Friday, July 22, 2005

Blogger identifies Raleigh News & Observer bias

Do you think Raleigh's News & Observer confines its Democrat party passions to the editorial page and leaves them out of its news columns?

If you're about to say, "Yes," hold on.

You might want to first take a look at the posts blogger Scott Pierce at Right in Raleigh is putting up week after week. Here's just a part of one post:

Just imagine if the Republican Congress failed to pass a budget and Pres. Bush stepped in to mandate spending in areas he deemed important. The N&O headline writers would have a field day:

GOP Congress fails again to pass budget

Bush disregards Constitution in power play

Republican infighting causes budget grief

But here in N.C., the Dem. legislature has failed to pass a budget for the 3rd week. So the governor has usurped legislative powers to spend money on his pet projects. And can the N&O find one critic of this move for their front page story? No. But they do run this beauty from Dem. House Speaker Jim Black, "He's an education governor, and I'm an education speaker." Thanks Jim.

Does the writer find one taxpayer group to comment on how the Gov. is spending our money? No. But the N&O does quote one of the superintendents of schools who has received more money in the past and will get additional funds now from Easley, "things are really beginning to pay off."

You see what I mean about Scott?

After you visit Right in Raleigh, why not ask the N&O why it didn't tell us more about that school superintendent who thinks "things are really beginning to pay off?"

Pay off? What pay off?

If Ms. Roberts, why not Ms. Grunwald?

Can a wife's views on a public issue(s) tell us anything about what her husband thinks or how he might act?

MSM news organizations seem to be saying, "It depends on who we're talking about."

How else to explain the intense attention being paid to Jane Roberts, wife of Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts, while Mandy Grunwald, wife of Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, is virtually ignored?

On July 21, the LA Times ran a major story detailing Jane Roberts' activities as an attorney opposed to abortion. The Times told readers:

A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

On July 22, a Knight Ridder story about Judge Roberts said:

There are a number of clues suggesting that Roberts - a devout Roman Catholic whose wife does pro bono legal work for the Washington-based anti-abortion group Feminists for Life - personally opposes abortion.

While eager to inform and speculate concerning Jane Roberts' influence on her husband, MSM have been reluctant to even mention that longtime Democratic party activist and Sen. Clinton confidant Mandy Grunwald is Matt Cooper's wife.

I can't recall a single story about Grunwald's possible influence on Cooper in my paper, Raleigh's News&Observer. Has your paper said anything about it?

For sure, there's been no LA Times story that began:

A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But partisan politics are figuring prominently in the Independent Council's investigation into who disclosed Valerie Palme's CIA employment, with Matthew Cooper a major figure in the investigation. And with Cooper's politics unclear, Republicans and others expressed concern today that his wife's views might suggest Cooper also embraced efforts to overturn Rove.

MSM might explain their silence concerning Grunwald's possible influence on Cooper's reporting by noting that journalists observe standards and ethics that forbid them from letting a spouse's politics influence their reporting. Hence, there's "no story to tell" about Cooper-Grunwald.

But don't attorneys observe standards and ethics that forbid letting a spouse's politics influence them when they argue or judge law? Yet MSM feel there's a Roberts-Roberts story to tell.

Why such different MSM treatment of Jane Roberts and Mandy Grunwald?

I think it’s because most MSM have one standard for reporting on Republicans and another for Democrats.

How else would you explain it?

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Latest London bombings: Two questions and comments

It's good to hear the latest terrorist attack in London has done little physical damage.

There will of course be some predictable responses:

1) Who will be the first on Britain's Left to say, "See, more fallout from Iraq, and our teaming up with the Americans?"

There are so many Leftists that make those apologies, it's hard to say who

2) How long will it be before American MSM news organizations run stories quoting terror apologists touting the "Iraq made them do it. And careful not to get too close to the Americans" lines without any mention of people or facts disputing the apologists?

Well, this is Thursday. I'm guessing we'll see the American MSM carrying such stories by Saturday afternoon online and in Sunday's papers.

Stay tuned.

When Democrats demand "more information"

Most observers agree Democrats will seek to slow Judge Roberts' nomination process, hoping that someone somewhere uses the extra time to find a "nomination-killer."

One delay tactic senate judiciary committee Democrats are sure to use is a request for documents Roberts wrote while working in the White House Counsel's office during the Reagan years, and in the Solicitor-General's office during the first Bush presidency. They'll claim, "We can't really evaluate this candidate without them."

Democrats used the tactic when Miquel Estrada, who had served in the Solicitor General's office, was nominated to the appellate court. As expected the White House and Justice Department refused to release the documents, citing their privileged status.

At the time, all seven former solicitors general, four Republicans and three Democrats including Archibald Cox, sent a letter to the committee chair, Sen. Pat Leahy, expressing their opposition to the committee Democrats' request.

"Any attempt to intrude into the Office's highly privileged deliberations would come at the cost of the Solicitor General's ability to defend vigorously the United States' litigation interests -- a cost that also would be borne by Congress itself."

Their letter ended:

"Although we profoundly respect the Senate's duty to evaluate Mr. Estrada's fitness for the federal judiciary, we do not think that the confidentiality and integrity of internal deliberations should be sacrificed in the process."

With Democrats then in the majority, they were able to disregard the former attorneys general's letter and deny Estrada a vote, claiming the government's refusal to release the documents as their reason.

Estrada, who had received the American Bar Association's highest rating by unanimous vote of its committee on judicial nominations, waited 2 years for some resolution. There being none, he asked that his nomination be withdrawn.

The outcome in Roberts' case will be very different. The Democrats will make their documents requests. The White House and Justice will make no comment until they've "read and considered" the requests. There'll be some back-and-forthing which should buy the Democrats a little delay time.

During that relatively brief delay, the former solicitor generals' letter will be a great asset to Roberts' supporters as they explain to the American people why the documents should not be made public.

Then, after an exchange of letters, some press conferences, lots of intemperate speeches from certain senators, and screams from People for the American Way, Republicans will say it's time to move on. Roberts will get his vote.

Republicans are in the majority now. Elections matter.

A facsimile copy of the former attorneys general's letter is here in pdf form.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

No wonder Sen. Schumer's upset

Ed Morrissey at has an excellent post on the Roberts nomination. Ed notes that New York's Senator Charles Schumer is one of those especially upset with the President's nomination of Justice Roberts for the Supreme Court.

The following may help explain why. It's part of an answer Roberts gave to Schumer during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Roberts nomination to the appellate bench.

My own judicial philosophy begins with an appreciation of the limited role of a judge in our system of divided powers. Judges are not to legislate and are not to execute the laws. . . . My judicial philosophy accordingly insists upon some rigor in ensuring that judges properly confine themselves to the adjudication of the case before them, and seek neither to legislate broadly not to administer the law generally in deciding that case.

Maalox is good for heartburn, Senator

Hat Tips: Michelle and

Powerline guys react to Robert's nomination

The attorneys at have a lot to say about Justice Roberts' nomination.

They say it in language non-lawyers can understand. They like the man and admire his professional work. They do a great job of explaining the important cases Roberts has been involved in as a litigator and justice on the D.C. appellate bench.

In case you don't have time to go to Powerline for a while, you should at least enjoy this John Hinderaker paragraph right now:

Pop the champagne corks, conservatives. Roberts is a fantastic choice, a brilliant and bulletproof conservative. And it was fun to see Pat Leahy and Chuck Schumer on television tonight; they looked just awful. After President Bush's terrific, upbeat presentation of Roberts, and Roberts' graceful, brief talk, Leahy and Schumer sounded like they had just dropped in from another planet. They were dour, hateful, and came across as sad and pathetic minions who have been sent on a hopeless mission by their bosses at "People for the American Way.


Tuesday, July 19, 2005

An excellent Wilson/Rove summary

Looking for an excellent Wilson/Rove summary?

Then read today's lead editorial in the Washington Times. It's detailed, understandable and dispassionate.

But be warned. The editorial's headline, "Knifing Rove, whitewashing Wilson-Palme," suggests it's a fire-breather.

If you have levelheaded friends who don't care for Carl Rove or President Bush and have followed the Wilson/Palme/Rove saga with interest, ask them to read the editorial and point out anything that's not true and fairly stated.

Will it be Justice Priscilla Owen?

Tom Goldstein at The Supreme Court Nomination Blog stand by his prediction that President Bush will nominate Appellate Court Justice Priscilla Owen.

Goldstein also comments and links to an article in The Hill on likely nominees.

Today was my first visit to The Supreme Court Nomination Blog. It's first-rate with many links to sites relevant to the nomination process including The White House and Senate Judiciary sites, interest group sites categorized by Liberal and Conservative, and many more. Take a look.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Monday, July 18, 2005

Some Novak reporting goes unchallenged

At there's a story on the Wilson/Palme tale that's a classic hit piece. Primary targets: Rove and Libby. Objective: Hurt Bush.

But the Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallstein story does provide a surely unintended laugh in this sentence:

(Wilson) said a friend who saw Novak on the street reported that Novak told him, "Wilson is an asshole and his wife works for the CIA."

When Wilson pauses for breath, do you think he'll notice no one's challenging either of Novak findings?

Grand imam's statement is newsworthy

At you'll find an article that begins:

The grand imam of Egypt's Al Azhar Mosque, the Sunni world's most prestigious seat of learning, called on the people of Iraq to unite to rid the country of terrorists and urged other countries to help.

"The Iraqis, men, women, children and elderly people should unite and work solidly together to chase those evil terrorists everywhere until Iraq's land is purged of their filth and viciousness," Mohammad Saeed Tantawi said in a statement on Thursday.

"All other countries and individuals should extend help to Iraq to enable its people to exterminate those wantons and despots," Tantawi said.

Why aren't MSM news organizations paying more attention to the grand imam's statement?

Did anyone see it reported in the Raleigh News & Observer?

You can read the whole article here.

Hat Tip:

On Wilson's story: Malkin gives no cover to MSM

Could you believe MSM news organizations are ignoring or underreporting details of the who, how and why of Valerie Palme's outing?

Michelle Malkin posts this morning with a link to an Andrew McCarthy article at NRO online: "Did the CIA 'Out' Valerie Palme?"

McCarthy points to important information regarding Palme that should be getting lots of MSM attention.

Malkin urges us to ask NY Times public editor Byron Calame why the Times isn't reporting on the information McCarthy provides.

Malkin's post has Calame's e-mail and snail mail addresses and phone number. Take a look. Then I think you'll go straight to McCarthy's article.

Sunday, July 17, 2005

Outing of Time reporter's wife upsets many

(Welcome Mudville Gazette readers and others. This is a humor piece with some stuff made up. But the matter of Matt Cooper's wife being a Democratic activist and confidant of Senator Clinton is absolutely true; hence the links. I hope you enjoy my "reporting.")

Major MSM news organizations and Democrats are expected to demand an independent council investigation to determine the identity of the person or persons who outed Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper's wife, Clinton advisor and Democratic strategist Mandy Grunwald.

Neither Cooper nor Grunwald, described by the Washington Post as a "confidante" of Senator Hillary Clinton, was available for comment.

But highly placed MSM reporters and editors, who asked to remain anonymous, say they are shocked and outraged that Cooper's wife's identity was made public.

"We're not dealing here with a case of the public's right to know," one editor said. "Leaking Grunwald's name has jeopardized Cooper's credibility. And there's never a public right to know when what becomes known could hurt a reporter's credibility. Period. End of story."

One person who agreed to comment on the record was former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. He spoke following a news conference held in Senator Charles Schumer's office to announce Wilson's terms for book and movie rights to his autobiography.

"The deliberate and malicious leaking of this now irreparably harmed woman's name is nearly as great a crime as was the leaking of my wife's name," said Wilson.

Wilson pledged to do all he could to assure the appointment of an independent council, adding that if he was not selected for the post, a good choice would be New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

Hat Tip:

NYT public editor ducks op-ed problem

Michelle Malkin links to NYT public editor Byron Calame's July 17 column which begins:

Upholding the journalistic integrity of The New York Times requires a lot of care.

That care apparently doesn't include responding to e-mails noting factual errors in a NYT op-ed column and requesting an explanation.

I've twice asked Calame to read and respond to my post: New York Times op-ed makes false claims.

The false claims appeared in a June 28 op-ed by Lucian K. Truscott IV in which he agrues that the Army lies to young officers, and therefore has trouble retaining them.

There was a time when the Army did not have a problem retaining young leaders - men like Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and my grandfather, Lucian K. Truscott Jr. Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army in the 1920's and 30's when nobody wanted to think of the military, much less pay for it. They had made a pact with each other and with their country, and all sides were going to keep it."

Truscott’s claims that the five future generals “endured the horrors of World War I trenches” and “made a pact with each other” are false, something he, as a West Point grad and grandson of one of the officers who was a friend of the other four, surely knows.

If you're saying to yourself that Eisenhower, Bradley and Lucian K. Truscott Jr., one of World War II's great corps commanders, never went overseas during World War I; and that Marshall never saw combat while he was in France during WWI; and that their biographers have never said the five officers made a pact with one another, you'd be right on all counts.

So how can I get Calame and the Times to acknowledge the false claims presented as facts in an op-ed column?

Please take a look at my post and send along your suggestions.

Thanks, John

Iraq-Al Qaeda connections

NBC News is reporting that Iraq has today taken the first legal step to begin Saddam's trial. The trial will surely involve evidence of Saddam's contacts and cooperation with Al Qaeda.

The current Weekly Standard has a special report, The Mother of All Connections, detailing extensive Saddam-Al Qaeda connections going back to the 1980s. The connections were so strong that the Clinton administration, for example, publicly accused Saddam's Iraq of supplying Al Qaeda with chemical weapons expertise and material.

Palmetto Pundit posts concerning a report ABC News aired in the late 90s detailing Saddam-Al Qaeda connections. He links to audio and video versions as well as related posts by other bloggers.

Unfortunately, the Clinton administration's Saddam-Al Qaeda findings and the ABC News report are now ignored by most MSM news organizations.

Why doesn't ABC's News do an updated report on the Saddam-Al Qaeda connections? It would be timely given that the connections will be brought up during Saddam's trial.

In the meantime, take a look at Palmetto's post.

NBC's Russett plays softball with Time's Cooper

Just watched Tim Russett's NBC Meet the Press interview with Time reporter Matt Cooper concerning Wilson/Plame but mostly Rove. (Transcript will be available later.)

Russett first gave Cooper an open mike. He invited Cooper to read from a story he's written that will appear in tomorrow's Time magazine.

Then Russett began tossing softball questions. For example, "Where do you think this is leading?" He followed that up with other equally challenging questions: "How did you find the grand jury?" and "Will this effect your career?"

I think if Russett had had more time, he might have asked Cooper: "So Matt, will what's happening force you to change your vacation plans?"