Thursday, June 23, 2005


Did Karl Rove set a trap? A few Democratic senators took offense to barbs aimed, specifically, at liberals

Yes, we admit it, we are liberals

Finding a senator who would admit to being a liberal is harder than trying to capture Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster. However, Thursday was a remarkable day because it delivered a spate of self-described liberal senators.

The reason for this massive wave of liberal-leaning confessions came courtesy of Karl Rove's comments at a conservative dinner in New York City. This is what Karl Rove had to say,

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Rove did not mention people by name, he did not even specifically criticize Democrats or the Democratic party. Liberals could include people who are not even registered Democrats (i.e., independents, fringe-left, Naderites). So, why did some senators cry out in fake/feigned outrage? Well, these senators must have felt something was aimed at them because they feel, deep in their hearts, they they are the liberals that Rove spoke of.

The senators who rose on Thursday to defend their liberal credentials were Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg.

The senators should have reacted differently in order to turn Rove's words against him. By employing a "Who me?" tactic, a Democratic senator could have said, "Karl Rove's words may bother liberals but I am a moderate and people I work with in my party are moderates. We are fighting hard in every circumstance to keep America and its military servicemembers safe and sound." Instead, Democrats are highlighting the factors and reasons why voters sided with Republicans during war-time in the last 2 national elections (2002 & 2004).

However, by reacting so passionately over Rove's disagreeement with liberal policies, these senators reveal to all of us that his words cut close to the bone.

Other opinions: Alarming News, Wizbang, Q and O Blog, Right Wing News has, 2 posts, Blackfive, Open Post, Blogs for Bush, Outside the Beltway, Scott Sala, PowerPundit, Baldilocks, Ian Schwartz, Captains Quarters, and Michelle Malkin.



1) Existing home sales 2nd highest in History: All the more reason to sell your house before the government gives it away thanks to the latest Supreme Court decision.

2) You might have better luck owning a home in Socialist-friendly France: Increasingly number of Americans are buying apartments in Paris

3) FOURTH OF JULY IS CANCELLED: East Hampton Village can't put on fireworks display because pyrotechnics will be "traumatic" for newly hatched federally protected piping plover chicks

4) George Will: On using "embarrassment" to spur eduacation reforms for No Child Left Behind.

5) The UN is finally investigating a country that commits human rights abuses: Um, maybe not.

6) Eric Fettman: Several leading Democrats have spent the past few days furiously back tracking from an outrageous — and thoroughly under-reported — demonstration of blatant anti-Semitism that manifested itself last week at a congressional quasi-hearing.

7) More sexism from European sports officials: Danica Patrick is upset at Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone and confused by his comments likening women to ``domestic appliances.''



These pictures of Justice Scalia accompanied the headline, "Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes" in 3 separate areas of Yahoo News "Most Popular" section even though Scalia sided with the dissenting minority

Call me biased, call me irrational but something caught my eye today. The story about the Supreme Court's ruling on the 5th Amendment "takings" case (Kelo v. New London) will get a lot of attention from readers on the Yahoo News website. In fact, as of 1:25pm ET it is, by far, the most e-mailed news article of the day ( Sent 4,269 times as of this writing while #2 has been sent 1, 027 times and # 3 has been sent 677 times).

Tens of thousands of people peruse the Yahoo News website every day. When they check out the "Most Popular" list and scroll down they will scan over a headline that says, "Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes" with a picture of a smiling Justice Scalia next to the headline. Justice Scalia and the other like-minded conservative justices, Rehnquist and Thomas (and O'Connor) were the dissenting minority.

The question is why did Yahoo News make the editorial decision to use Scalia as the smiling face of what could be, and should be, an unpopular and frightening decision for American homeowners. The problem is that people who see the headline immediately assume that Scalia's photo means he voted with the majority or that he in fact, wrote the deciding opinion. In fact, the article does not even mention Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, Yahoo News should have his picture on the main "Most Popular' page, the "Most Popular Highlight" feature and in the article itself.

Yahoo News may seem an innocuous website that merely "presents" the news. But this analysis shows how facts can be presented in a way that misprepresent the truth.

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes - Yahoo! News

Other opinions: Outside the Beltway, Buzz Blog, Buzz Blog, SoCalPundit, Prof. Bainbridge, Commonwealth Con, Llama Butcher, and Malkin.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?