SECOND EVENING POST:  JULY 22,  2008

Posted at 11:33 p.m. ET

OPPORTUNITY

Reader Roy Lofquist alerted me to the fact that the federal ban on offshore oil drilling expires September 30th.  This is a magnificent opportunity for Republicans to nail the Democrats to the wall, and challenge them to allow what 74 percent of the American people want - drilling for own oil, something that can be done safely.

But ducking seems to be the order of the Democratic day:

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) repeatedly ducked a reporter’s questions Monday on whether he would vote to lift a congressional moratorium on new offshore oil-drilling leases, a move that one poll indicates is supported by 74% of likely voters.

At a press conference called to talk about legislation he has proposed to curb speculation in the oil market, Dorgan responded to questions about whether he would vote to lift the moratorium on new off-shore drilling by focusing instead on things he has done in the past to open up oil shale exploration, including in his home state of North Dakota and in the Gulf of Mexico.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who joined Dorgan at the press conference, told Cybercast News Service she would not support a full lifting of the moratorium, although she may vote to allow drilling in “select areas.”

Better map out those areas fast, Amy.  The American people may start to notice that there's no Democratic plan, or will.  The Minnesota senator wasn't exactly heroic:

When Cybercast News Service asked Klobuchar what areas would have to be excluded for her to support lifting the moratorium, she said she thought it would be wrong to speculate.

Why would it be wrong?

And now for the real Democratic position:

Last Monday, President Bush lifted a parallel executive ban on offshore drilling and urged Congress to follow his lead.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) responded by calling Bush’s move a “hoax.”

“It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence,” she said in a statement. “It just gives millions more acres to the same companies that are sitting on nearly 68 million acres of public lands and coastal areas.”

In other words:  1)  The enviro-religionists are calling the shots and 2) it's all about corporations, those evil creatures.

This is an issue ready-made for John McCain, if his lackluster campaign knows how to exploit it, and if the press will cover what he does.  The price of gasoline may turn out to be the gut issue this year, and Democrats, in this case, have no advantages.

July 22, 2008.      Permalink          

FIRST EVENING POST:  JULY 22,  2008

Posted at 7:24 p.m. ET

ADMITTING IT

Martin Sieff, the veteran correspondent for UPI, is quite direct in admitting that at least part of his profession is in the tank for Obama.  We need more pieces like this:

The editors of The New York Times must be determined to get Sen. John McCain elected president of the United States. That is the only rational explanation for their decision to ban him from publishing an article on their op-ed page because it was supposedly incompatible with one from Sen. Barack Obama they previously had published.

And...

Now The New York Times has made it even easier for McCain to secure the key support he must have from his own base.

For conservatives around the country, especially across the American Heartland, will see the decision to ban McCain from The New York Times' op-ed page because his proposed article was too different from an Obama one as unfair and outrageous. It will only serve to confirm their long-established distrust of the mainstream American media for having an enormous and ineradicable liberal bias.

It is certainly unprecedented for The Times, which still likes to imagine itself as the U.S. national newspaper of record, to ban the front-running candidate and virtually certain nominee of either of the two great political parties from publishing an op-ed piece with them whenever they request it.

Yes, The Times bills itself as the newspaper of record.  But "imagine," as Sieff put it, is closer to the truth.  When I was on The Times, years ago, it still had something of the "record" about it.  If the president held a press conference, it was reprinted in its entirety.  Important speeches were published in full.  "All the news that's fit to print," the Times's motto, still had some meaning.  And the paper would never have turned down an essay by a major-party presidential nominee.  More:

Banning McCain from an op-ed opportunity in The New York Times and the fawning coverage that Katie Couric and her colleagues are giving Obama on his Grand Tour, therefore, is exactly what McCain needs. For McCain's problems are the opposite of Obama's.

Obama has an energized and united Democratic Party around him. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has not dared to say a word against him since she dropped out of the race, and the supposed passionate loyalty of her support has melted away. Now Obama must reach out to the undecided center to clinch the presidency.

But McCain faces exactly the opposite challenge. He is already well-known, trusted, liked and respected by independent voters. For precisely that reason, it is the conservative and Christian Right home base who have doubted his bona fides. In their eyes, his humiliation at the hands of The New York Times is a kiss of life, not death. It is an anointing of conservative sainthood.

Obama this week won the respect and support of the prime minister of Iraq; McCain was rejected with contempt by The New York Times. On balance, McCain won.

I sure hope so.  We'll watch the tracking polls in the next week.  Every confused statement Obama makes convinces me, more and more, that he must not become president.

July 22, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  JULY 22,  2008

Posted at 2:54 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

Both trackers for today are now posted, and they show a return to the pattern we saw just before Obama's small bump in yesterday's Gallup report.

Gallup now has Obama up three, and Rasmussen calls it a tie.  If these numbers stay more or less flat in the next week, we can assume that Obama's tour produced no change, which itself would be news.   So stand by.

July 22, 2008.      Permalink          

TUESDAY: JULY 22,  2008

Posted at 7:02 a.m. ET

CAVE-IN

The Wall Street Journal, a sane voice in the mainstream wilderness, bluntly states what so many fear, that American policy toward Iran is essentially collapsing, and that Iran is clearly getting something for nothing.

In its waning days, the Bush Administration seems to be veering toward a policy of détente with Iran. Recent moves include a face-to-face meeting with Iran over its nuclear program and the likelihood of reopening a diplomatic mission in Tehran for the first time since -- well, you remember. Iran responded to these gestures on the weekend by rebuffing the West's latest set of carrots while refusing once again to give up its uranium enrichment.

What precisely did Iran do to deserve the warm shoulder? Now as ever, Tehran underwrites and arms terrorist proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Gaza, and calls for Israel's destruction. Earlier this month, it tested long-range missiles capable of reaching southern Europe. As for getting that bomb, Iran has made steady progress this decade, enriching uranium in increasingly sophisticated centrifuges in violation of three U.N. Security Council resolutions.

And yet, it's perfectly apparent that some in the State Department, apparently led by "realist" Condi Rice, don't really care about any of that.  Given Rice's recent praise for Barack Obama, and her refusal to commit to McCain - after years of benefiting from Republican largesse - one might suspect that Rice is paving the way for an Obama administration.

There is also talk of the U.S. establishing an "interest section" in Iran.  (Among other things, of course, that would put American diplomats in danger of being taken hostage, as happened in 1979.)

Diplomacy has its uses, and the U.S. can do more to support the Iranian peoples' struggle to shake off their oppressive theocracy. Just how a U.S. Interests Section would achieve that is another question: The Iranian government maintains a tight grip on what foreign embassies can or cannot do, as British diplomats have learned after twice coming under attack the past three years.

But diplomacy also means getting something for giving something. That's not how it has worked here.

When has the State Department ever gotten anything for anything?

...Iran is having it both ways, behaving like a rogue state even as it is increasingly accorded the respect due a normal one. We understand that the U.S. has had diplomatic relations with other rotten regimes. But so long as U.S. diplomatic recognition of Iran remains a carrot in any negotiations with them, what's the point of surrendering it by stages now?

Finally...

That's a question some of our friends in the neighborhood are asking themselves. We know from talks with Iraqis that they wonder what price they might pay for our accommodation of their ambitious, meddling neighbor. We know from our Israeli friends, too, that they sense the accommodationist drift of our Iran policy and are drawing conclusions of their own. Unlike the Bush Administration in its legacy-hunting days, inconstancy is not a policy option they can afford.

It's sad to see what's happened to the Bush administration.  Where is the brave defiance of terrorist regimes that marked the first Bush term?  Where is the sense of vision and mission?  What we have now is a pathetic shadow of Bush 41, created by 41s team.  It began with a foolishly kind attitude toward the so-called Iraq Study Group, one of whose leaders was Supreme Realist James Baker, former secretary of state and Arabist extraordinaire, who gave interviews while on his way to the Middle East to make business deals. 

Bush 41 openly admitted that he lacked "the vision thing."  He seemed almost constitutionally opposed actually to solving problems.  His specialty was kicking the can down the road, and letting someone else solve them.  He left us, even after the first Gulf War, with Saddam Hussein.  Now his son seems to be copying dad, much to the son's historic detriment.

July 22, 2008.      Permalink          

THE JACKSONIAN ERA EXAMINED

Shelby Steele, the distinguished African-American scholar, writes a fine piece with the direct title, "Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama."  Nothing like starting out low key.  The points Steele makes are telling:

A few weeks ago, the Rev. Jesse Jackson made something of a fool of himself. There he was -- a historical figure in his own right -- threatening the castration of Barack Obama. It was sad to see.

But there are reasons.  Mr. Jackson and his brand of civil-rights leaders specialized in keeping whites "on the hook," as Steele puts it.

They ushered in an extortionist era of civil rights, in which they said to American institutions: Your shame must now become our advantage. To argue differently -- that black development, for example, might be a more enduring road to black equality -- took whites "off the hook" and was therefore an unpardonable heresy. For this generation, an Uncle Tom was not a black who betrayed his race; it was a black who betrayed the group's bounty of moral leverage over whites. And now comes Mr. Obama, who became the first viable black presidential candidate precisely by giving up his moral leverage over whites.

Well, I don't think Obama has completely surrendered that leverage - it seems to surface periodically - but he clearly puts the emphasis elsewhere, and that seems to enrage the Jackson establishment. 

And Mr. Obama is so successful at winning gratitude from whites precisely because Mr. Jackson was so successful at inflaming and exploiting white guilt. Mr. Jackson must now see his own oblivion in the very features of Mr. Obama's face. Thus the on-camera threat of castration, followed by the little jab of his fist as if to deliver a stiletto of his own.

And then Mr. Obama took it further by going to the NAACP with a message of black responsibility -- this after his speech on the need for black fathers to take responsibility for the children they sire. "Talking down to black people," Mr. Jackson mumbled.

Normally, "black responsibility" is a forbidden phrase for a black leader -- not because blacks reject responsibility, but because even the idea of black responsibility weakens moral leverage over whites. When Mr. Obama uses this language, whites of course are thankful. Black leaders seethe.

Nevertheless, Mr. Obama's sacrifice of black leverage has given him a chance to actually become the president. He has captured the devotion of millions of whites in ways that black leveragers never could. And the great masses of blacks -- blacks outside today's sclerotic black leadership -- see this very clearly.

And...

Thomas Sowell, among many others, has articulated the power of individual responsibility as an antidote to black poverty for over 40 years. Black thinkers as far back as Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington have done the same. Why then, all of a sudden, are blacks willing to openly embrace this truth -- and in the full knowledge that it will weaken their leverage with whites?

I think the answer is that Mr. Obama potentially offers them something far more profound than mere moral leverage. If only symbolically, he offers nothing less than an end to black inferiority.

Finally...

Mr. Obama has already won a cultural mandate to the American presidency. And politically, he is now essentially in a contest with himself. His challenge is not Mr. McCain; it is the establishment of his own patriotism, trustworthiness and gravitas. He has to channel a little Colin Powell, and he no doubt hopes his trip to the Middle East and Europe will reflect him back to America with something of Mr. Powell's stature. He wants even Middle America to feel comfortable as the mantle they bestow on him settles upon his shoulders.

One can agree or disagree that Mr. Obama has won a cultural mandate to the White House, but this is a provocative article that I urge you to read in its entirety.  It does, in effect, say that Obama's candidacy has ushered in a new era in race relations, from which whites as well as blacks can benefit.  If Mr. Obama wins - and I favor McCain - we would certainly hope so.

July 22, 2008.      Permalink          

THE CASH BOX

Well, you have to hand it to some journalists.  They back up their biases with their checkbooks.  William Tate at American Thinker confirms our fears.  Good data here, but frankly I'm not shocked.

The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq Op-Ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen, but true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

And...

An analysis of federal election records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 margin over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

235 journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans -- a margin greater than 10:1. An even greater disparity, 20:1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10:1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14:1 ratio.

No bias there.  Pass it by.  Pass it by.

Individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations made the following contributions:

NBC, NBC Universal: $104,184 to Democrats / $3,150 to Republicans

CBS: $45,508 to Dems / $966 to Republicans

ABC: $17,320 / $4,717

Turner Broadcasting, TBS: $30,161 / $3,950

Fox: $40,573 / $0

Fox News/Fox News Channel: $1,280 / $0

MSNBC: $210 / $282

CNN: $2,286 / $1,250

Associated Press: $2,550 / $545

Reuters: $10,745 / $3,450

Washington Post, Newsweek: $4,268 / $0

New York Times, NYT Co: $8,143 / $0

Time, Inc: $40,988 / $4,850 ($2,300 to Republicans was from someone identified as a jeweler, so the total may actually be $2,550)

Time Magazine: $1,250 / $0

USA Today: $6,067 / $0

Totals for the above:

$315,533 to Democrats ; $22,656 to Republicans -- most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

That's...

$315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (4 individuals who donated to McCain.)

Let me repeat that: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans.

A ratio of 100 : 1.

No bias there.

By the way, look at the figures for Fox, if you think they're such a right-wing bastion.

The fact is that journalists have, historically, been to the left of their managements, and usually the country.  The difference is that there was a time when they tried to keep their biases out of the news pages.  That time is long past, and the profession is today filled with people who became reporters to "make a difference."  Its dangerous, it's unprofessional, and it's one of the things that's eroding public confidence in the press.  For some weaker news institutions, there might not be too much public good will left to draw on.

July 22, 2008.      Permalink