Progress at the Lawrence Journal-World?

In a the second of two editorials in today's Journal-World, Rep. Dennis Moore is actually characterized as a "moderate or liberal." This is much more accurate than past articles that labelled Moore a "conservative."

There was a slight problem, though. According to editorial, "If there was any overriding message from the November elections, it was that voters wanted to see government run in a different, more cooperative, less contentious manner."

The editorial was about Kansas politics, and there really wasn't much a change in Topeka with last November's election.

There was a major change in Washington and, if the message of the November elections was want the Journal-World says it was, then the editorial would be better directed to Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate, who are currently being less than cooperative with President Bush.

Donald Betts is more than one lawmaker?

Liberal activist/Lawrence Journal-World reporter Scott Rothschild has a story in the January 27, 2007 issue of the J-W with this headline:

"Lawmakers disagree with troop increase"

The story is about Donald Betts, an ultraliberal state senator from Wichita, filing a resolution that would "put Kansas lawmakers on record as being opposed to Bush's call for 21,500 more troops to be sent to Iraq."

In addition to Betts, the article mentions just one other lawmaker, State Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, R-Independence. However, Schmidt did not say that he disagrees with the troop increase.

Given this, the headline should have been "Lawmaker disagrees with troop increase."

UPDATE: Rothschild served as president of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Topeka as recently as 2005. He continues to be a leader with UUFT. The Unitarian Univeralist Association president, Rev. William Sinkford, on January 11 published an open letter in which he opposed President Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 more troops to Iraq. He also accused the president of betraying patriotic Americans.

This is yet another case in which Rothschild has reported on an issue that his organization has openly taken a stand on. Kansas Media Watch is currently compiling additional examples and will present a report to legislators in Topeka next month.

Rothschild's reporting presents a huge conflict of interest that calls the Journal-World's credibility into question.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

The Lawrence Journal-World on January 1 published an AP article with the headline "Going Green." The article was primarily about environmentalist Laurie David telling us how to save the world by, among other things, using compact fluorescent bulbs and pulling the plug on electronics and chargers.

David, the wife of Seinfeld's Larry David, has been known as a hypocrite on the environmental issue for at least two years now. Even the ultraliberal Eric Alterman dicussed this hypocrisy in a September 2004 Atlantic Monthly piece called "Gulfstream Liberals." It seems that Mrs. David dislikes flying on commercial airlines and prefers private jets. As the New York Times noted in August 2004, "Compared with the average Gulfstream jet, a Hummer H2 can seem downright fuel efficient."

David also has a Tudor mansion home in the Pacific Palisades. As someone with a carbon footprint larger than King Kong's footprint, David's advice to the rest of us is laughable. The Journal-World should have known better than to share this woman's hypocrisy with its readers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.