Twitter started buzzing overnight and many are weighing in. Rosen is a pretty divisive figure and that is evident in the early reactions to this story. It should be said that many journalists and national security types who routinely disagree with Rosen are taking a wait-and-see position on this. I think the best course of action at the moment is to sit back and watch this play out on the Nir Rosen Twitter monitor.

Update III:

Carl Prine has fired off another defense of Rosen along with this translated statement from the “Revolutionary Council of Homs — Media Bureau”:

Fellow revolutionaries and media activists:

In the last few days, some rumors circulated regarding US journalist Nir Rosen, accusing him of being an agent for the Assad regime, because of his relationship with one of the regime’s agencies, which is due to the nature of his work. We believe that this matter should have not been dealt with before looking into the history of this journalist and checking with those who have dealt with him directly, as they would best know the details and necessities associated with the work of journalists. Therefore, we encourage all activists to avoid spreading unconfirmed rumors, especially those that may include accusations of treason. We refuse the mistreatment of Mr. Rosen, and we welcome him and any other independent journalists and invite them to Syria in any way possible to show the world the truth of what is going on, as long as they work professionally and with the highest degree of morals associated with their profession.

Update II:

Rosen responds in a lengthy guest post on Carl Prine’s Line of Departure:

In Syria my articles have not been pro-regime or anti-regime. From the beginning opponents of the regime accused me of being its agent while supporters of the regime accused me of serving Qatar, Saudi Arabia or America. These are stupid accusations and I never lowered myself to respond to them before. My goal was to provide an anthropology of Syria’s descent into civil war so people could understand what is happening there. I am more proud of my work in Syria than anything I have previously done. It is a clear eyed account which does not idealize or romanticize anybody but while sober it is always empathetic.

Update:

Rosen’s only comment so far:

“The allegations about me are completely untrue. I will be responding in a longer format in 24 hours when I am back online so please wait”

I’ll link his response when it becomes available.

Follow them at @SenJohnMcCain and @Sn00ki – if you have a strong stomach. For what it’s worth @Sn00ki is the more conservative of the two.

Wikileaks is an especially powerful concept that resonates with the especially naive but this project subverts democratic institutions, ignores the rule of law, and exposes heroic sources to imprisonment, torture, even death. If Americans want greater transparency, or other policy changes, they have democratic processes at their disposal. Creating that change, through those processes, is the only legitimate way for Wikileaks supporters and free culture types to achieve their goals.

Apply these tools to people who have no absolutely voice, no recourse, no hope and you might have a leg to stand on but no rational person can argue that U.S. citizens fit that profile. As it stands now these people are enemies of this state, enemies of legitimate freedom, and enemies of democracy.

On the Web:
Frontline: Top Secret America
Washington Post: Top Secret America

We accept that we operate in an environment that limits the amount of information we can share. However, the fact is, the men and women of the Intelligence Community have improved our operations, thwarted attacks, and are achieving untold successes every day.

In recent years, we have reformed the IC in ways that have improved the quality, quantity, regularity, and speed of our support to policymakers, warfighters, and homeland defenders, and we will continue our reform efforts. We provide oversight, while also encouraging initiative. We work constantly to reduce inefficiencies and redundancies, while preserving a degree of intentional overlap among agencies to strengthen analysis, challenge conventional thinking, and eliminate single points of failure. We are mindful of the size of our contractor ranks, but greatly value the critical flexibility and specialized skills they contribute to our mission.

The challenges that lie ahead are difficult and complex. We will continue to scrutinize our own operations, seek ways to improve and adapt, and work with Congress on its crucial oversight and reform efforts. We can always do better, and we will. And the importance of our mission and our commitment to keeping America safe will remain steadfast, whether they are reflected in the day’s news or not.

David C. Gompert

Via DNI.gov (PDF)

The project in their own words:

“Top Secret America” is a project nearly two years in the making that describes the huge national security buildup in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

When it comes to national security, all too often no expense is spared and few questions are asked – with the result an enterprise so massive that nobody in government has a full understanding of it. It is, as Dana Priest and William M. Arkin have found, ubiquitous, often inefficient and mostly invisible to the people it is meant to protect and who fund it.

The articles in this series and an online database at topsecretamerica.com depict the scope and complexity of the government’s national security program through interactive maps and other graphics. Every data point on the Web site is substantiated by at least two public records.

Because of the nature of this project, we allowed government officials to see the Web site several months ago and asked them to tell us of any specific concerns. They offered none at that time. As the project evolved, we shared the Web site’s revised capabilities. Again, we asked for specific concerns. One government body objected to certain data points on the site and explained why; we removed those items. Another agency objected that the entire Web site could pose a national security risk but declined to offer specific comments.

I suspect the hype around a bunch of open source intelligence framed in spooky videos and flashy graphics is a little overblown. I’ve had little success digging through the site on my own (more on that below) so it’s difficult to say. I’ll be surprised if any significant new information flows from this but the scope of this work and level of contractor involvement may surprise many people and therein lies the risk. The direct national security threat is minimal but the public relations impact is already significant.

I tried to look up my former employer, SAIC, and explore their “top secret relationships” but found only database errors. I’m sure whatever bug or bandwidth issues the site is facing will be resolved soon though. I doubt SAIC is rooting for the Washington Post web team:

Major companies like Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) are said to be worried about a database that Washington Post researchers have compiled linking contractors to the location and function of their contracts. That’s because SAIC performs many classified functions for the government, and at least one intelligence agency occasionally uses SAIC facilities as cover for its own operations. That’s how intermingled the worlds have become.

This intermingling isn’t new, and isn’t just a post 9/11 phenomenon, but that event did (not surprisingly) trigger exponential growth in all directions. Managing this growth is a herculean task but declaring it unmanageable and unworkable is a bit of a stretch. The system presents countless opportunities for reform and improvement but it largely works. It’s easy for critics to point to events like the Times Square bombing attempt but how do they account for what is essentially a tranquil homeland in the face of so many threats?

In a perfect world this would spark productive discussion about how the intelligence community is resourced and managed. What we’ll get though is political grandstanding, conspiracy theories, and potentially another layer of bureaucracy. Of course, another other story could always blow up and shift the public’s attention before this one takes root. Lindsay Lohan, the DNI is counting on you.

Update:
The Atlantic Wire has a roundup.

Brought to you by the same folks who created the Tiger Woods accident recreation. This is, on many levels. a frightening turn for journalism but it’s just too funny to pass up.

NY Daily News: NBC News reported that Duncan Boothby quit his role on the general’s public relations team. According to a senior military official, he was “asked to resign.”

Politico: Rolling Stone’s executive editor on Tuesday said that Gen. Stanley McChrystal did not raise any objections to a new article that repeatedly quotes him criticizing the administration.

HP: Afghanistan’s president believes that U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is the “best commander” of the nearly 9-year-old war and hopes that President Barack Obama doesn’t decide to replace him, the Afghan leader’s spokesman said Tuesday.

First Read: Sen. John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown Tuesday that Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s critical comments about the White House were “a mistake” and “poor judgment.”

Thomas P.M. Barnett: I just read the Rolling Stone piece and found the tone of disrespect somewhat stunning.

It isn’t looking good for the general:

The top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been summoned to the White House to explain biting and unflattering remarks he made to a freelance writer about President Barack Obama and others in the Obama administration.

The face-to-face comes as pundits are already calling for McChrystal to resign for insubordination.

McChrystal has been instructed to fly from Kabul to Washington today to attend Obama’s regular monthly security team meeting tomorrow at the White House

It sounds like McChrystal wasn’t pulling any punches – and let his aides get far too friendly with a visiting reporter:

In the eight-page article, released to reporters on Monday ahead of publication, McChrystal appears to belittle Vice President Joe Biden and accuses Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Kabul, of undermining his war plan within the administration.

Asked by the Rolling Stone reporter about what he now feels of the war strategy advocated by Biden last fall – fewer troops, more drone attacks – the article reports that McChrystal and his aides attempted to come up with a good one-liner to dismiss the question. “Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” McChrystal reportedly jokes. “Who’s that?”

Later in the article, McChrystal turns more serious when asked about cables sent last fall to Washington by Eikenberry. The cables called into question the major troop increase advocated by McChrystal’s team and the U.S.’s backing of Afghan President Hamid Karzai – views that the ambassador had not previously raised with McChrystal or his staff.

“I like Karl, I’ve known him for years, but they’d never said anything like that to us before,” McChrystal is quoted as saying. “Here’s one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, ‘I told you so.’”

McChrystal issued a statement last night:

He said he has enormous respect for the Obama administration, and the piece fell short of his principles of “personal honor and professional integrity.”

“I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened,” said McChrystal, adding that he remains “committed to ensuring” the successful outcome of the almost nine-year-old Afghan war.

Reaction:

Marc Ambinder
What in the heck was Gen. Stanley McChrystal thinking? I mean, I know what he was thinking: he was tired of being the victim of what he believes is a concerted effort on behalf of Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry and others to undermine everything he was given 18 months to do. He was tired of being perceived in the press as a neoconservative killer, Dick Cheney’s hired assassin, or disloyal to President Obama and his staff. He was angry at being blamed for leaking the draft of his report to the President to Bob Woodward. (He did NOT leak the document). He was miffed that a large number of mid-ranking soldiers and battalion commanders and enlisted guys didn’t support his strategy.

The Moderate Voice
Relations between McChrystal and the White House have never been stellar. So let’s just say that now in the wake of this profile they are less stellar — a lot less stellar — than they’ve been ever before.

Hot Air
Compare and contrast the McChrystal/Eikenberry relationship with that of Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, whom Foreign Policy noted last year never allowed their disagreements to go public. This isn’t the first time McChrystal’s spoken publicly about matters the White House would prefer remained in-house, either. Remember last year when The One freaked out over his speech in London calling for more troops?

The Campaign Spot
Many people I know think highly of McChrystal, and he has earned his accolades. But a general in the American armed forces cannot, on the record, mock or deride thevice president and the U.S. ambassador, much less the president of the United States. You and I can; we’re just some schmoes; we don’t report to him in the chain of command. I’m sure many generals have thought many colorful expressions of criticism toward presidents over the years, but they cannot blab them to reporters.

Outside the Beltway
What happens to McChrystal at this point is up to Obama, but given the General’s public statements it’s hard for me to see how the White House and Pentagon can keep him in place. This is insubordination, and there’s really only one appropriate response.

You might think this radical call for government control of the media is at odds with the First Amendment and the ideals of its authors. Not according to Lloyd and his fellow travelers, who portray their vision of a government-funded press as a continuation of the American tradition. The Founders, they say, weren’t committed to protecting a profit-seeking press from government control. Instead, their primary concern was making sure the press could effectively educate and inform Americans, and they obsessively sought to subsidize the press in order to achieve that goal.

Let’s review the facts. During the founding era, America was buzzing with newspapers–all of them privately owned and for-profit. Profit-seeking was so much a part of the American press that, as Professor Paul Starr notes, “The word ‘advertiser’ appeared in the title of 5 of 8 dailies published in 1790 and 20 of 24 dailies in 1800.” The Founders did not curtail this profit-seeking press or supplement it with a government press. Instead they created a limited, rights-protecting government that secured freedom of speech and of the press. They were keenly aware that a free country depended on the free communication of ideas; indeed, it was America’s burgeoning press that had helped transform the colonists from loyal subjects into intransigent rebels, something that would have been impossible had the British government controlled or restricted the press.

Lloyd’s plan is point for point a repudiation of the Founders’ ideals.

Lloyd advocates billions in new taxes on the private media, while the Founders reviled the 1765 Stamp Act, which sparked the chain of events climaxing in the Revolution, in large measure because it taxed the press.

Lloyd calls for “federal regulations over commercial broadcast and cable programs regarding political advertising and commentary, educational programs for children” and even “the number of commercials” they can run, while the Founders solemnly declared that “Congress shall make no law” abridging the freedom of speech.

Lloyd advocates a government-run “public” media that would force you to support through taxes ideas you may oppose, while the Founders recognized the individual’s freedom of conscience, which includes the right not to support views you object to.

The most Lloyd can dig up to substantiate his claim that a sprawling “public” press and crippling restrictions on the private press are consistent with the Founders’ ideals is an obscure 1792 act that reduced postal shipping rates for newspapers. According to Lloyd, the Founders’ “advocacy of the Postal Act of 1792 put communication service and a subsidy for political discourse at the center of our republic.”

It was not a subsidy but freedom that the Founders put at the center of our republic. Even if we grant Lloyd that the Founders supported the Postal Act because they saw a modest role for government in promoting the spread of news, an objective assessment of such support would have to conclude that it contradicts their fundamental commitment to a free press. The reporting of news must be left to the voluntary actions of private individuals–any news subsidy inevitably sets the stage for government control of the press (just observe Washington’s intrusion into the affairs of today’s bailout recipients).

At the deepest level, Lloyd’s is an act of moral embezzlement. He is using what is at most a minor inconsistency on the part of the Founders to smash their achievement and destroy America’s free press. The FCC’s adoption of his proposals would not continue the American tradition. It would end it.

Don Watkins is an analyst with the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

Are you participating in a “Tea Party” rally in your hometown . . . or, do you have plans to attend a counter-rally? Will you brave the lines at your local post office or do you plan to hit the send-button for e-filing just before midnight? What are your views as this year’s tax deadline arrives: do you think taxes are a burden to pay, or the patriotic duty of every citizen?

Share your personal experiences of Tax Day 2009 on video with C-SPAN. It’s simple:

1. Upload your video to your favorite video sharing web site (YouTube is preferred, but we also support Viddler, Vimeo, Qik, Facebook and several others).

2. Revisit this page after 12 noon ET on Tax Day (Wednesday, April 15th) and send us the link to your video.

Videos don’t need to be dazzling Hollywood productions. We want your authentic, creative voice – a video that demonstrates your views and personal experiences on Tax Day 2009. Some of the videos submitted may be shown on the networks of C-SPAN on cable.

Michelle Malkin has an excellent rundown on the movement and your options for independent coverage of the events.

The housing plan referenced by Gibbs can be found on the White House Blog.

CNBC is also hosting a related poll – Would You Join Santelli’s “Chicago Tea Party?”

I thought Iraqis were a bit more restrained than this. This is the sort of behavior you’d expect from Keith Olbermann or Helen Thomas.

Bush was, as usual, cool under fire:

Zaidi yelled “Dog, dog!” as he was surrounded by Iraqi security officers, who tackled him and began to beat him. Zaidi was later removed from the ornate room in the heavily fortified Green Zone where the news conference was taking place.

Bush was not injured and joked about the incident minutes later: “If you want the facts, it’s a size 10 shoe that he threw. Thank you for your concern; do not worry about it.”

Zaidi, colleagues said, was kidnapped by Shiite militiamen last year and was later released.

Zaidi would do well to consider this point, made on Twitter, by Cameron Kaiser:

btw, to those snickering over Bush+shoes, remember throwing shoes at Saddam would’ve meant death, and that would’ve been lenient.

In the past, “newspapers have been able to recapture the advertising that was lost,” Morton said. But in previous recessions, “the Internet had not become so attractive for advertising and readers’ attention.”

“This time, there’s a very large question” about the newspaper business’ ultimate recovery, he said. “What’s different this recession is we’re awash with newspapers for sale, and there aren’t any buyers.”

Morton estimates at least 30 daily newspapers have been offered for sale across the country, including some owned by three chains — Cox Enterprises, Landmark Community Newspapers and the Journal Register Co.

Alan Mutter, a former newspaper editor who now runs a blog about the industry, said retail-store advertising in newspapers has been “reasonably stable” so far, but “there’s every reason to believe that next year will be worse.”

He sees newspaper classified ads as a revenue source in deeper trouble: Consumers now hunt for jobs, houses and cars on Internet websites, which have become so specialized that there’s even a job site for anesthesiologists.

“The same thing has happened across the board for all kinds of advertising,” he said.

Newspaper classified advertising “has been superseded by a highly vertical, highly searchable world. Consumers like it,” Mutter said.

Some get that, got it a while ago even, and while business may not be booming they are hanging tough in a difficult market:

In Houston, Chronicle readers appear to have an appetite for both the print and online products.

Along with most large newspapers, circulation for the printed Chronicle has declined, according to the latest report from the Audit Bureau of Circulations. At the same time the Chronicle has seen increases in home delivery circulation in Houston and key suburban neighborhoods, and its Web site chron.com has seen a 20 percent jump in visitors who don’t buy the Chronicle. The bottom line is the Chronicle’s combined audience of online and print products is up 4 percent over last year.

Expect most newspapers to continue to evolve to meet the needs of their readers, providing content across multiple platforms, from cell phones to computer desktops. And yes, the Houston Chronicle printed newspaper is part of that equation.

It’s exactly what the loyal reader in the doctor’s office wanted to hear.

A new video has been released which shows the initial encounter:

NewsBusters has audio of a caller asking CNN why this story is not being covered:

A man called in to CNN’s Helpline on Tuesday wondering why the network hasn’t reported the Black Panthers who were seen standing in front of a Philadelphia polling station this morning, one of them carrying a billy club.

According to the caller (audio available here), he was going to vote for Obama until a friend told him about this incident. The caller said, “Now Fox has broadcast this, and I want to know why CNN has not broadcast this yet.”

I wonder…

Updates:

Police arrive on the scene:

Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

This is a fantastic find but don’t call it an October surprise. It may be October but the fact that Barack Obama is a radical socialist cloaked in meaningless “hope” and “change” marketing babble is not a surprise at all.

That said, Obama’s dangerous interpretation of our constitution and his socialist agenda should be the only topics discussed by the McCain camp in the closing days of their campaign.

Update:
The McCain-Palin camp responds:

“The American people continue to learn more about Barack Obama. Now we know that the slogans ‘change you can believe in’ and ‘change we need’ are code words for Barack Obama’s ultimate goal: ‘redistributive change.’ In a previously uncovered interview from September 6, 2001, Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn’t been more ‘radical’ and described as a ‘tragedy’ the Court’s refusal to take up ‘the issues of redistribution of wealth.’ No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench – as insurance in case a unified Democratic government under his control fails to meet his basic goal: taking money away from people who work for it and giving it to people who Barack Obama believes deserve it. Europeans call it socialism, Americans call it welfare, and Barack Obama calls it change,” McCain senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said in a statement.

Others Blogging:

HillBuzz – We are Democrats here are HillBuzz telling you the Democrat in this race scares us — because we know what socialism is from spending time in Europe in the 80s, and we know it does not work and is not what America needs.

Atlas Shrugs – So he doesn’t think it can be done through the courts but he thinks it can be done legislatively. That is why a Liberal Supermajority is crucial.

Wizbang! – It is surreal that this country is close to potentially electing a president who intends to govern with such clear disregard to the same Constitution he will be sworn to defend and protect. But imposed Socialism won’t be un-Constitutional. It will instead be a heralded “transformation” in the name of “political and economic justice.”

Right Pundits – He does not discuss the rights or wrongs of taking for each according to their ability and giving to each according to their need. Instead, he talks about the best ways to go about changing the system in a way that would best facilitate those changes. He concludes that it is best changed through administrative mandate because attempts to change it through legislation is too cumbersome. He also points out that the Constitution is a negative document, telling us what the States and the Federal governments CAN’T do. Instead, he says, it should address the what the States and Federal governments SHOULD do. In other words, he sees our money as belonging to the government. He wants to take our money and he will decide how to spend it. The democrats in Congress and the Senate are already deciding how they will spend it.

NewsBusters.org – Once again we have another story that has been picked up in a big way by the Blogosphere but is currently being ignored by the mainstream media. And this time the story is huge.

Protein Wisdom – In Obama’s America, we’ll finally be able to break free of the “constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution” — and in so doing, achieve “social justice” through “redistributive change.” Well, then. Fine . But this is not the America I knew…

Michelle Malkin – Joe The Plumber, you barely scratched the surface.

Mark Epstein – Sometimes you just HAVE so smile. After weeks of Obama campaign denials, after Joe Biden got uppity with a Florida television station over the legitimate question concerning Obama’s marxist beliefs, after weeks of promotion and protection by the mainstream media, after millions of illegal dollars made their way into the Obama campaign coffers, and after Hollywood’s disgusting love affair with Obama, the truth comes out: Obama is a socialist, and YOU can hear him say so in his own words! Ah, but it gets even better–Obama wants to rid the country of its constitutional framework!

Pierre Legrand’s Pink Flamingo Bar – Course if we had an honest press corp stuff like this wouldn’t depend on people like me to find. But since we do not have an honest press corp thank you Free Republic! Naturally this is a bombshell. This is the scariest candidate to be this damn close to becoming the President.

Webloggin – And please note, Obama uses and reuses the word “redistribute.” No hiding here behind colorful, user-friendly expressions such as “spread the wealth.” What Obama clearly envisions is a government program that takes away your money (and your incentive to work hard and make it the American way), so that the money can go to those Obama deems worthy.

Chuck Thinks Right – The only question now is, can the media keep things like this hidden for 8 more days.

Related:
Barbara West and Joe Biden: The Interview Barack Obama Doesn’t Want You to See

Obama-Biden got some tough, but fair, questions and they’re in total meltdown mode over it:

Biden so disliked West’s line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate’s wife.

“This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election,” wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was “a result of her husband’s experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West.”

Voters need to see this and thanks to the Obama-Biden freakout they will.

Related:
Video: Barack Obama Discusses His Strategies for Wealth Redistribution in 2001 Interview

I pulled these relevant tweets from Twitter’s summize.com search site. Ashley is known as atodd on their service. Her updates are now protected.

I’ll let you make up your own minds about this one.

Update:
Ashley is taking a lot of fire from folks on Twitter. Just look here and here for examples. She’s finding support too.

See Also:
Pittsburgh Police: Ashley Todd Lied About Obama Supporter Attack

“Our thoughts and prayers are with the young woman for her to make a speedy recovery, and we hope that the person who perpetrated this crime is swiftly apprehended and brought to justice.”

McCain personally contacted Ashley and her family:

“She is a volunteer for the McCain-Palin campaign,” said campaign spokesman Peter Feldman. “Sen. McCain has reached out to her via telephone and has spoken to her and her family,” as has McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Feldman said. “Out of respect for her privacy we’re not going to comment further.”

I’m sort of on the fence on this one. Maybe it’s true and maybe it isn’t. The photo with the backwards “b” makes me wonder but it’s the media’s handling of it that I think will be interesting.

This story would be burning through the media, even without confirmation, had an Obama volunteer reported a similar incident. Instead, they’re is going to be all over this young woman. Every detail of her life, related or not, will be fair game. The treatment of Joe the plumber will appear restrained in comparison. I don’t think she’ll come out of the other side with a shred of credibility even if they can’t poke holes in her story. Pundits will want to know how she can be taken seriously when she skipped school at 13 or had an unpaid parking ticket.

Then again, many of them might just pass over the story entirely. They’re just too busy posing balanced questions like “Is the McCain campaign honorable?”

Others Blogging:

Outside the Beltway – I’m now skeptical of this woman’s claims. The “B” is backwards. Perhaps her assaliant is horrifingly illiterate, but it could also be the result of injuring oneself by looking in the mirror.

Democrat = Socialist – Who cares that the “B” is backwards, it’s too neat and uniform in cut. She would have had to hold very still and the assailant would have had to been taking his time and careful not to go too deep.

See Also:
Ashley Todd Commented on Twitter Before and After Reported Attack from Obama Supporter
Pittsburgh Police: Ashley Todd Lied About Obama Supporter Attack

I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. “Housing-gate,” no doubt. Or “Fannie-gate.”

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

I wholeheartedly agree with Card on every point but I also think that both mainstream parties have failed us tremendously. If you want to get picky about it the ultimate responsibility can be traced back to each one of us. The American people, at least the majority, are getting the government and media they deserve.

A significant portion of the interview is devoted the issues related to the bailout – a topic Barr recently addressed in Time For Real Economic Reform. It’s good stuff but his positions on Iraq and Afghanistan, which are addressed further in, are not quite as well thought out. His plan for Iraq, also laid out on his web site, isn’t really much of a plan:

Unlike Republicans, who are calling for essentially permanent bases in Iraq, and Democrats, who have done nothing to counter Republican calls for an indefinite occupation, I would put in place plans for withdrawal without undue delay. While I support an exit from Iraq as quickly as possible, I would not publicly announce a timetable to our adversaries. However, as President, I would begin to immediately and significantly begin to reduce both the military and the economic security blanket we are providing the government.

So he would begin withdraw immediately but, being the crafty tactician that he is, wouldn’t foolishly announce that he’s withdrawing immediately – only he just did. Confused yet?

Foreign policy continues to be a weak spot for the Libertarian Party. There’s a certain disdain for it in their platform, which is understandable, but unrealistic given our present circumstances. The Cato Institute obviously gives the subject some thought but I can’t recall a Libertarian candidate with clearly articulated, and realistic, foreign policy positions. Bob Barr isn’t exactly breaking the mould.

This is wrong on many levels but it’s also the first time I’ve laughed in a couple of days.

H/T: Houstonist

Update:
Power is flickering now. I doubt we will have it much longer. We have car batteries with power inverters for electronics and a generator for larger items. If Internet access is possible I will continue to update.

The story starts off well:

MSNBC is removing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as the anchors of live political events, bowing to growing criticism that they are too opinionated to be seen as neutral in the heat of the presidential campaign.

David Gregory, the NBC newsman and White House correspondent who also hosts a program on MSNBC, will take over during such events as this fall’s presidential and vice presidential debates and election night.

The move, confirmed by spokesmen for both networks, follows increasingly loud complaints about Olbermann’s anchor role at the Democratic and Republican conventions. Olbermann, who regularly assails President Bush and GOP nominee John McCain on his “Countdown” program, was effusive in praising the acceptance speech of Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

However, if you look closely it doesn’t appear that the failing network is making the kind of substantial change that would be required to restore its reputation (“restore” is a bit generous given that MSNBC has never had much of a positive reputation):

Olbermann and Matthews will remain as analysts during major political events, and officials at both networks, who declined to be identified discussing personnel moves, said Olbermann had initiated the discussions to clarify his role. They said Olbermann’s influence at MSNBC would in no way be diminished and that the shift would enable him and Matthews to offer more candid analysis during live coverage.

In Olbermann’s case bias doesn’t even adequately describe his unique brand of progressive nutiness. Just look at the stories on his Countdown with Keith Olberman website:

Is McCain overplaying the P.O.W. card?
Olbermann chastises McCain: Grow up!
Swiftboater tries to sink Obama
Olbermann: RNC ‘tribute’ inappropriate

Keith also poses the question on the mind of progressive conspiracy theorists everywhere:

Did terror alerts suspiciously follow bad publicity about the White House? Check out this timeline and draw your own conclusions.

But there’s more than McCain bashing and downright kooky conspiracy theories on his site. Look at this :

Barack Obama on Monday!

Others Blogging:

Michelle Malkin
MSNBC, the left-wing basket case cable network, is in full meltdown mode. After several weeks of on-air sniping and tantrums from the Spittle Twins, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, executives at NBC apparently staged an intervention. They will no longer anchor political coverage or the debates. The fair and balanced savior?

The compassionate one shows his true colors:

Sometime you really have wonder at what cost some are willing to see their political ideology advanced.

To liberal documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, the bounds are seemingly endless. Moore has made a recent career out of attacking President George W. Bush, bashing conservatives and criticizing business. His latest outrage occurred on MSNBC’s August 29 “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” and when he commented about the coincidental timing of an unfortunate disaster – the potential for Hurricane Gustav to make landfall at the beginning of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.

“I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven,” Moore said, laughing. “To have it planned at the same time – that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for day one of the Republican Convention, up in the Twin Cities – at the top of the Mississippi River.”

Again, the language isn’t really safe for work and the ideas expressed, if they can be called ideas, might induce headaches and nausea.

This was just uploaded by NBC cameraman Jim Long. He’s also posting updates on Twitter.

It’s shameful and shamefully obvious what’s going on here, it actually somewhat began with Reagan. Call the Republican candidate dumb, or not sharp enough until it begins to sink in. Then, when they debunk that myth by besting the Democrat one on one – well, it had to have been cheating.

…Pity the dumbest of the lot here seems to be the media that either goes along with this garbage out of passion, or lacks the intelligence to grasp what’s going on and point it out.

Dumb accurately describes Andrea Mitchell’s decision to uncritically repeat the transparent accusation:

Andrea Mitchell’s floating of the Obama-camp accusation that John McCain cheated by overhearing Obama’s responses at the Saddleback forum, as NewsBuster D.S. Hube reported, isn’t the first time the NBC correspondent has made herself propagator-in-chief of Obama’s conspiracy theories.

The McCain did not tkae Mitchell’s report lightly. They quickly responded in a letter to the President of NBC News:

We are extremely disappointed to see that the level of objectivity at NBC News has fallen so low that reporters are now giving voice to unsubstantiated, partisan claims in order to undercut John McCain.

Nowhere was this more evident than with NBC chief correspondent Andrea Mitchell’s comments on “Meet the Press” this morning. In analyzing last night’s presidential forum at Saddleback Church, Mitchell expressed the Obama campaign spin that John McCain could only have done so well last night because he “may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.” Here are Andrea Mitchell’s comments in full:

Mitchell: “The Obama people must feel that he didn’t do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well-prepared.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/17/08)

Make no mistake: This is a serious charge. Andrea Mitchell is repeating, uncritically, a completely unsubstantiated Obama campaign claim that John McCain somehow cheated in last night’s forum at Saddleback Church. Instead of trying to substantiate this blatant falsehood in any way, Andrea Mitchell felt that she needed to repeat it on air to millions of “Meet the Press” viewers with no indication that 1.) There’s not one shred of evidence that it’s true; 2.) In his official correspondence to both campaigns, Pastor Rick Warren provided both candidates with information regarding the topic areas to be covered, which Barack Obama acknowledged during the forum when asked about Pastor Warren’s idea of an emergency plan for orphans and Obama said, “I cheated a little bit. I actually looked at this idea ahead of time, and I think it is a great idea;” 3.) John McCain actually requested that he and Barack Obama do the forum together on stage at the same time, making these kinds of after-the-fact complaints moot.

Indeed, instead of taking a critical journalistic approach to this spin, Andrea Mitchell did what has become a pattern for her of simply repeating Obama campaign talking points.

This is irresponsible journalism and sadly, indicative of the level of objectivity we have witnessed at NBC News this election cycle. Instead of examining the Obama campaign’s spin for truth before reporting it to more than 3 million NBC News viewers, Andrea Mitchell simply passed along Obama campaign conspiracy theories. The fact is that during Senator Obama’s segment at Saddleback last night, Senator McCain was in a motorcade to the event and then held in a green room with no broadcast feed. In the forum, John McCain clearly demonstrated to the American people that he is prepared to be our next President…..

We are concerned that your News Division is following MSNBC’s lead in abandoning non-partisan coverage of the Presidential race. We would like to request a meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss our deep concerns about the news standards and level of objectivity at NBC.

Sincerely,

Rick Davis
Campaign Manager
John McCain 2008