Sunday, October 05, 2008

AP pro-Obama-Ayers spin

The AP has no problem with Sen. Barack Obama’s associations with unrepentant terrorist and “guy in the neighborhood” Bill Ayers. After all, while Ayers bombed government buildings and encouraged others to attack government buildings and our military and police personnel, he never, as far as the AP knows, targeted abortion doctors or clinics.

So the AP is doing all it can to help its candidate deal with the latest round of questions concerning the Ayers-Obama relationship.

We see an example of the AP’s “pitching in” for Obama in this paragraph from a story headed “Palin says Obama 'palling around' with terrorists”

While it is known that Obama and Ayers live in the same Chicago neighborhood, served on a charity board together and had a fleeting political connection, there is no evidence that they ever palled around. And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts.
Nowhere in the AP story does it mention Obama’s failure to denounce and disown Ayers until it became politically expedient and necessary during the primaries.

The AP just provides a lot of minimizing and excusing of its candidate’s relationship with Ayers, along with shots at Palin and McCain.

You can read the AP story here.

AP OK with terrorist Ayers & Obama; mad at Palin

At Volokh Conspiracy George Mason University School of Law Professor David Bernstein calls out the “anything for Obama” AP for its shamelessly biased reporting of something Gov. Sarah Palin’s did yesterday.

The Governor called attention to what should concern every American who wants our country to thrive: Sen. Barack Obama’s ties over many years to terrorist and liberal media darling Bill Ayers.

Bernstein’s post – “What Passes for Objective Reporting this Election Season” - follows in full, after which I offer a few comments below the star line.

With the first two paragraphs of the AP’s story, Bernstein begins - - -

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Saturday accused Democrat Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists" because of his association with a former 1960s radical, stepping up the campaign's effort to portray Obama as unacceptable to American voters.

Palin's reference was to Bill Ayers, one of the founders of the group the Weather Underground. Its members took credit for bombings, including nonfatal explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol, during the tumultuous Vietnam War era four decades ago. Obama, who was a child when the group was active, served on a charity board with Ayers several years ago and has denounced his radical views and activities.
There is nothing blatantly false in this story, but it's about as one-sided a presentation of the controversy as one could imagine;

no mention that the Weather Underground planned a very deadly attack on Fort Dix;

the excuse that the times were "tumultuous;"

the reference to Obama being child, no reference to Obama having his inaugural political event at Ayer's house;

no mention of Ayers lack of contrition for his terrorist activities;

no mention of Ayers' fugitive years;

no mention that Obama only saw fit to denounce Ayers' only when it became an issue in his presidential campaign,

and the intentional downplaying of Ayers' and Obama's relationship to "serving on a charity board" with Ayers, as opposed to "worked closely with Ayers on a major educational reform project in Chicago."

Indeed, I'd say that the last two sentences could have been written by the Obama campaign, and, in fact, that the reporter probably repeated talking points he received from the campaign virtually verbatim.
**************************************************************************
Comments:

After finishing the AP’s “anything for Obama” story, I thought to myself:
What if Ayers was anti-abortion and had bombed abortion clinics?

What if Ayers had recruited, encouraged and help train others to murder abortion doctors and bomb abortion clinics?

What if Ayers had never expressed any regret for any of his anti-abortion terrorist actions?

What if, instead, he'd said he regretted not doing more?!

If Ayers had been an anti-abortion terrorist instead of an anti-American terrorist, I doubt Sen. Obama would now be the Democratic nominee.

Think about that in the days to come as you read, see and hear all the excusing, minimizing, and outright distorting “news reports” Obama’s MSM Tank Corps serves up in an effort to help their candidate deal with problems caused by his associations with Ayers and failure to condemn Ayers until it became politically expedient and necessary during the primaries.

Palin challenges MSM's "wall of bias" - the video

As of Oct. 4 @ 11:00 PM ET Sen. Obama's Big Three news organizations reporting Gov. Sarah Palin's Ayers-Obama statements today - the NYT, the AP and WaPo - all spin voters with biased stories downplaying Obama's relationship with his terrorist friend and "guy in the neighborhood" Bill Ayers.

Obama's Big Three tankers assure readers anything significant involving Ayers and their guy must have happened before Obama turned nine.

But the Big Three are deceiving Americans. Bill Ayers and The One know that.

So do many of you.

For truthful Ayers-Obama reporting, see Stanley Kurtz's expose of today's NYT's Ayers-Obama camo-job. Is there a level to which the NYT won't sink?

Now for something else fair-minded readers will want to know:

Besides camouflaging his relationship with terrorist Ayers, Obama's Big Three haven't reported Palin's exquisite parodying of the NYT and other Obama MSM flacks who insist they've been "serious and unbiased" when reporting on their candidate and his terrorist friend.

Folks, ydon't want to miss the video below.

Palin will remind you of how presidential candidate and then President Reagan tore down "the wall of bias" MSM liberal/leftist worked to put between him and us, the American people.


Palin notes Obama-Ayers ties. WaPo’s not happy

I’ve noted before the work of Obama supporter-reporter Juliet Eilperin who serves at Sen. Obama’s Washington Post.

Just a few minutes ago Eilperin, demonstrating again her “journalist’s objectivity,” reported - - -

It turns out GOP vice presidential nominee does like the mainstream media after all -- at least, when it's publishing unflattering stories about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

At a fundraiser this morning in Englewood, Colo., Palin cited an article in today's New York Times as evidence that Obama "sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country." The Alaska governor was referring to William Ayers, one of the founding members of the Weathermen and someone who once served on a charitable board with Obama in Chicago. The group conducted bombings in the 1960s in protest of the Vietnam War; Obama has denounced Ayers' involvement in the group.

"Well, I was reading my copy of today's New York Times and I was really interested to read about Barack's friends from Chicago," Palin told the crowd. "Turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man who, according to The New York Times was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol.' These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes. This is not a man who sees America as you and I do -- as the greatest force for good in the world. This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country. This, ladies and gentlemen, has nothing to do with the kind of change anyone can believe in -- not my kids and not your kids."

In fact, both a Washington Post article in April and today's New York Times piece revealed Obama and Ayers to have had only a casual association: the former radical hosted a coffee for Obama's first bid for state Senate, they served together on an educational charity board and both live in Chicago's Hyde Park.

Obama has taken pains to minimize their connection, calling Ayers "somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know" and "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight."

Palin's comments come as aides to GOP presidential nominee John McCain are rolling out a series of negative attacks against Obama in an effort to make up some of the political ground McCain has lost in recent weeks. …

The rest of Eilperin’s foot-stamper is here.

Gosh, Eilperin’s mad.

Funny, she didn’t say anything a week ago when Speaker Pelosi called Republicans “unpatriotic.”

More on Palin’s statement and the predictable upset of Obama’s media flacks tomorrow.

Obama, the Dems and the mortgage mess

Excerpts from Thomas Sowell’s latest column with my comments below the star line

From Sowell - - -

… The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?

We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't. …

Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.

Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.

Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!

The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.

The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.

But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.

Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.

The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

Sowell’s entire column’s here.

****************************************************

Comments:

What Sowell says about Sen. Obama’s and the Dems’ roles in bringing on the current mortgage mess is irrefutable.

If you doubt that, read this post containing a Jeff Jacoby column with numerous links to documents confirming what Sowell’s saying. One of the links is to a set of government guideline telling banks to count welfare payments and food stamps as income.

And take a look at this post which has a 9 minute video of clips of a House committee hearing at which a government oversight official warned of Freddie and Fannie’s many problems, including the very strong likelihood Freddie and Fannie were cooking their books.

Watch how ever Dem responds with attacks not on Freddie and Fannie but on the government official telling them the truth. Listen to the Dems praise Raines and suggest criticisms of his corrupt leadership at Fannie are racially motivated.

What about Sen. McCain’s failure so far to tell the American people often and clearly the facts of the mortgage mess as they are?

He’s hurt himself by not placing before the voters the facts as Sowell presents them and as they’re documented in the two posts I’ve linked to.

As far as how McCain should be responding to the mortgage mess, I just posted here.


Why is McCain wobbly on Freddie & Fannie?

A blog friend’s email included:

ACORN [and Dem supported special interest groups have played a big part in helping create ] the financial crisis. The MSM will not report on this or Obama's close connections to ACORN.

McCain needs to start talking about this connection and Obama's relationships with other nefarious organizations/individuals. [Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, Maxine Waters, Tony Rezko and Chuck Schumer, to name just a few.]...

McCain has been too cautious and respectful. He missed a real opportunity with the bailout fiasco and it hurt him. He needs to take off the gloves and start exposing Obama and his policies for what they are. …

My friend’s comments are an example of the public reaction of millions to Sen. McCain’s wobbly response to the failure of Dems to step up and acknowledge their lead role in creating the current mortgage mess.

U. S. News & World Report’s James Pethokoukis has more to say - - -

Here is the big question of the moment that many GOPers are asking: Why is John McCain not tearing into Barack Obama and the Dems on the huge role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act in the financial crisis on Wall Street? In fact, the biggest criticism by conservatives of Sarah Palin's debate performance last night was that she had the opportunity to talk about Fannie/Freddie and the CRA but instead criticized the role of "predatory lenders."

Here is what Team McCain is telling me: Expect McCain to make the case on television, but don't look for him to turn to Obama in the next debate, point his finger, and say something like this (courtesy of the Ace of Spades HQ blog):

I stayed away from making these partisan attacks, even though you lied ridiculously about me and your own attempts at 'reform.' I held back, because partisan attacks—even truthful ones—would harm our country and reduce the chances of getting a vital bill passed. Well, the bill is now passed. I put country first. You didn't, and you lied on top of that. And now—only now that this crisis has been dealt with, to the extent we can—I'm going to give you a bit of straight-talk about Fannie, Freddie, my attempts to reform it, and your attempts to block reform on behalf of your big donors and friends in ACORN.

Nope, that is not going to happen. Why not?

1) It is a complicated argument, and McCain is not good at making complicated arguments, not even about earmarks. (Note, additionally, his lack of defense of the war in Iraq during his debate with Obama. Amazing.)

2) There is a racial component to criticism of the Community Reinvestment Act that can make it sound like you are scapegoating minorities for Wall Street's problems.

3) The campaign believes McCain's time is better spent talking about taxes and energy and healthcare. Really. …

My bottom line: The McCain campaign is underestimating how absolutely furious conservatives are that free markets, and by extension Reaganomics and the last 25 years of American economic policy, are getting the blame for the housing and credit crisis. A real morale killer, they tell me. Over and over. Every day.

Pethokoukis’ entire article’s here.

*******************************************************
Comments:

McCain needs to connect with the vast majority of American’s who are paying their mortgages on time (that’s 95+% of us).

He can connect by helping people understand the current financial problems aren’t primarily the fault of Wall Street. They’re the result of federal laws and regulations that pushed banks to make “subprime” (“high risk” is really the right term) mortgages to unqualified lenders. They’re the result of a failure of government oversight.

Dems and the MSM will certainly accuse McCain of playing the race card. But they do that even when he says nothing about race. Remember in June Obama in Jacksonville “warning” us that the GOP was going to play the race card? It hadn't happened but what did that matter?

A TIME reporter claimed McCain was playing the race card when his campaign produced ads pointing out the “rip the taxpayer” leadership of Obama advisors Jim Johnson (white) and Franklin Raines (black) when they headed respectively Freddie and Fannie, because McCain ran the Raines ad a few hours before he began running the Johnson ad.

Welcome to Obama’s America where any deviation from worship of The One gets you slapped with a race card.

McCain does himself no favors and much harm by being wobbly on Freddie and Fannie.

If he can’t speak forcefully and clearly on this mess, how will he lead us as President?


Friday, October 03, 2008

The Churchill Series – Oct. 3, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

In March 1991 Sir Martin Gilbert, Churchill’s official biographer, spoke at the International Churchill Societies' meeting in London. He offered his listeners “a biographer’s reflections,” referencing in particular his classic one-volume Churchill: A Life.

Here’s part of Gilbert’s reflections:

Churchill was always at the front of new ideas and radical ideas. I found a very interesting letter, which [his daughter]Lady [Mary] Soames helped me decipher, which Churchill wrote to Clementine while he was at a shooting weekend near York in 1910, and surrounded by all the action of the shoot: "I expect I will have a headache tomorrow night after firing so many cartridges. All the glitter and excitement of the world appeals to me but not, thank God, in comparison with serious things."

This was the period when serious things with which Churchill was concerned included the two great pieces of legislation - the Mines Bill, which established decent conditions in the mines, including for the first time pit-head baths which had henceforth to be provided by the owners; and also the Shops Bill, every clause of which, save one, was destroyed by a hostile Parliament, but every clause of which in due course entered the Statute Book, to the benefit of hundreds of thousands of working people.

The one element Churchill was able to bring in then, in 1911, was the compulsory meal breaks for all people working on the shop floor. So he was the creator, not only of pit-head baths, but of the British tea break. Incidentally, he was enormously proud, and rightly so, when as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1927, he abolished the tax on tea which had existed since the reign of the first Queen Elizabeth.
Almost all of you reading this are Americans. I don’t doubt that you’re saying to yourselves something like:
”Of course he’d want to get rid of the tea tax. That feeling came to him from his American mother.”
Gilbert’s entire reflections are here. I hope you all find time this weekend to give them a look. You’ll be well rewarded.

My thanks go to the Churchill Centre for hosting Sir Martin's reflections.

I hope you all have a very nice Fall weekend.

Best,

John

WaPo's Biden cropping and makeover

Extreme Mortman alerted us to WaPo's photo cropping of Sen. Biden's finger pointing last evening. Now there's more Obama's WaPo has done to "mellow out" Biden's finger pointing as you'll learn below the star line.

First, Extreme Mortman's suburb catch clear, full and in color - - -

Here’s the Palin/Biden debate picture featured top of the Washington Post front page this morning…

Palin Biden Washington Post

And here’s how the photo looks right now on the Post website …

Palin Biden Washington Post 2

Any guesses why they’d look different?

*******************************************************************

I'm guessing WaPo will tell us the cropping has nothing to do with favoring the Obama-Biden ticket over McCain-Palin.

Journalism ethics forbids taking sides in a political campaign as Dan Rather often reminds us.

That said, you'll be interested in WaPo's move from the cropping Extreme Mortman noted to what WaPo's Style Section would refer to as "a complete makeover."

At 7:30 PM ET WaPo's online front page doesn't even carry the cropped photo.
It instead contains only a postage stamp size photo of the pre-debate Biden-Palin handshake.

Check it out for yourself here.

And don't forget to give Extreme Mortman a look here.

Hat tip: AC and PDQ

Biden's "clean coal" misstatement

The video clips prove Sen. Biden misstated during last night's debate what he actually said on the rope line in Ohio about "clean coal."

Take a look and see for yourself.

Hat tip: AC

MSM Big V-P Debate Loser

An Anon last evening made the point MSM was a big loser last night.


Roger Simon agrees
- - -

Tonight, Sarah Palin drove another stake in the heart of those fuddy-duddy reactionaries that constitute our mainstream media.

Going toe-to-toe with a senator with decades of experience, she more than held her own, giving lie to the media constructed narrative that she was an inexperienced hick from nowheresville Alaska.

It demonstrates once again why the media is held in such contempt. For economic and ego reasons, they consider themselves to be our gatekeepers, but frankly they are not that smart. They are not rocket scientists – figuratively or literally. They are certainly no smarter than Sarah Palin.

I would be willing to bet that in a free debate with Katie Couric, Palin would come out the victor. (Frank Luntz’s focus group saw her winning literally by acclamation over Biden.)

I actually had some sympathy for Joe Biden tonight (who we all know thinks John McCain is better than Obama anyway – he’s said so, as Palin was correct to point out). He was an aging fellow (like me) forced to debate a young and much more charismatic woman who was easily his equal. You could see in his body language that he knew it.

But if McCain-Palin actually pull this one out, it is the MSM that will be the big losers here. They have put heart and soul behind Obama without really knowing him. For shame.

***************************************************

Comments:

For shame!

If only Obama's MSM Tanks Corps had some.

And gatekeepers?

Why should MSM political partisans control our news flow?


Some Biden “wrongs” last night

Jack in Silver Springs called attention to a listing at NRO of some of the statements Sen. Biden made last night that were wrong.

Mind you, there’s no claim Biden lied, just that he got them wrong.

Items from the list:

THE CONSTITUTION: Biden: "Vice President Cheney's been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. He has — he has — the idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the executive — he works in the executive branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."

As noted by the McCain Camp, Article I of the Constitution does not, in fact, define the role of the Vice President of the United States. It defines the role of the legislative branch, otherwise known as the branch in which Joe Biden has served for the last 36 years.

[A reader writes in noting that Article I does mention the veep at one point — "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." However, by describing the veep's role in the legislature, it doesn't really help Biden's claim that it "defines the role, that's the executive, he works in the executive branch."]

IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN SPENDING: Biden said that the U.S. spends more in Iraq in one month than it has in Afghanistan in six or seven years.

That figure is off by 2000 percent.

‘KICKED HEZBOLLAH OUT OF LEBANON’: Biden: When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said, and Barack said, ‘Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.”

Reuters thinks he meant to refer to Syria, but I still don't think it would be accurate to say the U.S. kicked Syria out of Lebanon. The Lebanese kicked Syria out of Lebanon.

RESTAURANT: "Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie's Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years."

According to this Delaware site, Katie's Restaurant is no longer in business; locals remember it on Union Street 25 to 30 years ago.

Give the NRO site and list a look. The list of Biden “wrongs” is growing.

Thank you, Jack in Silver Springs


Bad night for MSM's credibility

Regarding Thursday evening's Biden-Palin debate an Anon commenter says some things I think tens of millions who watched the debate are thinking.

Thanks to Anon and what do you think?

Anon begins - - -

I would be curious as to how many people tuned in.

57 million watched the first Prez debate last weekend. I would expect even more watched tonight.

This stuff is bad for the MSM because people know what they saw and can form their own opinions. That's tens of millions of people beyond the dishonest influence of agenda setters. In fact, people who saw the debate and have, to date, been getting impressions of Palin from the MSM will wonder what the heck the media have been talking about.

But, how much lower can the credibility of the MSM fall. My guess is that the MSM is sub-Bush and down in Congress territory.

I think some of the pundits are overstating how well she did but, at the same time, the MSMers who have been systemically trying to destroy her have nothing to work with after tonight.

Thursday, October 02, 2008

The Churchill Series – Oct. 2, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Today the second post in the two-post series within the Series.

Yesterday’s post introduced us to what was both a serious and amusing problem Churchill’s staff and others in Government dealt with: protecting “the Old Man” from Nazi agents who might try to kill him by sending poisoned cigars allegedly from admiring individuals and organizations.

Our story as told by Churchill scholar Allan Packwood continues - - -

In the spring of 1941 Churchill was offered two large consignments of cigars from Cuba, one set from the pro-British paper called "Bohemia" and the other, complete with a decorative cabinet (which now adorns the painting studio at Chartwell), from the Cuban National Tobacco Commission.

This clearly caused some consternation among his own staff, and led to the following minute of 22 April from [Private Secretary] John Colville to [Principal Private Secretary] Eric Seal:

"When these arrive, I think it will be very difficult to do as Mr Bracken suggested and suppress them! The Prime Minister is quite likely to ask what has become of them and in any case they represent a gift of considerable value. Would it not be best for you to ask Mr. Bracken and Mrs. Churchill to represent strongly to the Prime Minister that they should not be smoked?"
Eric Seal was worried enough to raise the matter the following day with Professor Lindemann, Churchill's close friend and adviser in all things scientific. In a hand-written note to the professor he concludes: "In short, is there any watertight examination by means of which we could make sure the cigars are OK?"

Professor Lindemann's, response was to contact Lord Rothschild at M.I.5.

Rothschild agreed that "some security measures ought to be laid on" and offered to make the necessary enquiries without anyone knowing as he imagined that "this is the sort of thing which the Prime Minister would not like very much if he knew about it."

We know from Jock Colville's diary that a conference to discuss this matter then took place in Desmond Morton's room at Downing Street on 29 May with both Lindemann and Rothschild in attendance.

First contact with the security services had been established, and on 2 June Colville wrote to Rothschild asking whether in future, it would be desirable for small boxes of cigars and chocolates "and other things of the same kind" to be sent to M.I.5 instead of Scotland Yard.

Colville wryly observed that "we might stand a better chance of getting them back if they were innocuous!" …

The cabinet of cigars from the National Tobacco Commission of Cuba did not arrive until late September. In the meantime, Colville had sent three minutes to the Prime Minister, on 22 April, 18 June and 23 September, all warning him about the potential risk of poisoning from such gifts and advising him not to smoke anything. M.I.5 finally took possession of one cigar from each box on 24 September and proceeded to examine them for bacteriological and toxicological contamination. …

The conclusion was that the sample was innocuous. Although, as Lord Rothschild observed in a letter of 9 October to Churchill's office, nicotine was itself "very poisonous indeed and there are few things which the smoking end of a cigar could be treated with which might be more harmful". The report may have been reassuring, but it was not conclusive.

Only a small percentage of the Cuban cigars had been tested and M.I.5 now recommended that all those remaining should be visually examined for puncture marks and stains.

Churchill's trusty bodyguard Inspector Thomson agreed to perform this time-consuming task.

Lord Rothschild returned the tested cigars to Downing Street with the technical report as an exhibit to prove that he had not just smoked them, "after the number of jokes that Colville and I had about Special Branch eating No.10's chocolates".

The supreme irony in all of this is that there is evidence that Churchill, ignoring Colville's anxious minutes, had already smoked some of the cigars before they had even been received by M.I.5.

Lord Balfour of Inchcrye wrote an article for The Times in September 1965, quoted by Martin Gilbert in the official biography, describing a meeting of the Defence Committee on 19 September 1941. According to Balfour, who was then an Under-Secretary of State at the Air Ministry, Churchill took all the committee members to see his new Cuban cigar cabinet:
"Turning to the waiting Ministers, he addressed us thus: 'Gentlemen, I am now going to try an experiment. Maybe it will result in joy. Maybe it will end in grief. I am about to give you each one of these magnificent cigars.' He paused. He continued with Churchillian rolling of sound and digestive enjoyment of the spoken word. 'It may well be that these each contain some deadly poison.'"...
___________________________________________________

There’s more to this story. You can find it in this account at the Churchill Centre’s site by Allan Packwood, archivist of the Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge.

Drudge V-P debate poll & NYT's headlines

Archer 05 calls attention to a “who won the V-P debate" poll here at Drudge.

A O5 also guesses at Sen. Obama’s NY Times' post debate headlines:

Biden wins debate; Obama leading in all 57 states

The V-P debate: first thoughts

It's just over. I’ll have more tomorrow, but right now this - - -

The MSM Obama Tank Corps that spent the debate waiting for Palin to blunder and/or give them their “deer in the headlights moment” to lead with are still waiting.

They’re going to have to concede she at least did well or make something up to smear her performance tonight.

I’m betting they’ll search for a smear. They’ll have to look hard, though I don’t doubt they’ll find something.

A good bet: tomorrow Obama's MSM will start again hustleing the Troopergate slimes.

Meanwhile, the McCain-Palin supporters are going to be high-fiving.

Palin and Biden both did well, but Palin did better than Biden in circumstances in which she was expected to do worse.

She was the clear winner though both candidates were informed and articulate.

I think their supporters will be pleased: each candidate made the points that pre-debate they were expected to make.

Biden showed himself extremely well-informed on foreign policy. He did a good job of touting Sen. Obama’s record and proposals. He repeatedly hit McCain’s voting record.

But he also fluffed and got some things wrong that McCain's team can hit him with. His statement on clean coal and China is one example. Biden presented his position as the opposite of what he's actually said.

And what he said is on tape.

What about Palin?

I’ve said for weeks she knows energy development and policy. She showed it tonight.

Biden was more formal, even distant, and seemed often to be holding in some anger.

Palin was relaxed and did a superb job of presenting her background and experience without seeming me-me.

I’d like to hear what you think.

More tomorrow.

VP debate at 10:00 PM

This last half-hour Biden has done better, but Palin is holding her own.

Bidan's superior foreign policy knowledge is serving him well.

But Palin's doing a good job countering.

Biden continues to seem serious/borderline angry; Palin continues to look at the camera and seem at ease.

Let's see what happens in the last half-hour.

I'll be back after the debate.

VP debate at 9:30 ET

IMO Palin's doing awfully well.

Bid is now responding to Palin on tax and talking about Scranton and Exxon.

He's into the class warfare argument.

We're all going to be paying more taxes because big business is getting too many breaks.

Biden is looking serious. His voice tone suggests he suppressing anger.

The "easy, friendly Joe" MSM-Dem operatives love doesn't seem to have showed tonight.

Palin looks at ease. She's smiles a lot. And looks at the camera.

I score the first 30 minutes for Palin.

I may or may not be back on line tonight.

Sen. Coburn: Congress won't "threat the cancer"

Oklahoma's Sen. Tom Coburn offers somethng different from the fixes people like Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxime Waters want to foist off on us.

I hope you give a look and listen to what Coburn says.

Thanks to the Anon commenter who sent it.

Journalists as political operatives


National Journal posts a Q&A with Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Here’s one of the Q&As followed by my comments ---

Q: What would you say the problems of press coverage are, then?

Rosenstiel: The fact the press has given over too much of its air time to campaign operatives who they label as analysts, media people. It's the naming of Paul Begala, and Karl Rove, and Dick Morris, and a countless litany of other people who are essentially not journalists but who play them on TV, and who really are doing talking points. That's one fundamental problem.

Another is an excess of focus on strategy, tactics and horse race, which we've seen for generations now in the coverage. Another is a kind of short attention span, almost kind of amnesic quality, in which the coverage and the narrative of the campaign sort of bounces from one episode to another, but there's no consistent coverage of what the country's problems are, or where the country is going.

I think the coverage of Obama has been insufficient. We don't know enough about him. There's a risk there. We didn't know enough about George [W.] Bush, and the day he took office I think we didn't have a sufficient understanding of how he might govern, and I think we have a risk of that with Obama. These are fundamental flaws. Can I point to examples of sexist coverage? Yes. Can I point to examples of racist coverage? Yes. But those are not the major issues that I see in the coverage this year.

________________________________________

Comments:

Folks, what’s the difference between “campaign operatives” and “journalists?”

So many of the “news stories” I’ve read and heard lately are just like what you’d expect a political operative to produce. Do you read the NYT and AP stories; do you tune in to NPR, MSNBC and the networks? Then you most know what I mean.

And this from the last presidential campaign - - -

At the time Dan Rather reported the bogus 60 Minutes Texas Air National Guard story everyone agreed Rather was as a journalist. In fact, we were told he was a model for and hero to other journalists.

But was Rather a journalist when he pushed the bogus TANG story – including arranging for the source of the faked documents, Bush-hater and Democratic operative Bill Burkett, to speak by phone with top Kerry campaign operative Joe Lockhart, President Bill Clinton’s former press secretary?

Was Rather practicing journalism when, during the almost two weeks the public didn’t know Burkett was the document source, Rather assured the public his anonymous source was “unimpeachable?”

And was CBS acting like a news organization engaged in journalism when it let Rather dissemble and tried to cover-up what he and his team of journalists had done?

Weren’t Rather and the other journalists at CBS really acting like dishonest campaign operatives? And wasn't CBS acting just like a dishonest campaign operation?

There are very many times when “journalist” and “campaign operative” are distinctions without much functional difference except for where the paycheck comes from.

I respect honest journalists and honest campaign operatives (there are some of each; it’s been my good fortune to know well individuals from both groups.)

But most journalists are so biased and eager to be part of the Dem/Left base which dominates MSM that they function more like political operatives than truth seeking and telling journalists.

Rather and CBS are no isolated examples. Just consider the Boston Globe’s editorial board’s decision to take the disproven Palin rape-kit charge story and pass it on to Globe readers as fact. See here and here.

Or ask yourself how many of the literally thousands of journalists covering the presidential campaign are reporting on the working relationship over many years between Sen. Obama and “the guy in the neighborhood,” terrorist Bill Ayers.

Barney Frank Exposed

America’s mostly Dem-dominated news organizations have done a very good job covering up Rep. Barney Frank’s consistent support for Freddie and Fannie’s high risk loan policies. They’ve also covered up his refusal to support reforms which could have prevented or at least lessened the current disaster which will stick taxpayers with a bill running into the hundreds of billions.

Because so much of media cover for him, Frank, one of those most responsible for the current financial mess, is able to stride from news conference to news conference saying such things as: “The private sector got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it." Frank proclaims he's "working on a solution to the current problems."

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby will have none of Barney’s baloney. You’ll see that in his column which follows. It’s classic Jacoby: carefully researched, grounded in reason, tough-spoken but not overstated, and irrefutable.

Of everything I’ve read on the mortgage mess, Jacoby’s column is both the best exposure of Frank’s shameless falsehoods and posturing and the best news story or column account of how the current mortgage mess developed.

Read Jacoby’s column and let me know what you think. I’ll wait a few days and then send him a link to this post and your comments.

Here’s Jacoby - - -

“The private sector got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best."

And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess."

Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods."

Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense.

"Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape.

Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis."

When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train.

If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.