Sunday, December 10, 2006

Miracle of demagoguery

In a December 10 editorial entitled "Miracle of democracy," the Lawrence Journal-World praises actor Richard Dreyfuss, who, in a "recent appearance on HBO’s 'Real Time with Bill Maher'" (he actually appeared on the program on November 17, suggesting the author didn't actually watch the program), "decried what he called 'our partisan-addicted society.'”

According to the Journal-World, "Skills like reason, logic, clarity, dissent, civility and debate are essential tools of democracy, he said, and 'without them you can kiss this thing (democracy) goodbye.'”

Dreyfuss had a few others things to say on "Real Time," but those statements didn't find their way into the editorial. Here are just a few of them:

"And it’s one thing to say that Bush is a villain for getting us into a war, and it’s another thing when we realize that he couldn’t do anything without our eventual consent."

"And lying to the Congress about the reasons for war. And once the Republicans are placed in the position of having to endorse torture, you’ve got a bad problem on your hands."

"Even if we lose – if you lose an impeachment hearing, whoever 'we' are, then at least you have a body that says, 'We stand against these things.' And unless you do that, then you’re for them."

So Dreyfuss characterizes President Bush as a "villain," calls him a "liar," and calls on the Democrat-led Congress to begin the process of impeaching Bush, yet the Journal-World praises Dreyfuss for calling for civility and decrying our "partisan-addicted society."

Dreyfuss's message about teaching civics in our schools is a good one, but Dreyfuss is an extremely bad messenger. And it would be difficult to think of a more inappropriate forum than Bill Maher's.

Friday, December 08, 2006

Oldie: Conservatives slam door on moderate

While preparing my post on the Lawrence Journal-World's latest editorial on the Republican Rift, I was reminded of 1998 editorial that failed to report the facts accurately and thoroughly.

After the elections for the Douglas County GOP leadership that year, a Journal-World editorial reported the following:

"Tuesday's meeting at the Lawrence Holidome apparently was a disheartening display. The tone was set before the official meeting when favored conservative party members gathered in a separate meeting room and shut the door in the face of a moderate Republican who was seeking to chair the county party."

An earlier Tim Carpenter article reported the following:

"Prior to the reorganization meeting, conservative precinct representatives assembled in a Holidome meeting room for snacks and soft drinks. Watkins prevented [Craig] Templeton from entering the room."

A Carpenter article from the previous day quoted a moderate Republican who placed blame on the conservative leadership of the county GOP for Democrat Dennis Moore's victory over Republican Vince Snowbarger earlier that month. ""These people have not led," Johnston said. "You can't lose your congressman. The county chairman ... was sitting on his hands."

If you buy the Journal-World's version of events, the conservatives sat on their hands and allowed Vince Snowbarger to be defeated. They then displayed intolerance by not even allowing a moderate seeking the chairmanship of the party to enter a room.

Not surprisingly, the facts behind this story are quite different. Nowhere in the Carpenter articles or the editorial was it mentioned that Craig Templeton was elected to the board of directors of the newly-formed MAINstream Coaltion of Douglas County in May 1998. This is not a minor detail since the MAINstream Coalition's PAC, MAIN*PAC, mailed 67,000 postcards in OPPOSITION TO THE RE-ELECTION OF SNOWBARGER. In other words, Templeton, who had hopes of leading the Douglas County GOP, belonged to a group that worked to defeat the Republican congressman who represented the county.

Interestingly, former state Sen. Wint Winter Jr. was part of the moderate faction promoting Templeton's candidacy. Winter's brother, Dan, was on the MAINstream Coalition's board of directors. According to the Statement of Organization filed with the Federal Elections
Commission by the MAINstream Political Action Committee (PAC) on June 17, 1998,
the PAC’s bank was the Johnson County Bank of Overland Park, Kan. Coincidentally, Dan Winter was the president and CEO of Johnson County Bank.

Now, back to the door being shut in Templeton's face. Earlier that day yours truly informed the conservative faction of Templeton's membership in the MAINstream Coalition. At the time Templeton attempted to enter the room, the conservative precinct representatives were discussing Templeton's situation. It was, as John Watkins stated, a "private party."

The Journal-World reported on Templeton's membership in the MAINstream Coalition six months prior to the the reorganization election. Either they forgot about it or deliberately hid that fact in their November 1998 articles and editorial. In either case, the omission of that fact does not reflect well on the newspaper's reporting.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Journal-World's nonsensical spin on GOP rift

The Lawrence Journal-World's December 5 editorial had so many nonsensical comments in it that I have added extended commentary in red.

Republican rift
It’s unfortunate Republicans in the Kansas House passed over
Rep. Kenny Wilk for the speaker’s job.


"Monday’s leadership elections in the Kansas House seem to point to a continuation of the rift between conservative and moderate Republicans in the Legislature."

The editorial does not explain how electing a moderate Speaker would have pointed away from a continuation of the rift between conservative and moderate Republicans in the Legislature. For years now, the Journal-World has reported on the rift between conservatives and moderates. The Journal-World has reported on that rift regardless of whether conservatives were in charge or moderates were in charge. In August 1999, Journal-World reporter Chris Koger wrote that a meeting of Douglas County Republicans "apparently only increased tensions between conservatives and moderates."

At the time of that meeting, Mark Parkinson, who was in attendance, was the moderate chairman of the Kansas GOP. Parkinson switched parties this year and ran as Gov. Sebelius' running mate. The House speaker at the time was Republican Robin Jennison, another moderate.

"On the first ballot, Neufeld received 29 votes to Wilk’s 25 and O’Neal’s 24. After O’Neal was eliminated, most of his votes went to Neufeld, resulting in a 47-31 victory on the second ballot.
The choice of a solid conservative, Neufeld, over a solid moderate, Wilk, is a strong indication that conservatives still will be a dominant force in the Kansas House."

Republicans lost just five seats in the House in November. Does the Journal-World really believe that a handful of losses would make the conservatives less than a dominant force?

"It seems Wilk would have been in a much better position than Neufeld to work with moderate Republicans and Democrats in the House. That will be even more important this session given that Democrats gained five House seats in the recent elections."

The role of Speaker of the House should not be to "work with moderate Republicans and Democrats in the House." The goal should be to work to pass good legislation and to stop bad legislation. The Democrats did gain five seats, but, as noted in an earlier post, they still remain far weaker than they were just 14 years ago, when they actually had a majority in the Kansas House.

"Unfortunately, it seems the state has heard from Neufeld mostly when he was opposing some initiative or action."

And the country heard mostly from Abraham Lincoln when he was opposing slavery. Legislators should oppose poor legislation.

"He was among those who bottled up budget measures last year with a proposal to define cloning and ban state funding for it. He dug his heels in against the Kansas Supreme Court during the school finance debate. And he’s certainly no friend of higher education in the state, attacking university budgets and saying as recently as this fall that most Kansas workers don’t have a need for a college education."

The editorial failed to tell us why most workers in Kansas should have a college education. According to the Census Bureau, 28 percent of Kansas have a bachelor's degree or higher. Can the editorial writer explain why at least an additional 23 percent NEED a college education?

In any case, it appears the editorial writer misquoted Neufeld. In the September 17, 2006 issue of the Journal-World, reporter Scott Rothschild writes, "And, [Neufeld] said, changes in the workplace have in many instances placed less emphasis on a college education."

"'The economy does not have a demand that everyone have a fine arts degree. Employers care if someone has the specialized training to do the job,' Neufeld said."

There is a difference between "most" and "everyone." Saying that the "economy does not have a demand that everyone have a fine arts degree" is not tantamount to being an enemy of higher education. It's a statement of fact.

"Given that more moderate Republican leadership will remain in control of the Kansas Senate — President Steve Morris and Majority Leader Derek Schmidt — the election of Neufeld seems to ensure continued discord between the two chambers."

Apparently, it never occurred to the editorial writer that the Republicans in the Kansas Senate could choose a conservative majority leader in order to end the discord between the two chambers. After all, there are far more conservative Republicans in the House than there are moderate Republicans in the Senate. Why does the Journal-World believe the majority should capitulate to the minority?

"It also is likely to mean that moderate House Republicans will continue to look to House Democrats, rather than members of their own party, for support on key policy issues."

So if a moderate Speaker had been chosen, moderate House Republicans would have had no need to look to House Democrats for support on key policy issues? Where would they then look? There are not enough moderate Republicans in the House to pass anything on their own.

"It seems likely that if both Democrats and Republicans had voted on a House speaker, Wilk would have won. But that’s not how it works."

No, that's not how it works. Never has worked that way. So why share this hypothetical nonsense with your readers?

"Republicans hold the majority in the House and conservatives apparently still hold the majority in the Republican House delegation."

Well, of course they do. Although I should point out that Wilk’s and O’Neal’s votes totaled 49 to Neufeld's 29. On the second ballot, Neufeld picked up 18 of O'Neal's votes while Wilk picked up just six. If conservatives do not hold a majority in the Republican House delegation, then a large number of moderate Republicans thought Neufeld was the better choice to led them.

"There has been considerable talk since the November elections about the positive aspects of 'divided' government, referring to the Republican president and the newly Democratic Congress. If such divisions really do force more discussion and compromise and lead to better policy, then Kansas should be in for a banner year."

Speaking of the Democratic Congress in Washington, perhaps some day the Journal-World will editorialize on how Democrats in the U.S. House should have elected a moderate speaker over ultraliberal Nancy Pelosi even though liberals still hold a majority in the Democrat House delegation. After all, it seems a moderate would have been in a much better position than Pelosi to work with moderate Democrats and Republicans in the House.

Don't hold your breath waiting on that editorial.

Monday, December 04, 2006

Blue Dog Boyda?

In his November 24 column in the Topeka Metro News, Peter Hancock writes that "Kansas Rep.-elect Nancy Boyda hopes to join fellow Kansan Dennis Moore in the centrist-conservative caucus known as the 'Blue Dog Democrats.'"

"Boyda says there's an interview process that goes along with it," Hancock writes. "If it's fiscal conservatism they want, she might just get away with faxing over a copy of her expenditure report."

I have already dealt with the Myth of the Moderate Moore. I believe Boyda will be just as "moderate."

As far as Boyda's fiscal conservatism, as of October 18, her campaign had outstanding debts totaling $316,742.

Oh brother, Broder!

In today's Lawrence Journal-World, liberal columnist David Broder discusses Sen. Mitch McConnell and his new position as leader of the GOP senators:

"Ask Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to name his role models for his new responsibilities as the leader of Senate Republicans, and the answer is surprising. 'Mike Mansfield and George Mitchell,' he replied the other day. 'I know they’re both Democrats, but I admire the way they ran things here.'"

Broder then wrote the following:

"Mansfield allowed Everett McKinley Dirksen, his Republican counterpart, to claim most of the credit for the civil rights bills of the 1960s...."

Mansfield did not "allow" Dirksen to claim most of the credit. Dirksen rightfully earned that credit.

Mansfield was unable to prevent a 74-day filibuster led by members of his party when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was being debated. In the end, just 69 percent of Senate Democrats voted for the act. Eighty-two percent of Dirksen's Republicans voted for the act.

When the Voting Rights Act of 1965 came up for a vote, 94 percent of Senate Republicans voted for it, while 17 Democrats voted against it.

Dirksen gets most of the credit for the civil rights bills of the 1960s because his Republicans passed those bills over the opposition of a large percentage of Senate Democrats.

Saturday, December 02, 2006

The phantom "overtly racist" Kline commercial

Kansas Media Watch does not usually scrutinize college newspapers. The writers are young, inexperienced, and, therefore, prone to making mistakes. For example, Frank Tankard, writing for the University Daily Kansan editorial board on November 6, endorsed Rep. Dennis Moore for re-election. Tankard's praise for Moore, however, was not unqualified:

"Republican challenger Chuck Ahner, who has never held elective office, says he would vote to make President Bush’s tax cuts permanent, which could hurt the U.S. economy when the country is in a deficit. Moore voted for the cuts in 2000, before the economy went into recession, but voted against extending them permanently."

Of course, Bush's tax cuts were passed after Bush became president in 2001. Also, the Clinton-Gore recession began in March 2001 (i.e., under Clinton and Gore's final budget), months prior to Moore voting for the Bush tax cuts.

I'm reluctant to scrutinize Peter Hancock's work because it often resembles that of a college sophomore's.

Hancock, a statehouse reporter for Kansas Public Radio and a columnist for the Topeka Metro News, on November 17 wrote a column which included the following paragraph:

"And how about the other [Phill] Kline commercial - the one about the horribly ugly-looking black man who was let out of prison early, only to rape and kill more innocet white women - that was so overtly racist and demagogic that it made George H.W. Bush's 'Willie Horton' ad look tame by comparison?"

"Overtly racist" commercial? If there were such a commercial, surely the Kansas media would have written much about it. Yet a Google search of the words "Phill Kline racist commercial" turns up nothing. Phill Kline's campaign Web site has a page for his commercials, but the links are inactive. Several of those commercials are available at YouTube, but none shows the "horribly ugly-looking black man."

I contacted Hancock, but he offered few details other than saying he saw the commercial while a guest on public television's "Kansas Week."

In the same column, Hancock noted that he was "eating the same stale carry-out pizza from 20 years ago."

I'd like to give Hancock the benefit of the doubt, but it appears that his 20-year-old pizza brought on some serious hallucinations.

Journal-World publishes dishonest LTE

In today's Journal-World, letter writer Karl Brooks writes, "The weekend before Election Day, right here in Kansas, [President Bush] denounced Democrats as unpatriotic and misguided for simply asking him to share the facts about Iraq!"

This is a false statement. I was at the event in Topeka and Bush explicitly said Democrats were not unpatriotic for questioning his policies in Iraq. The Topeka Capital-Journal accurately reported on Bush's statement:

"Bush said he didn't think Democrats with alternative views on Iraq were unpatriotic."

The Journal-World's own reporter, Scott Rothschild, heard the same thing:

"Democrats who have criticized the president for the war and his tactics in fighting terrorists aren’t unpatriotic, Bush said, 'I’m just saying they’re wrong.'”

One would think such claims would be fact-checked before they are published. The failure to do so does not reflect well on the editorial page editor or the newspaper as a whole.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Rothschild's castrated sheep

In a November 19 article with the headline "Kansas Democrats’ victory seen as ‘bellwether’ for party," Lawrence Journal-World reporter Scott Rothschild wrote the following:

"Historically, Democrats have been the long-suffering minority party in Kansas. Of the state’s 1.66 million voters, 47 percent are registered as Republicans, 27 percent unaffiliated and 26 percent Democrat.

"But now, Democrats have established themselves as a tough, growing adversary to the dominant Republican Party."

Growing adversary? In 1999, Democrats made up 29 percent of the state's voters, which means they have lost 3 percentage points in just seven years. Republicans and unaffiliated voters have grown from 45 percent and 25 percent, respectively, during the same period.

In 2001, Republican Gov. Bill Graves served with 30 GOP senators in the Kansas Senate and 79 GOP representatives in the Kansas House. When the next legislative session begins in 2007, Democrat Gov. Kathleen Sebelius will serve with 30 GOP senators in the Kansas Senate and 78 GOP representatives in the Kansas House. In six years, the "growing adversary" has picked up just a single seat in the Kansas House. In the Kansas Senate, there are currently three fewer Democrats than in 1999.

Yes, but we now have a Democrat governor in an overwhelmingly Republican state. True, but during the past three decades Kansas also elected Democrats Bob Docking, John Carlin, and Joan Finney to the same office. When Finney was governor in 1992, Democrats actually had a majority in the Kansas House (63-62).

Kansans this November also elected a Democrat to serve as attorney general. However, just a year ago Paul Morrison was a Republican. It seems that a "tough, growing adversary" would be able to field candidates without recruiting from the other party. That Morrison ran unopposed in the Democrat primary suggests that the Kansas Democrat Party is weak, not tough.

The dictionary defines "bellwether" as "a male sheep, usually castrated, that wears a bell hung from its neck and is followed by a flock of sheep."

Rothschild would be wise to examine the facts and think for himself instead of following the folks wearing the bells in the liberal media.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Leonard's fact-free zone

Earlier this month I wrote that the Lawrence Journal-World's syndicated columnists are overwhelmingly liberals, and that those liberal columnists tend to be dishonest. Leonard Pitts provided more evidence of that with his latest column in which he takes on Michael Richards, Seinfeld's "Kramer." In his column, Pitts wrote that Seinfeld "presents New York City, of all places, as a black-free zone."

In truth, many blacks have appeared on the sitcom. Those in recurring roles include Phil Morris as the Johnnie Cochran-esque Jackie Chiles, Lawrence Mandley as Larry the Cook, the owner of Monk's Diner, and Tom Wright as Mr. Morgan. NBC's Al Roker and Bryant Gumbel even appeared as themselves on Seinfeld.

To call Seinfeld a black-free zone is outrageous, egregious, and preposterous.

Incidentally, during the years that Seinfeld was on the air (1989-1998), the Journal-World's newsroom was essentially a minority-free zone.

Monday, November 20, 2006

No full disclosure for columnist

In a Lawrence Journal-World opinion piece replete with personal attacks, Georgetown University professor Rosa Brooks attacks the GOP for abandoning its humility so soon after the November 7 election.

The Journal-World failed to note, however, that Brooks worked in the State Department in the Clinton administration. She has also served as a consultant to George Soros' Open Society Institute. Soros, of course, spent millions of dollars to defeat President Bush in 2004.

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Columnist fails to note activist's support for Democrats

In her November 19 column, the Kansas City Star's Rhonda Chriss Lokeman quoted Paul Rieckhoff's criticism of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Rieckhoff is the founder and executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

Lokeman failed to mention that Rieckhoff served as an adviser to the John Kerry presidential campaign in 2004 and even delivered the Democrats' radio address in 2004. The Kerry campaign immediately publicized Rieckhoff's address.

By failing to note that Rieckhoff was Democrat Party partisan, "military expert" Lokeman creates the impression that he speaks for all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. He does not.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Journal-World continues to peddle moderate myth

In an earlier item, I noted that Rep. Dennis Moore (R-KS) was just as liberal as the average Democrat House member. This was in response to J-W reporter Scott Rothschild writing that Moore “is viewed as a moderate to conservative Democrat.”

Rothschild returned on November 18 with another article to help Moore and the newly-elected Nancy Boyda perpetuate the myth that they are moderates.

"Both Moore and Boyda said that although Pelosi may be viewed as to the left of most Kansas voters, they intend to stay in the center," Rothschild writes.

Further, "Moore said Pelosi as the new House leader 'will have to look out for all of the party,' which includes the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 44 moderate to conservative Democrats that he belongs to."

In its 2005 ratings of legislators, Americans forDemocratic Action (ADA), “America's oldest independent liberal lobbying organization,” ADA noted that it considers representatives with "Liberal Quotients" of 40-60 percent "moderates." Using that criterion, just four Democrat members of the House would be considered moderates. (And, no, there are not 40 Democrat members of the House with LQs below 40 percent. In fact, there is not one single Democrat member of the House with an LQ below 40 percent. In others words, there are no conservative Democrats currently in the House.)

My guess is that Boyda, like Moore, will have an LQ well above 60 percent. A true moderate has served the Kansas Second before. Democrat Jim Slattery, who served the district from 1983 to 1995, had a lifetime LQ of 56 percent. However, Boyda is no Jim Slattery.

No liberals in the House

In a November 17 story about the Democrat leadership elections, a Lawrence Journal-World headline notes that Rep. Steny Hoyer, the newly elected majority leader, is a "moderate."

In a Kansas City Star article on the same day, Margaret Talev also reported that Hoyer is a "moderate."

In its 2005 ratings of legislators, Americans forDemocratic Action (ADA), “America's oldest independent liberal lobbying organization,” assigned Hoyer a"Liberal Quotient" (LQ) of 95 percent. The overall average for House Democrats in 2005 was 90.7 percent.

Hoyer received a perfect LQ of 100 percent the year before and was named a "House Hero." The overall average for House Democrats in 2004 was 85 percent.

Incidentally, ADA’s definition of a “moderate” is a House member who earned an LQ of 40-60 percent. Hoyer's opponent, Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, received LQs of 50 percent and 75 percent in 2005 and 2005, respectively. Nevertheless, the mainstream media portrayed Hoyer as the more moderate.

Hoyer is clearly a liberal. The Journal-World claims that it stands for accuracy in reporting. Hasn't it fallen short of that goal by portraying Hoyer as something he is not?

The Cost of Criticism

I received an e-mail from the Lawrence Journal-World's COO, telling me that his company would no longer deliver a newspaper to my home "Because of the comments you have made about our company and our employees."

I responded with an e-mail and asked the COO if any of my comments were untrue. I have yet to receive a response.

It seems to me a newspaper that publishes vile and false statements concerning President Bush and other conservatives should have a thicker skin when those statements are scrutinized.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Journal-World receives kudos from prominent liberal

Harold Piehler today thanked the Journal-World for its election coverage and endorsement of Democrat Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. He concluded his letter with this question:

"Does this indicate that there is a glimmer of hope that you might support a Democrat for president in 2008?"
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/nov/16/election_coverage/?letters_to_editor

It may or not be an indication of that. However, after reading Piehler's previous letters to the editor, I would say his pleasure with the J-W's election coverage is an indication that the J-W has indeed shifted to the left.
http://www2.ljworld.com/search/?sortby=date&q=piehler

Monday, November 06, 2006

Accentuate the negative

KMBZ at 11:00 a.m. today reported that Democrats should be smiling over CNN's 11/5 generic poll that showed Democrats up over Republicans by 20 points (i.e., 58 to 38).

KMBZ's report ignored the 11/5 USAT/Gallup poll that showed the Democrats up by just 7 points. The same poll showed Democrats up by 13 points on 10/22. It also ignored the 11/4 ABC/WP poll that showed the Democrats up by just 5 points. The same poll showed Democrats up by 13 points on 10/22. KMBZ also ignored the 11/4 Pew poll that showed the Democrats up by just 4 points. That poll showed the Democrats up by 11 points on 10/22.

The only other poll that showed the Democrats gaining ground was the 11/5 Fox/OD poll, which had the Democrats up by 13 points. The same poll had the Democrats up 11 points on 10/25.

With three major polls showing the race between the Republicans and Democrats tightening, it is odd that KMBZ chose to highlight the CNN poll, which, excluding CNN's 10/8 poll, has the largest spread of the year. It's especially odd when you consider that KMBZ gets its national news from ABC.

Post-election note: The most recent tally shows that Democrat senatorial candidates received 53.7% of the votes on November 7, while GOP candidates received 42.6% of the votes, a difference of 11.1%. Of the polls cited above, the 11/5 Fox/OD poll was closest to the final tally.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Who rebranded "liberal"?

Of all the syndicated columnists the Journal-World runs on a regualr basis, only two (George Will and Cal Thomas) are conservatives. To make matters worse, the liberal columnists tend to be dishonest. For example, the Journal-World continued to run Robert Scheer's columns for years after he lied about U.S. aid to the Taliban. Also, I have documented several lies that Garrison Keillor has written.

Leonard Pitts also has a habit of stretching the truth, as he did in his October 23 column:

"Consider the [GOP]’s masterpiece. Of all the terms it has arrogated unto itself (values, tradition, patriotism) and all those it has used to jab the competition (secular, culture wars, moral relativism), its best work is embodied in one word: liberal.

"Truth is, we’re all pretty liberal — at least if you’re using the word as historically defined. It’s hard to imagine even Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter coming out in favor of racial segregation, child labor or male-only workplaces. To the degree the word no longer evokes the fight against those things and connotes moral squishiness and effete elitism instead, Republicans have been astoundingly successful in deconstructing it, rebranding it, making it unusable."

It wasn't Republicans who deconstructed the word "liberal," rebranded it, and made it unusable. This is a lie that those on the left have been telling themselves for decades.

In The Road to Serfdom (1944), Friedrich Hayek tells us exactly how "liberal" became rebranded:

"I use throughout the term 'liberal' in the original, ninetheenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftist movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that 'liberal' has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control."

Further:

"Unquestionably, the promise of more freedom was responsible for luring more and more liberals along the socialist road, for blinding them to the conflict which exists between the basic principles of socialism and liberalism, and for often enabling socialists to usurp the very name of the old party of freedom. Socialism was embraced by the greater part of the intelligentsia as the apparent heir of the liberal tradition: therefore it is not surprising that to them the idea of socialism's leading to the opposite of liberty should appear inconceivable."

Socialists rebranded the word "liberal" when they usurped it. It was they, and not the GOP, who turned "liberal" into a dirty word.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Kid gloves for an old goat

I just finished reading Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. I initially ignored the Lawrence Journal-World's article about former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's appearance at the Lied Center last month. However, Wright's book reminded me of just how willing the reporter was to accept Albright's claims.

One of Albright's claims was “I personally feel we did everything we could” to battle and prepare for the threat of terrorism. Well, anyone who has read the 9/11 Commission's report knows that that is a false statement. The reporter apparently made no effort to talk to anyone who would take issue with Albright's claim. I highly suspect that if a Bush administration official had made a similar statement, the reporter would have found someone on the other side to quote.

If the reporter really wanted to scrutinize Albright's claim, he would have noted that, according to CNN correspondent Peter L. Bergen in Holy War, Inc: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (2001), "The aptly named Prudence Bushnell, a veteran diplomat, had long been concerned about the security of the [U.S.] embassy [in Kenya], which because of its busy downtown location was threatened not only by terrorism but also by crime. Bushnell had cabled Washington on December 24, 1997, pointing out the threat of terrorism and the embassy's extreme vulnerability because of its location and the lack of setback from the street. She wrote another letter to the U.S. secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, in April 1998, reprising her concerns."

Albright ignored Bushnell's warnings.

On August 7, 1998 Al Qaeda simultaneously bombed the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing a total of 257 people and wounding 4,500.

In Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke recounts a one-on-one discussion with Albright. "What do you think will happen if you lose another embassy?" Clarke asked. "The Republicans in the Congress will go after you."

"I had her attention," Clarke wrote. "She shot back, 'First of all, I didn't lose these two embassies. I inherited them in the shape they were.'"

Keep in mind that Albright was sworn in as secretary of state 18 months prior to the embassies being bombed.

Now back to The Looming Tower. According to Wright, a staff writer for The New Yorker, after the embassy in Kenya was bombed, "investigators were stunned to learn that nearly a year earlier an Egyptian member of al-Qaeda had walked into the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi and told the CIA about the bombing plot. The agency had dismissed this intelligence as unreliable. This was not an isolated incident. All through the spring there had been a drumroll of threats and fatwas from bin Laden, but few had taken them seriously. Now the consequence of that neglect was starkly evident."

Albright's cavalier attitude towards security vis-a-vis the embassy in Nairobi was actually detailed seven years ago in a New York Times special report. According to the report, "The State Department has acknowledged that Ms. Bushnell raised questions about security before the bombing. But a close examination of events in the year before the assaults, based on interviews with officials throughout the U.S. government, shows her concerns were more intense, more well-founded, more specific, and more forcefully expressed than has previously been known."

Albright had 18 months to fix the security problems at the embassy. She did nothing. She received well-founded and specific wanrings about an imminent attack on that embassies. She ignored them. Then she appeared at the Lied Center and claimed the Clinton administration did everything it could to prepare for and battle terrorism.

Albright had the gall to assert, “The record shows [the Bush administration] actually didn’t do a lot” about terrorism during its first eight months in office. If the Bush administration had had well-founded and specific information about an imminent attack on 9/11, does anyone really believe they would have ignored the threat in the same way that Albright and the Clinton administration ignored the threat in Kenya?

Remarkably, Madeleine Albright may be as responsible as any American for the attacks on our embassies, the bombing of the USS Cole, and 9/11. Mohamed al-'Owhali, convicted in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, relied on Albright's words during a 1996 60 Minutes interview in mounting his defense against the death penalty. According to 60 Minutes, an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children had died from the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq in August 1990. Albright, who was then U.S. ambassador to the UN, answered, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

Osama bin Laden himself mentioned these deaths in Iraq in a March 1997 interview with CNN. According to bin Laden, "The hearts of Muslims are filled with hatred towards the United States of America and the American president [Bill Clinton]. The president has a heart that knows no words. A heart that kills hundreds of children definitely knows no words. Our people on the Arabian Peninsula will send him messages with no words because he does not know any words. If there is a message that I may send through you, then it is a message I address to the mothers of American troops who came here with their military uniforms walking proudly up and down our land.... I say that this represents a blatant provocation to over one billion Muslims. To these mothers I say if they are concerned for their sons, then let them object to the American government's policy."

Those "messages with no words," which were largely inspired by Albright's words, were delivered in August 1998, October 2000, and September 2001.

The Journal-World could have detailed Albright's and the Clinton administration's shortcomings and failings in the fight against terrorism. Instead it choose to give Albright a forum for a revisionist concerning that fight. That was a disservice to its readers.

Monday, October 23, 2006

Journal-World finds counterinsurgency instructor

As noted in an October 1 post, Journal-World reporter Joel Mathis wrote in article that suggested that the military had not considered how to battle insurgencies prior to this summer. See

I quoted a retired Green Beret who I had interviewed a few years ago. The Green Beret was called back to Ft. Leavenworth just after 9/11 to teach counterinsurgency and counterterrorism.

In today's Journal-World, reporter Mike Belt shares the Green Beret's views on violence on Iraq. The Journal-World deserves credit for finally publishing an article that does not fit the Bush-haters' template concerning Iraq.

Of course, Lt. Col. Johnson has already been attacked by one liberal on the J-W forum:

"Wow...a retired Lieutenant Colonel! Impressive! What's next? A retired Assistant Manager of Burger King commenting on the state of the fast-food industry?"

Comparing a lieutenant colonel in the Green Berets to an assistant manager of Burger King is simply ignorant. Naturally, Dan Cox will allow the post to stand.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Endorsements: Speaking with one voice?

The Wichita Eagle and Salina Journal both endorsed Paul Morrison for attorney general today. In reading the endorsements, I couldn't help but note the similarities between the two.

WE: "Phill Kline can rightfully claim some notable achievements -- fighting for tougher penalties for child predators, launching a dragnet for parole absconders, and successfully defending Kansas' death penalty statute before the U.S. Supreme Court."
SJ: "Kline deserves credit for some successes as Kansas attorney general. He beefed up the Kansas Bureau of Investigation crime lab to handle increased workloads. He rightly pursued abortion records to find child rapists, despite charges it is a fishing expedition."

WE: "But just as notable -- and regrettable for Kansas -- are Kline's lapses of judgment and questionable priorities."
SJ: "But there are troubling aspects to Kline’s term that bring judgment into question."

WE: "Kline hiring his nephew as chauffeur, and choosing as his consumer fraud chief an anti-abortion activist with 12 arrests and an outstanding $61,000 court judgment."
SJ: "Consider Kline’s 2003 appointment of Bryan Brown as chief of the AG consumer protection division. Brown was arrested 12 times during anti-abortion protests starting some 20 years ago. Civil disobedience is not too troubling. But Brown dodged a federal judge’s ruling demanding he and two others pay $61,000 in attorney’s fees resulting from the protests."

WE: "And Kline encouraging Kansas State Board of Education members to add anti-evolution stickers to textbooks."
SJ: "Kline also erred when he met with conservative members of the Kansas State Board of Education to discuss the evolution debate. Kline visited with the six members in two groups of three, which circumvented the Kansas Open Meetings Act."

WE: "It's telling that former Attorney General Bob Stephan -- like Kline, a Republican and born-again Christian -- recently resigned as an adviser to Kline after raising concerns about Kline using churches as political fundraising machines."
SJ: "Former Attorney General Bob Stephan told the Lawrence Journal-World last week that he resigned as special assistant to Kline because he was troubled with Kline using people’s faith to raise money. In particular, he said, was an incident where a church gathered donations and gave the money to a company owned by Kline’s wife."

OLDIE: DAVID MILLER AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

From May 1996:

When it comes to David Miller, the Kansas media often find it difficult to get the story right.

For example, after Bob Dole and Phil Gramm tied for first place in the 1995 Iowa straw poll, The Hutchinson News editorialized that Dole’s “failure
in Iowa sits squarely on the shoulders of David Miller,” who was then chairman of the Kansas GOP.

This editorial concluded that the Kansas GOP “should give David Miller the boot.” Apparently, The Hutchinson News missed Bob Dole’s appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation. “We’re going to save our resources for the main event next February,” Dole told the moderator. By “main event,” Dole was referring to the 1996 Iowa caucuses. If Dole considered the Iowa straw poll insignificant, why was Miller expected to, in the words of The Hutchinson News, “communicate how important this vote was for Dole”?

Since Miller announced on May 5 that he would run for governor, it looks as if the Kansas media have been in a race to see who can print the most inane
comments regarding Miller and conservative Republicans. Below are merely a few examples:

• “David Miller is going to devote the next three months of his life to the proposition that democracy doesn’t work.” - George Pyle, Salina Journal.

According to Pyle, the “anti-abortion, anti-tax, pro-gun minority of Kansas Republicans [Miller] speaks for can be expected to go to the polls Aug. 4, while the more moderate majority that makes up the base of Gov. Bill Graves may forget to pencil the election into their busy schedules.”

A 1996 Kansas City Star survey found that exactly 50 percent of Kansans believe abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest and saving
the life of the mother. According to this year’s Kansas Survey, “A proposed ban on partial-birth abortion was supported by seven out of ten” Kansans. The Kansas Survey also found that “Kansans want tax cuts.” And guns? In 1996
Lawrence Research found that 61 percent of Kansans favor a law allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection outside of their homes.

Now, if a majority of all Kansans favor restrictions on abortion, want tax cuts, and believe law-abiding Kansans should be allowed to carry firearms, is it possible that “anti-abortion, anti-tax, pro-gun” Republicans make up a minority of the GOP? As Dan Rather would put it, that’s about as likely as a one-ended stick.

• “Conservative Republicans believe that the term ‘conservative Republican’ is redundant. They say that Republican means conservative, that a Republican who says he is not conservative is not a Republican.” - Jim Hitch, Hays Daily News.

I asked Hitch if he could name a conservative Republican who actually made such a statement. Speaker of the House Tim Shallenburger, R-Baxter
Springs, was his response. During a recent interview with Shallenburger, Hitch claims that the Speaker “characterized moderate Republicans as fence straddlers and said that in reality, some of them may even be Democrats.”

Some of them may even be Democrats? That’s quite a bit different from
saying that a Republican who says he is not conservative is not a Republican.

While Hitch’s example fell short of demonstrating his original assertion, we do have plenty of examples of moderates questioning the legitimacy
of conservative Republicans. Sen. Dick Bond, R-Overland Park, himself said Miller could be elected governor if the “regular Republicans” don’t vote.

“Right now there are the David Miller Republicans, and the rest of the Republicans,” writes the Topeka Capital-Journal’s Dick Snider.

“That, after all, it why Miller is the chairman of Graves’ party,” notes George Pyle. (My emphasis)

• “A more moderate GOP also would motivate disaffected GOP bigwigs to reopen their checkbooks for the party. Under social conservatives,
official politicking has been a small-budget operation—though successful just the same because of the political zeal of social conservatives.” - Denney Clements, Wichita Eagle.

Excuse me if I’m mistaken, but haven’t liberals such as Clements been pushing campaign-finance reform in order to limit the involvement of big wigs?

• “Since Statehood, Kansans have elected governors, both Republican and Democratic, who try to run state programs efficiently while holding
the line on taxes—and who leave moral improvement to the clergy,” - Denney Clements, Wichita Eagle.

This isn’t quite true. “If we fail in building character, democracy will fail,” said Kansas Gov. Alf Landon. “And if democracy fails, free religion and a free church, as we know them, are gone too.”

By “character,” the moderate Republican surely meant “the combined moral or ethical structure of a person or group.” Landon, who was not a member
of the clergy, was essentially echoing Abraham Lincoln’s contention that “Democracy must be based not on ‘mere’ opinion but on ‘moral purpose.”

• “Graves has proved that he can compromise.” - Jim Hitch, Hays Daily News.

Hitch assumes that compromise is a virtue. That’s not always the case. For example, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 stated that the number of free
states and slave states must remain equal. Is a “moderate” amount of slavery virtuous?

“Important principles may and must be inflexible,” Lincoln told an audience just days before his assassination. It was Lincoln’s inflexibility on the moral issue of slavery that led to the demise of that evil institution (and, regretfully, his own death).

The above are merely a few examples of how the mainstream media are distorting the truth about David Miller and other conservative Republicans.
Sadly, as the Aug. 4 primary election grows nearer, their statements are likely to become even further removed from the truth.

Salina Journal's hypocritical stand on columnists

Last June, Salina Journal editor Tom Bell informed readers that his newspaper would no longer carry Ann Coulter's syndicated column. Oddly, Bell cited Coulter's appearance on The Today Show with Matt Lauer as the main reason. The appearance included Coulter's comments about the socalled Jersey Girls, the 9/11 widows who capitalized on their status to campaign for John Kerry and other Democrats. Here is part of what Bell had to say about Coulter:

"Coulter said the women are an example of how liberals put forth spokespeople who cannot be criticized because they are protected by sympathy or other sensitivities.

"She makes a valid point. The Rev. Jesse Jackson’s critics are accused of racism. Cindy Shahan (sic), who leads an anti-war and anti-Bush movement, is considered off limits for criticism because she lost a son in the Iraq war."

While Coulter is a controversial columnist, Bell concedes that she made a valid point. Nevertheless, Bell dropped Coulter's column.

Molly Ivins is also a controversial columnist, a fact that Ivins acknowledged when she entitled one of her books, Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She?

Ivins' rhetoric is no less extreme that Coulter's, yet the Salina Journal continues to carry Ivins' column. But there is a difference between Coulter and Ivins. As Bell acknowledged, Coulter made a valid point regarding the Jersey Girls. Coulter's points are usually valid. Ivins' points seldom are.

For example, in the most recent Ivins column (October 20) published by the Salina Journal, Ivins writes,

"I suppose one could argue, and I am sure someone will, that these are mostly retired generals. Some, like Lt. Gen. William Odom, are calling Iraq 'the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States.' And they are retired precisely because of their opposition to Iraq."

The uninformed reader would conclude from this paragraph that Odom retired from the military because of his opposition to the war in Iraq. However, Odom clearly retired from the military long before Bush even became president. His offocial biography does not note the exact year, but does say from 1985 to 1988, he served as the director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan.
Odom has been on the board of directors of two corporations since 1996, so it is clear that he retired from the military at some point between 1988 and 1996. In fact, it appears that Odom's military career ended after he left the NSA, which was nearly 15 years prior to the invasion of Iraq.

If Bell drops a controversial columnist after making a valid point, why continue publishing Ivins, whom seldom makes a valid point?

Rallying versus preaching

I couldn't help but to notice how Topeka Capital-Journal reporter Tim Carpenter described Phill Kline and Paul Morrison's appearances before supporters in his profiles of the two candidates in today's edition.

From the first paragraph of the Morrison profile:

"Paul Morrison jumped on an office chair to rally volunteers preparing to distribute 2,000 of his campaign yard signs."

From the first paragraph of the Kline profile:

"Phill Kline paced back and forth while speaking in a rhythm that mirrors his style of pulpit preaching."

Using Paul Morrison's talking points

Topeka Capital-Journal reporter Tim Carpenter on October 22 did attorney general candidate Paul Morrison a favor by repeating a Morrison campaign talking point:

"Morrison said he took note when Kline hired a man who had been arrested more than 10 times to run the consumer protection division in the attorney general's office."

Carpenter did not say why Bryan Brown was arrested. All of his arrests took place during anti-abortion protests.

Making an issue of Brown is tantamount to saying Rep. Joe Lewis should not be allowed to represent the people in his district in Georgia because he was arresated numerous times during the civil-rights movement.

Without noting why Brown was arrested, Carpenter's article leaves the uninformed reader to speculate why Brown was arrested.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Ignoring the who behind CREW

In his October 19 article about Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics' (CREW) call for an IRS investigation of Attorney General Phill Kline’s campaign, Topeka Capital-Journal reporter Tim Carpenter failed to tell readers who is behind CREW.

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, used to work for Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who hopes to impeach President Bush. She has also worked for liberal Democrat Sens. Schumer and Joe Biden.

CREW’s deputy director and communications director, Naomi Seligman Steiner, formerly served as communications director for Media Matters for America, a left-wing media “watchdog.” Media Matters was formed with help from the Center for American Progress (CAP), whose president is John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former chief of staff. CAP was started with seed money from George Soros, the billionaire financier. Reportedly, Soros contributed $23,450,000 to America Coming Together, MoveOn.org, and several other anti-Bush 527 committees during the 2004 election cycle.

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, CREW itself receives funding from The Open Society Institute (OSI), the grantmaking foundation run by Soros.

Paul Morrison, Kline’s Democratic opponent, is an associate member of the Vera Institute for Justice, which has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from OSI during the past few years through its Gideon Project. According to OSI, one of the goals of the Gideon Project is the abolition of the death penalty.

In September 2006, CREW released a report titled "Beyond Delay: The 20 most corrupt members of Congress (and five to watch)." Of the 25 members of Congress listed, just four are Democrats.

CREW is obviously closely aligned with the Democrat Party, yet Carpenter's article makes is seem as if the group is a non-partisan watchdog organization that is sincerely concerned about ethics. If this group were really concerned about ethics, would it have taken money from George Soros? After all, a French court in 2002 convicted Soros of insider trading and fined him $2.2 million. An appeals court upheld the conviction in 2005.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Fostering a healthy community online

As noted previously, Dan Cox, Director of New Media at the World Company, e-mailed a banned conservative poster to explain that he and other conservatives were apparently banned "in regards to matters of civil community dialogue and our ability to foster a healthy community online."

This blogger contends that the conservatives were actually banned because they expressed conservative opinions. Threads concerning Attorney General Phill Kline provide more evidence that this blooger is correct. Here are just a few comments from the past two days:

"Geez, if morally bankrupt Bob Stephan is bolting the campaign, thinks must be smelling rotten. I love it when the morally 'superior' Grand Old Party finds themselves in the thick of an odious stench."

"If Kline wants to follow the whims of a small number of uber-religous zealots, then he should start working for Mr. Phelps or even a less hateful church."

"You know Crime and Kline rhyme. They go hand in hand."

"Sorry, Loudmouth, weasels in the wild are intelligent, unlike Phil Kline who is like a blood sucker with no brains, who takes away OUR FREEDOMS with no reasonable cause established! END OF LINE, KLINE!"

"Kline is an idiot and there is no connection although we do have proof of the right diggin it. Fortunatel enough right conservatives now see Kline as what he is a jerk with no values whatsoever but a personal agenda with the backing of fundamentalist clowns in little churches who want to be bigger and to say they got an AG in their pocket would help."

"Wow! Ol Phil must really be desparate if he saying things like that. What a scumbag plain and simple!"

The above is just a small sampling. Obviously, Dan Cox considers this "civil community dialogue" since all the comments were allowed to stand. Cox did find one post from a liberal to be uncivil. The poster strongly implied that Kline was sexually molesting his own daughter. The post was removed. However, the poster was not banned and continues to post.

Monday, October 16, 2006

J-W forum bans another conservative

We received word today that the Journal-World banned yet another conservative from its forum merely for submitting posts from a conservative perspective. A review of engagehorn's posts shows that he violated no rules.

During the several days that engagehorn posted, he was called numerous names by others posters (a violation of the rules). One poster (observer) even offered a veiled threat when he said he would pay engagehorn a visit at his office.

The Journal-World has clearly launched a jihad against conservative posters. Conservatives are banned for engaging in dispassionate, reasoned debate, yet liberals can post almost anything they want and remain on the forum. Here's just one example of a post from a liberal with the user name of xenophonschild:

"Am I the only one on the board to notice a similarity between this 'Pilgrim' and the not-too-lamented Arminianus? Pilgrim was always a dim-bulb fascist, but his most recent incarnation shows unmistakeable traces of the 'hero of Silawa.' Can it be that the liar-maggot Arminianus somehow managed to transmogrify into the malicious twit Pilgrim?"

That is clearly an example of name-calling, yet xenophonschild continues to post.

We received an e-mail from one banned conservative with the unfortunate user name conservativeman. Dan Cox, Director of New Media, e-mailed this poster after the poster requested an explanation concerning his banishment. Here is what Cox wrote:

"You were banned after I was presented with a couple of cases for banning, both of which were not posters who were explicitly in violation of our use policy in matters of insults or name calling. These cases were in regards to matters of civil community dialogue and our ability to foster a healthy community online. Some posters are so egregiously aggressive in posting ideological sentiments of hate filled opposition that community dialogue suffers."

Cox did not tell conservativeman exactly why he was banned. However, reread Cox's staetement and then reread xenophonschild's post. Clearly, Cox employs a blatant double standard when banning posters.

Cox has failed to respond to several inquiries to explain this double standard.

Friday, October 06, 2006

Dennis Moore's "conservative credentials"

The Lawrence Journal-World today published yet another article that inaccurately portrayed Rep. Dennis Moore as a conservative.

According to AP reporter Sam Hananel, Republican challenger Chuck "Ahner has challenged Moore’s conservative credentials, calling him 'soft' on national security. Moore recently voted in favor of President Bush’s legislation outlining the treatment of terror-war detainees, but against a bill to grant legal status to President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program."

As I noted on September 5, ADA ratings show that Moore is just as liberal as the average Democrat in the House of Representatives.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Kansas City Star defames Phill Kline

In an October 1 editorial, the Kansas City Star accused Attorney General Phill Kline of twisting the truth and misleading the voters. Turns out that the Star got its facts wrong and misled readers. A correction was offer in its October 3 edition, which, of course, was read by fewer readers.

Perhaps the Star, the Journal-World, and other members of the Blue Dress Press should end their jihad against Kline and stick to objective reporting.

Garrison Keillor lies again

Yesterday I reported on Garrison Keillor's phanotm videotape of Rudy Giuliani fleeing the WTC site on 9/11.

Well, Keillor is at it again in a column in today's Lawrence Journal-World:

"But the camera can be fearfully truthful. Look at the picture of the Current Occupant, reading a speech to the troops at Camp Pendleton, wearing a zip-up jacket with little epaulets on the shoulders, a presidential seal sewn on the right breast, and on the left breast the words, 'George W. Bush, Commander in Chief.' Is this for his benefit or that of the troops? No president ever needed to wear a nametag before. He is the first. Insecurity is written all over him. Look at Dick Cheney. No need for a nametag there."

George W. Bush is not the first president to wear a military-type jacket with a nametag. In fact, Dean's World provides photographic evidence showing all four of Bush's immediate predecessors wearing such jackets.

Monday, October 02, 2006

Tolerating another dishonest columnist

The Lawrence Journal-World in early September published a column by Garrison Keillor that included this claim:

"Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who does not appear in a leadership capacity in the reliable accounts of that morning, who was captured on videotape fleeing uptown...."

According to the official account, Giuliani was in a meeting in Upper Manhattan when the first plane hit the WTC. He then left the meeting and went to the WTC site in Lower Manhattan. He was there when the second plane hit the WTC.

I have done a Google search and can find nothing about such a videotape. I e-mailed Keillor twice to ask for a source. No response. Keillor's column is syndicated through Tribune Media Services, so I contacted TMS. Here is the message I received from the managing editor on September 5:

"Thank you for your message. We do extensive fact-checking on all the columns we send out, including Mr. Keillor's. I have forwarded your message to the editor in charge of the column. If there are errors, we truly regret that, but the editor is meticulous and sometimes there are different interpretations of statements in a column. Certainly we will check out your questions."

I followed up at the end of September and received this message from TMS:

"In the initial editing of the column, Mr. Keillor's direct editor approved the use of the language that you are questioning. While it may be open to interpretation, we stand behind the sense that Mr. Keillor intended."

I believe I interpreted Keillor claim in the same sense as he intended. What other intepretation could one have? It is quite a charge to say that Giuliani was not a leader on 9/11 and that he fled the scene. If Keillor and TMS have evidence to support this charge, why do they refuse to share it? If there is no evidence, why do they refuse to apologize to readers. In either case, the Journal-World should refrain from publishing Keillor's column until he provides evidence or apologizes. They continued to run Robert Scheer's column long after he was proven to be dishonest. Why repeat the same mistake?

Keillor's column does not appear to be in the J-W online archives. Here's another site with the column:http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=364x1971571

BTW, Keillor has displayed dishonesty in the past regarding 9/11. Last March he wrote the following: “I ran into a gray eminence from the Bush I era theother day in an airport, and he said that what mostoffended him about Bush II is the naked incompetence. ‘You may disagree with Republicans, but you always had to recognize that they knew what they were doing,’ he said. ‘I keep going back to that intelligence memo of August 2001, that said that terrorists had plans to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. The president read it, and he didn't even call a staff meeting to discuss it. That is lack of attention of a high order.’” See http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/03/15/keillor/index_np.html

Of course, the August 6 PDB said absolutely nothing about planes being hijacked and crashed into buildings, yet Keillor presented it to readers as fact. The information in the PDB concerned an uncorroborated 1998 report about the possibility of planes being hijacked to win the release of ther Blind Sheikh and other Islamofascists in captivity in the U.S.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

More Journal-World hypocrisy

With the Lawrence Journal-World banning conservatives from its online forum and, apparently, its letters to the editor section, I found it interesting that the same newspaper would publish this letter to the editor.

If you removed the name-calling, personal attacks, and falsehoods, there wouldn't be a single sentence left.

Pay no attention to that man behind the white hood

In his September 17, 2006 column, Kansas City Star columnist Rhonda Chriss Lokeman praises Sen. Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, for fathering Constitution Day.

"No one in Congress is more passionate about the Constitution than the West Virginian Byrd," Lokeman writes. "He carries a small bound copy in his pocket 'close to my heart.'"

Further:

"Critics view Byrd, who opposed the war in Iraq, as an obstructionist to this presidency and a partisan Democrat when, in fact, he is one of the few principled leaders in Congress willing to lecture his colleagues on constitutional matters. His is not a partisan pitch but the voice of a true patriot."

What Lokeman, an African-American, failed to note was that this "true patriot" was a Kleagle (i.e., recuiter) with the Ku Klux Klan, participated in the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and voted against confirming both African-American nominees to the Supreme Court (Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas). Byrd also opposed George W. Bush's African-American nominees, such as Federal Judge Janice Rogers Brown and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In addition, Byrd used the N-word on national television as late as 2001. As an example of blatant liberal media bias, Byrd's recent use of the word was largely ignored, while GOP Sen. George Allen's alleged used of the word when he was in college has been a major issue in newspapers and on the network news.

Unfortunately, for the Bush-hating Lokeman, Byrd's opposition to President Bush trumps all else, including Byrd's racism and opposition to laws that probably made it possible for Lokeman to have the column she writes today.

Hey, maybe we should teach about counterinsurgency

In an October 1, 2006, article Lawrence Journal-World reporter Joel Mathis starts with this paragraph:

"After a half-decade fighting guerrillas in Afghanistan — and another three years doing the same in Iraq — the U.S. military has decided to start some hard thinking about how to battle insurgencies."

I doubt Mathis has ever worn a military uniform, so his insult against the military was probably unintentional. However, an editor should have caught the error.

The fact is, the military started thinking about how to battle insurgencies long before this summer. The School of the Americas has been teaching counterinsurgency warfare for more than 50 years. The military published a new counterinsurgency guide in 2004. Also, a counterinsurgency academy for soldiers and Marines in Iraq was set up before the Counterinsurgency Center at Ft. Leavenworth came into existence.

This writer interviewed a former Green Beret shortly after 9/11. He was called back to Ft. Leavenworth just a year after 9/11 to prepare officers for the fight against al Qaeda, which, of course, included counterinsurgency instruction.

“They wanted me to consult and teach special operations," said the former Green Beret. "I went back to the Middle East a couple of times and the Far East a couple of times to be an advisor/consultant/instructor and assist our Special Operators with the global war on terror. I now have six retired lieutenant colonels working for me at Fort Leavenworth. When I was a student in Staff College, we had basically one hour of special operations instruction. We now have 400 hours of special operations instruction, which we have designed, written, and now instruct.”

On a personal note, I looked through my "Individual Training Record" while I was an enlisted Marine between 1982 and 1986. I had at least eight training sessions on counterinsurgency/counterterrorism and one Marine Corps Institute course on counterinsurgency during that period.

So, obviously, the military started giving some serious thought on how to battle insurgencies long before this summer.

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Ban Extended to LTE?

I had reported earlier that the Lawrence Journal-World began banning certain conservatives from its online forum. After reports that conservatives were having their letters to the editor rejected, I e-mailed Ann Gardner, the J-W's editorial page editor, and asked if the ban had been extended to the submission of letters to the editor. Her failure to respond would appear to indicate that it indeed has.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Being Frank About Franking

The Lawrence Journal-World on August 12 ran an article with the headline "Opponent questions Ryun’s energy mailing." According to the article, Nancy Boyda, the Democrat challenger to Rep. Jim Ryun, took issue with Ryun sending a "mass mailout at taxpayer expense." The mailout concerned energy issues.

"It’s just wrong that he uses taxpayer money for a political campaign,” said Boyda “It’s just a political piece.”

"The card also was sent right before the deadline that prohibits the use of franking for mailouts in the 90 days before an election," noted reporter Scott Rothschild.

Rothschild made no mention of Rep. Dennis Moore, the Democrat representing the Kansas Third, doing a similar mailout "right before the deadline." That mailout also concerned energy issues. The Kansas Meadlowlark has posted Moore's postcard.

Boyda can be expected to criticize Ryun's franking while conveniently ignoring Moore's franking. She's a desperate policitican looking for any excuse to smear her opponent. However, an objective newspaper would have taken the effort to look into the franking privileges of both incumbents. The Journal-World did not, and has not, done that.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Journal-World forum bans conservatives

In August, the moderators of the Lawrence Journal-World forum began banning conservative posters, ostensibly due to "habitual name-calling and harassing." According to Dan Cox, director of new media, yours truly had "historically been a great example of someone who gets into intense ideological arguments but maintains an honorable level of civility." Nevertheless, I was banned after "name calling with another poster that we had banned earlier for the same thing and then brought back after he had agreed to abide more by the site's use-policy."

The poster who was banned earlier claims that he spent time in prison after killing someone. The same poster habitually calls conservtives evil fascists and calls into question their character. My sin was merely asking him why, considering a background that he himself shared with other posters, he feels comfortable passing judgment on others. Other conservatives were banned for similar "sins."

Meanwhile, one liberal poster who strongly implied that Attorney General Phill Kline molests his own daughter has been allowed to continue posting on the Journal-World forum. Another liberal poster actually broached the topic of my dead brother in an attempt to "harass" me. She has yet to be banned.

Cox was asked to explain the blatant double standard, but did not respond.

If the Journal-World cannot run its forum in a fair and balanced manner, then it is time for Cox to shut it down.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Dennis Moore viewed as "moderate to conservative"?

In an article written after the August 1 primary election, Lawrence Journal-World reporter Scott Rothschild wrote that incumbent 3rd District Congressman Dennis Moore “is viewed as a moderate to conservative Democrat.”

Each year the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), “America's oldest independent liberal lobbying organization,” ranks members of Congress and assigns each member a Liberal Quotient (LQ). ADA considers scores from 40-60 as “moderate” ratings. ADA has never assigned Moore a rating within that range.

Moore has been in the House since 1999. During that year, ADA declared Moore a “House Hero” after the organization assigned him a perfect LQ of 100. Meanwhile, the overall average LQ for Democratic House members that year was 88. In fact, Moore’s LQ has been higher than the overall average LQ for Democratic House members in four of the seven years ADA has rated his votes.

Moore’s average LQ for the seven years ADA has rated his votes is 85. The overall average for all Democratic House members during those seven years is 85.7. Does anyone view the average House Democrat as “moderate to conservative”?

The Journal-World will have many more articles concerning Rep. Moore between now and the general election in November. If labels must be used, shouldn’t Moore be characterized as a “liberal Democrat”? After all, the Journal-World notes that its goal is to “provide fair, accurate and honest information to the community.”

Monday, January 23, 2006

Star confused over Alito

The Kansas City Star on January 23 urged U.S. senators to vote against the confirmation of Supreme Court justice nominee Samuel Alito.

According to the Star, "Alito consistently supported restrictions on abortion."

Of course, this is not true. As NPR reported, "Alito's record on abortion cases is not one-sided. As an appeals court judge in 2000, he helped overturn a New Jersey ban on what opponents call 'partial-birth abortions,' a surgical procedure of extracting a fetus from the womb between the fifth and ninth months of pregnancy."

The Star also noted that it had "supported Bush’s earlier nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice, in part because he understood that the framers intended the Constitution to 'apply to changing conditions.'” The Star went on to say, "Alito appears to think the framers viewed their work as set in stone, which is simply incorrect. "

However, the Star criticized Alito for refusing to "say the crucial Roe v. Wade ruling was 'settled law.'”

Perhaps Alito is allowing for the possibility that conditions have changed since 1973 and that Roe is not set in stone.

Lastly, the Star said Alito "said little of substance during his hearings before the Senate." I feel the same way whenever I read an editorial in the Star.