See? B.S.!

Ed Morrissey does an excellent evisceration of a blatantly deceptive CBS News poll:

Have Democrats leaped to an eleven-point registration advantage in the last five weeks?  In early June, a CBS News poll showed a D/R/I sample of 30/30/40, which undersampled both parties slightly in favor of independents, even weighting it to slightly favor Republicans. In their latest poll today on the debt ceiling debate, CBS offers one of its most egregious poll samples in recent memory to pursue the “public blames the GOP” meme . . .

Read the whole thing. I will add only two points that I’ve made before about how polling data is often misinterpreted:

  1. “Random adults” don’t matter in politics. Any poll on a political topic that surveys mere “adults” — as opposed to registered voters or, preferably, well-screened likely voters — is utterly worthless. People who don’t vote, don’t matter. Any poll that doesn’t make some attempt to screen out non-voters tells you nothing useful about the political landscape. And also, non-voters are more liberal than average.
  2. Early polling is always deceptive. Public opinion of political issues in July of an off-year is a poor measure of where voter sentiment will be 16 months from now on Election Day 2012.

In the most recent election eight months ago, Republicans won a historic landslide and there is no reason to believe now, in mid-July, that Americans have suddenly shifted toward the Democrats. What CBS News did with that poll is as big a lie as RatherGate, and they should be ashamed of themselves for promoting dishonest propaganda while pretending to report the news.

Does the Los Angeles Times Understand the Meaning of the Word ‘Discredited’? UPDATE: Hahn Admits Placing Call on Behalf of Rapist Gangster ‘P.J. Steve’

In a story about Thursday’s debate in California’s 36th District congressional special election, Los Angeles Times reporter Jean Merl twice uses the word “discredited” in reference to KTTV’s reporting on Democrat Janice Hahn’s gang-intervention program:

The exchange came as national women’s groups accused the Huey campaign of trying to discourage women from voting in the South Bay-based 36th Congressional District and the National Republican Congressional Committee touted an “update” of a discredited Fox News report that accused Hahn and a city gang intervention program of hiring and supporting active gang members. Hahn vigorously denied the report again Thursday. . . .
Also Thursday, fallout from a since-discredited Fox TV news report again roiled the campaign. An “update” of the controversy — stemming from allegations Hahn and the city of L.A. gave money to active gang members — featured a gang member saying Hahn had intervened on his behalf when he was arrested, plus a statement from a city attorney who asked not to be identified.
The Huey campaign has distributed copies of the original report and the National Republican Congressional Committee told The Times’ it has spent about $5,000 and sent text messages to voters directing them to the website it created about the updated report.

Notice two things: Not only does Merl repeat the word “discredited,” but she also twice calls this a “Fox News” or “Fox TV news” story — clearly attempting to convey the impression that the investigative reporting by Chris Blatchford was done by the national cable-TV news network, rather than by the news department of the local Fox affiliate in Los Angeles, KTTV.

Readers of Jean Merl’s article might certainly be excused for thinking that this “discredited Fox News report” had been proven false. But Blatchford’s story — both the 2008 story and his 8-minute updated report Thurday — cited facts regarding the gang-intervention program that have been reported by other news organizations, including the local tabloid L.A. Weekly. Here, watch the entire eight minutes yourself, if you have not already done so:

KTTV provides a transcript of the program at its Web site. Can the Los Angeles Times be bothered to do some actual reporting of its own, rather than mere public relations stenography for Democrats? Has the LA Times even bothered to report that Democrats are worried enough about Tuesday’s CA-36 special election that they got Obama’s Organizing for America to send out e-mails seeking volunteers for the Hahn campaign?

Joy –
There are only five days left until the special election in California’s 36th Congressional District on Tuesday. With this race coming down to the wire, every one of those days will be crucial to our efforts to help Democratic nominee Janice Hahn pull out a victory.
OFA California volunteers will be making calls for Janice from now until the election. One of the phone banks is in Pasadena on Sunday — can you make it?
Here are the details:
What: Make calls for Janice Hahn
[then the address is listed–it’s in Pasadena proper]
When: Sunday, July 10th, 3:00 pm — RSVP now
If you can’t make that phone bank, we’ll be making calls at each OFA California office every day from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. — find and RSVP for one of those events here.
Janice is running a campaign to create new jobs, invest in clean energy, and stop the Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it. When she gets to Congress, she’ll be a great voice for California and a strong ally for President Obama and other Democrats in Washington.
Join us in Pasadena on Sunday:
http://my.barackobama.com/Calls-for-Janice-Hahn
Thanks,
Mary Jane Stevenson

That e-mail was sent to Joy McCann (Little Miss Attila), while Darleen Click of Protein Wisdom got a similar e-mail directing her to a separate OFA office on Vine Avenue in downtown Los Angeles Ontario, Calif. (Correction per Darleen’s comment below. — RSM)

UPDATE: Let’s see if the LA Times calls the local NPR affiliate “discredited” for accurately reporting Thursday’s debate:

During a debate at KPCC Thursday, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn — a Democratic candidate for Congress — found herself fending off charges she helped a gang member get out of jail. . . .
An earlier report by Fox 11 TV news that Hahn pushed for the release of an active gang member has been dogging the South Bay Democrat. Fox reporter Chris Blatchford quoted an unnamed Los Angeles City Attorney who said Hahn’s office played a role in the release of convicted felon P.J. Steve, who’d ostensibly worked as a gang interventionist.
“I never worked on behalf of a known convicted gang member to get them out of jail,” Hahn said. In response to a question from KPCC’s Larry Mantle, she added that the man’s distraught mother visited her office, and that she did make a call.
“The only call I ever made was just to say ‘what was the purpose of the arrest of this person?’” she said.
Blatchford (quoting an unnamed deputy city attorney) said he was “told Hahn’s office called and said P.J. Steve worked for her and because he was a gang intervention worker for her they asked for an O.R. release and it was granted.” An O.R. release is a release on an defendant’s own recognizance.

If readers haven’t followed this story closely, they can be forgiven for not understanding what is being alleged, what is being denied, what is now confirmed and whether or not Blatchford’s report is “discredited.”

The Crips gangster “P.J. Steve” presented at his trial a certificate of appreciation signed by Janice Hahn — this is a fact that no one has disputed. Now we have Hahn’s confirmation that she placed a call to police on behalf of “P.J. Steve” after the gangster’s arrest on rape charges. An attorney in the prosecutor’s office told Blatchford that “P.J. Steve” was released on his own recognizance based on Hahn’s call.

Hahn denies exercising that kind of influence with LAPD, but ask yourself: If you were a cop and a powerful city council member called your office “just askin’ questions” about a suspect’s arrest, what impression would such a phone call make on you?

UPDATE II: “Journalism is hard!”

PREVIOUSLY:





Casey Anthony: More Important Than Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, Et Al.

The O.J. Simpson of baby-killers:

A Smart Politics study of Lexis-Nexis transcripts from CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NPR found more news reports mentioned the Casey Anthony trial at least one time than any of the 10+ major and minor Republican presidential candidates since opening statements were delivered on May 24th.
The Anthony murder case was covered in 899 reports overall, with Mitt Romney mentioned in 764, followed by Michele Bachmann at 609, Tim Pawlenty at 454, Newt Gingrich at 438, and Herman Cain at 321.

And all the people who were riveted by wall-to-wall cable TV coverage of the Casey Anthony trial are eligible to vote. Scary, isn’t it?

(Hat-tip: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.)

E.J. Dionne Is Smarter Than You

E.J. Dionne can read the Declaration of Independence, whereas you are too stupid to do so for yourself — but don’t worry: E.J. will tell you what it really means, in his newspaper column.

Although you are too stupid to understand the Declaration of Independence (which is why E.J. thinks you need him to tell you what it means), perhaps you are not too stupid to understand why E.J.’s newspaper column isn’t really popular or influential.

UPDATE: Here, let’s try a little experiment. See if you can understand this without E.J. Dionne’s tutelage:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

That’s exactly 1,337 words, whereas E.J. Dionne’s column is 747 words. Most readers will find the Declaration perfectly comprehensible. E.J.’s column is equally comprehensible in declaring that all men are not created equal, and that’s why morons like us need liberal geniuses like E.J. to think for us, because we’re too stupid to think for ourselves.

Happy 4th of July!

Daily Beast Writer Claims Obama Is a Victim of Washington’s ‘Pundit Class’

Whenever someone I never heard of before makes a preposterous claim, my first question is, “Who is this person?”

Michelle Goldberg is a senior contributing writer for The Daily Beast/Newsweek. She is the author of The New York Times bestseller Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism and The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World, winner of the 2008 J. Anthony Lukas Work-in-Progress Award and the Ernesta Drinker Ballard Book Prize. Goldberg’s work has appeared in Glamour, Rolling Stone, The Nation, New York magazine, The Guardian (UK) and The New Republic.

So she’s a “senior contributing writer” for media grand dame Tina Brown, a feminist with paranoid fantasies about Christian fundamentalists taking away her sacred Right to Choose, and an award-winning author who has written for a half-dozen other liberal outlets. Now that we know who she is, then, here’s her preposterous claim:

Here’s why Mark Halperin is a disgrace. It’s not because he used a mild obscenity to describe our president on Morning Joe, disrespectful as that was. Rather, it was the circumstances of the slur. Right now, the Republican Party is threatening to blow up the world economy unless Democrats agree to savage cuts in spending while refusing any of the revenue increases that all serious economists say are necessary to actually address the national debt. Obama, whose greatest fault in office has been a misplaced faith in the GOP’s capacity for reasonableness, went on television and chided the party for this stance. Apparently, this struck Halperin as unreasonable. His response embodies all that’s rotten and shallow about D.C.’s pundit class, which fetishizes bipartisanship even as it only demands it of one political party.

As Jonah Goldberg says, this is not a parody — an elite liberal journalist from Manhattan denouncing the “pundit class” as if she were a grassroots  populist outsider, you see.

Of course, there is no factual basis to her claim that Obama has been guilty of “a misplaced faith in the GOP’s capacity for reasonableness.” Remember that when Obama was elected, Nancy Pelosi had a seemingly permanent Democrat majority in the House of Representatives, while Harry Reid’s Democrat majority in the Senate was just a seat or two away from the 60 votes needed to crush any Republican opposition.

For the first two years, then, Obama had exactly two words for Republicans, and the second word was “you.”

Michelle Goldberg’s bizarre rant is helpful if only as an insight into the paranoid minds of liberal True Believers, who live in a dystopian nightmare world of their own imagining where even Time magazine writers are conspiring with Republicans to “blow up the world economy.”

(Hat-tip: Ace of Spades.)

UPDATE: Tim Graham at Newsbusters points out that Michelle Goldberg appeared on “progressive” Pacifica Radio this week to warn of the evil menace that is Michele Bachmann:

You know, she came out of the big fundamentalist—or the big evangelical upsurge of the 1970s; like many evangelicals, including Pat Robertson, was initially enamored of Jimmy Carter, who was the first modern born-again candidate. Like the movement as a whole, she shifted abruptly to the right in the run-up to Reagan’s election.
And she often talks about, in her speeches, what she calls a “Christian worldview,” which is a really important concept, I think, for people to understand, not just Michele Bachmann, but much of the modern right. It essentially holds that Christianity, or at least their version of Christianity, is a total ideology. It has all the answers, not just to theological questions, but to historical questions, scientific questions, economic questions. And so, you know, what I’ve tried to get across in writing and speaking about Michelle Bachmann is that she’s not stupid, you know? And she’s not Sarah Palin, in that she doesn’t—she’s articulate. She’s, I think, a little bit faster on her feet. She’s just incredibly steeped in a body of knowledge, that is not—she’s incredibly steeped in a corpus of facts that aren’t true facts. She’s incredibly steeped in the alternate reality of the movement that I called “Christian nationalism” in my first book.

Yeah. Gotta worry about “Christian nationalism,” because that’s the real danger. Don’t be distracted by anything trivial, like an administration that’s added $5 trillion to the nation debt in the past two years.

Also, while it’s OK for Michelle Goldberg to demonize Bachmann with spooky warnings that a “Christian worldview . . . is a total ideology,” no fair pointing out that Goldberg’s own left-wing secular feminism is also “a total ideology.”

UPDATE II: Donald Douglas at American Power:

I own a copy of Goldberg’s book, The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power, and the Future of the World. I read the first few chapters but had to put it down because I was getting nauseous at the literal campaign of death Goldberg advocates.

Hard-core pro-abortion fanatics are rare. Most people who are pro-choice are conscious that they are on the side of evil, but view abortion as a necessary evil — a bad thing that must be tolerated. It’s very rare to find someone who is emphatically in favor of abortion, and such people tend to be a special kind of crazy.

Michelle Goldberg is probably outraged that most abortion clinics will be closed Monday for the 4th of July.

Mika Brzezinski: ‘Hey, You Know What MSNBC Needs? More Obama Fans!’

OK, she didn’t exactly say that: “We’re getting hit a lot lately for not bringing on people who speak on behalf of the White House and really stick up for the President.”

Joe Scarborough points out that they checked and — “Oh, my God” — their guests on Morning Joe are 10-to-1 Democrats, but they just don’t seem to be supporting Obama as much as they used to.

Mark Halperin Apologizes for Being Right

President Obama’s press conference performance Wednesday caused me to declare that there was no prospect for bipartisan cooperation. This morning on MSNBC, it caused Time magazine’s Mark Halperin to be even more blunt:

“Do we have a seven-second delay? I want to characterize how I thought the president behaved. . . . I thought he was kind of a dick yesterday.”

Unfortunately for Halperin, an inexperienced assistant producer on the Morning Joe program failed to hit the “bleep” button, so that Halperin’s comment was broadcast to hundreds of thousands of MSNBC viewers. Halperin immediately apologized, but was suspended “indefinitely” from further MSNBC appearances.

Ed Morrissey quips: “It was a dumb remark, but if MSNBC suspended everyone who made dumb remarks on their channel, they wouldn’t have any hosts left.”

Halperin’s resort to locker-room language may be regrettable, but “kind of a dick” is really rather a mild criticism of Obama’s outrageous assertion that Republicans are “willing to compromise your kids’ safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break.”

Halperin’s remark is all the more regrettable in that it distracts from Obama’s comment, which was as false as it was offensive.

UPDATE: Predictably, lefty Steve Benen claims that this somehow proves Halperin is a raging right-winger:

In candor, I don’t much care that Halperin sides with the right over the left, and takes cheap shots at Democrats. I care that Halperin is presented to the public as a neutral, even-handed expert, when that’s plainly not the case. . . .
Forget Halperin’s choice of words, and instead consider the argument he and his “Morning Joe” colleagues were pressing. They were annoyed, apparently, because President Obama wasn’t docile and conciliatory during his press conference. He showed some backbone, and this seems to have troubled the political establishment to no end.

Note that, in Benen’s worldview, “show[ing] some backbone” means accusing political opponents of bad faith. Would Benen praise a Republican for having “shown some backbone” if the situation were reversed and John Boehner had made a similar accusation of mala fides against the president? No, he wouldn’t.

Benen expects Democrats to employ class-warfare rhetoric, and expects liberal journalists to praise Democrats who do so. And while Halperin is a liberal in good standing, his accurate assessment of Obama’s press-conference performance — which was off-putting, in that the president seemed peevish and petulant — permits the Left to renew their bizarre claim that the media has a right-wing bias.

UPDATE II: Linked at American Power — thanks! — where Donald Douglas quotes Tim Graham on Twitter:

I’m sure oh-so-responsible MSNBC kept every host and correspondent from saying “teabagger,” right? … No?

Good point: In what sense is “dick” more offensive than “teabagger”? MSNBC has lowered the standards of discourse, but arrogates to itself the authority to decide just how low the standards should be.

‘A More Perfect Union’?

“To attempt to abstract from the Preamble to the Constitution a lever for transforming it into an instrumental document is . . . to invent powers that do not exist. And it is also a transparent attempt to import the second paragraph of the Declaration — as a mandate for national self-creation, refounding — into our fundamental law. A contemporary point of reference for all such nonsense as follows from an activist view of the Preamble and Declaration is Mortimer Adler’s We Hold These Truths, a book ‘about’ the Constitution whose wweaknesses are specificed by its very title. After Adler identifies the Declaration as a ‘preface’ to the Constitution, we know how his argument will tend: that in the end that Declaration will, if allowed, swallow up the Constitution — except for the Preamble, as ideologically construed.”
— M.E. Bradford, Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution (1993)

“We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights. The Constitution, as Martin Luther King Jr. said in his great speech on the Mall, is a promissory note. That note had not been fulfilled for African Americans. But I would say the Constitution remains a promissory note, one in which ‘We the People’ in each generation try to create that more perfect union.”
— Richard Stengel, Time magazine, June 23, 2011

Aaron Worthing identified 13 specific factual errors in Stengel’s article, but it strikes me that Stengel’s biggest mistake is the one which Bradford noted in Adler’s work: Conflating the Declaration and the Constitution in such a way that the Constitution’s limitations on federal authority are effectively voided, so as to make the phrase “a more perfect union” a mandate for endless experimentation in pursuit of egalitarian objectives.

Advocates of unlimited centralized power habitually seek to portray the Constitution as an obsolete remnant of the “horse and buggy” era, a pejorative phrase popularized by liberal proponents of the New Deal, key elements of which were struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. By the 1950s, however — after two decades of Democrat presidents — the court’s former conservative majority had been replaced by liberals, and for more than three decades the Supreme Court itself became an instrument for the expansion of federal authority.

Stengel is another one of these modernists, perceiving the Constitution’s limits as a hindrance to progress: “[W]e cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system,” et cetera.

The Constitution says nothing at all about health care, of course, but Stengel’s enthusiastic phrase “moving into the future” conveys his idea of the past as bad place, where things were not “sensible” because of those silly old-fashioned limits on federal power.

Horse and buggy. Powdered wigs. Private health insurance.

Which of those things doesn’t belong on the list? Continue reading ‘A More Perfect Union’? →