For Inquirer, Being Asian or Black and Gay is Not Good Enough

With the exception of the NY Times, the Philly Inquirer is probably the most liberal slanted newspaper in the country. You can see other instances of their biased editorial board and wild inaccuracies here.

Remember, this is the paper that ran a 21-day endorsement of John Kerry right before he was beaten by George W. Bush.

Today we have the Inqy running this ridiculously liberal piece:

It's good to see Gov. Christie consider diversity in making his nominations to the New Jersey Supreme Court. But that hardly makes up for the way he treated John E. Wallace, an esteemed jurist and the court's only black justice, who deserved another term.

Christie made a historic and bold move with two nominations this week - Bruce Harris, an openly gay African American, and Phillip Kwon, who would become a Korean American on the court if confirmed (and if he wasn't confirmed he be a what?--but I digress--ed).

So Christie picks a Korean-American and a gay, black man to be justices and the Inquirer still scolds him? Of course, but had, say, John Corzine selected them, they'd be the greatest thing in creation. Instead, they slam Christie because he refused to reaffirm a black judge whom he deemed ill-qualified.

Now check out this nice bit of pretzel logic:

Neither nominee has prior experience as a judge, but neither did most of the current justices on the state's highest court, which has become a tradition for New Jersey.

...Under pressure from Democrats to consider diversity in making his nominations, Christie is now demanding swift confirmation hearings.

But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Nicholas Scutari says he won't move too hastily, which is good. Too little is known about Harris and Kwon. The governor has a right to choose nominees who adhere to his judicial philosophy, but rigorous hearings are needed to determine their character and temperament.

Okay, so it's historically been the way to select people based on abilities and not by whether or not they served on the bench but in this case, it's prudent to wait and torture them with "rigorous hearings"? Why is the Inquirer so damn racist? Why do they hate Asians and black gays so much?

I Googled "Inquirer and Elena Kagan" and did not see any objections from the editorial board about her judicial philosophy, character or temperament. She never served as a judge and now sits on the highest court in the land. She was essentially a Democratic shill having worked for Clinton and Dukakis but I guess in the eyes of the Inqy, it's who nominates you and your political slant that makes all the difference.

This is classic Inquirer bias; two men who represent three minority groups are selected by a Republican governor and the hacks on the board still can't applaud.

Unfortunately for Harris and Kwon, they will always be unacceptable to the Inqy op/ed page because, like Clarence Thomas, Conservatives just don't carry the proper minority street cred for the elitists ensconced on North Broad Street.

The Inquirer Slams LGF

Update (11:37 EST): Welcome LGF readers. Take some time to look around the site.

This is from todays Inquirer. This is from Charles' comments section (see comments #15 and 18 for example). Note that they do not mention that these are not the authors words, nor do they indicate that the comments are pretty much unregulated and not a part of the main site content:

The Baghdad shooting in which Giuliana Sgrena, a writer for Italy's Il Manifesto, was wounded and Nicola Calipari, an Italian military intelligence officer, was killed by U.S. personnel has prompted a great diversity of reaction and comment. From one corner of the blogosphere, here are excerpts, rough edges and all, from a string of exchanges at http://littlegreenfootballs.com.

In Iraq, the United States makes the rules and the Italian ally also must respect them.
Case closed.

Am I alone in not giving a... about someone who died while rushing an American checkpoint on the most dangerous road in Iraq?

I smell a bad acting job by the commie, one that led to someones death.

Clearly the Italians didn't want the US to know that they were negotiating with and ultimately paying millions of dollars to al Qaeda types, so they kept the whole thing a big secret. This caused them to behave in a very suspicious manner, as they zoomed down the road, and it all led directly to the incident. What else is there to this, other than post-incident fabricating?

new commandment: Thou shalt not play James Bond with the US Marines

If the guy was a soldier, doesn't the stupidity factor just explode exponentially, with the sympathy factor declining proportionately?! He should have known better than to rush a checkpoint! Then factor in how the left is using this incident in their propaganda campaign and I'm on the verge of saying "Too bad they didn't get Sgrena as well."

Yeah, it bothers me when the facts don't add up, the "victim" is anti-American, anti-war, and has an axe to grind, and the Italians pay between $10-14 million to terrorist, that will be used to build lots of IEDs and finance, not to mention encourage, more kidnappings.

Yeah, I guess I have a problem with a commie hag who uses the death of an Italian secret service agent who tried to save her worthless hide as the means by which to attack the US military. You got me.

I'm sorry the Italian Secret Service Agent was killed, but I'm glad none of our soldiers were hurt or wounded due to "miscommunication". As for the delirious loudmouth journalist, I hope she gets hit by a small piece of communist space debris from a defunkt U.S.S.R. satellite.

The following appears at the top of every comment page:

Comments are open and unmoderated, although obscene or abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.

I've been reading this rag for a long time, mostly because it's the only game in town. I've never seen the comments section of a blog cut and pasted. Will the Inquirer do the same with Koz' site? This to me is an MSM slap at the right-wing blogosphere.

You can contact the editorial board here or send a letter to the editor here.

Update: I don't recall ever seeing a bloggers comments used in this way. I searched the Inquirer and it only goes back one week. A search of Google turned up more. Here is last weeks Verbatim section and here is one from February. None are from blogs that I can see. The Inquirer does run a section entitled Blog Cabin once a week, but they quote the writer, not the commenters.

Update: The Inquirer message board has a 24-hour waiting period for new users. Cowards.

Myanmar?

The Inquirer editorial this morning is a cornucopia of contradictions:

Give President Bush credit for setting lofty goals, such as this one that he mentioned during both his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech on Wednesday night:
"America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
What a fine, humane world it would be if tyrannies were no more.
It's a world not only worth imagining but, as the President said, worth trying to achieve.
But the key questions are: how and where?
On these points, President Bush has been vague in statement and less than fully coherent in policy and execution.

I emphasized that snide little remark because it may have a place in a Krugman piece, but noot in the editorial of a major newspaper. Now let's get on the the final sentence. Bush has been incoherent in policy and execution? I give you the examples of the how and where: Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe the execution portion was done in an immensely coherent way. The doom and gloom that was predicted by the Inquirer and other mainstream dailies did not come to pass and people voted in huge numbers. If the president had listened to the MSM, the elections would not have taken place and probably would've been put off indefinitely. The Iraqi's and Afghani's did vote and that makes them both democracies.

As for the tyrannical part, is the Inquirer suggesting that Hamid Karzai and Ayad Allawi are tyrants? Karzai was elected and Allawi, while not elected (we await the vote count) has been anything but a tyrant.

Bush took on allies as well in last's Wednesday's speech by saying Saudi Arabia and Egypt need to move from authoritarian rule toward democracy.
He more also forcefully challenged the authoritarian regimes of Iran and Syria to refrain from threatening activities such as aiding terrorists or seeking weapons of mass destruction.
Still, Bush did not mention some of the world's worst tyrannies - some of whom are friends to the United States when it comes to fighting terrorism.
As he draws up this tricky to-do list on ending tyranny, Bush should make sure these countries are on it: Myanmar; Zimbabwe; Uzbekistan; Laos; Turkmenistan; Equatorial Guinea; and Belarus - just to name some.

Remember the collective MSM gasp when Bush named the Axis of Evil? What the hell would have been the headlines if Bush called out Laos? Or Equatorial Guinea? The MSM would've been screaming IMPERIALISM! Think about what the Inquirer has been reduced to; chiding Bush for not mentioning the evil regime of Myanmar. As for Zimbabwe, perhaps the Inquirer editorial board should discuss the dictatorship of Mugabe with Chirac.

But Bush did not make a general call for reinvigorating foreign development aid, which goes toward such basics as income-generation opportunities, schools, and health-care systems. All those elements create the soil in which democratic self-government can take root and thrive.
There are many ways to calculate how much foreign aid the U.S. government gives. But the most honest way is to measure aid as a percentage of the national income.
By that standard, the United States gives only 0.34 percent - less than 1 percent - to nonmilitary foreign aid.
That's not enough if we are truly serious about ending tyranny in as many places as we can.
Money alone will not end oppression, but neither can democracy be spread or sustained without sufficient political and fiscal investments.

Do those numbers include monies spent on relief like the recent Tsunami relief efforts? What about the cost of the military efforts needed to supply devastated Aceh with fresh water? This, sadly, is the Inquirer editorial page; slamming the President for not speaking out against Laos and spending less than 1% in non-military aid.

Update: A nice companion piece to this for the Telegraph:

The reality, though, is very different. Consider the six countries where Miss Rice says she wants America actively to promote freedom: Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, Belarus and Burma. It can be argued that Washington has (to borrow John Major's notorious phrase about Ulster) a "selfish strategic or economic interest" in the first three, but what possible stake does it have in the others?
In each case, the Bush Administration is seeking to tilt the balance of power towards freedom. Contrast this with the EU, fêting Robert Mugabe, withdrawing its support from anti-Castro dissidents, seeking accommodation with the Iranian ayatollahs.

Indeed.

The Philadelphia Inquirer, Now An Official Whore For The DNC

The Inquirer has had quite a week in the partisanship department. First they started off with the 21-day endorsement of Kerry, then they made sure they prominently displayed this headline: Kerry sees Bush draft risk, albeit below the fold but on the front page. Even though the Inquirer knows Bush has disavowed any talk of a draft (twice), they have to go with the DNC sponsored scare line of the week. Then today they run these two articles, which it seems they used their entire cadre of reporters to write and investigate:

The first:

WASHINGTON - In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.
Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason. The slide said: "To Be Provided."
An Inquirer Washington Bureau review of the Iraq policy and decisions of the administration has found that it invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. The administration also failed to provide about 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country shattered by war, a brutal dictatorship, and economic sanctions.
In fact, some senior Pentagon officials had thought they could bring most American soldiers home from Iraq by September 2003. Instead, more than a year later, 138,000 U.S. troops are still fighting insurgents who slip easily across Iraq's long borders, diehards from the old regime, and Iraqis angered by their country's widespread crime and unemployment and the United States' sometimes heavy boots.
"We didn't go in with a plan. We went in with a theory," said a veteran State Department officer who was directly involved in Iraq policy.

This is typical old-school reporting, sources that aren't revealed and no proof that they even exist. The Sunday Inquirer is the most read of the week and this is displayed prominently on page 1.

Then there's this:
The national Democrats have found God.
For decades, the party most closely identified with secular values had generally avoided talking about religion, except while stumping for African American votes on Sunday. But now, as evidenced by John Kerry's newfound willingness to air his Catholicism, national party leaders have determined that he can't win the 2004 presidential race unless he convinces uncommitted voters that faith informs his politics.
So there he was, in the third debate last Wednesday, quoting from the New Testament Book of James ("What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds?"), sharing the childhood lessons he learned in a church school ("Love the Lord, your God, with all your mind, body and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself"), and declaring that "my faith affects everything that I do and choose."
He has quoted the Bible on the road, invoked God at the national convention ("Faith has given me values and hope to live by... from Sunday to Sunday"). His surrogates have weighed in, notably Barack Obama, the Senate candidate from Illinois, who declares, "We worship an awesome God in the blue [Democratic] states!"
This rite of religious passage hasn't been easy for Kerry; as a reticent New Englander, he wasn't raised to parade his faith. Nor has it been easy for the national party, which, until it recently hired a "religion outreach" strategist, seemed intent on maintaining total separation of church and state, to the point where all talk of God was deemed out of bounds.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammo, the Donkeys got religion. This may not be a good thing however, one complaint I've heard from people about Bush is that he wears his religion on his sleeve and that bothers them. How far do you think the Kerry/Religion line will go if he gets elected, I doubt we'll never hear of it again.

I concluse that the Inquirer has puuled out all stops to put Kerry over the top in eastern Pennsylvania, which should give him the state. There is hope though:

A FEW GUYS are trying to launch a new paper in town. They're calling it the Evening Bulletin.
That name worked for a century and a half for a Philly broadsheet published from 1847 to 1982.
Kevin Williamson, who recently stepped down as editor of the Main Line Times, appeared on Michael Smerconish's Big Talker 1210-AM show yesterday morning to announce he would be the editor of the Evening Bulletin, which he said would be on the streets before Thanksgiving.
Williamson declined comment yesterday, but e-mailed us a statement:
"The Evening Bulletin, a general interest daily newspaper serving Philadelphia and its suburbs, will begin publishing in November.
"The Evening Bulletin will be published afternoons, Monday through Friday.
"The Bulletin's mission is to present timely local news, commentary, cultural reporting and advertising in an accurate and comprehensive fashion."
On Smerconish's show, Williamson likened the paper to the Fox News Channel, which he called an alternative to mainstream media.
Williamson, 32, is a motorcycle-riding former Texan described by a former colleague as "scary"-looking, and also "Catholic, very conservative, very bright, very hard-hitting, with a shaved head, and leather pants."
On Smerconish's show, Williamson said Narberth-based investment banker Tom Rice would be the publisher and financier.
Rice is also said to be conservative. He could not be reached yesterday for comment.
Williamson hopes to put honor boxes on the street and use newsboys to hawk the paper, which for now has only a Center City office and a barebones Web site, theeven ing bulletin.com.

A conservative newspaper in Philly again? Yes.

My "Tribute" to Tony Auth

Tony Auth has been a political cartoonist for the Philly Inquirer for decades. Today they have two pages showing his work and an article praising him. Strangely, they didn't include this particular drawing that made it past the editors and into the paper one Sunday:

Auth is a hard-core liberal and always has been. We've had more than enough material to make fun of him and his work over the years and it will be sad to see him go. Now the Inquirer's lefty bias will not be as evident and who will they get to portray their veiled anti-Semitism like Auth did above?

Auth has used lies, outright lies, distortions and smears over the years too cement his liberal street cred.

It leaves me to wonder where will the Inquirer go to get another lowlife douchebag on the par of Auth? I'm guessing they could always put an ad in the Inquirer jobs section (about two pages long since Obama took office), but then, no reads the inky anymore.

So, as a blogger and one of the few who actually pays attention to the Op/Ed page of the Inquirer, let me be the first to say "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out you liberal dick".

The Inquirer Switches Story

This is odd. In todays dead tree version of the Inquirer, they have a story on the inside front cover with the headline 'Pope's apology fails to quiet a storm of protests; others say, 'enough'

The piece fails to highlight that certain influential Muslims called for the Pope to be executed and is written by Ian Fisher of the NY Times News Service. You can read the piece by clicking here but the link won't take you to the Inquirer, it will take you to the Deseret News.

On the Inquirer's website they have a story that's a bit different with this headline:

Pope's apology fails to quiet a storm of protests

CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaeda in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI yesterday that its war against Christianity and the West would go on until Islam took over the world, and Iran's supreme leader called for more protests over the pontiff's remarks on Islam.

Protests broke out in South Asia and Indonesia, with angry Muslims saying Benedict's statement of regret a day earlier did not go far enough. In southern Iraq, demonstrators carrying black flags burned an effigy of the pope.

Now why would the Inquirer replace a story it had in it's printed page (one that was way softer on Islamic reaction) and use essentially the same headline without the portion indicating some moderates have spoken up?

Because they knew that the bloggers on the right who get the paper delivered would've been all over them for running the whitewash story. They decided to switch the story to one with a harder edge. Read the NY Times written piece and you'll see nothing but moderate or slightly inflamed Muslim leaders. Read the piece the Inqy has on its website and they have this:

"You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq.

That is not what was in the paper dropped in my driveway this morning. Here's a scan. For sizing purposes, I've left it longways.

Inquirer Files Bankruptcy: Owner Took Substantial Raise

The Philly Inquirer is among the most liberal papers in America--they ran a 21-day endorsement of John Kerry in 2004.

Today, they filed for bankruptcy protection and Forbes brings to light this little trick by the controlling owner:

As the parent company of The Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News slid toward the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing it made over the weekend, one employee did well on the pay front: CEO Brian P. Tierney.

Documents filed Sunday by Philadelphia Newspapers LLC and seven affiliates said that the pay of Tierney, a public relations executive who put together the investment group that bought the paper from McClatchy (nyse: MNI - news - people ) in June 2006 for $562 million, was boosted just two months ago by 38% to $850,000.

That sounds like another story I heard recently but can't seem to recall...er, maybe it was this one.

Now I have no problem with the owner of any corporation taking a raise; he gambled the money and he deserved to be rewarded for his risk but when he runs a biased paper that slammed other execs, well, I have to take a bit of umbrage with his hypocrisy.

For the record, I subscribe to the Inquirer and don't want to see them fail but for crying out loud, he would have been better served flying on a private jet to the bankruptcy anouncement.

Cowboy Diplomacy Vs. Community Organizer Diplomacy

I couldn't go more than one post without reverting back to rebutting the Inquirer.

Today the editorial board tries to explain to us how much better a world we live in with Obama's diplomatic efforts versus Bush's "cowboy diplomacy". They fail miserably:

While the rest of the world is enjoying the refreshing return of diplomacy as the preferred tool for U.S. foreign policy, partisan snipers back at the ranch are pouting for a return to the dangerous cowboyism of the past administration.

If by "rest of the world" they mean Kim Jung-Il, Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad, yes, they would correct in that assertion.

President Obama is naïve, they say, for not pointing a judgmental finger in the face of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin when they met two weeks ago. Those critics must have forgotten that it was the previous president who, like a charmed schoolgirl, said he looked into Putin's eyes and got a sense of his soul.

While that was truly embarrassing for Bush, it pales next to Obama's abasement in front of the Saudi king and his backing of an ousted dictator trying to spread communism throughout South America.

Too bad President George W. Bush didn't see the manipulative nature of the former KGB operative whose Stalinist tendencies are increasingly in evidence. Putin technically plays second fiddle to President Dmitry Medvedev. But he handpicked Medvedev, and Putin is believed to be preparing to reassume the presidency in the next election.

There was no naïveté by Obama in Russia. He neither idolized Putin or treated him with disdain. Obama was pragmatic, forging an agreement where one was possible, on nuclear proliferation, while stating clearly his different views on a U.S. missile shield in Europe and Russia's harsh treatment of Ukraine and Georgia.

Pragmatic? He sold out Poland and it's leaders who expended much political capital to push through the missile shield plan. Is Russia now leaving Ukraine and Georgia alone due to the mere words of The One?

A cowboy might have drawn his six-shooter, at least rhetorically, when two American journalists were jailed in March for entering secretive, repressive North Korea. Obama has instead tried to maintain perspective, working to secure the women's release, while keeping open the possibility of future nuclear talks with the wildly unpredictable Kim regime.

The two women are still languishing in a hellish prison for a crime they didn't commit. The Inquirer cites this as proof that Obama's brand of diplomacy is superior. Think about that for a second. Kim Jung-Il will not listen to diplomacy, he laughs at us when we try. He understand one thing: power and the ability to project it. He's a rogue with nukes and one who is playing Obama like a fiddle much as he did Jimmy Carter and Madeline Albright in the 90's.

But wait, the next example is even more telling:

This practical approach to foreign policy was also seen in Obama's restraint in the aftermath of the disputed Iranian election.

The cowboys were screaming for Obama to encourage a rebellion even though the American people, already eager to quit Iraq, would be loath to support Iranian rebels with more than lip service. Obama instead criticized the way President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected, but left open the possibility of U.S. diplomats one day sitting down with Iran's to discuss its nuclear ambitions.

Obama didn't even offer lip service until he saw that the nation wanted him to say something...anything. This is a bit of revisionism by the Inquirer as anyone paying attention when the events were happening saw Obama as weak and wavering. All that was needed was a word of support and perhaps some basic guidance covertly to opposition organizers to open the floodgates of freedom. Obama likes the status quo because he'd rather deal with an entity that is evil but known than a newly freed nation that may require some American assistance. Freedom is far less important than diplomacy in Obamanation.

Obama's pragmatism was again on display when his administration symbolically assumed the mantle of broker for Middle East peace. In his groundbreaking speech in Cairo last month, Obama argued that the Palestinians should eschew terrorism and follow the nonviolent example of the U.S. civil-rights movement. But he also criticized Israel for continuing to expand settlements.

And that speech possibly was read by the Iranian opposition as a clarion call to uprise. They felt empowered by his speech and he left them at the altar of more freedom. As for the Israel-Palestinian situation, I've not seen one report that would make me believe the situation has improved.

Obama must now let pragmatism take the reins with the very complex situation in Honduras. He, along with the United Nations, and the Organization of American States, quickly decried the June 28 ouster of democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. But there should be a limit to support for Zelaya, a power-hungry protégé of U.S.-hating Venezuela President Hugo Chavez.

In fact, Honduras illustrates the fallacy in touting democracy as the best gauge of a nation's freedom. Giving people the right to vote must be the goal, but the world has seen too many democratically chosen despots to say that alone is enough. Even Hitler was democratically elected.

"Pragmatism" is another way of voting present. Any tough situation can be solved by taking the easiest rout and calling it pragmatism. You have to be nuanced in diplomatic affairs you see and Obama is the king of nuance.

With regard to Zelaya, the man was attempting to change the constitution of that nation for his benefit ala Chavez. The army may have acted roughly but were well within the constitution to remove him when they did. (Update: Is this the kind of democracy the Inquirer likes?)

As for Hitler being democratically elected, so was Ahmadinejad (according to liberals who feared rebellion) and Chavez. Hell, Saddam got 100% of the vote prior to his untimely removal and subsequent demise.

So in closing it's imperative to note that this is exactly the type of diplomacy liberals love. It's diplomacy in which nothing really ever happens. Nothing except for our enemies growing stronger, more emboldened and feeling no constraints when spreading weapons and ideology.

Inquirer Hack: That Auto Bailout Worked Out Great, Huh?

On the front page of the Inquirer's editorial page today, Mark Zandi gushes that the auto bailout saved the US car companies and was a huge success:

The government bailout of the U.S. auto industry was a success.

Without financial help from Uncle Sam, General Motors and Chrysler likely would not exist today. The American auto industry would be a shadow of its former self. And the U.S. economic recovery would be even more drawn out and frustrating than it has been.

Saving the automakers was distasteful, but necessary.

Without help those two companies would no longer exist? That's a bold statement and one that has absolutely no basis behind it. Aside from the fact that both GM and Chrysler manufactured cars that none wanted to buy, how can Mr. Zandi make such a blanket statement as this? Chrysler would have been sold off, that's a given and probably should have been. But GM would have gone into bankruptcy, reorganized--most-likely by renegotiating onerous union obligations--and come out leaner and meaner, the way many great American companies have.

For the record, they were not "saved", they were propped up and made to look profitable--a Potemkin village if you will. They paid back the loans with more government money in a ruse that was eagerly reported as "repayment" by the compliant media.

Rehashing this bit of history is timely on the eve of the Republican primary in Michigan, where the economy has long been tethered to the auto industry. The potential GOP nominees have all spoken out against the bailout, which the Obama administration helped engineer. Yet it is worth remembering that when the bailout was being debated three years ago, in the teeth of the Great Recession, it had bipartisan support. And it was the Bush administration that provided the first substantial chunk of financial aid to the industry.

See how Zandi used that line about Bush to make it look like it was Bush's plan? He knows that Americans are still disgusted with the Obama-engineered bailout and lie Obama, still blaming Bush. Furthermore, I don't believe it was Bush that gave shareholder's the finger and showered money on the United Auto Workers in what could only be described as pandering to Big Labor for political gain using our tax money.

Mr. Zandi may consider 205 Democrat votes with 32 GOP votes bipartisan but I don't. 150 Republicans and 20 Democrats voted against, can that be considered bipartisan against? This was purely an Obama and Democrat bill and they own so quit trying to push it off as a joint effort, it's beneath you Mr. Zandi.

He continues:

Detroit's need for government assistance was partly its own fault. For years, the automakers had been using deep price discounts and cheap financing to support sales, instead of making the tough choices necessary for them to stay viable in the long run.

But the industry's predicament was not entirely of its own making. The broader U.S. economy was in free fall, demand for cars was weak, and the banking system's near-collapse made car loans scarce.

In a glaring omission, Zandi does not even mention the insane union contracts hanging around the necks of these two companies. Both GM and Chrysler (and Ford) bear the weight of contracts negotiated using strong-arm tactics. Japanese companies negotiated excellent contracts with US unions where workers make a fair wage with good benefits but do not impede the growth and sustainability of the companies. I don't recall Nissan, Toyota nor Subaru screaming about bankruptcy at the time Chrysler and GM were. The UAW is the primary reason that the car companies were failing and Zandi doesn't even mention them. I think the term I'm searching for to describe this type of writing is hackery.

Bailing out the automakers had some downsides. While taxpayers will get most of their money back, the government will likely sell its remaining GM stock before taxpayers are made completely whole.

The bankruptcy process was painful all around, but the government cushioned the financial blow to the unions at the expense of the automakers' bondholders, partly for political reasons. True, many bondholders were speculators looking to make quick profits, but changing the rules during the game isn't good policy. One reason U.S. households and businesses can borrow cheaply is that creditors feel confident that loan terms won't be changed. The way creditors were treated during the auto bailout arguably weakened that sense of safety.

Aha, we've spotted the word union but note how Zandi equivocates. The emphasis is mine take notice how he describes the bailout as cushioning the blow for unions at the expense of bondholders but those bondholders were just scumbag bottom feeders looking for a quick buck. This is knot just hackery but hackery on a par with Paul Krugman. Real people lost money because the Obama administration bailed out the UAW and gave them a nice gift of ownership. But those people were probably Republicans so it serves them right.

As for repayment of the loans, see how Zandi softens it. When you're talking about a $14-billion dollar loss on an $82-billion dollar investment, how can that be judged a success? I'm sure if Mr. Zandi lost 17% on every deal he brokered at Moody's Analytics his bosses or shareholders wouldn't think he was all that successful. But Zandi is a shill for Obama and the unions and it was only government money anyway that us taxpayers should just shut up about. The fact that they used government money to pay off the loans in a sleight of hand is conveniently forgotten by Zandi.

As a side note, most Sundays the Inquirer has a pro-con front page on the Op/Ed section. You know the format, a Dem on one side of the issue and a Republican on the other. They didn't do that this week because the Inquirer only wants one side to be commented on. To have a conservative rip the auto bailout apart just would not have been acceptable to the Inqy editorial board.

On Bloggers and Newspapers

This morning I was listening to the Michael Smerconish show on local radio. He's a George H.W. Bush Republican who is not much of a conservative although he's the always the guy "on the right" on MSNBC whenever they do one of those inane side-by-side screenshot deals.

Anyway, Smerconish said for the second time in two shows that he's bummed about the state of the newspaper business and is worried because if they go, what will take their place? He also railed against bloggers again and is one of these who has to throw in the obligatory "guy writing on his couch in his pajamas" types. For the record, he also writes for the Philly Inquirer and Daily News and they are in bankruptcy as we speak. His latest on this topic can be found here.

Perhaps Mr. Smerconish needs an education about just how blogs work. Perhaps he's not been enlightened to the fact that newspapers and blogs help each other to survive. A good link from Matt Drudge could bring a paper somewhere between 500,000 and a million unique hits (and newspapers beg him for those links). That is potentially a million folks who would not have gone to that papers' website. The same goes for Glenn Reynolds who is more of a pure blogger. A link from him could result in 30,000 uniques in a day. In the online world, links mean revenue and newspapers are never going to survive without a robust web presence. So a guy "sitting on his couch" is directly benefiting the health of the news paper industry.

Smerconish lamented that without the daily paper, we'd not have had Watergate exposed, the NSA wiretapping investigation or myriad other scandals. And therein lies the problem. Note they were both against the GOP and most in-depth pieces in the papers are. Bias is why we saw a rapid decline in newspaper circulation.

Let me take you back to 2004 when Smerconish's current employer--the Philadelphia Inquirer--ran a 21-day endorsement for John Kerry. 21-days of explaining why Kerry was far superior to George W. Bush was met with raised eyebrows by even the most liberal of journalists. It was pure and simple propaganda by the Inqy and it laid open the bias of the media in grand fashion.

Fast-forward to 2008 and you'll see example number two of why newspapers are dying. The Rev. Wright scandal, William Ayers and Bernadine Dornh's terrorist past, the inner workings of Chicago politics and Obama's scars from it, The shady housing deal with Tony Rezko and the list goes on and on. The main job of the press is to keep politicians in check and they failed miserably this time even more than in the past. They became cheerleaders and dropped any pretense of fair play and non-partisanship. One day they printed a story in the NY Times intimating that John McCain was having an affair and the next the WaPo drooled over Obama's pecs. One day the Times slammed Cindy McCain and the next they fawned over Michelle Obama's intellect. In other words, they shamed every previous journalist worth his salt. I won't even go into how they smeared Sarah Palin repeatedly and daily, whcih may have been the most disturbing media action of the entire election.

There was a time when every politician was fair game and now it's only the ones with an "R" after their name. If the media had done their job and properly vetted Obama, I'd strongly suspect we'd have Hillary Clinton in the White house right now. If they had written of Father Pfleger or the fact that Obama's half-brother is living in a hovel in Kenya on less than a buck a day, it would have had an effect. No one would have known of any of this had it not been for blogs and conservative websites.

One thing Smerconish doesn't get is the fact that not one serious blogger, be they huge like LGF or Glenn Reynolds or small like me want to see newspapers gone. We rely on them and have an interesting symbiotic relationship with them in this brave, new, Internet world. Smerconish has become an elitist because he thinks only "journalists" can break news. Maybe he ought to read Pajama's Media on occasion and see just how good writing can be by "people sitting on their couch." Hell, the way Maureen Dowd mails it in every week, one suspects she's writing while sitting in her basement on a pullout couch but I digress. For the record, again, I subscribe to the Inquirer and have for a decade, I like the feel of the paper and the portability but have to say the bias turns me off.

One last thing, Ed links to this former conservative and current Obama groupie Kathleen Parker who writes:

The biggest challenge facing America’s struggling newspaper industry may not be the high cost of newsprint or lost ad revenue, but ignorance stoked by drive-by punditry.

Yes, Dittoheads, you heard it right.

Drive-by pundits, to spin off of Rush Limbaugh’s “drive-by media,” are non-journalists who have been demonizing the media for the past 20 years or so and who blame the current news crisis on bias.

Parker gets it exactly wrong and like Smerconish sounds elitist. Was Thomas Paine a "trained" journalist? Did Ben Franklin go to Columbia or Syracuse and learn how to be a journalist? This country was built on a free press and the free exchange of ideas. people get their news in different ways now and Parker is upset that her conduit is taking a financial beating. She has to blame someone and lashes out at at "untrained" journalist's for the train wreck daily publication has become. I tend to think it's more a case of the industry employing people like Ms. Parker who have a desperately hard time changing with the times and fearing that the future is here and their place in it is not as secure as it once was.

To sum up this considerable rant, I don't want to see the local fishwrap go the way of the VCR. I want a vibrant, unbiased print media where every politician should fear for his seat. I want a media that will not blame the mortgage meltdown solely on industry but also on the Chris Dodd's and Barney Franks of the world who made the laws that allowed this to happen. I want to pick up the Inquirer and read a piece by Ed Rendell one day, Bill Kristol the next and Michael Smerconish the next. I want to read about every scandal written with the exact same gusto--the Dodd scandal investigated with the same zeal as the Abramoff scandal.

People like Mr. Smerconish and Ms. Parker can't see the writing on the wall but one would suspect when all is said and done, the death of the media will be traced to 2008 when they assisted getting Obama elected but more so that the only real journalist's we have left work for the National Enquirer and broke the John Edwards story while the rest of the media covered for him.

Inquirer Finally Reports on Delaware Brainwashing Program

The Philadelphia Inquirer--my local fishwrap--found room to report the story about the University of Ddelaware's "diversity" program. You may have read about it where they forced students to be indoctrinated in all the feel good rhetoric of the left--white people are oppressors, questions about ones sexual preference and habits and race relation.

You would think that any big story in the Inqy's backyard was news but they did not report on it until today--albeit on he front page and with the understated headline "University of Delaware cancels diversity program".

How invidious was this program? This post by the group FIRE is what got the ball rolling, explained what the program was and got the program canceled:

NEWARK, Del., October 30, 2007—The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.

...The university’s views are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to “sustainability” door decorations. Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

Once FIRE got the word out, the blogosphere hit the story hard and thanks sites such as LGF, the school stopped the program. In other words, the blogosphere beat the Inqy in their own back yard and the only reason can be that the Inquirer chose not to run with the story. I guarantee if it had been a course teaching white power and homophobia, it would have been non-stop coverage as would have been warranted.

This was good work by FIRE and I'm disgusted that U of D even allowed such an Orwellian program to be instituted.

This is a portion of another story on the issue that carries the same title but contains different content as written on the Inqy's website:

"There are question (sic) about [the program's)] practices that must be addressed and there are reasons for concern that the actual purpose is not being fulfilled. It is not feasible to evaluate these issues without a full and borad-based (sic) review."

Jan Blits, a (sic) education professor who spoke out against the program, said he welcomed Harker's decision but said the program should be completely eliminated.

Note that there are three spelling errors in three sentences. Perhaps our universities ought not push brainwashing programs and get back to teaching people how to write on a higher level than a fourth grader.

Tony Auth Lies Again

Philly Inquirer political cartoonist Tony Auth has drawn some seriously misguided (and some would say seriously anti-Semitic) cartoons in his day but this one is an outright lie (update, so is this one):

I've written the following letter to the Inquirer today taking Auth to task. The chances of it being printed are slim and none:

Tony Auth has made it a habit to stretch the truth when drawing his political cartoons, that is referred to artistic license. However, when he outright lies, the Inquirer has the duty to correct the lie before printing it.

In the October 17, 2007 cartoon, Auth has a picture of two mammoths (I would assume the metaphor was dinosaur Republicans) arguing who is the "real" Conservative. One of the mammoths says "I didn't believe in the Civil Rights Act!" This is a completely false portrayal of events that led to the passage of that landmark legislation and I believe Mr. Auth has been caught trying to revise history.

Let's set the record straight on which party supported the Civil Rights Act and which didn't. When debate raged on the act, it was Democrats led by Al Gore, Sr. and current Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) who fought passage with all parliamentary means at their disposal. In fact, Gore attempted to weaken the bill substantially by inserting an amendment that said "in defiance of a court desegregation order, federal funds could not be held from any school districts." While 23 Democrats voted for the amendment, including the mentor of Bill Clinton William J. Fullbright, only one Republican did and fortunately it failed.

Note that it was the so-called Dixiecrats (not Dixiepubs) who were responsible for the efforts to quash it. In fact, while only 61% of House Democrats and 69% of Senate Democrats voted for passage, a whopping 80% of House Republicans and 82% of the Senate GOP voted for passage. Most Southern Democrats voted against the bill including Byrd and Gore. Byrd had previously filibustered the bill for greater than fourteen hours until 67 votes were attained and the filibuster ended.

Perhaps someone should offer Tony Auth a lesson in civil rights history and maybe he'll realize that it was the party of Lincoln that passed the Civil Rights Act while the party of Senator Albert Gore, Sr. did everything possible to kill it. Auth's outright lie is just another example of his consistent bias against all things Republican and/or Conservative and the Democrats collective attempts at presenting revisionist history.

Layers of Editors and Fact-checking

The Philadelphia Inquirer made this little mistake in yesterdays print edition:

The Inquirer yesterday erred in publishing a photograph that accompanied a story on Judge Paul W. Tressler of Montgomery County Court. The photograph was not of the judge, shown at left, but of Howard Nevison, a sex offender sentenced by Tressler in 2006. The Inquirer regrets the error and apologizes.

D'oh!

But unlike blogs such as this, they have layers of editors to ensure that only factual stories are put in the esteemed, non-biased fishwrap. The same fish wrap that ran a 21-day endorsement of John Kerry in 2004.

Note that this correction was on the front page.

Inquirer Pours On The Bias

The Philadelphia Inquirer has always been biased but took great pains to conceal that. Today, they've given up any pretense in the Currents section, the Sunday opinion pages.

Check this out, these are what appears in Currents today:

U.S. In The Time Of Empire written by a Senior Fellow at The Nation Institute that discusses America's new imperialism and how we are rotting from within. As you can note by reading the essay, it contains such liberal tenets as:

The most damning indicators of national decline are upon us. We have watched an oligarchy rise to take economic and political power. The top 1 percent of the population has amassed more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined, creating economic disparities unseen since the Depression...

That has all the lefty buzzwords, "oligarchy," "top 1 percent" and "economic disparities." It includes everything but fascist but the author has a new book coming out in which he compares the Christian right to fascists so he must have just forgotten.

Next we have the solipsistic one, Trudy Rubin, espousing her usual pessimism about Condoleeza Rice's meetings to move the Palestinian/Israeli issue along. Believe me, when it was Madeline Allbright or Bill Clinton meeting to solve the issues, Rubin wrote with a completely different tone, one of optimism and the great appeal of Bill Clinton. In this she says it all in one paragraph:

If Annapolis does nothing but pay lip service to the road map, the conference will be viewed as a sham. Much more is needed to inject a note of hope into an atmosphere of fear.

It's not only the editorial writers who get in on the act, it's the editorial and they have two pieces that leave one agape at the blatant liberal leanings.

First about crime in the city and specifically about John Lewis who shot Officer Chuck Cassidy to death in cold blood. You see, it wasn't Lewis' fault, it was societies fault. And not only the fault of inequities in the system that is oppressive to blacks, they fail to even hint at the most important aspects of inner city violence--the cultural breakdown that has resulted in kids being raised by relatives or worse yet, raising themselves. This is an example of what passes for journalism at the Inqy:

To reduce crime, especially violent crime, you must address the factors that produce it, including unemployment, poverty and bad schools. There's plenty of each in any big city in America. But in all of the Democratic and Republican presidential debates, have you heard anyone detail a cohesive national urban policy aimed at these issues?

Studies have shown that teenagers who have received high-quality education, beginning in preschool, are less likely to be arrested for violent crimes. Yet urban schools continue to be underfunded - in Philadelphia and elsewhere.

Oh, and they also blame commercials such as a Burger King ad but can't bring themselves to talk about the culture and the inherent violence in rap music.

It goes on and on, calling Bush the "Fiscal Phony", and a piece that doesn't even appear on the website but appears in the paper comparing the US to Rome's downfall written by a Vanity Fair author.

The Inquirer will continue to pound out liberal talking points and I'll continue to slam them every time they do.

Dissecting Trudy Rubin

I personally think that Philadelphia Inquirer op/ed writer Trudy Rubin writes well. I don't think she intentionally slants her work to the liberal side. I truly think she believes what she writes and to me, that is the inherent problem with the media.

Trudy's column from earlier this week shows exactly what I mean:

I've recently traveled to Iraq and China, where many journalists are paying a very high price for trying to inform their publics.

These are societies with no experience of a free press. Yet I met many Iraqi and Chinese reporters who intuitively grasp the Jeffersonian notion that freedom requires an informed public and a press that serves as a check on official power.

How ironic that, in the United States, the very idea of the Fourth Estate as a guard against abuse of power is under attack.

This irony becomes even more pronounced when one observes the risks many journalists from Iraq, China, and other developing countries take to uncover their stories.

This is classic Rubin. She throws out a statement with zero backup. What evidence does Trudy give us that the Fourth Estate is under attack?

Consider Yasser Salihee, a 30-year-old Iraqi doctor who doubled as reporter and translator for Knight Ridder newspapers in Baghdad. Yasser braved tremendous dangers as a Sunni who dared to work with Americans and to investigate the killings of Sunni civilians by Shiite militias. Yasser translated for me. He, like other Iraqi journalists I met, was full of enthusiasm about covering a society struggling to build a representative government. This was the kind of journalism that was never possible under Saddam.

Yasser was shot dead by a U.S. soldier as he drove home from the barber one June day on a street where no roadblock warned of an American military presence.

I, as I imagine most Americans have not heard this story. I googled "Yasser Salihee" and found that the most prevalent purveyor of this story is the sister paper of the Inquirer, The Philadelphia Daily News. The more I read of the story, the more I think it was an unfortunate accident as seems to be made clear when all the stories are read.

The problem is how Rubin describes the story. If Yasser was a reporter, wouldn't he be aware that the lack of a roadblock means nothing? This seems to be a cause for the Inquirer and Rubin should disclose that.

Back to the essay:

Death comes from all sides for members of Iraq's aspiring Fourth Estate. Firas Maadidi, the Mosul bureau chief of the independent pro-democracy Baghdad newspaper As-Saffir, which criticizes insurgent attacks on civilians, was gunned down on Sept. 20. His killers were probably Sunni insurgents.

Gutsy New York Times stringer Fakher Haider was kidnapped and killed on Sept. 19 in Basra, probably by radical Shiite militiamen who have infiltrated the police force. Maadidi was helping report important stories about the actions of these militias.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 37 Iraqi journalists have been killed on duty since March 2003. That doesn't include journalists killed on their day off such as Yasser Salihee.

Meanwhile, in China, journalists are struggling with how to report on crime, corruption and other misdeeds by government officials, in an era of breathtaking change. I met young journalists who grasp the concept that a major part of their role should be to unmask unlawful government behavior.

How true. They strive to report the truth. The difference is that Rubin is notorious for reporting her version of the truth. Two different concepts.

...Yet, in the United States, a confluence of forces is acting to undermine the legitimacy of a press that questions those in power.

On the right, radio and TV talk shows promote the notion that the media should be openly partisan. On the left, critics accuse the "mainstream press" of being a lapdog for the administration. The very idea of an independent press is widely derided.

This is an interesting insight. Rubin blames the right-wing radio and TV talk shows for preaching open partisanship. While in Trudy's view, the left believes that the media is slanted right.

Does Ms. Rubin read anything in her paper? They are the same paper that ran a 21-day endorsement of John Kerry. Lapdogs for whom, Ms. Rubin?

She continues:

Meantime, the blogosphere - which leans on links to articles in the major papers - promotes opinion as fact. Wall Street fears about the print media's future viability lead fearful corporate newspaper owners to slash the staffs that can provide genuine facts.

I would be remiss if I neglected to point out to Ms. Rubin this sentence from the beginning of the essay:

How ironic that, in the United States, the very idea of the Fourth Estate as a guard against abuse of power is under attack.

Is that not reporting opinion as fact? Hypocrisy does not suit you, Trudy.

The Inquirer and Arafat

A letter to writer to the editor at the Philly Inquirer beat me to the punch on this one:

Is there any limit to the liberal media's championing of the Palestinian cause?
A Nov. 3 article ("Israel razes teen bomber's house") quotes the mother of the suicide bomber, who murdered three innocent Israelis and wounded more than 30 others: "It's immoral to send someone so young. They should have sent an adult who understands the meaning of his deeds." Silly me. I think it's immoral for an adult to murder and maim innocent people, too.
On the Commentary Page the same day, Gwynne Dyer, a London-based independent journalist, opines, in "Arafat's reign: a mixture of failures and successes," that Yasir Arafat did two things that were "right," the second of which was that "he made the whole world acknowledge the existence of the Palestinian nation. He did that, for the most part, by acts of terrorism." Thus, according to Dyer, acts of terrorism are "right" when done for what he deems to be a significant goal.
Shame on The Inquirer for giving legitimacy to these vile opinions.
Jeffrey C. SchwartzCherry Hill

Amen Mr. Schwartz. You must remember that in the MSM mind, the Palestinians are militants and insurgents, not terrorists.

Another letter writer has had with the good old US of A:

I am in awe over the results of the election. It should not have been about partisan issues as much as removing an obviously inept and corrupt administration. I do not understand how any semi-informed American could vote for President Bush unless he or she is an evangelical Christian who doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.
It's sad when an incumbent cannot run on his record, instead focusing his entire campaign on destroying the credibility of his opponent. I do not believe the majority of the country takes on the responsibility of making an informed decision.
For the first time in my life, I am embarrassed to be an American. My wife and I are expecting our first child in January. We have decided that the environment in this country, right now and for the foreseeable future, is not one in which we want to raise our child. We will be relocating to Canada.Marc BlumPhiladelphia

Us Bush voters are just a bunch of semi-literate, God-fearing, homophobic rednecks I guess. By the way, enjoy the beautiful climate of Canada, the socialist mindset should agree with you.

The Inquirer Spins
 
The Philadelphia Inquirer puts TrouserGate story above the fold with two column inches to the right. They explain it this way:

The report on the plot, according to a final version that was summarized in a staff report from the Sept. 11 commission earlier this year, concluded that American-led counterterrorism efforts "had not put too much of a dent" in Osama bin Laden's overseas network and that "sleeper cells" may have taken root in the United States.
Breuer said Berger inadvertently put three or four versions of the report on the millennium plots in a leather portfolio that he had with him.
Berger also put in his jacket and pants pockets handwritten notes that he had made during his review of the classified documents, Breuer said. He said that the removal of even Berger's own notes was a "technical violation" of archival policy, but he denied accusations from leading Republicans that Berger removed the material intentionally to avoid embarrassing disclosures.
Officials at the National Archives realized late last year that several documents were missing and turned the matter over to the FBI, which executed several search warrants at Berger's home and office, officials said.
 
Emphasis mine. I have read no where that he put the notes in his pockets. Is this Inquirer spin?

Run It On Saturday

The Inquirer has a great way of showing they aren't biased, they run headlines that reflect well on Bush on Saturday mornings when people don't pay as much attention. Good employment numbers are page 1, above the fold today. They also ran this devastating editorial cartoon. They run Abu Ghraib every Sunday through Friday and one or two items complimentary of Bush on Saturday. That's balance.

They also ran this letter:

Don't blame messenger

I'm so sick of radical conservatives' letters criticizing Inquirer editors for being "liberal" and anti-Bush. If commentary isn't to their liking, these rabid rightists attack the messengers to discredit them! As a registered Republican, I find The Inquirer's editors to be fair and unbiased.

Dave Hanson

Chadds Ford

This letter was probably written in the news room by a staffer. I have no problem with a newspaper leaning to the left or right. I do have a problem with them denying it.

Wrong In Many Respects

The Philadelphia Inquirer has an editorial today on the Bush Doctrine that is misguided at best:

With his vow at the Republican National Convention to launch a "liberty century," it's clear that President Bush would commit the United States to a course of long-term nation-building in the heart of the Muslim world.
Iraq and Afghanistan are merely the costly, rocky start to this far-reaching plan to bring democracy to what Bush calls "the broader Middle East."
This vision has profound implications. Considering the missteps and setbacks since Baghdad fell, the merits and risks of this doctrine must receive a full airing in the presidential campaign.
Four years ago, such an aggressive global mission seemed the furthest thing from the mind of candidate Bush. He disdained nation-building. But Bush says that Sept. 11 "requires our country to think differently."

Indeed it does. Bush made very clear in his Bush Doctrine speech, as well as nearly every speech since, that this may go on for decades. The start does not seem so "rocky" when compared to the rebuilding of Germany and Japan. Those two nations were literally destroyed and then rebuilt to become major economic powers. We have been in Iraq for only a year and a half and have faced al-Qaeda terrorists and deposed Baathists who are doing everything possible to ensure we fail.

That is true on many fronts, from U.S. intelligence operations to airline security. But Americans must recognize that the sacrifices entailed in Bush's plan would not end with the departure of troops from Iraq.
The President seeks nothing less than a new kind of Cold War against violent Islamist extremists.
In his convention speech, Vice President Cheney made explicit that analogy, and its long-term weight. Cold War strategies, Cheney said approvingly, "were carried out by Democratic and Republican presidents in the decades that followed" World War II.
By "extending the frontiers of freedom" to repressed populations from northern Africa to central Asia, Bush hopes to eliminate the conditions that foster terrorists.

The War on Terror is a new Cold War. This time it is not against a nation state but but against religious faithful who believe in us as infidels and have no qualms about the means they utilize to attacks America or our allies. Granted they have nation state benefactors such as Syria and Iran but these nations support the radical islamic agenda covertly. Just as the Cold War occasionally flaired into a hot war, so will the War on Terror.

It was no accident that speaker after speaker at the GOP convention emphasized this theme. As former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani put it, "The hatred and anger in the Middle East arises from the lack of accountable governments."
Perhaps. But some others don't see it that way - notably Osama bin Laden. It's true that the terrorist mastermind likes neither the Saudi royal house nor how, in his view, it is propped up by American (i.e. infidel) forces stationed in his native land. But he has no desire to replace the House of Saud with a democratic government. Instead, he seeks a society ruled by Islamic law and fundamentalist clerics.

This is exactly right, bin-Laden does wish to impose oppressive sharia law on the Saudi peninsula. It is also easy to pick Saudi Arabia as the one nation that the Bush doctrine may not work in. The Saudi's are the keepers of the two holiest sites in Islam and the Saudi royals have a lot of oil capital with which to ensure they are not ousted. Because of our dependence on their oil, we have to use a different tact with them. but what of Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Iran, and Pakistan? A democratic Iraq will have great force in encouraging the reformers of these nations to lean toward more democratic principles.

There's another wrinkle to spreading democracy that the Bush Doctrine glosses over. Democracies are unpredictable; by definition, they go their own way. They can't be relied upon always to behave as the United States wishes. They might not, for example, go along with it every time an American president gets it in his head to invade somebody.

Just as we saw this time, all nations have their own interests at heart when it comes to playing politics. For the Germans and French it was oil contracts with Saddam's regime, for a future democratic Iraq it will be other issues that we will view differently. We are not acting imperialistic in the least with regard to freeing Iraq from a generation of murder and rape. Quite the contrary, we look to impose a liberal democratic standard that will, like the beginning in America, have its growing pains and will act in it's own interest for its own aims. Those aims may not be our aims. BTW, Bush didn't just get it in his head to invade Iraq. the president went to the UN (twice) and Congress to get approval for the invasion. It was granted in both places. To suggest that George Bush just woke up one morning and decided to invade Iraq for no good reason is disingenuous at best and should not be in an editorial written in a big city newspaper, regardless of its partisanship.

By reasserting this doctrine last week, Bush left no doubt where he stands in the debate over using "hard power" - military might - vs. "soft power" - diplomacy, aid, trade and the power of example. He will emphasize military power to bring about results (e.g. democratic reforms) others would stress "soft power" to achieve.
Iraq is not a promising first test. "Hard power" easily toppled Saddam Hussein. Then, the administration botched the "soft power" tasks of the occupation, culminating in the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal. That mess, nearly forgotten in the superficial tumult of the campaign, has obliterated in the Muslim world most of the goodwill and respect that might once have fueled an American mission to promote democracy.

Wrong! Bush has used both hard and soft power to our benefit. Libya turned over all their WMD by the mix of hard and soft power. Hard power alone will not work as witnessed in Chechnya and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Conversely, soft power alone will not work either, as we saw with Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policies with Hitler or the botched Jimmy Carter agreement with North Korea in 1994. Hard and soft power, used in tandem, are how a nation gets results. Using the Abu Ghraib prison scandal as an example of us blowing the use of soft power makes no sense. The soft power screw up example I would've used was America believing that Chalabi would be a key player in the new government. I guess the Inquirer is just upset that they couldn't use the Abu Ghraib story to bludgeon the president anymore and is making sure we don't forget.

As for the idea that we had alot of goodwill to squander, we did not. That became clear when we saw pictures of Muslims celebrating on September 11th 2001. Hell, read any edition of Arab News prior to 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq and you can see how much dislike existed.

If the prison scandal is the prism through which Muslims perceive our efforts to usher in liberty, Middle Eastern democracies will be few and far between.
Bush's opponent, Democratic Sen. John Kerry, agrees that the war on terror will be "long-term," but is not as intent on building Middle East democracies by whatever means necessary. He talks of "renewed alliances," better intelligence, cutting off terrorist funds and taking military action if required. Kerry has characterized the Bush approach as "bully instead of persuade."
So far, he's been better at nailing what's wrong with Bush's doctrine than in detailing how his approach could succeed.

The prison scandal was abhorrent and did do us harm, however, we have punished, or are in the process of punishing, those responsible. The perpetrators of the prison crimes were a tiny fraction of all deployed service people, the Inquirer does a disservice to each of them by continuing to harp on the story. President Bush did not order Lindey England to put a collar around the neck of an Iraqi detainee, the people who were responsible will be treated as the criminals they are and spend time in prison.

Kerry talks of renewed alliances, better intelligence, and cutting off terrorist funds, wow, those are novel concepts. Let's see, renewed alliances with whom? Australia? Yes we have a stronger alliance with that pacific rim powerhouse than before. Poland? Yes we have a stronger alliance with the eastern European nation than before. Who could Kerry mean? Maybe France. You know France, that nation that is currently stalling the US and Britain from sanctioning a government complicit in genocide in Sudan. The nation that acted entirely unilaterally when they sent troops into the Ivory Coast to prop up a thug dictator. The nation who believes that by appeasing terrorists will ensure they will not be attacked. Yeah, I guess the Inquirer means France.

Better intelligence? Damn, I wish Bush thought of that. That Kerry is smart. You know smart like voting to cut billions from the intelligence services after the first World Trade Center bombing. You know, smart like attending as few intelligence commitee meetings as possible. You know, smart.

And those terrorist funds should be cut off. That hillbilly dolt W. must be real dumb to not think of that. I heard some rumblings about cutting off those funds on like maybe...9/12/01. I might be mistaken though.

Yant-Kinney Shills for Menendez

Monica Yant-Kinney is a metro reporter for the Inquirer and on occassion actually writes some good pieces. This would not be one of those times. Let's start with this:

At this point, they might as well cancel the debates for the U.S. Senate race and put Tom Kean Jr. and Bob Menendez in a vat of mud to wrestle out their differences.

The fight to be the last man standing - winner gets a Senate seat and use of the Capitol dry cleaner! - would be at least as entertaining as that reality show The Biggest Loser.

Plus, the candidates already know how to slip and slide. So no need to prep for the performance.

Yada, yada, yada...typical Mo Dowd cloning in action. It's really not that hard to actually have a point and be funny. Hell, people like Ace do that and don't get paid for it.

Anyway, MY-K continues:

I've heard of sleeping with the enemy. I've heard of political turncoats.

But a Republican operative becoming pen-pals with a Democratic political boss in prison as a way of winning the race and sticking it to an old rival?

What do you call this sort of conspiracy, anyway? Quadruple-crossing?

I for one am shocked, a donk politico is in jail and was thrown under the bus by his dem buddies, I imagine revenge would be utmost in his mind. Look at the people who spoke out for him...not one significant politician.

Now this piece degenerates into a political hit-job:

Until recently, Kean was selling himself as a Boy Scout who could start fires with his magic ethics sticks, while Menendez, Gov. Corzine's hand-picked successor, raced around the state trying to convince voters his pal hadn't made a big mistake.

Menendez remains highly flammable, but now it looks like Kean bought his image on eBay.

When the golden boy seems as soiled as his tarnished target, voters must wonder if it's too late to trade in both of these duds for a senator to be named at a later date. Or maybe Jersey could get by with one for a while?

And that one is the embarrassing Frank Lautenberg. What exactly is Yant-Kinney's problem with using a jailed donk for more evidence that Menendez is a political thug and possesses as much ethics as the Inquirer does shame. This, as you remember, is the same paper that ran a twenty-one day endorsement for John Kerry for president.

The story, as told in the Newark Star-Ledger, goes like this:

A Kean researcher, Chris Lyon, cozied up to former Hudson County Executive Robert Janiszewski, a Democrat currently residing in a federal prison cell after pocketing one too many envelopes stuffed with cash (from fellow Democrats--ed.)

Normally, there would be no reason for these two to acknowledge one another, let alone exchange pleasantries via snail mail. But party loyalty ain't what it used to be.

Ah Ms. Kinney, but it is. If this man has info on ethical lapses by Menendez, the public has the right and need to know. Period.

In this state, it's all about settling scores and advancing personal agendas. Especially in Hudson County.

Yes, Hudson County, which has been a donk stronghold for longer than either Kean or Menendez have been alive.

A quick primer for South Jersey readers who don't dare venture that far north: When in doubt, hug it out. That Hudson County VIP you're talking to may be wearing a wire.

Janiszewski, the former county executive, got caught in an FBI sting in 2000 taking a bribe from a Union City psychiatrist named Oscar Sandoval.

If Sandoval's name sounds familiar, it's because he's the same guy who says he was pressured in 1999 to hire a doctor favored by then-U.S. Rep. Menendez or risk losing $1 million in government contracts.

And if Chris Lyon rings a bell, it's because he's the same op-research pro who dug dirt on Democrats like U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli and acting Gov. Donald DiFrancesco before they added "former" to their titles and fled their races in scandal.

Of course the reason the Torch bowed out is because he was guilty of every charge. In fact, that Senator you wish to retain--Lautenberg--got on the ballot due to some dubious dealings by those in charge in the state. Of course, Lautenberg had his own ethical issues.

As for DiFrancesco, he probably would've been proven to have skeletons in his closet if it weren't for public sympathy after two DJ's got his ire--and public sentiment--up.

Given the vindictive nature of the electoral process, and the up-and-down nature of their relationship, I suppose it's not that surprising Janiszewski chose to smear Menendez by sharing insight and advice with (gasp!) Republicans.

"Political intrigue is... well... intriguing," Janiszewski wrote Lyon, in one letter obtained by the reporters.

Again, a guy who was sold out by his political brethren had an axe to grind and chose to do it now. Kind of like a political party knowing that a Congressman was acting inappropriately toward teenage boys and chose to withold the information for years until it was politically advantageous. Even if it meant the congressman would ruin the lives of other teenage boys.

First, the laughable claim that he's not to blame, since Lyon is not a direct employee, but a mere subcontractor specializing in sleaze.

When pressed, the Kean camp suggested that dirty tricks are more than justified - required? - when you're up against a lowlife like Menendez.

Why, in the interest of public integrity, the Republican campaign even volunteered to collect more damning data on the Democrat, inviting "anyone who has information about Bob Menendez's corruption to either come forward to us or go to the federal authorities immediately."

Again, shouldn't the public have all available evidence prior to the day of voting? Is Yant-Kinney suggesting that the myriad corruption charges against Menendez should not be investigated? Would she feel the same if Menendez were a Republican? That last is rhetorical.

Democrats weren't buying the piety. U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg dubbed Kean's tactics "gutter politics" and "the ugliest, trashiest campaign one can see."

Again with Latenberg. He was illegally placed on the ballot after his fellow donk was done in by serious ethical violations. Sorry Monica, Frank Lautenberg's words ring hollow.

In short, Yant-Kinney has shown her true colors as a political hack for Menendez and the Dems. I should expect more from the Inquirer but gave up on that ages ago.