02
Jul

RIP Herb Klein

By hoystory 0 Comments 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet) Loading ... Loading ...
Categories: Media and Sad

Former Copley Newspapers Editor-in-Chief Herb Klein died today at the age of 91. Klein was also notable as the first-ever White House communications director, serving President Richard Nixon.

I met Klein several years ago when I had the audacity to apply for a job opening for an editorial writer at the Union-Tribune. The only reason I got as far in the interview proces as I did was this blog. I didn’t get the job, but I did get the privilege of having two interviews with Klein during the process.

Being in his office was like entering a sort of political museum. I was admitted to his office a few minutes before he came in and just stared at the walls, spotting a Herblock cartoon depicting Klein holding on to both sides of a “credibility” chasm between Nixon and the press.

I enjoyed our conversations — they felt much more like that than an interview — and remember him putting off the end of our second interview by several minutes to finish up a subject even though his next appointment was waiting in the lobby. As I walked out, I recognized the guest who’d been kept waiting, but didn’t put a name on him until I was back downstairs at my desk. The guy kept cooling his heels was Daniel Goldin, NASA administrator.

RIP, Herb Klein.

02
Jul

World ends…

By hoystory 0 Comments 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet) Loading ... Loading ...
Categories: Economics

Men hardest hit?

Unemployment rate for men at 10 percent.

01
Jul

Media ’skepticism’

By hoystory 0 Comments 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet) Loading ... Loading ...
Categories: Media

Over at the Weekly Standard’s blog, Mary Katherine Ham has done a little Lexis/Nexis research and discovered — surprise! — the New York Times has different standards when it comes to expressing skepticism for presidential town halls.

When does a “town hall” become a town hall, without need of scare-quote qualification, one might wonder? (When Clinton and Gore held Social Security town halls in the late 90s, they were just plain town halls. Although, one story notes rather deep into the article that the AARP picked questions.)

Both White Houses are entitled to hold such events, which are inherently and sensibly orchestrated to benefit each executive. The press is right to note that fact while reporting them. Odd that the Times chose to do that only for the Bush administration, huh?

I guess their journalistic skepticism is now more properly termed, “skepticism.”

This sort of “reporting” just feeds into the belief — that is completely justified — that the media is willing to give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt, something they were unwilling to extend to the Bush administration.

01
Jul

Let them starve

By hoystory 0 Comments 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet) Loading ... Loading ...
Categories: Economics and Environment

That seems to be what one of the unintended consequences behind last week’s cap-and-tax bill would be if it becomes law. According to Robert Zubrin of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the bill will have the effect of increasing organic farming — because fertilizers and pesticides will be prohibitively expensive. That may be great for the wealthy who can afford to pay more for the less-productive organic produce, but it may have the effect of starving the world’s poor.

But all these bad aspects of the Waxman-Markey bill pale before its potential impact on the world’s food supply. America’s agricultural sector is one of the greatest success stories in human history. In 1930, hunger still stalked the entire globe. Not just in Africa, India and China, but even in Europe and America, the struggle to simply get enough food to live on still preoccupied billions of people. Since 1930, the world population has tripled. But instead of going hungrier, people nearly everywhere are now eating much better. This miracle is the work of American farmers, who have not only produced huge surpluses to feed the world, but used the income gained from such good work to pioneer ever more advanced techniques that have enabled farmers everywhere to grow more. This progress is still continuing. In 2007, Iowa alone produced more corn than the entire United States did in 1947, and the 300,000 American corn growers as a whole produced 784 billion pounds of corn, an amount sufficient to supply 130 pounds of corn per year to every person on the planet. But this miracle depends upon the availability of cheap fertilizer and pesticides, which in turn require carbon-based process energy to produce. If you tax carbon, you tax fertilizer and pesticides. If you tax these things, you tax food, and by no small amount. A $15/ton CO2 tax would increase fertilizer production costs directly by about $60/ton, with the cap-and-trade bill’s increased transport costs inflating the burden still more. That’s enough to make many farmers use less fertilizer, and less fertilizer means less food.

To get a sense of what it would mean for farmers to abandon fertilizer, it is only necessary to go to the supermarket and compare the price of the “organic” produce, grown without chemical fertilizer, to the regular produce, which, while just as nutritious, typically costs less than half as much. It is one thing for wealthy organic food buffs to voluntarily pay such high prices for their food — that is their right. But to impose such costs for basic groceries on everyone else, and particularly the poor, as part of a largely symbolic effort to try to change the weather, is self-indulgent in the extreme.

As I’ve mentioned before, the best case scenario for this bill would have the effect of reducing global temperatures by 0.2 degrees C by 2100. Is there a single person on this Earth who should die from starvation in order to make that meager and meaningless reduction in global temperatures happen?

30
Jun

Honduras again

By hoystory 1 Comment 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet) Loading ... Loading ...
Categories: Democrats, Latin America and United Nations

Ex-president Manuel Zelaya of Honduras appeared at the United Nations and got the approval of that undemocratic cabal to return to power. Getting removed from power has apparently given Zelaya a new respect for the law.

Zelaya — whose elected term ends in January 2010 — had defied the Supreme Court and called a referendum on constitutional change that opponents worried would lead to Zelaya prolonging his presidency.

Zelaya backed down from the referendum on Tuesday, saying at the United Nations that he would no longer push for the constitutional changes he had wanted.

“I’m not going to hold a constitutional assembly,” he said. “And if I’m offered the chance to stay in power, I won’t. I’m going to serve my four years.”

All of which is an admission that the other branches of government were right to remove him in the first place.

The best news to come out of this is that President Barack Obama’s rhetoric in calling for Zelaya’s return to power may be mostly empty.

Even though “it may be true he was removed illegally,” [former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Otto] Reich says (and as President Obama now contends), the U.S. government is acting as though nothing happened. Obama may be calling it a coup, but Reich also points out that U.S. law requires the government to cut off “assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.” And yet the government has made no indication it will cut off aid (and push Honduras into the arms of Chavez just as the country tries to realign itself in our direction). The Obama administration has also made no indication that it will remove U.S. troops from the country.

This incidents provides further evidence that Obama has trouble distinguishing the good guys from the bad guys (think Iran and Georgia before that), but it doesn’t look like Obama has the courage of convictions on this, either. Presumably, he won’t actually do anything to restore Zelaya.

That’s the first good news we’ve had on this situation all week.

30
Jun

Reading Ricci

By hoystory 0 Comments 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet) Loading ... Loading ...
Categories: Democrats and Judges

I spent quite some time last night reading the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. [PDF format] As a white male, I’m confident that the decision reached by the court majority is the right one.

On a more serious note, after reading the facts of the case as recited in the opinion, it’s obvious that there were serious, competing legal doctrines at stake in this case. This was a difficult case. As the Court majority itself noted, legally, it wasn’t cut-and-dried before it came to the Supreme Court. (On a moral and public policy level, absent evidence that the test was racially biased, the proper thing to do was to promote those that did best on the test.)

However, the fact that yesterday’s decision was 5-4 doesn’t validate Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s ruling at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. National Journal’s Stuart Taylor:

What’s more striking is that the court was unanimous in rejecting the Sotomayor panel’s specific holding. Her holding was that New Haven’s decision to spurn the test results must be upheld based solely on the fact that highly disproportionate numbers of blacks had done badly on the exam and might file a “disparate-impact” lawsuit — regardless of whether the exam was valid or the lawsuit could succeed.

This position is so hard to defend, in my view, that I hazarded a prediction in my June 13 column: “Whichever way the Supreme Court rules in the case later this month, I will be surprised if a single justice explicitly approves the specific, quota-friendly logic of the Sotomayor-endorsed… opinion” by U.S. District Judge Janet Arterton.

Unlike some of my predictions, this one proved out. In fact, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 39-page dissent for the four more liberal justices quietly but unmistakably rejected the Sotomayor-endorsed position that disparate racial results alone justified New Haven’s decision to dump the promotional exam without even inquiring into whether it was fair and job-related.

Justice Ginsburg also suggested clearly — as did the Obama Justice Department, in a friend-of-the-court brief — that the Sotomayor panel erred in upholding summary judgment for the city. Ginsburg said that the lower courts should have ordered a jury trial to weigh the evidence that the city’s claimed motive — fear of losing a disparate impact suit by low-scoring black firefighters if it proceeded with the promotions — was a pretext. The jury’s job would have been to consider evidence that the city’s main motive had been to placate black political leaders who were part of Mayor John DeStefano’s political base.

Sotomayor’s confirmation is still as close as it gets to a sure thing in Washington, D.C. However, Sotomayor’s handling of this case should draw some serious scrutiny during her confirmation hearings. Republicans won’t defeat her, but they should use this opportunity to shine a bright light on the kind of judges President Barack Obama wants to put on the bench.

As to the decision itself, I want to highlight a comment from Alito’s concurrence that should raise some questions about the court’s liberal wing and the kind of empathetic judges they have.

The dissent grants that petitioners’ situation is “unfortunate” and that they “understandably attract this Court’s sympathy.” Post, at 1, 39. But “sympathy” is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law—of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today’s decision, has been denied them.

Put more simply, is there any doubt that if those denied promotions had been 19 blacks and 1 Hispanic that the city would never have taken the actions it did and that the courts would’ve been quick to strike it down had they?

29
Jun

More on Honduras

By hoystory 0 Comments 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5 out of 5) Loading ... Loading ...
Categories: Democrats and Latin America

President Obama again today reiterated his belief that the ouster of Honduran President Zelaya was illegal.

Following Obama’s logic, apparently once you’ve been elected, there’s no possible legal way to be removed from office prior to the end of your term.

President Nixon is probably kicking himself as he rolls in his grave.

Obama also apparently under the impression that the military is still in charge in that country, ignoring the fact that the nation is under civilian control, and has been since almost immediately after Zelaya was ousted. This isn’t a case of a military junta taking over the government and installing a general as the leader. They removed Zelaya at the behest of the supreme court and with the nearly unanimous approval of the legislature.

When you’ve got Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers on your side, you’re on the wrong side.

28
Jun

Honduras’ coup

By hoystory 5 Comments 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 5 out of 5) Loading ... Loading ...
Categories: Foreign Policy and Latin America

After reading The Washington Post’s article on today’s quasi-coup in Honduras, one wonders what side the Obama administration is on.

The coup was condemned throughout the Americas. President Obama joined other regional leaders in calling for a peaceful return of Zelaya to office.

But the Honduran National Congress defiantly announced that Zelaya was out, and its members named congressional leader Roberto Micheletti as the new president on Sunday afternoon.

The Honduran Supreme Court also supported the removal of Zelaya, saying that the military was acting in defense of democracy.

It’s really not a traditional coup when you’ve got the entire congress and the supreme court in support of it.

Read further, and it appears as though this was a small-d democratic takeover of a country that was teetering on the verge of Hugo Chavez-style fascism.

Zelaya was removed from office as Hondurans prepared to vote Sunday in a nonbinding referendum asking them if they would support a constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution. Zelaya’s critics said he wanted to use the referendum to open the door to reelection after his term ends in January 2010, an assertion that Zelaya denied.

The referendum — which U.S. officials described as more of a “survey” than a true vote — was condemned by broad swaths of Honduran society as an obvious power grab. The Honduran Supreme Court called the referendum unconstitutional and leaders of Zelaya’s own party denounced the measure.

Imagine a similar situation occurring here: Obama calls for a “nonbinding referendum” on repealing the 22nd Amendment. The Supreme Court rules that this vote is unconstitutional and Democrats oppose the move (unlikely, I know), but Obama vows to go ahead with it. Who’s in the right in this situation? Hint: not the president.

But a senior Honduran official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he didn’t see the new government backing down. He said the country’s Congress had appointed a commission Thursday evening to investigate whether the president’s referendum was in line with the Honduran constitution. The commission reported back Sunday afternoon that the president had violated the constitution, and the Congress voted to remove him. That procedure is “within the constitution,” said the senior official — although the coup that occurred hours earlier was not, he acknowledged.

“The decision was adopted by unanimity in the Congress. That means all of the political parties. It has been endorsed by sectors that represent a wide array of Hondurans — the Episcopal church, the Catholic Church. And well, of course, the armed forces,” he said.

“The difficult part will be for the international community to see things as the Honduran people see them,” the official said.

This sounds like President Zelaya was impeached — after he was ousted by the military. There seems to be wide unanimity in the country that Zelaya was out of line and his removal was the right thing to do.

So, why is the Obama administration so keen on putting a Chavez acolyte back in in power?

In Washington, Obama said he was “deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya.”

A senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the United States would work alongside the Organization of American States to restore Zelaya, and the official predicted that the organizers of the coup would find themselves isolated and facing stiff pressure to allow Zelaya’s return.

This statement seems incompatible with the closing statement in the Post article.

A senior administration official would not confirm that account, but said, “We were very clear with the different sectors of Honduran political life and Honduras’s different political institutions that any resolution of the political conflict in Honduras had to be democratic and constitutional.”

It appears that this has happened — ex post facto. Unless these reports are inaccurate, respect for democracy demands that Zelaya stay in exile.

Now if only democratic forces could do the same in Venezuela, Cuba and Iran.

UPDATE!

This site hasn’t been updated in the past few hours, but it does have some background on what’s been going on in Honduras.

UPDATE 2!

Fausta’s blog has much more on the goings-on in Honduras. Let’s just say that there’s questions as to whether the military’s removal of Zelaya was approved by the before or after it was actually executed.

UPDATE 3!

Mary Anastasia O’Grady of the Wall Street Journal confirms my take on the story. Again, the question becomes why is the Obama administration siding with the likes of Chavez and Castro on this issue. Also, Chavez has threatened to invade Honduras to return Zelaya to the presidency. Why isn’t the Obama administration making it clear that any such action would be unacceptable. And by unacceptable, I mean we would destroy Venezuela’s military and probably send a stray cruise missile to wherever Chavez happens to be speaking from.

27
Jun

Lunatics running the asylum

By hoystory 0 Comments 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 5 out of 5) Loading ... Loading ...
Categories: Democrats and Government

The House yesterday passed the cap-and-tax bill — a bit of insanity that should get most Democrats representing Middle America run out on a rail in 2010. What’s most troubling about yesterday’s move was that the cap-and-trade bill didn’t really exist as such when it was “passed” yesterday. Instead of a bill, the House passed a 1,100-page bill with an attached 300 pages of editing instructions.

Texas Republican Reps. Joe Barton and Louie Gohmert have just asked the chair whether there exists a complete, updated copy of the Waxman-Markey carbon-cap bill.

“If a bill for which there is no copy were to actually pass this body,” Barton asked, “could the bill without a copy be sent to the Senate for its consideration?”

Through a series of parliamentary inquiries, the Republicans learned that the 300-plus page managers’ amendment, added to the bill last night in the House Rules Committee, has not even been been integrated with the official copy of the 1,090-page bill at the House Clerk’s desk, let alone in any other location. The two documents are side-by-side at the desk as the clerk reads through the instructions in the 300 page document for altering the 1,090 page document.

But they cannot be simply combined, because the amendment contains 300 pages of items like this: “Page 15, beginning line 8, strike paragraph (11)…” How many members of Congress do you suppose have gone through it all to see how it changes the bill?

The answer, of course, is zero. This is at least the second time since the American voters so foolishly handed over the entire government to the Democrats that they have passed a bill that no one has read — the first was the abomination of a “stimulus” plan that was passed less than 24 hours after the language was finalized.

Speaking of openness, transparency and knowing what the h-e-double-hockeysticks you’re signing into law, President Barack Obama has officially reneged on his “sunlight before signing” promise.

26
Jun

He’s better than you

By hoystory 0 Comments 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 5 out of 5) Loading ... Loading ...
Categories: Democrats and Medicine

It’s a perennial problem with politicians — they have one set of rules for the people they govern and another for themselves. This fact was one of the reasons the “contract with America” back in 1994 was so popular. Republicans vowed to no longer exempt Congress from the rules they passed for the rest of the nation.

Wednesday night’s ABC News Obama infomercial featured the second time since he was elected president that Obama set himself above those he governs. The first time was when he sent his girls to an elite private school while at the same time nominating as education secretary the man heading Chicago’s public schools — the same public schools that weren’t nearly good enough for his own children.

Then Wednesday, in response to a question from a neurologist — that got no follow-up from the sycophantic ABC News hosts — Obama did it again, reserving for himself a right that he would deny the vast majority of the American people.

President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people — like the president himself — wouldn’t face.

The probing questions came from two skeptical neurologists during ABC News’ special on health care reform, “Questions for the President: Prescription for America,” anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.

Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves [sic] ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it’s not provided by insurance.

Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.

The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care. “

Maybe it’s a good thing for the president’s efforts to take over the healthcare system that the town hall got such poor ratings. I think most people would be outraged to find out that the government would diminish their own access to health care while ensuring that neither the political elite nor their loved-ones would be affected by the government-set limits.

25
Jun

The number you need to know

By hoystory 1 Comment 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 5 out of 5) Loading ... Loading ...
Categories: Environment, Government and Taxes

The House is scheduled to vote on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill tomorrow. Only in the bizarro world of Congress can elected representatives pass a massive tax hike in the middle of the worst economic crisis in at least 30 years — in the form of a bill most of them haven’t even read.

There’s a lot of debate over just how little — or how much — the bill will cost.

For the record, I find any cost assumption that assumes the government will somehow refund the vast majority of the proceeds from the tax to be highly dubious. This standard puts the CBO and EPA estimates under a cloud, since both make this assumption.

All of these issues, however important to your pocketbook, really just obfuscate the real issue. The purpose of this bill is allegedly to combat global warming. Just how much will this reduce global warming by?

You can find the answer on page 10 of this document. [PDF Format]

  • Temperature “savings” assuming scenario A1B (mid-range emissions):
    • 0.04ºC (0.07ºF) by 2050
    • 0.11ºC (0.20ºF) by 2100
  • Temperature “savings” assuming scenario A1FI (high emissions):
    • 0.06ºC (0.07ºF) by 2050
    • 0.20ºC (0.36ºF) by 2100

Even in the worst case scenario, this bill would effectively reduce the global average temperature by a rounding error. With current technology, this reduction in temperature would not even be detectable.

Would anyone in their right mind spend one red cent on a plan that, even if successful, would do basically nothing?

Only if you’re in Congress.

25
Jun

Mark Sanford’s stupidity

By hoystory 0 Comments 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 4 out of 5) Loading ... Loading ...
Categories: Democrats and Republicans

After yesterday’s cringe-inducing press conference where South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican, confessed to having flown to Argentina to have an affair with a woman, it’s clear that his political career is over. Sanford won’t be running for president in 2012 as some had suggested. He won’t be running for re-election either. He may not even keep his job until the next election.

A few related thoughts:

  • Despite what everyone thinks about politicians holding executive office (mayors, governors, etc.), they really aren’t necessary to keeping their city/state functioning. Sanford was gone, incommunicado, for several days … and nothing happened.
  • Sanford’s drawing a lot of scorn from the left, right and center of American politics. It’s deserved, but unbecoming of all the people dishing it out. A more humble attitude would be more appropriate — “there, but for the grace of God, go I.”
  • Finally, I found George Stephanopoulos’ claim that Democrats are brought down by these types of sex scandals whereas Republicans tend to survive them to be at odds with reality. If it’s just about sex, then Democrats are slightly more likely to survive and have a political future than Republicans. The problem is, all of Stephanopoulos’ examples were more than just sex scandals.
    • Eliot Spitzer, New York governor, was brought down not just by sex, but because he broke multiple laws. He used campaign funds illegally in paying for the rooms for his tryst and he paid a woman for sex — illegal in the U.S. aside from a few rural Nevada counties.
    • Jim McGreevey, New Jersey governor, was brought down not because of his homosexual affair, but because he had installed his paramour in a government job that he was unqualified for. McGreevey’s lover was not an American citizen and couldn’t get a security clearance, yet he was installed as the state’s top homeland security official.
    • Kwame Kilpatrick, Detroit mayor, was convicted of numerous crimes, some of which were related to an extra-marital affair, but he didn’t lose the office as a result of the affair itself. Kirkpatrick was convicted of perjury, misconduct in office and obstruction of justice in addition to assault of a law enforcement officer.
  • Stephanopoulos pointed to Republicans David Vitter, Louisiana senator, and Larry Craig, former Idaho senator, and John Ensign of Nevada as people who had survived scandals. He’s right about Vitter, wrong about Craig and it’s too early to tell about Ensign. While Craig did serve out his term (after reneging on a promise to resign) he did not run for office again — I don’t think anyone doubts that, absent the scandal, he would’ve run for re-election and won. Ensign’s scandal may or may not bring him down (right now I’d lean towards “may not” simply because it’s not on the news 24/7), but he has no hope of higher office now.
  • Stephanopoulos failed to mention GOP Rep. Vito Fossella who didn’t run for re-election after a DWI arrest led to the revelation that he had fathered a child out of wedlock with another woman. He also didn’t mention the famous Mark Foley sex-texts-to-pages scandal in 2006 that contributed to the GOP’s loss of Congress that year.
  • Stephanopoulos’ former boss, President Bill Clinton, survived a sex scandal — and the related perjury charges — and emerged from it stronger. Rep. Barney Frank is still serving in Congress even after it was revealed that his boyfriend was running a male prostitution ring out of Frank’s apartment.

Each and every one of these scandals is unique. You can’t easily compare one to another, and you certainly can’t do what Stephanopoulos did — generalize that Republicans survive these where Democrats don’t.

24
Jun

Inspector General updates

By hoystory 0 Comments 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5 out of 5) Loading ... Loading ...
Categories: Democrats

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial calling on President Obama to either respect the law regarding inspector generals or get rid of the office altogether.

Byron York has some more on the Gerald Walpin firing. It appears the bipartisan backing for his sacking was due to the fact that both sides didn’t want Walpin pointing out fraud and corruption just as they were getting a big infusion of patronage money to distribute.

And it’s not just Walpin over at AmeriCorps that was targeted, Moe Lane points out that it appears as though the Amtrak inspector general ran into similar meddling and “retired” rather quickly.

How many IGs do you need to sack before it becomes a trend that someone other than the Washington Examiner is interested in pursuing?

24
Jun

Eric Alterman has an acolyte

By hoystory 0 Comments 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 4 out of 5) Loading ... Loading ...
Categories: Media

I’ve spent too much time this evening attempting to educate Tom Traubert over at Poynter.org’s Romenesko’s Media Blog. Mr. Traubert is part of the delusional left that is convinced that if you’re not Keith Olbermann, then you’re a right-winger. Follow the link for the entire exchange, but I wanted to highlight this bit of insanity:

Traubert: Washington Post fields a stable full of conservatives and just exchanged its single liberal columnist, Froomkin, for another, Ezra Klein.

Hoy: You dishonestly state that the Washington Post has only one liberal writer. Looking at the paper’s list of opinion writers I find at least the following liberals: David Broder, Richard Cohen, E.J. Dionne, Colbert King, Michael Kinsley, Sebastian Mallaby, Ruth Marcus, Harold Meyerson, Eugene Robinson and Fareed Zakaria.

I probably didn’t list all of the Post’s liberal writers — these were just the ones that jumped out at me.

Mr. Traubert’s got issues. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

23
Jun

Obama is the best president ever!

By hoystory 0 Comments 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet) Loading ... Loading ...
Categories: Democrats

And my position on that is entirely consistent.

« Previous Entries

Follow Hoystory on Twitter


July 2009
M T W T F S S
« Jun    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Months

Categories

Abortion Affirmative action Books China Crime Death Penalty Democrats Economics Education Entertainment Environment Foreign Policy Free Speech Funny Government Greatest Hits Gun control Happy Idiots Immigration Iraq Islam Jimmy Carter Judges Latin America Lawyers Media Medicine Middle East Military Movies National Security North Korea Oil Paul Krugman Personal Photography Politics Racism Religion Religion of Pieces Republicans Sad Science Social Security Society Sports Taxes Technology Television Terrorism Uncategorized United Nations

Blogroll

A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days Ace of Spades Anchoress Ankle biting pundits Asymmetrical Information Bad hamster Baldilocks Baseball Crank Big Lizards Blogometer BuzzMachine Captain’s Quarters Climate Audit Common Sense & Wonder Confederate Yankee Cox & Forkum Coyote Blog Damnum Absque Injuria Deinonychus antirrhopus Don Surber Dr. Weevil Econopundit Everyman Gateway Pundit Highway 99 Hot Air Hubs and spokes Hugh Hewitt IMAO In Other Words In the agora INDC Journal Infinite Monkeys Instapundit Insults unpunished Irish Pennants James Lileks Bleat Jules Crittenden Junkyard Blog Just One Minute Kausfiles Little Green Footballs Lying in Ponds Madelinople Man Without Qualities Michelle Malkin Midwest Conservative Journal Mudville Gazette One Hand Clapping Op-For Oxblog Patterico’s Pontifications Poor and Stupid Powerline Press Think Private Radio Professor Bainbridge Q and O Radioblogger Ragged Thots Random Jottings Real Clear Politics Red State Right Nation Right Wing News Scrappleface Second Hand Conjecture Small Dead Animals Sound Politics Southwest Left Coast Stones Cry Out Target Centermass The Agitator The American Mind The Black Republican Tigerhawk Vikingpundit Vodkapundit Volokh Conspiracy Watts Up with That?

News sources

Recent Entries

Latest Comments

Themes


  • Support the Cause




  • Hoystory's advertisers