CNN, Palin and Me [Byron York]
the corner
Yesterday CNN's Drew Griffin addressed his misquote of my article during that interview with Sarah Palin:
Unfortunately, in my question, I botched it. I misquoted York by using the word "I" instead of reading his direct quote, which I had in front of me, which attributes the statement to the media.
I thought it was a very good article, Wolf. I was going to get it — use it to get the governor to answer the question why her, you know, successful record in Alaska wasn't getting out. She had no trouble answering that question and in no way did I intend to misquote the National Review…
I've since called Byron York and his editor, Rich Lowry, to explain what happened and told them both that I regret any harm this may have brought.
Just for the record, I've said that I thought the bigger harm in all this was to Palin, who was hit on-camera with an out-of-nowhere quote. But as far as I'm concerned, Griffin's explanation is fine with me, and I consider this closed.
Re: CNN & Palin [Jonah Goldberg]
Before Byron's post closes the issue for all time, I'd just like to make a quick point. Some people want to blame CNN's bias, others its incompetence. I think in many respects this is a false choice. Every institution has its biases. Every instutution is prone to groupthink. Drew Griffin might have made the same mistake no matter what, but generally the more ideologically diverse an organization the more likely it is that mistakes will be caught. Take the Dan Rather memogate story. It would not have required a rocket scientist to catch the myriad problems with that story. Indeed, all it would have taken is someone in the room who was not only skeptical, but who actually did not want the story to be true and so was keen to find flaws with it. 60 Minutes in general, and Dan Rather in particular, had no such person on its payroll. So egregious errors made it through the system without anyone saying, "Wait a minute, maybe we shouldn't rely on a blind orthodontist with an ax to grind be our document expert." (I exaggerate for dramatic effect). If Drew Griffin had a conservative associate producer who could spend 2 minutes discussing what Byron's story was about, odds are that Griffin wouldn't have made his outrageous mistake.
What about the ideological consensus at places like NR or the New Republic for that matter? Well, first of all, it requires extra special vigilance and care (attributes Byron has in spades, by the way). But opinion magazines generally aren't as reportorial as places like CNN. And it is in the news gathering area where the mistakes I'm discussing are usually made. Indeed, The New Republic's biggest scandals were the direct result — I would argue — from its editors simply wanting the (false) news they were getting to be true. Hence Stephen Glass's and Pvt. Beauchamp's fictions.
It seems to me that scientists understand this problem very well, which is why they have such stringent rules to confirm their findings. Everybody wants to find a cure for cancer. Everybody wants their theory to be proven right. So, scientists send their work out to other scientists who may be just as eager to find a cure for cancer, but not nearly so eager that their competition finds it first. So those peers work very hard to find the weak spots in the theory. Mistakes still make it through, but the error rate in scientific studies (which is remarkably high, I'm told) is still much, much, lower than what we find in New York Times, CBS or CNN as a matter of course.
A Bad, Obamite, Times-y Smell [Jay Nordlinger]
A friend of mine quotes from the New York Times's editorial endorsement of Obama, and then comments. First, the quote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mr. Obama is clear that the nation's tax structure must be changed to make it fairer. That means the well-off Americans who have benefited disproportionately from Mr. Bush's tax cuts will have to pay some more. Working Americans, who have seen their standard of living fall and their children's options narrow, will benefit. Mr. Obama wants to raise the minimum wage and tie it to inflation, restore a climate in which workers are able to organize unions if they wish and expand educational opportunities.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And my friend's comment: "I love the second and third sentences, juxtaposing 'well-off Americans' and 'working Americans.' That's right: Those Americans who are well off aren't working. They are just fat cats sitting around, letting their money grows on trees. The whole editorial is so offensive, it sickens."
I should mention that this particular friend is very hard-working — in fact, inordinately so. He is also not very political. He just smells nonsense — and dangerous, confiscatory, growth-killing nonsense — when it's in the air.
Unleashing Fred [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Fred's rally:
It's time for those of us who are concerned about our nation's future to focus on what is at stake in this year's elections. This is a time of great challenge for our country. We know that somewhere in the world our worst enemies either have, or are trying to get their hands on, the most dangerous weapons known to man. Small rogue nations are developing nuclear weapons and threaten our allies. Large nations are engaged in massive military buildups.
At home we are girding for the possible onset of a recession. Very soon we will go to the polls and set a path that will determine how we respond to these challenges. It will be a decision that we will make not only for ourselves but very possibly for generations to come. The path we choose will depend upon our vision of America's role in the world and most importantly our vision of our own people.
Senator Obama and his campaign see an historic opportunity—a political opportunity. They know that in times of fear and uncertainty the promise of a safe haven is well received. But there is no sanctuary in what they offer.
Their "haven" is the same old tired refuge of liberalism: the federal government. And the candidate – the least experienced, most liberal in two generations – represents a last gasp at imposing the failed 1960s radical, leftist agenda that could never succeed in normal times.
Let me make it as plain as I know how. If Senator Obama is elected President with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, this country will make a dramatic shift to the left, such as we have never seen before.
Senator Obama and the Democratic Congress will be unrestrained and unrepentant in making our country as never before more divided and more dependent upon a dramatically larger and intrusive federal government.
They have already promised $900 billion in new spending, and we will see additional stimulus packages, and so-called "investment" spending to fulfill their pent up wish lists. Entitlements, which are already destined to bankrupt the country unless reformed, will be expanded in the guise of "health care reform."
We will see across the board tax increases on income, investments, dividends and upon the occurrence of death. Why? Because the voracious appetite of the federal government will demand it. Obama's so-called "tax cuts" for people who don't pay income taxes aren't tax cuts at all, just additional spending in the form of governments checks, paid for by us … the American tax payers. Are we really expected to believe that the insatiable spending appetite of the most liberal government in American history, in control of all three branches, will be satisfied by only raising revenue on the top 5% of tax payers? We've seen this before … when Bill Clinton campaigned on a middle class tax cut and, when elected, imposed a middle class tax increase.
All of this is important, because how we respond to our economic challenge is more important than the crisis itself. For the last 25 years the United States, and indeed the world, has enjoyed unprecedented prosperity. You wouldn't know it from listening to Obama, but worldwide over 1 billion people have been able to lift themselves out of poverty. This is due to America's influence, from our defense of freedom in World War II to the Cold War, to the ascendency of our free-market capitalism, the adoption of open trade policies, and globalization. Yet some say our current financial difficulties are evidence that we should turn our back on our founding, free market principles … that it's time for big changes.
But in a world that is increasingly inter-connected by jobs, trade and global finance, how our economy is viewed by the rest of the world is extremely important to America's economic well being. The worst thing in the world we could do is appear to be unfriendly to investment and trade with an economy constrained and made uncompetitive by layers upon layers of new regulations, and bogged down in the divisiveness of class warfare. Yet if you are to take them at their word this is precisely the direction that an Obama administration and a Democratic Congress would take us, turning a short term recession into a long term economic decline for the United States.
And while our regulatory regime needs to be examined and improved, we should be clear: capitalism is not the cause of our nation's economic challenges. The subprime mortgage crisis was not rooted in lack of regulation, but in bad policies made by Democrats in Congress that forced banks to give mortgages to people who could not afford the houses they were buying. These are the same politicians who protected the excesses and fraudulent conduct of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They are the same ones who now want to control the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars to solve the problem they helped create, and who tried to slip $200 billion into the first bailout bill for their political cronies in ACORN, the organization that is now systemically perpetrating voter registration fraud around the country. This record, Obama and the Democrats say, entitles them to total control of all of the levers of power in Washington.
Under an Obama-Reed-Pelosi scenario nothing will restrain them from making the secret ballot in union elections be a thing of the past. The so called "fairness doctrine" will likely be passed, restricting free speech on talk radio, possibly even the Internet.
Obama's idea of "health care reform is moving more people away from private insurance into a Medicare-type government-run program. His education plan? Look no further than the federal bureaucracy that seems to work for the NEA, not the American people. But his plan to defend the sanctity of life? There would be none.
And if Obama and Congress somehow fail legislatively they will turn to the courts, because they will be able to nominate and confirm whomever they want to the federal judiciary. In all likelihood we would lose the Supreme Court to left-wing social, economic and even military policy-making for a generation.
Obama and the Democrats believe that Americans in a time of crisis will be willing to sacrifice their freedoms, abandon their founding principles and common sense and ease into the mediocrity of the warm embrace of the Washington papa bear who will take care of all of our problems for us.
These are not the ideals of the America that drew brave men and women from all over the world to our shores. In most cases, they were fleeing nations with the heavy hand of government, intolerance and class warfare. They risked everything to experience our Founding Fathers' notion of a limited government with powers that were delineated, checked and balanced, in a land where they could live and prosper in a free, dynamic, upwardly mobile society – the kind that existed no where else in the world. But Obama and his liberal friends don't see things that way.
The liberal agenda is based upon the belief that there are elites among us who know more and know better than the rest of us. And that with the application of their intellect and power … and our money … they can impose regulations and establish programs, bureaus and agencies that will solve all the problems of the masses'.
Senator Obama and his supporters essentially see society not as dynamic and changing or full of opportunity. They see one that is divided by economic classes into which every one of us is permanently assigned. In their worldview, those in a lesser economic class are presumably resentful and envious. So it's the government's job to level things out … or as Senator Obama would say "spread the wealth around." It's about dividing the pie among static classes, not trying to make the pie bigger for everyone or creating opportunity in an upwardly mobile society.
This is the reason why they do not understand Joe the Plumber. Because he doesn't have a higher income today they assume that he never will and that he believes he never will. They expect him to resent anyone whose doing better than he is, instead of planning to do better himself. They don't understand the Joes of the world. Never have. Never will.
This political philosophy has a long tradition. At best it can be labeled a benign welfare state. But history tells us that it can lead to tyranny or economic turmoil or both. And … most important … it has never found favor in the United States – not during the Great Depression, in times of war, or any other time.
It's because in this country we have a different view. We know that people do better when given opportunity and responsibility. It has to do with our view of the nature of man. We believe that man is supposed to be kept, fed, and protected from the elements by a master. We believe that man was meant to be free—entitled to be free. It's an inalienable right, endowed by our Creator. When free and inspired man can achieve great things – for his family, community and his nation. In fact this belief is what we built our nation on.
When times of stress occur as they inevitably do in the life every great nation just as in the lives of all of us, our policies may need to be revisited and perhaps changed but our principles do not change—because they are rooted in the very fabric of our nation, derived from God and have been paid for when the blood of millions of brave people. A temporary economic recession doesn't change any of that.
Let there be no doubt that an Obama administration and a heavily Democratically controlled Congress would change the face of this nation. Only you can decide whether or not the ways in which they would change it would be a good thing.
I don't believe it. And John McCain doesn't. John McCain's entire life has been devoted to defending those principles that made our country great. It has been one of duty, honor, dedication and sacrifice. He has been involved in every major domestic and foreign policy issue for three decades and has fought to reform and change Washington in ways that would change our country for the better.
Responsible change is the essence of conservatism. We must change in order to preserve what is best about our country. We have always been able to accommodate constructive change without turning our back on our first principles. We must do it again.
However, that does not include staking everything upon the eloquence and inexperience of one who has towed the extreme liberal and partisan line his entire political life, much as he tries to blur that fact now.
This is the choice that we have in this election. Let's hope for our nation's sake that we choose well.
The Branded one.
New Witness for the Penn. Acorn Case [Greg Pollowitz]
WSJ's Marketwatch:
A former Washington-based ACORN employee will testify next week that the community-organizing group did "minimal to non-existent" checking to make sure voter registrations were authentic despite claims otherwise, the state Republican Party revealed in Commonwealth Court on Thursday.
Anita Moncrief worked with Project Vote and ACORN in Washington from 2005 to 2008 and has not testified against the groups before, according to state GOP attorney Heather Heidelbaugh.
Moncrief called the Pittsburgh-based Heidelbaugh on Tuesday about testifying, the lawyer told reporters outside the courtroom, with "inside information" that will "shed light" on ACORN's activities.
Bono, Yes. But Con? No. [Mark Steyn]
A veritable hit parade on the Times op-ed page:
U2's Bono is the latest columnist to be hired by New York's esteemed newspaper. Editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal announced the decision at Columbia's School of Journalism this week...
The New York Times also expressed an interest in bringing Queen's Brian May back to the pages of the paper. The guitarist – who recently earned his doctorate in astrophysics - has already written about space for the New York Times website. Rosenthal said he was a fan, too, of previous op-eds by Bruce Springsteen.
Though rockers and pop stars are welcome, another group faces an uphill battle on to the New York Times' editorial page - conservatives. "[US Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice is a particularly bad op-ed writer," Rosenthal said. However, the problem doesn't end there. "The problem with conservative columnists," Rosenthal said, "is that many of them lie in print."
Oh, well, that's okay then. As Bono famously told Benny and Bjorn from Abba, "We are not worthy."
Re 'Bono, Yes. But Con? No.' [Jay Nordlinger]
Mark, when you posted that item, I thought it was a joke, or parody: something from The Onion. But it's real?
According to the Guardian, the Times editor said, "The problem with conservative columnists is that many of them lie in print." More than liberal columnists? Well, I like it when people such as Andrew Rosenthal (the editor in question) tell the truth about us — that is, the truth about what they think about us.
And when it comes to Times editors named Rosenthal: They don't make 'em like Abe anymore.
corner.nationalreview.com |
