Ifill's obligation

Initially I was conflicted a bit about the whole Gwen Ifill as "moderator" story. Revelations that Ifill is publishing a seemingly fawning book about Barack Obama might compel Ifill to strive for evenhandedness, I thought.

Well, Michelle Malkin article on the subject has changed my opinion. For example, learning that Ifill has responded to questions about her objectivity by bringing up race raises concerns. Ifill stated last week, “[N]o one’s ever assumed a white reporter can’t cover a white candidate.”

Malkin's response to this statement? "It’s not the color of your skin, sweetie. It’s the color of your politics." I'd say the "political color" of this particular media personality/journalist are unexceptional. I'm more concerned about the color of money--the financial interest that Ifill has in Obama's political fortunes.

Ifill made the decision to publish a book that fairly raises questions about her objectivity in covering politics and in covering this campaign in particular. I'd like to trust Ifill to play it fair in this high-stakes debate, but once the horse is out of the barn, it'll be too late. I think the professional thing to do would be to step down from moderating a debate this time around. Of course, that's easy for me to say, but I believe that as a journalist, the least that Ifill should do is begin this debate with an "in the interest of full disclosure" statement.

It's for the children

Nutroots activists reportedly hacked into Sarah Palin's personal email account and this Ted Bridis AP story was shillingly amazing. From the article:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hackers broke into the Yahoo! e-mail account that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin used for official business as Alaska's governor, revealing as evidence a few inconsequential personal messages she has received since John McCain selected her as his running mate.

. . . .

The disclosure Wednesday raises new questions about the propriety of the Palin administration's use of nongovernment e-mail accounts to conduct state business. The practice was revealed months ago - prior to Palin's selection as a vice presidential candidate - after political critics obtained internal e-mails documenting the practice by some aides.

(emphasis added) Evidence of what? And what an interesting read on the story, "the disclosure (of illegal and astonishingly invasive activity) raises questions about" . . . drum roll please! . . . something bad about Palin. Give me a break.

To be sure, any illegal or unethical behavior by these Liberals is most certainly for the children.

Sarah Palin's affair

While standing in the grocery store checkout line this evening, I saw a National Enquirer hit piece on Sarah Palin touting "the affair that almost ruined her career." As Byron York had discovered, though, there's no "there" there:

Concerning the allegations in the new National Enquirer of an extramarital affair involving Sarah Palin, I called the tabloid this afternoon and asked for a copy of the new story. They obliged, and here is the portion of the story dealing with the alleged affair:

Another incredible allegation emerging from the family war is that Palin, a mother of five, had an affair with a former business associate of her fisherman husband, Todd.

“Todd discovered the affair and quickly dissolved his friendship and his business associations with the guy,” charges an enemy. “Many people in Alaska are talking about the rumor and say Todd swept it under the rug.”

And that's it, as far as the affair is concerned. In the brief cover story, the Enquirer also says this:

The ugly family feud stems from a three-year battle between the 44-year-old governor and her former brother-in-law, state trooper Mike Wooten.

“Sarah has many enemies in her hometown – but a lot of them are in her own extended family,” a source close to the Palin family told The Enquirer.

Family members loyal to Wooten are now waging a campaign to drag Palin’s reputation through the mud.

This, on the heels of the now notorious US Magazine hit piece.

I guess if they similarly smear Democrats, I could believe that it is just a way to sell papers, but . . .

Did someone say "equal time"?

This is quite an admission from NBC and MSNBC. They've realized that Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are not journalists. But I had no idea how over-the-top they were--until I watched some of the "work" on youtube (Olbermann and Matthews on youtube) the DNC couldn't have done it more partisan-ly.

Dramacrats in Denver

I'm sorry, but it's hard not to laugh at the fabricated "drama" in Denver. For example, the breathless reporting about Ted Kennedy's "surprise appearance" at the DNC convention. We had heard reports (akin to Santa's sleigh on Christmas Eve) that the "Liberal Lion" had secretly touched down in Denver. Give me a break.

Not to mention, he appeared in DC six weeks ago to cast one of nine extra votes to override a GOP filibuster.

But wait, there's more "drama":

Barack Obama addressed the delegates in a short message via satellite at the conclusion of his wife's speech.

"Now you know why I asked her out so many times, even though she said no. You want a persistent president," he joked. Obama's two daughters, Sasha and Malia, grabbed the mic to give their father a quick "hello."

Obama watched his wife's speech from Kansas City, Missouri, where he is scheduled to campaign Tuesday.

Republicans will probably try something similarly stupid, but I think such Santa sighting reports appear stupid to all but party die-hards camped out at the convention looking for something to cheer about.

Talk about offensive

A Federal Appeals court has overturned the FCC fine against CBS for Janet Jackson's purported "wardrobe malfunction."

This was a rich comment by one of the hangers-on attorneys (they filed an amicus brief) . . . I doubt the attorneys representing CBS will be caught grandstanding like this:

Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Media Access Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a group of TV writers, directors and producers, said the ruling "is an important advance for preserving creative freedom on the air."

"The court agreed with us: the FCC's inconsistent and unexplained departure from prior decisions leaves artists and journalists confused as to what is, and is not, permissible," Schwartzman said in a statement Monday.

Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake were employees of CBS . . . they willfully (and salaciously) exposed Jackson's breast during the half-time show of the most watched sporting event in the world. I guess "artists and journalists" would have had no way of knowing that this would be deemed offensive by the FCC? It is progress that this ruling will help "preserv[e] creative freedom" of this nature? Give me a break.

I hope the FCC doesn't let this die here. This whole episode is a (middle) finger in the eye of decent Americans.

If the Democrat candidate flip flops in a presidential campaign . . .

. . . does it make a sound? Obama, er back-tracks on "change we can believe in" re. Iraq.

Barack Archuleta Obama?

I don't watch or "follow"

American Idol

, but from the unavoidable buzz over the past few days (about the season finale), am I the only person who sees similarities between what I've heard about the David Archuleta phenomenon and what I know about the Barack Obama phenomenon?

This Entertainment Weekly piece is what made me start thinking this.

"Sweetiegate" and taffy-like feminism

Nice report about the media's response to Obama's use of "sweetie" in dismissing a female reporter's question (and dismissively addressing various women at campaign events). From the article:

"I don’t think Sweetiegate matters so much for what it says about Barack Obama, whose use of this came precisely as a dismissal to the WXYZ reporter. It says much more about feminist activists and their remarkable flexibility when presuming to know the interior dialogue of the minds of men."

Be sure and watch the SNL sketch linked in the article.

History lesson for Stahl

Lesley Stahl, in her 60 Minutes interview with Al Gore this past Sunday (Al Gore's New Campaign, Tells 60 Minutes That Doubting Global Warming Is Man-Made Is Akin To Believing Earth Is Flat - CBS News), mistakenly implies that Al Gore hardly had time to get his boxes unpacked in his Belle Meade Mansion before the nattering nabobs started in:

"They bought an 18-room mansion in Nashville. After they moved in, they were criticized because the house 'Mr. Global Warming' lived in used 20 times more energy than the average American household. Since then, they have retrofitted everything, including installing 33 solar panels on the roof."

Actually, the Gores bought the house soon after he lost in 2000 and 6+ years later the report about his obscene energy consumption came to light.

(Mistakenly) seeing red at CBS

Updated:
I'm not sure what to think of this story--("GOP Operative: Rove Sought To Smear Dem, 60 Minutes: Woman Says Top Bush Adviser Asked Her To Take Compromising Pictures Of Alabama Gov. Siegelman" - CBS News), I'm wondering how a photo could have been compromising without Siegelman's complicity. In any event, I guess I'm most bothered by what seems to be a lie by Rove that he never attempted to "discredit" Siegelman. Rove hardly has a corner on brass knuckled opposition research of this sort. But that's not what I noticed from the article.

In what seems like a spit shine for Siegelman, the reporter writes:

"(former Governor, now convicted felon Don) Siegelman was the only politician in Alabama history to be elected to all four of the state’s highest offices of secretary of state, attorney general, lieutenant governor and governor, and he did it as a Democrat in the heavily Republican state."

Yes, Alabama votes for Republican presidents (you know, because they're racist), but this "observation" is patently foolish to anyone who knows anything about Alabama politics. Obviously Siegelman painted a big bullseye on his back by daring to hold office in such a Red State . . . not exactly.

Dems oughta be ashamed; should Hobbs?

This report (at BillHobbs.com) of a report ;) about a recent TN Democratic Party attack on State Senator (and Republican) Diane Black is disconcerting.

The Dems ought to be ashamed. The Bredesen wing of that party ought to knock some heads together.

As an aside, I was surprised to learn that Bill Hobbs was also taken to task by Phil Williams in that report. Not that Hobbs needs me to defend him, but I'm not sure the criticism was legitimate. Williams accuses Hobbs of misleading readers in a press release singling out two Democratic appointees casting votes in a Jerry Cooper-friendly vote by the Registry of Election Finance.

But a City Paper report bolsters Hobbs' assertion:("Panel turns to AG on authority for $120K Cooper fine" on Nashville City Paper):

"This morning, however, a pair of Registry members, appointees of the House and Senate Democratic Caucuses, led an effort to ask for a state attorney general’s opinion on whether it could fine Cooper $120,000 or a maximum of $14,152.50.

After some persuasion, the Registry voted unanimously by a voice vote to seek the attorney general’s guidance to clarify ambiguities in the law regarding how much Cooper could be legally fined.

“Sorry I’m the only one who cares about the legality of the thing,” said George Harding, a Registry member appointed by the House Democratic Caucus, who stringently pushed to consult the attorney general."

Second-stringer sucker-punch

Via Tennessee Politics Blog I hear that TN Congressman Marsha Blackburn got blind-sided by a seemingly irrelevant (though I am open to a rebuttal) question:

"Marsha Gets Embarassed on TV -- MSNBC's show 'Tucker' had a substitute host David Shuster the other night with the guest TN Rep. Marsha Blackburn. Marsha was on the show to criticize the New York Times for running an ad sponsored by MoveOn.org criticizing Gen. Petraeus. Shuster turned the table on the conversation when he asked Marsha if she knew the name of the last solider from her district to die in Iraq. She couldn't, but it turns out it's 18-year-old Jeremy Bohannon."

Turning the proverbial table is all well and good, and as skilled as Blackburn is at getting/using air time, I doubt she'll allow this to happen again, but I'm not sure that she ought to have been able to answer that question; what do you think?

Smearing Craig--not that there's anything wrong with that

This journo-centric report about the circumstances surrounding U.S. Senator Larry Craig's alleged sexual life is interesting.

First, the subject of the article "How Did News Outlets Miss Senator's Arrest for Nearly Three Months?," seems rather obvious to me. Absent the assistance of an arguably unprofessional police officer, there is little likelihood that this would come to light. And in all candor, I'm not inclined to hold it against a law enforcement type for tipping off journalists; then again, I'm a moralistic, fundamentalist, intrusive, mean guy. What's their excuse?

Next, the article considers at length what investigations or research had been done on this subject (Craig's sex life) over the years. I'm impressed with their zeal, but I'm wondering what exactly they were investigating. Well, obviously it's the crime of hypocrisy! The problem is that the "Hypocrisy Cops" only have eyes for so-called "social issues" (maybe we can call it "BHWR"--Being Hypocritical While Republican). But the beauty of all this--for Liberals, is that if you don't have standards at all (in the "social issues" area) then you don't get investigated. Sweet.

Beyond that, these investigative journalists get a pass for investigating this kind of conduct because, well, the majority of Americans think such conduct is disgusting (certainly Idahoans do--more about that below) . . . too bad said journalists cherry pick the disgusting activities they investigate.

Lastly, the details of the hunt for a reportable story on this subject bother me because they reflect the journalistic equivalent of "tattling." My wife and I believe that as parents we should provide to our children (as much as possible) the moral basis behind standards or rules we impose on them. As our family grew beyond one child, we began having to deal with the "Whining" subset of "tattling." But I couldn't readily put my finger on why it was unacceptable conduct . . . until I realized that "tattling" was reporting something about another person with the objective of gaining some advantage (an advantage over that other person, generally speaking). And that's what annoys me about this story (or, more precisely, the "back story" on this story); it has the smell of partisan/ideological witch-hunting. It will certainly hurt Larry Craig's reputation with Idaho voters, and therefore Republicans' efforts to gain a majority in the U.S. Senate, for this type of story to "come out."

As with "tattling" in the Williams home, though I'm often concerned about the offenses of "the other person," and though I typically must explore the motives of the tattler, at the end of the day I hate to encourage such behavior.

Nutroots attack . . . FoxNews . . . again

Yesterday I received another email from democrats.com beating the wardrums against FoxNews FOX Attacks Iran. This is a activist website designed to perpetuate the drumbeat . . . it contains a slick (thank you George $oros!) youtube video with side-by-side comparisons of statements made on FoxNews prior to the war in Iraq and now being made in reference to Iran. Watch for yourself.

Of course, their first task is to divert attention for any war-in-Iraq-is-reasonable language, but I think it is funny to hear journalists from other news organizations pulling the John Kerry (or insert any Democrat leader but "Obama") by blaming others for their vote on Iraq:

"'My station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at FOX News.' That is CNN's Christiane Amanpour explaining why the major television networks failed to accurately inform the public in the lead-up to the Iraq war, choosing instead to follow FOX's lead."

The next tactic is to use clips of statements from guests on FoxNews as evidence that FoxNews has an agenda. One of the most obvious differences between FoxNews and other TV news outlets (at least prior to FoxNews becoming the dominant Cable News outlet) is that they almost always present both sides of the debate. As a result, you will hear all kinds of things on FoxNews that don't necessarily represent the editorial opinion of FoxNews.

Lastly, they ignore that other stations (not to mention guests on other stations) are saying the same things about Iran. And I guess it doesn't matter if something is true about Iran (or if it was/is true about Iraq); if an assertion doesn't undermine the credibility/integrity of the Bush administration then it isn't worth saying and it certainly isn't news, right MSM/Democrats.com? What is your clever line? "You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts"?

Beauchamp and paper dovedom

From the looks of things, the Scarlet Pimpernel of anti-war Bush Derangement Syndrome is taking back almost all of what he wrote. Beauchamp recants.

Here's a previous post on Beauchamp's follies, motivations and evolving truths.

Huckabee Blogger Conference Call and Home Ec hardballs

I commend candidates like Mike Huckabee and Nashville Mayoral candidates who are reaching out to bloggers, but--especially on the Presidential level, it is a serious risk for the campaign . . . a risk that your candidate will react the way a normal non-candidate would to some of the stupid questions they are asked. This reminded me of Fred's touch-down in Nashville last week.

I guess there is the same danger with a professional journalist audience; but it's kind of a different type of "danger." I was eager to get Huckabee's reaction to what has all the appearances of a hit piece in Newsmax.com today--I say "hit piece" because it is recycling a lot of old data, is categorized under "Top News!" and it has a thesis akin to an op/ed and unlike a news report.

I was also interested to get his reaction to disappointing fundraising numbers for this quarter, but, alas, some blogger used precious con call to follow up their question (from the last conference call) about teaching home economics in schools.

The savvy and kindness with which Huckabee handled the Home Ec hardball is a credit to him and his strengths as a candidate . . . but the buzz in the blogosphere on the subject of Huckabee today is not likely to focus on the value of teaching teenagers how to make french toast.