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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.