Leftist Media Bias of the Day

GW at WolfHowling wonders how a the left can Bork their own supreme court candidate for being friends with Clarence Thomas while Obama's twenty year association with known leftist racists and leftist terrorists are dismissed with a yawn.

His analysis is a classic dissection of the so-called "main-stream-media" and its leftist bias, as well as a commentary on how the left distorts the concept of civil rights into a Marxian vehicle

She is black, female and has a long record of leaning left in her judicial opinions. She is considered in the mix for nomination to take over the post on the U.S. Supreme Court that will open up with Justice Souter's retirement...[However, it] seems that Justice Ward has a very shady association that may, as WaPo puts it, "complicate" her "chances" for nomination. So what is this association? Chief Justice Sears happens to be friends with conservative black U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Pause for a moment and consider the connotation. A liberal and conservative make an unlikely friendship based on having something in common beyond politics.  The WaPo bleats a blatant disrespect for this unalloyed good.  The left draws a hypocritical line in the sand... if you as much as speak to a conservative you are tainted for life.

Such attitudes reflect how deeply Marxian thought has metastasized in today's far left. It really is a horrifying thing that distorts all it touches.

The far left has been the driver of reverse racism and sexism for the past half century. That is why it is no surprise that, with the emergence of a far left candidate for the highest office in the nation, Rev. Jeremiah Wright should also arise at his side and into the public eye preaching a vile racism and separatism most Americans thought long dead in this country. Nor is it any surprise that the MSM, many of whom are of the far left, should collectively yawn at Obama's twenty year association with Wright. Wright is anything but an anomaly. To the contrary, he is a progeny of the politics of the far left.

If we are now at the point that one can cavort with terrorists and the most vile of racists, but still be qualified for the Presidency, while maintaining a friendship with a person who holds conservative political viewpoints is a blockade on the road to appointment to the Supreme Court, what does that say about how skewed we have become as a nation?

If even having a conservative friend disqualifies you from the ruling elite, then surely bipartisanship is passé.

But to carry that even further is the fact that WaPo can casually report this as simple fact without considering any of the ramifications of what they are saying. At a minimum, it means, to me at least, that the fabric of our country has changed radically and perversely.

The cavalier ignorance (at best) of Krissah Thompson, not even once mentioning the blatant hypocrisy of the left earns her the Leftist Media Bias of the Day award. Head on over to NewsCard and click the 'baised' button if you agree (subscription required).

Obama's Proposal for Universal Savings Accounts Reveals NY Times Hypocrisy

Earlier this week, the NY Times published an op-ed piece where they tout Obama's proposal for universal savings account to fix social security. In fairness to Obama, part of his plan is decent.

The notion of a “universal” savings account is tantalizing. It suggests two possibilities: Giving everyone, no matter how large their employer, an easy way to save some money when they receive a paycheck, and eliminating the alphabet soup of 401(k)’s, I.R.A.’s, 529s and other accounts that we all have strewn about our financial lives.

Presumably, Social Security is one of those "other accounts".

So Mr. Obama’s plan would piggyback on existing payroll direct-deposit systems, siphoning off 3 percent or so of everyone’s salaries and funneling it directly to an individual retirement account...There would be a standardized default investment, probably some kind of mutual fund with a mix of stocks and bonds that gets more conservative over time. The key to making this truly widespread, however, is something called auto-enrollment. That means that unless workers opt out of the plan, the money will come out of their paychecks automatically.

Automatically, you mean like FICA deductions? Let us see what the Times had to say about this plan when Bush proposed it in 2003:

The change, which would primarily benefit the affluent who can afford to save more of their income, is aimed at encouraging an increase in the lagging personal savings rate and at simplifying the maze of retirement savings choices and other tax-deferred accounts for things like college education and medical expenses.

That's correct: they pitched it as a benefit for the wealthy. They also said it was fiscally irresponsible: There may be some compelling economic logic to cutting taxes on dividends, or subsidizing savings, but this should be done in a fiscally responsible manner -- by identifying a specific revenue cut or tax increase to balance the books. Have you seen any NYTimes calls for balancing anything Obama wants to do?

Why is the Times now so gung ho on the Obama version of this plan? I mean besides they just Love Obama. Let's see...

For households that earn under $65,000, the federal government will match savings up to $1,000 a year with a 50 percent tax credit. So if you saved $500, you would get $250 dropped directly into your I.R.A. This tax credit is refundable, which means you would get it regardless of how much you pay in federal taxes each year. The credit would phase out between $65,000 and $85,000 of household income, or half of that if you are single.

That's right -- Whether or not you pay taxes, you get this freebie. Obama is proposing additional transfer of wealth. Surprised?

You can't swing a dead cat anywhere in this town without hitting another proposal for wealth transfer.