Checking out ask the editors

The Spokesman-Review runs a number of blogs, ask the editors. They also have a comment section for the questions posted. There are three subject matters that I think are worthy of bringing to a more public view. That is, the Spokesman-Review's bias against Hillary Clinton. Which of course, Features Editor Doug Floyd vehemently denied was the case. So how much work does it take to review from 1 January 2007 to 11 December 2008 a newspaper morgue where because newspaper file reports can now be digitized, republished political cartoons can be found with the click of a mouse, a search engine can call up X number of hits of dates and times when specific cartoons were published and who were the authors, a matter of hours, at best. But Floyd having more access to what his own paper has published (since the Spokesman-Review charges a fee before anyone else may enjoy a similar access); could have taken the time to do the research before treating the question raised with a dismissive so much hyperbole.

To date, anti-Hillary cartoons have been far more common than screeds against any other Republican or Democrat among all presidential wannabes. If the S-R wished to be fair and balanced, it would publish equal attacks on all other candidates who surely deserve questions raised about their past personal conduct, proposed policies, and yes, what they did in their political lives before running for president. They aren't cyphers after all.

Next, a mom who would rather the newspapers screen out "offensive" cartoons. Huh, and would mom like her 3 year old kid looking at a Glenn McCoy attack on Hillary Clinton stuffing much campaign contribution moolah into her bra? A republished cartoon that went beyond the pale of decency and skirted what can be called levels of porn. But was accepted into print by the S-R because of its "political" content. Well, if the S-R can run something that particularly ugly for its political content, then they can allow cleavage to be shown in "Opus" as well. Note that mom didn't mention the political cartoons as being equally offensive as a comic strip that allows full views of butt cracks and cleavage. But then, so do sitcoms.

Finally, a question from a guy who blasts Pia Hansen, columnist for the Spokesman as essentially a European Socialist who wants for this country the kinds of things she experienced in Europe. Too bad the comments section was closed after Ms. Hansen provided her most useful reply. Or I would have said to the questioner as well as the guy who published this most unfortunate question, why do you express this much ignorance about this country? Government at its best, and this is in a democratic state, does factually look out for the common welfare of its citizens. The government that does not also can be held accountable for the following:

• Economic crises: The mortgage crisis brought about by cheap subprime lending. At least cheap at first. Good jobs exported because the business interests want a fat profit that they think can only come from the exploitation of a cheap foreign workforce. Hiring an illegal alien workforce, because the businesses don't think they can make a profit unless they do so. Oil dependency. And the unwillingness of the federal government to wean us off it. Failing schools, and the unwillingness of government at any level to make education competitive and those educated, the future contributors to this country's economic future. Literally, an unwillingness to invest in its citizens by corporations and by government.
• Katrina: This hurricane ended up being a deciding factor in why the Democrats got back into power in Congress. It is also why GW Bush moved faster on the California wildfires situation and the massive flooding to hit western Washington and parts of Oregon because of the Pineapple Express that also had an adverse affect on the Inland Northwest and the local ski resorts, post a week or so of heavy snow. GW was to find out what it meant when voters get dissatisfied on pocket book and personal issues. Pocket book and personal issues will also determine who becomes president in 2008, even more than Iraq or the war on terrorism. Ms. Hansen is only reflecting the mood of the country. Which puts the questioner kind of out of touch.

A note on Michael Barone, (also found at the AOL blog), he points to a few "gems" of GW foreign policy and declares that GW is finally getting the world moving toward peace. Which would be wonderful but for: GW wants Congress to pass a war funding bill for Iraq. Most GOP presidential wannabes want the war in Iraq to continue until it reaches some unspecified successful conclusion. AP, GW wants Iran to "explain" its nuke program. GW continues to rattle sabers at Iran even though they have shelved their nuke weapons program--for now. That is moving the world toward peace? So much that is left out of this constant spinning for Bush that can be found anywhere in the news media. Yet, it is available as public knowledge on any news media broadcast.