Here's a great way to introduce socialism to America.
First, take a major sector of the economy, be it health care, automobile manufacturing, or banking, and find some way to destroy it.
For banking, you could, say, make banks give mortgages to people who can't repay them.
For automakers, impose CAFE standards that will make it impossible for them to sell cars profitably.
For health care, force insurers to provide coverage to people with preexisting conditions.
Then, when these industries go belly-up, use trillions of taxpayer dollars to buy them out.
Just like that, the federal government ends up owning the economy!
One last thing: When the government starts jumping in to take over industries, be sure to call it a "rescue." That way, Washington comes off sounding like the good guy!
Friday, October 10, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Ayers and Keating
The Obama camp is attempting to proclaim a sort of moral equivalency between Barack's association with William Ayers and John McCain's association with Charles Keating. Although this tactic will probably work to blunt the Ayers attack, the two situations are clearly quite distinguishable.
The issue with Ayers is Obama's decision to be associated with him in the first place. By the time Obama first met Ayers, the latter was already a notorious ex-fugitive with a well-known terrorist past. To this day, he has never repudiated that past. I've heard him described in the mainstream media as a "former radical." It would be more accurate to call him a "retired terrorist." This is not the case of someone who realized the errors of his ways and atoned. This is someone who was wanted by the feds and eventually got tired of living his life on the lam. Since extricating himself from legal jeopardy, he may have forsaken his violent criminal behavior, but he hasn't apologized to his victims or otherwise shown remorse for his crimes.
Obama's defense in regard to Ayers has two main components. First, he has downplayed the nature and extent of the relationship. Second, he points to the fact that, around Chicago, it's not regarded as socially unacceptable to be associated with Ayers.
As for the first part of Obama's defense, it seems rather beside the point. Obama may not have been close friends with Ayers, but so what? Ayers was someone Obama openly associated himself with on a number of high-visibility projects, including Obama's own campaign for the Illinois State Senate. The fact that he allowed Ayers to host a campaign event in his honor and served with Ayers on various boards and panels implies a degree of respect and approval for what Ayers represents. It doesn't matter if it was one campaign event or twenty, or if it was a dozen boards and panels or a hundred. It's the fact that Obama was willing to attach his own good name to Ayers that is so telling.
As for the second part of Obama's defense -- the notion that Ayers is considered a respectable public figure in Chicago political circles -- this sounds more like a confession than a defense. If Ayers is considered respectable in Chicago it is precisely because people like Barack Obama , who should know better, are willing to offer him mainstream legitimacy. At best, it sounds like Obama deferred to the judgment of others in his assessment of Ayers rather than forming an independent judgment.
No matter how you slice it, Obama's voluntary, public embrace of Ayers reflects poorly on his own character. Either Obama doesn't find any repulsive about Ayers and his wife and partner-in-crime Bernadette Dohrn, or he does, but has been too craven to say so.
Now let's look at John McCain's association with Charles Keating. Keating owned an S&L. He had no criminal or violent past as far as know. What he did have was a bank, Lincoln Savings, that was in precarious financial shape due in part to investments that were both bad and, at least in part, illegal. The regulator for Lincoln Savings, FHLBB, was investigating Lincoln with an eye toward a possible federal takeover. In the meantime, Keating sought the assistance of five U.S. senators, both Democrats and Republicans, in an effort to head off that move. For his part, McCain attended a meeting with FHLBB board members and wrote a letter, but didn't pressure the board to take any action one way or the other in regard to Keating. Rather, he wanted the FHLBB to make a decision one way or the other as soon as possible so as to avoid further delay in resolving the matter.
The "Keating 5" scandal was fully investigated at the time -- this was about twenty years ago -- and McCain was exonerated from any charges of improper conduct. That's not end of the story however.
The Keating 5 scandal represents an important chapter in John McCain's political biography, not because of what he did at the time, but because of how it affected the future course of his public service. Despite his being cleared of any formal charges in the matter, observers have cited the episode as a being instrumental in focusing McCain on issues of public corruption and the corrosive influence of campaign donations on the political process. He clearly felt that campaign donations had influenced the senators to take actions on behalf of a constituent that they would not otherwise have taken, with a resulting undermining of the public's confidence in their government officials. McCain resolved to make "cleaning up Washington" a part of his political agenda ever since.
Whatever one thinks about McCain and the Keating 5, the situation bears no resemblance to Obama's association with William Ayers. If anything, McCain's response to the scandal demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility and a willingness to make amends. Nothing similar can be said about Obama and Ayers. Obama has characterized his involvement with Ayers in a misleading fashion in order to avoid be tainted by it in this election. He has never expressed regret for helping to legitimize Ayers in public circles. Both the Ayers connection and the Keating 5 are revealing episodes in the careers of these candidates. However, what the Ayers matter reveals about Obama is far more disturbing than what the Keating matter reveals about McCain.
The issue with Ayers is Obama's decision to be associated with him in the first place. By the time Obama first met Ayers, the latter was already a notorious ex-fugitive with a well-known terrorist past. To this day, he has never repudiated that past. I've heard him described in the mainstream media as a "former radical." It would be more accurate to call him a "retired terrorist." This is not the case of someone who realized the errors of his ways and atoned. This is someone who was wanted by the feds and eventually got tired of living his life on the lam. Since extricating himself from legal jeopardy, he may have forsaken his violent criminal behavior, but he hasn't apologized to his victims or otherwise shown remorse for his crimes.
Obama's defense in regard to Ayers has two main components. First, he has downplayed the nature and extent of the relationship. Second, he points to the fact that, around Chicago, it's not regarded as socially unacceptable to be associated with Ayers.
As for the first part of Obama's defense, it seems rather beside the point. Obama may not have been close friends with Ayers, but so what? Ayers was someone Obama openly associated himself with on a number of high-visibility projects, including Obama's own campaign for the Illinois State Senate. The fact that he allowed Ayers to host a campaign event in his honor and served with Ayers on various boards and panels implies a degree of respect and approval for what Ayers represents. It doesn't matter if it was one campaign event or twenty, or if it was a dozen boards and panels or a hundred. It's the fact that Obama was willing to attach his own good name to Ayers that is so telling.
As for the second part of Obama's defense -- the notion that Ayers is considered a respectable public figure in Chicago political circles -- this sounds more like a confession than a defense. If Ayers is considered respectable in Chicago it is precisely because people like Barack Obama , who should know better, are willing to offer him mainstream legitimacy. At best, it sounds like Obama deferred to the judgment of others in his assessment of Ayers rather than forming an independent judgment.
No matter how you slice it, Obama's voluntary, public embrace of Ayers reflects poorly on his own character. Either Obama doesn't find any repulsive about Ayers and his wife and partner-in-crime Bernadette Dohrn, or he does, but has been too craven to say so.
Now let's look at John McCain's association with Charles Keating. Keating owned an S&L. He had no criminal or violent past as far as know. What he did have was a bank, Lincoln Savings, that was in precarious financial shape due in part to investments that were both bad and, at least in part, illegal. The regulator for Lincoln Savings, FHLBB, was investigating Lincoln with an eye toward a possible federal takeover. In the meantime, Keating sought the assistance of five U.S. senators, both Democrats and Republicans, in an effort to head off that move. For his part, McCain attended a meeting with FHLBB board members and wrote a letter, but didn't pressure the board to take any action one way or the other in regard to Keating. Rather, he wanted the FHLBB to make a decision one way or the other as soon as possible so as to avoid further delay in resolving the matter.
The "Keating 5" scandal was fully investigated at the time -- this was about twenty years ago -- and McCain was exonerated from any charges of improper conduct. That's not end of the story however.
The Keating 5 scandal represents an important chapter in John McCain's political biography, not because of what he did at the time, but because of how it affected the future course of his public service. Despite his being cleared of any formal charges in the matter, observers have cited the episode as a being instrumental in focusing McCain on issues of public corruption and the corrosive influence of campaign donations on the political process. He clearly felt that campaign donations had influenced the senators to take actions on behalf of a constituent that they would not otherwise have taken, with a resulting undermining of the public's confidence in their government officials. McCain resolved to make "cleaning up Washington" a part of his political agenda ever since.
Whatever one thinks about McCain and the Keating 5, the situation bears no resemblance to Obama's association with William Ayers. If anything, McCain's response to the scandal demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility and a willingness to make amends. Nothing similar can be said about Obama and Ayers. Obama has characterized his involvement with Ayers in a misleading fashion in order to avoid be tainted by it in this election. He has never expressed regret for helping to legitimize Ayers in public circles. Both the Ayers connection and the Keating 5 are revealing episodes in the careers of these candidates. However, what the Ayers matter reveals about Obama is far more disturbing than what the Keating matter reveals about McCain.
The role of trust in an era of transparency
It occurred to me that Barack Obama may be the beneficiary of two historical trends in the relationship between the president and the people.
In the early days of the republic, citizens had no effective means of monitoring the activities of the president. Although there were newspapers, the press had no regular access to the president. Moreover, because the papers tended to be openly and stridently partisan, editors were more interested in sparring with their opponents than in engaging in what we would recognize as journalism. Finally, because news couldn't travel any faster than a horse could canter down a country road, folks in distant towns and villages wouldn't learn of events in the capital until weeks after the fact.
Since those early days, Washington has been steadily transformed into an open book. There is now something called a "White House press corps" with permanent offices in the West Wing. Armies of journalists can spread news across the country at light speed. Moreover, the Washington media now operates without any of the deference or restraint that defined previous eras of reporting.
And it's not just the press that has changed. The exponential expansion of the government's payroll makes it nearly impossible for the White House to keep information under wraps even when state secrets are involved. In fact, secrecy is rarely the goal. Hordes of press officers and hundreds of government websites exist for the sole purpose of advertising the administration's activities and plans.
I would argue that the trend toward increased transparency in government has made trust a much less valued commodity when it comes to choosing a president. In the old days, the people had to trust the president to do the right thing, because they couldn't tell what was really happening in Washington. Today, with the goings on within the administration being broadcast in excruciating detail, there is comparatively little fear of a president taking surreptitious actions to the country's detriment. Presidents can still take or support controversial moves, but the controversy will be aired in public.
Our modern media leave much to be desired, but there is no question we live in an age of remarkable governmental transparency. That transparency creates at least the threat of holding presidents publicly accountable for their official actions. We no longer have to simply trust that our presidents are doing right. Today, it's "trust but verify."
A would-be president like Barack Obama could be a major beneficiary of this trend. A majority of Americans seem prepared to hand him the keys to the White House despite evidence of an extremely left-wing mindset. Since America is anything but a left-wing country, it is perhaps surprising to find Obama doing so well. Perhaps voters realize that Obama could never get away with a truly radical transformation of the country's political, economic, and social institutions. Thus, while they don't necessarily trust Obama not to try to take the country down the wrong road, they do trust the ability of the Republicans, the media, and popular opinion to stop him.
In order to test the validity of this argument, let's conduct this simple mind experiment. Imagine that instead of electing a president next month, America were electing a dictator. I submit that, if we were electing a dictator, John McCain would be out-polling Obama by a significant margin. The difference in Obama's electoral prospects under the two scenarios, I would argue, relates to trust. In an election for dictator, voters would necessarily place a great deal more importance on whether they could trust the candidate, and Obama would come up short in comparison to McCain. However, so long as the issue is "merely" who is chosen as president in the present-day atmosphere of extreme transparency, Americans feel than can afford to choose Obama.
I made reference to a second historical trend that seemingly favors Obama. I have long believed that politics has become a form of entertainment for many Americans. It's sort of a cross between a professional sporting event and a character drama. It has more to do with the personalities of the people involved than it does with the health and welfare of the country. People identify with certain politicians or parties and they want them to succeed. Or, they dislike the other side and want to see them fail. How the outcome of these dramas affect the country is of secondary concern. Indeed, many people are convinced it makes no difference in the real world which side comes out on top.
To whatever extent Americans regard politics as a form of entertainment, Obama holds that as an advantage over McCain. There's no question he's newer, trendier, and more interesting to watch than the 70-something Washington veteran. As McCain has already pointed out in this election, Obama makes for a pretty good celebrity.
What I find interesting is that the two concurrent trends -- increased transparency and increased focus on politics as a form of entertainment -- are really two sides of the same coin. Both are the product of the fact that the president now operates under a media spotlight. The spotlight allows an attractive candidate like Obama to appeal to people in the same way a movie star appeals to people. But the spotlight also arguably constrains him from taking radical,transformative moves for which there would be a lack of widespread popular support.
In the early days of the republic, citizens had no effective means of monitoring the activities of the president. Although there were newspapers, the press had no regular access to the president. Moreover, because the papers tended to be openly and stridently partisan, editors were more interested in sparring with their opponents than in engaging in what we would recognize as journalism. Finally, because news couldn't travel any faster than a horse could canter down a country road, folks in distant towns and villages wouldn't learn of events in the capital until weeks after the fact.
Since those early days, Washington has been steadily transformed into an open book. There is now something called a "White House press corps" with permanent offices in the West Wing. Armies of journalists can spread news across the country at light speed. Moreover, the Washington media now operates without any of the deference or restraint that defined previous eras of reporting.
And it's not just the press that has changed. The exponential expansion of the government's payroll makes it nearly impossible for the White House to keep information under wraps even when state secrets are involved. In fact, secrecy is rarely the goal. Hordes of press officers and hundreds of government websites exist for the sole purpose of advertising the administration's activities and plans.
I would argue that the trend toward increased transparency in government has made trust a much less valued commodity when it comes to choosing a president. In the old days, the people had to trust the president to do the right thing, because they couldn't tell what was really happening in Washington. Today, with the goings on within the administration being broadcast in excruciating detail, there is comparatively little fear of a president taking surreptitious actions to the country's detriment. Presidents can still take or support controversial moves, but the controversy will be aired in public.
Our modern media leave much to be desired, but there is no question we live in an age of remarkable governmental transparency. That transparency creates at least the threat of holding presidents publicly accountable for their official actions. We no longer have to simply trust that our presidents are doing right. Today, it's "trust but verify."
A would-be president like Barack Obama could be a major beneficiary of this trend. A majority of Americans seem prepared to hand him the keys to the White House despite evidence of an extremely left-wing mindset. Since America is anything but a left-wing country, it is perhaps surprising to find Obama doing so well. Perhaps voters realize that Obama could never get away with a truly radical transformation of the country's political, economic, and social institutions. Thus, while they don't necessarily trust Obama not to try to take the country down the wrong road, they do trust the ability of the Republicans, the media, and popular opinion to stop him.
In order to test the validity of this argument, let's conduct this simple mind experiment. Imagine that instead of electing a president next month, America were electing a dictator. I submit that, if we were electing a dictator, John McCain would be out-polling Obama by a significant margin. The difference in Obama's electoral prospects under the two scenarios, I would argue, relates to trust. In an election for dictator, voters would necessarily place a great deal more importance on whether they could trust the candidate, and Obama would come up short in comparison to McCain. However, so long as the issue is "merely" who is chosen as president in the present-day atmosphere of extreme transparency, Americans feel than can afford to choose Obama.
I made reference to a second historical trend that seemingly favors Obama. I have long believed that politics has become a form of entertainment for many Americans. It's sort of a cross between a professional sporting event and a character drama. It has more to do with the personalities of the people involved than it does with the health and welfare of the country. People identify with certain politicians or parties and they want them to succeed. Or, they dislike the other side and want to see them fail. How the outcome of these dramas affect the country is of secondary concern. Indeed, many people are convinced it makes no difference in the real world which side comes out on top.
To whatever extent Americans regard politics as a form of entertainment, Obama holds that as an advantage over McCain. There's no question he's newer, trendier, and more interesting to watch than the 70-something Washington veteran. As McCain has already pointed out in this election, Obama makes for a pretty good celebrity.
What I find interesting is that the two concurrent trends -- increased transparency and increased focus on politics as a form of entertainment -- are really two sides of the same coin. Both are the product of the fact that the president now operates under a media spotlight. The spotlight allows an attractive candidate like Obama to appeal to people in the same way a movie star appeals to people. But the spotlight also arguably constrains him from taking radical,transformative moves for which there would be a lack of widespread popular support.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Obama as Reagan, Part II
I recently blogged about the apparent similarities between this election and the election of 1980. That post focused on Reagan's success in demonstrating, primarily through the debates against Jimmy Carter, that he was not the wild-eyed extremist Carter and the media had portrayed him as. I thought a similar phenomenon might be working in Barack Obama's favor this year. Despite all the troubling aspects of his candidacy, he has crafted a public persona that seems both moderate and assuring.
There's another point to be made about Ronald Reagan that is perhaps even more relevant to understanding the 2008 campaign. Reagan is the only president since JFK to really inspire his party's base. Among other things, that means the Democrats have not really had an inspiring candidate reach the White House in over 45 years. Since then, the closest they've come to experiencing the spirit of Camelot was in 1968. That dream, however, was ended by an assassin's bullet in a Los Angeles hotel. The election of 1972 was a fiasco for the Democrats. Carter won in '76, but he hardly made the party faithful swoon. The '84 and '88 elections both featured boring candidates who lost in landslides.
The Clinton presidency failed to ignite liberal passions for a number of reasons. First, Bill Clinton was widely regarded as a scoundrel and a rogue, words we don't generally associate with inspiring heroes. Second, he ran and governed as something of a centrist, and tended to play small-ball in crafting a domestic agenda. Midnight basketball programs are hardly the stuff of Mount Rushmore. Finally, while the Democratic faithful at times truly appreciated Clinton, they knew he would never be measure up to Reagan in the eyes of the nation as a whole.
That brings me to the main point of this walk down memory lane, which is this:
Democrats are deeply envious of the fact that the Republicans produced a star like Ronald Reagan in their recent history. They want one, too. And they've been waiting a long time.
In Obama, the Democrats have found someone who they think has the potential to become another JFK: a president who is young, sophisticated, smooth, glamorous, and smart. With those qualities, they don't see how he can fail.
Importantly, Obama is the ultimate "no compromises" candidate for the Democrats. He's as liberal as the party's base could ever hope for, and he's not from the South. He's the ideal candidate for liberals longing for a return to the days of the Kennedys.
All of this helps explain the outpouring of Democratic hatred for Sarah Palin. Not only does she represent an immediate threat to Obama's electoral prospects, she seems to hold the potential to become another Reagan! If Obama were to lose this election, and Palin's dazzling star power were to land her in the White House in her own right in four or eight years, that would represent such as cruel fate for Democratic faithful, they would never get over it.
Unfortunately, it's looking increasingly likely they won't have to.
There's another point to be made about Ronald Reagan that is perhaps even more relevant to understanding the 2008 campaign. Reagan is the only president since JFK to really inspire his party's base. Among other things, that means the Democrats have not really had an inspiring candidate reach the White House in over 45 years. Since then, the closest they've come to experiencing the spirit of Camelot was in 1968. That dream, however, was ended by an assassin's bullet in a Los Angeles hotel. The election of 1972 was a fiasco for the Democrats. Carter won in '76, but he hardly made the party faithful swoon. The '84 and '88 elections both featured boring candidates who lost in landslides.
The Clinton presidency failed to ignite liberal passions for a number of reasons. First, Bill Clinton was widely regarded as a scoundrel and a rogue, words we don't generally associate with inspiring heroes. Second, he ran and governed as something of a centrist, and tended to play small-ball in crafting a domestic agenda. Midnight basketball programs are hardly the stuff of Mount Rushmore. Finally, while the Democratic faithful at times truly appreciated Clinton, they knew he would never be measure up to Reagan in the eyes of the nation as a whole.
That brings me to the main point of this walk down memory lane, which is this:
Democrats are deeply envious of the fact that the Republicans produced a star like Ronald Reagan in their recent history. They want one, too. And they've been waiting a long time.
In Obama, the Democrats have found someone who they think has the potential to become another JFK: a president who is young, sophisticated, smooth, glamorous, and smart. With those qualities, they don't see how he can fail.
Importantly, Obama is the ultimate "no compromises" candidate for the Democrats. He's as liberal as the party's base could ever hope for, and he's not from the South. He's the ideal candidate for liberals longing for a return to the days of the Kennedys.
All of this helps explain the outpouring of Democratic hatred for Sarah Palin. Not only does she represent an immediate threat to Obama's electoral prospects, she seems to hold the potential to become another Reagan! If Obama were to lose this election, and Palin's dazzling star power were to land her in the White House in her own right in four or eight years, that would represent such as cruel fate for Democratic faithful, they would never get over it.
Unfortunately, it's looking increasingly likely they won't have to.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Supreme Court decisions I disagree with
Evidently Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin to name some Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with. I'm not sure what the legitimate point of such a question would be. Is it really necessary to state one's disagreement with the Dred Scott decision?
Just for fun, I'll pretend that question was asked of me in a television interview setting. I would name Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and the Japanese-American internment decision (Koramutsu, I think?). I'd probably not mention Brown v. Board of Education since my disagreement would be with the rationale of the decision, not the result. I'd probably not mention Miranda or Gideon only because I wouldn't trust the interviewer to allow me to explain my disagreement with those kinds of cases. I would mention Roe v. Wade. I would mention Kelo (the fairly recent eminent domain case).
Given a lot more time to think about it, I might come up with a few more bad decisions that I could actually name (as opposed to describe). However, as the list stands, I could only come up with five that I would definitely have mentioned, and two of those (Dred Scott and Roe) are pretty obvious.
Five decisions.
It's worth mentioning at this point that I have studied Constitutional law.
Just for fun, I'll pretend that question was asked of me in a television interview setting. I would name Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and the Japanese-American internment decision (Koramutsu, I think?). I'd probably not mention Brown v. Board of Education since my disagreement would be with the rationale of the decision, not the result. I'd probably not mention Miranda or Gideon only because I wouldn't trust the interviewer to allow me to explain my disagreement with those kinds of cases. I would mention Roe v. Wade. I would mention Kelo (the fairly recent eminent domain case).
Given a lot more time to think about it, I might come up with a few more bad decisions that I could actually name (as opposed to describe). However, as the list stands, I could only come up with five that I would definitely have mentioned, and two of those (Dred Scott and Roe) are pretty obvious.
Five decisions.
It's worth mentioning at this point that I have studied Constitutional law.
The gotchafication of presidential campaigns
I was feeling alright this morning until I heard a pre-debate "analysis" from Larry Sabato. He opined that tonight's clash between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin would be important because "Biden is a gaffe machine" and "Palin has demonstrated that she doesn't know much about foreign policy or domestic policy." (These are as close to direct quotes as my memory will allow.)
What the hell has happened to this country? Apparently, we have reached the point where the only thing that matters in elections is which candidate makes the fewest glaringly stupid statements.
Gaffes have always mattered in campaigns, but never before have they been the central focus of an election.
Charles Gibson and Katie Couric spent hours upon hours interviewing Gov. Palin. They aired a fraction of that footage, and then the media at large endlessly replayed a total of perhaps 60 seconds of tape in which she appears ignorant or off-balance. Thus it works out that the worst, most unflattering minute out of probably 20 hours of videotape gets all of the attention.
The emphasis is all wrong. What really distinguishes the two presidential tickets is not their personalities, their styles, the manner of speech, or how they look. It's where they plan to take the country. That's the debate we should be having. Instead, the media approach debates as if they were auditioning actors for an ad campaign. The economy is teetering on the brink of collapse and all anyone can talk about is John McCain's failure to make eye contact.
We desperately need a serious press in this country.
What the hell has happened to this country? Apparently, we have reached the point where the only thing that matters in elections is which candidate makes the fewest glaringly stupid statements.
Gaffes have always mattered in campaigns, but never before have they been the central focus of an election.
Charles Gibson and Katie Couric spent hours upon hours interviewing Gov. Palin. They aired a fraction of that footage, and then the media at large endlessly replayed a total of perhaps 60 seconds of tape in which she appears ignorant or off-balance. Thus it works out that the worst, most unflattering minute out of probably 20 hours of videotape gets all of the attention.
The emphasis is all wrong. What really distinguishes the two presidential tickets is not their personalities, their styles, the manner of speech, or how they look. It's where they plan to take the country. That's the debate we should be having. Instead, the media approach debates as if they were auditioning actors for an ad campaign. The economy is teetering on the brink of collapse and all anyone can talk about is John McCain's failure to make eye contact.
We desperately need a serious press in this country.
Prediction
Sometime after the election, media types will gather at various symposia to conduct a searing self-examination of their coverage of the presidential campaign. They will conclude that their coverage of Barack Obama was both excessive and insufficiently critical in relation to that of his main presidential rivals, John McCain and Hillary Clinton. They will attribute the bias in coverage to "the overwhelming historical significance of electing the nation's first African-American president" which, they will say, "at times superseded the application of ordinary journalistic judgment."
Having thus sanctified themselves at the altar of fairness, they will then put on their tuxedos and proceed to Obama's Inauguration.
Having thus sanctified themselves at the altar of fairness, they will then put on their tuxedos and proceed to Obama's Inauguration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
