On May 26, the Journal-World published a Mike Luckovich cartoon that claims spending has gone up just 1.4% on President Obama's watch.
Luckovich's cartoon is based on an article by Rex Nutting, of MarketWatch, titled, “Obama spending binge never happened.” The liberal Washington Post has assigned Nutting's article three "Pinocchios." According to the Post, Nutting's was able to say spending has increase just 1.4% under Obama because he took much of 2009 out of Obama's column and assigned it to George W. Bush.
The Post also notes that Obama has proposed to spend MORE each year that he has been president than Congress ultimately approved.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
Rothschild portrays left-wing group as "non-partisan"
In the May 9 edition of the Lawrence Journal-World, statehouse reporter/political activist Scott Rothschild writes, "One day before a potential vote on a mammoth tax-cut endorsed by Gov.
Sam Brownback, a national tax study group said the proposal would
increase taxes on many low- and middle-income Kansans." Rothschild then writes that the group, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), "is a non-profit, non-partisan group that works on state and federal tax policy, focusing on tax fairness."
However, a quick look at ITEP's board of directors shows us that the group is dominated by leftists:
However, a quick look at ITEP's board of directors shows us that the group is dominated by leftists:
- Robert Kuttner: The American Prospect. According to its mission statement, the American Prospect was founded as "an authoritative magazine of liberal ideas." According to Wikipedia, Kuttner's "most recent book, Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency, presents a vision of Barack Obama's opportunity to transform American politics."
- Iris Lav: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Lav was associate director of public policy for the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. She also served as deputy director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which Wikipedia describes as a "left of center think tank."
- Robert Reich, Brandeis University: Bill Clinton's secretary of labor. He was appointed a member of President-elect Barack Obama's economic transition advisory board. He is also chairman of Common Cause, which Rothschild ridiculously claimed was a public watchdog group last year.
- Dean Tipps, Service Employees International Union: SEIU spent $28 million supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, making it the "organization that spent the most to help Barack Obama get elected president."
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Smearing Brownback
In today's Lawrence Journal-World, letter writer Phil Minkin writes the following:
"After an unfavorable tweet by an 18-year-old high school senior, a Brownback henchman, whose job it must be to monitor social media, sniffing out criticism, contacted the girl’s high school principal seeking some retribution."
This is factually incorrect. As the Journal-World also noted today, "When the governor’s office saw the tweet during monitoring of social media comments, it was reported to Youth in Government officials." News reports over the weekend also noted that the governor's office contacted the Youth in Government program.
There is no indication that Brownback's staff ever contacted the student's principal. There is also no indication that the staff pressured the Youth in Government program to contact the student's principal, which it did. The only person who attempted to punish the student was the principal. If the Brownback staff sought retribution against the student, it seems to me that they would have contacted the principal themselves. They did not.
While the purpose of a letter to the editor section is to allow readers to express their opinions, those opinions should be based on facts. In this case, Mr. Minkin's opinions were not based on facts, and the Journal-World was fully aware of what the facts were.
"After an unfavorable tweet by an 18-year-old high school senior, a Brownback henchman, whose job it must be to monitor social media, sniffing out criticism, contacted the girl’s high school principal seeking some retribution."
This is factually incorrect. As the Journal-World also noted today, "When the governor’s office saw the tweet during monitoring of social media comments, it was reported to Youth in Government officials." News reports over the weekend also noted that the governor's office contacted the Youth in Government program.
There is no indication that Brownback's staff ever contacted the student's principal. There is also no indication that the staff pressured the Youth in Government program to contact the student's principal, which it did. The only person who attempted to punish the student was the principal. If the Brownback staff sought retribution against the student, it seems to me that they would have contacted the principal themselves. They did not.
While the purpose of a letter to the editor section is to allow readers to express their opinions, those opinions should be based on facts. In this case, Mr. Minkin's opinions were not based on facts, and the Journal-World was fully aware of what the facts were.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Journal-World publishes canned letter--twice
This morning, the Lawrence Journal-World published the following letter to the editor, purportedly written by Sammie Locke of Lawrence:
"The divisiveness in Washington is costing American jobs. Over three weeks have passed since President Obama sent his American Jobs Act to Congress, but the Republicans refuse to even look at it.
"President Obama’s American Jobs Act is exactly the type of solution that we need: a bill full of ideas that both parties support. It is a deal that creates jobs by lowering taxes and investing in our future. And, the best part: It is fully paid for.
"We need relief for the middle class now. It’s time for our politicians to get over politics and put America back to work."
It seemed to me that I had read this same letter before. Why, yes, I did--two days ago in the Lawrence Journal-World! The J-W published this letter by Mike Lawrence on October 10:
"The divisiveness in Washington is costing American jobs. Over three weeks have passed since President Obama sent his American Jobs Act to Congress, but the Republicans refuse to even look at it.
"President Obama’s American Jobs Act is exactly the type of solution that we need — a bill full of ideas that both parties should support. It is a deal that creates jobs by lowering taxes and investing in our future. And, the best part: It is fully paid for.
"We need relief for the middle class now. It’s time for our politicians to get over politics and help put Lawrence, northeast Kansas and America back to work."
Did Sammie plagiarize Mike? Not quite. The same letter has been published throughout the country. Here are two other examples:
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/opinion/jobs-44312-american-act.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-111011butler_briefs,0,6044589.story
"The divisiveness in Washington is costing American jobs. Over three weeks have passed since President Obama sent his American Jobs Act to Congress, but the Republicans refuse to even look at it.
"President Obama’s American Jobs Act is exactly the type of solution that we need: a bill full of ideas that both parties support. It is a deal that creates jobs by lowering taxes and investing in our future. And, the best part: It is fully paid for.
"We need relief for the middle class now. It’s time for our politicians to get over politics and put America back to work."
It seemed to me that I had read this same letter before. Why, yes, I did--two days ago in the Lawrence Journal-World! The J-W published this letter by Mike Lawrence on October 10:
"The divisiveness in Washington is costing American jobs. Over three weeks have passed since President Obama sent his American Jobs Act to Congress, but the Republicans refuse to even look at it.
"President Obama’s American Jobs Act is exactly the type of solution that we need — a bill full of ideas that both parties should support. It is a deal that creates jobs by lowering taxes and investing in our future. And, the best part: It is fully paid for.
"We need relief for the middle class now. It’s time for our politicians to get over politics and help put Lawrence, northeast Kansas and America back to work."
Did Sammie plagiarize Mike? Not quite. The same letter has been published throughout the country. Here are two other examples:
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/opinion/jobs-44312-american-act.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-111011butler_briefs,0,6044589.story
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Yael Abouhalkah gets caught in lie
Yesterday, The Kansas City Star's Yael Abouhalkah offers a blog item entitled "'Occupy' movement is pro-American, anti-Republican." According to Abouhalkah, "I know the Occupy movement is having some effect, because ultra-conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh called the Americans involved in the group 'idiots,' 'clowns' and other names Monday."
Of course, anyone who actually listened to Limbaugh's program on Monday knows Limbaugh had a guest host, Mark Davis.
Of course, anyone who actually listened to Limbaugh's program on Monday knows Limbaugh had a guest host, Mark Davis.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Scott Rothschild's biased article on the Koch brothers, American Legislative Exchange Council
I found liberal activist Scott Rothschild's July 24 hit piece on the Koch brothers and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) quite biased. While he painted the Kochs and ALEC as being motivated by ideology, he presented the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) and Common Cause--two groups critical of the Kochs and ALEC--as "public watchdog groups."
Those familiar with CMD and Common Cause know that both groups have very liberal/progressive agendas. CMD was founded by liberal environmentalist writer and political activist John Stauber. Stauber's books include titles such as Banana Republicans, The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq, and Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq.
Bob Edgar, a former Democratic congressman, heads Common Cause. Its chairman is Robert Reich, who served as Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary. Reich's anti-conservative views are well-known.
Both CMD and Common Cause have received financial support from the Open Society Institute, headed by liberal financier George Soros. Soros, you may remember, spent nearly $25 million in a failed effort to defeat President Bush in 2004.
Rothschild is the Lawrence Journal-World's "statehouse reporter," which means he is supposed to be engaged in objective reporting. If he cannot report both sides, perhaps the Journal-World should make him an op-ed columnist.
Those familiar with CMD and Common Cause know that both groups have very liberal/progressive agendas. CMD was founded by liberal environmentalist writer and political activist John Stauber. Stauber's books include titles such as Banana Republicans, The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq, and Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq.
Bob Edgar, a former Democratic congressman, heads Common Cause. Its chairman is Robert Reich, who served as Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary. Reich's anti-conservative views are well-known.
Both CMD and Common Cause have received financial support from the Open Society Institute, headed by liberal financier George Soros. Soros, you may remember, spent nearly $25 million in a failed effort to defeat President Bush in 2004.
Rothschild is the Lawrence Journal-World's "statehouse reporter," which means he is supposed to be engaged in objective reporting. If he cannot report both sides, perhaps the Journal-World should make him an op-ed columnist.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Journal-World hits Palin again
On June 10, one day after the Lawrence Journal-World published a Leonard Pitts column in which the Miami Herald columnist claimed that Sarah Palin got her facts wrong regarding Paul Revere (historians have backed up Palin's version), the J-W published a Pat Oliphant cartoon that repeated Pitts' error.
A Boston Herald article that quotes several historians who back up Palin's comment regarding Paul Revere was published on June 6.
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Lyin' Lenny Strikes Again
In the June 9 issue of the Lawrence Journal-World, columnist Leonard Pitts writes the following:
"[Sarah Palin] makes mistakes like Apple makes iPhones, so there is a temptation to catalogue her recent bizarre claim that Paul Revere’s midnight ride in April 1775 was to “warn the British.” (He actually rode to alert patriots Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were coming to arrest them) as superfluous evidence of intellectual mediocrity. The instinct is to think her historical illiteracy speaks ill only of her."
However, in a June 6 Boston Herald article with the headline "Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account," several historians point out that Palin had her history right.
According to Boston University history professor Brendan McConville, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”
Cornell law professor William Jacobson said Palin’s critics are the ones in need of a history lesson. “It seems to be a historical fact that this happened,” he said. “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”
Pitts appears to be both ignorant of history and dishonest.
"[Sarah Palin] makes mistakes like Apple makes iPhones, so there is a temptation to catalogue her recent bizarre claim that Paul Revere’s midnight ride in April 1775 was to “warn the British.” (He actually rode to alert patriots Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were coming to arrest them) as superfluous evidence of intellectual mediocrity. The instinct is to think her historical illiteracy speaks ill only of her."
However, in a June 6 Boston Herald article with the headline "Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account," several historians point out that Palin had her history right.
According to Boston University history professor Brendan McConville, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”
Cornell law professor William Jacobson said Palin’s critics are the ones in need of a history lesson. “It seems to be a historical fact that this happened,” he said. “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”
Pitts appears to be both ignorant of history and dishonest.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Leonard Pitts smears Rep. Peter King
In his March 18 column in the Lawrence Journal-World, Leonard Pitts writes, "Then there is the fact that King has a history of Muslim bashing. He claims, for instance, that 85 percent of mosque leaders in this country are extremists. It is a 'statistic' based on nothing."
That's not true.
On Fox News, King told Martha MacCallum the following: "Martha, let me just first say, to me, it's a badge of honor to be attacked by CAIR, which was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorist financing case. Number two, I said in 2004 that up to 80 percent of the mosques in America were controlled by Islamic radicals. I based that on the testimony of Sheikh Kabanni, a national Muslim leader, who was testifying at a State Department hearing in 1999. That was his testimony, saying that the imams in this country were out of touch with the Muslim community. So I was basing my statement on what a national Muslim leader had said."
I found Kabanni's 1999 comments after just a few seconds, and assume Pitts could have done likewise. Kabanni's argument was that Islamic extremism posed a national security threat to the U.S., and he made it two and a half years before 9/11. He wasn't taken seriously by the left then, and it appears that the left is dismissing the threat again in 2011.
As he so often does, Pitts lied in his column.
That's not true.
On Fox News, King told Martha MacCallum the following: "Martha, let me just first say, to me, it's a badge of honor to be attacked by CAIR, which was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorist financing case. Number two, I said in 2004 that up to 80 percent of the mosques in America were controlled by Islamic radicals. I based that on the testimony of Sheikh Kabanni, a national Muslim leader, who was testifying at a State Department hearing in 1999. That was his testimony, saying that the imams in this country were out of touch with the Muslim community. So I was basing my statement on what a national Muslim leader had said."
I found Kabanni's 1999 comments after just a few seconds, and assume Pitts could have done likewise. Kabanni's argument was that Islamic extremism posed a national security threat to the U.S., and he made it two and a half years before 9/11. He wasn't taken seriously by the left then, and it appears that the left is dismissing the threat again in 2011.
As he so often does, Pitts lied in his column.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Journal-World misses major local story
One advantage a local newspaper has over national newspapers is, well, its focus on local news. Unfortunately, the Lawrence Journal-World has apparently decided not to exercise that advantage.
In April the Lawrence school district decided not to renew Tim Latham’s contract with the district. According to Latham, a history teacher, the director of human resources said he was not a good fit for the district.
Why isn’t Latham a good fit? According to Latham and several of his students, Latham’s conservative views had something to do with it. Jan Gentry, assistant principal at Lawrence High School, seems to have had several problems with Latham. According to Latham, Gentry called him into her office and said that his school-affiliated Web site was "too patriotic." The site had links to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the Air Force, the U.S. Army, and other military-and history-related sites. His site also said that he wanted students to love their country. Horrors!
Gentry also allegedly asked Latham about his “McCain-Plain” bumper sticker. "She said, 'I don't know how you could support that woman,'" Latham said. "That was the beginning of what was going on. They were trying to find a reason to get rid of me."
I have three children in the Lawrence school district and this is the first I have heard of a principal or assistant principal having a problem with bumper stickers, especially one as innocuous as Latham’s. I have seen far more offensive bumper stickers (e.g., “A village in Texas is missing its idiot,” “The emperor is an idiot,” etc.) on teachers’ vehicles.
To me, one of the most interesting things about this story is the coverage it has received. Latham appeared on the Fox News Channel this morning with two of his former students. Chloe Mercer, who graduated from Lawrence High School last month, describes herself as a liberal. "It's really disappointing because he's a really good teacher," she said. "It doesn't seem fair. Why would they let a good teacher go?"
Latham’s story was also covered by KansasLiberty.com on May 27. KansasMeadowlark.com has covered the story and has included videos of students speaking in support of Latham. News busters, a Web site of the Media Research Center, included an item on Latham’s story on June 11. Latham was interviewed on Kansas City radio KCMO 710am on Sunday night.
Oddly, the Lawrence Journal-World has yet to publish an article on Latham’s firing. It’s not that they are ignorant of the story. A reader blog by bearded gnome discussed the story on nearly a week ago on June 9. As of 9:00 this morning, that item had 153 comments.
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/bearded_gnome/2009/jun/09/fired-for-being-conservative-lhs-fires-a-teacher/
So while Latham’s story has gotten nationwide coverage, the folks at the Journal-World can’t seem to find a few column inches for it. And they wonder why their paid circulation numbers are falling.
In April the Lawrence school district decided not to renew Tim Latham’s contract with the district. According to Latham, a history teacher, the director of human resources said he was not a good fit for the district.
Why isn’t Latham a good fit? According to Latham and several of his students, Latham’s conservative views had something to do with it. Jan Gentry, assistant principal at Lawrence High School, seems to have had several problems with Latham. According to Latham, Gentry called him into her office and said that his school-affiliated Web site was "too patriotic." The site had links to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the Air Force, the U.S. Army, and other military-and history-related sites. His site also said that he wanted students to love their country. Horrors!
Gentry also allegedly asked Latham about his “McCain-Plain” bumper sticker. "She said, 'I don't know how you could support that woman,'" Latham said. "That was the beginning of what was going on. They were trying to find a reason to get rid of me."
I have three children in the Lawrence school district and this is the first I have heard of a principal or assistant principal having a problem with bumper stickers, especially one as innocuous as Latham’s. I have seen far more offensive bumper stickers (e.g., “A village in Texas is missing its idiot,” “The emperor is an idiot,” etc.) on teachers’ vehicles.
To me, one of the most interesting things about this story is the coverage it has received. Latham appeared on the Fox News Channel this morning with two of his former students. Chloe Mercer, who graduated from Lawrence High School last month, describes herself as a liberal. "It's really disappointing because he's a really good teacher," she said. "It doesn't seem fair. Why would they let a good teacher go?"
Latham’s story was also covered by KansasLiberty.com on May 27. KansasMeadowlark.com has covered the story and has included videos of students speaking in support of Latham. News busters, a Web site of the Media Research Center, included an item on Latham’s story on June 11. Latham was interviewed on Kansas City radio KCMO 710am on Sunday night.
Oddly, the Lawrence Journal-World has yet to publish an article on Latham’s firing. It’s not that they are ignorant of the story. A reader blog by bearded gnome discussed the story on nearly a week ago on June 9. As of 9:00 this morning, that item had 153 comments.
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/bearded_gnome/2009/jun/09/fired-for-being-conservative-lhs-fires-a-teacher/
So while Latham’s story has gotten nationwide coverage, the folks at the Journal-World can’t seem to find a few column inches for it. And they wonder why their paid circulation numbers are falling.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Leubsdorf lies again
In my November 29 item, I noted that Carl Leubsdorf of the Dallas Daily News claimed that prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, "Republicans were using opposition to civil rights to woo the South from its century-long Democratic home." I responded that, contrary to Leubsdorf's claim, it was the GOP that overwhelmingly supported civil rights acts while a large percentage of Democrats opposed those acts.
Today, in a tribute to his "regular correspondents" (if one e-mail makes one a "regular correspondent," Mr. Leubsdorf must not receive much correspondence), Leubsdorf writes, "[Groenhagen] was correct that Republican support was essential in passing those bills. But my basic point about Southern Republicans also was correct, since in 1964, such prominent Republicans as Barry Goldwater and Texas Senate candidate George H.W. Bush attracted Southern votes by denouncing that bill."
Notice the switch there? In his original column, Leubsdorf did use the words "Southern" and "Republicans," but he did not use the words together, i.e., "Southern Republicans." His original "basic point" smeared the GOP in general.
In the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrat senators voted against the act. The act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster.
In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ninety-two of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among House Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.
Mr. Leubsdorf's most recent column only adds further evidence to my contention that he is a dishonest man.
Today, in a tribute to his "regular correspondents" (if one e-mail makes one a "regular correspondent," Mr. Leubsdorf must not receive much correspondence), Leubsdorf writes, "[Groenhagen] was correct that Republican support was essential in passing those bills. But my basic point about Southern Republicans also was correct, since in 1964, such prominent Republicans as Barry Goldwater and Texas Senate candidate George H.W. Bush attracted Southern votes by denouncing that bill."
Notice the switch there? In his original column, Leubsdorf did use the words "Southern" and "Republicans," but he did not use the words together, i.e., "Southern Republicans." His original "basic point" smeared the GOP in general.
In the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrat senators voted against the act. The act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster.
In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ninety-two of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among House Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.
Mr. Leubsdorf's most recent column only adds further evidence to my contention that he is a dishonest man.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Carl Leubsdorf rewrites civil rights history
In today's Lawrence Journal-World, Carl Leubsdorf of the Dallas Daily News claims that prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, "Republicans were using opposition to civil rights to woo the South from its century-long Democratic home." In doing so, Leubsdorf suggests that it was the Democrat Party that helped Lyndon Johnson pass that bill, while the GOP opposed the bill. That was not the case.
In the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrat senators voted against the act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd (a former KKK member), and Al Gore, Sr. (which exposes the lie that southern Democrats switched to the GOP after the passage of the Civil Rights Act). The act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster.
In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ninety-two of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among House Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.
Republicans also showed a high level of support for LBJ's nomination of Thurgood Marshall as the first black Supreme Court justice in 1967. A large percentage of Senate Democrats either voted against the nomination of Marshall or did not vote at all.
Leubsdorf either deliberately lied in his column or he is woefully ignorant of the facts. In either case, the column should not have been published.
In the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrat senators voted against the act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd (a former KKK member), and Al Gore, Sr. (which exposes the lie that southern Democrats switched to the GOP after the passage of the Civil Rights Act). The act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster.
In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ninety-two of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among House Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.
Republicans also showed a high level of support for LBJ's nomination of Thurgood Marshall as the first black Supreme Court justice in 1967. A large percentage of Senate Democrats either voted against the nomination of Marshall or did not vote at all.
Leubsdorf either deliberately lied in his column or he is woefully ignorant of the facts. In either case, the column should not have been published.
Friday, November 07, 2008
World Company creates "void" in Eudora
During the 1990s, I worked for TeleGraphics, Inc., which published the Baldwin Ledger and the Lawrence Business Ledger. In 1995, we moved the main office for the company from Baldwin City, Kan., to Lawrence. However, we maintained an office in Baldwin City for the Baldwin Ledger.
During the latter part of the decade, The World Company, the parent company of the Lawrence Journal-World, began buying weekly newspapers in the area. They approached the owners of the Baldwin Ledger about buying that newspaper during the summer of 1998. Since the owners had already committed to selling the newspaper to their general manager, they declined The World Company's offer. Undeterred, The World Company started the Baldwin City Signal in March 1999. According to a Jeff Myrick article in the Lawrence Journal-World, "Baldwin City once again has a newspaper that the community can call its own." Of course, that statement ignored the fact that the Baldwin Ledger had been the community's newspaper since 1883.
Dan Simons of The World Company also suggested that there was no other newspaper in Baldwin City. In the first issue of the Baldwin Signal, Simons was quoted as saying the Signal would fill the void that was created when the Ledger left town. Of course, the Ledger never left town. As noted above, the Ledger had an office in Baldwin, reporters continued to cover politics and sports in Baldwin, and I continued to sell advertising in Baldwin.
Given that Simons apparently believed that a void was created in Baldwin after TeleGraphics moved its main office to Lawrence, The World Company's latest move in Eudora a bit puzzling. According to the web site of the Eudora News, a World Company newspaper, "The Eudora News will be closing its Eudora office Nov. 14 and moving its newsroom operations to The World Company’s news center in Lawrence."
Has The World Company created a void in Eudora? Does the company plan to create similar voids in Baldwin City, Tonganoxie, and other communities in the future?
During the latter part of the decade, The World Company, the parent company of the Lawrence Journal-World, began buying weekly newspapers in the area. They approached the owners of the Baldwin Ledger about buying that newspaper during the summer of 1998. Since the owners had already committed to selling the newspaper to their general manager, they declined The World Company's offer. Undeterred, The World Company started the Baldwin City Signal in March 1999. According to a Jeff Myrick article in the Lawrence Journal-World, "Baldwin City once again has a newspaper that the community can call its own." Of course, that statement ignored the fact that the Baldwin Ledger had been the community's newspaper since 1883.
Dan Simons of The World Company also suggested that there was no other newspaper in Baldwin City. In the first issue of the Baldwin Signal, Simons was quoted as saying the Signal would fill the void that was created when the Ledger left town. Of course, the Ledger never left town. As noted above, the Ledger had an office in Baldwin, reporters continued to cover politics and sports in Baldwin, and I continued to sell advertising in Baldwin.
Given that Simons apparently believed that a void was created in Baldwin after TeleGraphics moved its main office to Lawrence, The World Company's latest move in Eudora a bit puzzling. According to the web site of the Eudora News, a World Company newspaper, "The Eudora News will be closing its Eudora office Nov. 14 and moving its newsroom operations to The World Company’s news center in Lawrence."
Has The World Company created a void in Eudora? Does the company plan to create similar voids in Baldwin City, Tonganoxie, and other communities in the future?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
No Room for Ronnie?
Next Thursday is the fourth anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's death. I recently discovered that the Newseum web site includes an archive containing the front pages of many daily newspapers. The site's archive list includes historical dates during the past few years. One of those dates was Reagan's death on June 6, 2004. Interestingly, the vast majority of daily newspapers in the country devoted most or all of their front pages to that story the day after Reagan died. In our area, both the Wichita Eagle and the Kansas City Star were amongst the newspapers to honor Reagan with their entire front pages. The Lawrence Journal-World, however, included just a thumbnail photo of Reagan and about three column inches of copy on its front page.
The Journal-World also included a story on Roy Creek, a local resident who had parachuted into Normandy on D-Day, which occurred 60 years earlier on June 6. This story certainly warranted front-page placement. However, it seems that the huge AP file photo, the AP story on drought "menacing western half of Kansas" (Lawrence is in the eastern half of Kansas), and the article on a visit to France could have been moved to the inside pages to allow more coverage of Reagan on the front page.
Of course, if you're a liberal editor working for a liberal newspaper, not giving Reagan, the man who ended the Cold War, adequate coverage on the front page might be the natural thing to do.
The Journal-World also included a story on Roy Creek, a local resident who had parachuted into Normandy on D-Day, which occurred 60 years earlier on June 6. This story certainly warranted front-page placement. However, it seems that the huge AP file photo, the AP story on drought "menacing western half of Kansas" (Lawrence is in the eastern half of Kansas), and the article on a visit to France could have been moved to the inside pages to allow more coverage of Reagan on the front page.
Of course, if you're a liberal editor working for a liberal newspaper, not giving Reagan, the man who ended the Cold War, adequate coverage on the front page might be the natural thing to do.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The Capital-Journal pulls a "Journal-World"
As noted earlier on this blog, the Lawrence Journal-World has no problem with publishing letters to the editor from liberals who make claims that cannot be substantiated. Now the Topeka Capital-Journal has pulled a Journal-World.
In its April 25 issue, the Capital-Journal published a letter from Warren Allen of Topeka. According to Allen, "And Bush's clone, McCain, said he wants to continue the killing in Iraq for 100 years. Why would a presidential candidate say such a ridiculous thing?"
Allen has repeated the same lie that Barack Obama has repeated time after time, even after being reprimanded by a few in the media, including Zachary Roth with the liberal Columbia Journalism Review.
Here is what McCain actually said:
Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…
McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day
The purpose of letters to the editor is to allow readers an opportunity to express their opinions. However, those opinions should be based on facts, not falsehoods that can be exposed with a quick search on the Internet.
In its April 25 issue, the Capital-Journal published a letter from Warren Allen of Topeka. According to Allen, "And Bush's clone, McCain, said he wants to continue the killing in Iraq for 100 years. Why would a presidential candidate say such a ridiculous thing?"
Allen has repeated the same lie that Barack Obama has repeated time after time, even after being reprimanded by a few in the media, including Zachary Roth with the liberal Columbia Journalism Review.
Here is what McCain actually said:
Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…
McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day
The purpose of letters to the editor is to allow readers an opportunity to express their opinions. However, those opinions should be based on facts, not falsehoods that can be exposed with a quick search on the Internet.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Dishonest letters to the editors find forum at Journal-World
Back when the Journal-World used to publish my letters to the editor (Ralph Gage threw a hissy fit over my scrutiny of his newspaper's reporting, so the J-W no longer accepts my letters), I was often asked to provide sources. However, during the last few months I have noticed letters that are published (from liberals, of course) for which there are no sources or no credible sources. A case in point is a letter today by Julie Matchett.
Matchett's first claim is that President George W. Bush said, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper.” According to Matchett, "These remarks were leaked to the press by three GOP politicos in attendance, who didn’t want to be identified."
The only source for the Bush quote is a December 5, 2005 article written by Doug Thompson on a web site called Capitol Hill Blue. Wonkette characterizes Capitol Hill Blue as "the political rag that also functions as a tin foil hat." Another Thompson story seems to confirm that characterization. FactCheck.org goes even further in casting doubt on Thompson's article.
Matchett also claimed the following: "Barbara Bush, on 'Good Morning America,' March 18, 2003, while defending her son’s administration’s censorship of images of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, said, 'Why should we hear about body bags and death … or, I mean, it’s not relevant, so why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?'"
Of course, on March 18, 2003, there were no flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq since the invasion of Iraq had not yet started. Matchett implies that Barbara Bush was reacting to past events when instead she was being asked to speculate about possible future events. Snopes.com, which analyzes urban legends, put Bush's comment into proper perspective nearly three years ago. Nevertheless, the J-W decided this letter was fit to print.
Matchett's first claim is that President George W. Bush said, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper.” According to Matchett, "These remarks were leaked to the press by three GOP politicos in attendance, who didn’t want to be identified."
The only source for the Bush quote is a December 5, 2005 article written by Doug Thompson on a web site called Capitol Hill Blue. Wonkette characterizes Capitol Hill Blue as "the political rag that also functions as a tin foil hat." Another Thompson story seems to confirm that characterization. FactCheck.org goes even further in casting doubt on Thompson's article.
Matchett also claimed the following: "Barbara Bush, on 'Good Morning America,' March 18, 2003, while defending her son’s administration’s censorship of images of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, said, 'Why should we hear about body bags and death … or, I mean, it’s not relevant, so why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?'"
Of course, on March 18, 2003, there were no flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq since the invasion of Iraq had not yet started. Matchett implies that Barbara Bush was reacting to past events when instead she was being asked to speculate about possible future events. Snopes.com, which analyzes urban legends, put Bush's comment into proper perspective nearly three years ago. Nevertheless, the J-W decided this letter was fit to print.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Lying Lenny
In the January 24 issue of the Lawrence Journal-World, Leonard Pitts Jr. writes the following: "It is, however, true that blacks tended to vote Republican for much of the last century, the simple reason being that the GOP was 'the party of Lincoln.' But as Lincoln receded in history, the GOP stranglehold on the black vote was broken by Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and by the GOP’s stubborn silence on civil rights."
This is a blatant lie.
The effort to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the U.S. Senate was led by Everett Dirksen, a Republican (and my fellow Frisian) from Illinois. The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that just 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). Democrats, including Gore, Heflin, Byrd (a former Klansman), and Hollings, led a filibuster against the act.
In the House, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act. Among the GOP, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.
Eighty-two percent of House Republicans backed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In the Senate, 94 percent of the Republicans backed it. Seventeen southern Democrats in the Senate voted against the act, including William Fulbright, Bill Clinton's mentor.
A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in the Senate also voted to confirm Thurgood Marshall's (who died 14 years ago today) nomination to the Supreme Court. Thirty-five Democrats voted for confirmation, while 32 Republicans voted for confirmation. Ten Democrats voted against confirmation, while Strom Thurmond was the lone Republican to vote against confirmation. There were 64 Democrats in the Senate at the time and just 36 Republicans. In other words, nearly half of the Democrats did not vote for Marshall's confirmation (a large number did not vote at all).
As you can see, the GOP was not silent on civil rights. In fact, without them, LBJ would not have had a Civil Rights Act to sign into law or the first African-American Supreme Court justice.
If Pitts had any integrity, he would apologize to his readers.
This is a blatant lie.
The effort to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the U.S. Senate was led by Everett Dirksen, a Republican (and my fellow Frisian) from Illinois. The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that just 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). Democrats, including Gore, Heflin, Byrd (a former Klansman), and Hollings, led a filibuster against the act.
In the House, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act. Among the GOP, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.
Eighty-two percent of House Republicans backed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In the Senate, 94 percent of the Republicans backed it. Seventeen southern Democrats in the Senate voted against the act, including William Fulbright, Bill Clinton's mentor.
A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in the Senate also voted to confirm Thurgood Marshall's (who died 14 years ago today) nomination to the Supreme Court. Thirty-five Democrats voted for confirmation, while 32 Republicans voted for confirmation. Ten Democrats voted against confirmation, while Strom Thurmond was the lone Republican to vote against confirmation. There were 64 Democrats in the Senate at the time and just 36 Republicans. In other words, nearly half of the Democrats did not vote for Marshall's confirmation (a large number did not vote at all).
As you can see, the GOP was not silent on civil rights. In fact, without them, LBJ would not have had a Civil Rights Act to sign into law or the first African-American Supreme Court justice.
If Pitts had any integrity, he would apologize to his readers.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Never Heard of Code Pink?
Been writing a book the last few months, so I haven't had time to post.
There were many items that could have been posted here since September, but I didn't make note of them. However, one did stay in my memory.
Last September, Journal-World Editorial Page Editor Ann Gardner visited Washington, D.C., and had the opportunity to visit Capitol Hill when Gen. Petraeus testified. In a column she wrote after the visit, Gardner noted, "At the head of the line were women from 'Code Pink,' an anti-war group that was new to me but not to the Washington press corps."
Actually, anyone who has followed the news closely during the past few years would know about Code Pink. In fact, anyone who has read the Journal-World op-ed pages should know about Code Pink. Just a few months prior to Gardner's visit to Washington, Cal Thomas wrote about the group in his column.
Shouldn't an editorial page editor read her own newspaper's op-ed pages?
There were many items that could have been posted here since September, but I didn't make note of them. However, one did stay in my memory.
Last September, Journal-World Editorial Page Editor Ann Gardner visited Washington, D.C., and had the opportunity to visit Capitol Hill when Gen. Petraeus testified. In a column she wrote after the visit, Gardner noted, "At the head of the line were women from 'Code Pink,' an anti-war group that was new to me but not to the Washington press corps."
Actually, anyone who has followed the news closely during the past few years would know about Code Pink. In fact, anyone who has read the Journal-World op-ed pages should know about Code Pink. Just a few months prior to Gardner's visit to Washington, Cal Thomas wrote about the group in his column.
Shouldn't an editorial page editor read her own newspaper's op-ed pages?
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
"New Yorker" misrepresents New Yorkers
Less than a week after the sixth anniverary of 9/11, the Lawrence Journal-World allowed Elizabeth Black to express her views on the six years that have passed since that tragic day.
Black's piece, entitled "Many hearts still bear painful memories of 9/11," started out with her experience as a "New Yorker" on 9/11. It quickly degenerated into an anti-George W. Bush screed devoid of facts or reason. Unfortunately, this type of opinion piece has become increasingly common in the Journal-World.
Black, who was born in southwest Kansas, apparently believes her one summer in New York City makes her a New Yorker. And, as a "New Yorker," Black feels free to attack us yokels in Kansas and the rest of the Midwest, which Black labels a "Sea of Stupidity."
"The pain of that day is never more than a nanosecond away from every New Yorker," Black writes. "The rest of the country doesn’t really understand it. I’m sorry to say that, but it’s true. If the rest of the country understood how New Yorkers, and to a lesser extent Washingtonians, felt, they would never have allowed six years of nonsense to pass. They would never have re-elected a president who, when he couldn’t find Osama, lost interest and turned to go after someone easier to hit."
Black continued:
"For the most part, New York has given up on Middle America. As well they should. When the 2004 election results were tallied, a sea of solid red covered the vast middle of the country. The vote was a resounding affirmation for the Texas team that brought us the trillion-dollar invasion of Iraq, even after the facts were known — no WMD, no al-Qaida connection."
According to Black's interpretation of the 2004 presidential election, we voters in the Midwest were too unintelligent to recognize the nonsense peddled by Bush and Cheney. If we had, we, like New Yorkers, would have voted for John Kerry and the nation would have been spared four additional years of the corrupt team from Texas.
It's a nice narrative for the liberals at the Journal-World and their far-left readers. However, Black's opinion is contradicted by the facts.
In 2000, before 9/11 and Operation Iraqi Freedom, Bush received 35 perccent of the vote in the state of New York, while Al Gore received 60 percent and Ralph Nader received 4 percent. If Black is correct about New Yorkers, then Bush's percentage of the vote in New York should have dropped in the 2004 election. However, Bush received 40 percent of the vote to John Kerry's 58.4 percent of the vote. In other words, Bush picked up 5 percentage points in New York, while votes for the liberal candidate dropped by more than 5 percentage points.
Of course, Ms. Black might respond that she was referring to New York City and not the entire state of New York. According to the New York Sun, Bush received roughly 400,000 votes in New York City in 2000. However, in 2004, Bush received 543,000 votes in New York City, an increase of 35 percent. John Kerry received 9,000 fewer votes in New York City in 2004 than Al Gore received in 2000. Bush also won the New York City borough of Staten Island 57 percent to Kerry's 42 percent. Bush was the first GOP presidential candidate to win Staten Island since his father did so in 1992.
In Brooklyn, Bush's vote total grew from 96,000 in 2000 to 156,000 in 2004, an increase of 63 percent.
Now, let's look at Kansas. In 2000, Bush received 622,332 votes. In 2004, he received 736,456. This is an increase of just over 18 percent. That's an impressive improvement, but barely half the improvement Bush experienced in New York City. Using Black's ridiculous argument, it would be more accurate to say Kansas should have given up on New York City since so many more New Yorkers voted for Bush in 2004 than in 2000.
(Another fact that Black apparently missed: A check of the votes of blue states in 2000 vs. 2004 shows that Vermont was the only blue state in which a higher percentage of voters voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004 over 2000. )
Black also noted that we should have made changes after 9/11. "We should have refused to burn the bloody oil our enemies sell us," she wrote.
By "we," Black apparently meant you and me. In a May 14, 2007, column in the Journal-World, Black noted that she decided to relocate in Lawrence after receiving a parking ticket. Turns out the ticket was placed on her car's windshield. I'm pretty certain that car needs oil to get from place to place.
Perhaps some time in the future, Black will take on New Yorkers for sending Hillary Clinton back to the U.S. Senate in 2006. After all, Hillary voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. In addition, her husband's administration:
- Left office in January 2001 claiming Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the U.S.
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htm
- Said Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating, especially on weapons production.
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
- Had eight years to get bin Laden and failed. In fact, after Clinton launched missiles at empty tents in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in Sudan in August 1998, he launched a preemptive strike on Saddam in December 1998 and an illegal war of choice (if, as liberals claim, wars without the UN's imprimatur are illegal) in Kosovo during the spring of 1999.
- And, if we are to believe bin Laden (and I believe we should, just as we should have taken Hitler seriously when he wrote Mein Kampf), it was the Clinton administration's policies vis-a-vis Iraq that ultimately gave us 9/11 and other "messages with no words."
http://web.archive.org/web/19990203201222/http://cnn.com/CNN/Programs/impact/9705/09/feature/transcript.ladin.html
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/04/embassy.bombings.02/
Which do you think is more likely? Black writing an opinion piece attacking New Yorkers for reelecting Hillary in 2006? Or Black voting for Hillary in 2008?
Black's piece, entitled "Many hearts still bear painful memories of 9/11," started out with her experience as a "New Yorker" on 9/11. It quickly degenerated into an anti-George W. Bush screed devoid of facts or reason. Unfortunately, this type of opinion piece has become increasingly common in the Journal-World.
Black, who was born in southwest Kansas, apparently believes her one summer in New York City makes her a New Yorker. And, as a "New Yorker," Black feels free to attack us yokels in Kansas and the rest of the Midwest, which Black labels a "Sea of Stupidity."
"The pain of that day is never more than a nanosecond away from every New Yorker," Black writes. "The rest of the country doesn’t really understand it. I’m sorry to say that, but it’s true. If the rest of the country understood how New Yorkers, and to a lesser extent Washingtonians, felt, they would never have allowed six years of nonsense to pass. They would never have re-elected a president who, when he couldn’t find Osama, lost interest and turned to go after someone easier to hit."
Black continued:
"For the most part, New York has given up on Middle America. As well they should. When the 2004 election results were tallied, a sea of solid red covered the vast middle of the country. The vote was a resounding affirmation for the Texas team that brought us the trillion-dollar invasion of Iraq, even after the facts were known — no WMD, no al-Qaida connection."
According to Black's interpretation of the 2004 presidential election, we voters in the Midwest were too unintelligent to recognize the nonsense peddled by Bush and Cheney. If we had, we, like New Yorkers, would have voted for John Kerry and the nation would have been spared four additional years of the corrupt team from Texas.
It's a nice narrative for the liberals at the Journal-World and their far-left readers. However, Black's opinion is contradicted by the facts.
In 2000, before 9/11 and Operation Iraqi Freedom, Bush received 35 perccent of the vote in the state of New York, while Al Gore received 60 percent and Ralph Nader received 4 percent. If Black is correct about New Yorkers, then Bush's percentage of the vote in New York should have dropped in the 2004 election. However, Bush received 40 percent of the vote to John Kerry's 58.4 percent of the vote. In other words, Bush picked up 5 percentage points in New York, while votes for the liberal candidate dropped by more than 5 percentage points.
Of course, Ms. Black might respond that she was referring to New York City and not the entire state of New York. According to the New York Sun, Bush received roughly 400,000 votes in New York City in 2000. However, in 2004, Bush received 543,000 votes in New York City, an increase of 35 percent. John Kerry received 9,000 fewer votes in New York City in 2004 than Al Gore received in 2000. Bush also won the New York City borough of Staten Island 57 percent to Kerry's 42 percent. Bush was the first GOP presidential candidate to win Staten Island since his father did so in 1992.
In Brooklyn, Bush's vote total grew from 96,000 in 2000 to 156,000 in 2004, an increase of 63 percent.
Now, let's look at Kansas. In 2000, Bush received 622,332 votes. In 2004, he received 736,456. This is an increase of just over 18 percent. That's an impressive improvement, but barely half the improvement Bush experienced in New York City. Using Black's ridiculous argument, it would be more accurate to say Kansas should have given up on New York City since so many more New Yorkers voted for Bush in 2004 than in 2000.
(Another fact that Black apparently missed: A check of the votes of blue states in 2000 vs. 2004 shows that Vermont was the only blue state in which a higher percentage of voters voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004 over 2000. )
Black also noted that we should have made changes after 9/11. "We should have refused to burn the bloody oil our enemies sell us," she wrote.
By "we," Black apparently meant you and me. In a May 14, 2007, column in the Journal-World, Black noted that she decided to relocate in Lawrence after receiving a parking ticket. Turns out the ticket was placed on her car's windshield. I'm pretty certain that car needs oil to get from place to place.
Perhaps some time in the future, Black will take on New Yorkers for sending Hillary Clinton back to the U.S. Senate in 2006. After all, Hillary voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. In addition, her husband's administration:
- Left office in January 2001 claiming Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the U.S.
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htm
- Said Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating, especially on weapons production.
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
- Had eight years to get bin Laden and failed. In fact, after Clinton launched missiles at empty tents in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in Sudan in August 1998, he launched a preemptive strike on Saddam in December 1998 and an illegal war of choice (if, as liberals claim, wars without the UN's imprimatur are illegal) in Kosovo during the spring of 1999.
- And, if we are to believe bin Laden (and I believe we should, just as we should have taken Hitler seriously when he wrote Mein Kampf), it was the Clinton administration's policies vis-a-vis Iraq that ultimately gave us 9/11 and other "messages with no words."
http://web.archive.org/web/19990203201222/http://cnn.com/CNN/Programs/impact/9705/09/feature/transcript.ladin.html
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/04/embassy.bombings.02/
Which do you think is more likely? Black writing an opinion piece attacking New Yorkers for reelecting Hillary in 2006? Or Black voting for Hillary in 2008?
Monday, August 13, 2007
Rose peddled Reagan lie before
As noted in the previous item, Steve Rose, chairman of Sun Publiucations, micharacterized Ronald Reagan's record as a social conservative in a August 8 column.
Rose has done this before, this time in a February 22, 2007 column.
"[KRA leaders] claim they are 'Reagan Republicans,' who, in their delusional minds, was one of them."
As shown in the previous item, Reagan considered himself a social conservative and social conservatives in 1980 and 1984 campaigned hard for Reagan because he was one of them.
"Well, tens of millions of us were Reagan Republicans," Rose continued. "We voted for him both times he ran. And it was not because he was a right-wing ideologue. It was because he was a true conservative, but he also was flexible and tolerant. His Supreme Court appointments say it all. He picked Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, two moderates. A third appointment, William Rehnquist, was a mild conservative. Only Antonin Scalia was a true-blue social conservative. The KRA would have a coronary if those appointments were made today."
First, Rehnquist was appointed by President Richard Nixon, not Reagan. Reagan elevated Rehnquist to chief justice. Second, Rose's claim that Rehnquist was merely a "mild conservative" is laughable. Check out the articles after Rehnquist died and try to find one in which he was described as a "mild conservative." Third, Rose has apparently forgotten that the conservative Robert Bork, and not Anthony Kennedy, was Reagan's first choice, after Associate Justice Lewis Powell retired. In fact, Kennedy was Reagan's third choice in a highly partisan atmosphere. O'Connor was a mixed bag. She took some moderate positions. However, upon her retirement, the Christian Science Monitor noted, "On the conservative side, her vote has been critical to the conservative wing's federalism revival."
More from Rose:
"Ronald Reagan talked a good game about social values, but his real priorities were lowering taxes, shrinking government, and bringing down the Soviet Union. That’s why moderates could embrace him, and that’s why Ronald Reagan unified not only his party, but brought millions of Democrats into the fold."
What Rose fails to understand is that "lowering taxes, shrinking government, and bringing down the Soviet Union" were (and are) priorities that had (and have) moral components. For example, the Soviet Empire had to be bring down because Reagan believed it was an "Evil Empire." Rose also fails to understand that evangelical Democrats embraced Reagan in 1980 and 1984 because they believed Carter let them down on, among other things, the abortion issue.
Rose has done this before, this time in a February 22, 2007 column.
"[KRA leaders] claim they are 'Reagan Republicans,' who, in their delusional minds, was one of them."
As shown in the previous item, Reagan considered himself a social conservative and social conservatives in 1980 and 1984 campaigned hard for Reagan because he was one of them.
"Well, tens of millions of us were Reagan Republicans," Rose continued. "We voted for him both times he ran. And it was not because he was a right-wing ideologue. It was because he was a true conservative, but he also was flexible and tolerant. His Supreme Court appointments say it all. He picked Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, two moderates. A third appointment, William Rehnquist, was a mild conservative. Only Antonin Scalia was a true-blue social conservative. The KRA would have a coronary if those appointments were made today."
First, Rehnquist was appointed by President Richard Nixon, not Reagan. Reagan elevated Rehnquist to chief justice. Second, Rose's claim that Rehnquist was merely a "mild conservative" is laughable. Check out the articles after Rehnquist died and try to find one in which he was described as a "mild conservative." Third, Rose has apparently forgotten that the conservative Robert Bork, and not Anthony Kennedy, was Reagan's first choice, after Associate Justice Lewis Powell retired. In fact, Kennedy was Reagan's third choice in a highly partisan atmosphere. O'Connor was a mixed bag. She took some moderate positions. However, upon her retirement, the Christian Science Monitor noted, "On the conservative side, her vote has been critical to the conservative wing's federalism revival."
More from Rose:
"Ronald Reagan talked a good game about social values, but his real priorities were lowering taxes, shrinking government, and bringing down the Soviet Union. That’s why moderates could embrace him, and that’s why Ronald Reagan unified not only his party, but brought millions of Democrats into the fold."
What Rose fails to understand is that "lowering taxes, shrinking government, and bringing down the Soviet Union" were (and are) priorities that had (and have) moral components. For example, the Soviet Empire had to be bring down because Reagan believed it was an "Evil Empire." Rose also fails to understand that evangelical Democrats embraced Reagan in 1980 and 1984 because they believed Carter let them down on, among other things, the abortion issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)