Conservatives have come to expect liberal organizations to hire purported “conservatives” to cover the conservative movement in a way that self-affirms liberal notions of conservative neanderthal-ism.

But there is a problem in Jennifer Rubin covering conservatives at the Washington Post. According to the Post’s ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, editorial page editor Fred Hiatt hired Rubin “to be an opinion blogger who would appeal to conservatives and people who want to follow conservative politics. She does.”

It is the “appeal to conservatives” that is problematic when coupled with the affirmation that “she does.” For the past year, Rubin has done more to hinder the Washington Post in the eyes of conservatives as a place willing to treat conservative views honestly than even hiring Ezra Klein and Greg Sargent, both activist leftists who can, at least, put aside partisanship to occasionally engage in good reporting. We can presume that Fred Hiatt has changed the mission from “appeal to conservatives” to “appeal to liberal notions about conservatives.”

Today, Jennifer Rubin discovers that Rick Santorum is a devout Catholic and, through leaps of logic that would defy Cirque Du Soleil, arrives at a laughable conclusion not in evidence that puts a big spotlight on her understanding of devout Catholics — a core constituency in the modern conservative movement, particularly inside the beltway no less.

Read More →

Conservatives have come to expect liberal organizations to hire purported “conservatives” to cover the conservative movement in a way that self-affirms liberal notions of conservative neanderthal-ism.

But there is a problem in Jennifer Rubin covering conservatives at the Washington Post. According to the Post’s ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, editorial page editor Fred Hiatt hired Rubin “to be an opinion blogger who would appeal to conservatives and people who want to follow conservative politics. She does.”

It is the “appeal to conservatives” that is problematic when coupled with the affirmation that “she does.” For the past year, Rubin has done more to hinder the Washington Post in the eyes of conservatives as a place willing to treat conservative views honestly than even hiring Ezra Klein and Greg Sargent, both activist leftists who can, at least, put aside partisanship to occasionally engage in good reporting. We can presume that Fred Hiatt has changed the mission from “appeal to conservatives” to “appeal to liberal notions about conservatives.”

Today, Jennifer Rubin discovers that Rick Santorum is a devout Catholic and, through leaps of logic that would defy Cirque Du Soleil, arrives at a laughable conclusion not in evidence that puts a big spotlight on her understanding of devout Catholics — a core constituency in the modern conservative movement, particularly inside the beltway no less.

Read More →

So, Google is integrating its websites more. As a result, some privacy settings will apply network-wide, and one site will be able to use data from another site. People are flipping out, naturally. People have been giving Google this data for ages. People have known that Google was watching them, and yet they chose to keep using Google and in fact use one account for many Google services.

Note that the new policy changes nothing about what Google already knew about you. It just changes what certain Google sites will use about you. As Marsha Blackburn and other members of Congress begin to look into it though, Google isn’t helping its case by pleading that it’s alright because certain users are excluded, which just furthers the premise that there’s something wrong with it.

But ultimately, you’re in control of what you do online. Personal responsibility: it’s not just for breakfast anymore.

I feel vindicated though in having about a dozen Google accounts for the limited times I had use for their services, usual in the course of helping somebody else. Different accounts for different uses and different sites. It was never hard. You just had to do it. Oh, and not use their email.

Read More →

So, Google is integrating its websites more. As a result, some privacy settings will apply network-wide, and one site will be able to use data from another site. People are flipping out, naturally. People have been giving Google this data for ages. People have known that Google was watching them, and yet they chose to keep using Google and in fact use one account for many Google services.

Note that the new policy changes nothing about what Google already knew about you. It just changes what certain Google sites will use about you. As Marsha Blackburn and other members of Congress begin to look into it though, Google isn’t helping its case by pleading that it’s alright because certain users are excluded, which just furthers the premise that there’s something wrong with it.

But ultimately, you’re in control of what you do online. Personal responsibility: it’s not just for breakfast anymore.

I feel vindicated though in having about a dozen Google accounts for the limited times I had use for their services, usual in the course of helping somebody else. Different accounts for different uses and different sites. It was never hard. You just had to do it. Oh, and not use their email.

Read More →

Ezra Klein responds via Twitter. See below.

There’s so much wrong in this column from Ezra Klein’s blog at the Washington Post that it’s hard to know where to begin. Ezra is waxing partisan about the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to be President Obama’s head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, trying desperately to find some justification for this unprecedented flouting of the Constitution. But Master Klein plays too fast and loose with the facts, even for a liberal wunderkind.

Let’s try to take them one at a time.

Read More →

Executive summary of this Washington Post article: Media Matters for America (MMfA) has come up with its latest ACME-approved method for beating the Road Runner Fox News: a secret training camp in which they teach selected liberal acolytes secret Barking Moonbat Pundit Kung Fu techniques that will let them infiltrate and dominate an unsuspecting “right-wing media!”  Well… at least those elements of the aforementioned right-wing media that don’t read the papers, because, again the entire exercise got written up in the Washington Post by Jason Horowitz.

The entire thing is, in fact, almost sad.  Even if you concede the central premise that it’s a good idea to be prepared for television appearances – which it is; and it’s one reason why I don’t even try to do TV – it is still always bemusing to see people refuse to give up a cherished, yet quite wrong, notion.  As someone privately pointed out to me – and I agree – MMfA still thinks that it’s their messaging that’s the problem for progressives, not the message itself  (despite decades of empirical evidence to the contrary).  It’s also interesting that the article itself admits that the trainees themselves were more comfortable with arguing the conservative points of view than the liberal ones; sure, they try to explain it away by saying that “it’s more fun to be the bad guy” – but they haven’t really thought that thought through.  It’s fun to play the bad guy when the bad guy is over-the-top – but if conservatives were as over-the-top as progressives think that they are, then conservatives wouldn’t be winning the debate.  And MMfA is starting out by admitting that conservatives are winning the debate.

Read More →

Executive summary of this Washington Post article: Media Matters for America (MMfA) has come up with its latest ACME-approved method for beating the Road Runner Fox News: a secret training camp in which they teach selected liberal acolytes secret Barking Moonbat Pundit Kung Fu techniques that will let them infiltrate and dominate an unsuspecting “right-wing media!”  Well… at least those elements of the aforementioned right-wing media that don’t read the papers, because, again the entire exercise got written up in the Washington Post by Jason Horowitz.

The entire thing is, in fact, almost sad.  Even if you concede the central premise that it’s a good idea to be prepared for television appearances – which it is; and it’s one reason why I don’t even try to do TV – it is still always bemusing to see people refuse to give up a cherished, yet quite wrong, notion.  As someone privately pointed out to me – and I agree – MMfA still thinks that it’s their messaging that’s the problem for progressives, not the message itself  (despite decades of empirical evidence to the contrary).  It’s also interesting that the article itself admits that the trainees themselves were more comfortable with arguing the conservative points of view than the liberal ones; sure, they try to explain it away by saying that “it’s more fun to be the bad guy” – but they haven’t really thought that thought through.  It’s fun to play the bad guy when the bad guy is over-the-top – but if conservatives were as over-the-top as progressives think that they are, then conservatives wouldn’t be winning the debate.  And MMfA is starting out by admitting that conservatives are winning the debate.

Read More →

Power Line’s John Hinderaker has done the heavy lifting on a case of journalistic incest by Dan Eggen at the Washington Post.

The Obama mouthpiece Center for American Progress did a hit job on Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) who happens to represent that part of Kansas in which Koch Industries is located.

The Center for American Progress had one of its employees run against Pompeo and, in all their unsuccessful hit jobs against Pompeo before the November election, failed to mention the conflict of interest.

The attacks have continued as a way to not just hurt Pompeo, but go after Koch Industries.

Dan Eggen, who I think we can deduce is an avid reader of Center for American Progress nonsense, took up the hit job and placed it in the pages of the Washington Post.

Among other things, Eggen tries to portray Mike Pompeo as a pawn of Koch Industries because of its financial contributions to Pompeo’s campaign via the Koch PAC and, when Pompeo was in business, a Koch venture capital firm contributing 2% of the overall money to Pompeo’s business. Eggen wholly ignores, in bringing up the accusation, that Koch Industries is a legitimate constituent of Pompeo’s.

More troubling, Eggen uses as objective sources for his story individuals who actively worked against Pompeo in the 2010 political campaign and are tied to far left interest groups. Eggen never bothers to disclose this.

There are many examples of the media picking up far left attacks and recycling them into “objective” journalistic pieces. This is just another example of the incest between left-wing interest groups and the mainstream media.

John does a fantastic job of breaking it down.

Power Line’s John Hinderaker has done the heavy lifting on a case of journalistic incest by Dan Eggen at the Washington Post.

The Obama mouthpiece Center for American Progress did a hit job on Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) who happens to represent that part of Kansas in which Koch Industries is located.

The Center for American Progress had one of its employees run against Pompeo and, in all their unsuccessful hit jobs against Pompeo before the November election, failed to mention the conflict of interest.

The attacks have continued as a way to not just hurt Pompeo, but go after Koch Industries.

Dan Eggen, who I think we can deduce is an avid reader of Center for American Progress nonsense, took up the hit job and placed it in the pages of the Washington Post.

Among other things, Eggen tries to portray Mike Pompeo as a pawn of Koch Industries because of its financial contributions to Pompeo’s campaign via the Koch PAC and, when Pompeo was in business, a Koch venture capital firm contributing 2% of the overall money to Pompeo’s business. Eggen wholly ignores, in bringing up the accusation, that Koch Industries is a legitimate constituent of Pompeo’s.

More troubling, Eggen uses as objective sources for his story individuals who actively worked against Pompeo in the 2010 political campaign and are tied to far left interest groups. Eggen never bothers to disclose this.

There are many examples of the media picking up far left attacks and recycling them into “objective” journalistic pieces. This is just another example of the incest between left-wing interest groups and the mainstream media.

John does a fantastic job of breaking it down.

The Washington Post’s leftwing mouthpiece, Greg Sargent, who they ostensibly pay to be an objective reporter is on twitter demanding that unions in Wisconsin get violent to get their way.

In what we can presume is unrelated to Greg Sargent’s call, a Fox News reporter was attacked by union thugs in Wisconsin.

Once I pointed out on Twitter that Sargent was calling for unions to get violent in Wisconsin, Sargent declared he was not promoting violence despite actually writing on twitter:

Dear union thugs: Will you please get violent in Wisconsin already? Pretty please?

Note also that Sargent is calling union members “thugs”.

Read More →