Bias Irritation

I accept that there are inherent biases in the media. I just object when they are rubbed into the nose.

For instance, check out this article from the Washington Post, on Obama the Boy Wonder of Internet Fundraising:

Obama's unprecedented online fundraising success is often depicted as a spontaneous reaction to a charismatic candidate, particularly by young, Internet-savvy supporters.

Wow, when Ron Paul was doing exactly the same thing, last year, all was dismissed as a fluke or ridiculed. Change it to read something like this: "Paul's surprising online fundraising success is often depicted as a reaction to a co-conspirator, particularly by young internet-savvy idiot savants who live in their parents' basements." Same phenomenon, praise for one guy, derision for the other. Yay, journalistic integrity.

But there's more. Check this out:

Ads for Obama pop up on political Web sites, such as the left-leaning blog Daily Kos, and on more general ones, such as those of newspapers.

snip

Obama has targeted unlikely sites, such as the conservative Washington Times, where an ad for the candidate appeared yesterday on the same page as a story about an economic speech he gave that morning.

So, the Kos is "left-leaning"? Are you kidding me? Of course the Washington Times is conservative, so if honesty is possible there, why the hedge on Kos?

I expect this, and know it's always there. Normally it's left under the surface and it irritates me far less. I suppose I should be grateful that the junior copy editor is in charge now and then and fails to cover up the obvious tells.

Wanted - An Adult For President

I was reading some of the Washington Post opinion stuff today, and happened upon a Eugene Robinson column that started like this:

The Democratic presidential candidates squabble over real or imagined racial sensitivities, the Republican presidential candidate stages photo opportunities with the troops in Iraq, and meanwhile the financial system is coming apart at the seams.

Would someone please tell Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain that here in the real world, we have what looks like a real problem. It would be nice if they'd pay attention and maybe, you know, come up with some ideas for getting out of this mess.

Funny enough, there is a candidate for President who has been talking about the financial crisis and the need for a return to sound money for about 30 years. Oh, that's right. I don't know what I was thinking. Ron Paul must not be a candidate for President. Columnist Eugene Robinson used the singular when describing the Republican offerings.

Problem is, when you have candidates who talk about fluff, and when you have voters who demand freebies, you get people like McCain, Clinton, and Obama at the fore. The LAST thing you're going to get from them is serious talk about finances. That's kook stuff, the kind of thing that gets the 'tinfoil hat insults' going.

Maybe Robinson is part of the problem. He, like so many others who have already given coronation to John McCain, treats Ron Paul like he doesn't exist. So, don't be surprised when Ron Paul type solutions aren't part of the discourse. And yet, Robinson continues:

A good start would be to acknowledge that putting the economy back on a sound footing is likely to be the new president's first task -- and then to begin laying out some ideas for how that might be done. A little honesty would be preferable, too -- an admission that no president will be able to turn around the economy overnight.

I realize that's heresy. Presidential candidates like to tell us about all the largesse they're going to provide. They like to invite voters to envision the sunshine of happy days, not the gloom of an economic slump. But real leadership involves dealing with the economy as it is, rather than as we would like it to be.

If you really wanted it, you could have written an article that read, "Ron Paul may be a longshot, but he's got exactly the right plan for returning the American financial system to sound money," or, "Ron Paul might not promise you the moon, sky, and socialized medicine, but he would get the country back on economic track".

But no. Exclude a good candidate with great ideas because you find their candidacies 'unwinnable', and you exclude the ideas. Thanks for nothing. I'm already reminded of the South Park episode, that lampooned the election choices of George Bush and John Kerry, ridiculing as the choice between a 'giant douch and a turd sandwich'.

OK- If I can't have Ron Paul, I'm ready for the Libertarian Party candidate now.

Huckabee and the Fair Tax

I received a questioning email and a link to a Washington Post article about Mike Huckabee and his backing of the Fair Tax. The inquiry was, "why aren't you backing Huckabee? Ron Paul isn't endorsing the Fair Tax?" Good question, and long overdue in addressing.

Mainly, I've given up on the Fair Tax, not because I don't think it will pass (I don't), but mainly because I am not convinced that it is fair after all.

The Fair Tax would eliminate all the various taxes we have at the federal level: income taxes, social security taxes, payroll taxes, and myriad other hidden taxes that are embedded into the cost of goods and services. It would eliminate the IRS.

THAT is the basis of my earlier support for the Fair Tax. I am in favor of all of the above.

Problem is, the Fair Tax would replace those things with a 23% sales tax on services and new goods.

So, what's unfair? It charges the same rate to all people, regardless of income, regardless of age, regardless of wealth. It eliminates all the loopholes currently in the convoluted tax code. If you don't want to pay the Fair Tax, don't spend. (That's kind of like saying, "if you don't like air pollution, don't breathe. You can't avoid it.)

Fine, but I don't think that the amount you spend is any kind of a measure of one's fair share in the cost of government.

I thank the critics on the left for spurring this thought. It's been churning inside my mind for months. So many on the left argue that the basis for payment is one's fair share. I agree! But they have it wrong. I do not believe that because you worked longer, or harder, or smarter, such that your wealth increases, that your share in government correspondingly increases.

True, if you use government services more than others, you should pay more than others. That is fair! But what correlation does that have upon spending (Fair Tax)? Or income (The Left)? Well, none whatsoever.

So, the Fair Tax has become in my mind, something that is typical of anything good that ever comes of government anymore. Mainly, it has some rotten component that I have to hold my nose over in order to enjoy the other parts.

Not exactly the basis for getting all excited, and certainly not enough to make me a single-issue Huckabee supporter. On the balance, I still prefer Ron Paul on all things economic.

I will say that I am glad at least one presidential candidate is talking about the Fair Tax. I still think something useful can come out of it, like really getting towards all of us paying a genuine fair share. That would be very useful, because I have to think that if we were sharing in the tax burden equally, fairly, a whole lot of people would discover that they've been getting a free ride, and that maybe, just maybe, some of this government really isn't so 'essential' or 'necessary'.

Presidential Quiz

(Crystal Lake, IL) The Washington Post has an interesting quiz online right now, and it's worth taking if you're into this sort of thing.

You have to choose either the Democratic or Republican ticket. From there, you are faced with a number of issues and the positions of the candidates. You pick the statement that best matches your position, and then you rate it on a scale from being not important to you to very important. In this way, it weighs the outcome and steers you towards someone you are most likely to be interested in. The best feature is that you do not know who the statement is coming from when you cast your vote.

I took both D & R because I wanted to see if I would find any surprises. I did!

No surprise that I found myself most aligned with Ron Paul. No surprise also that I found almost no affinity for Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton. I was surprised at having some affinity for Fred Thompson and Bill Richardson, and almost none for Barack Obama. Here are my scores, combining Ds & Rs in this tally:

Paul - 58 pts

Richardson- 27

Thompson - 20

Chris Dodd - 13

Mitt Romney - 9

McCain - 7

Obama - 5

Clinton - 4

Edwards - 4

Huckabee - 4

Giuliani -0 pts

There were some issues where I liked nobody's answer, so I picked the least intolerable, and called it 'not important' so as to give it as little weight as possible. It probably explains many of the points earned from Romney on down.

Among R's, Paul got points with me on Iraq, trade, taxes, and scope of government. Thompson got some on immigration and also scope of government. I figured Paul would get virtually all of my points, but alas. I'm going to have to look over Paul's positions on immigration!

As for the D's, there were several questions I just didn't want to cast a vote at all, but had to in order to get through the thing. For instance, there was a question on the ban on federal funding from stem-cell research. All of the Dems were in favor of repeal of the ban and getting funding going, shading it in their own ways. I'm opposed to any federal funding, but not in favor of banning research. I just don't believe scientific research should be the role of the federal government. I don't think there is any D or R candidate that I agree completely with on this issue, though.

Anyhow, Richardson got my points for Iraq and same-sex marriage issues, but also some tax issues. Dodd also got my points for tax issues. It was funny- I was guessing that Richardson was Dennis Kucinich for the Iraq items. I was surprised to see Kucinich left off the quiz, while Ron Paul was included. I take it as a sign that Paul is increasingly found viable by the MSM.

I got a stronger feel for the Democrats than I had before. So long as they are talking civil liberties and Iraq, I 'm kind of in there with them. As soon as they get to domestic fiscal policy, I want to run screaming. They are big on pointing out the fiscal disaster of the Bush Administration- which I agree with- but then they have huge programs they want to empower, all while claiming the mantle of fiscal responsibility. Sorry, raising taxes to the sky to cover the cost of these programs is nothing at all like fiscal responsibility. It may not leave a deficit, but neither will it leave an economy standing.

I'll give both Thompson and Richardson a look. I wouldn't have considered either of them worthy of even a look until taking this quiz. I'm still ardently backing Ron Paul until one of two things happens: a Libertarian candidate arises that makes me forget about Ron Paul; or, Paul fails to win the Republican nomination. He's not perfect by me, but he's the best of the bunch.