Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum

OCTOBER 4,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 8:57 P.M. ET:

DECLINE OF A NATION – Great Britain now has more generals than battle tanks.  There are 256 British generals and just 200 Challenger tanks.  And there are three times more generals than Apache helicopters, which the British have used effectively in Afghanistan.  In the 1960s, Britain had 4,000 battle tanks.  What we are watching is the decline of a great nation, under the boot of leftist ideology which even infects the Tory party.  We may not wish to acknowledge it, but the Britain of Churchill is fast disappearing, and will be almost useless as an ally in future battles.  You may be sure our enemies are taking note.

CHRISTIE OUT, BUT WHO'S IN? – Chris Christie's withdrawal is focusing attention on who might now get into the race, and the spotlight is shifting to Sarah Palin.  Even though she has lost considerable backing in the GOP, she still has a passionate, if smaller following.  It is reported that a law firm affiliated with a major Palin operative has been making inquiries about legal filing deadlines in the several states.  Palin might not draw major electoral support if she jumps in, but she will draw huge press coverage.  She is a camera magnet, and that may well take attention away from the other Republican candidates.  Question:  If she gets in, will she come to the debates prepared to speak about issues in detail?

CAIN RISING – A new CBS News poll, just out, shows Herman Cain now even with Mitt Romney at 17%, with Rick Perry at only 12%.  Look, this is one poll.   They differ.  But all major polls now show major slippage for Rick Perry.  Unless Perry does something dramatic, or puts in a spectacular debate performance next time out, I'm afraid he'll fade away.  It may be unfair, given that he's been a successful governor, but politics has never been fair.

EXPOSED FOR WHAT THEY ARE – Russia and China, those two great centers of human rights, have vetoed a European-sponsored UN resolution threatening action if Syria does not end its crackdown on its democracy movement.  The United States, showing rare backbone in the age of Obama, expressed strong outrage over the veto, pointing out that the democracy demonstrators in Syria now know who their friends are.  I wonder if Al Jazeera will tell them.

October 4, 2011       Permalink

BULLETIN – AT 11:44 A.M. ET:  CHRIS CHRISTIE WILL NOT RUN FOR PRESIDENT, A NUMBER OF NEWS ORGANIZATIONS ARE REPORTING.

BULLETIN:  CHRIS CHRISTIE WILL ANNOUNCE HIS DECISION ON WHETHER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT AT A PRESS CONFERENCE AT 1 P.M. ET TODAY.

TOUGH TALK FROM CHINA – AT 9:29 A.M. ET:  With our attention focused on the economy, and our international attention focused on the convulsions in the Mideast, we tend to overlook China, which is building up its military and becoming increasingly belligerent.  China is the coming world power, and look at the kind of thing published in an official (state-controlled) Chinese paper:

LONDON, Oct. 3 (UPI) -- An ugly momentum is building in the South China Sea, where an official Chinese newspaper called last week for war against Vietnam and the Philippines to uphold China's assertion of sovereignty over the mineral-rich seabed, estimated to hold 7 billion barrels of oil and 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The lead article in the Chinese Communist Party newspaper Global Times

Tuesday carried the headline "The time to use force has arrived in the South China Sea; Let's wage wars on the Philippines and Vietnam to prevent more wars."

"The South China Sea is the best place for China to wage wars," the article said. "Of the more than 1,000 oil rigs there, none belongs to China; of the four airfields in the Spratly Islands, none belongs to China; once a war is declared, the South China Sea will be a sea of fire [with burning oil rigs]. Who will suffer the most from a war? Once a war starts there, the Western oil companies will flee the area, who will suffer the most?"

The article went on to argue that "the wars should be focused on striking the Philippines and Vietnam, the two noisiest troublemakers, to achieve the effect of killing one chicken to scare the monkeys."

The Global Times is China's main newspaper for international affairs, widely distributed internationally in English, and is published under the authority of the central committee of the Chinese Communist Party. The article also argued that the United States wouldn't intervene, too preoccupied with its war on terror, its quagmire in Afghanistan and its own economic problems.

COMMENT:  No one can say we weren't warned.  And the smug comments about American weakness should be taken to heart.  If China thinks we're weak, China might strike somewhere in Asia.  China is already strong, and hauling in gobs of money from international trade and its growing manufacturing sector.  At the same time, China holds much of our debt.  Imagine what its strength could be in ten years.   

As if we didn't already have our hands full, China will become a major threat.  It is not free of problems.  It is a huge country, with some regions hard to control.  But we underestimate the threat at our peril, and we are underestimating it right now.

October 4, 2011      Permalink

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS UP – AT 8:26 A.M. ET: We've heard of political correctness run amuck, but this case takes the prize.   Apparently, in the minds of some people, religious institutions cannot have religious values.  From the Washington Examiner:

A legally frivolous but potentially dangerous lawsuit filed against Catholic University by a crosstown rival has become a national cause celebre for liberal activists who want to shove their notions of college life down the private religious school's throat. At issue is CU President John Garvey's decision to reinstate same-sex dorms to discourage underage drinking and casual sex among the incoming freshman class, something he has every legal and moral right to do. Led by George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, the lawsuit is a direct attack on the constitutionally protected rights of every religiously affiliated university in the country.

At a recent speech at another Catholic university in Pittsburgh, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended CU's decision to end a 25-year policy of co-ed dorms and urged Catholic colleges to stand up to any such attempts to undermine their religious identity. "Our educational establishment these days, while so tolerant of and even insistent on diversity in all other aspects of life, seems bent on eliminating the diversity of moral judgment ... based on religious views," Scalia told students at Duquesne University Law School.

And...

Banzhaf ...is not so shy about his motives. His absurd claim is that single-sex dorms somehow violate the District's Human Rights Act, which prohibits housing discrimination. But there's no discrimination when both sexes are treated exactly the same. What Banzhaf...really wants to do is make it illegal for Garvey or any other private university president to exercise any moral authority over his own institution. This is such a clear violation of CU's right to freely exercise its core religious values that it will be a travesty of justice if it ever gets to Scalia's court. But if it does, we can't wait to read Scalia's opinion.

COMMENT:  How much further do these leftist fools want to push?  It is important to defend Catholic University, which is certainly exercising its right to impose religious values on student life.  Students attend CU voluntarily. No coercion is involved.  If they don't like the dorm setup, they can go elsewhere.  That is called freedom.  It is a concept that many on the militant left find strange.

Naturally, Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, a CU graduate, criticized Scalia for his speech.  She had to.  How else could she face the other Times people in the cafeteria? 

The sixties generation, now in charge of many American institutions, is weakening with generational change.  It may fight harder, and more viciously, to protect the "change" it has brought to America.  Some elements of that change may be good.  Other elements are very bad, such as our dramatic cultural decay and the kind of lawsuit contemplated against Catholic University. 

If you think you've seen cultural clashes, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

October 4, 2011       Permalink

OUTRAGEOUS...AND DANGEROUS – AT 7:35 A.M. ET:  You've heard the term "crony capitalism."  It refers to a perversion of the free enterprise system resulting in vastly inflated pay for a few people at the top, or for people doing strange things on Wall Street, pay dependent more on games among friends than on actual performance.  The Washington Post has a superb piece describing this disgrace.  There is growing fury, including anger among conservatives, over crony capitalism and its potential to completely discredit our economic system:

THOUSAND OAKS, Calif. — As the board of Amgen convened at the company’s headquarters in March, chief executive Kevin W. Sharer seemed an unlikely candidate for a raise.

Shareholders at the company, one of the nation’s largest biotech firms, had lost 3 percent on their investment in 2010 and 7 percent over the past five years. The company had been forced to close or shrink plants, trimming the workforce from 20,100 to 17,400. And Sharer, a 63-year-old former Navy engineer, was already earning lots of money — about $15 million in the previous year, plus such perks as two corporate jets.

The board decided to give Sharer more. It boosted his compensation to $21 million annually, a 37 percent increase, according to the company reports.

Why?

The company board agreed to pay Sharer more than most chief executives in the industry — with a compensation “value closer to the 75th percentile of the peer group,” according to a 2011 regulatory filing.

This is how it’s done in corporate America. At Amgen and at the vast majority of large U.S. companies, boards aim to pay their executives at levels equal to or above the median for executives at similar companies.

The idea behind setting executive pay this way, known as “peer benchmarking,” is to keep talented bosses from leaving.

And...

...the jump in pay because of peer benchmarking is significant. A chief executive’s pay is more influenced by what his or her “peers” earn than by the company’s recent performance for shareholders, according to two independent research efforts based on the new disclosures.

And...

Since the 1970s, median pay for executives at the nation’s largest companies has more than quadrupled, even after adjusting for inflation, according to researchers. Over the same period, pay for a typical non-supervisory worker has dropped more than 10 percent, according to Bureau of Labor statistics.

And...

The practice has persisted because corporate board members, many of whom have personal or business relationships with the chief executive, have been unwilling to abandon the practice.

Crony capitalism.  It is passionately denounced by some of the best people in American business, including Warren Buffett.  Sarah Palin has spoken out against it. 

COMMENT:  It is disgraceful, utterly disgraceful.  It drains companies of valuable resources, it creates tremendous anger and resentment in the employee ranks, it distorts corporate values, it provides powerful arguments for confiscatory taxation, and it cannot be defended in any moral sense.

It also provides powerful arguments to change the economic system to a socialistic one, to eliminate this vast inequity.

As for defending this practice as needed to keep "good people," may I point out that the president of the United States is paid $400,000 a year, and there is no shortage of applicants.

The problem is not new.  It began to be noticed in the early 1980s, when it was pointed out that the gap between highest paid and lowest paid in American corporations was the widest in the world.   It has gotten far wider.  We are the only country on Earth that allows this obscenity, and that isn't the kind of American exceptionalism we want.

We are in tough times.  There is growing bitterness.  We have seen the start of mass demonstrations here against capitalism, inspired by movements abroad.  Do not underestimate the potential power of social resentment in these times.  Intellectually lazy pundits can decry "class warfare," but if the warfare is seen as justified by those looking at crony capitalism, it can change this country in ways that were unimaginable only a few years ago.

Remember the old poltical law from New York City, from the days when rent-control laws were introduced:  There are more tenants than landlords, and they vote.  In America there are more workers than executives, and they too vote.

Crony capitalism must be brought to an end to save a system that these greedy clowns are destroying.

October 4, 2011      Permalink 

ROMNEY BACK ON TOP, PERRY SLIDES, CAIN GAINS – AT 7:19 A.M. ET:  A new Washington Post/ABC News poll gives the latest picture of the GOP race:

After a quick rise in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has experienced an almost equally dramatic decline, losing about half of his support over the past month, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Perry’s slide, which comes after several uneven performances in candidate debates, has allowed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney to resurface atop the GOP field. But the most direct beneficiary of the disenchantment with Perry is businessman Herman Cain, who is now tied for second place.

The Post neglects to point out that part of the reason for Perry's decline has been the remarkable number of hit pieces about him, published in the influential liberal press...and that includes the Washington Post.

Among announced candidates — without Christie or Palin in the race — Romney leads with 25 percent, which is identical to his support from a month ago. Perry and Cain are tied for second with 16 percent, numbers representing a 13-point drop for Perry and a 12-point rise for Cain since early September.

Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) is the only other candidate in double figures, at 11 percent. Just behind him are former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), both with 7 percent. Gingrich’s support has held steady through the late summer. Bachmann’s numbers fell sharply after Perry announced his candidacy.

Former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. bring up the rear, with Santorum at 2 percent and Huntsman at 1 percent.

COMMENT:  Romney's inability to rise demonstrates once again his lack of emotional appeal.  He may well get the nomination, but right now he's seen more as "the next guy in line" than a great leader, or great candidate.  Herman Cain's rise is striking, but remember that he's only at 16%.  We're not talking about a runaway candidacy here.

Plenty of time to go in this race.  We should know this week whether Chris Christie gets in.  That will shake things up...but the experts said that about Rick Perry as well before he jumped.  He comes in at only 10% in the poll.

As for the other question mark, the poll shows that Sarah Palin would get only minor support, at 9%, if she took the plunge.

People are already talking about a Romney-Rubio ticket, which might just do the job, if Romney doesn't mind being overshadowed by the second guy on the ticket.

October 4, 2011     Permalink

OCTOBER 3,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:47 P.M. ET:

PERRY DEFENDED – Even Democrats in Texas are coming to Rick Perry's defense, after a brutal hit piece in the Washington Post tried to suggest that he's a racist.  It was the same technique the Post used, successfully, to declare Senator George Allen of Virginia a racist, a controversy that probably cost Allen his Senate seat.  In Texas, no significant figure has joined in the Post's attack.  Indeed Perry's record on minorities is one of the bright spots of his tenure as governor.  The left, meanwhile, is naturally silent on the Post's modern McCarthyism.

RON PAUL READY FOR THE MEN IN WHITE SUITS – Ron Paul is suggesting that President Obama could be impeached over the killing of Al Qaeda bigwig Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen last week.  Yeah, right.  Apparently the impeachment would be voted on by a shadow Congress arriving in Washington in black helicopters and wearing electronic, flashing beanies.  The president was on sound ground in ordering an attack on a man making war on the United States.  So-called "civil libertarians," who rarely show such angst over the victims of crime, might explain how due process could be delivered to a man who couldn't be captured and who was engaged in ongoing terror. 

TRIUMPH AND HEARTBREAK – Three men, two of them American, have been awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine.  However, the Swedish body awarding the prize did not know that one of the three, Ralph M. Steinman of Rockefeller University in New York, had died on Friday...without knowing he had become a Nobel laureate.   The rules of the prize stipulate that it can only be given to living persons, but the Nobel committee has decided to let this award stand, which is the proper decision. 

COOLNESS TOWARD CHRISTIE? – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, one of the most powerful Republicans in the country, had a decidedly cool response to reporters' questions about a possible Chris Christie candidacy for president.  He did not join the list of those urging Christie to run, instead simply stating that we'll have to wait and see if the New Jersey governor joins the parade.  There has been informed speculation that Christie's record may not pass muster with strong conservatives like Cantor, which may explain Cantor's coolness.  Some in the political world say Christie's announcement of his intentions may come as early as Wednesday.

October 3, 2011       Permalink

A CORVETTE IT AIN'T – AT 3:51 P.M. ET:  I saw a Chevy Volt last week!  I actually did.  I almost ran into the car ahead of me while staring at the Volt.  My verdict:  It's a car, nothing special to look at, and a Chevrolet Corvette it definitely ain't.

So I'm not surprised by this:

General Motors has repeatedly claimed a sales target for 2011 of 10,000 units for the plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt sedan. But, nine months into the year, they've only shipped 3,895 off the lot. In fact, in September sales numbers, released an hour ago, GM sold only 723 Volts. Will GM fail to meet its own sales predictions?

To be fair, GM has claimed that sales would falter during the summer because of a pre-planned shutdown of the automaker's Hamtramck assembly plant. But, it was thought by most analysts that GM would have already swallowed that hiccup and by September we'd see higher sales. Despite more than doubling last months sales, we somehow don't think 723 units sold this past month is what one would consider massive sales momentum — especially given this summer's anemic numbers. And that's not to say there aren't any Volts on dealer lots. Cars.com shows over 2,600 units available in a nation-wide search of new vehicle listings.

To give you an idea of how few vehicles that is, here are just a few of the GM vehicles that sold better than the Chevy Volt this month:

Cadillac Escalade - 1,527
Chevrolet Colorado Pickup - 2,171
Chevrolet Avalanche - 1,861
Chevrolet Suburban - 5,246
Buick Lucerne - 1,068

COMMENT:  The whole idea of the Volt is that it can run on either battery or gasoline power.  Now, people buy a car like this, theoretically, to save money.  But the car is ridiculously expensive, and any money you save gets eaten up in the cost of the car, unless you travel zillions of miles a month.

Further, battery power is still in its infancy.  Recharging takes too long, and there are few recharging stations.  Recharging costs are a factor. 

A flop so far.  We await the next generation of batteries...and with them their environmental disposal problems.  Do not put in the regular trash.

October 3, 2011        Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:25 A.M. ET:

From the New York Post:  Gov. Chris Christie is expected to announce whether or not he will make a run for the White House on Wednesday, according to one advisor.  Yesterday, Christie’s rivals opened fire as he continued mulling a presidential bid -- and the usually jocular Republican heavyweight was showing clear signs of strain.  “It’s brutal,” one close adviser said of Christie’s mood in reaction to the harsh criticism aimed at him yesterday.

Welcome to presidential politics, Gov.  You didn't think they were going to hand it to you, did you?  I hope you didn't punch out a kid over a game of marbles in the fourth grade, because it'll be in The Washington Post the day after you announce.

TROUBLE IN THE BAY STATE – AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  One of the great political moments in recent times was the election of Republican Scott Brown to fill out the term of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.  From one brief shining moment, we thought Massachusetts might be salvageable.

But a new poll brings grim news for Brown, who will be up for election to a full term next year.  From The Politico:

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and challenger Elizabeth Warren are in a dead heat, according to a new poll Monday.

The poll by the University of Massachusetts-Lowell and the Boston Herald shows Brown, the Republican incumbent who scored an upset victory in a special election in January 2010, in a statistical tie with with Warren, 41 percent to 38 percent, given the survey’s 3.8 percent margin of error.

Warren, the Harvard Law School professor who headed the creation of President Barack Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is the clear front-runner in the six-person Democratic primary contest, getting 36 percent of the vote while none of her potential rivals got more than 5 percent.

Brown would face even stiffer competition against two Democrats who have said they had no interest in challenging the Massachusetts Republican. In the poll, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick leads Brown by a 43 to 36 percent margin and former Rep. Joseph Kennedy II is ahead of Brown in a 45 to 37 percent advantage.

COMMENT:  Do not underestimate Elizabeth Warren.   She may be a bit of a liberal fanatic, but she has real passion, and passion counts in politics.  She also comes off as "for the people," whether that's true or not.

Recent news reports say that Wall Street is ready to gang up on Warren, who is a leading advocate of financial reform and consumer protection.  If I were Elizabeth Warren, I'd be cheering, and eagerly waiting for the Wall Street assault.  Wall Street is one of the most unpopular names in America right now, and to have Wall Street attacking you is a badge of honor in liberal Massachusetts. 

Of course, this is early polling, and it's easy to gang up on an incumbent.  Scott Brown is still an attractive candidate with great style, even though his Senate record is undistinguished.  This will be a horse race.  The Democrats are giddy over the prospect of bringing Brown down, and they have a traditionally strong Democratic state behind their effort.

October 3, 2011       Permalink

FAT CHANCE – AT 8:19 A.M. ET:  Dick Cheney, an outstanding public servant who saw his reputation destroyed by an eager, liberal press, is now making an appropriate request that should have been made long ago – that President Obama apologize to the Bush administration over comments Obama has made.  From the Washington Examiner:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, R, told Candy Crowley on State of the Union that President Obama should apologize to President Bush and his administration for campaigning against Bush's anti-terrorism policies and for remarks Obama made in his presidential visit to Cairo, Egypt.

Crowley and Cheney agreed that Obama has continued most of President Bush's anti-terrorism policies, such as the on-going Predator drone strikes, which precipitated Cheney criticizing Obama as saying "we walked away from our ideals" and suggesting that Obama should "go back and reconsider what [he] said when he was in Cairo."

"If you've got the President of the United States out there saying we overreacted to 9/11 on our watch, that's not good," Cheney said, prompting Crowley to say "you'd like an apology, it sounds like." Cheney replied:  "Well, I would. I think that would be not for me, but I think for the Bush administration, and that he misspoke when he gave that speech in Cairo two years ago."

Cheney's daughter, Liz, appeared with him on the show and interjected at this point that Obama "slandered the nation and . . . owes an apology to the American people."

COMMENT:  There's not a chance.  The base of the Democratic Party would turn even more against Obama at any sign of a well-deserved apology.  That base believes that the United States is the problem in the world, and that we were attacked on 9/11 because of "our policies."

I've always been baffled by that argument.   Even if true, being attacked for your policies doesn't make your policies wrong.  It just means you were attacked because of them.   The civil rights people in the early sixties were often attacked physically for their advocacy.  Did that make them wrong and the Ku Klux Klan right?  The argument is absurd.

Dick Cheney will get his apology from history.  From the Obama administration he will get condescension, and from the fanatics on the left he will get constant calls to be tried as a war criminal.

October 3, 2011       Permalink 

WHAT'S WITH BILL? – AT 7:38 A.M. ET:  We have noted in this space that Bill Clinton has been acting strangely.  Either he is off his meds, his wife's restraining hand is not working, or all this is intentional.

His periodic sniping at Obama's economic policies has been noted.  His assault on the Israeli government at a delicate time in Mideast peace efforts raised all living eyebrows.  His weird, Big Brother-type statement that he hoped skepticism about global warming would be banned from politics was outlandish and anti-intellectual.  His hoggish performance at his own library in the last few days, in which he essentially demanded more credit for his presidential wonderfulness, sounded like the lament of a high-school kid who didn't get the "most likely to succeed" award.

The Hill has an analysis of Clinton's behavior that, while not definitive, is worth reading: 

What is Bill Clinton playing at? Well, it isn’t just golf.

The question is one politics watchers have asked frequently over the past two decades. But it has resurfaced with new sharpness as the former president has pushed himself toward center-stage again in recent weeks.

Clinton’s prominence is not in itself undermining President Obama. But there are enough mixed messages coming from Clinton and from those around him to raise a large question about whether enmities from the grueling 2008 presidential race are really buried.

Clinton seemed to step on President Obama’s new economic message last month when he stated, “I personally don’t believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending until we get this economy off the ground.”

His remarks were seized upon with glee by conservatives, while the mere decision to give such an interview to Newsmax, a right-wing outlet, seems unlikely to have won the 42nd president many new friends in the West Wing.

And...

Admittedly, there have been signs of a personal deepening of relations between the two men, the most recent being a golf outing at Andrews Air Force base late last month.

Still, Clinton’s relationship with his first Democratic successor as president continues to be freighted with baggage. The problem might center on Clinton’s perception of his place both within the Democratic family and in the history books.

“Obama stole his place in the heart of the Democratic faithful,” an author said.

COMMENT:  Inevitably, there are theories around that Clinton is doing this to advance the political interests of his wife.  There are still those who believe that Hillary Clinton, who's been awfully quiet recently, should challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination.  That is an absurdity.  First, she'd lose, and destroy her future.  And, even if she won, she'd lose the black vote in the general election, and lose there.

Or, some theorize, a committee will be formed to visit President Obama and advise him to step aside "for the good of the party," leaving Hillary a clear path to the 2012 nomination.  I can't see Obama putting his ego to sleep anytime soon.  This man is the perpetual campaigner.

Or, some believe that Clinton is simply paving the way for his wife to run in 2016, and for his own career to continue in some manner, possibly as secretary-general of the UN. 

All this will play out.  But one thing appears certain:  The Clintons will be with us for a long time, whether we like it or not.  And there goes the neighborhood.

October 3, 2011       Permalink

UGLY – AT 7:17 A.M. ET:  One question we all have is whether the media will behave differently in the 2012 campaign than it did in 2008.  I think we're getting the answer.

The outlandish attack on Rick Perry by the Washington Post over the weekend, essentially charging him with a close association with a camping ground that had once had a racially charged name, is the latest in a "get Perry" series of articles in liberal papers.  The New York Times has been especially bad.

And, as soon as Chris Christie emerged recently as a man who might reverse his decision and actually run for the presidency, The Times was ready with a devastating piece picturing Christie as a tool of shadowy, well-heeled financial movers and shakers.  In other words, a tool of Wall Street.  And now some liberal columnists are becoming obsessed with his weight. 

African-American candidate Herman Cain has been bludgeoned for saying that blacks have been brainwashed into remaining Democrats.  What he said has been said often, and barely needed repeating, but apparently Herman has committed some kind of sin.

Michele Bachmann has been Palinized, essentially treated as a crackpot.  She is a loose cannon, but she is not a crackpot.  At her best, she is a sharp debater whose thunder has been stolen by Rick Perry.

Bottom line, the press is no better than in 2008, and may be worse.  Although many liberal journalists are plainly disappointed by the fact that Barack Obama is not quite the man on horseback they had expected – he left the horse in the barn in Chicago – they will still fight for him because they are invested in him.  And they will seek to destroy anyone who runs against him.  If they have to play the race card, they will do so gladly.  The worst Obama is better than the best Perry or Christie.  They are not going to admit that they were wrong in 2008. 

Please remember:  Journalists rarely admit major mistakes.  They will rush to correct someone's middle name if it came out wrong in a story.  But they will never admit they got the story wrong.  We still live with the legacy of uninformed, behind-the-times, hack reporting of the Vietnam War, when we were authoritatively told by Walter Cronkite and his admirers that the war was unwinnable.  In fact, we never lost a battle in Vietnam, and, by the time Cronkite issued his legendarily famous report "from the field in Vietnam," it was evident that the enemy was suffering terribly.

In part, the renewed press bias we're seeing right now is cultural.  The Obama people are their people.  The Republicans are aliens, American nationalists who must be stopped.  This was pounded into their journalistic heads by the very professors who taught them in America's "elite" colleges and universities.  After all, the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia, my own alma mater, recently gave one of its most prestigious awards to Al Jazeera, a corrupt Mideast news organization owned by an Arab dictatorship.  Think of the kind of faculty that would give such an award, and think of the human products they turn out.

October 3, 2011     Permalink