The moderator for Thursday night’s Palin-Biden debate: Fair and balanced?

No way, no how, not Gwen Ifill.

Thursday AM Update – 10:22 AM: Here’s a good suggestion, via a reader of NRO’s Campaign Spot blog:

Campaign Spot reader Bill offers a good idea:

Maybe Governor Palin could compliment Ms Ifill on her book.

Palin (to Ifill): I understand you’ve been writing a book about black political progress, including Senator Obama’s campaign. I’d just like to take a moment to congratulate you on your literary endeavor and wish you great success. Having written many speeches, political and others, I find that it’s very rewarding to translate your personal, original thoughts to text — don’t you agree, Senator Biden?

Heh.

Media double standards on Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

Last week, I wrote about Joe Biden’s “Tuzla Moment,” where he falsely claimed that while in Afghanistan back in February his helicopter was “forced down,” implying the ‘copter came under enemy fire. As I pointed out, Jake Tapper did some digging and found out that Biden’s claim wasn’t true. Come to find out, that’s not Biden’s only questionable war zone claim, as Fox News Channel managing editor Bill Sammon writes:

When Hillary Clinton told a tall tale about “landing under sniper fire” in Bosnia, she was accused of “inflating her war experience” by rival Democrat Barack Obama’s campaign.

But the campaign has been silent about Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, telling his own questionable story about being “shot at” in Iraq.

“Let’s start telling the truth,” Biden said during a presidential primary debate sponsored by YouTube last year. “Number one, you take all the troops out – you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die.”

But when questioned about the episode afterward by the Hill newspaper, Biden backpedaled from his claim of being “shot at” and instead allowed: “I was near where a shot landed.”

The senior senator from Delaware went on to say that some sort of projectile “landed” outside a building in the Green Zone where he and another senator had spent the night during a visit in December 2005. The lawmakers were shaving in the morning when they felt the building shake, Biden said.

“No one got up and ran from the room-it wasn’t that kind of thing,” he told the Hill. “It’s not like I had someone holding a gun to my head.”

The rest of the press ignored the flap at the time because Biden was viewed as having little chance of ending up on the Democratic presidential ticket. But even after Biden was selected to be Obama’s running mate last month, his claim to have been “shot at” drew no scrutiny from the same reporters who had savaged Clinton for making a similar claim that turned out to be false.

FOX News has been asking the Obama campaign for details of the alleged shooting in Iraq ever since Biden was tapped to be vice president. Biden campaign spokesman David Wade promised an answer last week, but failed to provide one.

No surprise there.

The media has engaged in a blatant double standard by by and large not following up on Biden’s Iraq and Afghanistan claims in contrast to how Hillary Clinton was skewered by the press for her false Tuzla claim, but that double standard is far from the only one. Remember how news outlets both on the ‘net and TV reported non-stop for about two or three days back in early January when Hillary Clinton “got emotional” and teared up a bit on the eve of the New Hampshire primary? Compare that with the lack of sustained media interest over several incidents of Joe Biden caught tearing up on the campaign trail. Yeah, several outlets reported on it, but you didn’t see the wall to wall, 24-7 coverage of any of the incidents like we did with Hillary Clinton’s show of her “softer side” while in NH.

The main reason, I suspect, is that Senator Joe Biden is on the side of “The One” – the MSM may not want to show Biden’s tears in an effort to not portray him as weak. Exactly the opposite with HRC. Of course in her case, the media frenzy backfired, as many attributed her New Hampshire win to a couple of things: the so-called “Bradley Effect” and her tears. As a testament to the attempt at portraying her as weak because she cried not working, the media didn’t spend nearly as much time covering her second crying moment in CT a month later.

Just sayin’.

Tuesday/Wednesday open thread

I’d like to take a moment to express my disappointment over the fact that the delivery of the Dell Mini that I ordered two weeks ago has been delayed a week, presumably due to popular demand :((

As a pick-me-up, for your listening/viewing entertainment … a blast from the past:

LOL. I remember my older sister having the biggest crush on Barry Gibb. (Shh! Don’t tell her I told you that! :D )

Update: Oops, almost forgot to post a reminder about my tip jar. Muchas gracias to all who have contributed! I’m inching closer to what I need to pay for hosting for the next 12 months and a new site design. I still need about $200 to make it happen. You know, $10 or $20 each from just a few contributors can make a difference and could add up quick to help me meet that goal :)

To donate, please click the below button:


 

Thanks again for the support!

Reminder: PDS is alive and well

While most Americans have been absorbed by varying degrees in the mega-billion dollar bailout drama playing out in Washington, DC, the far left has not let a little thing like “the issues” stand in the way of dribbling out a little PDS in the midst of the crisis.

Item 1: Is it true that Gov. Palin’s lipliner might actually be tattooed on?

Item 2: Did you hear about the moonbat artist in Chicago who painted a naked picture of Gov. Palin using his daughter as the model, and had it hung in his wife’s north side Chicago tavern? Read more details about the “portrait” here.

Some things never change.

In saner news, Gov. Palin did an interview today on Hugh Hewitt’s show, and I understand it’s well worth the listen. Here’s the transcript. Haven’t been able to find the audio of it yet, but when I do, I’ll make sure to post it.

Update – 10:08 PM: An audio link has been added to the above-linked post from Hugh.

More on CNN’s “fact checking” efforts

Last night I wrote about a very misleading CNN “fact check” report on Barack Obama’s claims about John McCain’s record on deregulation as it relates to Wall Street, and noted how CNN left some important facts out of the article that would have changed the “true” ruling they gave to Obama’s comments.

NRO Campaign Spot’s Jim Geraghty has done some additional fact checking on that CNN piece, and found it lacking as well. First, the relevant part from the CNN “fact check” piece:

During a September 21 interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” McCain was asked if he regretted a 1999 vote for deregulating Wall Street. “No — I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy,” McCain said.

In footage of a speech aired during that interview, though, McCain voices support for government now stepping in. “I’m not saying this isn’t going to be messy and I’m not saying it isn’t going to be expensive,” he said, “but we have to stop the bleeding.”

The Verdict: True — although McCain has supported more government oversight of Wall Street as part of the bailout plan.

Oops, says Geraghty:

Second, that 1999 vote was Gramm-Leach-Bliley. You would think CNN would bother to mention the bill, so readers could look at it in more detail.

If so, they would learn that McCain missed the vote on final passage. (McCain did vote for an earlier version that did not become law.) But the premise of the question is wrong; McCain did not actually vote for G-L-B. Pelley would have been in the clear had he asked McCain if he regretted supporting the bill.

You know who did vote for the bill? Joe Biden. And 89 other senators of both parties. In the House, it passed with 210 Republicans and 151 Democrats, and was signed into law by President Clinton. The idea that McCain ought to be singled out for this legislation is rediculous, and CBS and CNN ought to hang their heads in shame at their slipshod reporting and seemingly deliberately evasive wording.

Shame? They actually have shame?

Still more on how Democrats helped enable the current economic crisis

I’ve written extensively on how Congressional Democrats played a significant role in the economic crisis unfolding before our eyes. The media and (mostly) lefty pundits want to paint this as either a “Republican Congress/Bush administration” failure or at the very least a “bipartisan” failure where everyone shares the blame, but while I know Republicans probably could have done more to prevent this, I’m not going to sit back while all this is happening and just toe the line that “everyone” is responsible, and I will certainly not accept the emerging theme that it’s all “the GOP’s fault.” Democrats in Congress and their warped policies and priorities were the big players in enabling this meltdown, and should not be trusted today to “solve” the problem. They need to be held responsible and accountable for their actions in the face of overwhelming evidence that shows their prominent contributions to this debacle.

Al Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council and assistant to Pres. Bush from ’05-’07, wrote a piece earlier this month along with former Bush speechwriter and communications direction Noam Neusner, on the Bush administration’s efforts early on in the administration to enact a regulatory/oversight overhall of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a piece I referenced here. Hubbard recently appeared on Fox and Friends and was interviewed by Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade on the efforts the administration put into this issue to try and prevent it before it blew up. You can watch the video below:

Hat tip to Ed Morrissey, who summarizes:

Hubbard notes that the Bush administration long supported reform at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He also tells viewers that the House managed to pass Fannie/Freddie reform when Republicans had the majority, but Chris Dodd killed it in the Senate Banking Committee. Dodd, Hubbard reminds us, took the most money from Fannie/Freddie sources, and had little incentive to press for tighter oversight.

Where was Dodd? Where was Frank? Where were the recipients of Fannie/Freddie money during the years in which Fannie Mae’s fraudulent business practices were exposed? They were in the pockets of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and busy telling us that no problem existed — and that regulators who reported the irregularities were racists. They sold us out — and the media has let them off the hook.

Outside of Fox News, and one report from ABC News where Bill Clinton (scroll) confirmed the Democrats’ role in this mess, the Boston Herald has been the only other mainstream news media outlet I’ve seen talk/write about – in a straight reporting piece, rather than opinion pieces, which you see more of – the role Democrats like House Financial Services panel chair Rep. Barney Frank (MA) played in the runup to the econ crisis.

As always, please feel free to use the “Email This Post” link at the bottom of this post to get the word out. We can’t rely on the mainstream media to do its job on this issue, so we’ll just have to take it into our own hands to spread the message.

Update – 12:35 PM: ST reader GWR points to this new McCain ad which points out McCain’s efforts on this issue, and Bill Clinton’s affirmation of the role of Republicans in trying to do something about the problem before it got bigger and the role of Democrats in hindering their efforts and enabling the economic crisis. Good job, but I think they should put out another ad showing what Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were saying way back when versus what they are saying now. Or maybe that could be a new RNC ad, since House and Senate Republicans are being blamed for what’s happening when in fact several of them tried to do something about the issue years before it escalated into a huge problem.

Prior/Related:

More on Barack Obama, ACORN, and “community organizing”

The evil Stanley Kurtz broke the news yesterday of just how deep Obama’s ties were to not only ACORN but the subprime lending mess brought upon by “community organizers” like ACORN, among others. Mona Charen picks up the ball and runs with it today, writing more extensively about the issue (via Memeo).

It’s amazing, isn’t it? We’re a month away from the election, and the most in-depth reporting on Barack Obama’s questionable ties has been not from the mainstream mediots but instead conservative journalists. Barack Obama’s ties to the economic crisis we find ourselves in today are extensive. His relationship with former Fannie Mae bigwigs Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines would be the subject of a massive media investigation … if instead it was John McCain with those ties and not The Chosen One. Remember the endless wave of articles we read over the course of several years about Bush/Cheney’s ties to Ken Lay and Enron? Not happening this year, because the guy who should be on the hot seat right now is the guy that the pressies want to see win.

Move along here, nothing to see.

Related: Patterico catches the LA Times taking at face value the word of a liberal Alaskan blogger regarding Gov. Palin and her religious beliefs.

Media bias and Barack Obama

Glenn Reynolds posts an email he rec’d from someone who works in a major network’s newsroom:

“Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working.” I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.

So now I know what “freedom of the press” means: The freedom of the press to help elect their guy.

Lightbulb moment! *-:)

“Fact checkers” aren’t always reliable

Last week, Patterico comprehensively smacked down FactCheck.org for a piece they put out claiming that the NRA ad run against Obama was “false.” They were also wrong about the McCain ad targeting Obama for supporting sex education for children. The Washington Post fact check team were wrong as well about the NRA ad, and if I’m not mistaken got it wrong on the sex ed, too.

Today, CNN (surprise) can be added once again to the list of “fact checkers” who have grossly misled their readers while trying to set the record straight. Their “fact check” team today reported the following about McCain’s stance on deregulation and Wall Street:

The Statement: At a campaign rally Monday, September 29, in Denver, Colorado, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama once again charged his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, with being a supporter of deregulating financial markets that have since collapsed. “He’s fought against common-sense regulations for decades … and he said in a recent interview that he thought deregulation has actually helped grow our economy. Senator, what economy are you talking about?” Obama said.

[…]

The Facts: During his time in the senate, McCain has been a champion of government deregulation — some of which is being blamed for the Wall Street meltdown. Since the recent crisis, though, he has supported a plan for the government to take on the debt of failing financial institutions.

During a September 21 interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” McCain was asked if he regretted a 1999 vote for deregulating Wall Street. “No — I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy,” McCain said.

In footage of a speech aired during that interview, though, McCain voices support for government now stepping in. “I’m not saying this isn’t going to be messy and I’m not saying it isn’t going to be expensive,” he said, “but we have to stop the bleeding.”

The Verdict: True — although McCain has supported more government oversight of Wall Street as part of the bailout plan.

What does this piece (conveniently) leave out? The fact that John McCain supported Republican efforts in 2005 to begin a regulatory overhaul and improve oversight on mega-biggies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I noted this previously in a post that took CNN to task for another grossly misleading “fact check” piece on Joe Biden’s claims concerning McCain and deregulation.

I have begun to look at fact check pieces like I do Wikipedia. They are good starting points to do further research into an issue, but they shouldn’t automatically be assumed to be 100% correct. The problem with mainstream media fact check pages is that by the time they get around to correcting what they get wrong – and that assumes that they eventually do get around to doing so – the misinformation is spread, and the damage has been done.

If you’re so inclined, you can contact CNN and alert them as to what was left out of their attempt at fact checking Senator Barack Obama’s claims about McCain and deregulation as it relates to Wall Street. Specifically, they need to look at this link. And while you’re at it, maybe you can encourage them to do some investigative reporting on who was saying what about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae over the last 7+ years.