After booting Rush Limbaugh over non-political remarks that the news media favor Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb because he is black, ESPN, the radio home of Keith Olbermann, allowed left-wing director Spike Lee to go off on a rant about how New Orleans is not rebuilt. Limbaugh touched on the topic in his show Tuesday:

I must tell you, I watched the game a little bit last night. I had a very important secret meeting and I didn't get to see the entire game, missed some of the beginning, but as soon as I tuned in who do I see but Spike Lee in the booth being asked questions as though he's an expert on social policy and everything else. I listened to a little bit of it, and I kept saying, "It's a football game! Couldn't you have done this in the pregame show?" I find out they did, they devoted a lot of time to the pregame show.

It was pure politics in the booth at ESPN last night, and it was pure liberal politics, disguised as social compassion. Give us the game, guys! I'm getting sick of all these shots of the fans and the crowds and the shots that take us away from the field. It's no different than if you're at the game and a bunch of drunks in the row in front of you stand up and you can't see what's going on on the field. That's what these networks do. I don't want to hear Spike Lee when I'm watching the Atlanta Falcons and the Saints. I don't care. He got his HBO documentary. It doesn't matter to me. This ain't a social welfare-concern show. Now, I know that there might have been some pressure brought by the NFL. We gotta make New Orleans look good. We gotta make people understand still a lot of work to do here and so forth, but it got so syrupy and Milquetoast that I was about to puke. It's a football game! And football announcers, I thought, were not supposed to delve into politics. Where did I hear that once? Did politics we get all over the place, and we got liberal politics, and how rotten and horrible it is. "You may think Bourbon Street looks good, but we had to go on a tour of all these areas of New Orleans that are still dilapidated and un-repaired."

Linda Greenhouse is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who covers the United States Supreme Court for the New York Times. As we all know, the New York Times, along with the rest of the mainstream press, is adamant about their commitment to unbiased journalism. Reporters don't have opinions, at least not opinions that impact their journalism. It's nonsense, of course, but nonsense that's maintained by the likes of the Times.

Well, Linda Greenhouse, in a recent speech at her alma mater, Radcliffe, expressed some opinions. And if she really feels this way, there's absolutely no way that it could possibly not color her reporting. What she chooses to highlight, the way she expresses things, what she covers or doesn't cover, what she thinks is news and what isn't - that's all determined by her worldview.

On the 25th, The AP reported that a Muslim "scholar" was denied a temporary business and tourism visa by the State Department for one Tariq Ramadan, resident of Switzerland.

The story, however, makes the State Department's actions seem petty and uninformed. It makes the denial of the visa seem more a result of "racism" than one based on substance. In fact, the reasons that this "scholar" was denied a visa were given short shrift whereas a defense of Ramadan was given full throat.

All Ramadan's "reasons" that he and his attorneys ascribe to the supposedly illegitimate government action are included in the article, but only one small paragraph explores the State Department's reasons for denying the visa... and that in the words of the ACLU!

During the "Fox News Sunday" interview between Chris Wallace and Bill Clinton, the former president suggested ulterior motives for bringing up his administration's role in failing to prevent 9-11: "You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch's supporting my work on climate change."

Clinton also charged that Chris Wallace had not asked the same questions of the Bush administration:

"You launched it — it set me off on a tear because you didn't formulate it in an honest way and because you people ask me questions you don't ask the other side."

But in yesterday's "Political Grapevine" segment of "Special Report with Brit Hume," Hume said that Chris Wallace had indeed asked the same questions of Donald Rumsfeld.

Jack Cafferty, the CNN host of the "Cafferty File" segment of the "Situation Room," today derided Fox News as "the F-word network." He also alluded to collusion in regards to an interview Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave "The New York Post" editorial board. After being introduced by host Wolf Blitzer on September 26 at 4:11PM EDT, this exchange occurred:

Cafferty: "How you doing, Wolf? You mentioned Condoleezza Rice met with the editorial board of 'The New York Post' today, right?"

Blitzer: "Right."

Cafferty: "Yeah, ‘The New York Post’ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same guy that owns the F-word network, the Fox News channel, right?"

The New York Times was routinely slow on any allegation of past adultery or even sexual assault by Bill Clinton, dismissing them as lacking convincing evidence, as "toxic waste" designed to damage his campaign. But when Democratic opponents of Sen. George Allen charged that Sen. George Allen used the word "nigger" in the past -- a very politically toxic matter -- the Times was quick to honor it as fit to print. On Tuesday, reporter David Kirkpatrick wrote a story for the top of page A-20 with two photos, headlined "2 Ex-Acquaintances of Senator Allen Say He Used Slurs."

The Times never did more than two paragraphs on the Allen campaign's distribution of an article in which Webb opposed women in combat. In a September 18 article touting Webb's "rising" campaign, Robin Toner put this in paragraphs 23 and 24: "In the past week, the Allen campaign has taken aim at Mr. Webb on two counts: highlighting his opposition, in an article he wrote 27 years ago, to women in combat and at the Naval Academy, and asserting that Mr. Webb has no right to use videotape of President Ronald Reagan praising him in a new television advertisement. On women in combat, Mr. Webb said that he was sorry for any pain his writing had caused, that times had changed, and that he should be judged by what he did in the intervening years to expand opportunities for women."

Who would have thought that Howard Dean would come off looking like the relatively statesmanlike DNC Chair?  Dean has acknowledged that Chris Wallace was "tough but fair" in his questioning of Bill Clinton. Meanwhile, Dean's DNC predecessor Terry McAuliffe, with all the class and dignity for which he's known, has attacked Wallace as a Republican "tool," suggesting along the way that Tucker Carlson must be on drugs.

McAuliffe was a guest on Carlson's MSNBC show this afternoon.  Tucker touched things off with this observation:

"It's interesting to see the attack machine cranked up again. I notice you're trying to paint Chris Wallace as some sort of right-wing lunatic. I don't think Chris Wallace is a right-winger for one thing.  He had Donald Rumsfeld on his show, I'm not here to defend Fox I'm just telling the truth, and he gave Rumsfeld a hard time on 9-11 too.  Why is that every time someone calls the Clinton people to account, they all of a sudden start screaming 'you're a right-winger, you're part of the conspiracy against us'? Why can't they evaluate criticism on its own terms?"

If there are opposing viewpoints with respect to Bill Clinton's handling of Osama bin Laden, where lies the truth?

Later today, I'm going to a Pajamas Media panel discussion on partisanship and blogs (how much is too much?). Moderator and Instapundit.com blogger Glenn Reynolds came into town yesterday but not before being subjected to several hours' worth of CNN in the airport.

John Hinderaker of Power Line points out the broader implications of CNN being foisted upon Glenn and many other travelers:

This has become my major issue with air travel, worse even than having to throw away my shaving cream and toothpaste. (Want a stock tip? Invest in a company that makes really, really small toiletries.) The airports of America--as far as I can tell, there aren't any exceptions--have entered into a contract with CNN whereby CNN's outrageously one-sided coverage blares non-stop at every airline gate in the U.S. Talk about a captive audience! You really don't have any choice but to sit at the gate, waiting for your plane to load, and the volume is turned up so loud that you can't miss a single snarky attack on the Bush administration. Frankly, I think I'd rather be waterboarded. Do you suppose John McCain can do something about this?

This is just one of many manifestations of the fact that the Democratic Party is the "home team" of American politics. CNN is the "official" news network, viewed by corporate America as neutral and unobjectionable even though, in fact, it is relentlessly liberal. If anyone proposed that they shift the contract over to Fox, for the sake of more competent news coverage if nothing else, the reaction would be: we can't do that, Fox is conservative! It isn't, actually, for the most part. But occasional moments of conservatism will drive a network more or less underground, while constant liberalism is considered middle of the road, and suitable for infliction--like it or not--on the air travelers of America.

I've had the same experience, most airport TVs I've run across show CNN. But CNN is not only the channel of most major airports, it's also the channel in most public spaces where ESPN isn't being shown, simply because liberalism is the default political viewpoint set up for Americans. It's not the raving, Bush-is-Hitler bile that left-wing blogs and Air America pine for, but it's there nonetheless, surrounding us all like a comforting political amniotic fluid, helping us know what's right, who's evil, and what's sensible and moderate. It's also probably one of the bigger reasons why liberal media bias exists.

James Carville and Paul Begala were not the only Democrats on morning televison offering advice for Democrats as the midterm elections approach. On the "Early Show,"former Senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart, another democrat who got into trouble for extramarital affairs, discussed his new book, "The Courage of our Convictions: A Manifesto for Democrats." Like Carville and Begalia, Hart maintains the Democratic Party needs to grow a spine. During the segment with Hart, "Early Show" co-host Harry Smith allowed his populist beliefs to shine through, even has he noted the Democratic party is "adrift" and bemoaned the fact that the Democrats don’t really stand for anything:

Pundits are pondering Bill Clinton’s feverish attack on “Fox News Sunday,” laying into Chris Wallace for alleged oh-so-clever smirking and pounding the host’s leg with his pointy finger for emphasis.

No one asked if Clinton’s outburst hurt the publicity for his “Clinton Global Initiative.” (It didn’t help.) The first question was: staged outrage, or a spontaneous reaction? It’s quite a commentary on the Slick One that millions on both sides of the political fence would guess he plotted this tantrum in advance. Count me in on that number. I believe it was staged, a plan to please left-wingers who loathe Fox News with a passion and want them demonized as the communications center of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

CNN’s "American Morning" featured two reports this morning on Senator George Allen and the controversies engulfing him. Anchor Soledad O’Brien and political reporter Bob Franken apparently found the whole story amusing, as they could barely restrain their glee. During both segments, Franken brought up "macaca"-gate. At 8:07AM, after mentioning the most recent allegations that Allen, as a college student, used a racial pejorative, Franken characterized the macaca incident this way:

Franken: "And, of course, we know about the controversy that erupted when he used another slur, the word macaca, against an Indian-American operative for his opponent's campaign."

Interestingly, an hour earlier, he described the event differently:

Franken: "Of course, we also remember Senator Allen recently, who was captured on video, when he accused an operative for his Democratic opponent of being, quote, a 'macaca,' which we found out was a racial pejorative. Something that the Senator said he did not know."

So, Franken had to find out what the word means? He didn’t instantly know its definition? Then perhaps he shouldn’t assign a motive to Senator Allen’s usage of the phrase.

Best known from it's role in the movie Top Gun, this fighter was also famously used to force down the Egyptian jetliner carrying the escaping Achille Lauro hijackers in 1985.

The contribution of the Tomcat to our nation's freedom is best summed up at navy.mil by Aviation Support Equipment Technician 2nd Class Christopher Kaelin: “The Tomcat helped maintain freedom and democracy around the world . . . When you see it come off the flight deck, you know it’s a force to be reckoned with.”

In an otherwise balanced story yesterday on conservative and libertarian efforts to limit a 2005 Supreme Court ruling expanding eminent domain, USA Today reporter Martin Kasindorf concluded his story with a swipe at anti-Kelo v. New London activists by quoting a Georgetown University legal expert.

"The property rights advocates have exploited Kelo to advance a broader anti-government agenda," Kasindorf quoted "John Echeverria of Georgetown University Law Center."

Actually, Echeverria is head of the Georgetown Environmental Law & Policy Institute, and his bias in favor of Kelo and work with the liberal Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), went unmentioned. In doing so, the reader is left with the impression Echeverria is a dispassionate legal observer, or at least one uninvolved in Kelo-related controversies.

Yet on November 4, 2005, Echeverria told New York state legislators, "I firmly believe the U.S. Supreme Court decision" in Kelo v. New London "was correctly decided."

Reports Drudge on himself:

ABCNEWS, WASH POST REPORTERS: 'DRUDGE RULES OUR WORLD'

Here they come...

In the stampede of books attempting to make their mark this season comes THE WAY TO WIN, by longtime political reporters Halperin and Harris.

The political director of ABCNEWS and the national politics editor of the WASHINGTON POST make it official in their new insider tome on DC politics and how it's played: The four words in every newsroom and campaign headquarters are: Have you seen DRUDGE?

MORE

Viewers of this morning's Today expecting a balanced panel discussing Bill Clinton's outburst at Fox News were greeted with James Carville debating...Paul Begala? Meredith Vieira, for the most part, sat back as Carville and Begala pumped up Clinton, rallied the Democratic base and attacked everything from the administration's war on terror to Condoleezza Rice, to Fox News. There was no Michael Smerconish or any other vaguely right-of-center counterpart to make points against Clinton's outburst.

The following is a transcript of the entire segment:

Meredith Vieira: "Norah O'Donnell, thanks. Democratic strategists James Carville and Paul Begala worked closely with former President Clinton, their book, Take It Back: A Battle Plan for Democratic Victory is now out in paperback and updated with new material. Good morning to both of you gentlemen. I want to start with you James."

The Ohio chapter of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, put out a press release on NewsWire about its success in getting a local car dealership not to run radio ads declaring a "jihad" on the car competition and "Fatwa Fridays."

Instead, will the dealership now run "Religion of Peace" Wednesdays?

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Sept. 25 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Ohio chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Ohio) said today that proposed "jihad-themed" radio advertisements for a car dealer in that state will not be aired.

The ads reportedly would have proclaimed a "jihad" on the U.S. auto market and offered "Fatwa Fridays" with sales representatives in "burqas" giving free swords to children.

If you read the lawsuit, you won't get to the gist of what the State of California really wants from the six car companies it sued over their alleged contribution to the state's alleged global-warming problem.

(Aside: part of me would LOOOOOVE for this suit to go forward, so that global warming arguments can be shredded in open court.)

Here is the "relief" the lawsuit (15-page PDF) requests:

The People request that this Court:
1. Hold each defendant jointly and severally liable for creating, contributing to, and
maintaining a public nuisance;
2. Award monetary damages according to proof;
3. Enter a declaratory judgment for such future monetary expenses and damages as may
be incurred by California in connection with the nuisance of global warming;
4. Award attorneys fees;
5. Award costs and expenses; and
6. Award such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

That's pretty vague. But this BBC article on the suit has this interesting unattributed sentence about what the state is actually after, something I have not seen mentioned in any other article I read on the topic:

Yesterday, Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma took to the floor of the United States Senate and gave a passionate and informed speech about Global Warming and the American media's coverage of it. He noted that

During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which link every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.

Well, ABC's Good Morning America addressed the Global Warming issue this morning. One might think that the entire point of this morning's report was to prove Inhofe right.

How pathetic is it for a candidate to announce his intention to run for the presidency and the few who have heard about it greet the announcement with almost universal derision? Not quite as pathetic as a newspaper reporter who stretches a not-quite announcement into a full blown story about that candidate running for president. Such was the case with Dean Treftz of the University of Iowa student newspaper, the Daily Iowan.

In a bid to make news where none really existed, the Treftz story begins with this bold headline: "Biden says he's going to run." The story itself, like the headline, starts out boldly enough:

As alert readers have noticed, NewsBusters is now offering advertisers a chance to get your message out. If you're interested in a chance to reach out to NB's 70,000 daily visitors, drop me a line at msheffield@gmail.com or click here.

Instead of exploring the accuracy or inaccuracy of former President Clinton's claims during his temper tantrum directed at Chris Wallace in an interview aired on Fox News Sunday, the ABC and NBC evening newscasts on Monday suggested a larger strategy to motivate Democrats. ABC anchor Charles Gibson framed the event: “When asked about efforts he made to get Osama bin Laden, the former President got angry. Was he really mad or was he using anger to make a larger point?” Reporter Dan Harris proposed: “Unlike Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry, who many believe failed to effectively combat efforts to distort their image, the Clintons believe Democrats have to push back hard.”

NBC anchor Brian Williams turned to David Gergen who rationalized the tantrum: “He'd just come off a terrific week as ex-President and raised over $7 billion for worthy causes, walked into an interview with Fox with Chris Wallace that he thought was going to be at least half about his initiative. And then he thought he got sandbagged by this question...which echoes the conservative criticisms.” Gergen predicted: “It's going to be a rallying cry for Democrats because Bill Clinton has sent a very clear message to Democrats. If you get bullied, if they try to roll over you, you've got to punch back and punch back hard. That's the way to win.”