All the news that ... doesn't fit our agenda we hide

The president has decided to keep the military tribunals that President Bush set up.

That's news.

Remember how bad and evil the whole tribunal thing was? At least that's what all the whiny liberals said. Including Obama.

Now, suddenly, they're a good thing.

Still, the Obama reversal is news.

So, how is the left-wing media covering it?

The Old Gray Lady has it on the front page. Yes, the New York Times recognizes that it's a story of import. So much so, they put it way down at the bottom of their home page.



What about TV networks? Obama's favorite channel, MSNBC, doesn't even have it on their home page.

But not all of the left-wing media is burying the story. CNN has it prominent on their home page. As prominent as Fox, in fact. CBS and ABC News have the story on their front page, though not as prominent.

Of course, even a blind hog pics up an ear of corn every now and then.

Natural born citizen

Now the New York Times is questioning Senator John McCain's eligibility to be President of the United States.

Yes, the same John McCain that previously ran for President in 2000. But he wasn't the GOP front-runner then.

And it was raised by the same New York Times that made unfounded allegations of an "inappropriate relationship" between the Senator and a lobbyist.

And the eligibility question despite Congress declaring in 1790 that "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States."

In case you're not familiar, the United States Constitution sets forth the requirements for President and Vice President. And, yes, they are the same.

Article II, Section 1 says:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

Okay, that should be easy. "Natural born citizen." And Congress says that includes "children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States."

And that includes John Sidney McCain, III. Son of John Sidney McCain, Jr. and Roberta Wright McCain. John III was born at the Coco Solo Air Base in the Panama Canal Zone. And followed his father and grandfather's footsteps into the United States Navy.

Of course, if the New York Times can get anyone to put effort into defending silly questions about Senator McCain, they get an easier time pushing their liberal candidates and agenda.

Pathetic, isn't it.

Polls apart

There's a new poll out today that shows Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-IL) leading everyone in the race for the White House. Not just over New York Senator Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (D-IL,AR,DC,NY). But over Republican front-runner, Arizona Senator John Sidney McCain, III.

The odd thing is, that poll seems to buck the trend of other polls.

Over at RealClearPolitics.com, it looks like polls have been trending towards Senator McCain recently. Including McCain leading in the most recent polls.

Until, all of a sudden, a New York Times poll and an AP poll show Obama with a double-digit lead.

What's up with that?

I mean, it's not like CBS or the New York Times would make up news, would they?

CBS would never, say, publish fake records of a politician's ... say, President Bush's ... military service, would they?

And the New York Times would never make up a story about an "inappropriate relationship" between a politician ... say, Senator McCain ... and a lobbyist, would they?

And the AP would never use unreliable news sources in reporting, would they?

I don't put much stock in polls. They change.

Unlike the left-wing media bias. It's been the only consistent thing in this story.

All the lies that fit, they print

When the New York Times report first hit the Web last night -- you know, the story about Senator John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman -- I wasn't sure what to think.

My gut feeling was that the New York Times was being the New York Times. And I don't mean that in a good way.

I think the New York Times is not the credible news source many think they are. Yes, they have a long history and reputation. But they've shown themselves ... in may eyes anyway ... to be nothing more than a liberal propaganda machine, and not a bastion of journalistic integrity.

And, despite my feeling that Senator McCain isn't as conservative as I would like, I do respect him and have thrown my support behind the Senator. Not that my support means a hill of beans, but still, just so you know that I am, by default, likely to believe him over a liberal newspaper.

Now, I have never seen or heard anything that would indicate the allegations and implications in the story are true. But I have known folks that surprised me by finding out they couldn't keep their pants zipped.

Anyway, my gut told me that there was nothing to it.

And now, one of Bill Clinton's buddies says there's nothing to it.

Yeah, I know. Here I am using a buddy of Bill Clinton as a reliable source.

It's a crazy world.

Anyway, Lanny Davis, former special counsel to the 42nd President, knows a little something about the facts of the story:

What was omitted from both the Times and the Post stories was that what I wanted Sen. McCain to do, he refused to do. And he did so out of a concern of appearances of impropriety. That is a fact.

Davis says that the New York Times never contacted him, although the Washington Post did.

I repeated that fact to a Washington Post reporter several weeks ago. I never heard from The New York Times, even though, as just stated, I was on the record in 2000 with the Post. Yet neither newspaper, for whatever reason, included that fact in either story.

Davis isn't a fan of Senator McCain. He says he won't be voting for him. But he says he's not happy with the selective reporting of the paper.

The FCC investigated the matter and found no violation by Sen. McCain. That fact was also omitted from both the Times and the Post story today.

One question some folks have asked concerns the timing of the story.

Some wonder why the Times endorsed Senator McCain in the GOP primary if they thought there was anything to the story.

I'm wondering if they're running it now in case the junior Senator from New York ends up winning the Democratic nomination -- like I think she will.

I mean, think about it. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, liberal papers and news outlets won't be able to raise questions about inappropriate relationships (even if they're lies like this story is), will they?