Posts Tagged ‘ideology’

Biden Calls Republicans ‘Absolutists’ As His Party Vows to Punish Joe Lieberman

November 2, 2009

Vice President Biden once again proved that he is the intellectual compatriot with Ruprecht the Monkey Boy in his statement about Republicans being “absolutists” even as he attacked conservatives such as Sarah Palin in a quintessentially absolutist manner.

Biden stumps for Owens, takes dig at Palin

(CNN) – Vice President Joe Biden challenged Republican voters in New York’s 23rd congressional district to teach conservative “absolutists” a lesson in the special House election Tuesday by voting for the Democratic candidate in the race.

“We aren’t asking you to switch your party,” Biden said at a rally for Democrat Bill Owens in Watertown, New York Monday morning. “We are just saying join us in teaching a lesson to those absolutists who say no dissent is permitted within your own party.” […]

“This is a different ideology,” Biden continued. “This is different than anything I’ve known in my 45 years of being familiar with this district. You know, they may have any room for moderate views in the Republican Party upstate anymore, but let me assure you, we have room, we have room.”

Later in his remarks, the vice president couldn’t help but return to the subject of the former Alaska governor when the issue of energy came up.

“Sarah Palin thinks the answer to energy is ‘Drill, baby, drill,’ he said, leaning into the microphone. “It’s a lot more complicated, Sarah, than drill baby drill.”

First of all, Ruprecht, you total waste of a human brain, it wasn’t the Republican Party that displayed “absolutism.”  A group of “eleven county GOP committee apparatchiks” selected Dede Scozzafava in a form of “absolutism” that was clearly idiotic, but hardly ideological.  There was no election; the people in the Republican Party of NY-23 did not get to express their voice.  Secondly, it was hardly the Republican Party that displayed “absolutism,” apart from the “so-open-minded-their-brains-fell-out” form of idiocy mentioned above; GOP establishment figures such as Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich endorsed Scozzafava in spite of a whole host of reasons not to.

It was the fact that the conservative majority of the NY-23 district deserved better than Scozzafava, just like the country as a whole deserves better than you, Ruprecht.

The PEOPLE you so demagogue and despise rose up and rejected this abortion-supporting abortion of a Republican.  And they chose in place of this apparatchik-foisted pseudo-Republican candidate an actual conservative, which is what they SHOULD have had in the first place.

With Scozzafava no longer clogging the vote as a Republican-In-Name-Only, Hoffman has a huge lead.  In fact, he apparently had a huge lead regardless of WHAT Scozzafava did:

In a three way contest with Democrat Bill Owens and Republican Dede Scozzafava Hoffman leads with 51% to 34% for Owens and 13% for Scozzafava. In a head to head contest with Owens Hoffman holds a 54-38 advantage.

Instead of Republicans learning some fictitious lesson about their “absolutism,” why don’t Democrats learn about just how massively unpopular the radical policies of the Democrats are becoming in the minds of more and more of the electorate?

Meanwhile, Ruprecht, you self-righteous hypocritical fraud, Democrats are “vowing unity,” with “Democrats everywhere are uniting for change.” How is it that you can have unity, but Republicans are evil for wanting the same damn thing?

And while we’re talking about “absolutism,” why don’t we contemplate what happens if a Democrat decides to stop goose stepping for a second and actually voices a dissenting viewpoint?

One of the leading Senate Democrats on healthcare reform legislation fired a warning shot in Sen. Joe Lieberman’s direction yesterday, previewing the possible consequences of joining a GOP filibuster.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, told reporters that Lieberman (I-Conn.) ought to consider the benefits of his membership in the Democratic caucus before he decides how to vote on healthcare reform.

“[Lieberman] still wants to be a part of the Democratic Party although he is a registered independent. He wants to caucus with us and, of course, he enjoys his chairmanship of the [Homeland Security] committee because of the indulgence of the Democratic caucus. So, I’m sure all of those things will cross his mind before the final vote,” Harkin said in a conference call.

Just who do you damn Democrats think you are to lecture ANYBODY about “absolutism”?

What might be the most delicious thing of all was the way that Sarah Palin, having only Facebook to respond to the White House’s massive communications advantage, nevertheless further pulverized the nectarine mush that is surely stuffed inside the brainless wonder’s skull:

Palin’s Latest Facebook Note

As the vice president knows, I have always advocated an all-of-the-above approach to American energy independence. Among other things, my alternative energy goal for Alaska sits at 50 percent because Alaska reached more than 20 percent during my term in office. The Obama-Biden administration, on the other hand, recently announced a renewable goal of only 25 percent. However, domestic drilling should remain a top priority in order to meet America’s consumption and security needs.

The vice president’s extreme opposition to domestic energy development goes all the way back to 1973 when he opposed the Alaska pipeline bill. As Ann Coulter pointed out, “Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation’s oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation’s enemies by about the same amount.”

This nonsensical opposition to American domestic energy development continues to this day. Apparently the Obama-Biden administration only approves of offshore drilling in Brazil, where it will provide security and jobs for Brazilians. This election is about American security and American jobs.

There’s one way to tell Vice President Biden that we’re tired of folks in Washington distorting our message and hampering our nation’s progress: Hoffman, Baby, Hoffman!

– Sarah Palin

They say Sarah Palin wasn’t “experienced” enough to be the Vice President.  Sure, she had more executive experience than Barack Obama even counting his ten months as president.  Sure, she could change the entire health care debate with a Facebook entry while on vacation.  Sure, she could demonstrate what an idiot Barack Obama’s pick for V.P. was with a couple of paragraphs.  What matters most of all is that even after Sarah Palin is no longer a candidate for Vice President, and even after she has stepped down as Governor of Alaska, Democrats still become emotionally unhinged at the very thought of her.

I have long-since become sick with Democrats – who have become the biggest demagogues since Joseph Goebbels – routinely pointing fingers of blame when they are five times more guilty of whatever they are accusing the Republicans are doing.

 

Who REALLY Exploded Your Economy, Liberals Or Conservatives?

August 3, 2009

From Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny, pages 67-71:

From where does the Statist acquire his clairvoyance in determining what is good for the public?  From his ideology.  The Statist is constantly manipulating public sentiment in a steady effort to disestablish the free market, as he pushes the nation down tyranny’s road.  He has built an enormous maze of government agencies and programs, which grow inexorably from year to year, and which intervene in and interfere with the free market.  And when the Statist’s central planners create economic perversions that are seriously detrimental to the public, he blames the free market and insists on seizing additional authority to correct the failures created at his own direction.

Consider the four basic events that led to the housing bust of 2008, which spread to the financial markets and beyond:

EVENT 1: In 1977, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to address alleged discrimination by banks in making loans to poor people and minorities in the inner cities (redlining).  The act provided that banks have “an affirmative obligation” to meet the credit needs of the communities in which they are chartered.1 In 1989, Congress amended the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requiring banks to collect racial data on mortgage applications.2 University of Texas economics professor Stan Liebowitz has written that “minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications, but the overwhelming reason wasn’t racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.”3 Liebowitz also condemns a 1992 study conducted by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank that alleged systemic discrimination.  “That study was tremendously flawed.  A colleague and I … showed that the data it had used contained thousands of egregious typos, such as loans with negative interest rates.  Our study found no evidence of discrimination.”4 However, the study became the standard on which government policy was based.

In 1995, the Clinton administration’s Treasury Department issued regulations tracking loans by neighborhoods, income groups, and races to rate the performance of banks.  The ratings were used by regulators to determine whether the government would approve bank mergers, acquisitions, and new branches.5 The regulations also encouraged Statist-aligned groups, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, to file petitions with regulators, or threaten to, to slow or even prevent banks from conducting their business by challenging the extent to which banks were issuing these loans.  With such powerful leverage over banks, some groups were able, in effect, to legally extort banks to make huge pools of money available to the groups, money they in turn used to make loans.  The banks and community groups issued loans to low-income individuals who often had bad credit or insufficient income.  And these loans, which became known as “subprime” loans, made available 100 percent financing, did not always require the use of credit scores, and were even made without documenting income.6 Therefore, the government insisted that banks, particularly those that wanted to expand, abandon traditional underwriting standards.  One estimate puts the figure of CRA-eligible loans at $4.5 trillion.7

EVENT 2: In 1992, the Department of Housing and Urban Development pressured two government-chartered corporations – known as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – to purchase (or “securitize”) large bundles of these loans for the conflicting purposes of diversifying the risks and making even more money available to banks to make further risky loans.  Congress also passed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act, eventually mandating that these companies buy 45% of all loans from people of low and moderate incomes.8 Consequently, a SECONDARY MARKET was created for these loans.  And in 1995, the Treasury Department established the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which provided banks with tax dollars to encourage even more risky loans.

For the Statist, however, this was still not enough.  Top congressional Democrats, including Representative Barney Frank (Massachusetts), Senator Christopher Dodd (Connecticut), and Senator Charles Schumer (New York), among others, repeatedly ignored warnings of pending disaster, insisting that they were overstated, and opposed efforts to force Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to comply with usual business and oversight practices.9 And the top executives of these corporations, most of whom had worked in or with Democratic administrations, resisted reform while they were actively cooking the books in order to award themselves tens of millions of dollars in bonuses.10

EVENT 3: A by-product of this government intervention and social engineering was a financial instrument called the “derivative,” which turned the subprime mortgage market into a ticking time bomb that could magnify the housing bust by orders of magnitude.  A derivative is a contract where one party sells the risk associated with the mortgage to another party in exchange for payments to that company based on the value of the mortgage.  In some cases, investors who did not even make the loans would bet on whether the loans would be subject to default.  Although imprecise, perhaps derivatives in this context can best be understood as a form of insurance.  Derivatives allowed commercial and investment banks, individual companies, and private investors to further spread – and ultimately multiply – the risk associated with their mortgages.  Certain financial and insurance institutions invested heavily in derivatives, such as American International Group (AIG).11

EVENT 4:  The Federal Reserve Board’s role in the housing boom-and-bust cannot be overstated.  The Pacific Research Institute’s Robert P. Murphy explains that “[the Federal Reserve] slashed rates repeatedly starting in January 2001, from 6.5 percent until they reached a low in June 2003 of 1.0 percent.  (In nominal terms, this was the lowest the target rate had been in the entire data series maintained by the St. Louis Federal Reserve, going back to 1982)….  When the easy-money policy became too inflationary for comfort, the Fed (under [Alan] Greenspan and the then new Chairman Ben Bernanke at the end) began a steady process of raising interest rates back up, from 1.0 percent in June 2004 to 5.25 percent in June 2006….”12 Therefore, when the Federal Reserve abandoned its role as steward of the monetary system and used interest rates to artificially and inappropriately manipulate the housing market, it interfered with normal market conditions and contributed to destabilizing the economy.

————————————————————————————————

1 Howard Husock, “The Trillion-Dollar Shakedown that Bodes Ill for Cities,” City Journal, Winter 2000.

2 Stan Liebowitz, “The Real Scandal,” New York Post, Feb. 5, 2008.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Howard Husock, “The Financial Crisis and the CRA,” City Journal, Oct. 30, 2008.

6 Liebowitz, “The Real Scandal.”

7 Husock, “The Financial Crisis and the CRA.”

8 Ibid.

9 Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10, 2008; Joseph Goldstein, “Pro-Deregulation Schumer Scores Bush For Lack of Regulation,” New York Sun, Sept. 22, 2008; Robert Novack, “Crony Image Dogs Paulson’s Rescue Effort,” Chicago-Sun Times, July 17, 2008.

10 Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, “Report of the Special Examination of Freddie Mac,” Dec. 2003; Office of Federal Housing Oversight, “Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae,” May 2006.

11 Lynnley Browning, “AIG’s House of Cards,” Portfolio.com, Sept. 28, 2008.

12 Robert P. Murphy, “The Fed’s Role in the Housing Bubble,” Pacific Research Institute blog.

The government links from footnote 10 have been purged (and I COUNT on left-leaning “news” sources to purge stories that reveal the left for what it is), but there is plenty of evidence that a) Fannie and Freddie were firmly in the hands of Democrats; b) that Democrats and Fannie/Freddie at least twice resisted reforms by President Bush and Republicans; and c) that Fannie and Freddie executives – who were deeply involved with Democrat activismactively cooked the books to obtain huge bonuses prior to the disastrous crash.  We can also demonstrate d) that Barack Obama and Chris Dodd were involved with corrupt Fannie and Freddie (and Obama and Dodd were also receiving large contributions from corrupt Lehman Bros. even as Obama was getting a sweetheart mortgage deal from corrupt Tony Rezko while Chris Dodd was getting sweetheart mortgage deasl from corrupt Countrywide) right up to the tops of their pointy little heads.

When one examines the actual factors that led to the housing mortgage meltdown (as Mark Levin documents), when one examines the Democrat’s patent refusal to even accept that there was even a problem with Fannie and Freddie – much less allow any regulation – prior to the ensuing disaster, and when one examines the record to see which politicians were receiving money from the parties most responsible for the disaster, there is clearly only one party to blame: the Democrat Party.

And they are right back to all their old tricks.  It was rampant and insane spending that got us into this financial black hole – and they want MORE on top of MORE spending.  Meanwhile, Democrats such as Barney Frank are hard at work trying to create the NEXT massively destructive housing bubble, ACORN is trying to seize houses from rightful owners in the name of the “poor,” liberals are making moral hazard that rewards recklessness and irresponsibility and punishes frugality and responsibility official government policy , even as the Obama administration is creating “solutions” to the foreclosure issue that have abjectly failed.

Government Covering Up Science Proving Global Warming Is Bogus

July 1, 2009

In April, President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”  It was just another smarmy attempt on his part to demagogue the Bush administration and hold himself up as superior.  But rather than actually proving himself morally superior to George Bush, Barack Obama has actually demonstrated just the opposite.

Science is forced to sit at the back of the bus now as it has never been before.  And it is Barack Obama who is making it sit there.

While we consider massive legislation that would cripple U.S. productivity for a generation in the name of curbing carbon dioxide gasses that supposedly cause global warming, shouldn’t we consider the fact that the science actually says that global temperatures actually DROPPED for the past 11 years, even as carbon dioxide gas increased? Shouldn’t it matter that global temperatures are roughly where they were at the middle of the 20th century, and that if anything temperatures are going down rather than up?  Shouldn’t it matter that the models that created the alarmist hype of “global warming” have now been proven to have been entirely wrong?  Shouldn’t we truly question the link between whatever global warming we are seeing and carbon dioxide?

Not if the Obama White House and his Envioronmental Protection Agency have anything to do with it.

EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward… and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency — and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. “It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else,” Carlin said. “That was obviously coming from higher levels.”

E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to “have any direct communication” with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.

“I was told for probably the first time in I don’t know how many years exactly what I was to work on,” said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. “And it was not to work on climate change.” One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.

The suppression of evidence against global warming is not just occurring at the EPA.  It goes on all the time.  In another example that is occurring right now, one of the world’s leading polar bear experts is being barred from a conference simply because he knows how to count and doesn’t want to be pressured into positions that are opposed to his own scientific conclusions.

One of the world’s leading polar bear experts has been told to stay away from an international conference on the animals because his views are “extremely unhelpful,” according to an e-mail by the chairman of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, Dr. Andy Derocher.

The London Telegraph reports Canadian biologist Mitchell Taylor has more than 30 years of experience with polar bears. But his belief that global warming is caused by nature, not man, led officials to bar him from this week’s polar bear specialist group meeting in Denmark.

Taylor says the polar bear population has actually increased over the last 30 years. He says the threat to them by melting Arctic ice — illustrated by a famous photo taken by photographer Amanda Byrd — has become the most iconic cause for global warming theorists. The photo is often used by former Vice President Al Gore and others as an example of the dangers faced by the bears. But it was debunked last year by the photographer, who says the picture had nothing to do with global warming, and that the bears were not in danger. The photographer said she just happened to catch the bears on a small windswept iceberg.

As Alan Carlin’s own suppressed report also states, the best evidence holds that we will actually be seeing global cooling over the next three decades.

Do we have an impartial analysis of climate change data that shows the best conclusion of science apart from bias?  Not even close.  NASA has repeatedly erred in its presentation of data that reveals outright bias.
Back in 2007, NASA had to eat a report that had showed the hottest recorded years on record had occurred during the 1990s when in fact they had occurred in the 1930s.  There have in fact been repeated corrections that always erred on the side of the global warming alarmists.  And the unfortunate past shows that NASA has been all-too-willing to engage in speculation and hype in place of legitimate science.

During the 1970s, NASA scientists were warning about ice-age-like global cooling due to “the fine dust man constantly puts into the atmosphere” and saying that “fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees” (realizing that all the disaster-hype now is freaking out over certain predictions of just a ONE degree increase.  That alarmist prediction was published in the Washington Post on July 9, 1971 in an article entitled, “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.”  The NASA scientist who offered that clearly false prediction relied on data compiled by a computer model created by colleague James Hansen.  And Hansen has flipped from being one of the very worst alarmists about a cataclysmic ice age to one of the very worst alarmists about a cataclysmic global warming.

We have seen a pattern of bogus science and alarmism for decades now.  And all men like Alan Carlin ask is that bureaucrats take a step back and assess the science before they jump into overreaching policies that will destroy our economy.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which released the EPA-suppressed Alan Carlin report, made the following statement:

“We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA an d others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclu sions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these groups that may be blamed for this error.”

CEI also released the emails, avalible here.

That the IPCC should be discounted as a serious scientific entity should be proven by their gullible and ideological acceptance of a “hockey stick” model (so named because the data were manipulated to appear as though temperatures which had supposedly been flat for centuries suddenly shot up to form a hockey stick-like graph) was entirely fraudulent.

Anyone who takes a long view of things – and takes a few minutes to actually look at the scientific evidence – isn’t particularly alarmed about the “global warming.”  What we find instead of anthropogenic global warming is a consistent cycle that has continued steadily long before man began to do anything to change the environment.

(Accessed via Newsbusters, which has a write-up on the chart).

I read the powerful book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, which presents such an overwhelming case for naturally occurring warming and cooling cycles (having nothing to do with carbon dioxide or human activity) that it is posivitively unreal.  Based on my reading, I wrote 2 articles that summarized some of what I learned:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

Not only is the current Obama cap-and-trade legislation based on bogus science, but even if it WEREN’T bogus, the massively costly program would STILL have absolutely no impact on “global warming.”

Harvard economist Martin Feldstein writes in the Washington Post:

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States. […]

In my judgment, the proposed cap-and-trade system would be a costly policy that would penalize Americans with little effect on global warming. The proposal to give away most of the permits only makes a bad idea worse. Taxpayers and legislators should keep these things in mind before enacting any cap-and-trade system.

The people who are advancing the global warming agenda don’t give a whig about climate change.  What they want is statist government control, and the implementation of economic redistributionism in the name of “science.”

Lord Nelson And Captain Cook Throw More Cold Water On Global Warming

August 5, 2008

Fox News Special Report ran this story yesterday:

Ahoy Alarmists!

The ship logs of Lord Nelson, Captain Cook, and other British sailors are casting more doubt on the theory that global warming is man-made.

The Telegraph newspaper reports that a group of British academics and scientists has examined more than 6,000 logs which describe an increasing number of storms over Britain in the late 17th century.

Many scientists currently believe such storms are caused by global warming. But these storms occurred during a period known as the Little Ice Age which affected Europe from about 1600 to 1850. The records also show Europe experienced a spell of rapid warming during the 1730s, well before man could have had any impact on climate change.

Sunderland University researcher Dennis Wheeler says, “Global warming is a reality, but our data shows climate change is complex. It is wrong to take particular events and link them to carbon dioxide emissions.”

The Telegraph story is here.

I have written two articles specifically pertaining to the science (and pseudo-science) surrounding global warming:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

There is virtually no question that the moderate global warming we see today is the result of 1,500 year (+/- 500 year) climate cycles that have virtually nothing to do with carbon dioxide. It is also becoming clear that out magnificently created planet has the capability to deal with excess carbon by means of such”natural theormostat” capacities as a tropical climatic heat vent.

What we should realize is that warming is generally a good thing. Human civilization has historically flourished when the climate was warm – even warmer than now – and struggled through ice ages.

I have come to realize that the people who are screaming about “the crisis” of global warming – including the scientists – are the same people who would be avidly pursuing the exact same socialist redistribution policies if there weren’t any global warming. In other words, their politics are the cause of their scientific conclusions, rather than the result of them.

What is truly frightening is not global warming, but the fact that in this age of postmodernism, politicians, scientists, and journalists are increasingly willing to pervert science and misrepresent reality in order to advance a political agenda. The pursuit of leftist ideology is replacing the pursuit of truth in institution after institution. It is increasingly being considered okay to engage in revisionism, whether it is in history, anthropology, journalism, or science, as long as it is for a “good cause.” Hence we have Al Gore, who clearly engaged in extremist and paranoid bogus fact claims, receiving a Nobel Prize alongside “scientists” for his film.

That’s the real reason for alarm over “global warming.”

Pettiness and Visciousness Over Tony Snow’s Passing: The Left Should Be Ashamed

July 17, 2008

The Associated Press’ “eulogy” of Tony Snow contained the following comments:

With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster’s good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses.

In that year and a half at the White House, Snow brought partisan zeal and the skills of a seasoned performer to the task of explaining and defending the president’s policies. During daily briefings, he challenged reporters, scolded them and questioned their motives as if he were starring in a TV show broadcast live from the West Wing.

Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation. He was the first press secretary, by his own accounting, to travel the country raising money for Republican candidates.

Bill O’Reilly clearly wasn’t touched by the Associate Press‘ treatment of Snow. He had this to say yesterday:

Over the weekend, we eulogized Tony Snow in a personal way. I hope you saw our broadcast because I believe we painted a very accurate picture of a great man. Tonight we’ll get into policy — the things that Tony believed in and the challenges he faced going public with those beliefs.

Hours after Tony died early Saturday morning, the Associated Press published an obituary of him. Written by Douglass Daniel, the obit listed Tony’s bio and some of his achievements, but it also injected a left-wing partisan viewpoint, which was insulting to the Snow family and completely inappropriate.

Just a few weeks ago, the AP ran a terrific obituary for Tim Russert, avoiding any cheap shots. But Daniel could not do that for Tony Snow as he wrote: “With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster’s good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses. Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation.”

Now, if you want to criticize Tony’s White House career, do it after he’s buried, OK, Associated Press? Your opinion of his job performance doesn’t belong in an obituary. It was an insult to Tony’s family and demonstrates once and for all the AP is no longer a news service. It has become a liberal clearing house.

Now, I myself just wrote a eulogy remembering both Tim Russert and Tony Snow. Tim Russert came from the Democratic ranks; and more than occasionally I believed that he was grilling Republicans in a way that he did not grill Democrats on his program. But I was writing a eulogy, and so I focused on the very best of these two men.

That’s what you do when you eulogize, unless you are overly partisan. You look at the best of someone, and pointedly ignore the negative. The AP gave a magnificent, criticism-free sendoff to Tim Russert. It just couldn’t find the same graciousness for a conservative.

Shame on them for allowing their thinly veiled political ideology to intrude on good taste.

Rush Limbaugh, commenting on the AP‘s lack of journalistic balance, said this:

A month ago I went on a riff about the lone remaining monopoly in the Drive-By Media, that being the Associated Press and I pointed out how dangerous they are. They still have a monopoly in the sense that every newspaper in the country subscribes to their service and prints their BS. Yesterday, Politico.com ran a story about the new Washington — or the editor, bureau chief, whatever; Washington bureau chief; I forget what title he has, Ron Fournier, the former White House reporter. He has decided — and I don’t know how long ago they decided this, but it probably coincides pretty much with my noticing it, but they decided, he decided — from now on the AP is going to start putting opinion in the news, that people are just too stupid to figure out what the news is without an opinion being thrown in there. Honestly this is what they said. I had the story in the stack yesterday. I think I have it anywhere near here, but I’m summarizing it pretty closely.

Limbaugh was referring to a Politico.com story titled, “Is Fournier saving or destroying the AP?” in which Ron Fournier, the head of the Associated Press’ Washington bureau, is revealed to encourage first-person writing and the use of emotive language in news stories. Part of the Politico piece points out the clear pitfall of Fournier’s new approach to journalism:

Fournier and other critics of the conventional press model, especially those on the left, have said that being released from the tired conventions of news writing is exactly what journalism needs.

By these lights, the mentality that presumes both sides of an argument are entitled to equal weight is what prevented the media from challenging the Bush administration more aggressively on the Iraq war and other issues.

Others warn that what Fournier and other proponents see as truth-telling can easily bleed into opinionizing — exactly the opposite of the AP’s mission of “delivering fast, unbiased news.”

“The problem,” says James Taranto, the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web columnist and a frequent critic of what he sees as the AP’s liberal bias, “is that while you can do opinion journalism and incorporate reporting into it, you can’t say you’re doing straight reporting, and then add opinion to that.”

A dispatch Fournier filed in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina began: “The Iraqi insurgency is in its last throes. The economy is booming. Anybody who leaks a CIA agent’s identity will be fired. Add another piece of White House rhetoric that doesn’t match the public’s view of reality: Help is on the way, Gulf Coast.”

Fournier cited the article in an essay titled “Accountability Journalism: Liberating reporters and the truth” he wrote for the June 1 issue of the AP’s internal newsletter, The Essentials, as an example of how to be “provocative without being partisan … truth-tellers without being editorial writers.”

“I call ’em as I see ’em” has little validity if you are in the tank for one side. You probably wouldn’ t want a die-hard Lakers fan like me refereeing a Laker game in the playoffs if you are rooting for the other team – or even if you simply want an objectively-called game. It’s not that I would deliberately cheat; it’s just that my “pro-Laker” mentality and desire to see the Lakers win would alter my perception and affect my judgment.  Limbaugh used the media’s outrage over the NBA referee scandal as an example of their own innate hypocrisy. It’s too bad they refuse to apply the same standard and rationale about genuine objectivity for themselves that they reserve for everybody else.

Here is a collection of pieces I’ve writing discussing about the media’s ideological biases:

NBC’s Deceptive Editing Reveals Why Bush Right and Obama Wrong

How to Demagogue the Economy

Hillary’s Pennsylvania Win Has Media Snivelling

Media Frenzy over ABC Democratic Debate Reveals Leftist Bias

I chuckled over a July 14, 2008 Mallard Fillmore cartoon that read: “This just in!… The mainstream media now say they felt the need to cover the “Countrywide” loan scandal involving Democratic Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad just as aggressively as they cover Republican scandals… then quickly sat down until the feeling went away.” It’s absolutely true. They covered the story, and then let it slide into obscurity. Had it been a pair of Republicans, there would have been a daily drumbeat of coverage until the two resigned.

When the media becomes ideologically biased – which they have – they undermine the role our founding fathers intended for them in the Bill of Rights, and leave us vulnerable to the ramifications of a people with a distorted view of the world.

When they even feel the need to editorialize and present their biases in a eulogy, it is beyond petty.

But the obvious bias of the left-tilted media – which is revealed even in coverage eulogizing political journalists who have just passed away – is only part of the story. We also must recognize that there is a rabid left wing in this country that are absolutely vicious.

That viciousness was revealed following the announcement of the death of Tony Snow.

The LA Times has a moderated blog which had the following remarks allowed about Tony Snow:

I hope the rest of these criminals die too. Good riddance to a person who contributed to making this world a worse place. – Posted by: Max | July 12, 2008 at 05:58 AM

Its unfortunate he won’t be able to see the damage he helped inflict on this country and the world. I wonder how he likes hell. – Posted by: tedson | July 12, 2008 at 06:27 AM

Was anyone more perfectly named for their job? Tony’s Snow-jobs about Bushian idiocy only helped sink the nation into the hole where we are now. – Posted by: Johnsy | July 12, 2008 at 06:58 AM

Good riddance , we still have a white house full of liars
and American soldiers being slaughtered. if Cheney strokes
then change will begin , as for Bush he is just to stupid
to die and when he dies bury him at home in IRAQ.
– Posted by: slimjim66 | July 12, 2008 at 07:30 AM

This outrage indicates why new legislation should be put in place to require a regular colonoscopy for Snow’s cohorts in propaganda. (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck etc) Only a careful inspection of their alimentary tracts will prevent their insolent, hatefilled cancer from developing and spreading. – Posted by: Passing LostAnglos | July 12, 2008 at 07:38 AM

The question begs to be asked, is it possible to die when you don’t have a soul.
– Posted by: Chad | July 12, 2008 at 09:38 AM

Oh YES HE WAS A WONDERFUL MAN AND A …..
PUUULLLEEEASE
THIS PERSON HAD A MAJOR PART IN THE MOST EVIL ADMINISTRATION THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN.
DEATH AND TORTURE, ILLEGAL WARS, WAR CRIMINAL SOLDIERS, GOOD RIDDANCE
CANCER WAS TOO GOOD FOR HIM
HOPE IT WAS PAINFUL.
NOW FOR THE REST OF THIS SCUMMY ADMINISTRATION. COME ON CANCER, DO YOUR GOOD WORK…………
– Posted by: perry | July 12, 2008 at 02:26 PM

I have frequently heard liberals talk about how hateful the concept of “hell” is and that condemning biblically-forbidden behaviors and warning about the judgment of hell is hateful. But now I see that liberals don’t mind talking about hell at all; they merely wish to reserve it for conservatives and those who actually believe in the Bible.

The Daily Kos, by all accounts, was even worse.

The hatred of the left must be pointed out. People need to see these people as they actually are. The people who talk about “tolerance” routinely shout down conservative speakers and broadcast outright visceral hatred for those with whom they disagree.

One of the posters to the LA Times blog had this to say:

All you right wingers would be saying much worse things if the same had happened to Ted Kennedy or Obama – you are nothing but trash and liars just like Snow job was. good riddance to bad rubbish. – Posted by: Alan | July 12, 2008 at 04:52 PM

Nope. When Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, I wrote a piece asking for prayer for the man. I don’t have the hatred for even Osama bin Laden that so many on the left publicly harbored for Tony Snow. I just don’t have that kind of hate and meanness in me.

Nor have I ever come across a “right wing hate site” that was even close to the outright viciousness that is routinely contained in major liberal blogs such as Media Matters and the Daily Kos (and now the LA Times!!!).

The liberal media is not only overtly ideologically biased, but is now actually providing a forum for the worst kind of hatred (one LA Times blog comment allowed by the moderator asked whether Tony Snow would be buried in his Nazi uniform), has sunk to levels that are downright despicable. It is no wonder that they are losing their readership and viewership in droves.

Liberals ought to be ashamed.