New York Times, Huffington Post Are Turkey Farms

I was just doing a little web surfing.  I Googled the words "tea party" and "racism".  There was an article on Huffington Post recently calling the Tea Partiers ignorant racists. As well, the New York Times had an article about Confederate History Month and someone commented on the Times's  blog about the Woodstock Times article, specifically alluding to my statement on this blog that I am a Confederate. Of course, that has nothing to do with race or slavery. It is an allusion to the 10th Amendment and decentralization.  I conclude from looking at the articles and posters on both the Huffington Post blog and at the New York Times that both are turkey farms. Their readers are turkeys.  And that goes for the so-called journalists as well. And it goes for whoever wrote that dull-witted post.

I celebrated with a letter to Brian Hollander, editor of the Woodstock Times:

----- Original Message -----

From: Mitchell Langbert

To: woodstocktimes@ulsterpublishing.com

Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 5:28 AM

Subject: Fw: Corrected: American Breakfast Tea

Dear Editor Hollander: 

Thank you and Paul Smart for the coverage of our nascent Tea Party group ("American Breakfast Tea", April 8).  However, a point of clarification regarding Mr. Smart's reference to my belief in the Confederacy, John Calhoun and Andrew Jackson is in order.  I write in part because one of the Woodstock Times's  readers quoted the article and libelously alluded to it on a New York Times blog.  Please note that my reference to the Confederacy, John C. Calhoun and Andrew Jackson had nothing at all to do with slavery or race. This is a common libel concerning the Tea Party among the benighted social democratic press.  It is false that the Tea Party has to do with racism.

If you read my blog regularly you know that Mr. Smart took my point out of context.  My chief interest is in decentralization of government. John C. Calhoun and Andrew Jackson were two of the most important advocates of decentralization. This is closely related to modern management theories of Alfred Chandler and Oliver Williamson. 

Moreover, I am surprised that any of your readers are unaware that the primary issue over which the Civil War was fought was not slavery but states' rights and decentralization. This appears to be one more application of the rule that the more leftists and "progressives" preen themselves about their supposed superior intellects, the more limited their educations turn out to be.  In addition, your reader quoted Mr. Smart's quotation from my blog, which was deliberately selected to be incendiary (we love you anyway, Paul), without having taken the trouble to read it. If your readers wish to read my blog rather than draw libelous conclusions without having done so, it is located at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert

Democrats' Reality Warp On Sarah Palin

Democrats smear Republicans. It's part of the democratic process. Smearing goes back to Federalist days. I can't prove this, but my guess is that the volume of smearing directly relates to the quality of the candidate. The better the candidate the more the smearing volume. In the case of Sarah Palin, the volume has been high. Oddly, the Democrats chose to emphasize Ms. Palin's experience. But the Democratic nominee, Senator Obama, has experience at most slightly greater than Governor Palin's. But she is running for the number two, not the number one spot. Moreover, Mr. McCain has evened the age difference, attracted conservatives and likely attracted women.

For instance, on the Huffington Post, Warren Goldstein raises the issue of:

"Sarah Palin's qualifications to be president of the United States -- that's right, President."

and concludes

"We can hardly be expected to take seriously her track record: being mayor of a town of 9,000, and less than a year of being governor of a state with fewer residents than 19 American cities (if it were a city, Alaska would rank just above Baltimore, just below Charlotte)."

I checked Ms. Palin's biography on Wikipedia and learned that she assumed office in December 2006, so Mr. Goldstein is facutally inaccurate. She will have two, not one year of experience when her vice presidential term begins in 2009. 2007 + 2008 = two, not one year.

Let us compare Ms. Palin's experience to some other vice-presidential candidates in history. Let us start with a worst case scenario: twentieth century vice-presidents who assumed office because of a president's death. In 1900, Theodore Roosevelt ran as Vice President under William McKinley following exactly two years as governor of New York. Previous to that he had been assistant secretary of the navy and police commissioner of New York City. In other words, his experience was of the same order of magnitude as Ms. Palin's.

Let us compare Ms. Palin to a second vice-presidential candidate who later became president, Calvin Coolidge. Prior to running as vice-president in 1921, Mr. Coolidge had served for exactly two years, the same as Ms. Palin, as Governor of Massachusetts. Prior to that he had been lieutenant governor for three years. When he assumed the presidency in 1923 (following President Warren G. Harding's untimely death) he had roughly the same experience, excepting the three years as lieutenant governor, that Ms. Palin would have under similar circumstances.

A third example is Harry S. Truman. Truman had been US Senator for ten years. A longer term than both Palin and Obama.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for president of the United States in 1932, he had been governor of New York for three years, one year more than Governor Palin, and like his cousin TR, had been assistant secretary of the navy for seven years and a member of the New York State Senate for two. From the standpoint of significant prior executive experience, his resume was not that different from Ms. Palin's.

Now let us look at Senator Obama. He would have four years as US Senator and seven years as an Illinois state senator. He has no prior executive experience and only four years of legislative experience at the federal level. He would be going into the president's job with slightly more experience than Ms. Palin. He would be among the most inexperienced presidential candidates of the twentieth century. With only two years' additional experience as vice president, Ms. Palin's experience level, emphasizing executive-level experience, would be comparable to most other vice presidents' who have assumed the office of president. In contrast, Mr. Obama's experience is among the weakest because he lacks executive experience. Moreover, Governor Palin is running for number two, whereas Senator Obama is running for number one.

The great presidents include Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, Cleveland, Roosevelt, and Roosevelt.

Of these,

Washington had no prior political experience (other than briefly as a member of the Continental Congress) but had been the commander in chief for seven years.

Thomas Jefferson had considerable experience, having been governor of Virginia for two years, delegate to the Second Continental Congress, United States Ambassador to France, and Secretary of State when he became Vice President under John Adams in 1797.

Andrew Jackson had been Congressman for one year and Senator for six months, as well as a military officer in the War of 1812 and the First Seminole War before running for president.

Lincoln had two years of legislative experience and no executive experience when he assumed the presidency. In other words, he had less experience than Governor Palin and Senator Obama.

Grover Cleveland had been Governor of New York for two years, and Mayor of Buffalo, NY for one.

Theodore Roosevelt had been Governor of New York for two years, assistant secretary of the navy and police commissioner.

Franklin D. Roosevelt had been Governor of New York for three years, assistant secretary of the navy for seven and a Senator for two.

The foregoing were among the best presidents that we have had, and only Jefferson and Washington had significantly more experience than Governor Palin. Lincoln had less even than Mr. Obama.

However, all of the foregoing had demonstrated competence at some executive position. In Andrew Jackson's case it was military leadership (albeit controversial military leadership). In all other cases except Lincoln there had been some executive experience. Mr. Obama has no executive experience whatsoever.

Larry Johnson of No Quarter USA is among the few Democrats who is willing to confront reality. The mainstream media, an organ of the Democratic Party, has chosen to emphasize the experience issue with respect to Governor Palin but not with respect to Senator Obama. Yet with four years of senatorial experience, Mr. Obama has less relevant experience than Ms. Palin, who has two years of executive experience. Johnson writes:

There is an unwillingness in many quarters, including the DNC, the MSM, the left wing blogosphere, Air America radio and others to acknowledge what is painfully obvious to those of us at No Quarter, which is that there are a lot of loyal Democrats who are seriously considering voting Republican in the fall.

I am not sure of why the mass media has gone ga ga over Obama. This is the same mass media that believed Walter Duranty when he thought that Stalin was a hero in the 1930s, that trusted Castro and that backed the overthrow of Diem in Vietnam. The American media has a proven record of blistering incompetence. The American public is wise to ignore the media's soap.