Came across this web TV series just in time for Thanksgiving. I’m guessing that this will be a regular feature here at The Lunch Counter. Should give the folks at goLeftTV1 something to squawk about. It is material like this that tends to bring out the very best in them. Brought to you by NewsBusters.
1 goLeft.tv is a production of Air America radio host and BIG LAW trial attorney Mike Papantonio of Levin-Papantonio, Pensacola, FL.
As he did in the CNN sponsored debate last week, planted questions and all, Sen. John Edwards feels it is more important to deny that Iran’s Quds Force, also known as the Iranian Guard, are terrorists than to agree with President Bush.
When asked whether he believed the Iranian Guard to be a terrorist organization, Edwards answered instead how he felt about the Senate vote.
“There was no reason for the Senate to vote on the question to begin with,” he said. “I think it was a mistake. I would have voted no had I been in the Senate, and I think it’s very important … to show real strength against Bush and Cheney on this particular issue.”
When a reporter told Edwards that rival Barack Obama has said he would have voted against the resolution even though he believes the Iranian Guard is a terrorist organization, Edwards responded: “I stand by what I said.”
It must depend on what the meaning of ‘undecided’ is. The so-called undecided 
voters that Wolf Blitzer introduced turn out to be anything but. Is it any wonder that Democrats won’t debate on a FOX sponsored event? They have a burning need to know the questions before they are asked or know that they won’t be asked a question that they don’t want to answer. Yet they do want to be Commander In Chief.
In a nutshell, CNN’s six ‘undecided voters’ were: a Democratic Party bigwig, an antiwar activist, a Union official, an Islamic leader, a Harry Reid staffer,” who’s not even old enough to vote yet, and “a radical Chicano separatist.”
h/t to Rush for mentioning it and Michelle Malkin for the video research.
UPDATE 11/27/07 :And it gets worse for CNN, getting caught redacting the transcript.
The Media Fund, a Clinton-inspired union-financed group headed by Harold Ickes, former aide to Bill Clinton, played a major role in the 2004 election and has agreed to pay a $580,000 fine after the Federal Election Commission concluded it illegally ran advertising, $53.4 million worth, against President Bush and in favor of Democrat John Kerry. The FEC ruled the advocacy advertising was a violation of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill.
In August, another group allied with Democrats, America Coming Together, agreed to pay a $775,000 fine under the same law. America Coming Together is a George Soros (billionaire socialist) and Peter Lewis (Chairman of Progressive Insurance Co.) financed group. America Coming Together is led by Steve Rosenthal, who is the former political director for the AFL-CIO.
Isn’t it odd that this news was ignored by the media? Is there any doubt as to media bias here?
Two more allegations of bribery find their way to William Jefferson (D-La) according to Jefferson’s prosecutors. These two charges are separate from and not connected to the bribery charges that Jefferson already faces. But he won’t, at least not yet anyway, be charged with them. Instead, prosecutors intend to use them to show a pattern of corruption by Jefferson.
The government alleges that in 2002 Jefferson, a Democrat, asked a lobbyist for a U.S. oil services company for payments of $10,000 a month for a family member. In exchange, Jefferson said he would help the company promote business in Africa. The lobbyist turned down the request, according to the document.
Jefferson later made a deal to urge NASA to do business with a U.S. rocket launch services and technology company, according to the filing. The company is accused of agreeing to pay Jefferson’s family business and a relative in exchange for his help.
related links: Best defense is a good admission? | Jefferson plays the race card | Congressman Indicted In Washington | Nation’s Capitol Is No Safe Haven For Corrupt Politicians
On this day in 1872, Susan B. Anthony was arrested for casting a ballot in the election two weeks before. In a letter to another famed suffragist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Anthony boasted of having voted for “the Republican ticket — straight.” In 1878, Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduced the “Susan B. Anthony” amendment, which would become part of the U.S. Constitution in 1920.
More at the Grand Old Partisan.
If he can disprove even one of them, T. Boone Pickens has offered to give Kerry $1 million. Three years ago was the time to do it Sen. Kerry, if you could. Kerry must be feeling kind of lonely, or irrelevant, nowadays to want to bring this up again. It certainly begs the question, why now Senator Kerry? And one more question, who cares?
AP link
For those who didn’t see the Democrat debate tonight, after all it was on CNN, here is a recap. It started out with some bickering among the candidates, most of whom took shots at Sen. Clinton’s inability to state a position on giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens. To that and many other questions, Hillary’s response was her usual, ‘the American people know where I stand…’ Oh really? I must have missed it. All of them seemed to be running against Bush, who isn’t running.
On the drivers license subject, some came right out and said, like Gov. Bill Richardson, that yes they should be permitted to have a drivers license. Sen. Barak Obama thought it was a good idea too. Others hid behind the smoke of ‘we need comprehensive immigration reform,’ which is code for amnesty, drivers licenses, and more, but they wouldn’t come out and answer the question whether they should have a drivers license.
All of them wanted out of Iraq, and Iran is also out of the question. The most hawkish on Iran was Hillary who did go so far as to say that we should use diplomacy with Iran but keep the stick. She didn’t elaborate on the stick part. She held true to her belief system which is she hasn’t one. She likes blue ribbon panels to make decisions for her.
Iran brought out the weakness of them all on the subject of the Quds Force, the terrorist-supporting wing of the Iranian military. There seemed to be a consensus that calling them a terrorist organization was not nice, except Hillary. She’s the one who voted in favor of the resolution that labeled them a terrorist organization. She had no where to hide on that one, especially after her drivers license debacle at their last debate.
Wolf Blitzer, host of the debate, joined the ranks of Brian Williams and Tim Russert in qualifying for the Chris Matthews award by not asking or even mentioning the Iranian made 107mm rockets and super penetrating IED’s that are killing ours and Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians. A fair question was again ignored, giving way to their diplomatic story line.
John Edwards’ hair looked good. He had trouble completing a sentence that didn’t have the words Bush, Cheney, and neocons in it. Obviously appealing to the Soros wing of their party, but looking very silly for harping on them.
All of them spoke confidently on raising taxes for this that and the other. And on the subject of taxes, another Chris Matthews moment came up. None of them were asked whether they would make permanent the Bush tax cuts due to expire in 2010, which if elected, would be during their first term. Hold on to your wallet or make your escape plan.
On education, Wolf did ask a relevant question. Should exceptional teachers be rewarded with higher pay or bonus incentives? They were in complete agreement in towing the line of the teachers unions with a NO. It was blatantly obvious that the success of the students were not a priority. Hillary surprised me by saying, no, don’t reward good teachers, just fire the bad ones. Another rather stunning revelation was that they couldn’t agree what made a teacher a good teacher. Joe Biden, whose wife is a teacher with a masters and doctorate degree, believes that a good teacher is one who has multiple and higher degrees than just a bachelors degree. No one, not one of them, thought that successful students were relevant in determining whether a teacher was exceptional. Hillary ignored the students’ success by taking the village format. She said all the teachers in a given school should be rewarded if the school does well. Doing well doesn’t mean that the students do well. Doing well by her standards means teachers who teach in the worst of cities or neighborhoods are the ones to be rewarded with higher pay. More like combat pay. Again, no measure of the success of the students was offered. On the subject of education, it is clear that Democrats don’t give a wit about the success of the students, let alone merit pay for a job well done.
One of the funniest and scariest subjects was that of appointments to the Supreme Court. They all wanted an abortion litmus test for potential appointments to the Supreme Court. Abortion is the holy sacrament of the liberals’ political philosophy. None of them seemed at all interested in a strict constructionist type justice. John Edwards said he didn’t want a constitutional scholar on the bench, he wanted ‘a dog catcher’ on the bench. Literally, no exaggeration. I have to give him credit on at least saying what the others wouldn’t say. Which is, they want the supreme court to be filled with justices who don’t know what it is they are supposed to uphold, and who will uphold whatever the democrats want that they can’t get done through the people, the legislature.
After those grueling two hours, I don’t think it is necessary to see any more of their debates. If you see one, you’ve seen them all.
CNN link
UPDATE 11/19/07: ‘undecided’ voters were plants, activists, and Democrat operatives.
This incident, where a politician called a 75 yr. old Black civil rights activist “Buckwheat” is the subject of what amounts to a media blackout. Why a media blackout on such a derogatory statement? Looks like the reason is because the Louisiana State Representative Carla Blanchard Dartez is a Democrat. If she were Republican you know that Jesse Sharpton would be all over it.
Hazel Boykin, a 75-year-old civil rights activist who helped desegregate Louisiana restaurants and schools, helped Democratic State Representative Carla Blanchard Dartez get voters to the polls earlier this month. At the end of a private telephone conversation thanking Boykin for her efforts, Representative Dartez said, “Talk to you later, Buckwheat.”
Buckwheat? Where did that come from? It slimes one of my favorite TV shows growing up as a kid, Our Gang Comedy. In the context it was used, it may as well have been the n-word. The fact that it was a private phone conversation does not matter, if we are to hold Dartez to the same standard as Dwayne “Dog” Chapman. No one is demanding Carla Blanchard Dartez to resign from her seat. Mainly because no one even knows about it. We all know the mill that Chapman has been put through, including losing his job. Is this a racial double standard or a political double standard? Or both?
Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie is criticizing both the lawmaker for saying it and the media for once again appearing to take a pass on reporting about a liberal politician’s racial foible. And that criticism is well deserved.
National Center link
Want to tic off a liberal who says that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer? 
Show them this report from the Treasury Department that exposes those claims as so much “populist hokum.” The reason it will tic them off is obvious. It takes the wind right out of their class warfare, class envy sails. The reality is that over the last 10 years, the lowest quintile of working people have seen the largest percent increase in their income, 90.5%. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the highest quintile realized an increase of 10 % over the same time period.
A closer examination of that highest quintile, the upper 20% of working people, highlights even more the fallacy of the left’s argument about the rich getting richer. When you look at the top 10 percent of the highest quintile, that is to say, the top ten percent of income earners, they saw their incomes actually decline to the point where the top 1 percent, the ‘filthy rich’, were the biggest losers. Their income decreased by a whopping 25%.
The great irony is that, in the name of reducing inequality, some of our politicians want to raise taxes and other government obstacles to the kind of risk-taking and hard work that allow Americans to climb the income ladder so rapidly. As the Treasury data show, we shouldn’t worry about inequality. We should worry about the people who use inequality as a political club to promote policies that reduce opportunity.
Key findings. . .
WSJ Opinion Journal link
Income Mobility Study link
NewsBusters link