Free Markets, Free People

Media

Gridlock: It’s a feature, not a bug

No one said it would go smoothly or that compromise was a requirement in Congress.  For whatever reason, “progress”, for some, is defined in the number of new laws passed and hours worked in Congress.  NBC News for instance in their daily email newsletter this morning:

By now, we’ve told you how unproductive the 113th Congress has been so far, now passing just 57 bills into law (compared with 67 passed at this same point in time by the previous 112th Congress, which then was the least productive modern Congress on record). But here’s another way to measure how unproductive the Congress has been — in terms of hours worked. “According to data analyzed by The New York Times, the House of Representatives, which ended its business for the year last week, left town with the distinction of having been at work for the fewest hours in a nonelection year since 2005, when detailed information about legislative activity became available. Not counting brief, pro forma sessions, the House was in session for 942 hours, an average of about 28 hours each week it conducted business in Washington. That is far lower than the nearly 1,700 hours it was in session in 2007, the 1,350 hours in 2005 or even the 1,200 in 2011.” We know members of Congress do much of their work with constituents back home. But the TV ads here kind of write themselves. Who wouldn’t want a 28-hour work week? Expect every incumbent to get dinged with that “28 hour work week” hit while “you at home struggle to make ends meet working 40 or 50 hours” yada yada.

Yada, yada indeed.  We ought to give them medals for not intruding any further on our freedoms.  OK, not really.  But apparently it is forgotten that Congress was supposed to be a part-time job (thus the two sessions) and that only laws of necessity (as outlined in the Constitution) were to be passed.   Now, apparently, Congress is only “productive” when it is engaged in stepping on everyone’s freedoms by passing dozens upon dozens of new laws, many of which are unnecessary or are designed to reward one constituency at the cost of another.

And we’ve developed a ruling class via career politicians and their heirs.  I’ve never been so tired of the names Clinton, Bush, Kennedy, Cuomo, etc.  Political power isn’t hereditary … or wasn’t supposed to be anyway.

Why do people feel the way NBC does?  Because they don’t pay attention and they have no sense of history or how this nation was formed.  They’ve totally bought into the mind drugs that purveyors like NBC and the NY Times offer every day. According to them, a “productive” Congress is a Congress engaged in finding new ways to run your life. As Dale said last night we’re finally to the stage that most of the country believes they belong to the state.

American exceptionalism isn’t a figment of anyone’s imagination. It is, or was, a product of our founding. And as long as we stuck to the principles of our founding, we remained an exceptional country. Now it seems we’re headed toward the mediocrity of any number of other countries simply by trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. We’ve fallen for the siren song of “free” stuff, and there are enough Americans benefiting from the state robbing others to give to them that they see no reason to change that slide into the abyss. As long as the free stuff continues to come their way while they live, well, that’s just fine.

And the NBCs of the world are just fine with helping us along to that unexceptional, over-regulated, nanny-state existence that they apparently think is best for us and our country.

~McQ

You Can’t Sabotage a Disaster

The Democrats’ newest line in the peeling onion of fail that is Obamacare is that its failure is all the Republicans’ fault because…they sabotaged it. This line has been taken up by Politico in an article by Todd S. Purdum.

From the moment the bill was introduced, Republican leaders in both houses of Congress announced their intention to kill it. Republican troops pressed this cause all the way to the Supreme Court — which upheld the law, but weakened a key part of it by giving states the option to reject an expansion of Medicaid. The GOP faithful then kept up their crusade past the president’s reelection, in a pattern of “massive resistance” not seen since the Southern states’ defiance of the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954…

Most Republican governors declined to create their own state insurance exchanges — an option inserted in the bill in the Senate to appeal to the classic conservative preference for local control — forcing the federal government to take at least partial responsibility for creating marketplaces serving 36 states — far more than ever intended.

Then congressional Republicans refused repeatedly to appropriate dedicated funds to do all that extra work, leaving the Health and Human Services Department and other agencies to cobble together HealthCare.gov by redirecting funds from existing programs. On top of that, nearly half of the states declined to expand their Medicaid programs using federal funds, as the law envisioned.

Then, in the months leading up to the program’s debut, some states refused to do anything at all to educate the public about the law. And congressional Republicans sent so many burdensome queries to local hospitals and nonprofits gearing up to help consumers navigate the new system face-to-face that at least two such groups returned their federal grants and gave up the effort.

So, political opposition to a law that Republicans always opposed is now "sabotage’. That’s simply nonsense on stilts. The law was passed without a single Republican vote. That should’ve been a big signal to Democrats that the law was going to be on shaky ground, but of course, in their arrogance, it didn’t.

Back in 1993, when Hillary Clinton was working on Health Care Reform, Daniel Patrick Moynihan gave her some sage advice. He told her that without support from a large, non-partisan majority, no large-scale reform can ever be successfully concluded. She ignored him at the time, just as Democrats ignored that advice when they passed Obamacare on a strictly party-line vote.

But no Congress can ever bind a succeeding Congress. This has been a black-letter principle of American politics for two centuries. The only way a succeeding congress can be bound is if the support for a particular law is widespread and bi-partisan. And in the case of Obamacare, not only have the Republicans been opposed since the beginning so has a majority of the American people. Obamacare has never polled with majority support among the electorate, and as its implementation date has drawn closer, the majority of the electorate that opposes it has increased.

Howard Dean, recently suggested that Republican opposition to Obamacare is a sign that Republicans have  "forgotten that they’re actually supposed to serve the American people." But since, by all the polling results I’ve ever seen, a substantial majority of the public opposes Obamacare, it would seem to me that Republican opposition is actually the precise opposite of what Howard Dean suggests.

Defining opposition to Obamacare as "sabotage" is simply sour grapes from an arrogant political party that imposed an unpopular law against the apparent wishes of the electorate.

Obamacare is a disaster. I predicted it was an unworkable disaster before it was passed, as did anyone who took the time to look at the perverse incentives it created. The amount of wishful thinking that went in to passing this stupid law is incomprehensible to me. It could not have been more clearly prone to failure if it had been intentionally designed to fail.

Make no mistake: if you support Obamacare, you are a complete dolt, or so lacking in fundamental knowledge that your opinion about it is irrelevant. It is a law that literally cannot accomplish its stated purpose, because it ignores essential and fundamental economic and political realities. Moreover, it was passed in opposition to a majority of Americans.

Opposition to this disaster is not sabotage. It is the only rational response to the utter stupidity it encapsulates.

But framing opposition as sabotage does have a darker, more nefarious purpose. The whole point of such charges is to delegitimize the opposition. Frankly, it’s part of what I see as an ongoing Democratic strategy to define opposition to any policy they support as un-American, at the very least, if not somehow criminal. The Left in this country could not be doing more to foment a civil war if they were intentionally trying to do so.

I have very little hope for the future of this country. I have very little left but anger.


Dale’s social media profiles:
Twitter | Facebook | Google+

Poll: GOP gets most of the blame for shutdown, but Obama approval dips to 37%

Not that I care, particularly, who gets the blame in all of this.  Frankly I’m with the “a pox on both your houses” group that finds the entire Congress and the President to be equally at blame.  But then there’s the “I’m fine with the shutdown and it is important for the GOP to make the spending point” that finds me mostly on the GOP’s side.

Look, we’ve seen the government shutdown before.  And despite all the scare rhetoric, we’re not going to default on our debt.  Nope, this is about how inconvenient this bunch who continues to want to run up debt can make this shutdown seem to the voters.  The idea, obviously, is to have them screaming and whining enough to push the GOP into their usual position – the dying cockroach, where they give in and let the Democrats have their way.  Result?  The usual – more spending and more debt.

Anyway, to the AP poll:

The Associated Press-GfK survey, out Wednesday, affirms expectations by many in Washington — Republicans among them — that the GOP may end up taking the biggest hit in public opinion from the fiscal paralysis, just as that party did when much of the government closed 17 years ago. But the situation is fluid nine days into the shutdown and there’s plenty of disdain to go around.

Overall, 62 percent mainly blamed Republicans for the shutdown. About half said Obama or the Democrats in Congress bear much responsibility.

“About half” blame the Dems and Obama. Yet, Obama’s approval ratings drop by 10 points from his previous low of 47%. Hmmm. Must be more to it than “about half”, huh?

But the media spin machine prefers to lay it on the GOP.

As for ginning up support to pressure the GOP to cave, there’s still a ways to go:

More than 4 in 5 respondents felt no personal impact from the shutdown. For those who did, thwarted vacations to national parks, difficulty getting work done without federal contacts at their desks and hitches in government benefits were among the complaints.

And the “impact” with the worst optics (and mostly blamed on the administration)?  The Gestapo like tactics of the Park police and the “Barrycades” at national monuments and parks.

More results:

— Sixty-eight percent said the shutdown is a major problem for the country, including majorities of Republicans (58 percent), Democrats (82 percent) and independents (57 percent).

— Fifty-two percent said Obama is not doing enough to cooperate with Republicans to end the shutdown; 63 percent say Republicans aren’t doing enough to cooperate with him.

— Republicans are split on just how much cooperation they want. Among those who do not back the tea party, fully 48 percent say their party should be doing more with Obama to find a solution. But only 15 percent of tea-party Republicans want that outreach. The vast majority of them say GOP leaders are doing what they should with the president, or should do even less with him.

— People seem conflicted or confused about the showdown over the debt limit. Six in 10 predict an economic crisis if the government’s ability to borrow isn’t renewed later this month with an increase in the debt limit — an expectation widely shared by economists. Yet only 30 percent say they support raising the limit; 46 percent were neutral on the question.

I didn’t look into the numbers on the poll, but I’d bet it is a bit Democrat heavy.  That said, it’s interesting that a majority within that poll said Obama isn’t cooperating enough.  That’s right, that’s over half.  Somehow that’s buried in all of this (and yeah, that’s not just ‘about half’, that’s over half).

And the real story within the poll:

Most Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job, the poll suggests, with 53 percent unhappy with his performance and 37 percent approving of it.

The point?

It seems to me the “blame” is pretty evenly divided.  I guess you can claim the GOP is getting most of it, but when you see an already low presidential approval rating drop by 10 point in the matter of a couple of weeks right in the middle of this nonsense, it’s hard to claim that 53% of the voters aren’t blaming the President.

However, if your messaging is directed toward blaming the GOP, well, you just sort of bury that in the story.

~McQ

Short memory theater

Speaking of “disgust”, these people disgust me – this one in particular:

Striking a tone of disgust, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi ridicules the GOP as obsessed with its loathing of President Obama and hell-bent on hurting him politically, regardless the cost. She assigns little to no blame to the president (even though Democrats privately say that’s laughable) and instead portrays him as saintly, above reproach and the victim of jealousy or something worse.

After 26 years in the House, she says, “I haven’t seen anything like it. I haven’t seen anything like it.”

She must have had an 8 year mental enema then because she did precisely what disgusts her for 8 years to a president of the opposition party.   And, of course, does anyone in the press call her on it.

No.

Then, like many of our political class, she utters nonsense that is factually inaccurate:

Then she added a line that she has used before, that drives Republicans batty: “He has been … open, practically apolitical, certainly nonpartisan, in terms of welcoming every idea and solution. I think that’s one of the reasons the Republicans want to take him down politically, because they know he is a nonpartisan president, and that’s something very hard for them to cope with.”

Does anyone in the press call her on it?

No.

“Ill served” by both the press and our politicians doesn’t even begin to cover it.

~McQ

Layers and Layers of Editors

There are always criticisms of the media for bias. Most people have come to accept that the media will report from a reliably liberal point of view, though there are idiots on the left—but I repeat myself—who say the “corporate media” has a conservative bias. But there is a bigger problem with the media than political bias. It’s the issue of competence. Most of the time the press reports on things we don’t know much about, so what with all those layers of of professional producers and editors, we just have to assume they’re doing due diligence to get the story right. Then, you see a story that concerns something you know a bit about, and you realize…they don’t. The real problem with the media isn’t bias, it’s incompetence.

Sometimes it’s egregious. Last month, TV station KVTU in San Francisco reported the Flight crew of the crashed Asiana Arlines flight as Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee Fuk, and Bang Ding Ow. This report went through four levels of producers, all of whome were fired, of course—except for the on-air reporter and managing editor who gave final approval to air the names. She wasn’t fired, apparently, because she is Asian—not that seems to have made her any more knowledgeable about Asian names than her Caucasian subordinates—and the station didn’t want to upset the local Asian community any further.

As an aside, I should think that would make for an interesting discrimination claim by the fired producers and editors. Who were, also, by the way, in a pretty bad position no matter what they did. After all, if they had raised a red flag about the names, and the names turned out to be correct, then they’re the insensitive racists who think Asian names sound funny.  What a wonderful work environment of no-win situations our political correctness is creating.

Anyway, that was a pretty egregious error that touched on a sensitive subject, and even the Asian editor flubbed it. If they can’t even get something like that right, imagine how bad it gets on everyday stories. Well, happily, we don’t have to imagine it, because CNN provided a great example today. In a motorsports story on how Formula 1 racing will bring back turbocharged engines to their cars next year, CNN felt it was necessary to explain how this whole turbocharging thing worked to their less technical readers:

While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam, making it more energy efficient.

So, can anyone tell me how many factual errors and fundamental physics violations are contained in that sentence? But CNN went further, to ensure their readers fully understood the issue.

Turbo engines also tend to be slower taking off — not ideal for F1 racing. But once in full flight, they maintain speed well, and today you’ll often find turbo engines used in trains, trucks and construction equipment.

Sure. And in industrial vehicles like the BMW M3, M5, and M6, the Subaru WRX STI, the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, Nissan 370Z,  and Mercedes’ AMG models. All of them are so much “slower taking off” that they struggle to hit 60 MPH in less than 5 seconds. Though, of course, they all do so.

As Jalopnik put it earlier today:

Oh boy. Is it possible for one little sentence to get so much wrong, so efficiently? It’s impressive, in its way. And, sure, it’s CNN, not a dedicated automotive site, but in an article about F1 cars and racing tech, you’d think there’d be at least some attempt to get this right. It’d be like writing an article about an election that said "While a standard election is decided by court decisions from individual citizen legislatures, a runoff election leverages polling data from the most recent census." Sure, those are real words, but they make zero sense.

The thing is, nearly every time I see a story on a subject I know something about, something in the story is inevitably wrong. So I can only assume that, when it comes to stories I know nothing about, they are equally wrong. Which means, basically, that everything you see in the news is…wrong.

That’s not “news”. That’s fiction.

~
Dale Franks
Google+ Profile
Twitter Feed

Filner/Weiner: where are the “war on women” accusations?

George Will brought up a very good point on ABC’s This Week this Sunday.  When discussing Democrats Bob Filner and Anthony Weiner and their current problems, Will uttered the following:

"If these two people, [Mayor Bob] Filner in San Diego and [Anthony] Weiner here, were Republicans, this would be a part of a lot of somber sociology in the media about the Republican war on women."

Who has heard any hint of that?  Anyone?  Are you seeing it in the media?  Given how the left and Democrats try to define the “war on women” would they really not include these two under that definition?

By the way, the panel on This Week got a huge cackle out of Will’s utterance, because, you know, obviously his square peg just doesn’t fit the round hole they have conjured in their minds.

~McQ

The Zimmerman case in a nutshell

And William Saletan Slate articulates it:

The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.

I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.

It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.

His summary is very on point.  This entire shameful episode has been both media and politically driven.  It has never been about justice.  Never.  It has been an attempt at a high-tech lynching, based on rumor, innuendo, false reporting, political pressure and misrepresentation.

Shameful doesn’t even begin to describe it.  And now, as Saletan points out, the same groups who caused this travesty to reach the point of a trial, have now doubled down on getting George Zimmerman in other ways despite an outright acquittal on all charges related to the killing of Trayvon Martin. 

Saletan makes the point that the case was more about a series of mistakes leading to a confrontation that should have never happened and, on Martin’s side an attack that was unwarranted.  As hard as the usual suspects have tried to make it about race and racism, their attempts have failed at every turn.  The facts simply don’t support the premise at all. 

And the overreaction continues as ill-informed groups riot (more to grab a TV at Wal-Mart in some cases than to protest the verdict) egged on by a media who has all but excused rioters for their action by subtly sending the message that the Zimmerman acquittal justifies their actions.

Meanwhile, the overreactive beat goes on:

The grievance industrial complex is pushing the Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for bias-motivated killing, based on evidence that didn’t even support a conviction for unpremeditated killing.

Truly amazing but not surprising. 

We can only hope that someday sanity will again prevail in this great nation of ours.

~McQ

Leftist collectivism fulfills the dreams of the segregationists

Over at Just One Minute, Tom takes a look at a couple of articles on the Zimmerman trial, and finds an astonishing admission from a black pastor.

If you’ve been paying attention to the trial, you know that it’s almost over, and every observer with a shred of objectivity thinks Zimmerman will get a “not guilty” verdict.

Problem is, the local black community was convinced from the beginning that Zimmerman was guilty. The media led them right to that conclusion with misleading reporting. For at least one outlet, NBC, it went beyond misleading into outright fraud.

Naturally, those craven journalists will never take responsibility and set the record straight. They even continue to fan the flames with race-baiting articles like the one Tom cites from the New York Times, which included this quote:

Mr. Oliver, the Sanford pastor, said he remained optimistic. “You can feel a little sense that anger is re-emerging,” he said.

You don’t have to be a trained sociologist* to know what that means – possible civil violence, maybe on the scale of the Rodney King riots.

Why anger? Isn’t an innocent man walking free a good thing? Ah, but we’re back to the world of post-modern narrative. Truth doesn’t matter, only narrative matters, and narrative doesn’t have to have any relationship to truth. In the black community, the dominant narrative is that Zimmerman is guilty. As that race-baiting article put it:

Still, black pastors, sociologists and community leaders said in interviews that they feared that Mr. Martin’s death would be a story of justice denied, an all-too common insult that to them places Trayvon Martin’s name next to those of Rodney King, Amadou Diallo and other black men who were abused, beaten or killed by police officers.

That paragraph only makes any sort of logical sense if you assume from the outset that Trayvon is innocent and Zimmerman is guilty.

Out in the real world, where people are watching the trial, there is a dawning realization that the media got it wrong in the first place, and Zimmerman deserves acquittal. Some of us actually went beyond the fraudulent reporting of the major media and realized that months ago.

But the local black community, and others like it across the nation, sounds like it is not prepared to accept that message. They’ve been told for too long how they are victims and Trayvon is just another one.

Despicable race baiters such as the author of that New York Times article, and the sociologist quoted in it, carefully nurture that attitude. Local leaders pick up the tune, amplifying it. The local educational system, mostly dominated by left-leaning teachers unions, reinforces it while simultaneously ensuring that the locals are handicapped in trying to ever break out of that cultural matrix.

The end result is a community culturally isolated from its larger society. It’s members reinforce each others prejudices, and nurture old grievances. They find themselves unsuited for life outside their local community, because they lack the education to fit in anywhere else. This becomes yet more evidence that the outside world has it in for them.

Thus is fulfilled the dreams of the southern white segregationists. Blacks are encouraged to stay in their own culturally isolated communities.** They are encouraged to believe they are somehow different and cannot mix with outside communities. Their poor education marks them as second class citizens.

Who would have thought that government dependence programs, corrupt Democratic city politicians, and a biased leftist media would accomplish what the white segregationists could not?

For me, it’s one more reason to despise the American left. I hate what they have done to my fellow citizens. I despair when I realize that a typical inner-city resident has no reasonable hope of social mobility, and is stuck in a cycle of government dependence, generation after generation. I shake my head at the nonsense peddled to them by the left and by the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Barack Obama.

I hate that one of the more likely outcomes of the Zimmerman trial is that, like the Rodney King affair, black neighborhoods will end up getting torched and looted – by blacks.***

Hey, New York Times and all your “compassionate” leftist race-baiters – does this make you happy?

 

* Like the race-baiting one in the article, who complained that the non-credible, borderline illiterate star witness for the state was “mammyfied”.

** As one of the effects, just look at how many wealthy suburbs of major American cities are lily-white.

*** I hope it doesn’t happen, and my incurable optimism says maybe the evidence is so clear in this trial that it won’t. But lately, my pessimistic side has a better track record than my optimistic side. 

Suggested title for a book on the current scandals: “We told you so, you f@(%!ng fools!”

In the book In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage, a great story is told about historian Robert Conquest. He wrote a book in the 1980s about the abuses of Stalinism, and got the usual roasting from Soviet apologists in academia. They accused him of cherry-picking data, failing to see Stalin’s supposed good points – the usual blather of Marxist-friendly social science academics.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, opened archives showed that Conquest not only had it right, but was actually a bit conservative is his assertions. His publisher suggested an updated edition of the book incorporating that information, and asked Conquest if he wanted to change the title.

Conquest responded “How about ‘I told you so, you f*cking fools’”? *

I’m feeling that same impulse after reviewing the cascade of scandals over the last few weeks.** Anyone who wasn’t mesmerized by Obama and actually paying attention already knew that:

1. Benghazi was not just a tragedy. It was one of the most massive screw-ups ever perpetrated by the State Department, and there was clearly a cover-up to keep the rest of us from finding out the what, where, when, how, and why.

2. The IRS was targeting and harassing limited government groups.

3. Fast and Furious was a botched effort to engineer evidence in favor of gun control.

4. Fox News was being targeted by the administration from its earliest days.

Various folks on the right could see all this, yet our supposed smart media pundits at major organizations are still expressing surprise at every new revelation. In other words, we told you so, you f*cking fools. And we were ignored, or even ridiculed as paranoid and obsessive.

I learned a valuable lesson in my first job out of graduate school. The software company I worked for was acquired by a giant corporation. The executives from that giant corporation came down for meetings after the acquisition. After listening to them for a day, I concluded that they were incompetent fools.

But I had some doubt. How could they have reached such a position of authority and still be such fools?

Yet, in the ensuing years, under their leadership, the giant corporation lost tens of millions of dollars running that small software company into the ground. They ended up selling it after five years for about five percent of what they paid for it. So yeah, those guys really were the incompetent fools I thought they were.

I now assume that if I have good reasons to believe something, the assertions of powerful or influential people don’t change my mind. I assume they are simply ignorant, willfully blind, or actively deceptive. This round of scandalous outrages by the Obama administration is just another confirmation of that assumption. If media types and establishment politicians didn’t realize these problems existed before last month, then they are f*cking fools, no matter how high they have risen in the political class.

On the other hand, if they knew the problems existed and did nothing, they are despicable villains and not fit to be in the job they hold. Not in their own eyes, of course. As Robert Conquest found out, to those on the left, even Josef Stalin isn’t really a villain.

* I first saw the anecdote about Conquest in a review of the book in Reason Magazine, Fools for Communism. I got the book, which is a concise, good read. If you want examples of willful blindness by lefties, In Denial is a great source.

** Many writers predicted Obama scandals early in his term. I’m pretty sure they feel the same lack of surprise, even if they don’t express it in such a vulgar way.

Hey, Washington Post. I got yer questions, right here.

I notice via Instapundit that a dying, incurious, partisan, biased newspaper is whining that they should be able to “ask questions” without worrying about being exposed to authoritarian thuggery. Well, sure, but why the whining? They’ve been able to ask any questions they liked since Obama came to prominence, but they’ve asked damn few of them. As Insty puts it:

Want to preserve your ability to ask questions? Try asking questions.

In case the problem isn’t obvious, let me list some questions they should have asked over the last five years:

1. Does Obama share views on what America is really like with his “God damn America!” preacher of twenty years, Jeremiah Wright? Did he really spend twenty years at the church and consider Wright a mentor, yet never hear enough to understand his pastor/mentor’s views?

2. What influence did admitted terrorist Bill Ayers have on Obama? And by the way, exactly why is a terrorist who feels zero remorse qualified to participate in political society? Are you not at least mildly curious about that? Have you tried to get Ayers to explain, or at least quoted his own words in interviews he granted before his association with Obama came to light?

3. Who authorized Fast and Furious? How was Brian Terry’s death handled internally at the Department of Justice?

4. Who authorized the raids on Gibson Guitar? Were they politically motivated? Why wasn’t their main competitor, Martin, investigated? Did Martin commit exactly the same acts, yet get off scot free?

5. Is an admitted tax cheat qualified to be Secretary of the Treasury?

6. How did an avowed Marxist, Van Jones, get control over tens of millions of federal money as a high official in the Obama administration? Who vetted him? Who selected him? Was Obama involved with that decision? Does Obama think it’s acceptable for a Marxist to be a high federal official?

7. What does Obama think about his wife spending more on a single vacation than a typical middle class family makes, gross, in their entire lives? Is she entitled to that kind of treatment? By what virtue? What if Laura Bush had taken multiple such vacations? Would the Post have been any more curious about that?

8. Why is a part-term Senator with no executive experience qualified to be president? Is that risky? Is it more risky than having the governor of a small state as a vice-president?

9. Obama stated “We won”, and apparently reached a deal with Boehner which he then recanted, subsequently demanding further concessions. Does that mean he is responsible for the impasse with Republicans over the debt ceiling, sequester, etc.? Should the Republicans negotiate in good faith with someone who has behaved as Obama has behaved? Would that be wise on their part?

10. Does Obama believe there are any natural limits on the power of government? If so, what are they? What does he think government should never be allowed to do?

11. What happened in Benghazi? What decisions were made, and who made them? Was it a back-room deal gone bad? Did the administration mistakenly give anti-aircraft missiles to al Qaeda and then try to get them back? Why were requests for security turned down? Did the administration cover up significant details simply to delay disclosure until after the election? Does the Post think that is acceptable behavior for a president? What would they say if Bush had done something similar in fall 2004?

12. Where did the stimulus money go? Who got it? What are their ties to Obama? Did the stimulus achieve any portion of its promised economic effect? Why is our economy still mired in low growth and high unemployment, even after giving Obama the stimulus he claimed would fix those problems?

13. Speaking of high unemployment, are the official numbers cooked to make the administration look good? Why had the pool of people no longer seeking employment grown so fast? Is it really just baby boomers retiring? If not, who are the others? Should we develop alternative unemployment rates that take into account people who have dropped out of employment seeking simply because of despair over ever finding a job?

14. Was it appropriate for Obama to comment at all on the Trayvon Martin case? Now that all kinds of exculpatory evidence is surfacing in the case for Zimmerman, has Obama changed his opinion of the case? Is there any reasonable evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by racism?

15. Are White House reporters afraid of asking tough questions directly of Obama? If not, why were so few such questions asked during Obama’s first term?

16. Is is appropriate that Obama does so few press conferences? Does he owe more expansive explanations of his policies to the American people?*

17. What is the complete list of people involved in the IRS targeting of Tea Party organizations? How long did it last? Was there a cover-up to keep the information hidden until after the election? Why? Do bureaucrats in the IRS consider it their job to judge the political implications of their work (which would be the case if they hid the information before the election)? If so, is that consistent with the supposed principles of supposedly non-partisan federal service? Do we need to consider alternative taxation systems just to rid the federal government of this sort of abuse?

18. Are individual tax audits random? What are the inputs to the random process? Are the actual statistics on audits consistent with the presumably random process? If not, who did the interventions that caused the people audited to no longer be random? Was it for partisan purposes?

19. Did the targeting and de facto suppression of Tea Party groups have an impact on the 2012 elections? If so, how big?

20. The Tea Party groups were ignored, and even laughed at, when they claimed the IRS was targeting and abusing them. What would the national media have done if, say, an offshoot of the Southern Poverty Law Center, or Planned Parenthood, had made such claims?

21. You now seem upset that a Fox journalist was named as a “co-conspirator”, apparently to facilitate a fishing expedition to find a leaker in the administration. What about the campaign by the White House to discredit and ostracize Fox News back at the beginning of the Obama administration? Was that proper, or an abuse of power? Do other media outlets consider Fox News a legitimate media organization? Is the claim by the Obama administration that Fox News was biased in favor of the other side imply that the media organizations they like are biased in favor of their side?

22. How do you feel about the editors of your cross-town newspaper being requested by the Obama administration to get rid of a troublesome columnist? Did you know that columnist was subjected to an IRS audit with no obvious cause?

23. Why do areas of the country with high gun ownership tend to have lower violent crime rates? Is the Supreme Court decision regarding gun ownership as an individual right being properly considered and observed by political leaders across the nation? If not, why it is OK for them to flout the Constitution?

24. Did the federal government really order 750,000,000 rounds of ammunition? If so, why? Since it’s way more than would ever be needed for their nominal excuse of “training”, what do they expect to use it for? 

25. How much is the cost of healthcare coverage going up because of Obamacare? Is Obama’s promise that “if you like your coverage you can keep it” being kept? Is the law so complex and contrary to its promises and stated intent that it should be repealed wholesale?

26. Why is college so expensive? Why has it increased in price much, much faster than inflation? Are federal loan programs partially at fault, allowing colleges to raise prices in concert with increased loan availability?

27. What’s the outlook for people in their twenties? Why is their unemployment rate so high? Are they held back from pursuing opportunities because of student loans? Were they encouraged by universities to pursue pointless degrees just to take out those loans, even though the universities knew there would no demand for those skills after college?

28. Are college speech codes a violation of the Constitution? Is the recent attempt by the Obama administration to impose a uniform, highly restrictive and ambiguous speech code a violation of free speech? What is the purpose of those speech codes? Do universities foster diversity of thought, as they claim?

29. Why did so many green energy companies take large federal loans and then go bankrupt? What were the political connections of the owners of those companies with anyone in the federal government? Who made the decisions to award those loans, and what criteria were involved in the decisions?

These are just off the top of my head. I could do more with some research. This is enough to show that the Washington Post and the rest of the national media have been failing to ask obvious questions for years.**

No doubt some of these subjects received cursory coverage, but it’s clear that the Post and most of their national media colleagues were not interested in detailed answers to any of these questions. There hasn’t been anywhere near the effort put in that the New York Times, for example, invested in an unfounded smear on John McCain in 2008.*** Only when the Obama administration started clearly abusing the press using the power of the legal system, and they could hypothetically see themselves on the other end of the abuse, do they final develop a shred of curiosity about anything that might reflect badly on Obama or the Democratic left.

Why didn’t they ask all those other questions? Because they were afraid of the answers they would get.

Honest answers to these questions would challenge a host of mistaken assumptions these popinjays in the media carry around with them. They might discover that authoritarianism and leftism go hand in glove. They might start wondering about Obama’s competence. They might find out that their political opponents (and make no mistake, they chose the leftist side in the political battle long ago) are not ignorant racist Southern white males, and have a point about the dangers of big government. They might find out that people like Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama are the main causes of racial tensions rather than those supposedly racist white males.

They might notice that the parts of the country where minorities suffer the worst are all governed by liberal Democrats and have been for decades. They might realize that it’s not accidental that the educational systems in those areas are all miserably bad. They might question whether public sector unions actually have the well-being of the public in mind.

They might discover that leftism isn’t sustainable, that our debt mountain will inevitably collapse, and that the country is headed for a financial meltdown that will likely lead to civil violence.

Finally, they might notice that they had been played for chumps and useful idiots by the Obama administration since the first time he got in front of them.

But they won’t. They will be like the academics that defended the Soviet Union and Marxism right up until 1991, and afterwards never apologized nor admitted that they had it wrong for decades. Some of them are still Marxists, in fact, and will go to their graves convinced that Communism is fine when run by the right people.

Just like the journalists and editors at the Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, et. al. long ago convinced themselves that their mission was to “make a difference” and “change the world” by promoting the tenets of leftist collectivism, and will go to their graves blaming something else, anything else, for the failure of that philosophy.

* For the record, I don’t think a president, of any party, owes the media anything. A president may go to the press when he thinks it helps him govern, and ignore them when they are an impediment. But I doubt that the preening members of the national press agree with me.

** Some of these areas might very well wind up being no big deal. I find it highly unlikely that all of them would turn out so. We certainly can’t find out without some investigative journalism, and the current crop of stenographers in the media seems unwilling or unable to do it.

*** I don’t even like John McCain, and refused to vote for him, but I can recognize a smear when I see one.