May I recommend That Colored Fellow, if only for his opening ‘graf today, with it’s whiplash closing sentence?  I don’t care if he does refer caustically, in the very next sentence, to the “Conservative Echo Chamber.”  Being smart and funny, like charity, covers a multitude of sins.

Look-see what Dennis Byrne has today about those world leaders in economic progress and free expression, Kofi Annan and friends at the You-benighted organization — Mitts off the Internet, Iran, China, Cuba . . .

This from Instapundit makes a very good point which I will elucidate after first quoting his blog:

AT THE GYM [this morning] they were for some reason running Face the Nation , where they usually show CNN or FoxNews. But that means I caught this very interesting statement from John McCain:

[Bob] SCHIEFFER: President Bush accused his critics of rewriting history last week.

Sen. McCAIN: Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: And in–he said in doing so, the criticisms they were making of his war policy was endangering our troops in Iraq. Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy?

Sen. McCAIN: No, I think it’s a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it’s a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them–I said, `Did–were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?’ Every one of them said no.

I think the “Bush lied us into war” meme is in trouble [says Instapundit], and the GOP pushback seems to be a general effort, not a one-off. And I also think that the reason that so many antiwar people want to move from discussion of whether specific behavior is unpatriotic, to the strawman question of whether any criticism of the war is unpatriotic (note Schieffer’s question [my italics] — “Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy?” — and how it differs from what Bush actually said) is because they know they’re on weak ground on the specifics.

Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) is assuming that veteran newscaster Schieffer is passing on — mouthing, parroting — Dems.  This is it: MainStreamers’ whole frame of reference is Democratic, which is one reason why they are so apoplectic about accusations of bias.  “Can’t you people see?  It’s the way things are!  You’re the one who wants it slanted!” they say or seem to say.

In 11/10 Trib story by Wm. Neikirk “Bill targets ‘entitlements’” , on p. 8 at the top, 5 of 6 columns, why quote marks for “Entitlements”? Pretty straightforward word, understood by most as what comes by way of benefits based on one’s condition in life, race, sex, etc. Sub-head is purely from viewpoint of Dems: “GOP-backed trims before House give Democrats plenty of ammo.” Yes, but why is that the important thing here, and not “GOP budget bill saves taxpayers lots of money.” Both may be true, but Trib editors are not interested in the latter.

The lede is sure provocative, and no wonder this bill plays into Dem hands, with Chi Trib et al. portraying it in these, shall we say lurid? terms:

After slashing taxes and establishing a new Medicare prescription drug program, House Republicans are now seeking to reduce the deficit with budget cuts that would force sacrifice on many recipients of government benefits.

Get that “force sacrifice.” When you put it that way, it’s clear these are very bad guys.

Most of the targeted beneficiaries are low-income Americans, providing Democrats with new ammunition to denounce the GOP as being callous to the poor and generous to the rich.

Damn right, and they don’t even have to hold a press conference to call Republicans callous etc. Please. We are to take such reporting seriously?

And Neikirk puts “entitlement” in quotes himself. We can’t even blame the copy desk for that one.

November 12, 2005 . . . . Chi Trib today has a lead story by Mark Silva about Bush whacking Dems – “Bush fires back at his war critics,” – that is worth noodling. Is it written too much from a Democratic viewpoint, using all the Dem talking points, which MainStreamers tend to take at face value, without considering what’s big in the minds of The Other Side, who also read newspapers but in dwindling numbers? Does it deliver Bushie talking points in equal numbers? That’s for readers to decide.

For instance, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley showed unaccustomed “belligerence” in defending the “good faith” of the administration. Not “vigor”? Not if you’re on the other side of Hadley, reacting to him as opposition. The war-defending bloggers – Instapundit.com and others – are quite happy the administration is standing up and fighting.

Silva did give good space to Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who said he was “not sure if the Democratic leaders were brainwashed” when they approved the war. Does Silva remember George Romney saying that about himself and thus killing his chances for the 1968 presidential nomination? Anyhow, it’s a good GOP talking point for people who do.

Another is Mehlman’s “cut-and-run politics based on what the polls show,” which is nicely aimed.

However, what of this, right from Silva’s keyboard?

Democrats contend, however, that it was the administration’s statements, now shown to be baseless, that caused them to believe the worst about Hussein’s arsenal. [Italics added]

Wait a minute. That’s Dem line pure and simple, paying no need to what was said – Brits report, credible threat of WMD, etc. – that were accurate to a T. In any case, this is MainStreamer repetition until “everyone knows” it’s true. There it is, slipped into the middle of a news story, that “now shown to be baseless.” Namely, what? The solid suspicion, voiced by Dems and Repubs alike, that Sadaam was mass-destruction-armed?

I may be missing something here, but it’s this sort of thing that makes reading newspaper articles a dangerous venture.

And then we have six solid inches on the jump page, the last five ‘graphs minus three, which drive home the case for Dems:

American support for the war, as well as confidence in the president’s integrity, has diminished . . . . “Scooter” Libby [was indicted] . . . . 54 percent of Americans surveyed [call] the war a mistake. . . . a majority for the first time [is] questioning Bush’s integrity. . . . even some Republicans have questioned the handling of intelligence before the war. [How long before the war? Even to the previous administration?] . . .

Bush again uses a military base at which to make his case, we then read, “reiterating his claim that Iraq has become the ‘central front’” in the war on terror. “His claim,” yes. That proper scepticism, but reserved for the party in power, not for its critics. Why is that? Is there a cachet in being critical of power? Is there one in being anti-war, even when you sound too much like George Romney in ‘68?

In “Muslim group angered by Kirk,” Chi Trib’s Susan Kuszka (once of Chi Daily News), has a brief account of mau-mauing the congressman — Mark Kirk, North Shore Republican — for saying Middle Eastern men deserve special attention from cops and others charged with protecting us from 9/11–type destruction. 

“[W]e need intense security on applicants [for entry] from terrorist-producing countries,” he said. “Ignoring that reality would only do a disservice to our country’s security.”

 The mau-mauing is by the infamous CAIR, Council on American-Islamic Relations, a crafty bunch who pounce on whatever and whoever pinpoints Muslims as terrorists, as if Mexicans or Canadians, to touch on our two borders, were as suspect as one of them. 

What Kirk “spewed” out of his mouth “is a manifestation of … a classic, malicious, bigoted attitude,” said Yaser Tabbara, director of Chicago CAIR.  The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights basically agreed and called for an apology and retraction, as did CAIR.

Kirk had said he’s “OK with discrimination against young Arab males from terrorist-producing states . . . young men between, say, the ages of 18 and 25 from a couple of countries,” for security reasons.

So he got stamped on, partly because unfair discrimination has been compressed by usage to discrimination.  The issue is unfair discrimination, of course.  We keep men out of women’s washrooms fairly.  It’s OK to discriminate that way.  Kirk is right to be “OK with discrimination” in this case.

As for CAIR, it’s a blustering arrogant operation , “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect” and “has ties to terrorism.”  Or so say Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Charles Schumer of NY respectively, both liberal Democrats.  With critics like that, why is CAIR picking on Mark Kirk?