Biomechanical Robotic Android Intended for Nocturnal Sabotage, Troubleshooting and Efficient Repair  

Politics and other Pastimes
Favorite Blogs: Right Wing News

Conservative Grapevine


Allman's Stove

Ankle-Biting Pundits

Kitty Litter

Radio Patriots

Pam Meister aka Blogmeister USA

Third Wave Dave

Lucky Dawg News (Hiatus)

And You Thought You Were Cranky?


Dodo David

On Wings of Eagles

Alive and Kickin' Oldies

A Rose By Any Other Name

Airborne Combat Engineer

American Protest

Anonymous Opinion

Astute Blogger

The American Scratchpad

La Shawn Barber


Blue Crab Boulevard

Lorie Byrd

Captain's Quarters

Carol Platt Liebau

Rudy Carrera


Chicago Ray

Chief Brief

Christian Conservative

Combs Spouts Off

Conservative Comet

Constitutional Public Radio

Crazy Politico


Church & State


Decision '08

Richard Delevan

Dynamo Buzz

Eating Arizona


Educated Shoprat

Fear & Loathing

Flopping Aces



GOP and the City

Granddaddy Longlegs

Hell's Freezing Over

Here There and Back Again

Hillary Needs a Vacation

Hot Air

Hugh Hewitt

Illumination Inc.

In My Taxi (Liberal)

In the Right Place

Irish Pennants

Jackson's Junction


JREFForum Conspiracy Theories

Leather Penguin

Graham Lester

Let's Play King's Bounty

Liberty or Death

Little Bit Tired, Little Bit Worn

Lone Star Pundit

Marathon Pundit

Mark In Mexico

Twin Cities Chess


Michelle Malkin


Molten Thought


Mr Media Matters

Mrs Media Matters

Neander News

New Hampshire Insider


NoonzWire (Alex Nunez)

No Pundit Intended

The Nose on Your Face


Slugger O'Toole

Pajamas Media

Pajama Pack (AKA L-Dotters Blog)

Partisan Pundit

Passionate America

Pink Flamingo

Please Make It Clear


Politburo Diktat

Poor and Stupid

Radio Equalizer

Reaching for Lucidity

Real Ugly American

Regime Change Iran

Right-Wing & Right Minded

Right Wing Nuthouse(AKA Superhawk)

Satire & Theology

Fred Schoeneman

Sister Toldjah

Small Town Veteran

Roger L. Simon

David B. Smith

Shock And Blog

Some Soldier's Mom

Stolen Thunder

Stop the ACLU

The Strata-Sphere

Tel-Chai Nation

Texas Rainmaker

The Kingpin 68

Time Cannon

Tinkerty Tonk

Valley Greaser

Viking Pundit

Weapons of Mass Discussion

Wilkesboro Square


Tim Worstall


Ya Libnan (Cedar Revolution)

Add to Technorati Favorites
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Sherrod Brown, Plagiarist

Beth of My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (who, by the way, I was the first to link over at Kerry Haters), points us in the comments section of a post at Protein Wisdom to this example of plagiarism.

Apparently, U.S. Representative Sherrod Brown sent a letter to Mike DeWine regarding the Samuel Alito nomination, and the letter essentially copied a Nathan Newman post about Alito's take on labor rights. Brown's staff admitted to Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter Stephen Koff that "90 percent of what Brown, an Avon Democrat, wrote in his letter was lifted from an Internet posting by a blogger."

Brown's office acknowledged that it should not have used Newman's words without giving him credit. Spokeswoman Joanna Kuebler said she found Newman's work when researching labor issues. Brown's legislative staff confirmed its accuracy, and Brown then signed the staff-prepared letter, Kuebler said.

"We should have cited it, and we didn't," Kuebler said.

Sherrod Brown, of course, is running for the Senate in Ohio, against DeWine. I'd say let's see how hard the progressive blogosphere comes down on this one, except that it's months ago that this came out, and they've already closed ranks:

Duncan "Atrios" Black -- who works at Media Matters, mind you, concurs:

Genuine plagiarism in this context is lifting out paragraphs of unique prose, not culling some information from a blog post.

Drezner points out the sloppiness of this claim:

For instance, Newman, an attorney and labor and community activist, posted this on his blog Nov. 1: "What is striking about Alito is that he is so hostile even to the basic rights of workers to have a day in court, much less interpreting the law in their favor."

Brown's letter merely changed the last clause so the sentence read, "What is striking about Alito is that he is so hostile even to the basic rights of workers to have a day in court, not to mention interpreting the law against them."

Paul, in the comments section, compared the Domenech sitation to Rathergate, noting that we had engaged in excessive celebration over Rather's downfall, so it was petty of me not to allow the liberal blogs some champagne. It's probably a fairer point than I gave him credit for in my reply. But there's at least one significant difference. Almost the minute we conservative bloggers were handed credible evidence that Domenech had plagiarized, we rose up to condemn his actions. Rick Moran, Dan Riehl, and, painfully for her Michelle Malkin, quickly acknowledged his misdeeds.

Were there any major liberal bloggers acknowledging Rathergate back in 2004? Let's take a trip back in time. Here's the sum total of what Atrios had to say about it in the course of the week of September 12-18, 2004 (the famed Smoking Memo post at LGF was dated September 14):


CBS and Dan Rather have their problems which they're going to have to sort out, but as anonymous reminds us in comments, this is the key point:

Q Scott, on the National Guard documents on "60 Minutes," the First Lady says she believes these are forgeries. The RNC has accused the Democratic Party of being the source of these documents. Knowing then what you know now, would you still have released those documents when you did?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's a hypothetical question, John. We received those documents from a major news organization. We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time.

If the basic thrust of the memos was false - if, say, Bush came forward and said "Hey, wait a minute! Those can't be real! I never disobeyed a direct order..." then why would our dear Scotty say such a thing?

And, yes, trolls, if the documents are proven to be forgeries than Rather and CBS will have major egg on face, and they'll get their punishment like the Bush administration did when they fell for forged documents recently. And, yes, if they're proven to be forgeries, then whoever passed them to CBS, at least if they *knew* they were forged, should be outed.

But, none of that changes the fact that as Scotty said, they "had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time."

No calls for Rather's resignation; indeed an insistence that they were right to publish the documents. No links to the charges, no acknowledgement that they appear substantive beyond "they have their problems". Just kind of a sullen insistence that there's still something to the underlying story.

How about Kos? Can't find his archives (why I am not surprised that he's not interested in the past?). Oliver Willis doesn't have archives to 2004. Crooks and Liars only search result for Mapes takes us to another one of those "fake but accurate articles, this one well after the fact:

Lost in the commotion over the authenticity of the documents is that the underlying facts of Rather's 60 Minutes report are substantially true...

Indeed, this post, written six months after the Rathergate Memos were proven to be phony, steadfastly refuses to come to that conclusion:

Surprisingly, the panel was unable to conclude whether the documents are forgeries or not. If the documents are not forgeries, what is the reason for the report? The answer is: to criticize the newsgathering practices of CBS, whether the documents are authentic or not. As such, the report is less than fully credible.

Our side, when confronted with credible evidence moved swiftly to condemn Domenech's actions. Their side? Tried to weasel that the fraudulent documents didn't matter, and maybe they weren't phony anyway. It's as if we said, it doesn't matter that Ben stole those words, the important thing is what he thought of the movie.

Anybody know of a large, liberal blog that promptly acknowledged that the documents were fake and condemned CBS for presenting them? I've checked a half dozen, but most of them seem to have forgotten that 2004 ever existed.
This Just In

Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States and had contacts with Al Qaeda. Bin Laden met with official representatives of Iraq and agreed to carry out joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia (i.e., Americans).

A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.

Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Ignoring the First Rule of Holes

Ben Domenech keeps digging.

Virtually every other alleged instance of plagiarism that I’ve seen comes from a single semester’s worth of pieces that were printed under my name at my college paper, The Flat Hat, when I was 17.

In one instance, I have been accused me of passing off P.J. O'Rourke's writing as my own in a column for the paper. But the truth is that I had met P.J. at a Republican event and asked his permission to do a college-specific version of his classic piece on partying. He granted permission, the piece was cleared with my editors at the paper, and it ran as inspired by O’Rourke’s original.

My critics have also accused me of plagiarism in multiple movie reviews for the college paper. I once caught an editor at the paper inserting a line from The New Yorker (which I read) into my copy and protested. When that editor was promoted, I resigned. Before that, insertions had been routinely made in my copy, which I did not question. I did not even at that time read the publications from which I am now alleged to have lifted material. When these insertions were made, I assumed, like most disgruntled writers would, that they were unnecessary but legitimate editorial additions.

But all these specifics are beside the point. Considering that all of this happened almost eight years ago, and that there are no files or notes that I've kept from that brief stint, it is simply my word against the liberal blogosphere on these examples. It becomes a matter of who you believe.

Except that the NRO movie review (which is specifically cited by Howard Kurtz here) is from 2001. NRO is already sufficiently convinced that Domenech plagiarized that article.

As the previous links on the matter mention, at least one of the pieces Ben Domenech is accused of having plagiarized was a movie review for National Review Online. A side-by-side comparison to another review of the same film speaks for itself. There is no excuse for plagiarism and we apologize to our readers and to Steve Murray of the Cox News Service from whose piece the language was lifted. With some evidence of possible problems with other pieces, we're also looking into other articles he wrote for NRO.

I don't want to beat a guy while he's down; I'm actually quite disspirited by this revelation about Domenech. The liberal loons were going completely nuts over this when they had nothing on him; needless to say they're clinking their glasses now. I don't remember where I saw this, but somebody said it well: He handed them a sword and they ran him through.

Update: Dodo David and Aaron are on the same page.

And we're right, he's really not addressing the charges.

Hat Tip: Sensible Mom & Riehl World View

Okay, looks like the message has been received. Unlike the liberal idiots who are probably toasting themselves tonight, I feel the taste of ashes in my mouth.
Democrat Running Against Chafee Skirting Campaign Finance Laws?

Here's an interesting little story:

Late last year, Brown received $25,000 from the state Democratic parties in Hawaii, Maine and Massachusetts. Shortly afterward, four of his top donors gave $30,000 to those parties. The donors had already given Brown the maximum allowed under federal law, $4,200.

Critics accuse Brown's campaign of laundering illegal donations, and on Wednesday, the Hawaii Republican Party signed a complaint asking the Federal Elections Commission to investigate.

This certainly indicates the charges are true:

The treasurer of the Hawaii Democratic Party, Jane Sugimura, told The Associated Press earlier this month that the party and the Brown campaign struck a deal in which the party gave money to Brown in exchange for money from Brown supporters. However, she later said there was no deal.

Conservative bloggers brought down:

Liberal bloggers brought down:

About The Conservatives Are Whiners Study

One of Michelle Malkin's readers did a little digging. Guess whose kids were used in the study?
Domenech Resigns

Let's keep the pressure on the WaPo to hire another conservative blogger, although I have to wonder who'd want the job after seeing the vicious smear campaign waged against Ben by dolts like Jane Hamsher.
Domenech in the Deep Stuff?

Okay, some of the charges against Ben Domenech are trivial, like these:

As Augustine, Domenech has engaged in numerous personal attacks, some of which were compiled by the blog Dragonfire. Domenech has called cartoonist Ted Rall a "steaming bag of pus"; said Teresa Heinz Kerry looks like an "oddly shaped egotistical ketchup-colored muppet"; called Pat Robertson a "senile, crazy old fool"; and described's "White House Briefing" columnist Dan Froomkin as "an embarrassment."

Hmmm, I never noticed Teh-RAY-za's ketchup color. But Rall? Steaming bag of pus about sums him up.

However, the charges of plagiarism, if true, are more serious. And they do appear to be true. Look at this article Domenech wrote for his college paper:

Most parties are not real parties. And some parties can never be real parties no matter how hard the partygoers try. Among these are:

- Christmas parties.
- Wine tasting parties.
- Book publishing parties.
- Parties with themes, such as "Las Vegas Nite" or "Waikiki Whoopee."
- Parties at which anyone is wearing a blue velvet tuxedo jacket.
- Parties at the homes of people who don't smoke, have subscriptions to "Commentary" or were ever in the Peace Corps.
- Parties at which more than six of the guests are related by blood.
- The Republican Party.

Compare that with the results of a search for "Waikiki" on Amazon from a PJ O'Rourke book:

1. on Page 176:
"... • Office Christmas parties • Wine-tasting parties • Book-publishing parties • Parties with themes, such as "Las Vegas Nite" or "Waikiki Whoopee" • Parties at which anyone is wearing a blue velvet tuxedo jacket • Parties at the homes of people ..

There are times when plagiarism isn't obvious, but that's not one of them.

Note that the plagiarism issue is not the reason why the lefty blogosphere went berzerk over the hiring of Domenech. That just happens to be the hammer they're using, but if the Post had hired a conservative blogger who didn't have this issue in his past they'd still be howling. So the proper response from our side of the blogosphere should not just be "Ben's gotta go" but "Replace Ben with another conservative blogger".

Hat Tip: Memeorandum

Red State's defense of Domenech is here. I agree with them that the left-wing blogosphere has thrown everything but the kitchen sink at Ben. But this defense is weak:

And now those opposed to Ben have googled prior writings that on the surface appear suspicious, but only because permissions obtained and judgments made offline were not reflected online by an out dated and out of business campus newspaper. But that's all the opponents want - just enough to sabotage a career, though in the process they will sabotage themselves. Facts have no meaning. Only impressions have any bearing on this. The charges of plagarism are false, meant to bring down a good and honest man. The presented facts to prove plagarism are specious -- products of shoddy work. One could easily think the producers of 60 Minutes II were behind them.

I am sure that the Post is actively investigating the charges. If permission was granted to use others' material, it will certainly be discovered, and Ben will be exonerated. I'm not saying saying he should be fired. But he will (and should) be if the plagiarism charges are proven.

Also see this post over at Confederate Yankee on the hypocrisy of Media Matters.

Other apparent examples of plagiarism here.

Rick Moran issues a call for Ben to resign. Michelle Malkin as well:

The bottom line is: I know it when I see it. And, painfully, Domenech's detractors, are right. He should own up to it and step down. Then, the Left should cease its sick gloating and leave him and his family alone.

Red State doubles down.

The critics of Ben Domenech are on a fishing expedition. They attacked the fact that an ex-political appointee would ever be given a job in journalism. Then, they trolled for comments he left on a blog. They attacked his upbringing. They attacked his mother. They attacked his father. They called him a homosexual. “Plagiarism” is only the sixth or seventh line of attack they’ve tried in their campaign to assassinate the character of a good and decent person.

When they invoked the man’s family, when they resorted to an unremitting torrent of smears and lies and invective, they lost their right to be respected in this argument. Their accusations no longer carry any weight. Because Ben Domenech is no longer the issue. They are.

Sorry, Ben's the issue. When that's been resolved, we can all apply a good paddling to those making baseless smears. Saying that this is only a witchhunt is a valid defense right up until the witch is found. Then it's a distraction

I'm sympathetic to the folks over at Red State. This was real coup for them, to have one of their founders move on up to the mainstream media. But there comes a point where it's a credibility issue for them. At the very least they should issue a call for a full investigation of the charges.
Maybe That's Why David Duke Liked It So Much

Alan Dershowitz says that the Walt-Mearsheimer study that claims AIPAC controls American foreign policy is based on information drawn from neo-Nazi sites.

"What we're discovering first of all is that the quotes that they use are not only wrenched out of context, but they are the common quotes that appear on hate sites," Mr. Dershowitz, who is identified in the paper as part of the "lobby," told The New York Sun yesterday.

"The wrenching out of context is done by the hate sites,and then [the authors] cite them to the original sources, in order to disguise the fact that they've gotten them from hate sites."

As an example, Dershowitz points to this:

Under the section "Manipulating the Media," on pages 19 and 20 of the paper, Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer write: "In his memoirs, for example, former Times executive editor Max Frankel acknowledged the impact his own pro-Israel attitude had on his editorial choices. In his words: 'I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert.' He goes on: 'Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.'" The footnote cites Mr. Frankel's 560-page book, "The Times of My Life and My Life with the Times," published in 1999.

Yet the Frankel quote used by Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt, Mr. Dershowitz said, is nearly identical to the quote used by a neo-Nazi Web site in its own take on Jewish press influence, "Jewish Influence in the Mass Media." The document, posted on, quotes more extensively from the same section in Mr. Frankel's memoir.

"Here's Max Frankel [for years the Executive Editor of the New York Times] and his thoughts about Israel in his work," the document proclaims. "'I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert. ... Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective....'" also cites Mr. Frankel's memoir.

"He quotes Max Frankel, as if he read the whole 500 pages of Max Frankel?" Mr. Dershowitz said. "I promise you they did not read Max Frankel's whole book," the law professor said of the paper's authors. "How do I know that? We found the same exact quote on various hate sites."According to Mr. Dershowitz, other parts of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper bear striking similarities to postings on other anti-Jewish Web sites, including, which purports to be the Web site of the "National Socialist Movement Northwest."
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Poll Fault

Pat Hynes talks about the bogus polls that the MSM produce.

The media use polls like a drunk uses a lamppost; for support, not illumination.
I'm Shocked, Shocked I Tell You!

Media Mutters digs up some really nasty things Ben Domenech supposedly said:

Washington Post writers Dan Froomkin and Dana Milbank "often lapse into the foolish spew of DNC [Democratic National Committee] shills."

Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry, "ends up looking like an oddly shaped egotistical ketchup-colored muppet" and is "a modern day Miss Havisham, shawl and all."

Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore is "Fatty Fat Fat Fat," a "blimp that crashed into the Fleet Center [in Boston and] caused nearly $16 million in damage.

And in one that I question whether Media Matters really disagrees with:

Televangelist Pat Robertson is a "Whacked Out Loon" and "a senile, crazy old fool."
Illinois: How Did the Pro-Impeachment Candidates Do?

ImpeachPac lists all candidates who are pushing impeachment as part of their platform. There were three candidates from Illinois who qualified:

IL05: Johnny Haptonstall

IL08: Bill Scheurer

IL14: John Laesch

How did they do? Johnny Haptonstall ended up with 7.6% of the vote in his district. John Laesch won the Democratic primary; for his efforts he gets to face Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

Bill Sheurer? He's not running on the Democratic ticket, but as an independent, spoiler candidate.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: We are very fortunate in our enemies!
Happy Birthday, Dear Kitty!

My very favorite person in the entire blogosphere, celebrates another revolution around the sun.

Kitty has been amazingly supportive of my blogging efforts. I first became aware of her blog in April 2004 through the efforts of the mothership, I was blogging over at Kerry Haters at the time and noticed that Lucianne had linked to her blog as the blogtruth of the day. Suffering a little pang of jealousy, I whined a bit about never getting the big link myself, and Kitty put up a prominent link on her blog suggesting that all the Lucianne readers should go over and check it out (although I do have to wonder--who's Gary O?). It resulted in the first day I'd ever had 100 visitors.

Kitty kept feeding me traffic and stories to the point that I suggested that she join forces as a co-blogger on Kerry Haters. The rest, as they say, is history. It was Kitty who first noticed a little sidebar to an article which mentioned Kerry's 1968 Christmas in Cambodia adventure, and pointed it out on the blog. I thought the story sounded just a little too convenient, and when our reader L. Larsen pointed out an obvious problem with the story (that Nixon had not been in power in 1968), I resolved to check it out a little further. When I checked with Douglas Brinkley's biography of Kerry, Tour of Duty, I was startled to find that there was no mention of a Christmas 1968 incursion into Cambodia.

The story didn't cause much of a sensation at the time, but on August 5, 2004, a chapter from John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi's book, Unfit for Command, was released which highlighted the Christmas in Cambodia lie. I briefly noted that we'd covered the story a few months earlier. As it happened I had met Hugh Hewitt a few days earlier at a book-signing, so I guess he was checking my blog for reactions to the O'Neill book. He followed the link to the May post.

That afternoon, I happened to be listening to his program and was flabbergasted to hear him mention at least five times that the story had first been covered by a website called We were already becoming a fairly good-sized blog, with over 800 visitors a day by then. Within the month, propelled by Hugh's crediting us, we were at 2500 visitors a day. Heady times indeed!

Without Kitty I would not have spotted that Christmas in Cambodia story. Without L. Larson pointing out the inconsistency of the Nixon claim, I might never have followed up on it. Without my meeting Hugh Hewitt we might never have gotten credit for it. Without the credit we might never have gotten the big jump in visitors that resulted. So when Third Wave Dave says Kitty made a difference, he ain't just whistling Dixie!

At any rate, I am deeply grateful to Kitty for all the assistance she's provided me in blogging, and for being a friend. Here's to Kitty!

Real Ugly American Interviews Freddie "Beadle" Barnes

Our buddy scores an interview with one of the top observers on the political scene. Kudos to Mr RUA!
Hynes on the Dems' Attempt to "Get" Religion

Patrick Hynes, one of my other favorite people in the blogosphere, also has a column up at Townhall that's worth a gander.

In our base-against-base political environment, Republicans presently enjoy an advantage because: 1) The GOP base is larger than the Democratic base; 2) The GOP base is growing while the Democratic base is shrinking; and 3) The GOP base is dispersed throughout the states and congressional districts in a manner more advantageous to winning congressional majorities.

But if the GOP’s conservative Christian base is disaffected and unhappy with Republican candidates, who will stuff the envelopes come election time? Who will pound the yard signs? Man the phone banks? Hand out literature? Register new voters? Bus people to the polls?

The neo-cons? The free-market types? The "Main Street" Republicans? I don’t think so.

He's got that right. Both sides need their base; both sides suggest that the other side needs to get rid of its base if they want to appeal to moderates. The difference is that our base is not out of the mainstream.
A Sudden Interest In What Soldiers Think

Lorie Byrd, one of my favorite people in the blogosphere, has a column up at Townhall on the media's newfound fascination with the military and their feelings about Iraq.

More recently, The New York Times decided to let their readers know what Cpl. Jeffrey Starr thought of his service in Iraq, as conveyed in his last letter home to his girlfriend before being killed in Ramadi. They published the following: “Siftng through Corporal Starr’s laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine’s girlfriend. ‘I kind of predicted this,’ Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ‘A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances.’”

Michelle Malkin learned from Cpl. Starr’s family and reported on her blog that the NYT left out the rest of Cpl. Starr’s quote, which continued to say, “I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

So instead of the media worrying about the troops’ feelings, and trying to determine them through polls, many of which are questionable due to the wording of the questions and the logistics of finding representative samples in a war zone, maybe they could just concentrate on honestly reporting the words and actions of the troops in the field. If they did that, the public would at least have enough accurate information to form a fair assessment. Until that happens, I will be reading the milblogs.

Speaking of which, here's an interview Hugh Hewitt did with Michael Yon, whose blog has become extraordinarily influential among those interested in what's really happening in Iraq.

I mean, the mainstream media just focuses on the flames and the bullets. They focus on the terrorism. They don't tell us that the Kurdish areas are a complete success. They're becoming economically viable, they're making a lot of progress, they're sending their children, including their girls, to school. They love us there in the Kurdish areas, and they don't tell us that Mosul is a success now. I mean, Mosul was the only thing on the news last year when I was there. I'm sure you remember that.

I've said elsewhere that Michelle Malkin deserves the blog of the year award for 2005. But if she doesn't win it, Michael Yon would be my next choice. Certainly his report on Mosul here was the single most gripping post of the year.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
A Google Amusement

Just caught another interesting search term in my referring links. Apparently I am the #2 result on Google for "sane person". I know why too. Back in August I noticed a whole bunch of idiot leftwing bloggers attacking Michelle Malkin for a comment she'd made on TV. Michelle Malkin linked to my site with the comment:

David Brock's Media Matters and others, for example, have attacked Bill O'Reilly and me for "lying" and "smearing" Mrs. Sheehan, when any sane person can see that's not the case.

You can guess where the link was--under "sane person".
Carnival of the Clueless Is Up!

Rick Moran has the best links in town!
Why We Support Heather Wilson

Anybody who wants to know what would happen if Heather loses to her liberal opponent, should check out the New Mexico Democratic Party, which is run by moonbats:

The New Mexico Democratic Party is calling for President Bush's removal from office.

Party Chairman John Wertheim said Tuesday that delegates to Saturday's state party convention supported a call for the president's impeachment largely because of "perceived abuses of power and corruption in the Bush administration."

He listed as examples of abuses of power, warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens, the misstatement of facts preceding the invasion of Iraq, and the scandal surrounding the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide in connection with the leak of the identity of a covert CIA operative.

"Everyone understands President Bush is not going to be impeached," Wertheim said. "But these abuses of power and corruption in the administration are deeply serious matters and there should be more talk about this abuse of power."

The one-sentence amendment, added from the floor to the platform's section on political and election reform, reads: "Resolved, that the Democratic Party of New Mexico supports the impeachment of President George Bush and his lawful removal from office."

Patricia Madrid, whom bondage and discipline practitioner Stephen Elliott referred to the other day as a progressive house candidate, is trying to distance herself from the resolution, probably because she knows it's a loser politically.

Madrid, trying to oust Rep. Heather Wilson, an Albuquerque Republican, said in a statement Tuesday she wasn't present when the vote was taken at a party convention Saturday. She called the action "premature."

"I hope I get the chance to go to Congress to participate in a full investigation of the underlying issues," she said.

You know what this is? Good cop/bad cop. The party idiots pass a resolution to keep the kooks happy, while the candidates reassure the public that they're not extreme like the dolts who support them.

Also check out Chris' response to Stephen Elliott, particularly to the charge of racism.
Charlie Sheen Breaks Away from the Hookers

Long enough to give us his moonbatty take on 9-11.

"There was a feeling, it just didn't look any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother 'call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition'?"

I hear that one all the time, and the obvious question is, why would there have been a controlled demolition? And if this wasn't a commercial jetliner:

Then what was it, and where did the commercial jetliners that did disappear that day go?

Update: See also Pam Meister's more detailed post on Sheen's nuttiness.

Update II: Laura Ingraham had a terrific comment on the radio this morning: The only controlled demolition that's been going on is of Charlie Sheen's brain cells.
Faux Concern for 2006?--Updated

The Ankle-Biters linked to this post by Chris Bowers at MYDD, saying that it showed the moonbats are worried about 2006.

I tend to disagree. Bowers is one of the better writers on the liberal side of the blogosphere. He's a partisan Democrat, but I don't read him as a moonbat. And I think he was not-so-subtly smacking around Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC.

First a little background. Henry Hyde is retiring after 32 years in Congress. In 2004, a little-known challenger named Christine Cegelis nearly kayoed Hyde, getting 44.5% of the vote.

Yesterday was the Democrats' primary in Illinois. Cegelis was opposed by Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran who lost both her legs in a helicopter crash. Duckworth had the backing of the party machine and was (apparently) not opposed by the "netroots". She took about 43% of the vote, to 41% for Cegelis, and about 16% for a third candidate. Bowers' take:

Last night, however, something happened that made me extremely worried about our electoral prospects nationwide in 2006. Nearly the full-force of the Democratic and progressive electoral apparatus "succeeded" in only helping Duckworth win 44% of the vote in the Democratic primary. This wasn't the blow out I was told it was going to be. This wasn't the blowout I imagined it would be considering the establishment support Duckworth had. It wasn't even close to a blowout. It looks like the final margin will be somewhere around 1,000-1,100 votes. IT was very close, and it was a real nailbiter.

Actually that's pretty lousy writing, but here's Bowers' real point:

This makes me very worried about 2006. The same people and the same organizations who supported Duckworth remain in charge of winning elections of nearly every Democrat nationwide in 2006. If they produce anemic results like this in IL-06, what results can we expect across the country in November? Believe me, whatever group of rag-tag GOTV activists Cegalis had in this election, using their theocon grassroots, the Republican machine will more than match that nationwide in 2006.

What is he saying? That different people need to be put "in charge of winning elections of nearly every Democrat nationwide in 2006". Tying it all together:

The netroots and grassroots can't win by themselves, and the Democratic electoral establishment is hardly any better. At some point, there is going to have to be a way for us to work together, or we are just going to keep losing and losing and losing. We can't go on like this. We can't win without them, and they can't win without us. There has to be a way for us to work together, but that doesn't mean just treating the netroots like an ATM, not even mentioning the name of our candidates on official literature, or simplistic, authoritarian demands that we all "fall in line." You have to find a way to show us that you care, that you appreciate our efforts, and that you are willing to work together.

I am not entirely sure that Cegelis did not get support from the netkooks; here's a Cindy Sheehan post over at Kos urging Democrats to support her over Duckworth.

Update: Check out this post at Firedog Lake:

Duckworth had the full power of the party establishment behind her, and still almost lost to a fired-up, passionate Cegalis get out the vote operation that functioned without coordinated support from the blogosphere. She didn’t get the help we collectively gave to Ciro Rodriguez, the help we are now giving Ned Lamont. What would have happened if we had gotten behind Cegalis for real?

Answer: She would have lost by ten points.

Update II: We are indeed fortunate in our enemies:

Well, Duckworth managed to eke out a win. Now the Dems expect all of those who labored on behalf of their hometown favorite to happily shrug off the primary defeat and go to work helping Duckworth beat out the GOP challenger. And you know what I’d say if I were one of them? F*ck that.

Update III: For more on the Duckworth race, check out John Ruberry.
The Domenech Kerfuffle

I'm enjoying the outrage of the idiot left. Exemplifying this is Jane Hamsher, who employs her usual level-headed tone in this post over at the Huffpo.

Just as the time of reckoning approaches and the Washington Post will, like it or no, have to take responsibility for all the flagrant, credulous warmongering it did in a fit of BushCo. access rapture, you guys hire the most thick-witted, mouth breathing home schooled freak you could lay your hands on. The respectable journalists who have managed to survive the Patrick Ruffini sycophancy of John WATB Harris, the jejune truthiness of Deborah Howell and the simple fact that one of the biggest stories of last year was how the paper's own superstar deceived you and then wouldn't talk to you about it are no doubt cringing in the bathroom stalls.

Shorter Jane Hamsher:

What this reminds me of most is the Susan Molinari incident. Molinari was a Republican congresswoman from New York who took a job with CBS after deciding not to run for a fourth term. Her hiring provoked a firestorm of criticism from the left, who worried that her politics would somehow unbalance CBS's well-known history of being completely non-partisan. Never mind that the chief political reporter at ABC is George Stephanopolis, former aide to Bill Clinton, or at NBC it's Tim Russert, former aide to Mario Cuomo. CBS responded by putting Molinari in charge of the highly politicized home and garden segment of their morning show.

Michelle Malkin has a good example of the idiocy of the commenters at Hatrios responding to Domenech's hire.
Pardon for Rosa Parks?

Jack Lewis (real name Danny Carlton) looks at a proposal for pardoning Rosa Parks. Apparently a pardon essentially says yes, the person was guilty, but we're going to forgive them for it.

If there doesn't exist a means of removing the legal stigma of a record violating an unjust law, then wouldn't lawmakers be the very people to create such a means? Call it a "Justification" and note in their record that not only are they no longer under any legal consequences of violating that particular law, but have society's gratitude for their courage in doing so. That way not only does it remove the negative stigma, is preserves the positive aspect of their act. The original record can be stamped with a large red "JUSTIFIED".

My own feeling? I'd like to know whether Rosa had ever requested a pardon, or indicated her desire for one during her lifetime. If she didn't then I would leave the matter alone, or pass a resolution applauding her for her actions. It seems to me that with Rosa dead, pardoning her diminishes what she did. She broke the law and accepted the consequences.
The Diebold Thing

A bunch of voters are suing to prevent their machines from being used in California.

You know what the appeal of this whole "Diebold steals elections" meme is? It's that old standby, the belief that there is an easy way for the Democrats to start winning elections, without, you know, having to do things that will make them appealing to more voters.
The Amazing Race Brief Recap

It's late so I've only got time for some quick impressions. First part of the episode was comprised of the remaining teams finishing up last episode's tasks. Then it's off to Frankfurt, Germany. The frat boys get well ahead here as they are the only team to make the first flight. The married couple and the hippies are next, followed by the rest of the teams the next morning.

Once in Frankfurt the teams have to go to the Mercedes Benz test track, where they are driven around at high speeds. It looks like fun, but after about the third or fourth pair it gets old for the viewers. Also note that there's no real competitive aspect to this--teams will all start and finish in the same position. The three teams arriving earliest have to wait until morning, but they still start well ahead of the other teams.

Next task: Find a roaming gnome in a field. Somewhat dull, but I do remember there was a similar task two seasons ago. Then it's on to a film works where they have the option of breaking bottles over each other's head or learning a complicated slap and step dance. By appearances the latter seems quite a bit easier.

Then it's a race to a "monument to peace" erected by the Germans 150 years ago. Funny how they forgot about that monument twice in the 20th century. The frat boys win easily, followed by the hippies and the married couple. The old couple finishes fourth and in the end, it's the mother and daughter team that is Phil-liminated.

Entertaining episode overall but I did think the challenges were dull.

The Viking Pundit has his terrific recap here.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Hawkins Cited in Kurtz's Column

Our buddy John gets a faily long snippet from his anti-McCain piece in the WaPo.

John Hawkins at Right Wing News reminds us that some ardent conservatives don't trust McCain either--and resent his media profile.

Not bad considering that the McCain-bashers cited from the portside are Paul Krugman and an American Prospect writer.

I am on the fence about McCain. Like the rest of you, I've certainly been exasperated at times with the little admiral, but also elated when he shows his good side. When you look around at the field of candidates for 2008, there's nobody that really stands out yet. Romney's interesting because he puts Massachusetts in play; ordinarily you'd think that would happen only in a landslide for the Republican. Allen? Just haven't seen enough of him to get a read.

I'm a Republican. But I want to win elections, not lose gloriously. I'm not going to support a candidate I don't think can win in the general election in 2008, particularly if the opponent from the Democrats is Hillary.
A Report on the Kooks

Michelle Malkin interviews Cindy Sheehan. Definitely check it out! She also interviews a couple space cadets who actually make Cindy appear coherent. Good job but Michelle's going to have to work on her Evan Coyne Maloney poker face; some of the moonbattier comments drew obvious reactions from her.

Here's a terrific photo synopsis of a doubleheader: An antiwar rally and an Anarchist's book fair. Here's just a sample of the fun activities at the latter event:

Great if you're raising a future Kathy Soliah.

"You've got to be taught to hate and fear, you've got to be taught, year after year..."
Gore: Include Me Out

Al Gore says he's not running in 2008.

"I'm not planning to be a candidate again. I haven't reached a stage in my life where I'm willing to say I will never consider something like this," he said. "But I'm not saying that to be coy; I'm just saying that to be honest — that I haven't reached that point."

Whom does this news help? Feingold, obviously, but Hillary will probably get a boost as well, since now her challenger from the left will most likely be a twice-divorced Jew from the Midwest, instead of the man who came within a few chads of winning the presidency in 2000. (Note: Feingold's religion is irrelevant to me, but it would be naive to pretend it doesn't matter with African American primary voters.)
Stephen Elliott's Feelings Get Hurt

Stephen Elliott writes over at the Huffington Post:

I almost gave up today. I've been hosting fundraisers in San Francisco for progressive house candidates running in 2006. I came across a conservative blog (I'm not going to link to it) that had taken issue with one of the candidates accepting money from me. Their reason, an article I wrote for the Huffington Post defending the rights of the S&M and transgender community.

The blog posting referred to the "sick" and "weird" people supporting the candidate. As if racism and prejudice wasn't sick.

Now of course, Elliott is doing the usual "Are you questioning my patriotism" diversion here. Elliott's article was not "defending the rights of the S&M and transgender community", it was slamming Rolling Stone for treating freaks and weirdos like, well, freaks and weirdos. As a weirdo freak himself, Elliott felt called upon to respond:

I've been practicing BDSM my entire sexual life and I'm still waiting for my handbook to arrive in the mail.

I don't question Elliott's right to practice bondage and discipline and sado-masochism with other consenting adults. Whatever floats your boat is my motto. But if you're going to write about it publicly and not expect that to affect your ability to work for certain political candidates without it backfiring on them, then you're being naive.

Note that Elliott's first idea was to take down the post about his S&M fetish:

My first reaction was to take down my post. But then I reread what I had written. Did I still believe it? I did. So why was I letting the right wing set my priorities for me? I realized what I was doing. I was doing what Democrats always do, setting aside my ideals in order get elected. It's a mistake.

Rather noble and selfless of him, right? Errr, no, because that wouldn't do any good:

It doesn't help that I have a book of S&M erotica coming out in September this year (a good one, I might add, with a very sexy cover). I wanted to help these candidates, not be a burden.

I'm sure it will be a big seller in San Francisco.

BTW, I suspect Chris at Lucky Dawg's post is the one that set him off.

My advice to Elliott: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the dungeon!
Why The Antiwar Movement Is Not Catching On Among Young People

Everybody's hit on the obvious, that there's no draft.

"I think things are definitely different,'' says Emily Novick, a third-year engineering student at Cal. "I know there was supposed to be this huge protest earlier this year and they recruited really hard. But so few people showed up.''

Why? Well there is one obvious reason.

"I think the (lack of) the draft is definitely a key," says Spatz. "Today they are not impacted."

What attracts young men? Young, pretty women. The face of the antiwar movement in the 1960s was Jane Fonda. Say what you like about her politics, she was certainly a protest babe:

Remember the Chirac Est Un Ver girl? Or the Lebanese protest babes?

Instead, the current antiwar movement has this as their centerfold:

You put a gal like the one below out on the corner, the next week all the young men would be talking about how they're going down to protest Chirac:

Cuba Wins By Losing

That sure sounds like a subtext of this article.

The Cubans surprised a lot of people just by reaching the World Baseball Classic final, even though losses in international competition are rare for the communist Caribbean nation. And after all, they almost weren't allowed to participate because of the country's touchy political relationship with the United States.

So while Japan won Monday night's championship game 10-6, the fact that Cuba made it so far showed fans back home that this team -- which has lost top stars to defection in recent years -- could compete against rosters loaded with major leaguers.

What top stars? El Duque?
In Blogger Purgatory Right Now

Can't seem to get many posts up in the last couple days; they keep disappearing into the ether.
Hate at the LA Times

This is a disgusting op-ed piece from last week that has caused some dustups in the blogosphere.

I WAS SHOCKED by the news about Claude A. Allen, the black former White House staffer whose rising star officially flamed out after he was arrested on charges of felony theft last week.

Not shocked that he got arrested — so many Republicans are being handcuffed these days for scams of one kind or another that it's hard to keep the names and charges straight. What shocked me was how penny ante his alleged scam was, how unbefitting a man of Allen's stature and lofty ideals rooted in the requisite conservative principles of God, fiscal prudence and anti-affirmative action activism above all else.

I thought I had the piece pegged at this point. The columnist would go on to point out how much some retired Republican had made (while carefully ignoring Tom Daschle's income), or some pro-forma comparison to Bush's Texas Rangers deal or Cheney's compensation at Halliburton.

But I didn't imagine the depths the LA Times was ready to plumb.

Loyalty has been the price of admission to this administration, and black conservatives have proved to be more loyal than most.

That has unfortunately, but not always unfairly, invited comparisons to slave times, when the most loyal blacks were those who worked in closest proximity to their white masters — house Negroes, as they were derisively known. Such Negroes gained privilege but lost standing in their own community, a price that might have been reasonable if they were eventually granted the same status as the whites they so assiduously served. They weren't, of course; race has always mattered. And it matters now, though the dynamic is more subtle and devious.

Simply disgusting. As Eugene Volokh points out, this is the vile "race traitor" canard that we all recognize as hate when a white man talks about it.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Addressing Another Bit of Idiocy

A student asked President Bush a particularly stupid question today:

"Mr. President, with the war in Iraq costing $19,600 per U.S. household, how do you expect a generation of young people such as ourselves, to afford college a time like this, when we're paying for a war in Iraq?"

The answer, you stupid dork, is that we are not going to present you with a bill for $19,600, whereas your college is going to ask you to pony up the money. Now the question becomes, is college worth it, and the answer is obviously yes. As to how you can afford it, you will make more income than students who do not go to college by a factor of several times. It may not seem like a big difference in your 20s but as time goes on you will outearn high school grads by a big margin.

As for the ridiculous crap about $19,600 per household, this is a common trope of the left. You only pay taxes when you make money, and you only pay serious taxes when you make serious money. So if you go on to have a high income (which I doubt in this guy's case), then yes, you will end up paying a good deal of the cost of the war. If you go on to cashier at the Food King, you won't come close to paying any of that $19,600.

A similar bunch of nuttiness was expressed over Congress raising the debt limit the other day. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the liberal blogs, which I found quite amusing, with some doing calculations that showed the debt limit was now $30,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. Again, this encourages people to think they personally owe this money. In fact, Bill Gates and George Clooney and P. Diddy and Terrell Owens are the ones who are going to be paying most of the money to service that debt. It's well established that the top five percent of income earners pay over 50% of all income taxes.
Beware of Studies...

This takes the cake for silliest article of the day:

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.

But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

But of course, the devil is always in the details, and the details here come late:

Part of the answer is that personality is not the only factor that determines political leanings. For instance, there was a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult. Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became liberal and those who became conservative.

A .27 correlation? Out of a sample of 95 kids? Sheesh, that's statistically meaningless.

And in case you're wondering (Berkeley professor and all), yes, Jack Block is a moonbat.
Susan Saranwrap to Play Saint Cindy

This one sounds like it's headed straight to Lifetime.

Here's a long article about Cindy, but the ending comment by Cindy's daughter is perfect:

And Carly says: "It's sad that everybody wants to talk about my mom, but nobody even asks about Casey anymore ..."

Cindy's rock concert with Michael Stipe and a whole bunch of people you never heard of is tonight; tickets still available.
When David Duke Agrees With You

(Welcome, Daou Report and Memeorandum readers!)

It's a good sign that you're wrong.

But the paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, is meeting with a more critical reception from many of those it names as part of the lobby. The 83-page "working paper" claims a network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq. Included in this network, the authors say, are the editors of the New York Times, the scholars at the Brookings Institution, students at Columbia, "pro-Israel" senior officials in the executive branch, and "neoconservative gentiles" including columnist George Will.

Duke, a former Louisiana state legislator and one-time Ku Klux Klan leader, called the paper "a great step forward," but he said he was "surprised" that the Kennedy School would publish the report.

"I have read about the report and read one summary already, and I am surprised how excellent it is," he said in an e-mail. "It is quite satisfying to see a body in the premier American University essentially come out and validate every major point I have been making since even before the war even started." Duke added that "the task before us is to wrest control of America's foreign policy and critical junctures of media from the Jewish extremist Neocons that seek to lead us into what they expectantly call World War IV."

This intersection of the antiwar Left and the neo-Nazi right is resulting in all sorts of oddball combinations, like Justin Raimondo of being published in the American Conservative (Pat Buchanan's contribution to the political debate), and Lew Rockwell showing up as a regular on the Huffington Post.

An abridged version of the paper can be read here, while the full version is here. A good rebuttal of the main points is here.

The American Thinker has a good piece on Walt & Mearsheimer's article. See also Daniel Drezner.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
The Latest Fad

Is apathy:

By the time the war protesters began their march Saturday morning in Salt Lake City, only about 50 people had gathered. Their numbers had swelled to about 200 by noon - and that was with a little high-tech help from a marcher who text-messaged friends to join him.

The early low turnout was discouraging to some, such as Susan Westergard of Holladay.

There's just about more policemen here than people," said the Democratic candidate for the Utah House of Representatives in District 40, nodding to the squadron of eight motorcycle officers parked alongside 400 South. "I guess the longer the war goes on, the more people accept it."

There was pretty good turnout in San Francisco (shock of shocks):

One of the biggest protests was in San Francisco, for decades a hub of anti-war sentiment. Police there estimated the crowd gathered outside City Hall at about 6,000 people. Many chanted slogans opposing Bush, and most appeared to hail from a distinctly grayer demographic than that of other protest events.

"There are not enough young people here," said Paul Perchonock, 61, a physician. "They don't see themselves as having a stake."
More of the Same From Greg Mitchell

One of the reasons media criticism gets a bad reputation is that many critics essentially use their soapbox to ask why media outlets don't adopt their favored cause. Greg Mitchell provides a classic example today, as he uses the third anniversary of the Iraq War to agitate for more antiwar editorials:

Anyone who hoped that the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq would inspire the country’s leading newspapers to finally editorialize for a radical change in the White House’s war policy has to be disappointed, again. From this evidence, the editorial boards of The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, the Knight Ridder collective and others appear to be as clueless about what to do as are Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld.

Don't you just love that "Anyone who hoped" bit? What Mitchell means is "I hoped".

And of course lesser men might quaver a bit when the editorial boards of the New York Times, LA Times and WAPO can't find an answer, but not our Greg.

Reviving a Vietnam era phrase (always dangerous nowadays), it is the nation’s editorial voice that is the “pitful, helpless giant,” even as the American and Iraqi public, alike, call for the start of a withdrawal.

Mitchell of course has been pushing for editorials against the war since at least May of 2004. Last May he was calling for more gory photos of US soldiers.
How Deranged Is the Anti-Bush Crowd?

Now they're claiming that Eleanor Clift is a Rove puppet.

It really never ceases to amaze how the most aggressive smear jobs on Democrats who take a stand against the Bush Administration almost always come from the allegedly liberal pundits or anonymous Democratic consultants. Clift's column is not worth spending much time on because it doesn't contain any arguments. What makes this column notable is how steadfastly loyal she is to GOP talking points as she mindlessly repeats every baseless slogan and accusation against Russ Feingold and his censure resolution.

As Hugh Hewitt likes to say, when everybody says you're drunk, sit down. The anti-Bush crowd is drunk, as even Eleanor Clift recognizes.
AP Critiques Bush's Arguments

Here's an oddball little article from the AP that is not labeled analysis, or opinion, but which offers exactly that.

The writer, Jennifer Loven (no doubt headed for 60 Minutes' producer status soon), claims that Bush uses "straw-man" arguments. A "straw-man" argument is when you mischaracterize your opponent's position, then rhetorically demolish it. It is a quite common political technique, and indeed, generally unfair. But check out the "straw-man" arguments she points to:

"Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day," President Bush said recently.

Is that unfairly characterizing the arguments of John Murtha and the antiwar crowd?

Another time he said, "Some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free."

Perhaps not the most felicitous phrasing, but certainly many (both conservative and liberal) have questioned whether democracy can work in Muslim countries.

"There are some really decent people," the president said earlier this year, "who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care ... for all people."

Oh, no, nobody thinks the federal government should be the decider of health care for all people. They just think the federal government should be the provider of health care for all people. And of course, once you become the provider of health care, you quickly become the decider of health care (since anything that is free must be rationed).

But even worse than this part of the article, is where Loven goes to her "experts" to analyze Bush's straw men.

Bush routinely is criticized for dressing up events with a too-rosy glow. But experts in political speech say the straw man device, in which the president makes himself appear entirely reasonable by contrast to supposed "critics," is just as problematic.

Because the "some" often go unnamed, Bush can argue that his statements are true in an era of blogs and talk radio. Even so, "'some' suggests a number much larger than is actually out there," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

A specialist in presidential rhetoric, Wayne Fields of Washington University in St. Louis, views it as "a bizarre kind of double talk" that abuses the rules of legitimate discussion.

"It's such a phenomenal hole in the national debate that you can have arguments with nonexistent people," Fields said. "All politicians try to get away with this to a certain extent. What's striking here is how much this administration rests on a foundation of this kind of stuff."

Note that there is no effort to provide balance in the article; nobody is cited who mentions that the Democrats do the same thing frequently. Nobody notes John Kerry's straw-man arguments. Peter Daou will no doubt be pleased with this article.

BTW, this is not the first time Jennifer Loven has written articles that could have been clipped from DNC press releases. Power Line noted her back in 2004 covering for Jean Fraude Kerry, oddly enough in exactly the same way; opining that Bush was unfairly characterizing the Boston Fog Machine's positions.

The Sake of Argument noted her in 2003 writing opinion pieces disguised as news.

This is yet another editorial being passed off as a news report.

For Loven to assert that “so far, none has worked,” would seemingly imply that she has evidence that none of it has worked. And, at the risk of sounding Clintonian, what exactly do you mean by “work?”

Note that in the comments to that piece, a further bit of information about Loven can be gleaned:

Is Jennifer Loven biased in her reporting? Well, consider this: Jennifer Loven is married to Roger Ballentine, who is president of Green Strategies, a consulting firm specializing in energy and environmental issues, and was previously deputy assistant to President Clinton for environmental initiatives and chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force. He also sits on the board of directors of Solar Electric Light Fund (SELF)along with actors Ed Begley, Jr. and Larry Hagman.

Here's a supposed "straw-man" argument that's not too hard to prove correct:

Running for re-election against Sen. John Kerry in 2004, Bush frequently used some version of this line to paint his Democratic opponent as weaker in the fight against terrorism: "My opponent and others believe this matter is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement."

From a Meet The Press interview with Nuancy Boy:

MR. RUSSERT: But the Republicans, Vice President Cheney included, have pointed out to a comment that you made during a Democratic debate which they think undercuts your support of the war on terrorism. "The war on terror is...occasionally military. ... But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."


Others taking a whack at this article: Protein Wisdom, Sister Toldjah and Riehl World View.


  Endorsements: "11 Most Underrated Blogs"--Right Wing News

"Brainster is the Best"--Allman in the Morning FM 97.1 Talk (St. Louis)

"This is blogging like it oughta be"--Tom Maguire (Just One Minute)

"Quite young and quite nasty"--Civil Discourse Bustard (One out of two ain't bad)

Contact Me: pcurley (at) cdwebs (dot) com

Brainster in the Media

Howard Kurtz's Media Notes: May 27, 2005

Slate Today's Blogs:

March 16, 2005

May 9, 2005

June 3, 2005

Cited for Breaking the Christmas in Cambodia story (at Kerry Haters):

Hugh Hewitt: KerryHaters was on this story a long time ago. How could the elite media not have asked these questions before now?

Ankle-Biting Pundits: Our friends Pat and Kitty at Kerry Haters deserve the blog equivalent of a Pulitzer for their coverage of Kerry's intricate web of lies regarding Vietnam.

The Weekly Standard

Les Kinsolving

Greatest Hits

What If the Rest of the Fantastic Four Were Peaceniks?

Lefty Bloggers on Gay Witchhunt (linked by 16 blogs including Instapundit)

Kitty Myers Breaks Christmas in Cambodia

Brainster Shows Brinkley Says No Christmas in Cambodia

Explanation of the Blog's Name

Power Ratings Explained

blog radio

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


  This page is powered by Blogger, the easy way to update your web site.  

Phoenix Commercial Properties

Window Cleaning Phoenix

Leather Goods, Leather Craft

Home  |  Archives