News Flash: John Edwards Isn't Special!

By now I'm sure we're all aware John Edwards, former Democratic presidential candidate, has admitted to having an affair with a former campaign staffer. Linked is one of the better stories I've read on the affair from ABC News. For those of you who'd like something a little juicier, check out Anncoulter.com this week.

So now that we know he had an affair and lied about it, he's asking that the media leave him alone. Fat chance of that! Let's take a minute to remember some recent sex scandals in the world of politics:

-Elliot Spitzer paid for sex and had to resign.

-Bill Clinton lied about his affair and was nearly impeached.

-Jim McGreevey admitted his affair with a man and had to resign.

-Mark Foley didn't touch anyone and still had a media firestorm over his instant messages to congressional pages.

There are consequences when politicians have affairs. The main difference in this instance is that Edwards *almost* got away with it. He got away with it for two whole years before he was stupid enough to visit this woman's hotel room and get photographed by the National Enquirer. It probably would have blown over except for media warriors like Ann Coulter. And now Edwards thinks the media fire surrounding his public admission of his affair is somehow not fair

Huh.

It seems pretty "fair" every time it happens to a republican. It seems pretty "fair" when it's a same-sex affair. Edwards, you're a national politician on a national stage. You were a top contender for Vice President and you went on record saying anyone who has an affair shouldn't be trusted as president. Were you lying? Look, buddy, this is what happens when you're a national figure who has an affair. It happens to every other guy who's done it, and now it's happening to you. The best way to handle this would be to hang low, not appear in public for a while, and let the news cycles run out without feeding them sound bites about how they're wrong for covering your infidelity.

It's a rite of passage. At least the media is still interested in you at all. I wish you and your family the absolute best of luck in this matter, but it would be a lot smother if you took it like a man, like everyone else. You made this bed, and you're gonna have to lie in it for a few news cycles. But don't worry. The Olympics will probably steal your thunder.

McCain: Two-faced Kitten?

I saw this little gem on the Countdown with Keith Olberman



The piece on the Olberman show was more or less comparing McCain two a cat born with two faces- they both have two opinions on the Bush tax cuts! Ha! How funny!

Just in case you had any doubt MSNBC had a liberal pundit, Olberman reminds us that comparing Obama to Paris Hilton is mean, but comparing McCain to a cat with a birth defect- Honey, clear off the mantle! We're gonna need somewhere to put that Pulitzer.

The Liberal Bias of the New York Times

Pundits like my girl Ann Coulter are always going on about the liberal bias of the New York Times. To see for myself I decided to begin reading the New York times to see if I noticed any bias. For the most part, the paper does an average job of presenting fair coverage of stories. The only marked bias I've seen that's really gotten be going, aside from the opinions pages, is the strange pro-illegal immigrants bias. Here are two prime examples of what I'm talking about:

In Cancer, With A Side of Beaurocracy the author details the awful plight of a poor little 9-year-old girl with skin cancer. This wouldn't be news except for that 1. She has an extremely rare form of cancer not often found in children 2. Her condition is so advanced she needs a life-saving operation right away 3. She gets denied the operation by her health insurance and 4. Her insurance denies her because it's state-provided and she's an illegal immigrant. The issue here is not that New York's Child Health Plus wouldn't cover this girl- it actually covers all children of illegal immigrants with tax dollars from LEGAL citizens-, it's that somehow in the paper chase she got denied coverage. Her illegal immigrant mother even had the nerve to go on record saying the country she resides in illegally didn't provide a free operation to her child fast enough. I'm not saying the child doesn't deserve an operation- I have a heart, I'm glad she's getting the care she needs, and I don't think she deserves to die just because she's here illegally. But I do think the article had a very marked bias. It would have been nice if it discussed, even just for a minute, how legal citizens are not necessarily entitled to care, so it's silly for illegals to think they should be entitled to it.

And today, in Mexican's Death Bares a Town's Ethnic Tension, the whole premise of the article is biased. It tries to make the case that the beating and subsequent death of an illegal immigrant by four high school boys was somehow representative of how the entire town hates illegal immigrants. The problem is that the quotes in the article and the facts from the town prove it's just not true. The town's illegal immigrant community is trying to turn these kids into whipping boys for ever hate crime ever committed. This wasn't a hate crime. Three of the kids were underage. They don't deserve to be tried as adults for this. The immigrants are trying to say they'll get off easy because they're good kids and the person that died was just an illegal, not someone protected by US law, and I'm thinking... yes. Exactly. If you want to be protected by US laws you should try becoming a US citizen, and then you'll get all the protections you want. If Mexico wants to try these kids for the death of one of their own, that's up to Mexico. I'm not saying what the kids did was wrong- it was- but I don't think they deserve to have their lives ruined over some immigrants wanting a death avenged.

The problem with these articles is not with the stories themselves- poor immigrant children don't deserve to die, and it's not okay to kill someone (even if they are illegal)- it's with the way the articles are written. They both fail to tell the other side of the story, the story about how CHP is generous for even extending illegals care, and the part where illegal immigrants are not necessarily protected by the laws of a country they don't belong to.

Obama takes us through the looking glass

I ask you, dear readers, how is this NOT playing the race card?

"So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," he told voters in Springfield. "You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky. That's essentially the argument they're making."

Okay, so, let me get this straight: We can't use B. Hussein Obama's full name because it's offensive. We can't talk about why B. Hussein Obama's name might be thought funny because talking about it is playing the race card.

We can't mention the fact that he's black because that would be racist (even though it's okay for the BHO campaign to call McCain "outdated"). We can't call his preacher into question because that's playing the race card, even though when a preacher McCain isn't formally affiliated with in any way (and whos congregation he never sat in!) endorses McCain he has to immediately renounce the endorsement. We can't talk about BHO's parents or childhood, but we can call McCain's well-documented military service into question.

You know what, I'm tired of this double standard. I'll say it. I'll play the race card:

There will be no affirmative action in this presidential race. BHO is not entitled to special treatment because he happens to be black.

Friends, I call on you to help me call bullshit when the Obama campaign tries to say things like the quote above. Go to his speeches. Heckle him when he says crap like that. Tell your friends. Start a facebook group. No more affirmative action.

Who Are the Blue Dog Democrats?

Leave it to Salon to turn against their own. The link leads to a new article on Salon.com about the Blue Dog Democrats. The Blue Dogs are sort of the democrat's version of the religious right- they're a group of 50 congressmen and women who don't vote the party line and stand up for conservative values like balancing the budget and border security. The Blue Dog coalition identifies candidates in close races and districts traditionally held by republicans who exemplify the Blue Dog's values and backs them financially so they can compete with their republican challengers. Not suprisingly, with the support of the Blue Dogs these candidates often win.

These guys don't look like your Hyde Park Obama set- their campaign ads feature things like hunting and trucks in an effort to appeal to their constituents as "one of them"- someone with conservative values and blue collar tastes. It's not surprising that voters are responding to candidates that make an effort not to be their all-knowing savior but to be one of their own, looking out for their best interests.

Democrats are outraged that 50 of their guys do the unthinkable- sometimes support the Bush administration. It's interesting to me that in a campaign year that seems to be based on crossing party lines and upsetting the status quo democrats would be expressing such outrage when some of their guys do just that- cross party lines and vote their conscience, not the party line. It might upset some Democrats paradigms to know that we're not kidding when we say America leans more right than it does left. Given a choice between a liberal democrat and a more conservative one, the majority of Americans- those working class folks Obama is having so much trouble with- would pick the conservative one.

I think what these guys are doing is brilliant. If I can't have a republican majority in congress I'll gladly take 50 congressmen and women who are democrat only in name, conservative in spirit.

Obama- Winning the Hearts and Minds Abroad?

This is an editorial from TimesOnline, a major UK newspaper. Read the whole thing, it's hillarious, but here's a little bit:

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

Occasionally a US magazine like GQ might run a mini-feature on how Sarkozy is the most "American" French president (and how that's not true- if he were American he wouldn't dress so well), but we don't generally openly criticize foreign leaders here. And yet, abroad, you'll find things like the Monica brand condoms that were sold when the Clinton debacle went down, the "polluter" quote from Bush at the G-8 summit, and this little gem. Making fun of Americans is world-wide sport, much like we make fun of Canadians. Obama is not going to change this.

As Maureen Dowd points out, no one in America is allowed to make fun of Obama, but it seems they don't have any trouble doing it abroad. He's not even elected yet, but the international media is already not taking him seriously. Somehow I doubt he'd have all that influence abroad the liberals are so crazy about.

Silly Nas, petitions are useless

Rapper Nas recently delivered a petition of over 600,000 signatures to the Fox News headquarters and demanded they "find a solution to hate-mongering before it hits the airwaves". You can read about it and watch a video here.

This is nothing more than a silly publicity stunt (which worked, I'll give him that). Fox News is a company, and honestly it's only obligation is to return a profit to its shareholders and investors. It does this quite well. You can complain about the "terroristic fist jab" all you want, but I, and scores of other viewers, thought it was a funny joke. Fox is obviously biased, and I doubt that anyone who isn't already conservative watches. Lots of people are outraged by their antics all the time, the people who matter- the people who enable the channel to exist by actually, you know, watching it- don't mind. In fact, they think it's funny. I'd even hazard a guess that they LIKE it when Fox makes off-color comments.

I would never give audience to Air America, and I doubt any of their listeners will be tuning into Fox anytime soon. Publicity stunts like this do absolutely nothing but give meaningless press coverage to the attention-hungry people who came up with them. If you really want to hit Fox where it hurts, organize a boycott. It's too bad no one who listens to Nas can have any impact on Fox by continuing to not watch. A petition might get you a better DJ at the school dance, but it isn't hurting Fox's feelings.