Left-Leaning Washington Post Goes After Bob McDonnell

In an article for Human Events, Christian Toto remembers something that I also remember from last year’s election.

I remember a junior Senator from Illinois who admitted to smoking pot and snorting cocaine, broke bread with admitted domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, sat in a church pew for 20 years listening to the racial, bigoted, anti-semetic and anti-American hatred of Rev. Wright and admitted that his goal was to redistribute wealth, or as he put it, “spread the wealth.” What I don’t remember is the Washington Post or any other leftist news outlet ever bothering to cover these stories.

Washington Post Confesses To Biased Reporting During The 2008 Presidential Campaign
84rules
November 11, 2008

Ostensibly, the reason for the non-coverage is because the junior Senator is a Democrat and the the Post simply did not want to do anything that would hurt his chances to become president.

But, when the candidate is a Republican running for Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, then the Washington Post adopts a different, completely hypocritical set of standards.

From Toto’s article:

Now, the newspaper has unearthed a decades old college thesis from gubernatorial GOP hopeful Robert F. McDonnell. And – given the multiple stories it’s already run – the paper thinks McDonnell’s thesis – written 25 years ago — could affect the balance of the race.

McDonnell currently leads Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds by at least seven points in a recent poll.

Can the Post serve as a political kingmaker again for the Old Dominion State? Or will a feisty alternative media rise up to stop any attempts to turn a college assignment into a campaign killer? And if so, why didn’t the paper pull out all the stops regarding another candidate’s past?

Because just as it did last year, the Post has abandonded all pretenses of journalistic objectivity in the Virginia Governor’s race. The paper might as well rename itself the Left-Leaning Washington Post.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

WaPo Opens Jihad Against McDonnell
Christian Toto
Human Events
September 2, 2009

Mr. Deeds Goes Confederate

Creigh Deeds is nothing short of a God-send for the GOP in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Republicans could not have asked for a more idiotic candidate for Bob McDonnell to run against.

When the arguments about the economy were not working, Deeds wanted to make abortion his winning issue. Having forgotten (and then remembering) that 51% of Americans now identify themselves as pro-life, he quickly changed his focus from that to the Confederate flag.

It all started when someone found a picture and then proclaimed that Bob McDonnell was flying a Confederate flag at the Virginia Outdoor Sportsman Show.

Well, Joe Abbey, the Deeds campaign manager ultimately lost his job because of it.

From Erick Erickson over at Human Events:

Why?

Because the story blew up in their faces.

The confederate flag in question was at the adjacent booth, “which was selling confederate flags and other paraphernalia, though the angle of the photo makes it appears as if the flag was McDonnell’s,” the Washington Post reports.

But this gets even better. The Washington Post reminded everyone of something that Deeds said in 1999:

According to a 1999 Roanoke Times article, Deeds told legislators during that debate that: “I grew up in a house with a portrait of the Confederate flag on the wall. I grew up in a house with a portrait of Robert E. Lee on the wall over my bed.”

Now Deeds only wants to talk about increasing taxes on Virginians in the middle of a recession.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Mr. Deeds Goes Confederate
Erick Erickson
Human Events Online
August 14, 2009

Leftist Democrat Double Standard: Sotomayer Gets A Pass On Racist Comments, Affiliations

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If it weren’t for double standards, the Dems would have no standards at all. Take for example Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor and the statements she has made about race:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male …”

Now, let’s say the situation were reversed and a generic white man said, “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman…”

Would not the leftist Dems in Congress be screaming that this generic white man was a “racist” and therefore should not be considered for the highest court in the land?

Absolutely they would. So, why aren’t they applying the same standard to Sotomayor?

Because the Dems are hypocrites. Ditto for any Republican who supports Sotomayor without calling her on her racist remarks.

What else has Sotomayor done that’s racist?

Read this from Sean O’Donnel of the Baltimore Republican Examiner:

[W]hen firefighter Frank Ricci – the lead plaintiff in Ricci v. DeStefano – claimed racial discrimination by being denied a promotion and appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (after losing in the federal district court), Judge Sotomayor denied his claim. The Washington Post wrote that Sotomayor’s decision “was devoid of legal reasoning for affirming the decision of a lower district judge, a curious dismissal for a case that represents significant questions of law and the Constitution.”

Even the left-leaning Washington Post can see the racial sentiments of Sotomayor.

More:

When Sotomayor served as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, she was a member of National Council of La Raza – the largest national Latino advocacy and civil rights group in the country. NCLR has been criticized for advocating separatist views and has been accused of encouraging illegal immigration. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has described NCLR as “a Latino KKK without the hoods or nooses.”

Any one of these situations would completely disqualify a white man. We should hold Sotomayor to the same exact standard. Anyone who does not is nothing more than an arrogant hypocrite.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Is Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor Racist?
Sean O’Donnell
Baltimore Republican Examiner
June 3, 2009

Pelosi Lied About Not Being Briefed On Waterboarding

Man! If it isn’t lying on their taxes, the Dems will find other things to lie about.

The latest lie comes from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Although she claims she never knew about the enhanced interrogation technique known as waterboarding, newly released CIA documents now show she did indeed know.

Oh, and if you are one of those who keep repeating that this is some sort of right-wing conspiracy, check out the names of the sources first.

From the New York Times:

The new chart of briefings, prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, was the first full listing of briefings to members of Congress and their aides. It appears to call into question the longstanding assertion of Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she was never told that waterboarding and other methods were actually used, only that the Central Intelligence Agency believed they were legal and could be used.

The chart shows that in addition to Ms. Pelosi, Democrats briefed on the methods included former Senator Bob Graham of Florida in 2002 and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Representative Jane Harman of California in 2003.

And the Washington Post has this:

A top aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attended a CIA briefing in early 2003 in which it was made clear that waterboarding and other harsh techniques were being used in the interrogation of an alleged al-Qaeda operative, according to documents the CIA released to Congress on Thursday.

Pelosi has insisted that she was not directly briefed by Bush administration officials that the practice was being actively employed. But Michael Sheehy, a top Pelosi aide, was present for a classified briefing that included Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking minority member of the House intelligence committee, at which agency officials discussed the use of waterboarding on terrorism suspect Abu Zubaida.

Clearly, despite Pelosi’s attempt at spinning this situation, she knew about waterboarding at least 6 years ago and most likely, 8 years ago. She only came out against the technique when it became politically advantageous to do so.

But, I guess you should expect that from a Democrat. Political advancement above the security of the American people. That seems to be their new credo.

You can access both articles on-line here:

List Says Top Democrats Were Briefed On Interrogations
Scott Shane and Carl Hulse
New York Times
May 8, 2009

Top Pelosi Aide Learned Of Waterboarding In 2003
Paul Kane
Washington Post
May 9, 2009

Fred C. Iklé: Kill The Pirates

Short, sweet and to the point. The title says it all. Kill the pirates. That is the best way to stop them. It worked down in the Carribean 300 years ago and it will work again today.

Writing for the Washington Post, Fred C. Iklé (a distinguished scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and author of Annihilation From Within and Every War Must End) makes clear that anything other than meeting this threat head-on will be counterproductive.

From his column:

It is naive to assume that the millions paid annually in ransom to pirates merely enables them to purchase villas and fancy automobiles. Somalia is a country without government, where anarchy is being exploited by terrorist organizations. Although the threat that pirates pose to commercial ships is increasingly known, little is being done to combat it. And we must consider the bigger picture: Terrorists are far more brutal than pirates and can easily force pirates — petty thieves in comparison — to share their ransom money.

Who among you believes that paying $1 million in ransom money will actually end piracy? You would have to be incredibly gullible to believe so. The pirates will think about it this way: if taking a ship is worth $1 million in ransoms, then taking a ship twice as big should be worth $2 million in ransoms.

Paying the ransom only encourages the pirates to attempt more hijackings in order to get more money.

Mr. Iklé goes on:

So why do we keep rewarding Somali pirates? How is this march of folly possible?

Start by blaming the timorous lawyers who advise the governments attempting to cope with the pirates such as those who had been engaged in a standoff with U.S. hostage negotiators in recent days. These lawyers misinterpret the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Geneva Conventions and fail to apply the powerful international laws that exist against piracy. The right of self-defense — a principle of international law — justifies killing pirates as they try to board a ship.

So, what should we have been doing all along? We should have been putting armed personnel aboard those ships. A pirate would think twice about going out on such a venture if he knew that the last three times someone from his group went out to attack a vessel that armed crewmen killed the attackers. There is not much profit in death.

More:

Nonetheless, entire crews are unarmed on the ships that sail through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Shipowners pretend that they cannot trust their crews with weapons, but the facts don’t add up. For one thing, in the United States most adults except felons are allowed to have guns, and the laws of many other nations also permit such ownership. Even if owners don’t want everyone aboard their ships to be carrying weapons, don’t they trust the senior members of their crews? Why couldn’t they at least arm the captain and place two experienced and reliable police officers on board?

When these pitifully unarmed crews watch pirates climb aboard their vessels, they can do little to fight back. And while the United States and many other naval powers keep warships in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean — deployments that cost millions of dollars — these ships cannot keep pirates from boarding commercial ships that have unarmed crews.

The international right of self-defense would also justify an inspection and quarantine regime off the coast of Somalia to seize and destroy all vessels that are found to be engaged in piracy. These inspections could reduce the likelihood that any government will find itself engaged in a hostage situation such as the one that played out in recent days. Furthermore, the U.N. Security Council should prohibit all ransom payments. If the crew of an attacked ship were held hostage, the Security Council could authorize a military blockade of Somalia until the hostages were released.

Cowardice will not defeat terrorism, nor will it stop the Somali pirates. If anything, continuing to meet the pirates’ demands only acts as an incentive for more piracy.

Absolutely.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Kill The Pirates
Fred C. Iklé
Washington Post
April 13, 2009

The Fierce Urgency Of Pork: Charles Krauthammer Column Could Kill Stimulus Bill

This column is amazing. Not for what it says or who wrote it. But for the fact that it was published in the uber-liberal Washington Post.

Sometimes, someone writes a column that is so hard-hitting, so to-the-point that it cannot be ignored for long. You won’t hear about this column on any of the left-leaning television networks, but you should read it and take to heart what it says.

Charles Krauthammer writes:

“A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe.”

— President Obama, Feb. 4.

Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared “we have chosen hope over fear.” Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

That’s just for starters. Krauthammer rightly asks about why we should be scared into passing this “pork spending” bill.

The column goes on to describe all of the unethical and outright illegal conduct that the Obama administration has been trying to legitimize, as exampled by Timothy Geithner and Tom Daschle’s tax avoidance problems.

More:

And yet more damaging to Obama’s image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama’s name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.

It’s not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It’s not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

It’s the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus — and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress’s own budget office says won’t be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.

Now, in the words of the racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s “chickens have come home to roost.” Clearly, Obama lied to America in order to get the votes. But what is really insulting here is that Obama expected to get away with it. Apparently, he expected America to forget about his promises and statments. Instead, Obama forgot about the Internet that he so masterfully used to come to power.

Read on:

The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports the Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting “planted” for “ready to market” would mean a windfall garnered from a new “bonus depreciation” incentive.

After Obama’s miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell — and that this president told better than anyone.

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.

Two and a half weeks. That would make a great name if someone ever made a documentary about the disaster that Barack Obama is shaping up to be.

This column that Charles Krauthammer wrote is a classic for the ages. It is right up there with the fable about the emperor who wore no clothes.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Fierce Urgency Of Pork
Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post
February 6, 2009

And you might also want to read why this spending bill will mean more inflation for the rest of us:

Why ‘Stimulus’ Will Mean Inflation
George Melloan
Wall Street Journal
February 6, 2009

Washington Post Confesses To Biased Reporting During The 2008 Presidential Campaign

The one thing about making an accusation against anyone is that those who are doing the accusing are under the requirement to prove the accusation. However, a confession requires no such proof at all.

Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell has released just such a confession. From her November 9th column:

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, “There are a lot of things I wish we’d been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don’t at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion.”

As Bill Hamilton’s comments show, this was not an accident. It was a deliberate decision made by the editorial staff of the Post itself. The “larger purpose” he alludes to is getting Barack Obama elected.

More:

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board’s endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic.

So, the Post was more interested in making “history” than they were in presenting a fair, objective and unbiased report of the news. That doesn’t surprise me, but I think many people were done a huge disservice by it.

This little tidbit is very telling:

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama’s acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

Note that last sentence. It is not an accusation coming from a right-of-center blogger. It is a confession coming from a left-of-center publication.

And this:

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.

Those of us who engage in politcal research and analysis would do very well to remember this in 2010 and 2012 as well as keeping it in the backs of our minds over the next four years as the Post reports on President Obama’s policies and actions. If they did such a deliberate hatchet job during the campaign, what are they going to deliberately mislead us on during an Obama Administration?

Be sure to send this post and the following link to all your friends. We need to get this information out and spread it as far as possible.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

An Obama Tilt In Campaign Coverage
Deborah Howell
The Washington Post
November 9, 2008