THE OTHER SHOE DROPS: Updates To Previous Posts
† Specter The Defector: In an op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer, Christopher P. Borick, director of the Institute of Public Opinion at Muhlenberg College, warns that it’s premature to “pencil in the name of the newest Democratic senator on the general-election ballot”:
Surely no up-and-coming Democratic politician - such as U.S. Rep. Joseph Sestak or State. Rep. Josh Shapiro - would want to challenge a well-funded, well-connected incumbent who has likely given his new party the magical 60th seat in the Senate. …
One need look no further than the 2004 Republican Senate primary to find evidence that a candidate with ample funds and the support of party leaders can be pushed to the brink in an intraparty showdown. The conditions of that primary were notably similar to those emerging in the Democratic race today, with Specter again playing a leading role. …
[A] fairly unknown congressman from the Lehigh Valley, Pat Toomey, came within a whisker of defeating him. How?
Toomey wisely recognized that Specter's popularity with moderates meant little in a closed party primary. He used his relatively limited resources to focus on Specter's shortcomings as a conservative, and to engage activists on the right to offset his lack of support from the party elite. While Toomey ultimately failed, he may have given a daring Democrat the perfect recipe for taking down Specter in 2010. …
Ironically, it may be the model that encourages an up-and-coming Democrat to try to take down Specter next spring and face Toomey in November 2010.
“Rank-and-file Democrats,” says Borick, don’t “owe” Specter anything.
And, apparently , Specter doesn’t think he owes voters anything, either. The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz remains troubled that, for the most part, the MSM skirted the question of whether Specter’s switcheroo was “a betrayal” of the voters who elected him:
Most journalists assumed the role of handicappers, accepting as a given that this is the way the game is played. So what if Specter had promised to serve six years as a Republican? So what if Specter had told Newsweek less than three weeks earlier that "I'm a Republican and I'm going to run in the Republican primary and on the Republican ticket"? He was acting to save his skin; no further explanation necessary.
This value-neutral reporting was reflected in the headlines: "Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats" (New York Times). "Specter Gives Dems a Boost in Stifling Dissent" (USA Today). "Specter Leaves GOP, Shifting Senate Balance" (Washington Post). Not a hint that he had done anything untoward. …
Correspondent Carl Cannon, on AOL's new PoliticsDaily site, says conservatives are right in complaining that much of the media have "a double standard regarding party-switchers. … When Republicans morph into Democrats, we tend to act like they finally saw the light, and quote them ad nauseam about how the Republican Party has gotten too narrow, etc., etc." But when a Democrat joins the GOP, "we concentrate on the tactical advantage to the party switcher."
Tellingly, Specter’s switch did not follow this pattern. While the first-blush coverage was about the Republican party having left Specter behind, the prevailing storyline soon became that he only made the switch to save his own skin. Even the MSM realized the absurdity of trying to sell Specter as an idealist.
† Living In These Mad, Mad, Madoff Times: One of the things that the Masters of the Universe love to do with their multimillion dollar bonuses is to become patrons of the arts, so they can get feted for their largesse (really, the shareholders’ largesse) at fancy charity balls that their rich friends pay five-figure sums to attend. The New York Times reports that in these turbulent economic times, “the entire fund-raising ecosystem on which many nonprofit institutions depend - especially those reliant on the financial sector - is endangered”:
When Terry J. Lundgren, the chief executive of Macy’s, received Carnegie Hall’s Medal of Excellence in April 2008, he beamed with pride. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg presented the award, which goes to a business leader who supports the arts. More than 1,000 guests, including Martha Stewart, Leonard Lauder and Tommy Hilfiger, cheered from their tables in the Waldorf-Astoria’s Grand Ballroom. Tony Bennett sang his heart out. And Carnegie Hall raised $4.2 million.
But when it came time to select an honoree for this year’s medal, Carnegie Hall’s board and management were stumped. They canceled the benefit.
Why? Because an honoree is not chosen just to give a speech and be feted. He or she must be willing to make a big donation, usually from the company’s coffers, and - more important - to invite friends and contacts to the gala who will buy $20,000 tables or single tickets for $2,000 to $3,000, bringing new support to the organization.
With banks, brokerage houses, real estate firms, hedge funds and even law firms struggling for survival, Carnegie Hall realized it had nowhere to turn as it contemplated a gala for this year.
† The Media Love Obama, But He Doesn’t Love Them Back: It comes as no surprise that the White House press corps is enchanted with President Barack Obama and humbled by his awesomeness, and it’s troubling that after failing to adequately vet him during the presidential campaign reporters continue to lob softballs during press conferences. The Washington Times reports on “speculations … the media have gone soft”:
Journalists, the arguments go, are either delirious over Mr. Obama or shellshocked by eight years with President Bush. …
White House reporters used to shout their questions with gusto.
The fierce gaggle has been "tamed," said CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller, who has covered the ebb and flow of presidents since 1976.
"Not unlike Pavlov's dogs, reporters at the White House have undergone some reward and denial training by President Bush. He didn't like being shouted at; he didn't respond to shouted questions; and reporters who engaged in the practice didn't get called on. So most of us stopped doing it," Mr. Knoller said.
There you have it: yet another thing that’s Bush’s fault.
Knoller also explains this video clip showing White House reporters leaping to their feet when Obama enters the briefing room, but keeping their butts firmly planted in their seats when Bush enters:
It’s a long-standing practice for reporters to rise when the president enters the East Room for a news conference, but that hasn’t been the case in the briefing room. …
“The briefing room is always a more informal place,” says Steve Holland of Reuters.
But the principal reason reporters remained in their seats, he said, was not to block the shot of TV cameramen and still photographers in the back of the room who were trying to make a picture of the president’s walk-in. …
When some reporters stood up for President Obama last Friday, they forgot about the needs of their colleagues in the back of the room as well as the less formal atmosphere of the briefing room. Certainly it was a sign of respect for the president, but not one of disrespect for his predecessor. ...
[F]or some new members of the White House Press, it was their first time seeing a president enter the room as well.
The Stiletto’s not buying Knoller’s explanation of how Bush made the MSM roll over, but his justification for why they got up on their hind legs for Obama and not Bush sounds plausible.
† You Can’t Make Fun Of Obama? Sez Who?: President Barack Obama doesn’t come off as someone who can poke fun at himself – and comedians continue to have trouble making fun of him, in part because they are "panicky" about "being called a racist," Jackie Mason tells The Washington Times, and because they are unable or unwilling to ridicule a president with whom they are simpatico:
"Late Show" host David Letterman was scathing in his mockery of President George W. Bush. But on his show recently, he scolded those who would mock the new president's reliance on the teleprompter for "political nitpicking," saying Mr. Obama is "at least out there trying" to cope with "impossible" political challenges. …
Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show," another erstwhile scourge of presidential foibles during the Bush years, has morphed into a political loyalist, rising to the defense of Mr. Obama with angry rants against critics of the president such as CNBC's Jim Cramer and Internet news aggregator (and Washington Times columnist) Andrew Breitbart.
To some, like self-identified Christian comic Brad Stine, the kid-gloves treatment of Mr. Obama is blatant political cheerleading.
"Because their candidate was elected, they're hesitant to mock that thing which they approve of," Mr. Stine said. …
Radio and Fox News Channel talk show host Glenn Beck … said society needs comedians to skewer those in power, no matter the party affiliation. …
"Whoever the president is, they have to know that they're not a king."
This blog has no trouble ridiculing Obama’s foibles. Such as the enthusiasm with which he avails himself of the perks of power - his fondness for $100-a-pound Wagyu beef (fourth item) and keeping the Oval Office toasty as his fellow citizens are freezing to death in their homes, and he reads empty promises of help off his TelePrompter.
† Updates To Previous Posts (second item, ICE Hopes To Have Chilling Effect On Illegal Immigration By Targeting Identity Thieves): The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa, who sued to stop the ICE’s practice of prosecuting forged documented aliens for felony aggravated identity theft unless the government can prove they knew the fake Social Security number used to get work in the U.S. belongs to a real person, reports The Associated Press. Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. In his concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito zeroed in on the element of chance in the way the government had interpreted 18 U. S. C. §1028A: “If it turns out that the number belongs to a real person, two years will be added to the defendant's sentence, but if the defendant is lucky and the number does not belong to another person, the statute is not violated.”
† Updates To Previous Posts (third item, Never Mind Marxism. Will An Obama Administration Be Totalitarian?): The Homeland Security Department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis – which infamously fingered veterans as potential terrorists – had issued a "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" in March that was recalled within hours of being distributed to state and local law enforcement officials, reports The Washington Times:
Whites and blacks, Christians and Jews, Cubans and Mexicans, along with tax-hating Americans were among several political leanings listed in the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon.” …
"The lexicon was not an authorized I&A product, and it was recalled as soon as management discovered it had been released without authorization," said Amy Kudwa, Homeland Security spokeswoman.
"This product is not, nor was it ever, in operational use," Ms. Kudwa said.
Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the report "causes further concern that Congress needs to get to the bottom of exactly how DHS determines what intelligence products to distribute to law enforcement officials around the country."
"Although we have evidence that some of the groups described in this and other DHS intelligence products are an active terror threat to our nation, I would be interested in knowing why this lexicon mentioning left-wing extremist groups was deemed inappropriate by DHS and recalled, yet a similar report focusing on veterans, antiabortion activists and anti-illegal immigration activists was fit for distribution and sent out by DHS to law enforcement agencies across the country," Mr. King said.
Comments