Washington Post – Sold! –Libertarian Leaning Amazon’s Bezos Grabs Post for $250 Million – Which Paper of Record Is Next?

The Washington Post - New directions - image from coupmondiale.org

According to the New York Times, today’s shocking news is the sale of the Washington Post by the Graham family to the Amazon Founder: Jeffrey P. Bezos – the announcement came abruptly yesterday.(New York Times). The question of politics came quickly on the heels of the sale – as in: Where does Jeffrey P. Bezos stand? – Apparently, depending upon how liberal or how conservative one is – squarely on the opposite side, a conundrum to be sure. The Atlantic suggests that personally and through an Amazon PAC, the new owner has stood squarely on the fence – and is a shade different that most Libertarians – leaning to the left(The Atlantic)

With what has become a common occurrence amongst the largest and most prestigious newspapers in the nation – loss of revenue, and sales – which end in the sale of the publication – at a grandly reduced rate, is not affecting the lower tier publications, especially the community newspaper? There may be a reason why community newspapers are enjoying somewhat stable circulation, or a rise in circulation in some cases – the news is local and politics rarely enter into the fray. – It is, again, the editorial located in every section of the publication one might subscribe, or most likely, had subscribed to (due to being of the opposite political bent from the newspaper – 50% of the nation), which sunk the nation’s papers in the last two decades. Something that does not occur in one’s weekly reporting, a change of pace.

Yes, the electronic age, and delivery has changed, and the average student can’t read, which makes the newspaper, or any book for that matter, a thing of uncertainty – yet, The Washington Post Sale, and the last week’s sale of the Boston Globe, should be less concerned about the new owners politics, and more concerned with the intent. One might hazard to guess, these savvy businessmen purchased these businesses to make a profit, and possibly out of nostalgia, rather than any motive to push a political message, one way or the other.

Perhaps the newspaper would be a grand bully pulpit to demand reading in the classroom at all levels, especially in the urban areas where graduation rates are dismal at best. Perhaps the paper could become an advocate for the people that purchase the paper, rather than the local, state or national politician the editorial board prefers to wine and dine. There is nothing like the feel of ink and paper, best bet is nostalgia and an attempt to save a once great American treasure – the Daily News.

Who’s next on the block? That’s a good question – the point being: if the Post and the Globe were sold in a heartbeat, at what appears to be a loss in both cases, why not the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times? Time will tell.



Image: Guardian UK

What can one do with old newspapers?

Recycle (for those more “Green” individuals)

Old School

Clean Windows (Google for Recipes)

Liners (bird cages, kitty liter)

Scrapbooking

Bloomberg – NYC to Expand Electric Car Outlets 20% - New York Times – Test Drive Ended Up on Flatbed – Fantasy Versus Reality and the Cost of Funding Business. Bloomberg Should Retire in DC

President Obama invests in "Electric Cars" - Image and article from www.igocars.org - Will Obama Help Grow an Electric Car Bumper Crop in Hawaii"

In his State of the City address, New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, outlined an aggressive end to his third term according to Bloomberg.com In the address, Bloomberg plans to ban Styrofoam, compost food waste from Staten Island and insure the city is more friendly to Electric Cars, mandating that 20% of all future parking spaces be “outfitted to charge electric vehicles” (Bloomberg.com). In the same week, in the same city, an apparent disagreement with the viability of using an electric care started between New York Times auto reporter, John Broder, and the car manufacturer Telsa. (New York Times) The gist: Broder test drove a model of the electric car, one which is designed to go the distance, from Washington to New York City. Apparently, Broder took a detour, and the car ended up being transported back to New York, along with Broder, on a flat bed truck. Going from D.C. to New York City, is not a Sunday drive, however, it’s not a cross country trip either, one would think that the battery would hold up for at least as long as one’s laptop. Telsa fired back that the author of the article didn’t like the car and was therefore biased. The fact that the cars do not perform well in colder climes, apparently is a non-starter with the U.S. government funded business.

Adding fuel to the fire, a scathing editorial on Philly.com by by the Washington Post’s Charles Lane, suggests that the New York Times reporter had a point. In addition Lane included the Obama administration in his dressing down of the high priced, inefficient and tax-payer funded fiasco:

Who wants a $101,000 car that might die just because you take "a long detour"?

President Obama repeatedly declared that, with enough federal aid, we can put a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. His administration has invested about $5 billion in grants, guaranteed loans - including $465 million for Tesla - and tax incentives to buyers.

Yet Americans bought just 71,000 plug-in hybrids or all-electric vehicles in the past two years, according to GreenCarReports.com. That's about a third as many as the Energy Department forecast in a 2011 report that attempted to explain why Obama's goal was not preposterous.

Federal billions cannot overcome the fact that electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids meet few, if any, consumers' needs. Compared with gas-powered cars, they deliver inferior performance at a higher cost. As an American Physical Society symposium on battery research concluded in June: "Despite their many potential advantages, all-electric vehicles will not replace the standard American family car in the foreseeable future."

(Philly.com)

Lane goes on to quote notables from the world of car manufacturing, suggesting the idea of manufacturing electric cars was somewhat of a “mistake”. Moreover, in closing, Lane notes that the Obama Administration’s, Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, does not even own a car.

The entire premise upon which this former capitalist United States was based was simple. One would invent and build something the public might want, and would be either a success or fail dismally. If one failed, one had the option of declaring bankruptcy and trying again. That changed when the U.S. government has decided which businesses to “back” or “partner” with, fund that business, include mandates to protect and promote that business, and when that business fails, add more funds. Meanwhile, there is a need to increase taxes, to cover additional debt by those “lawmakers” who only leave Washington DC by flying over the rest of the nation.

One would suggest that those who are pushing for more tax payer funded projects test them personally, first, before funding begins. Should those living in the wealthiest city in the nation (DC), find a product less than worthy, it might end the insanity – or not, given that there may be a ton of money in DC, (which does not produce a thing other than taxpayer cash), but zero common sense. When Bloomberg retires, perhaps he can find a job with the Obama administration, he’ll fit right in.



Food for thought

Senate Plans to Sneak Public Option Through Budget Reconciliation Maneuver – Removes Need for Majority Vote – Obama poll 27% Strongly Approve New Low

The New York Timesarticle, buried under the heading of “Health” then further: “Money and Policy”, reported that Senate Democrats are planning on using budget reconciliation to get a health care bill passed with a “simple majority”. The Democrats have been busy consulting their lawyers to see if they could find a way to push the Public Option through without a full Senate Vote – they believe they have succeeded. The solution is rather simple – Senators only need to prove that the public option would save the government money – and anyone with any common sense and/or a sense of history understands that plans that the government designs to save money (outside of tax cuts) generally ends up costing a fortune; despite figures pulled out of a proverbial hat in order to prove otherwise.

The best part of this whole shenanigans is the fact that Senate Democrats (let alone House Democrats) are blaming Republicans – It’s the Republican’s fault that the Democrats cannot get the “Single Payer (Government controlled Health plan) through because the Democrats don’t control the necessary 60 votes - which, is patently untrue. The Democrats now enjoy what is known as a Super Majority – it is a filibuster prove, rule that allows them to ramrod anything they want past the American people without a peep of opposition (except for cable, Internet, radio, national news and print where the debate can continue). They have the necessary bodies, they apparently do not have enough Democrats in favor of losing their jobs (see angry constituents) – therefore, in order to continue to bamboozle the public (which is now accurately aware that this particular bunch is more than capable of doing just that), the apparent game plan is to blame the Republicans and then attach some questionable math to an even more questionable bill in order to get it passed with less than the normal 60 votes. Apparently, this may also protect those who do vote from being “outed” to the public – otherwise known as constituents who have clearly expressed, under no certain terms, that those who vote in favor of a public option will be seeking employment elsewhere come 2010 or 2012.

This is where John Q. Public can take heart – nothing that has been done, cannot be undone. Simply, laws can be changed an amended. All one needs is a good housecleaning – from the executive to the legislative branch – and the people most certainly are capable of doing so – time and time again. It is the beauty of this form of government. It won’t take long to “fix” the health care system again, with another more reasonable act.

In the meantime, the public option would do the following: offer lower cost insurance to those who currently do not have insurance – or free insurance to those who cannot afford insurance at all – the tab would be picked up by the taxpayer. Further, those employers who cannot afford health benefits, can simply opt out of them, pushing their employees into the public option plan – the fewer American’s who are participating in private plans will cause the Private Insurance Carriers to reduce their workforce – causing a greater burden on the public option and also on the unemployment rolls. The icing on the cake: Congress and certain unions can keep their private health insurance – not opting for the government run program. This could mean a long two years, however, the programs need to be implemented first – which, considering the current efficiency of said government – may make the aforementioned a moot point. (There are a host of other ailments associated with this bill, but for the sake of brevity - and the fact that, to date, no one is addressing the realities of a reduced Private Insurance Force.)

One other little ditty in the New York Times article: The end of life counseling public health option or Death Panels (phrase coined by Sarah Palin - read excellent report here at Hillbuzz) is reported upon in rather graphic terms: via a booklet currently being used on American Troops by the V.A.: New York Times:

Senator Arlen Specter, Democrat of Pennsylvania, called for hearings to investigate a guide used by the government to counsel veterans with critical or terminal illnesses.
On “Fox News Sunday,” H. James Towey, the director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives under President George W. Bush, said the guide seemed to encourage people to “hurry up and die.”
The booklet, “Your Life, Your Choices,” asks people to consider whether life would be worth living if, for example, they were in severe pain, relied on a feeding tube or a breathing machine, lived in a nursing home or imposed “a severe financial burden” on family members.
In addition, the booklet asks, “Have you ever heard anyone say, ‘If I’m a vegetable, pull the plug’?” It then explains that people have different ideas of what it means to be a vegetable or to “pull the plug.”
In a bulletin last month, the Department of Veterans Affairs recommended the booklet as a tool to help veterans with “advance care planning.”
Tammy Duckworth, an assistant secretary of veterans affairs, said it was being revised.
But Mr. Towey said, “The document is so fundamentally flawed that the V.A. ought to throw it out.”

One word: despicable.

Although the Times doesn’t specifically tie the End of Life Counseling to the current Public Option plan, one knows it is contained in the language of the house bill – Spector, who will definitely be out of a job, has called for an investigation, by those who are currently planning on passing unwanted legislation through the Senate by dubious means (and by dubious, although the option has the Senates layers blessings, it leaves little open to debate – thereby, Democrats must believe, reducing the public backlash).

President Obama’s approval, has, in less than one year, fallen to 48%, with only 27% of those polled “strongly approving” of the job he’s doing. This is a change downward from 29% last week, a continual decline which began in March of this year (see Stimulus). Congress enjoys less popularity than the President – one can see the handwriting on the wall, and the media and the general public has yet to take the boondoggle in Afghanistan into consideration yet – a huge tactical error on the part of this administration. Add the increase in troop levels in Afghanistan, to the increasing fatalities (which given the history of the country will continue), increasing cost of that front versus Iraq, and an unpopular change in the nation’s health care system, and one can well imagine what political suicide via either arrogance, ideology or stupidly can do to an entire political party.

A Final Thought: One party control (or two for that matter), regardless of party is not what was intended by the founding fathers, and with good cause, the fact that Republican’s enjoyed a majority for six of eight years, and wasted the opportunity through a lack of fiscal restraint, thereby losing the majority to the Democrats, who, apparently, have no restraint whatsoever – is dangerous. The problem now presents itself in that a total reversal is more than probable; with the end result of yet another one-party rule of the nation in the very near future.

Obama Changes His Mind - No To Release of Guantanamo Photo’s – Court to Decide – Dick Cheney’s Points on National Security Taken to Heart

Barack Obama with Dick Cheney - photo cfnews13

In a stunning reversal of policy, President Obama has decided to block the release of photographs of alleged abuse of terrorists (enemy combatants) at Guantanamo Bay. The decision on Wednesday, as reported by the New York Times, reverses his previous decision not to block the release of the photographs. In doing so, the President has made a smart decision – regardless of some critics who point out that the Courts will be left with the decision, and any anger from the left will be aimed at the Courts rather than the President and his administration. An AP analysis suggests that the administrations claim of finding a new legal argument for preventing the release of the photographs is false; and that the reversal is merely political, aimed at protecting the President from the angry left. That said, the President’s decision, based on national security issues, as noted by Press Secretary Gibbs, shows a level of understanding of the scope of the global impact of the war on terror that appeared to be previously absent. One may also give credit to former Vice President Dick Cheney, who in recent weeks has kept up a continual assault on the administration, specifically hammering home the dangers of releasing said photographs. Cheney, who is not the most outspoken individual, had ratcheted up the criticism to unprecedented heights – one must assume that given Cheney’s background, motivation for the barrage was based on national security, not party affiliation. It's all possibly relative that DNA played a factor and similar decisions can be seen coming out of the Administration should Cheney, once again, be as vocally aggressive on issues of National Security..

Obama’s initial decision to approve the release of the photographs was a sticking point with Senate Republicans, and rightly so. The release of photographs from Abu Ghraib prison produced a backlash across the Middle East, and further placed an additional threat on U.S. forces in the field. Regardless f the fact, that by global standards of torture, the Abu Ghraib photographs were rather benign, they were a rallying point for the left, and those militant Islamic groups who would grasp at any straw as an excuse to attack the U.S. and its interests. Although, not armed with a crystal ball, one must imagine that any photographs of Guantanamo detainees being “tortured”, would be equally or less benign that those from the Iraqi Prison, given the fact that prisoners at Guantanamo are treated exceptionally well compared to those held in U.S. prisons (where, it can be argued, life behind bars in the U.S., although restraining offers amenities that would not be found outside the U.S.).

In reversing his decision, the President, regardless of any alleged motive, moves to protect American Troops and, as a bonus, serves to remove a possible Al Qaeda/Taliban recruiting tool as well as angering those on the fringe (Daily Kos) who see Presidents decision as “illegal” . However, in a recent Rasmussen Poll regarding the release of detainees from Guantanamo, 75% of those polled, objected to detainees being moved to the U.S. Homeland. It is not a stretch to imagine that a high percentage would also object to the release of said photographs. Therefore, Obama has moved to the center right on this particular issue, which is indicative of the majority of the American voting bloc, regardless of Party affiliation. Although one can well imagine that the New York Times editorial board will be somewhat disappointed, as its constant drumbeat of “horror” over Abu Ghraib, kept the “controversy” in the public arena for months on end the decision will set well with the majority of the American Public.

Incredible - The New York Times Blames Bush Philosophy for Mortgage Crisis

In a six page article under the Times Business Section,
(web published Dec. 20th), the Times outlines how President Bush might be to blame for the Mortgage Crisis, citing his philosophy of increased home ownership as the main cause, coupled with a desire to de-regulate. They do talk about his concern over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but fail to mention the root cause of that failure, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, both Democrats, who continued to confirm the solvency of the Government Run mortgage giant.

Several points made in the article are incredulous:

“He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.”

The Times has apparently forgotten that those lax lending standards were in place before President Bush took office, instituted under President Carter, The Community Reinvestment Act. This bit of legislation put lenders under fire for failing to grant loans to individuals due to lack of credit - banks and mortgage companies had no recourse but to loan to those without a solid credit history. This “philosophy” was further pushed by ACORN, a non-profit that is not known to be in the back pocket of your average Republican.

When President Bush called for more home-ownership, some lenders responded by introducing the variable rate mortgage to those who had zero credit or the ability to pay that mortgage once the interest rate ballooned. In other words, although the lending practices might be considered a bit shady, the individuals signing the mortgage might have understood that at some point, they would not be able to afford their home. Somehow, this becomes President Bush’s fault:

It was June 17, 2002, a day Mr. West recalls as “the highlight of my life.” Mr. Bush, in Atlanta to unveil a plan to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million, was touring Park Place South, a development of starter homes in a neighborhood once marked by blight and crime.
Mr. West had patrolled there as a police officer, and now he was the proud owner of a $130,000 town house, bought with an adjustable-rate mortgage and a $20,000 government loan as his down payment — just the sort of creative public-private financing Mr. Bush was promoting.
“Part of economic security,” Mr. Bush declared that day, “is owning your own home.”
A lot has changed since then. Mr. West, beset by personal problems, left Atlanta. Unable to sell his home for what he owed, he said, he gave it back to the bank last year. Like other communities across America, Park Place South has been hit with a foreclosure crisis affecting at least 10 percent of its 232 homes, according to Masharn Wilson, a developer who led Mr. Bush’s tour.

Somehow, Bush is to blame for Mr. West's dilemma.

Other notes of interest in this particular article:

Further, Bush requested that Congress help first time home owners with closing costs, which he saw as a barrier to some - Congress complied. No kidding.

A host of Bush advisers have come “out of the closet”, citing instances where Bush may have been responsible, and the President, of course, declined an interview with the Times.

A favorite revelation in this astonishing article comes on page three of six:

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for federally insured mortgages with no money down. Republican Congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as Mr. West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.

Republican Congressional Leaders, and conservatives, had often called into question the President acting a tad more liberal than conservative. This truism seems to have escaped the Times, who has painted the President as a strict conservative at all times, someone whose policies and actions are so far-right they must be feared. Suddenly, they find that he might be a bit more moderate.

The rest of the piece is devoted to drawing a conclusion by way of the donations made to the Republican Party; donors which are tied to the Banking and Mortgage industry. One would be hard pressed to find an article during the 2008 presidential campaign, that did not find the Times or other like-minded editorial newspapers, blasting the McCain campaign for bringing up names like Ayers, or Wright, or, for that matter, the fact that the Obama campaign gave a hefty sum to a group mentioned in this article, ACORN, in an effort to “get out the vote”.

Now that the election is over, the Times has taken it upon themselves to make sure that the financial crisis America faces falls on the shoulders of one administration, and that no blame be placed elsewhere. The fact remains, that both parties are to blame for the present situation, and that the President, for all the power that the press believes that office has, must first go through the Congress - that the President, although the “leader of the Country, is merely, the “Titular Head of his/or her (ever hopeful), respective Political Party.

Daily Newspapers Slump - Missing the Obvious – Alternative News Outlets vs. Ideology

John Gapper, at the Financial Times ponders the question: “Who will Mourn Local Newspapers?” - and in yesterdays article laid out the case against “bad journalism” produced by blogs and talk radio. He also bemoaned the fact that journalist feel the general public is not as well served by these new outlets. He closed his article with the hope that the demise of the local daily papers will “strengthen the editorial position of the remaining elite: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the Financial Times etc.”

Therein lays the problem that continues to be overlooked by those “elites” who would guide the populace rather than report the news. One has to look to ratings in terms of right vs. left, over a period of time, to understand that the rise of “alternative news”. Twenty years ago, the daily newspapers and network broadcast news enjoyed a virtual monopoly; there simply were no other sources available. Today, conservative talk radio and the Fox News Network dominate their respective rankings. Rush Limbaugh, for example, enjoys a week cume (equivalent to a newspapers circulation) of 14.25 million, compared to the top ranked NBC evening news of 8.34 million. Comparing apples to apples, conservative talk radio is enjoying relative prosperity while more left leaning radio networks like Air America and
NPR are either clawing out of bankruptcy or facing layoffs.

It would behoove those “elites” who feel that the Internet and conservative talk radio are to blame, to get a grip on reality. In another financial times blog, Gideon Rachman is adamant that the problem lies with ”Internet slime” and those “gun-toting…..bit of the United States” (Conservatives). This situation has now dissolved into intense denial and anger. The crux of the matter is simple. Ideology has no place in journalism with the exception of an editorial page in a newspaper (or a segment on the nightly news, etc.). The last four general elections have shown a country that is deeply divided – right vs. left. When a news outlet, be it a newspaper, broadcast news network, cable news network or radio talk show, caters to one segment of the population only (or candidate as was the case in the last election), they are bound to lose circulation, “cume”, and viewership to those outlets that offer another “editorial” point of view. Should, by some miracle, what has become known as the Mainstream Media, wake up from its stupor and begin to report, while defining editorial (be it conservative or liberal) as such, confining it to a specific segment, they just might stand a chance of winning back a share of that audience.

MSNBC and CNN – Misleading Reporting Favors Obama

There has been a bit of a backlash among conservatives in the past week regarding two instances where at least two national news outlets misled the public in statements made during broadcasts. In the first instance, MSNBC, NBC’s cable arm, an audio clip from a Joe Biden gaffe announcing that Obama would be “tested” in his first six months of office, was downplayed as nothing, giving McCain a negative for even bringing the statement up in his rallies. The problem is that MSNBC played a clip from a speech in San Francisco, which bore little resemblance to the original statements Biden made in Seattle. In addition, the news outlet labeled the San Francisco Remarks as those made in Seattle (See Breitbart TV clip below).

Drew Griffin (CNN) in an interview with V.P. candidate Sarah Palin, asked for her reaction of an article in the National Review (a conservative publication), mocking her and demeaning her, when Palin asked who authored the article, Griffin had no idea of who authored the article. In truth, the article was referring to the press treatment of Palin. (Byron York Article here)

These are not isolated instances, the press in an apparent ideological frenzy, has decided that if ACORN cannot steal the election for former ACORN lawyer and former New Party Member (Socialist)(one has to sign a contract to support socialism – see Bruce Bently article)Obama, then the press will just have to jump in and make sure that their favorite Politician succeeds. From every conceivable source, reporting has been exceptionally biased. One has to wonder if ideology is more important than the truth or basic fact checking. There simply are no more reliable sources, a dilemma predicted by our founding fathers who were loath to give freedom to the press as they feared just such a scenario (Refer to Federalist Papers).

Does it really matter if the press is tainted? Yes – for several reasons – first and foremost, the perception that the press is more than biased is held by conservatives and a growing number of independent voters – to the point that ratings and subscriptions have tanked over the past 8 years – the result, the ideological driven media is losing income, and that can only result in reductions of staff, and in a loss of stock income. (NY Times stocks at a 10 year low and More Layoffs at NY Times). What will happen if John McCain, despite the media, despite ACORN and Obama’s “Truth Squads” and “Internet Squads” is elected? The press is assuring us that riots will ensue. Therefore, if the press cannot outright mislead the public into voting for Obama, the next step is to threaten the public. Should that fail then the ideological press will become further marginalized, there will be more layoffs, the stocks will drop and once respected institutions will be no more than a memory, or most likely a shadow of their former self. However, if they succeed (and it will be a close election), then what will become of truth in America? Talk Radio will certainly benefit, and should taxes increase, should our standing in the world become a laughing stock (see Carter), should we find inflation at 26% and interest rates on home loans at 21% (see Carter again), then there will be a backlash that the media will be unable to control. One thing that is forever lost is the national trust placed in fine institution such as the New York Times, NBC, CBS, and the like.

Tuesday’s Tidbits

Barack Obama and the Chicago Political Machine

Last night a reference was made on the O’Reilly Factor to Barack Obama’s ties to the Chicago Political Machine headed by Mayor Richard Daley. Bill O’Reilly promised further investigation into these ties prior to the November election. Finding references is not particularly difficult. On February 26, 2007, The Washington Post reported that Obama had endorsed Daley for Mayor, a switch from a prior position that Obama held regarding the corruption surrounding Daley’s administration. Chicago politics is strikingly similar to Massachusetts politics, you pay to play.

Speaking of which,

Jeff Beatty questions Jim Ogonowski's Fraudulent Ballot Signatures

Jeff Beatty, Republican Candidate for Senate (MA), has questioned Jim Ogonowski’s, the other Republican candidate for MA senate, collection of signatures. (The Lowell Sun article here) Apparently Ogonowski is, to date, short of the 10,000 signatures necessary to be placed on the November ballot. Ogonowski is running a slick pre-campaign, has been to Washington to request and receive help from the beltway, and knows how to get around Massachusetts politics. It is alleged that the signatures include several deceased residents. Surprised? Jeff Beatty, a relative newcomer to Massachusetts politics, has cried foul and is asking for an investigation. Pundits and bloggers from the Bay state such as the Red Mass Group, are calling Jeff an amateur. Frankly, better an amateur (i.e.: newcomer to Massachusetts politics) than a fraud. Jeff Beatty is in the best position to defeat John Kerry in November – polls indicate the same (Google John Kerry 08 senate race polls). However, with Mass. Politics Chicago style, being right is does not always go over well with either the political party or the press, which brings me to:

Hillary Clinton’s Historical References

Hillary Clinton made historical references in order to explain or defend a Democrat primary lasting well into June. Unfortunately, she referenced the assignation of Robert Kennedy and, Obama and Company, (campaign and the media) took it very personally. Clinton’s remarks were clearly an historical references, yet, as in most instances, regardless of who might be speaking (President Bush on the 60th anniversary of Israel, Mike Huckabee joking at an NRA convention, etc.), remarks are seen as a personal affront to Barack Obama. Clinton’s remarks sent the press into overdrive – see article from the New York Times here. The problem appears to be that Barack Obama is already concerned about an assasination attempt and, at the request of Homeland Security’s Chertoff, is surrounded by Secret Service details. Apparently, whenever anyone in a high profile position makes a statement, they had best figure out if somehow, someway it may be of some offense to Barack Obama. The word ridiculous comes to mind.

John McCain, Arianna Huffington and a Dinner Party

(No Hard News Available, Media Resorts to Dinner Party “He Said, She said” reporting)



From the New York Times to the LA Times or one left coast to the other left coast, the musings of the far-left of center, Arianna Huffington had been reported upon last week with apparent vigor. The question of whether or not John McCain voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election appears to be a big issue with Huffington, who is reaching deep in her attempt to bolster her chosen candidate, Barrack Obama. Apparently, Huffington claims that while at a dinner party in Hollywood, John McCain stated he did not vote for Bush in 2000 – John McCain denies the conversation ever took place, and the NY Times has picked up the piece going to great lengths to find “anonymous sources” at the same dinner party who “overheard the conversation” and therefore, it must be true. The reports, and Huffington suggest this “story” leads to credibility – the question is: whose? In Middle America, or those individuals who are neither heavily vested in the daily rants from the right or the left, John McCain is a straight-forward kind of guy. Patriotic, fiscally conservative, crosses the aisle in order to get a job done without making too many compromises, and, most notably, someone who appeals to both Moderate Republicans, Moderate Democrats and those all important Independent voters.

photo credit lifeisart

Who is Arianna Huffington? – Wikepedia (Reliable source?), paints the picture of a wealthy Greek socialite, educated in London, married to Michael Huffington, a congressman from California (R), whose apparent bi-sexuality did not deter Ms. Huffington from the marriage (bling!). They later divorced, after he lost the congressional seat to Diane Feinstein. She is very bitter about the “right side” of American Politics. Is it any wonder? A published author, Arianna has written on a wide range of subject, from Maria Callas, to How to Overthrow the Government. She is described as a progressive. No kidding.

Yet, given the current climate of “there’s nothing to find out about John McCain”, and “Barack Obama’s increasing gaffes, it appears John McCain will win out in a national election. Obama is even having trouble in Bob Byrd’s back yard, no less, a heavily democratic stronghold, (papers are crying racism, making the excuse that the state is heavily white, and those whites are gun and bible owners - therefore, they are racist, or objectively, people who read the news and know how Obama feels about guns and religion). The progressives, (including print and blogs), are desperately looking for any story, no matter how unsubstantiated or ridiculous, to “pin on McCain” in the hopes of making Barack look good enough to vote for!

The Old Adage: No News is Good News, will continue to hold true for McCain throughout the election cycle. The ridiculous musings of a bitter old woman (this comment from an actual old woman), will hardly be the stuff that individuals in Kansas, Ohio, Idaho, most of California and Upstate New York will even read about, or if they do, will even care about.


With the nomination of the DNC handed to Obama by these same entities (one assumes it is the political party that actually nominates the candidate, however, not in this instance), these types of farcical attacks should be expected to escalate. With the stars aligned in favor of the DNC this year, it is with amazement that one ponders how a press, bent on a progressive stand, aligned with individuals with Puffed Up self-opinions, and reporting on non-news, from people of little consequence, may be the catalyst that actually hands the White House back to the Republicans!

John McCain Uses Wife’s Company’s Jet

To the New York Times – “Is this all you’ve got?”

From Politico.com

The New York Times has reported that John McCain has been using his wife’s company corporate jet almost exclusively for campaign purposes. Apparently, it is not an illegal act at all, and one can’t be sure if the Times is more upset over the fact that they cannot find anything of substance to hang on McCain or if it was apparent that the man was being frugal in managing to jet about the country for six months at the price of two months flight time. It is evident that the Times is attempting to question McCain’s character as noted; “McCain has a “signature stance” on campaign finance reform” but he found a “loophole”. To wit – so what and is that all you’ve got? Although, to this conservative, McCain is not the most appealing candidate (given his stance on immigration reform and embryonic stem cell research), yet when the surface is scratched, there is little to criticize from an independents point of view. The man has worked well with both sides of the aisle, and has appeared to vote his conscious, and not a straight party line. This is worth noting.

Additionally, Governor Mike Huckabee, true to his word, is supporting Senator McCain’s candidacy through active campaigning and the Huckpac a political action committee designed to promote conservative candidates.


The Baltimore Sun is calling McCain and Huckabee the “not so odd couple”, citing the civility on the campaign trail as well as Mike Huckabee’s support of McCain in his recent trip through Arkansas. The speculation of McCain’s running mate has begun:
“McCain fielded the obligatory running mate question with his "standard answer," saying that he didn't want to mention any names yet.

But McCain readily admitted that "millions of Republican voters voted for Governor Huckabee" in the primaries, and he wants him to play a prominent role in his campaign. McCain noted Huckabee still has a 65 percent approval rating in Arkansas.
When reporters asked Huckabee if he planned to campaign for McCain, it was McCain who jumped in to answer with a ready: "Yes." (Baltimore Sun) click here for the entire article

McCain Critical of Bush Handling of Katrina Crisis

From Reuters. Apparently, John McCain would have handled things differently. Really? In an election year full of bluff and bluster or the do and say anything in order to get elected realm of politics, one hears statement after statement that is simply ludicrous. Should McCain, or anyone running at this time, been the President when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and the levees broke (Led Zeppelin), they would have come up against the same management team on the ground.

Louisana Governor Kathleen Blanco

Most striking at the time, was a governor’s failure to call for a mandatory evacuation New York Times Article. followed by her refusal to give up her national guard in a power struggle with the federal government. Of course it was President Bush’s fault for allowing the law of the state to supersede the law of the federal government - or, do exactly as he was supposed to while adhering to the Constitution. Of course, the governor, a Democrat, had no other course, but to point a finger a Washington in order to cover her own incompetence. Nearby Mississippi suffered under Katrina, but management on the state level was exemplary.

Mike Huckabee to Publish New Book

Mike Huckabee (CNN)

From CNN Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (10 Years as Governor), will be releasing another book two weeks after the 08 elections. This work will detail his bid for the presidency with notes from the campaign trail. Huckabee’s “From Hope to Higher Ground” offered up a reasonable 12-step program to restore America, expect more of the same from this candid “man of the people”.

Duval Patrick – Governing in the Bluest State

Massachusetts governor, Duval Patrick, has come under constant fire from his own party, the media and his constituents since the day he took office. The State Speaker, Sal DiMasi has shut down every proposal from the governor, including a recent proposal to allow casino gambling in the state. (Note: A proposal that was voted upon and approved by the people.).

The New York Times published an article (here) this morning outlining Patrick’s troubles, and comparing/contrasting him to Barack Obama. In reading the text, one derives a note of empathy for the embattled Governor. The author notes that the speaker supports Hillary Clinton, as well as the fact that Obama did not fare well in the Bay State primary. What could the two men possibly have in common?

There are some similarities between the two candidates: both lack experience and both are progressives. What boggles the mind is that what should have worked in Massachusetts (a testing ground for every progressive idea), did not. When progressives have difficulty exporting policy implemented in Massachusetts to other states in the Union, it is not surprising. What is surprising is that the current Governor cannot function as a progressive in the Bluest State. This cannot bode well for Obama, should the country, once again, deny progressive think in favor of a more moderate candidate.

From “upgrading” the state car from a Crown Vic to a Cadillac to marching in the annual Gay Pride Parade, to killing a bill that was supported by the people to allow a vote on the Gay Marriage issue, to changing the drapes in his office – Deval Patrick (also called Devil Patrick by most Mass. Radio talk show hosts), has had a battle on his hands. The Times article implies the blame can be laid at the doorstep of the Speaker (another ridiculed politicians in the Bay state), but is that truly the case? Might it be that the lack of experience coupled with progressive policy, has finally placed the final straw on the camel’s back (the people)?

Of McCain and the Progressive Dream Team

The New York Times, known to some in this country as a left leaning, progressive piece of journalism, has its sites on Republican Presidential candidate, John McCain. Granted the paper endorsed the Senator, but they are continuously pointing out his close relationship with his DNC counter-parts. Today's NYTimes political page, looks almost fondly at the moments in the past 8 years where Senator McCain has come close to changing sides of the aisle. The article "Two Divergent McCain Moments, Rarely Mentioned", discusses McCain's meetings with his DNC counterparts after his failed 2000 presidential campaign bid, and the 2004 contest, when he was on John Kerry's list of possible running mates.

It is as if to say: We understand the problems within our chosen party, therefore, this left-leaning Republican Senator, who we feel just might be a Democrat under the surface is the best bet!

The day the New York Times promotes or appears to promote a Republican candidate, is the day that that candidate is, in all likelihood, not as conservative as Republicans might like.

The results of a recent Franklin and Marshall poll coming out of Pennsylvania last week were telling: McCain is a strong second choice should the voters DNC first choice not succeed in receiving the DNC nomination. 20% of Obama supporters and 19% of Clinton supporters noted that they would vote for McCain should their candidate not receive the party nomination.

Good news for the Republican party, perhaps, but is it good news for conservative, values voters?

The New York Times, McCain and Integrity

The recent scrutiny of the McCain – lobbyist connection is being decried as a “hit job” by the McCain camp, Fox News, and other outlets, including the Times Ombudsman – One can understand why McCain might want to cry foul, and Fox for that matter, but when all is said and done, the story was not an unusual piece for the Times - due to the fact that the paper has printed far more volatile stories citing anonymous sources. That said, the point of the story is not whether or not McCain was running around on the current Mrs. McCain, it was about how he was playing fast and loose with lobbyists - the lobbyists are tied to the telecoms, the telecoms are tied to legislation, the legislation is tied to work the telecoms do for the country (paid work) and that is tied to the current administration. This is just the tip of the iceberg as far as innuendo is concerned. It is simply the ideology of the left speaking to the hypocrisy of the 100 years in Iraq, Bush approved McCain. Timing is everything, although McCain is showing a short-term benefit due to alleged donations pouring into his campaign from irate anti-Times people, the stage is set for the systematic destruction of McCain during the general election. The fact that the RNC was in such a rush to push McCain as the front runner, with every legislator imaginable coming forward in his defense (support), allowing the media to focus on one party only, was a huge mistake. Additionally, people are paying attention to the fact that McCain hired a DNC insider to defend him against the Times story (a good three months in advance of its release) - Hired gun is saying now that the allegations are baseless because, as a Democrat, he fully investigated McCain, goes to partisanship either way. McCain cannot win in a general election. Conservatives are not concerned about the McCain alleged affair; they are concerned about the lobbyists. McCain should debate the other two candidates still in the race, although I am a Huckabee supporter, I think that the biggest mistake being made here is that the RNC has already gone into the shadows. This would generate a bit of buzz, at the very least, and allows conservative viewpoints to come to the forefront. Who cares about John McCain now? The spotlight is on the DNC candidates. Should there be more stories regarding lobbyists, coming from other papers, or news outlets, then the coffin is nailed shut, especially when and if McCain actually gets the 1,000 plus delegates he needs in order for him to legitimately call himself the nominee (although he's using that in fundraising letters now, it's not accurate -Goes to character.) Then there will be no holding back.

The article in the New York Times that is receiving so much attention these past few days goes to McCain's character and his involvement with lobbyists, not necessarily his alleged affair with a woman, which both lack of character and adultery appear to be the norm for Washington politics. Isn’t this business as usual in American politics? Additionally, according to the Drudge Report’s developing story: (full text) “MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY
Thu Dec 20 2007 10:56:57 ET
Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!
McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee, newsroom insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
The paper's Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain's aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publication.
MORE
The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation.
The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.
Rutenberg, along with reporter David Kirkpatrick, has been developing the story for the last 6 weeks.
Rutenberg had hoped to break the story before the Christmas holiday, sources reveal, but editor Keller expressed serious reservations about journalism ethics and issuing a damaging story so close to an election.
McCain campaign officials Rick Davis, Charlie Black and Mark Salter are also said to have met with the NEW YORK TIMES in an effort to halt publication.
Developing... “ McCain’s hiring of attorney’s to squash the story makes one wonder about his alleged innocence.

It appears that the Republican Party wants to push a candidate that has no chance in Hades of winning the white house in the fall. They are more interested in the 4 year backlash that they hope will occur with a Democrat in charge; providing the groundwork for a return to power in the house and senate. As a conservative McCain falls short of the mark, and is more appropriate labeled liberal. How much character can he have when he is sending out letters via Townhall stating that he is the nominee of the party? Frankly, last time anyone checked he has not received the delegates necessary to clinch the nomination - yet. I find his letter to be somewhat deceptive. I'm concerned that, for once, the sentiments of the NYTimes editorial board maybe on the right track. From Townhall email dated Feb. 21st, sent at 3:40 pm and entitled: “We must unite as a party: "My Friends,

I am writing to you because we must begin to unite as party and prepare for the upcoming election in November. If I am so fortunate as to be the Republican nominee for president, I will stand on my conservative convictions and offer Americans a clearly conservative approach to governing. But my friends, I cannot succeed in this endeavor without the support of dedicated conservatives like you. And today, I write to ask for your support."

Will you join my campaign today by making a generous contribution? We will have a hard-fought battle against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and I know that by joining together, our party will prevail on Election Day.

Earlier this month, Senators Clinton and Obama raised over $10 million online for their respective campaigns in just a few short days. I know that I must take the time now to replenish my campaign's funds to prepare for what will undoubtedly be the most expensive campaign for president in our history. That is why I ask you to make an urgent contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500 or more today.

This election is going to be about big things, not small things. And I intend to fight as hard as I can to ensure that our shared conservative principles prevail.

Senators Clinton and Obama want to increase the size of the federal government, raise your taxes, and withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for political expediency. I intend to reduce the size of the federal government, cut your taxes and win this war. I have had the distinct honor of serving our great country for many decades and with your support, I will be able to serve her for a little while longer.

I am proud to have come to public office as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. My friends, twenty-five years later, I am still proud to be a conservative and it is my greatest hope that you will join me in this campaign today. Thank you.

Sincerely,

John McCain”

Is John McCain a man of Character? The party has a man of character, one that has strong conservative values and one who is more qualified than McCain. Mike Huckabee. The problem with Mike Huckabee is that although he is the better candidate, he won’t play businesses as usual with Washington. Will JQ Public wake up in time? There is time left. There is still time for Mike Huckabee to garner enough delegates to make it impossible for McCain to get the delegates to win the nomination. In an old-fashioned brokered convention, the delegates would have an opportunity to run a true conservative with a proven governing record instead of a feeble excuse for a candidate that one finds in McCain. It is not Mike Huckabee that needs a miracle; it is the people of this county and the Republican Party.