By: sebastianjer , 12:48 PM GMT en Marzo 30, 2012



BY: Matthew Continetti

Hoping to spend the week sliming Paul Ryan and screeching about the mythical Republican “war on women,” the Democrats instead have been set back as the news cycle spun out of their control. Foreign policy, health care, and energy have forced them into a defensive crouch. No wonder I’m in such a good mood.

David Axelrod most likely is not. He must have wished he could go back to bed on the morning of Mar. 26, when news broke of President Obama’s “hot mic” moment at the security summit in South Korea. ABC News had caught the president telling Putin stooge Dmitri Medvedev that he needed the Russian dictator to give him “space” on issues such as missile defense until after “my last election,” at which time he will have “more flexibility.” Medvedev nodded sympathetically throughout the conversation and said, in his best General Orlov imitation, “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.” All that was missing from the ridiculous exchange were fulminations over “moose and squirrel.”

The president embarrassed himself. Not only did Obama give us a glimpse of his backwards statesmanship, in which “diplomacy” involves telling a corrupt strongman that electoral concerns prevent him from further accommodation. He also reminded Republicans and independents of the high stakes in 2012. What would be the results, not a few conservatives wonder, if the president had all the “flexibility” he desires?

As it happened, the hot microphone mess was the least of the president’s troubles. The gaffe was still in the news when oral arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act began at the Supreme Court. The first day of proceedings concerned whether the Court could rule on the law at all since the individual mandate will not be enforced until 2014. But even those arguments went poorly for the administration and its hapless solicitor general, Donald Verrilli Jr., who was unable to explain how the mandate could be a “penalty” one day and a “tax” the next day.

Yet the liberal panic did not truly begin until Mar. 27, when the Court heard arguments over the mandate’s constitutionality and even the president’s most hardened supporters had to acknowledge his signature policy was in trouble. No sooner had the proceedings concluded than a hysterical Jeffrey Toobin fled the courtroom, screaming that Obamacare was in “grave, grave” condition. The flimsiness of the administration’s arguments had transformed Toobin into a Henny Penny in drag, running around Capitol Hill and warning his fellow liberals that the Court could overrule Obamacare in “one big package” and that at the very least the mandate is “doomed.

The administration and its friends in the media found themselves in a truly helpless position. If Toobin is proven right and the Court overrules Obamacare in part or in whole, Republicans will pounce, the president will look like a loser, and Democrats will be both demoralized and radicalized (not a winning combination). If Toobin is proven wrong, however, he will look like an idiot, Republicans and Tea Party activists will mobilize for the fall, and Democrats still will have to defend an unpopular law whose consequences grow worse with each passing minute.

The liberal reaction to this dilemma has been a predictable combination of spin and scapegoating. The noted legal mind Chuck Todd, who seems to have missed the class on Marbury v. Madison, asked guests on his show whether a Court decision against the health care overhaul might not be an unprecedented intrusion of one branch of government over the elected branches. Meanwhile, James Carville and Harry Reid lamely suggested an anti-Obamacare ruling would be good for the president and his party. The White House was reduced to using Newspeak, referring to the mandate as the “personal responsibility clause.”

It was Verrilli, however, who bore the brunt of the blow. After transcripts and audio of the arguments revealed little difference between his platform and that of a former Miss Teen South Carolina, left-of-center talking heads likened the longtime attorney to Bill Buckner and a clueless actor in a fifth-grade play. Mike Barnicle suggested that the administration would have been better off sending in Vincent LaGuardia “Vinny” Gambini to argue the case.

None of the commentators who hurled these insults dared to ask whether they might have done any better. They probably could not have improved on Verrilli’s performance for the simple reason that the arguments for the constitutionality of the federal health insurance mandate are weak. So it goes: Whenever liberals are dealt a setback, as has happened repeatedly during the last three years, they blame their defeat on a lack of message. Once again, they have failed to realize that the marketing is not the problem. The problem is what they are selling.

As a possible anti-Obamacare majority was forming inside the Supreme Court chambers, the magnitude of this week’s Democratic rout was becoming apparent across First Street. Senate Democrats had hoped to spend the last few days before Easter Recess reminding Americans that Republicans are the protectors of those horrible, greedy oil companies. To that end Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin had Bob Menendez introduce a bill eliminating tax breaks for carbon energy producers and replacing them with tax breaks for green energy companies. The Democratic leadership had expected the Republican caucus to block debate on the Menendez proposal, handing liberals and the White House a tactical victory.

This is your Democratic-controlled Senate at work: No budget in three years but plenty of votes to score partisan points. What the oaf from Nevada had not anticipated, however, was that Republican leader Mitch McConnell would allow debate on the bill, thereby providing the Senate GOP an opening to blame Obama’s anti-drilling policies for high gas prices. The Menendez proposal went down in the end as expected, but not before Republicans turned the tables on Democrats.

The week ends, then, with the Democrats in disarray as a result of the president’s gaffe, unanticipated trouble at the Court, and shrewd maneuvering by McConnell. Having spent most of 2012 under fire for the mind-numbing Republican primary and for not properly appreciating Sandra Fluke’s unique contributions to society, this was the first good news cycle for conservatives in a long time. Might as well enjoy it while it lasts. Rarely do politics get better than this. Though they might on Nov. 6.

And he did not even mention that the "racist" killer of Trayvon Martin turned out to be a Hispanic-American Democrat

************************************************* ****
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map


The religion of Climate Science

Romney's Pending Sellout on Global Warming

EPA Endangers Human Health and Welfare




History in Pictures


“When people say we’re drilling everywhere—well, we’re not drilling everywhere!”

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D., La.)

“I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions..."

- Jimmy Carter

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 14 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

14. theshepherd
1:14 PM GMT en Marzo 31, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:
Ah yes, I felt compelled to provide this tidbit on quorum sensing at the most basic level. Make your own analogy with respect to today's politics. It's not hard to do :)

The TED Talks have been enlightening to say the least.
Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 10 Comments: 10236
13. spathy
4:39 AM GMT en Marzo 31, 2012
Obama's solicitor general was caught flat-footed not because he lacks legal skills. He is part of a political culture that has never thought seriously about the Constitution, has never thought that our masters in Washington need to beg the people for any permission beyond their vote every two to six years, and has regarded the doctrine of enumerated powers as a pre-New Deal relic. The Washington conventional wisdom has long been rooted in constitutional contempt.

Member Since: Junio 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
12. spathy
4:31 AM GMT en Marzo 31, 2012
Constitutional Contempt

By W. James Antle, III on 3.29.12 @ 9:30AM

Why the Obama legal team struggled at the Supreme Court.

After three days of arguments before the Supreme Court, the Obama administration and its supporters have been found in contempt. Not of the court, but of the Constitution.

Twenty-six states and the National Federation of Independent Business challenged the constitutionality of President Obama's signature piece of domestic legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The sophistries on which the Obamaphiles relied to defend their health care power grab were perhaps best summarized by Slate legal columnist Dahlia Lithwick: "That the law is constitutional is best illustrated by the fact that -- until recently -- the Obama administration expended almost no energy defending it."

That lack of energy came back to haunt them Tuesday when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli turned in a stammering, barely coherent performance worthy of the public defender in My Cousin Vinny as he struggled to articulate a constitutional defense of Obamacare. The arguments went only slight better for Verrilli yesterday. The administration seemed ill prepared to answer even basic, predictable questions about the law's constitutional basis.

Like Nancy Pelosi, when pressed to square the federal government's actions with the Constitution, the Obama legal team could only reply, "Are you serious?"

For at least five of the nine Supreme Court justices, the answer appeared to be yes.

Indeed, the issue goes far beyond health care. For decades, members of the elected branch of the federal government have barely pretended to adhere to the document to which they swear an oath. They do not consult the Constitution when they seek to accomplish their policy goals. They do not recognize its clear limits on their power.

Read the rest here:

Member Since: Junio 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
11. spathy
4:22 AM GMT en Marzo 31, 2012
March 30, 2012
The Tea Party Call to Duty
By Sally Zelikovsky

At the time of America's founding, the notion of civic duty was commonplace. Our entire system was predicated on the idea that citizens would take an active role in the governance of their towns, states, and country. Little was asked of Americans other than self-governance, jury duty, fighting wars when necessary, protecting the homeland, and living by the rule of law. In time, Americans were additionally "asked" to forfeit a portion of the fruits of their labor to foot the bills the government would incur.

Over the years, we have handed off most of our self-governing and civic duties to others. As the Founders anticipated, we elect town council members and state and federal legislators to "represent" us. But all too often, we leave the voting booth, brush our hands together, and go back to our normal lives thinking we are done...until the next election. In the meantime, we relinquish considerable power and control over our lives to the very people who are supposed to be working for us.

We have so completely shirked our personal and civic responsibilities that we have inadvertently created a class of professional politicians. With the economic and personal stakes being so high for these professional politicians, the legislation they enact is often compromised, and their re-election campaigns are motivated more by what's good for the incumbent than by what's good for the People.

Jury duty persists, but most citizens will do anything they can to get out of it.

We no longer have a draft. The brave men and women who volunteer do it out of love of country so the rest of us don't have to, and for that, we compensate them.

Most of us try to live by the rule of law and comply with tax burdens, but both have become so onerous that they encroach on our freedoms while bloating the State with power.

Protecting the homeland has two different prongs -- the physical protection of our country, our borders, our property, and our people, and the more metaphysical protection of our ideology, our way of life, our principles, and our freedoms.

The metaphysical is as important as the physical protection of our homeland, yet it continues to be sorely neglected. While most of us are dismayed by the erosion of our liberties, only a fraction of us are willing to fight for them and make the necessary sacrifices our men and women in uniform make every day.

Most of us realize we are in an existential struggle for the country's soul and understand that there are many aspects to this war. Our endgame is to restore constitutional governance, and a key battle will be waged on November 6, 2012. During the next eight months, we will encounter many clashes on many fronts and, like our soldiers, will be asked to participate in many operations -- covert and overt.

From April 14 to 16, Tea Parties across the country will be having their fourth annual tax day Tea Party events. Conservatives of all stripes are required to report for duty.

Yet many conservatives do not see the sense in standing around with a bunch of like-minded people holding signs. They do not think it accomplishes anything. They think it is silly, beneath them, and kind of embarrassing. They could not be more misguided. The strategic benefit to participating in a rally is tremendous.

We do much in the Tea Party that is targeted and action-oriented -- we petition; get out the vote; support constitutional conservatives; call, e-mail, and fax our representatives; run for office, sponsor initiatives and legislation, attend town council meetings, etc.

But we cannot underestimate the value of psychological operations (PsyOps) or forget to employ them.

Taking to the streets is essential in any battle for the country. It shows the enemy that we are alive and organized. It shows them that we are nimble and can mobilize large numbers in a short time. It gets our message out. It brings us together to network and be heard with one loud bang. And protests and rallies do not drain precious resources or cost much.

While Nancy Pelosi is yammering that Tea Partiers are "anti-government," what sends a more powerful message to progressives, Democrats, liberals, and Occupiers? A gathering of a hundred conservatives with signs in a park or a gathering of ten thousand?

What size crowd is harder for the press to ignore? A crowd of 250 or one of 25,000?

So get off your couch, tell your kids you cannot make their game this one time, arrange for that weekend getaway to take place on another weekend, do your taxes ahead of time...and be part of your local Tea Party rally. If you cannot find one, get on a train or bus or plane and come to San Francisco, where you can Tea-Party in the Belly of the Beast.

But do not think for a minute that someone else is doing it. They are not. We have eight months left to find the lost soul of America's constitutional governance. We need every able-bodied conservative warrior to show up and make the sacrifice. This is a tiny request in comparison to the demands made on those who put their lives, their time, their families, and their dreams on hold to fight for freedom.

We might not fight with gun and sword, but we do fight with pen and word. And you cannot be heard if you are not shouting.

For those who brush aside the Tea Party this year, any loss in November will be on your shoulders. It will not be because the Republicans couldn't come up with a decent candidate. It will not be because people didn't try. It will be because too few tried.

The political road is littered with propositions, initiatives, and candidates that failed to garner enough votes, and with petitions that failed to amass enough signatures. We cannot allow this election to be a casualty of inaction.

Ronald Reagan -- whom conservatives love to quote -- spoke often about the risks attached to apathy and lack of participation.

Let us be sure that those who come after will say...we did everything that could be done."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."

Freedom ... must be fought for, protected, and handed on for [our children] to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it was once like where men were free.

There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind ... and ... if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record ... that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening.

Americans have faced many forks in the road, and it comes as no surprise that this is another "time to choose." Do I stay home or get involved? Do I set aside time in the next six months to help a candidate or watch the returns on TV? Do I go to my country home every weekend or postpone it so that I can GOTV? Do I go for my jog when the Tea Party is happening or do it earlier in the day? Do I make some phone calls to support a Senate candidate or chat with friends over coffee?

It doesn't matter if you wear a tool belt or a suit to work. It doesn't matter if you earn $20,000, $200,000 or $2 million a year. It doesn't matter if you went to trade school or law school.

This is not the time to worry about what your neighbor might think. This is a time for each of us to do his or her part to save the country. It is a time for valor -- maybe not on the battlefield, but certainly on the political battlefront.

You can simply quote Reagan and feel good about yourself for a few minutes, or you can get involved and preserve this shining city on a hill for generations to come.

Otherwise, as Lincoln said, "To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men."

Read more: ty_call_to_duty.html#ixzz1qfI8Not1

Member Since: Junio 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
10. spathy
3:21 AM GMT en Marzo 31, 2012
L8er Oss
Have a good evening :O)
Member Since: Junio 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
9. spathy
3:19 AM GMT en Marzo 31, 2012
The phrase quorum sensing was perfect!
Member Since: Junio 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
8. Ossqss
3:19 AM GMT en Marzo 31, 2012
Hey Spathy, doing Friday. I hope all is well with everyone. CUL8R !

Coming time for that change that has been called for .....

Yes indeed! :)
Member Since: Junio 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8203
7. spathy
3:16 AM GMT en Marzo 31, 2012
Quickly summing up vid.
Fantastic deep analogy.
Individual good bacteria living in harmony fighting dangerous bacteria can thrive if in balance.

The balance of nature(human nature) is suppressed, the "bad" bacteria takes control and Fs things up.
But then the smart elites step in and further the imbalance and find ways to continue the imbalance in the guise of helping.
The good Bacteria becomes weaker and more reliant on the artificial "fix" all the while allowing the fix to destroy the balance.

Excellent thought/analogy.
Member Since: Junio 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
6. spathy
3:03 AM GMT en Marzo 31, 2012
Hi Oss

How ya doing?

Member Since: Junio 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
5. Ossqss
2:46 AM GMT en Marzo 31, 2012
Ah yes, I felt compelled to provide this tidbit on quorum sensing at the most basic level. Make your own analogy with respect to today's politics. It's not hard to do :)

Member Since: Junio 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8203
4. spathy
2:32 AM GMT en Marzo 31, 2012
President Obama demonizes big oil tax-breaks claiming they are monies that are "given" to "big"Oil Companies.
There are two realities that contradict this Presidents attempt at divisive rhetoric.

1) tax breaks for Oil companies arent tax payers paying / giving/ money to oil companies.
Tax breaks for Oil Companies is simply letting them keep more of their hard earned money.
No different than most companies ability to keep more of their own money via tax code.And no different than President Obama on his own tax return claiming a tax break.(he does claim tax breaks)

President Obama usually continues this line of illogical rhetoric by stating that these "monies"are better spent........
For any Gov program.
As if these "monies are the Governments "monies"

2)President Obama chooses his divisive words carefully.
President Obama starts out his speech demonizing the "Big" Oil companies recent record profits,then he changes the term to tax breaks for oil companies.
"Big" Oil and oil companies that get tax breaks(keep more of their own money) are two separate entities as it turns out. This is minutia but listen to the exact wording of the president.
He first names big oil companies like Exon and the like.
The President tells the consumer/tax payer/voting public that the named companies(Exon ETC) have had record profits.
Then in his next sentence the President just uses the term Oil Companies when he says they are getting Tax breaks.

Why the change in adjectives?
Its purposeful.

Listen to a fellow Democrat that knows the complete story.

a href="" target="_blank">Link

a href="" target="_blank">Link

So lets sum this up.
President Obama demonizes the record profits that "Big Oil" is quote raking in.
Then he wants to reduce the amount of profit that the small private Oil companies can keep.
ie they need to give more of their profit to the Government.

But President Obama mixes "Big Oil" profits with small Oil tax breaks.
And on top of that, Obama claims credit for private oil production that is the result of President Bushes policies.
The very same policies that he demonized previously.

A divisive shell game in plain sight!

And the audacity of this is Presidents response/fix, for high gasoline prices.
1)Demonize "Big"oil profits
2)Remove tax breaks for the little private oil industry.(the very source of increased oil production he claims credit for)
3)play shell games with leasing permits on sites that have been proven unprofitable.

Does any sane person think those tactics will reduce the price at the pump?

After all would you trust a lease permit after President Obama wins reelection?
You know , the point when he has more flexibility than the farse he has already played on the economy and our allies.


This is what the President uses to claim he is on top of the pump price crisis,and these policies will solve the added economic burden.

Hows that hope and change for a unifying above the fray,most open Presidency, working out for YA!?
Member Since: Junio 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
3. latitude25
7:11 PM GMT en Marzo 30, 2012
"until after “my last election,” at which time he will have “more flexibility.”

...can't wait for the ad to come out
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
2. latitude25
1:49 PM GMT en Marzo 30, 2012
Why isn't this a racial hate crime........ ames-Kouzaris-James-Coopers-friends-criticise-Obam a-lack-compassion.html
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
1. sebastianjer
1:38 PM GMT en Marzo 30, 2012

Media Hackery: Subtle, But Insidious

By Quin Hillyer

Leftist bias is worse than ever.

Yeah, yeah, I know: Noting the leftward bias of the establishment media is about as newsworthy as noting that cows moo, the sun rises in the East, and Hollywood stars tend to rut around like bonobos. But what's different these days is the flagrant and willful dishonesty that often accompanies the bias.

It has gotten so bad that sometimes editors will refuse to listen to audiotapes directly disproving their stories making conservatives look ignorant -- instead, insisting that it is better to go with the (incorrect) account of a major news leader rather than to get it right, even when presented with irrefutable proof of what was and wasn't actually said.

Yes, that really happened.

And that sort of thing has been rampant in recent months -- or, actually, just within the past week.

Consider a story by The Associated Press's Laurie Kellman that ran in Wednesday morning papers, about how both parties are stepping up efforts to appeal to unmarried women voters. Here is how the final sentence (in my paper at least) read: "Democrats have been trumpeting a 'Republican war on women,' a phrase coined because of GOP objections to birth control access."

Come again? The sentence didn't say "a phrase coined because Democrats say GOP positions will lead to less access to birth control." No, it reported as fact that Republicans actually object to birth control access. And that, of course, is to frame the issue exactly as the Democrats frame it, in the guise of stating a (supposed) fact.

Conservatives, of course, contend that there is a huge difference between not forcing churches to pay for other people's abortifacients and restricting access to birth control, which is inexpensive and readily available elsewhere. To ascribe to them, as a fact, a motive they claim to utterly reject is to completely and deliberately bias the news against them. Plus, of course, Republicans say the issue isn't about contraception anyway, but instead about religious freedom.

This isn't a small matter. To state as fact one side of a political dispute, while not even crediting the other side's contentions, is the antithesis of objective journalism.

Consider an almost perfectly analogous situation: Sarah Palin's description of Obamacare as having the effect of forming "death panels." All throughout the brouhaha over that issue, the AP belittled the Palin position, and continues to do so almost up to this day (as this piece at NewsBusters makes clear).

If AP had written that Palin story in completely neutral fashion at the time, it would have written (in exact parallel to Wednesday's story on single women voters) that "Republicans have been trumpeting what former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin called 'death panels' because Republicans say Obama's policies will lead to rationing of medical care." Now that phraseology would have been fair to all sides.

If AP had written to bias it in favor of Republicans the same way Wednesday's story took Democrats' side, it would have been "Republicans have been trumpeting Obamacare's threat of 'death panels,' a phrase coined because of Democratic support for rationing health care."

Instead, we get the editorializing within the relevant sentence that the death panel phrase is "now widely debunked." Worse, at the time the AP actually went out of its way to "fact-check" the "death panel" phrase -- even though Palin herself used it only figuratively, within quotation marks -- just to make sure the public knew how off-base Palin had been.

So where is the AP fact check showing the considerable remaining "access" to contraception even if Republicans had their way and the status quo ante (the exact situation that applied before the brand new Obama regulations were implemented) were re-established?

Even worse, as Monica Crowley noted on Thursday, AP can't even write about a unanimous House rejection of Obama's budget without editorializing in the lead paragraph that the very act of actually holding a vote on the president's proposal (oh -- the horror!) was "forced by GOP lawmakers to embarrass Democrats."

Sorry to keep bashing AP, but its Will Weissert filed a story a week ago that was outrageously sloppy, if in that case not necessarily stemming from bias. Here's how he started the story: "Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn't the GOP nominee…." Of course, Santorum had said no such thing, even though at least it is fair to say he left himself open to the interpretation that he was suggesting such a thing. Even then, though, to state as a blanket fact that Santorum said Obama would be preferable to any Republican but Santorum himself was outrageous -- especially since the Santorum campaign that very evening clarified his remarks. Weissert's story did not even bother noting the clarification, a failure that directly lent itself to sensationalist headlines like the one in my paper that read: "Santorum: Take Obama over Romney."


Of course the establishment media has been awful for a long time. Allen Drury skewered its leftist biases more than 50 years ago in Advise and Consent. In 1992 the elder Bush's campaign put out a bumper sticker saying: "Annoy the media: Vote Bush." And our good friends at NewsBusters/Media Research Center and Accuracy in Media (among others) have been documenting media perfidy for years, and the MRC's annual media bias awards are always a hoot.

Yet at least most reporters once took their "adversarial" role seriously enough that they gave the prior Democratic president, Bill Clinton, a fair amount of grief (not enough, but still a noticeable amount) when he strayed in numerous ways. They certainly didn't pander much in the late 1970s to Jimmy Carter. But now they have become such lapdogs for President Obama that it's a wonder they don't fetch his slippers and newspaper for him when he wakes up.

The bigger problem, though, isn't the obviously and/or flamboyantly outlandish statements by reporters in supposedly straight-news roles; the bigger problem occurs in the constant shadings of a subtler character, such as the one that began this column making it sound oh-so-matter-of-factly as if Republicans seek to restrict "access" to birth control. Witness the Washington Post's main story Thursday summing up the end of the Supreme Court's Obamacare hearings, beginning by describing the conservative justices' being "at least open" to declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional and then immediately reporting that "much can happen between now and the expected ruling this summer, and a far more moderate tone may emerge [emphasis mine]."

Note how the idea of being "open" to jettisoning the mandate is juxtaposed against the idea of a "moderate tone" -- as if moderation is equivalent to supporting the mandate, which makes striking it down, by logical extension, extreme.

Actually, that exchange was in the second and third paragraph of the article. The first paragraph is even worse. It would be "the conservative majority," according to this supposedly unbiased news story, that "may be on the brink of a redefinition of the federal government's power."

Oh, really? And all along we were under the impression that the court was deciding if President Obama and Congress had tried to "redefine" federal power. Even the most ideological of liberals have acknowledged that the mandate is an "unprecedented" use of power; that isn't even in dispute. The only question was whether the unprecedented use of power is or isn't allowable under the Constitution -- but, either way, the redefinition of power, if it exists at all, is coming from the left, not from the high court's conservatives.

The Post's account is absurdly tendentious. The tone continued throughout the story: If the high court rules the mandate unconstitutional, it would be "insert[ing] itself into a partisan battle." (Somehow, I doubt the Post reported that the court "inserted itself" into the dispute over the Texas anti-sodomy law, and its potential repercussions for homosexual "marriage," in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas. Likewise, was it "inserting itself" into the Kelo case about property rights?)

Every day, in newspapers and news broadcasts across the country, the examples abound of this sort of casual shading of news. The trend is despicable.

It's not as if it is impossible for a person with strong views to keep those views out of reporting. There are neutral approaches, and standards of reporting, that are not tremendously difficult to abide. As just one example, when the inimitable David Rogers was covering Capitol Hill for the Wall Street Journal, those of us who worked as Republican press staffers were rather sure, from friendly interactions with him, that his personal opinions listed leftward. But not once, in my years up there, do I remember ever seeing a trace of bias in the reports Rogers produced. Thorough, knowledgeable, detailed, balanced, and fair: Those were the inevitable insignia of a David Rogers news story.

No good reason exists for other reporters to fail to do the same. Instead, we get Republicans portrayed as "objecting" to birth control access merely by virtue of wanting the keep the law the same as it always has been. Instead, we get conservative justices portrayed as trying to redefine federal power.

Instead, we get dreadfully dishonest dreck.

One wonders how some of these reporters and editors even live with their own professional consciences, if they possess consciences at all.
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197

Viewing: 14 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

Top of Page


About sebastianjer

Local Weather

67 ° F

sebastianjer's Recent Photos

Looking for Lunch
Landing Gear
Sunday Morning