In yet another example of lack of any pretense of evenness at ABC News, this is the headline about Bristol Palin’s fiancé and the father of her baby “Palin's Baby Daddy Drops Out of School”. Story here. http://abcnews.go.com/

While this seems unimportant, put it in the context of days of stories questioning McCain on his comments. He has been called racist for using the phrases “That One” or “I’m going to whip Obama’s a$$” (at the debate). Being attacked by Obama supporters for “sowing the seeds of hatred” and compared to segregationist Governor George Wallace for having the audacity to question Obama’s character.

After McCain having his racial tolerance questioned every time he opens his mouth, and ABC gladly spreading the “news”, we have this from the network itself.

Using the term ‘baby’s daddy’ has racial undertones to it, if it’s not used on a white daughter of the Republican candidate for the Vice Presidency that is. I could just see the Hell raised if Fox News ran a story about a minority teenager with this headline.

In a “it’s about time” moment today, the McCain campaign came out and ripped the New York Times for it’s overt support of the Barack Obama campaign. This is way overdue for the Republican Party.

The NYT along with the other liberal media such as the Associated Press, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc have for years been highly partisan organizations. As was accused by the McCain campaign today, the NYT has essentially been the public relations arm of the Democratic party for decades.

In two separate incidences today, one involving a campaign aid, the other a supporter at a rally, the liberal media got it’s comeuppance. This is the story form Foxnews.com, they put it best.

“Let’s be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this: Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not — by any standard — a journalistic organization,” strategist Steve Schmidt told reporters on a conference call. “It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Senator McCain, attacks Governor [Sarah] Palin and excuses Senator Obama.”

Schmidt accused the Times of giving Obama a pass on his “deceitful ads” and abdicating its journalistic responsibility to vet Obama’s “background and past statements.” It was an unusually harsh critique for a campaign that last year enjoyed largely favorable press coverage.

“This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate,” Schmidt fumed. “It is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition to advocate for the defeat of one candidate — in this case John McCain — and to advocate for the election of the other candidate — Barack Obama.”

I can only say one thing, WOW.

Then we had a woman with lots of guts, maybe she is being inspired by hockey mom Sarah Palin, stand up and give the assembled press Hell.

The woman ripped reporters for focusing on the pregnant teenage daughter of Palin, the GOP vice presidential nominee, while largely ignoring Obama’s ties to radical Bill Ayers and controversial Chicago businessman Tony Rezko.

“We want the media to start doing their job and stop picking on little children because of their age and their pregnancies,” she exclaimed. “Shame on you! Shame on all of ya’s!”

This is not only gutsy but quite funny. Imagine a press staffer being there. They’re bored because their boss made them follow this McCain guy instead of the dreamy Obama. Further, they’re hoping no one can read they’re thoughts about the dreamy remark because the reporter is, in fact, a man. When all of a sudden, he’s snapped out of his fantasies about Obama by this woman giving him a dressing down in front of this huge crowd. Everyone’s laughing, she saying shame on you. ‘This sucks, I wish I were at the Obama rally.’ It would have been a sight to see folks.

So of course the editor of the NYT (who knew they had an editor) Bill Keller, offered this reply, “You know, you are absolutely correct. We have totally been in the tank for The One, Obama. We are so ashamed. Further, we apologize and will stop this immediately and start reporting fairly.” Just joking, what he really said was this:

“The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively,” Keller wrote. “It’s our job to ask hard questions, fact-check their statements and their advertising, examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisers. Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny, but it’s what our readers expect and deserve.”

The article didn’t say if he was able to get through this without laughing hysterically or not. If he does not find this comment ridiculous, he’s a bigger idiot than even I give him credit for.

For more amusement, check out this article on Politico.com. The NYT provides a list of the “hard-hitting” investigative stories they have done on Obama. I just took a sample from the middle of the list to give an indication of just how rough they have been on this poor soul.

29. Obama Secret Service Agent Tied To Sex Joke [New York Times, 5/15/08]
30. The Story of Obama, Written by Obama [New York Times, 5/18/08]
31. Following Months of Criticism, Obama Quits His Church [New York Times, 6/1/08]
32. Many Blacks Find Joy in Unexpected Breakthrough [New York Times, 6/5/08]

The horror they have put this man through.

First, I have to give credit to the blog Red County and the Wall Street Journal for this find. I first saw the mention on Twitter by Red County and followed up on it at the WSJ.

Citing General Petraeus by name, the resolution, which is sponsored by Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman and Republican Lindsey Graham, "commends and expresses the gratitude to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces for the service, sacrifices, and heroism that made the success of the troop surge in Iraq possible."

The Senators -- allies of John McCain -- had hoped to attach the resolution to a defense bill under consideration this week. But Mr. Reid wouldn't allow it.

This was actually blocked from coming out of the Senate Armed Services Committee by Democratic Chairman Carl Levin at the insistence of Democrat Harry Reid

Keep I mind, this is a resolution, it has no binding legal authority. It’s the Congressional equivalent of a “who did something nice” card like we all see at work or our children see in elementary school. It doesn’t cost money. It simply says “Thank You” to the troops and General Patreaus.

Further, I do not want to accuse these two Dems of being against resolutions, because they are not. A quick search shows that they have both sponsored important resolutions in the past.

Harry Reid Sponsored resolutions to:

Oppose the surge one month after Bush announced it. He was even scheduled a rare Saturday debate on it.

In March, 2007, before the surge had a chance to really get going he co-sponsored The Joint Resolution To Transition The Mission In Iraq.

And of course we cannot forget the Asbestos Awareness Day resolution he sponsored, this certainly benefited society.

Carl Levin along with too many anti-war resolutions to list, also sponsored these noteworthy classics:

A resolution urging Canada to end commercial seal hunting.

A resolution honoring the Detroit Red Wings Stanley Cup win in 2008.

So these men will sponsor resolutions to attack the troops, honor a professional hockey team, or fight the twin scurges of American society, seal hunting and asbestos, but cannot allow one to be voted on that supports the troops?

The Democrats though are loathe to give any credit to Bush. They care less about the troops, the war in Iraq, and the greater war on terror than they do about the war on George Bush. Further, acknowledging success with the surge makes it painfully obvious, because it’s not already, that they were flat out dead wrong on the surge. They fought it’s implementation, derided it as folly, predicted that it would fail. Now they are stuck with the bad news that it actually worked, helping assure success and stopping the dying of our troops. This is not good news for the Dems.

Quite frankly, I cannot sum up the Democratic stance any better than the WSJ already has:

The reality is that success in Iraq has confounded the political left, which placed a huge political bet on our defeat. Senator Reid famously declared the war lost in April 2007. Joe Biden introduced a resolution opposing the surge. And Hillary Clinton said the reports of progress in Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief." In the Democratic narrative, our troops in Iraq are victims of a lost cause, not heroes. They're allowed to get maimed and killed, but not to succeed.

Thus Democrats are left to argue that success in Iraq is irrelevant because the real fight against al Qaeda is occurring in Afghanistan. Or that the reduced violence in Iraq has resulted not from the troop surge but from the Sunni Awakening and the retreat of the Sadr militias.

That’s pretty much ‘nough said. The only thing I can add is that a generation ago the liberals spit on troops at the airport returning from Vietnam. They have become much more refined and civilized since then, now they let their Congressmen do it from afar.

There is a recent AP/Yahoo news survey out that examines the link between race and Obama’s poll numbers. The problem is though that the survey is almost entirely on non-Hispanic white voters. Evidently this is the only race of people that vote according to the AP and Yahoo news. Story here

Where do you start with a survey like this? This survey, while trying to explain racism, is incredibly racist in itself.

First, what does a typical white voter look like? Other than badly in need of tan of course. The article does break whites down into Republicans and Democrats but this is too simplistic for someone of any race. The political spectrum is complex in what constitutes party affiliation. There are social liberals and conservatives, fiscal liberals and conservatives, and a combination of both. There are people who are very liberal or conservative and would never vote for the other party. There are people who are moderate and can be drawn to the opposite candidate for many reasons, including yes race, age, and/or gender. There are some voters who don’t even follow the issues and vote based on how they feel about a person. These people may or may not vote for Obama, irregardless of his race, but because of some other characteristic such as likeability, speaking ability, etc. These factors alone cloud the study. For some voters race may be an issue but not the issue. Race along with any of the above could push them away. This does not make race the factor, it makes it a factor.

There also is the issue of racial attitudes being complex and virtually impossible to measure. If there is a person on God’s earth without any racial prejudice, I would like to meet them. No one, including myself, can say they are without some prejudice. It is human nature, it is ingrained into our very fiber. Further, it is not just racial, it is gender, height, age, etc., etc., etc. Everyone of us has it and anyone reading this that thinks they do not is lying to themselves. But, you know what? It’s ok. The key is to not go out and behead someone or fly a plane into a building because your innate prejudice has turned into psychotic hatred. Oops, that sounded a little prejudiced.

Since everyone has prejudice, what does this mean? Very little to everything. There is a huge difference between prejudice against a race and prejudice against a person. You may have an issue with, blacks as an example, but when you go to work and see Joe, things are fine because he’s “different”. This is often the case with all biases. It’s easier to dislike an anonymous group than an individual. I believe this is another flaw in the study. I think it is a little simplistic to say people will not vote for Obama just because he is black. I think most of these people have another issue and that, combined with race, equals a no vote.

Finally, there is the most obvious issue with the survey. Why only whites? Why not Hispanics, Asians, and, of course, blacks. Why have we never studied why blacks vote almost entirely for Democrats? It certainly isn’t because they have done so well under the Democrats. What exactly have the Democrats done for them really? The Democratic party by and large favor policies that are actually destructive to blacks. The welfare system of the 60’s and 70’s had insane rules that favored unmarried women over married. This set up a cycle of generation-to-generation single motherhood that blacks are still trying to break. This single motherhood has led to a host of other social ills that feed on each other, lower high school graduation rate, higher unemployment, and higher imprisonment rates. Liberals favor a wide open abortion industry that disproportionally effects blacks. Finally, I do not believe that blacks are more stupid than others and buy the hollow, unfulfilled promises of Democrats that they receive decade after decade. Is it possible that blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats because they view the GOP as the party of “old white guys”? Admittedly if this were true it would likely be the fault of the GOP as much as the Democratic party but nonetheless is still a racial attitude. Why isn’t this studied? Why didn’t they study why blacks aren’t voting for McCain/Palin, is it racism?

There is a news story that has gotten more attention here in Michigan than nationally. Story here

The Detroit area Macomb County Republican chairman, James Carabelli, has been quoted by Michigan Messenger as saying “We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” Mr. Carabelli and the Michigan Republican party deny he made the statement and have threatened a libel suit against the site if it does not print a retraction.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Party have filed a lawsuit to prevent the county from doing what they may or may not be planning to do.

I can’t attest to the merit of the suit, it has turned into a he said-she said affair with no real indication of who is telling the truth. The Michigan GOP and Macomb County have strongly and consistently denied the accusation and claim they couldn’t do it if they wanted to. The claim by the county is that the voter roll does not provide enough information to practically carry a plan like this through.

Further, I am not familiar with this publication. A quick scan of the headlines on the site make their slogan, “A Center For Independent Media” a little dubious. Following is a sample of the headlines this evening:

• Fight for the soul of Michigan’s highest court  (Beginning of article): “Arch-conservative Clifford Taylor…”
•  Obama condemns “shameless” McCain campaign
•  Lose your house, lose your vote
•  DOJ politicization hurt voters’ rights, has it hurt Michigan?
•  Rove tricks? McCain absentee ballots raise questions
•  1980’s savings and loan bailout haunts John McCain
•  Conservatives looking decidedly socialist as AIG and market flounder

Borderline tabloid and decidedly liberally slanted headlines like this do harm their credibility a bit and make it a little easier to believe they may have misquoted Mr. Carabelli.

Forgetting the accuracy of this upstanding publication for now, I have a different theory on why the lawsuit was filed in the first place.

It is no secret that Michigan’s economy is in the toilet. It has the highest unemployment rate in the country and is losing population so fast that by spring it may have fewer people than North Dakota. The problem with this for the Democratic party is that we are in the second term of a Democratic governor who inherited the state from a three term Republican governor that left the state in better shape. Further half of the legislature is controlled by the Democrats. Between them they have had some really idiotic and publicly embarrassing attempts to “fix” the economy in Michigan. Staying true to the Democratic ideals, these fixes have largely comprised of increased taxes, which is exactly what a state bleeding jobs needs to do.

One thing Obama does not need, in a tight race for a state that is very important to his presidential aspirations, is to have the public notice that the Dems have run our state into the ground.