Friday, October 10, 2008

Karl's Weekend Reading

The other Karl, Karl Rove, comments about the second debate and the remaining challenges for Obama. Thursday's WSJ, Voters Haven't Decided Yet.

Mr. Obama's test is that voters haven't shaken deep concerns about his lack of qualifications. Having accomplished virtually nothing in his three years in the Senate except to win the Democratic nomination, Mr. Obama must show he is up to the job. Voters like him, conditions favor him, yet he has not closed the sale. He may be approaching the finish line with that mixture of lassitude and insouciance he displayed in the spring against Mrs. Clinton.

Dorothy Rabinowitz points out the obvious in her WSJ opinion piece, News Flash: The Media Back Obama.

The single constant in the eternal election remains the media, whose activist role no one will seriously dispute. To point out the prevailing (with honorable exceptions) double standard of reporting so favorable to Mr. Obama by now feels superfluous -- much like talking about the weather. The same holds true for all those reports pointing to Mr. Obama's heroic status outside the United States -- not to mention the cascade of press analyses warning that if he fails to win election, the cause will surely be racism.

Speaking of a biased press, WSJ's James Taranto has buried his fangs into their latest misleading game - the all pure "Fact Check" reporting. In his Thursday Best of the Web, James presents a fact, and how two leading news agencies can draw different conclusions to benefit their bias. He sums it up well:

It is fine, indeed quite useful, for reporters to present relevant facts that voters can use in evaluating candidates' campaign claims. In this "fact check" form, however, journalists play prosecutor, judge and jury, deciding what evidence to present, what evidence to admit, and what it all means (CNN actually calls the conclusion a "verdict"). Why not just report and let the reader decide?

Remember not to question their patriotism when you read American Thinker's piece, Shocking Revelations about Biden in Soviet-Era Documents. Quoting from Hot Air:

According to internal Soviet Union documents from the SALT-2 negotiations in 1979, Joe Biden effectively told Soviet negotiators not to worry about American rhetoric about human-rights concerns. In fact, Biden also told the Soviets that the Senate didn't really care about European security, but only in giving the appearance of caring about it.

WSJ's Mary Anastasia O'Grady suggests tripling the US support to Columbia in response to Chavez's latest posturing, and asks Democrats to answer "whose side they are on", in her Monday article, Democrats Shouldn't Coddle Chavez.

The strongest immediate signal the U.S. could send Mr. Chávez and Latin American democracies is unequivocal support for Colombia. President Bush has tried to do that but the effort is being undermined by Congressional Democrats.
The FARC also expressed faith in Mrs. Pelosi as someone who "helps" in its effort to undermine Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. Mr. McGovern said in a letter to this newspaper that the FARC was engaging in fantasy. But maybe instead the rebels put their faith in Mrs. Pelosi because they perceive a common friend...