Old and Busted: Forgetting Obama is Black. The New Tingle: Drinking In His "Little Boy Smile"

Of course, this isn't the first time Matthews has been unabashedly smitten by Obama's boyish, "winning" smile. It's a recurring tingle. I just had to call it "new" to fit the trusty Old and Busted headline formula.

Not surprisingly, Eugene Robinson laughs out loud takes his cue from Matthews and compares Obama's public affectations to Ronald Reagan's "head waggle."

One gets the sense that the 2012 election is going to hit these guys like a Mack truck.



Via Breitbart.

Cross-posted.

The Failed 112th Congress

So much for a honeymoon period.

The new Republican majority in the House is learning already that governing is harder than campaigning.

They vow to repeal President Obama’s health reform. But they say they want to reduce the deficit, too, so one of their rules requires that any new legislation be paid for fully.

Here’s the problem: The health care reform includes new taxes and a tough cut in Medicare spending. It actually reduces the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So if you kill health reform, the rules require that you find offsetting spending cuts or tax increases to plug that gap.

So Republicans have decided to exempt health reform from the rule. That deficit they talked so much about during the campaign? Never mind.

We haven’t seen this kind of hypocrisy in Washington since ... a few weeks ago, when Republicans insisted on extending tax cuts to the wealthy and didn’t pay for that either.

Of course if was the golden boy in the White House who signed that legislation. Oh, never mind.

Can't wait to see the scathing analysis of Day 2 of the 112th Congress.

As to repealing ObamaCare, Constitutional scholar Ezra Klein suddenly is concerned with deficit spending.

AP: Of Course the Federal Pay Freeze is a "Symbolic Gesture" - But It's Also a Clear Sign the White House "Got the Message" From Voters on Deficits!

Oh, those Associated Press writers.

They kill me!

Unfortunately, that hilariously obtuse spin has been scrubbed from the Yahoo! version of AP's article trumpeting Obama's proposed 2-year freeze on federal salaries.

The good news is you can google around and still find it:

While Obama said the federal employee salary freeze was necessary to put the nation on sound fiscal footing, he also said that he didn’t reach the decision lightly.

“This is not just a line item on a federal ledger,” he said. “These are people’s lives.”

The savings from the pay freeze makes only a small dent in the nation’s $1 trillion-plus budget deficit. But with voters voicing their anger over Washington’s spending during the midterm elections, even a symbolic gesture would show the White House got the message.

May I ask the obvious question?

Is Robert Gibbs ghost-writing for the AP now in his spare time?

Cross-posted.

Record Number Distrust Media

Gee, you suppose their sycophantic boot-licking for Obama and the Democrats has anything to do with these pitiful numbers?

For the fourth straight year, the majority of Americans say they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 57% now saying this is a record high by one percentage point.

The 43% of Americans who, in Gallup's annual Governance poll, conducted Sept. 13-16, 2010, express a great deal or fair amount of trust ties the record low, and is far worse than three prior Gallup readings on this measure from the 1970s.

Trust in the media is now slightly higher than the record-low trust in the legislative branch but lower than trust in the executive and judicial branches of government, even though trust in all three branches is down sharply this year. These findings also further confirm a separate Gallup poll that found little confidence in newspapers and television specifically.

Nearly half of Americans (48%) say the media are too liberal, tying the high end of the narrow 44% to 48% range recorded over the past decade. One-third say the media are just about right while 15% say they are too conservative.

Seriously, except for those on the fringe left and in the White House suffering from Fox Derangement Syndrome, how can anyone possibly believe the media is too conservative?

After the anticipated GOP takeover of Congress next month expect the bias to become even worse. Newcomers to Washington should be very wary of media types wanting to cozy up to them, since they'll likely just be set up and stabbed in the back by "journalists" with an agenda. In fact, they should steer clear of liberal media and work with those who helped get them there to promote their agenda. With "mainstream" media credibility bottoming out they should work with more trusted credible sources of information--like bloggers and talk radio.

Wonderful: NY Times Planning Another Hit Piece on Boehner

They already brought us the earth-shattering news that future House Speaker John Boehner actually knows Washington lobbyists, a stunning development in political circles considering he lives and works in Washington. Now the fair and impartial arbiters of truthiness at the New York Times plan another smear attack on Boehner set for later in October so they can try and influence the midterm elections.

They have no idea how badly this will backfire with an already angry public and likely will lead to even more defeats for Democrats in tight races. Aren't these the same people who whine about "negative campaigning" and the "politics of personal destruction" every election cycle? Even worse, they're hopping into bed with the discredited smear merchants from Daily Kos.

Pathetic.

The heat is on Republican leader John Boehner.

Liberal media outlets are trying to smear the highest-ranking Republican in the House just weeks before the midterm elections with a deal-breaking scandal before he has a chance to take the speaker's chair from Nancy Pelosi.

A blogger from liberal Web site The Daily Kos pierced through Boehner's security detail at yesterday's unveiling of his leadership policy "Pledge to America" to ask if he was sleeping with a lobbyist from the Printing Industries of America.

The congressman ignored the pesky blogger with a flip camera and kept moving to his fleet of black Suburbans.

The lobbyist who was named in the confrontation and then was contacted by he Daily Kos blogger Lisbeth Lyons denied the accusations. "As you can imagine, I was stunned by such a question," Lyons said. "I found it to be highly insulting, particularly as a female political professional, as well as unfounded. Beyond that, I have no further comment on the matter."

Insiders on Capitol Hill are buzzing about an upcoming New York Times exposé that will detail an alleged Boehner affair. Sources say the Times is looking for the right time to drop the story in October to sway the election, similar to how the Times reported during the 2008 presidential campaign on an alleged John McCain affair that supposedly had taken place many years before and that was flatly denied by the woman in question.

"Catching Boehner with a mistress is the only way to destroy him politically before the election," a source said.

If the Times wants to play games I have two words for them: Vera Baker.

Guess Who Took Twice as Much Lobbyist Cash as Boehner?

You'll never guess. Can't wait for the New York Times hit team to unveil their investigation of Queen Nancy.

If you read this weekend’s New York Times’ hit job on would-be Speaker John Boehner and his “lobbyist friends,” you might think, as the reporter clearly thinks, that John Boehner is cozier with lobbyists than most powerful politicians are.

But did you know:

* Nancy Pelosi has raised almost twice as much money from lobbyists this election as Boehner has?
* At least 18 House Democrats have raised more lobbyist cash this election than Boehner has.
* Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have pocketed more lobbyist cash in the past 18 months than Boehner has raised in the past 6 elections, combined?

Heck, it's been almost two years and has the Times even mentioned Schumer was up to his eyeballs in Bernie Madoff cash?

Alternate Reality: LA Times Claims Mosque Issue is Dividing GOP

As we see the Democratic Party coming unglued by the divisive Ground Zero Victory Mosque, leave it to the pinheads at he LA Times to veer off into the Land of Make Believe by claiming it's dividing the GOP.

Boy are these lamestream media types predictable.

As top Republicans including House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich attack plans for an Islamic community center and mosque near the destroyed World Trade Center site, a larger schism is opening up in the GOP over the inflammatory issue.

Some Republicans fear that pressing the issue carries risks, diverting attention from bread-and-butter issues and undercutting the party's efforts to broaden its base — just as it is losing ground among other ethnic minorities such as Latinos.

"This is a distraction from a winning game plan," said Grover Norquist, a conservative activist who a decade ago worked with President George W. Bush and his political guru, Karl Rove, to cultivate Muslim American and Latino voters to try to build a more diverse and durable Republican majority. "It is very stupid, when Republicans are poised to win an overwhelming victory in November over Democratic spending, to focus attention on this issue."

Sure, let's take advice from Norquist, a vurtual nonentity in today's GOP. He worked with Rove and Bush a decade ago?

So what?

Norquist, whose wife is Muslim, has emerged as the most outspoken foe of politicizing the mosque issue. But other Republicans — especially those focusing on the midterm election or in swing states — have taken similar stands.

Frankly, I haven't seen Norquist mentioned anywhere in the news these past several months in relation to the mosque, but sure enough he pops up in a rather dubious forum as well with an infamous Journolister.

In fact, check this search and tell me what sort of player Norquist has been in the debate? But hey, that's enough for the LA Time to use his as evidence the mosque issue will divide the GOP. Meanwhile we have Democrats running from the double-talking Obama, Harry Reid saying the mosque should be built elsewhere and Nancy Pelosi calling for investigations of opponents.

Yes, it's dividing the GOP, all the way to majorities in the Congress and Senate come November.

Confirmed: Americans Hate the Media

Gee, I wonder why?

Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters describe themselves as at least somewhat angry at the media, including 33% who are Very Angry.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 31% say they are not angry at the media, but that includes just nine percent (9%) who say they are not at all angry.

It’s important to note, however, that the question did not in any way define media or differentiate between media outlets such as CNN and Fox News.

But voters have consistently said in surveys that they believe the national media has a liberal bias and that most reporters try to help the candidates they want to win. Just before Election Day 2008, 51% said most reporters were trying to help Barack Obama win the presidency. Just seven percent (7%) thought they were trying to help John McCain, while 31% viewed their coverage as unbiased.

Now 48% of voters think most reporters when they write or talk about President Obama are trying to help the president pass his agenda. Only 18% think most reporters are trying to block the president from passing his agenda. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say they are simply interested in reporting the news in an unbiased manner.

No wonder so many from the despised media wind up working for Democrats. They're interchangeable and equally loathed.

Unhappiness with the media comes at a time when many government policies are unpopular with a majority of voters and two-thirds (67%) think the news media has too much influence over the actions of government. Sixty-two percent (62%) say what the media thinks is more important to the average member of Congress than what voters think.

Election night this November should be most delicious watching these imbeciles choke back tears as the expected heavy casualty reports roll in.

Wife Of Obama's Budget Director Gets a New Gig

No conflict of interest here.

Bianna Golodryga has been named the co-anchor of the weekend edition of "Good Morning America," ABC News president David Westin announced today.

Golodryga will join co-anchor Bill Weir, news anchor Ron Claiborne and weather anchor Marysol Castro on the broadcast beginning this Saturday.

"Since coming to ABC News in July 2007, Bianna has distinguished the network with her reporting on the economy and recent financial crisis," Westin said in an e-mail to the ABC News staff about the announcement.

I have written about Golodryga earlier, when it was revealed the Obama's budget director Peter Orszag, after divorcing his pregnant wife announced his engagement to Ms. Golodryga, who at the time served as a reporter for ABC news on financial matters.

Just what the administration needs. A paid surrogate to put the best spin possible on the crippling economic news on a network morning show. I wonder why the ABC's news release failed to mention that little fact about being married to Mr. Orszag?

But don't you dare question anyone's motives in this.

CORRECTION: Mr. Orszag did not divorce his pregnant wife, it was the girlfriend who was pregnant that he dumped to date and then became engaged to Bianna. Sorry for the confusion, I forgot about the girl in between.

Does Anyone in the Media Have a Sense of Humor?

Sarah Palin obviously enjoys tweaking the pantywaists in the media, and these morons keep falling for it every time, acting like hysterical babies. Do any of these twits have the slightest sense of humor?

Here she goofs on them with a Facebook post yesterday, referencing March Madness. I guess they forget she used to play basketball in high school.

To the teams that desire making it this far next year: Gear up! In the battle, set your sights on next season’s targets! From the shot across the bow – the first second’s tip-off – your leaders will be in the enemy’s crosshairs, so you must execute strong defensive tactics. You won’t win only playing defense, so get on offense! The crossfire is intense, so penetrate through enemy territory by bombing through the press, and use your strong weapons – your Big Guns – to drive to the hole. Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win.

Focus on the goal and fight for it. If the gate is closed, go over the fence. If the fence is too high, pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, parachute in. If the other side tries to push back, your attitude should be “go for it.” Get in their faces and argue with them. (Sound familiar?!) Every possession is a battle; you’ll only win the war if you’ve picked your battles wisely. No matter how tough it gets, never retreat, instead RELOAD!

She clearly has a sense of humor coming after all the whining recently about using the word crosshairs, notably from whiny wieners like Weiner.

The reaction here is absurd, with seeming every other comment calling her a terrorist. These clowns claim she's turning Facebook and Twitter in weapons of mayhem and destruction, while repeating discredited stories of coffins on Russ Carnahan's lawn. What's more destructive? Palin goofing on the media or repeating lies?

Speaking of discredited, McClatchy uses the far left Southern Poverty Law Center as a source. They've got about as much credibility as the George Soros goonsquad over at Media Matters.

"The gun sight: It's clear what it means," Beirich said of the map on Palin's Facebook page. "It doesn't really get more violent than that. Even if it was meant in some kind of twisted jest, certainly the time to take it down has more than passed."

Oooh.

Today a Barack Obama donor was charged with threatening to kill GOP Congressman Eric Cantor. Will all these same people wetting their pants over Palin take Obama to task for telling his supporters to get in people's faces?

When Democrats Attack: White Plains Mayor Busted for Assaulting His Wife, Time to Play Name That Party

Of course if your source of information is the New York Times you'd have to play guess that party. Yes, the New York Times, the same paper that employs Frank Rich, the man who links suicidal Communist sympathizers to the Tea Party. I guess when they know the party of the person involved it's not relevant.

Well, at the least the New York Daily News mentions the fact Adam Bradley is a Democrat, even if they wait until the last sentence of the story. They and the NY Post are the only sources I can find practicing ethical journalism in this case.

The mayor of White Plains was charged with misdemeanor domestic assault Sunday after slamming a door on his wife's finger, cops said.

While acknowledging "problems in my marriage," Mayor Adam Bradley denied any wrongdoing Sunday night and insisted he would not resign.

"This unfortunate matter will in no way affect my commitment to the important work I am doing for this great city," Bradley said after his arraignment in White Plains City Court on a third-degree assault charge.

In the latest embarrassing incident involving a New York politician, Bradley's wife of seven years, Fumiko, told cops her left middle finger was injured Saturday night when her husband closed a door on her hand.

Fumiko Bradley refused to publicly discuss the incident, telling The Journal News her husband is "a great mayor" and "a great father."

"He put himself under a lot of pressure and I couldn't handle that, too," she added.

Just consider the unimaginable pressure of being the Mayor of White Plains. It's a wonder how he soldiers on.

The Associated Press also doesn't find it relevant that he's a Democrat. Neither does WABC TV, nor the local Westchester paper, the Lower Hudson News, nor does 1010 WINS.

Safe to say if he were a Republicans it would be in the first paragraph of every story.

Indeed, a Fifth-Grader Is Smarter Than Obama

I've seen this video several places around the blogosphere today, an incredibly shameful piece of propaganda from CNN, which has forever forfeited any pretense of objectivity. Yet I hadn't seen the prelude here where 'Willie' lays out a devastating case against ObamaCare that leaves the CNN infobabe flummoxed and nearly speechless, as if she can't believe what appears to be a 10-year-old has a superior grasp of the debate than she or any of the other empty heads at CNN.

It's right at the beginning so you need not suffer through the painful song and dance routine.

Memo to the folks at Fox News Channel: Willie might be ready for a solo sitdown.

H/T NumberOneLevinFan.

Brawl Breaks Out on The View With John Ziegler's On His Documentary 'Media Malpractice' (VIDEO)

John Ziegler was on The View today to talk about his upcoming documentary, 'Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected,' and all hell broke loose after about a minute and a half. Transcript? HA! Not a chance! Who could? You'll see after you watch this.



I think this is the strongest and most amped up I've seen Elisabeth get in a while because she finally had someone on her side, so she wasn't powerless against the other witches in the coven. And this is a subject Elisabeth feels very strongly about, as do many other Americans - the liberal media shat on Sarah Palin, all the while giving Barack Obama a nice reach-around.

Ziegler's documentary is right on. And Elisabeth felt empowered to fight today because it was obvious Ziegler was willing to take on the lot of them, and you could tell she felt that power in numbers (and intellect, in this case).

Toward the end, I thought Barbara was going to blow a gasket. I've never seen her lose her cool like she did with Ziegler, and it was quite a delight to see! Don't you just love it when bedwetting know-it-alls realize they're getting their asses kicked, yet they still keep crying out "BUT...BUT...BUT!!!!"

I think if the ladies had known verbal judo, they would have just kept yelling out "STOP RESISTING! STOP RESISTING!" Wouldn't THAT be a fun COPS episode?

Media Wall Protecting Silky Pony Appears Ready to Crumble

As bad as the liberal media bias is in the United States, rarely are we treated to a more pathetic display than the recent effort to hide all news about John Edwards and his love child from the public, as if we weren't aware of the story.

Well, there are signs the media wall of silence protecting Edwards is slowly beginning to crumble.

The News & Observer out of North Carolina today notes Silky has been running scared from the press.

It was only three weeks ago that John Edwards was fielding media questions on his chances of filling the Democratic Party's vice presidential slot on Barack Obama's ticket or a potential Cabinet position in an Obama administration.

On Wednesday, however, the former U.S. senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee was eager to duck the press when the questions took a tabloid turn.

About a dozen reporters and photojournalists attended a speech Edwards gave to an AARP Foundation symposium on poverty and aging in Washington. Afterward, he avoided most of the waiting reporters, at least some of whom wanted to question him about recent reports in the National Enquirer that alleged an inappropriate relationship with a former campaign videographer.

Citing unnamed sources, the Enquirer published a story in October claiming that Edwards was having an affair with a woman who filmed a series of campaign videos. The story resurfaced last week in the online version of the Enquirer, which claimed that Edwards had visited the woman and their "love child" July 21 at the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, Calif.

Jeff Thomas in the San Jose Mercury News takes a swipe at his own dead-tree media.

So what's all this about squeaky-clean Democrat John Edwards and a sordid sex scandal? What, you haven't heard? If that's the case, then maybe you're one of the few remaining Americans who get most of their news from those dead-trees-and-ink thingies.

Members of the so-called Main Stream Media - yes, including this one - have treated the story of an alleged Edwards affair as if it were just another space alien story out of the National Enquirer. But wait! It is indeed the Enquirer that is out in front on this story, but it appears they have slightly more to go on than a UFO sighting.

They say they caught Edwards taking a back elevator to a woman's Beverly Hilton Hotel suite at 2 a.m. last week, and when the stakeout team tried to talk to him about what he was doing there, he bolted back downstairs and hid in a bathroom for 15 minutes before security intervened. The Enquirer says it has photos (and video?) of the whole encounter.

It gets even stranger. The alleged other woman (remember, Edwards is married to Elizabeth Edwards, who is suffering from incurable cancer) is the woman that the Enquirer reported last October was pregnant with Edwards' child. The Edwards campaign's response to that was that, no, the child's father is actually a close, married, aide to Edwards. That's loyalty!

Wired notes the pathetic attempts at Wikipedia to shield the public from information they've known for a week.

Some users wondered why the celebrity gossip site like TMZ.com and The New York Times' John McCain lobbyist affair stories could be relied upon, but not a tabloid like like The National Enquirer.

Even the far left McClatchy News Service wonders why Edwards is running for the hills.

That old friend of the Edwards, Ann Coulter, checks in with her typically understated commentary.

The mainstream media really seem to imagine they can prevent Americans from knowing information by refusing to mention it in newspapers or on TV.

For those few Americans without an Internet connection and to whom I have not faxed the National Enquirer stories: Evidence is accumulating that John Edwards is right -- there really are "two Americas." There's one where men cheat on their cancer-stricken wives and one where men do not cheat on their cancer-stricken wives.

To put it another way, it would appear that ambulances aren't the only things John Edwards has been chasing lately.

Over at The American Thinker, James Baker notes Lover Boy might just have himself some IRS problems.

Heh.

John Edwards allegedly has been funneling $15,000 a month in hush money/child support to his mistress Rielle Hunter. Has he paid a gift tax and avoided money laundering pitfalls? The mother of his love child reportedly received the funds through an intermediary named Andrew Young, who claims to be the child's father in behalf of his friend Edwards. Nearly everyone (but people who rely solely on the MSM for news) knows this courtesy of the National Enquirer,

AT editor Thomas Lifson raised the question of tax liabilities for these transactions, and the possibility of money laundering regulations coming into play with these transfers.

Here in New Jersey, a local columnist has had enough of the cover-up.

A lot of my fellow right-wingers say this is a classic example of liberal media bias. Imagine if Mitt Romney, who is a Republican equivalent of Edwards, had been caught in a similar situation, they say. By the next morning the story would be on the front page of every paper. By the next evening, Leno and Letterman would be competing for the best polygamy punch line.

But this story has been ceded to the internet, where Slate's Mickey Kaus asks, "Will this be the first presidential-contender-level scandal to occur completely in the undernews, without ever being reported in the cautious, respectable MSM?"

I, for one, hope not. We in the MSM had so much fun with the Gary Hart-Donna Rice scandal back in 1987, and this one looks to be just as good. In that one, you may recall, the Miami Herald staked out presidential contender Hart's townhouse and saw the lovely ex-model leaving it. The Enquirer contributed the famous photo of Rice sitting on Hart's lap on a yacht appropriately named "Monkey Business."

Perel said there are photos in this case as well, though he's not releasing them yet. Of course, there's no more proof of an affair in the Edwards case than there was in the Hart case. There are simply a lot of good questions. Edwards already squirmed out of one such query at a press conference, but his political career appears to be over unless he can talk his way out of this one.
...
So it's time the major media picked up the story. It's not merely the stench of liberal bias that bothers me but the unfortunate reality that we in the MSM are giving up a good story to the internet. And if we in the major media continue to cede such stories to the internet, we won't be major much longer.

The vast majority of the media's credibility will be in ashes pretty soon if they don't come clean.

They've run out of excuses.

Media Bias? What Media Bias?

Another disgraceful display by the New York Times.

Honestly, if I'm John McCain or anyone associated with his campaign, I cut these folks off right now. Why bother pandering to your enemy?

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

On the upside, the Times is once again exposed as frauds and McCain's editorial get viewed by millions on Drudge's site.

Here is the editorial rejected by the Times.

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Bush Speaks at Furman, AP Devotes Half the Story to Miniscule Group of Protestors

OK, we get it already. President Bush isn't exactly that popular, thanks in no small part to seven years of a relentless drumbeat of negative news stories.

So the President goes to Furman University Saturday to deliver the commencement and the story from AP is chock full of references to 15 silent protesters.

Honestly, what does this have to do with what Bush has to say to the graduates?

Can't we just let go of the Bush Derangement Syndrome for one day and focus on what he had to say to the students and ignore the childish antics of some whiny faculty members?

Furman has 655 graduates, 230 faculty and 15 protesters get most of the attention.

For a contrast, just look back a week at the absurdly fawning coverage of The Messiah speaking at Wesleyan.

And on the ABC News site, they have as a "related item" a story about Jessica Lange's unhinged speech at Sarah Lawrence from nine days ago.

Is it any wonder why people despise the media?

Mayor of Unknown Party Affiliation Urged to Resign

Flying well below the national radar this week, thanks to the Eliot Spitzer follies, has been the foibles of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who uttered the dreaded n-word on live television the other day and is increasingly appearing as if he'll never see the end of his term.

What's been disturbing about the scant coverage of Kilpatrick that we see is the media's refusal to identify the fact he's a Democrat.

As Rich Noyes at NewsBusters detailed Thursday, 100% of the time the electronic media identifies Republicans when they're in trouble (rightly so, I might add), but has an obvious double standard when it comes to noting the fact certain politicians in hot water are Democrats.

Again today, the New York Times has a lengthy item about how Kilpatrick is under intense scrutiny in Detroit and under pressure to resign.

But nowhere is this 21-paragraph story is the word Democrat mentioned.

DETROIT — The swift resignation of New York’s governor, Eliot Spitzer, just days after he was linked to a high-priced prostitution ring has put new pressure on the embattled mayor of this city, Kwame M. Kilpatrick, with critics calling for him to step down quickly as well.

“Lying under oath, I think most people would think that’s more serious a crime than hiring a prostitute,” the Michigan attorney general, Mike Cox, said on Thursday. “Eliot Spitzer, whether you like him or not, did put the State of New York above his own interests. But the mayor thinks he’s bigger than the City of Detroit.”

Mr. Kilpatrick has vowed repeatedly over the last several weeks he will not quit despite publication of text messages showing that he and his former chief of staff lied under oath when they denied having an extramarital affair, as well as accusations that the city agreed to settle a lawsuit for $8.4 million primarily to hide the affair.

A Kilpatrick spokesman, James Canning, said the Spitzer scandal should not play into anyone’s opinion of the mayor.

“You cannot compare these two situations,” Mr. Canning said on Thursday. “Mayor

Read the rest.

The media long ago lost any argument that it's objective in its coverage. Lately, however, they've become a running gag, daily supplying ammunition to use against themselves.

I'm not asking they skew as far right as they do left. Let's just have a semblance of balance. Is it so difficult that for any story involving any politician, we simply see their party affiliation identified upon the first mention of their name?

Is that really too much to ask? It's not as if his middle name is Hussein and we're forbidden from mentioning it.

It's simple. Is he a Republican or a Democrat?

Name That Party, Detroit Edition

Today's installment of Name That Party brings us to Detroit, where Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is in all sorts of trouble over his close pal getting the inside scoop on city contracts, among other things.

This exhaustive piece, however, fails to mention Kilpatrick's party affiliation.

No mention of it here, either.

Associated Press? No mention.

A story about Kilpatrick, an affair with his chief of staff and a mysterious death?

Nothing.

Nothing here or here.

A petition to recall him? No mention.

Maybe the folks in Canada know. No, they're in the dark.

Wait, we may have found a hint as to what party he belongs to, buried deep on his own homepage.

Prior to his election as mayor in 2001, Kilpatrick made Michigan history as the first African-American, and the youngest person elected to lead either party in the Michigan Legislature when he became the leader of the House Democratic Caucus.

Hmm. Just as we suspected, a Democrat.

'Democrat-Leaning Outside Group' Funded by John Podesta and George Soros Air McCain Attack Ads

A textbook case of absurd liberal media bias from the Associated Press.

Breathtakingly dishonest.

A Democratic-leaning group financed by a major labor union and wealthy liberal activists is running ads against Sen. John McCain in Ohio and Pennsylvania, the beginning of a media campaign against the GOP nominee-in-waiting.

What's the deal with Democratic-leaning?

Are we not allowed to call it a Democrat group, sans the leaning? Amazing how the L word slipped through.

The ad is the work of the Campaign to Defend America, a nonprofit organization that is among anti-war and left-of-center groups that have pledged a multimillion-dollar effort to target McCain and congressional Republicans on the consequences of the Iraq war on the U.S. economy.

Here's part of their cheesy ad.

"A trillion dollars in Iraq over the next ten years, McSame as Bush," an announcer in the ad says. "A millionaire who's for tax cuts for millionaires. McSame as Bush. Oil companies? They get tax breaks while we pay at the pump. McSame as Bush. Absolutely no plan for universal health care. McSame as Bush. Tell John McCain we need a new direction. Not the McSame old thing."

Really McLame.

According to FEC reports and filings with the Internal Revenue Service, the Campaign to Defend America has received at least $1.4 million from the Fund for America, a nonprofit group set up last year by John Podesta, a former chief of staff for President Clinton; Anna Burger, the secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union; and Rob McKay, a California philanthropist. The Campaign to Defend America is headed by Tom Matzzie, the former Washington director of the liberal activist group MoveOn.org.

Among Fund for America donors are multimillionaire financier George Soros, who gave it $2.5 million last year and was a major contributor to an effort to defeat Bush in 2004. Burger's union also contributed $2.5 million last year, according to Fund for America's IRS records.

"These groups spent tens of millions of dollars in 2004 against President Bush and he won re-election," McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said. "It didn't work then and it won't work now."

Seems this crew is an offshoot of this amalgam of leftist freakazoids, also funded by Soros, that we noted less than two weeks ago.

New York Times: We Don't Just Screw Up the News

It hasn't been a good week for the incompetent, biased hacks at the New York Times. Not only have they been lambasted for the bogus hitpiece on John McCain, but now they're being excoriated for screwing up sports coverage.

They're being swamped with emails from outraged readers (likely now former readers) after Bill Keller invited feedback.

More than 2,400 readers swamped The New York Times yesterday with letters condemning its shoddy story suggesting that John McCain had an affair with a female lobbyist - and the angry mob included many Democrats and independents who had been die-hard fans of the paper.

Times executive editor Bill Keller said he was taken aback by the record number of hostile comments - the most ever received by the paper about a story - because the widespread denunciation covered the entire political spectrum.

"I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot," Keller said in a posting on the Gray Lady's Web site.

I suspect it was far more. They have a habit of censoring reader feedback, based on personal experience (they don't like me there, for obvious reasons).

Keller isn't the only incompetent hack to defend the smear.

Managing editor Jill Abramson defended the paper's use of two "disillusioned," unnamed McCain associates as key sources.

Abramson is well versed at smearing people. She was one of the authors of the ridiculous book on Clarence Thomas. It appears she's perfectly suited for her job with the Old Grey Hag.

Meanwhile, these boobs are now also being taken to task by the NFL for inaccurate reporting on allegations of the New England Patriots and their Spygate affairs.

The story the NFL wants to see shrivel up and die but continues to cling to life took another turn yesterday when the league refuted a New York Times report that the Patriots were caught illegally taping a Giants defensive assistant during a preseason game back in 2006.

"The report in the Times is inaccurate," Greg Aiello, the NFL's senior vice president of public relations, told The Post in an e-mail.

"The Patriots were not caught taping signals during the 2006 Giants-Patriots preseason game."

Citing NFL executives, the Times stated Bill Belichick's Patriots were caught taping the Giants New York Giants on Aug. 31, a game won by the Giants 31-23 at Giants Stadium. The teams did not play each other during the regular season.

The New York Times: Hopelessly biased, hopelessly incompetent.