Left-wing bias at a public broadcasting agency? Surely not.
And using their own words and actions against them? How unfair.
Sadly, it seems entirely plausible:
The question remains, if this was such blatant fraud committed by the Clintons, why wasn
Confederate Yankee asks the AP. I suspect they’ll ignore the question.
You know, if true, there’s something poetically just, almost allegorical about this:
Editorial staffers on the third and fourth floors of the paper’s new Eighth Avenue building are gagging on the smell of dead mice trapped in the vents, an insider tells us. Now, the ad sales department is desperately trying to avoid a similarly stinky situation as vermin run through their offices.
Funny, usually rats flee sinking ships.
Strategy Page says that Al Qaeda is on the run, though you wouldn’t know it from the press coverage:
Al Qaeda is eagerly recruiting other Islamic terrorist organizations, usually ones that have recently taken a big beating in their home country, to become part of al Qaeda. That’s about the only growth al Qaeda is experiencing. In Iraq, former Sunni Arab allies of al Qaeda have openly turned on the organization, and are eagerly hunting them down and killing them. Al Qaeda is fighting back, now sending death squads after Sunni Arab tribal chiefs. Does that sound like something a winner would be doing?
Al Qaeda is having some success in the Western media, and among Moslems living in Europe.
It seems to me that the other loser in this amnesty fiasco is the MSM, which has been fawning over and worshiping the “bi-partisan” “grand bargainers” that were trying to slip this stinker through with no hearings, review or debate. It was alternate media that led the charge against it, and the victory was much greater than they could have hoped. But I think that the two politicians hurt most by it are McCain and Lindsey Graham. The former can stick a fork in his presidential campaign. The latter may still face a strong primary challenge, and I wouldn’t bet that he’ll win it. As one of his constituents said, they expect him to negotiate with the Democrats and Ted Kennedy, but not to become one.
Note, my comment is independent of my views on immigration. This is a case where I objected much more to process than (necessarily) product. Of course, it’s hard to object to a product when you don’t even have time to read it, debate it, or think about it.
I agree with Captain Ed:
The immigration bill is dead, yet again, after the Senate rejected cloture by fourteen votes. In the end, the compromise could not even gain a majority in support of what conceptually may have been a passable compromise, but in reality was a poorly constructed, poorly processed mass of contradictions and gaps. Many of us who may have supported a comprehensive approach to immigration found ourselves amazed and repulsed by both the product and the process of this attempt to solve the immigration problem.
Read the rest.
Bill Quick has put up a triumphalist post. He may be right, but he may also be premature. Don’t be cocky. And as is pointed out in comments, the left has been very strong in the blogosphere as well, if not stronger. The difference in this case was that is was a weak-tea compromise, that would appeal to no one except “moderates” who had no idea what was going on.
Kate O’Beirne describes how far out on a limb the president was with his own party:
The lopsided vote against the Senate bill by House Republicans (114? to 23) overstated House GOP support. According to a leadership aide, “The President actually had half that number (12?!) in favor of his bill.” And, the president’s team wound up with only 12 Republican senators. Ouch.
But the clueless persist in believing that George Bush is a conservative. And a Republican.
Ariane is touted in an article by Andy Pasztor in today’s Wall Street Journal with a new person singing its praises–Mike Griffin:
Mr. Griffin declared the launch system “probably the best in the world, very smooth and very impressive.”
One quibble: there is an apple to orange comparison of the commercial launch business ($2.7 billion) to US national security space spending ($80 billion). Commercial space launch supports tens of billions in satellite products, services and content. A more relevant comparison would be to look at how much the Department of Defense spends on launchers. The total space budget for military and intelligence is in the $50 billion range. Launch costs presumably would comprise about 3-4% of that if they were more competition. I’m having a little trouble finding a good source of Pentagon launch spending budget figures, but I’m guessing it’s in the 5-10% range.
Roger Simon has some depressing thoughts on press partisanship, and (what he hopes isn’t) the coming end of the Enlightenment:
As one who is fundamentally disinterested in whether one is a Democrat or a Republican – or even a liberal or a conservative, since those terms have been reduced to intellectual rubble – I found what Glenn wrote terrifyingly dark. Because even though I don’t much care any longer for political parties – they come and go and rename themselves, etc. – I care passionately about the Enlightenment, free speech, separation of church and state, freedom of assembly and the rest of that short but delicate list that makes life decent in the West.
And I agree with the commenters. I don’t think that Glenn was saying it was a good argument for electing a Democrat as president–just that it was the best one.