Mickey Kaus points out the foolishness of the press, in imagining that there was ever any possibliity that the media would be supporting McCain.

It’s one thing to have pro-Democratic, pro-Obama media favoritism: That’s just the way it is. Political reporters have opinions. Better blatant than latent.

It’s another to have that very favoritism used as evidence that McCain is blowing it, losing his reputation for “integrity” and his “gold plated brand.”

Yes, they only like McCain when he’s running against Republicans. The NYT endorsed him in the primary. Does anyone imagine they’ll endorse him in the general?

He also has a warning:

It might seem as if the MSM reaction against McCain’s shift to negativism has “driven the final nail into his coffin,” as Heilemann suggests. The Feiler Faster Thesis says no–given the speed with which the country now processes information, there’s plenty of time for several dramatic twists and turns, including lead changes. Obamaphiles (in the press and elsewhere) are deluding themselves, I think, if they think they can ride the economic crisis and the reaction against negativity to victory in a month. Plus Obama’s not that far ahead.

Nope.

I suspect that there are a lot more of these folks than there are Republicans against McCain. And they’ve connected the ACORN dots between Obama, the Dems in Congress and the housing meltdown.

Bob Owens notes that it’s not just Bill Ayers. And he also points out the absurdity of thinking that one could be a member of the Weatherman at all, let alone a founder, and not have murderous intent:

BarackObama.com, the campaign’s official website, offers up a “fact check” that Obama was just eight years old when the Weathermen were active in 1969. The Obama campaign has tried to use the founding date of the Weathermen as a touchstone, claiming that the acts of the group were something that happened “40 years ago” when Obama was a child. Far closer to the truth is the December 6, 1990, sentencing date of Weathermen Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, when the last of the Weathermen were sentenced for their role in a string of bombings in the mid-1980s, including bombs that detonated at the National War College, the Washington Navy Yard Computing Center, the Washington Navy Yard Officers’ Club, New York City’s Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, the Israeli Aircraft Industries Building, New York City’s South African Consulate, and the United States Capitol Building.

Barack Obama’s ties to the Weathermen aren’t ties that were 40 years removed from a child’s experiences, but the conscious decision of a young radical to establish a relationship to an infamous terrorist because of shared ideology and interests.

Barack Obama never set any bombs. But he’s never had problems with associating with those who did.

This talking point that Obama was “only eight years old” is stupid, as is anyone who buys it.

[Afternoon update]

Abe Greenwald has more:

Okay, let’s go with that judgment thing, shall we. Barack Obama served on the board of an educational organization headed by a terrorist bomber. He launched his political career in said bomber’s home. He then went on to serve two years alongside said bomber on the board of a “charitable” organization. Not quite done, Obama gave the bomber the gift of an enthusiastic blurb for the bomber’s book jacket. Even if Obama’s preposterous new claim about not knowing who Bill Ayers was was true in 1995, was it true in 1997 when Obama, then state senator, endorsed Ayers’s book? Had he not yet found out the identity of his buddy by 2000, when he took the position serving with Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund? Did no one slip him a note over the next two years reading, “Don’t indicate that you’re reading this note, but the guy next to you is a terrorist”? Frankly, if Obama didn’t find out that Bill Ayers is a terrorist until it came up during the primary, then there’s more to worry about than the candidate’s political leanings.

No kidding.

[Early evening update]

Here’s a flash from the past. A 2001 piece by David Horowitz about the terrorist couple:

This is the banal excuse of common criminals – the devil made me do it. “I don’t think you can understand a single thing we did,” explains the pampered Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers “without understanding the violence of the Vietnam War.”

I interviewed Ayers ten years ago, in a kindergarten classroom in uptown Manhattan where he was employed to shape the minds of inner city children. Dressed in bib overalls with golden curls rolling below his ears, Ayers reviewed his activities as a terrorist for my tape recorder. When he was done, he broke into a broad, Jack Horner grin and summed up his experience: “Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country.”

That would have been 1991. This was a man who would later be put in charge of millions of dollars, with Barack Obama, to propagandize and radicalize Chicago schoolchildren. Either Obama had no problem with his past, or he was unaware of it. I don’t believe the latter. But either way, I don’t want him to be running the country. For all we know, he’ll appoint Ayers to be head of the Department of Education.

[Evening update]

“Bill Ayers has never hidden the fact that he was part of the Weather Underground, part of this radical group. In some ways it has made him somewhat famous in the South Side, Hyde Park, Chicago neighborhood where he lives.”

I guess we’re supposed to believe that he somehow only hid it from Barack Obama.

Steve Diamond (no Republican he, I’m guessing) has been doing an excellent job in pulling together the story of Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers and other sixties neo-Stalinist radicals, and the shared agendas, particularly in the area of education. Just keep reading and scrolling.

By Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the story doesn’t lend itself well to a thirty-second ad.

Illegal fundraising by the Obama campaign? Who would have thought?

I wonder how much of that foreign money comes from oil wealth.

The New York Times continues to act as the propaganda arm of the Obama campaign:

Steve Diamond has made a powerful case that, whoever first suggested Obama’s name, Ayers must surely have had a major role in his final selection. Diamond has now revealed that the Times consulted him extensively for this article and has seen his important documentary evidence. Yet we get no inkling in the piece of Diamond’s key points, or the documents that back it up. (I’ve made a similar argument myself, based largely on my viewing of many of the same documents presented by Diamond.) How can an article that gives only one side of the story be fair? Instead of offering both sides of the argument and letting readers decide, the Times simply spoon-feeds its readers the Obama camp line.

The Times also ignores the fact that I’ve published a detailed statement from the Obama camp on the relationship between Ayers and Obama at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (See “Obama’s Challenge.”) Maybe that’s because attention to that statement would force them to acknowledge and report on my detailed reply.

Yup. Wouldn’t fit the narrative.

[Mid afternoon update]

Instapundit has a roundup of links discussing this.

Mark Hemingway notes the ongoing double standard of the press:

Not that these things are to be excused out of hand, but Palin bends zoning rules — which I’m sure are stringent and a high stakes matter in Wasilla, Alaska — and gets a free facial. Obama gets a freakin’ house with help from someone indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, extortion and corrupt solicitation; has someone raising money for his campaign with well-publicized ties to organized crime; and the Illinois attorney general is currently looking into how Obama earmarked $100,000 for a former campaign volunteer who never spent the money for its intended purpose — and yet, I don’t see too many “investigations” decrying Obama’s transparently false claims he practices a “new” kind of politics.

I guess that my thesis is going to be tested. We’re seeing exactly the same behavior from the Fourth Estate regarding the Democrat candidate as we saw in 1992–completely ignoring the candidate’s unsavory history, and hoping that no one else exposes it, while acting as an adjunct part of his campaign in maintaining the anti-Republican narrative. Will they get away with it again?

We’ll see if the blogosphere can make a difference this time.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Well, now we know what a community organizer does. He strong arms banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit.

And he has the audacity of hope that the media won’t call him on his hypocrisy in blaming George Bush and the Republicans, and “deregulation” for the current crisis. Unfortunately, his audacity seems to be justified.

Someone should put together an ad, and ask which regulatory agency should have reined in organizer Obama.

[Update mid morning]

Victor Davis Hanson has more on the media double standards:

As I recall Raines was the one who, following the Enron scandals, gave public lectures about corporate responsibility and CEO honesty. And as one begins to read about Raines, James Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, and Leland Brendsel at Freddie Mac, one begins to understand their modus operandi. Freddie and Fannie were landing pads for former Democratic insiders, who milked the agencies for millions in bonuses as they covered their tracks by donations to Congressional candiates and pseudo-racial-populism of helping minorities buy homes with little down. Their careers are every bit as nauseating as anything at Enron — and yet the press strangely does not go after them in the manner we learned of Ken Lay’s deceit. God help us all.

It goes beyond nauseating. It makes me incandescently angry.

[Early afternoon update[

Geraghty has some related thoughts on the Missouri issue:

Think about it, the local television station summarized the story on their web site, “The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign,” and it seems no one at the station blinked; there was nothing in the report that indicated that this might be controversial.

I hate to be glum heading into October, but to a certain extent, an electorate gets the leaders it deserves. If the journalism institutions in a given area nod and smile as they’re given information like this — if it never crosses their mind to object — then the Fourth Estate, for all extents and purposes, ceases to exist. When Ben Franklin responded to the query about the government that would manage the young nation, “A Republic, if you can keep it,” moments like this make you wonder if we’re in the process of losing it.

These “reporters” are a product of their environment–public schools and (often) schools of journalism. Is the problem that they don’t understand the Bill of Rights, or is it that they don’t care about it, if it gets in the way of their preferred candidate? Do they not understand that it is precisely the right being potentially violated here that allows them the freedom to pursue their supposed profession? Either way, it is very dismaying.

“First, they came for the McCain supporters, and I did nothing, because I was not a McCain supporter.”