholds information about the timing and the use of this subject. They -- we later find out that it had been taking place before they even briefed us about the legal opinions and told us that they were not being used.

This is a tactic, a diversionary tactic to take the spotlight off of those who conceived, developed and implemented these policies, which all of us long opposed.'

It's true that former Vice President Dick Cheney has recently stepped up in defense of Bush administration policies, but he isn't diverting anybody from anything.  Far from it.  When he decided it was time to speak up, he said straight out, putting a wet hanky on Abu Zubaydah's face isn't torture.  I for one, agree with him.  And if it is, so what?  American lives were at stake and American deaths were prevented.  The Bush administration got the information out of him, and they're proud they did.  I am too.  No diversions there.

But this has all caught poor Ms. Pelosi by surprise.  I'd be willing to bet she thought that resuscitating the old torture story was going to be just another routine smear -- a chip-shot Bush-bash, a gimme, an easy nail in the Republican coffin. 

But something wasn't quite right.  Unusually pointed questions coming from reporters -- her own team for the love of god -- were bewildering.  She tried to remind them of the good times, murmuring their special words.  "Imminent threat?" she offered.  It used to work every time.

'So let me say this: Of all of the briefings that I had received, at this same time, they were misinforming me earlier. Now, in September, the same time as the -- as the briefing, they were telling the American people there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and it was an imminent threat to the United States.

I, to the limit of what I could say to my caucus, told them the intelligence does not support the imminent threat that this administration is contending.'

But the magic isn't there anymore.  Where did their love go?  The words "imminent threat" were always like a potion, sweet nothings guaranteed to set press hearts aflutter, so she thought.  Or maybe it was never quite like that.  Maybe it was the prim and proper looking Pelosi who was the one seduced.  It's almost tragic. 

Bush never frightened anybody with wild stories of imminent threat, but saying he did made for a great story.  If only somebody could give it some legs.  Can you help us with our story, Nancy?  Can you push it?  Oh, yes.  Yes.  I can do that.  I love to do that. 

Well, they got their story but now it's old news, and there was never anything to it to begin with.  Let's just go back a few years for a peek at who said what about the "imminent threat" from Iraq.  This is from Ira Sharkansky's Shark Blog, October 21, 2003.  The emphasis below is his, and not all of his links work anymore, but the quotes are accurate.

'Al Gore September 23, 2002

President Bush now asserts that we will take preemptive action even if the threat we perceive is not imminent.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi October 3, 2002

"As the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I have seen no evidence or intelligence that suggests that Iraq indeed poses an imminent threat to our nation. If the Administration has that information, they have not shared it with the Congress.

(It's fair to assume that if the administration did not share such information with the House Intelligence Committee, it is because the administration was not trying to tell Congress that Iraq posed an imminent threat)

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz December 6, 2002

Some people said [during the Cuban Missile Crisis] that Kennedy should have waited until the threat was imminent. We hear that again today. But we cannot wait to act until the threat is imminent. The notion that we can do so assumes that we will know when the threat is imminent. That wasn't true even when the United States was presented with the very obvious threat of Soviet missiles in Cuba. As President Kennedy said 40 years ago, "We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril." If that was true in 1962, facing a threat that was comparatively easy to see, how much more true is it today against threats developed by terrorists who use the freedom of democratic societies to plot and plan in our midst in secret.

Stop and think for a moment. Just when did the attacks of September 11 become imminent? Certainly they were imminent on September 10, although we didn't know it. In fact, the September 11 terrorists established themselves in the United States long before that date - many months or even a couple of years earlier. Anyone who believes that we can wait until we have certain knowledge that attacks are imminent has failed to connect the dots that took us to September 11.

President George W Bush, State of the Union speech January 28, 2003

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Senator Edward Kennedy January 28, 2003 [in reaction to the State of the Union speech]

[The President] did not make a persuasive case that the threat is imminent and that war is the only alternative

New York Times on the State of the Union, January 29, 2003 [archive only]

The heart of Mr. Bush's argument, however, is that America and the world cannot afford to wait until it is clear that Iraq will attack America, or its allies.

''Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent,'' he said, a clear reference to European nations that argue that Mr. Hussein is contained.

Los Angeles Times January 29, 2003

THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS; Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat

The above front-page headline in the L.A. Times is the earliest media report that I can find which claims that the administration called Iraq an imminent threat.'

Leave it to the LA Times to be the first to jump on the imminent threat meme, even in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.  Maybe Ms. Pelosi took that as a pledge of press loyalty:  Yes Nancy, we know it's BS but the stakes are so high.  If you run with it we'll back you. 

But that was then and this is now, and the old sweet phrases don't mean that much anymore.  The press can't be depended upon to protect her flank.  Her's is the story that's going to sell the papers, if it's still possible to sell any.  Pelosi has problems.

Not This Republican

The top headline on the Washington Post home page trumpets, As Cheney Seizes Spotlight, Many Republicans Wince.  One minor problem with the story -- reporter Dan Balz can't find a Republican who will wince out loud.  Presumably, the price of disagreement with the former Vice President is too high.  

'Cheney entered the arena this winter in a politically weak position after that election. His personal favorability ratings were and are still low. A Gallup poll in late March found that 30 percent of respondents gave him a favorable rating, while 63 percent rated him unfavorably.

That is why his high-profile defense of controversial Bush administration policies has caused queasiness among Republican political strategists. But Cheney remains powerful enough that most of his GOP critics are not willing to take him on in public. "The fact that most people want to talk [without attribution] shows what a problem it continues to be," said one Republican strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid. "Cheney continues to be a force among many members of our base, and while he is entirely unhelpful, no one has the standing to show him the door."

[..]

Another GOP strategist, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, pointed out the conundrum for Republicans over the former vice president's current role. "Even if he's right, he's absolutely the wrong messenger," this strategist said. His main worry, he added, is that Cheney keeps the public focused on the past, rather than the future. "We want Bush to be a very distant memory in the next election. The more Cheney is on the front burner, the more difficult it's going to be."'

If there really are such Republicans, Republicans who wish Cheney would stop defending Bush administration policies, they should stop being Republicans.  Either that, or grow some balls, for crying out loud.  If you disagree with Cheney, just say so and be part of the debate.

It is an important debate, and aside from Dick Cheney there are almost no Republicans out there willing to make the case.  The mainstream press has already convicted the Bush administration of torture and they write their stories, like this one, as if the case closed.  And then we get these anonymous dolts in the Republican party who are unwilling to push back.  Excuse me, but the case is not closed.

We've got a politically motivated press corps smearing the Bush administration for pouring water on the guy who made a video of Daniel Pearl's murder.  Further, our "torture victim" was not injured in any way nor was his life was ever in any danger.  It's not torture.  And on top of that, four directors of intelligence have said that the information gained in his interrogations saved thousands of American lives.

For this we're supposed to condemn the Bush administration?  Richard Cheney is supposed to keep quiet over this?  I don't think so.  Sorry, but the self righteous posturing over this supposed torture is beyond sickening.

He says he doesn't know?

John Kerry held a hearing on the possibility of bailouts for the newspaper industry.

'Newspapers are in bad shape — really bad shape.

So with everyone else getting a bailout in today’s bad economy, Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) held a hearing yesterday on how government can save the newspaper industry. “Is there any government role at all?” Kerry asked. “I don’t know the answer to that.”'

The pubic relations arm of the Democratic party is on the verge of extinction and one of the Democrats in control of government doesn't know if government should save it?  Standing face to face with the opportunity to dictate the news from Washington, and John Kerry says he doesn't know if there's a role for government?  Kerry called on his fellow Democrat Ben Cardin, senator from Maryland.  Cardin has a bill he's proposed.

'“My legislation uses the 501(c)3 model, similar to what a church would use or what an educational institution would use,” said Cardin. “What it doesn’t do, and what I do not support, is government interference in the free press.”

But tax-free status comes with a price under Cardin’s bill. For one thing, it means an end to the editorial board as we know it. Not only would newspapers in this new non-profit category be forbidden from endorsing or urging votes against political candidates, they would be forbidden to advocate for or against specific legislation. Just as churches have received threats against their non-profit status during recent elections, so could newsrooms be threatened — challenged as to their nonpartisanship, or even as to whether, as the Cardin bill demands, “the distribution of such newspaper is necessary or valuable in achieving an educational purpose.”

The bill has other strings as well, dictating certain aspects of a publication’s day-to-day operations. In order to keep its non-profit status, a newspaper would have to carry “local, national, and international news stories of interest to the general public.” Your average charming neighborhood or community newspaper, lacking any national or international focus, might not qualify.

A non-profit newspaper’s advertising revenues would only count as tax-free if “the space allotted to all such advertisements in such newspaper does not exceed the space allotted to fulfilling the educational purpose of such qualified newspaper corporation.”'

Education.  That's the ticket.  The problem with newspapers is that educating us unwashed in virtues of liberal political ideology hasn't sold well.  Of the top 25 newspapers in the country, only The Wall Street Journal, hardly a bastion of liberalism, had a real circulation gain.  The inevitable solution for the Democrats is to subsidize newspapers so they can continue promoting their left wing message.  I mean, why so coy John?  You really do know the answer.