SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: HPilot who wrote (21659)2/22/2008 3:02:58 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224649
 
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: February 22, 2008
DALLAS — With the mood of her campaign darkened by the death of a motorcycle officer escorting her motorcade Friday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed to carry her campaign beyond the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, despite the lengthening odds of her capturing the Democratic presidential nomination.

In television interviews and at two voter rallies here in Texas, Mrs. Clinton returned to the theme of her surprisingly reflective closing remarks at the debate with Senator Barack Obama on Thursday night.

In those remarks, which some took as a valedictory to her long campaign for the nomination, she said that, “whatever happens” in the election contest, she and Mr. Obama would prosper.

Aides insisted the remark was not an admission that she believed she would lose the race but rather an attempt to refocus the campaign from the drama of the two compelling and historic candidates battling for the nomination to the struggles of ordinary voters.

“You know I made it very clear that this election is about all of you,” she said at a morning rally on a chilly street corner in Dallas Friday morning. “It’s about your futures, your families, your jobs.”

“For me,” she added a moment later, “it really is about what we can do together.”

Her opponent, Mr. Obama, spent Friday campaigning in parts of southern and central Texas, targeting areas that are home to many Hispanic voters, who are seen as potentially decisive in the March 4 Texas primary. His first appearance was at the University of Texas-Pan American Friday, his first in the strongly Democratic Rio Grande Valley, where Hillary Clinton has a long history of support. After that, he planned to hold rallies in Corpus Christi and Austin.

In an interview on the CBS “Morning Show,” Mrs. Clinton was asked directly if her closing debate remarks meant she thought she was going to lose the race. Mr. Obama has won 11 straight contests since the Super Tuesday races on Feb. 5, all by double-digit margins.



To: HPilot who wrote (21659)2/22/2008 3:38:59 PM
From: Ann Corrigan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224649
 
I seeth your point and seethe with distain towards failed liberal political policies.



To: HPilot who wrote (21659)2/22/2008 4:22:54 PM
From: TideGlider  Respond to of 224649
 
NEW YORK TIMES STILL BACKS 'GREATEST LIAR' REPORTER
Walter Duranty deliberately covered up the starvation of millions of Ukrainian peasants by Stalin's government
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com, America's News Page
West Palm Beach, Florida, Monday, May 19, 2003



Fired New York Times reporter Jayson Blair may have found inspiration for his outrageous lies and make-believe stories from another Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter, Walter Duranty.

And despite the fact that Duranty has been found to be one of the greatest and most dangerous liars in the history of journalism, the Times still proudly displays him as a Pulitzer winner.

Assigned to the Soviet Union in the 1930s, Duranty became a willing accomplice to mass murderer Joseph Stalin and deliberately covered up the starvation of millions of Ukrainian peasants by Stalin's government.

Duranty claimed that reports of the holocaust were false.

British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge, who also served in Moscow with Duranty, called him "the greatest liar of any journalist I have ever met."

In March 1933, while admitting that there might have been "serious food shortages" in the Ukraine, Duranty insisted that "there [was] no actual starvation." Actually, he wrote, nobody died from starvation, just "widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition."

Duranty knew this was a lie.

Duranty, a British citizen, reported to his nation's Moscow Embassy that he was fully aware of the extent of the horror that took place in the Ukraine, which he had visited under Soviet auspices.

"The Ukraine has been bled white," he told the embassy. He said he thought it "quite possible that as many as 10 million people may have died directly or indirectly from lack of food in the Soviet Union during the past year."

STARVING PEASANTS

In one conversation, he told British diplomat William Strang why he didn't think starving peasants were all that important.

"There are millions of people in Russia," he said, "whom it is fairly safe to leave in want. But the industrial proletariat, about 10 percent of the population, must be at all costs fed if the revolution is to be safeguarded."

Eugene Lyons wrote that the Soviets had let Duranty into the famine area ahead of other correspondents because they considered him one of the "technically 'friendly' reporters, whose dispatches might be counted upon to take the sting out of anything subsequent travelers might report."

Duranty dined with Lyons on returning. "He gave us his fresh impressions in brutally frank terms and they added up to a picture of ghastly horror," Lyons wrote in his USSR memoir, "Assignment in Utopia." "His estimate of the dead from famine was the most startling I had as yet heard from anyone."

Such was the reality Duranty kept from readers of the New York Times. Why did he not correct false reporting of the previous year?

He had just won a Pulitzer Prize for writing that collectivization had succeeded. To report otherwise would mean admitting error. So Duranty lied.

Other reporters were more honest. Malcolm Muggeridge did a series of articles in The Guardian describing "starving in its absolute sense. ..."

No one paid attention, and Muggeridge found himself unemployable when he returned to Britain.

Later, a young reporter named Gareth Jones took a three-week walking trip through the famine area and confirmed Muggeridge's findings, describing starvation on a mass scale in Guardian articles.

Yet Duranty wrote that during his visit to the Ukraine in 1933, "the people looked healthier and more cheerful than [he] had expected, although they told grim tales of their sufferings in the past two years."

NO DOUBT

Writing about his trip to the Ukraine in April that year, he "had no doubt that the solution to the agrarian problem had been found."

It had. Planned mass starvation took care of the problem.

Did the Times know that Duranty was playing Stalin's tunes? They deny it, but according to Accuracy in Media, there is evidence they were partly in on the con that significantly affected American and Western views about Soviet Russia.

According to Accuracy in Media chairman Reed Irvine, "Duranty was to claim that the Times went along with his decision to ignore negative news." Irvine added that at a conference on the Ukraine starvation at the City University of New York, Dr. James E. Mace revealed a cabled report of an interview Duranty had in June 1931 with A.W. Kliefoth of the U.S. Embassy in Berlin.

The cable read: "Duranty pointed out that an agreement with the New York Times and the Soviet authorities, his official dispatches always reflect the official opinion of the Soviet regime and not his own."

Dr. Mace, staff director of the U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine, found the document in the National Archives and offered it to the New York Times, which did not publish the information.

When Irvine and late AIM president Murray Baron raised the subject with Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger in 1988, Sulzberger said that he had reviewed Times archives and "there is nothing in our files to indicate anything like that. ..."

Duranty, a one-legged, alcohol-swilling, opium-smoking sexual deviant despised by the majority of his colleagues, was partly responsible for one of the most harmful actions ever taken by the United States in connection with the murderous Stalin regime - the U.S. recognition of the Soviet government by Franklin Roosevelt.

Roosevelt's action kept Stalin's government afloat and helped lead to decades of Stalin's brutality and the slaughter of untold millions and, later, the Cold War.

As AIM reported: "In November 1933 he [Duranty] stood in the Oval Office of the White House as President Roosevelt announced the diplomatic recognition of the USSR - an initiative he would not have dared had the public known of the horrendous death toll of Stalin's policies. Duranty called the diplomatic recognition 'ten days that steadied the world.' Duranty was granted a rare personal interview with Stalin, whom he liked to call the "greatest living statesman ... a quiet, unobtrusive man."

In her book "Stalin's Apologist," British historian S.J. (Sally) Taylor wrote:

FANNING THE FLAMES

"As a main source of information for the leftists of the 1930s, Duranty told them what they wanted to hear, fanning the flames of Western Communism. Everybody quoted Duranty - Edmund Wilson, Beatrice Webb, the entire group of intellectuals who admired the Soviet experiment. ... His stubborn chronicle of Soviet achievements made him the doyen of left-leaning Westerners who believed that what happened inside Soviet Russia held the key to the future for the rest of the world."

Booklist said of him in 1935, "Almost everyone in the English-speaking world who endeavors to keep up with what goes on in Soviet Russia knows the name Walter Duranty."

Such was Duranty's reputation, and that of the Times, that correspondents in Moscow followed his lead in writing fairy tales about the Soviet Union.

Whenever confronted with the truth about Soviet brutality, Duranty would say, "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs," a phrase often picked up by those seeking to excuse excesses by tyrannical regimes.

According to Reed Irvine, the man's portrait still hangs in the gallery of Pulitzer winners alongside such faces as Abe Rosenthal, William L. Laurence and Hanson Baldwin.

In recent years the Times has added a caveat beside Duranty's name on the list of Pulitzer Prizes that reads: "Walter Duranty, for reporting of the news from Russia. (Other writers in The Times and elsewhere have discredited this coverage.)"

RISING CHORUS

Irvine told NewsMax a similar note is now displayed on Duranty's portrait, which publisher Sulzberger says he won't take down until the prize is taken back, not something that appears to be about to happen, although there is a rising chorus of demand that it should be.

It seems that neither the Times nor the Pulitzer board has any sense of shame. No wonder Jayson Blair lasted as long as he did at the Times. It's a wonder the paper didn't nominate him for a Pulitzer.


artukraine.com



To: HPilot who wrote (21659)2/22/2008 5:04:38 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224649
 
Proud Yet, Michelle?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election 2008: Michelle Obama didn't seem to think there was anything in her country to be proud of until her husband's presidential campaign took off. Maybe she should drop the politics and open a newspaper.
Barack Obama tried to play down his wife's statement, but it's not the sort of remark that can be spun away. To say that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country," and trying to justify it as pride in a political campaign, carries a casually stark assumption that there's nothing within this country that's really worth praising.

But outside the Obama campaign bubble, great things are happening, things that have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with who we are. Consider the news so far this week:

• On Wednesday, the U.S. Navy shot down a dying satellite over the Pacific on a first try, hitting the target 133 miles up and traveling at 22,000 miles an hour in a 10-second window. The whole operation took just days to announce and pull off, sending a clear message to our foes about America's lead in technology, human talent and can-do spirit. This comes only because we live in a democracy.

• Also on Wednesday, the Space Shuttle Atlantis made another flawless landing after a textbook mission. The operation demonstrated American know-how and the courage of our astronauts. The success follows devastating setbacks earlier this decade and underlines that the U.S. is never defeated by them. Most Americans find this worth cheering about.

• On Tuesday, Gen. David Petraeus, commander of coalition forces in Iraq, was seen walking around Baghdad with no helmet or protective armor, another sign the surge is working. Facts bear this out: Violence is down 60%, and reconciliation is under way. This follows the general's optimistic talk about an end to this mission as democracy takes hold. This is how Americans define victory, and for this, too, we can be proud.

• On Sunday, President Bush was greeted by millions of cheering Africans after having sent $5 billion in aid to strengthen democracies and diminish threats such as AIDS and malaria. Bush showed that the U.S. favors strengthening democracies, no matter how small or strategically insignificant. As crowds thundered approval, Bush sent the signal that America will help states that foster human development. His action shares our hope — and our pride.

Comparing that to a pride in a political campaign — of which they will be the beneficiaries — somehow diminishes the Obamas. If they aspire to real leadership, they will rise above politics and start recognizing the achievements most of us already value.



To: HPilot who wrote (21659)2/22/2008 5:09:40 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224649
 
All That's Left For Clinton Is A Graceful Exit
By LAWRENCE KUDLOW | Posted Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Allow me a dose of hardened market realism concerning Barack Obama's landslide victory in Wisconsin: The race is over. Hillary Clinton is over. Her electability is over. Bill Clinton's political invincibility is over. The Clinton Restoration is over.

It's over.

Obama got to the far left faster than Hillary did. He out-organized her, out-fundraised her, out-speechified her, out-hustled her, out-dressed her and out-presidentialed her. He outbid Hillary for votes, one promised government check at a time. His 17-point margin of victory in Wisconsin was incredible. It says he can't be stopped.

Outside of the wacko ultra-left Madison college population, which is even worse than the Ohio State population, Wisconsin is a lot like Ohio. And Ohio campuses will go for Obama.

Think faculty voters, grimly determined for a left-wing takeover of America "from the bottom up," to use the Saul Alinsky community-organizer phrase. As goes Wisconsin, so goes Ohio.

Not even Hillary's last-minute bashing of business, free trade and free-market capitalism — which was a complete repudiation of her husband's presidency — could save her. Obama got there first, with a style and elegance that Hillary simply couldn't match.

And it came out of nowhere. On the eve of the Wisconsin primary, Hillary did a hard-left imitation of John Edwards' populist and demagogic soak-the-rich rhetoric. She trashed some of the greatest businesses in America — oil, credit-card, insurance and pharmaceutical firms; Wall Street and lending firms.

It all must have come as quite a shock to the alumni of the Bill Clinton White House who are working for her campaign.

Robert Rubin may have been too busy tending to Citigroup's subprime collapse to keep Hillary on the reservation. But where were Wall Street's Roger Altman and Washington's Gene Sperling when Hillary discarded the pinstripes for the polyester lefty-union pantsuit?

Bashing business comes naturally to Obama. But for Hillary, it was a complete failure.

Exit polls from Wisconsin say the trade protectionists went with Obama. Union members? Obama. People who think the economy is in trouble? Obama. Folks who don't think it's in trouble? Obama. People making less than $50,000 a year? Obama. More than $50,000 a year? Obama.

And it only gets worse.

Voters went with Obama on health care by 8 points, on the economy by 16 points and on Iraq by 20 points. Churchgoers and non-churchgoers went with Obama. Most qualified to be commander in chief? Obama. College degree or no college degree? Obama. Democrats, Republicans and independents went with Obama. So did blacks and whites.

White women did, in fact, lean toward Hil-lary, by a small 52% to 47% margin. But Hil-lary got only 31% of the male vote, while tying the female vote. White males? They went with Obama by a full 29 points.

Obama won both married men and women, and he tied on unmarried women — a heretofore Hillary stronghold. Most likely to unite the country? Obama, by almost 30 points. Most interested in improving relations with the rest of the world? Obama, 56 to 40.

You think these trends are going to change in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania? I don't — no matter what last-gasp neutron-negativism tactics the Clinton team employs.

Bash Obama for plagiarizing Deval Patrick? That negativism backfired. Go after Michelle Obama's incredible anti-American speech? Women are coming around to Obama, so try again.

Go super-negative over the next two weeks? That'll mean Obama beats Hillary by 35 points instead of 20. Lift the sanctions on the Michigan and Florida delegates? That's an Obama trump card. Bribe or rent the superdelegates? Make my day, Obama is thinking.

If Hillary wants to preserve her career as a professional politician, her best bet is to pull back in Texas and Ohio as a prelude to withdrawal. Bill will say no, because his career is even deader than hers. But Hillary has more class than her husband. She also has some vague sense of reality — of the difference between right and wrong.

The Intrade pay-to-play prediction market showed Obama with a 10-point gain after Wisconsin, giving him an insurmountable 81 to 19 lead. It's as if Hillary has suddenly become a steeply inverted yield curve, with a rapidly declining credit rating and a liquidity pool that's quickly drying up.

She won't be able to raise two wooden nickels going forward. Not even Bill can raise enough money in Dubai to keep her out of bankruptcy.

The market has officially pulled the plug on Hillary, terminating her campaign. What's left for her now is to muster some grace, humility and character, and begin the process of pulling out. To do otherwise will destroy the Democratic Party, and what's left of the Clintons' badly tarred and tattered reputation.