How much of a failure is the Washington Post’s “America’s Next Great Pundit Contest,” now in its final round?

The Washington Post showed: (1) the newspaper is cheap; (2) the newspaper breaks its own rules; (3) the newspaper doesn’t respond to readers/contestants; (4) the newspaper has a liberal bias; (5) the newspaper values diversity over quality; (6) the newspaper looks the other way when a pundit contest devolves into a vote-getting social networking contest; and (7) the newspaper covers up all the problems.

Zeba Khan (the young woman behind Muslim-Americans for Obama–just the type of person you’d want to be a political pundit of the Obama administration, no?) won the most votes of the final two. Here, in her own words on the website islamicate, is why the Washington Post’s contest is not a talent contest at all:

Hello Friends and Colleagues,
I am thrilled to inform you that thanks to your support, I am a semifinalist in the Washington Post’s “America’s Next Great Pundit” competition. It’s a long way from being one of the initial ten contestants selected out of nearly 5000 entries to being in the Top Three and I could not have done it without your support.

Now it’s crunch time. The two people with the highest number of online votes between Thursday, Nov 19th 8 am – 5 pm EST (That’s Today!) will advance to the final round this weekend. I need your help!

As much as I would have liked this competition to be about substance, it really has come down to who can better mobilize their networks and so far, both my competitors have been better at it than me. I wish we were being assessed and advanced based on our work but that is simply not the case.

When the potential winner of the Washington Post’s pundit contest freely admits that the competition is not about substance, you know there’s a problem!

THE USUAL DISCLAIMERS: I was one of the 4,800 contestants who did not make the final ten. I’m a consultant for the Oxford English Dictionary and a noted–though penniless–researcher of American words and phrases. My entry was about the late William Safire and the origin and meaning of punditry. (Safire preferred to be called a “maven.”) If I had advanced, I was going to produce timely essays on Ben’s Chili Bowl and the origin of the “half smoke,” the meaning of “Cadillac” health care plans (my work was used in Safire’s old space in the NY Times last week), the naming of the New York “Yankees” (they were called the “Highlanders”), and much more. All original stuff.

1. THE WASHINGTON POST IS CHEAP.
“The ultimate winner will get the opportunity to write a weekly column that may appear in the print and/or online editions of The Washington Post, paid at a rate of $200 per column, for a total of 13 weeks and $2,600″

“May” appear in the print and/or online editions? A mere $200 a column? A total prize fund of $2,600? Professional pundits all across the blogosphere chuckled at the cheapnees of it all.

2. THE WASHINGTON POST BROKE ITS OWN RULES.
The rules: “Entrants may not have previously written or contributed to a regular column in a major national publication in print or online. Sponsor shall determine, in its sole discretion, what constitutes a ‘regular column’, ‘major national publication’ and ‘contributed’. Directors, officers, employees and independent contractors of Sponsor and its affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions, and advertising and promotion agencies involved in this Contest (as well as each member of their immediate family and of their household) are not eligible.”

Of the final ten selected, two contestants wrote for or contributed to a major national publication. Mara Gay writes for The Atlantic, surely a “major national publication.” Gay was eliminated and did not make the first cut to five.

Courtney Martin made the final three. Martin writes a bi-weekly column for The American Prospect, former home of Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein. Also, Martin had a piece published in the Washington Post in 2008, making her either an “employee” or “independent contractor.” Martin used The American Prospect (”a major national publication”) and friendly feminist online publications to successfully network into the final three. Although the Washington Post clearly knew of Martin’s connection to The American Prospect, this was never identified in her brief bio.

Martin should have been eliminated because both the professional Washington Post critics and online commenters thought that her work was the worst of the lot, giving further evidence that the pundit contest was about networking and not skill.

3. THE WASHINGTON POST DOESN’T RESPOND TO READERS/CONTESTANTS.
I wrote a letter to the editor that WaPo had broken its own rules regarding Mara Gay and Courtney Martin. I wrote to the WaPo ombudsman, who forwarded my email to the contest. I wrote directly to the contest. No one replied.

While the rules give WaPo “sole discretion, what constitutes a ‘regular column’, ‘major national publication’ and ‘contributed’,” I wanted an explanation how such clear rule violations could be allowed. Surely, no discretion is that wide!

4. THE WASHINGTON POST HAS A LIBERAL BIAS.
Of the ten contestants selected, nine had ties to Obama. Two contestants directly worked on Obama campaigns. Only one conservative was selected–an assistant secretary of commerce for George W. Bush. His unexciting entry (”Sara Palin’s Second Act”) received the most online comments and the fewest votes and he was quickly eliminated.

Accuracy in Media correctly pegged WaPo’s contest right from the start:

The Next Liberal Pundit At The Post
By K. Daniel Glover | September 29, 2009
The Washington Post is conducting a pundit contest to find “the next Dana Milbank or Eugene Robinson.”
(…)
Bright, young conservatives need not apply. The Post has a habit of hiring up-and-coming liberal pundits. Odds are good that the contest is aimed directly at that market.

If readers alone were to pick the winner, a conservative writer with a strong social network might stand a chance. But you can bet that the “panel of Post personalities” won’t include more than token conservatives, and the panel will be the final arbiter.

A conservative has about as much chance of winning a contest to be the The Washington Post’s next pundit as he or she does of becoming the “Opinion Media Monitor” (aka, “Secret Agent Editor”) at The New York Times.

In the video challenge competition involving the final three contestants, Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart and all three contestants showed strong hatred for Republicans.

5. THE WASHINGTON POST VALUES DIVERSITY OVER QUALITY.
The selected group of ten met most of the diversity requirements. Five men, five women. three blacks, two Muslims. One old white guy made it (Burton Richter)–a Nobel prize-winning physicist, fer crying out loud!

6. THE WASHINGTON POST LOOKED THE OTHER WAY WHEN THE PUNDIT CONTEST DEVOLVED INTO A VOTE-GETTING NETWORK CONTEST.
The Washington Post surely must have realized that the contest was a failure when the first round vote totals came out. Three young social networkingchampions–Kevin Huffman (1465 votes), Courtney Martin (1145 votes), and Zeba Khan (970 votes)–had sent the Nobel prize-winner packing. Burton Richter had received a mere 166 votes, although his science essays were written with authority and clearly top-five material.

Zeba Khan’s first round opinion essay, “No place for faith,” was a “been there, done that” piece stating that not all Muslims are terrorists. It was supposed to be about 750 words, but came in about 200 words too short. No person could possibly conclude that this opinion was better than the Nobel prize-winner’s opinion, or (as the voting went) six times better!

7. THE WASHINGTON POST IS COVERING UP ALL THE PROBLEMS.
The online Washington Post seems to be hiding the contest on its web pages, further helping the vote-getting of the better-networked “pundits.” Again, I questioned the rules and didn’t receive the courtesy of a reply. The WaPo professional critiques ripped Courtney Martin as the worst of the pundits, all-but-noting that the contest voting was rigged.

SUMMARY:
I’ll still look up the Washington Post to read Charles Krauthammer.

Whether the modest talents of Kevin Huffman or Zeba Khan win the contest, it no longer matters.

The first-ever Washington Post “pundit contest” didn’t play straight and wasn’t based on talent.

PERSONAL CODA:
In the 1990s, professor Gerald Cohen and I discovered that New York City’s nickname, “the Big Apple,” came from 1920s New York Morning Telegraph track writer John J. Fitz Gerald. He had a brother, James Fitz Gerald, who wrote a sports column in the Washington Post. I wrote to WaPo asking any information about James Fitz Gerald. WaPo’s publisher put me in touch with a 90-year-old retired Baseball Hall of Fame sportwriter named Shirley Povich (father of Maury Povich).

Shirley Povich (who died in 1998) wrote back a letter that was more than I could have ever expected:

I was aware, too, of his brother, John (we called him Jack) FitzGerald, who was probably the finest racing writer of his time (N.Y. Telegraph,) and I encountered him often at the tracks.

Like James V., Jack FitzGerald was also very literate and a cut above the other racing writers of that era. His Big Apple Column was so well known and well-read. Unlike James V. he was a rotund chap and a fine story teller who was not averse to bellying up to a bar.

I find it most fascinating that he was responsible for affixing Big Apple to the Big Apple. On my next visit to the Big Apple I will take delight in strolling the southwest corner of 54th and Broadway and contemplating the story of Jack FitzGerald and his new immortality.

It’s a wonderful story, but I guess it can’t be printed in the Washington Post.

Rudy’ ain’t runnin’?

From The New York Times:

Giuliani Is Said to Have Decided Not to Run for Governor
By DANNY HAKIM
Published: November 19, 2009
Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has decided not to run for governor of New York next year after months of mulling a candidacy, according to people who have been told of the decision.

His decision is a blow to many Republican leaders, who had viewed Mr. Giuliani as the strongest potential candidate in a year in which voter anger and anti-Albany sentiment appear to be swelling.

Contenders from both parties have been waiting for months to hear what the former mayor would decide.

It was not clear what prompted the decision, but the prospect of potentially facing Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, who is quietly planning his own run for governor, may not have appealed to Mr. Giuliani, who suffered a bruising defeat in the 2008 Republican presidential primary. While many political analysts believe Mr. Giuliani would have comfortably beaten Gov. David A. Paterson, he would likely have faced an uphill battle against Mr. Cuomo, one of the most popular politicians in the state.

Meet the next governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo.

New York desperately needs elected officials that haven’t been bought by the labor unions (SEIU, ACORN, UFT). Andrew Cuomo (or any Democrat) is probably not that elected official.

New York desperately needs a real Republican party. New York State is said to be going bankrupt as soon as next month.

I left New York for Texas. Voting with my feet was the best thing for me and my family.

Rudy, how about challenging ACORN-owned Kirsten Gillibrand for senate?

The Anti-Defamation League hates us!

With ADL’s latest conservative-bashing report (”Rage Grows in America: Anti‑Government Conspiracies”), the ADL is now officially a Democrat party shill. The ADL has jumped the shark.

“Anti-government fervor” has nothing to do with “anti-Semitism” and should have nothing to do with the ADL. The tea party crowd is against trillion-dollar deficits. Only Nancy Pelosi and the ADL see Nazis.

Here’s the odious ADL press release:

Report: Rage Grows In America Conspiracy Theories Fuel Anti-Government Fervor
November 16, 2009 … Rumors about gun confiscations. Angry protests about the government’s tax policies, replete with Nazi comparisons. A resurgent militia movement. Rage at the election of a president deemed to be illegitimate and threatening.Distrust and anger toward the government fueled by paranoia and conspiracy theories.

They are among the crosscurrents of anger and hostility that have swept certain sectors of the country since President Barack Obama took office nearly a year ago.And they are contributing to “a toxic atmosphere of rage in America,” according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which today issued a report looking at the various sources that have given rise to a climate of anti-government fervor in the United States.

The report was against all those crazy people who attended town hall meetings and tea parties. It actually said very little against Glenn Beck, but that didn’t stop the New York Daily News:

Glenn Beck is scarier than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, says Anti-Defamation League
BY Michael Saul
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
Tuesday, November 17th 2009, 4:45 PM
Weep for joy, Glenn Beck: the Anti-Defamation League has cited you as the national media’s fear-monger-in-chief.

In a new report examining the wave of anti-government hostility that’s spread across the country since Barack Obama won the White House, the ADL cited Beck as the “most important mainstream media figure who has repeatedly helped to stoke the fires of anti-government anger.”

Beck, a right-wing talk host with a TV show on Fox and popular syndicated radio program, is in a league of his own, the report from the Jewish anti-hate watchdog group asserts.

Who was the featured speaker at the ADL’s “American Heritage Dinner” on October 17, 2009? U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder!

The ADL has long pushed for “hate crime” legislation and the ADL worked with Holder to pass the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act on October 22, 2009. This act was so unpopular that it took a Democratic Congress attaching it to a military appropriations bill to get it passed.

All crimes are “hate crimes.” In reality, the ADL’s prized “hate crimes” legislation will protect “politically correct” classes in its application. Many (including me) think that “hate crime” laws violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Yesterday’s comment on the ADL report in The Atlantic Politics Channel by 24Ahead.com directs to its own opinion of the ADL:

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
Summary (posts follow):
Far-left organization that strongly supports both multiculturalism (also here) and illegal immigration (also here). They frequently smear persons and groups as engaging in “hate”, despite the fact that their definition of “hate” can’t be trusted. Has tried to exploit two high-profile shootings in April and June of 2009.

They’ve engaged in partnerships with the Department of Homeland Security, and they may have been involved in that agency’s infamous “rightwing extremists” report.
Last modified Jun 13, 2009

Certainly, ADL’s latest report looks very similar to that infamous DHS report.

Here’s an oldie-but-goodie Atlantic Blog piece on the ADL:

November 09, 2007
Decline and fall of the Anti-Defamation League
So, the Anti-Defamation League and Ann Coulter have been having a little dust-up lately. My inclination was to yawn. The ADL got worked up over some comments Coulter made about Jews and Christianity, and started screaming anti-Semite. Next, Coulter attacks ADL (implicitly invoking Conquest’s laws of politics) as a left-wing outfit more interested in left-wing politics than in Jews. The ADL came up with a feeble counter-attack, offering no actual response except to repeat their anti-Semite charge. I can’t say I cared too much, because although ADL is a left-wing outfit, and prone to over-react to things when they should not, Coulter’s initial remarks being a case in point, I thought Coulter’s charge that they were ranking left-wing politics over Jews pretty much over the top.

It seems I was wrong, and Coulter was right. The ADL has issued a statement on nooses and swastikas popping up (no problem so far), but has issued it jointly with Al Sharpton. You hear that right. Al Sharpton.

The website Omdurman.org uses stronger language:

Anti-Defamation League: A Sick Joke, Lie, and Fraud
Abraham Foxman Joins Prominent Anti-Semite and Racist in Joint Statement

Nazi concentration camps turned the respectable German slogan Arbeit Macht Frei (Work Makes you Free) into a sick joke, because the inmates were there to be worked to death or exterminated in gas chambers. Abraham Foxman, the same individual who whitewashed MoveOn.org’s anti-Semitic hate speech, contributed to a diplomatic crisis with Turkey by sticking ADL’s collective nose into the Armenian genocide issue while causing senior ADL leaders to quit in disgust, has now turned the Anti-Defamation League into an equally sick joke.

Foxman and Sharpton Issue Joint Statement on Symbols of Hate

Another oldie-but-goodie is from FrontPage Magazine:

The ADL Discovers Leftist Hate
By: Don Feder
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, February 12, 2007
Among the many groups for whom I feel absolutely no sympathy is the Jewish Left – which has lately been agonizing over the prevalence of Jew-hatred at antiwar rallies.

Signs comparing Israelis to Nazis and identifying Jews as the enemies of humanity have become de rigueur at (you should pardon the expression) peace rallies.

Jewish leftists – at least those who still feel a connection to the Jewish people – are dismayed.

So now the ADL attacks us as hatemongers.

The world needs an ADL that attacks anti-Semitism, but sadly, that’s no longer what this organization is all about.

“Mr. President, we don’t want any more terrorists in New York City!”

Remember the NYC city council member who said that? Actually, no city council member said that. Not one.

Let’s take a brief look at the highly paid ($112,500 per year, plus lulus and many perks) members of the NYC city council (over 90% Democratic and largely owned by the Working Families Party/ACORN/SEIU/UFT/TWU) in some memorable moments (or non-moments) of just these past few days.

USUAL DISCLAIMER: I once ran for Manhattan Borough President and solved the origin of NYC’s nickname, “the Big Apple.” I now live in Texas.

TOPIC ONE: TERRORISM TRIALS
James Oddo (R-Staten Island) is the minority leader of the NYC city council, leading a total of 3 Republicans in a body of 51. (It will jump to 5 of 51 after the recent election.) I e-mailed him that he must meet with the 9-11 victims’ families and protest President Obama’s decision to hold terror trials in New York City.

There was no response.

The Staten Island Ferry (which goes past the Statue of Liberty) is a huge terrorism target. Lots of people board the boat, but unlike our airplanes, there is no passenger screening.

Oddo’s biggest city council accomplishment, perhaps, was legislation to ban metal baseball bats.

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani has come out strongly against NYC civilian terrorist trials, as I’ve posted here in a previous diary. NY Govenor David Paterson has come out against the trials. NY Daily News columnist Mike Lupica has come out against the trials. Congressman Peter King (R-Long Island) has also spoken out against the trials. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg supports the trials, but one gets the sense that Bloomberg negotiated this with Obama in return for Obama’s non-support of Bloomberg’s Democrat opponent.

Where was New York Senator Chuck Schumer? Where was New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand?

Where is the entire elected leadership of New York City to speak out against this?

HYPOTHETICAL: If George W. Bush were to send terrorists to New York City, do you think every elected leader in New York City would be silent?

When even the few Republicans in New York City stay silent, who needs ‘em?

TOPIC TWO: UNION GIFTS
I previously posted about the coming city council gift to unions (the city council members’ true employer)–nine paid sick days for everybody in any business of 15 or more employees. The employees don’t even have to produce a doctor’s note! That’s like a week and a half of “free” pay!

Let’s check up on NY1 News and see how that’s going:

11/17/2009 07:20 PM
Council Reignites Paid Sick Leave Debate
By Bobby Cuza
The City Council introduced a bill Tuesday that would require all employers to provide paid sick leave, which is already being met with some fierce opposition.
(…)
Asked about the bill Tuesday, Michael Bloomberg expressed reservations.
(…)
It’s also possible the bill could be preempted by federal sick leave legislation currently being debated in the nation’s capital.

Reservations? Something that would destroy all remaining small business in New York City and the mayor has reservations?

Check out the video for the city council in action. Is this issue still flying in under everyone’s radar?

TOPIC THREE: PARKING TICKETS
DISCLAIMER: I was a parking ticket judge for fifteen years.

Everyone hates to get parking tickets. The city recently has written more tickets than ever, at over $100 a ticket. It’s not to raise revenue, but–let’s be serious, it’s mostly to raise revenue.

If a regulation goes into effect at 9:00 a.m. (for example), the ticket agents often pounce by at least 9:01 a.m. People have been furious that they’re not given a few minutes’ grace, because everyone’s watch can be off. In the past, the agents have come out at 9:05 a.m., but that’s a courtesy and not a rule.

The city council, pandering as always, has put a “grace period” into legislation. From Wednesday’s New York Times:

Traffic Agents and Politicians Debate Value of 5 Minutes
By FERNANDA SANTOS
Published: November 17, 2009
City Council members say that granting a five-minute grace period for alternate-side-of-the-street parking and certain meter violations would simply give wiggle room to drivers who may have lost track of time.

But many city traffic agents say that all it would do is delay the inevitable curbside argument by five minutes.

“If we give them five minutes, they’ll want five more minutes — and they’ll still complain that we gave them a ticket,” said Phillis Stokes, 40, a traffic agent for 12 years, who added that “8:06 will be the new 8:01.”

Exactly right, Ms. Stokes. Exactly right.

SUMMARY: NOT-SO-GREAT MOMENTS IN NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL HISTORY
Life in a one-party town.

This is how democracy works?

Paid sick leave is a burning issue right now, but it seems to be flying in virtually unnoticed.

It’s all about political payback from the politicians that SEIU and other unions helped put in office. The H1N1 flu is providing perfect cover to pass this union gift as a public health and safety measure.

In New York City (the city that I left for Texas, and not a moment too soon), take a good look at this news story from WNYC:

City Council to Consider Paid Sick Leave Bill This Week
by WNYC Newsroom
NEW YORK, NY November 16, 2009 —This week the City Council will consider a bill unions are touting as an anti-swine flu measure. Employers say it would kill jobs.

The paid sick leave bill would require private employers to offer full pay to workers who call in sick, no doctor’s note required.

Danny Latham runs a telephone answering service in Brooklyn. He says the measure would cost him a bundle, and take away his ability to plan staffing for the holidays.

REPORTER: they could just turn around christmas day, I could have nobody there working. They all decide to take a sick day.

But the Working Families Party, which is campaigning for the bill, says half of all New Yorkers lack paid sick leave. And poor New Yorkers are most likely to go to work even if they’re contagious, because they need the money.

The City Council will hold hearings on the measure tomorrow. There are already enough votes for it to pass.

The Working Families Party (ACORN/SEIU) is for it. They own the NY city council. That’s all you need to know.

Wait a minute, did I read that right? “The paid sick leave bill would require private employers to offer full pay to workers who call in sick, no doctor’s note required.” What private business can operate like this? Suppose ten employees all call in at once (no doctor’s note required) and are later found to have gone fishing together?

Just the stuff that employers need in this challenging economy, huh? Makes you want to think twice before hiring anybody, adding to our unemployment.

Check this November 13th story (and the union letter to city council speaker Quinn) from the New York Daily News’ The Daily Politics blog by Elizabeth Benjamin:

 Labor To Quinn: Time For Paid Sick Time
By Elizabeth Benjamin

Now that the election is over, the Working Families Party and its union affiliates are turning up the heat on Council Speaker Christine Quinn when it comes to the labor-backed party’s current cause célèbre: Paid Sick Time.

The act, introduced this summer, is supported by well over half of the current 51 Council members. Several of those members will be departing at the end of the year, but most of their replacements ran with WFP support, and some even campaigned on this issue.
(…)
The Council is scheduled to hold a hearing on the Paid Sick Time Act next Tuesday. As Azi noted earlier today, several lawmakers sought to bring attention to the issue by inviting First lady Michelle Obama, who expressed support for the policy, to testify.

Surely, President Obama is against such an anti-business bill. Let’s check The New York Times:

November 14, 2009, 11:33 am
Obama Backs Mandatory Sick Leave Law
By ROBB MANDELBAUM
This news from our colleague Steven Greenhouse, a Times reporter who posted on the Economix blog. Swine flu, he writes:

“has given momentum to Congressional efforts to enact legislation that would guarantee paid sick days to tens of millions of workers — although it is far from clear that such legislation will be enacted. Those legislative efforts received added momentum on Tuesday when the Obama administration backed the Healthy Families Act, which would guarantee seven sick days a year to workers in companies with 15 or more employees.”
(…)
Not surprisingly, the leading small-business lobbies, like the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Small Business Association, are opposed to mandatory leave, even in the face of the H1N1 virus. ” The impetus behind this legislation is not sensible and lacks understanding of the complex dynamics of small businesses,” the N.S.B.A, wrote (pdf) to Mr. Miller. And: “it is unfathomable that Congress would consider legislation mandating additional costly requirements on small businesses.”

Yes, you were distracted. The massive health care bill got you down, as well as Afghanistan, Fort Hood, and any number of other stories. You were paying attention to Obama’s bows.

Meanwhile, every union’s wet dream slips by in plain sight. The unions are pushing this both locally and federally. They’re good at this.

How much damaging legislation can American businesses take?

When American businesses suffer as a logical result of all this, is that change you can believe in?

Coffee summit?

That’s a proposed meeting between Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. The name is a take-off from Obama’s “beer summit” with a Harvard professor and a Massachusetts cop.

Palin Finds One Bond With Clinton
By SARAH WHEATON
Published: November 15, 2009
Could there be a “coffee summit” in the future between Hillary Rodham Clinton — the secretary of state, runner-up for the Democratic presidential nomination, former senator and author — and Sarah Palin, author, former Republican vice-presidential candidate and former governor?
(…)
Mrs. Clinton smiled and replied, “Well, you know, I’ve never met her.”
(…)
Within hours of that appearance, the blogosphere had already christened a potential tête-à-tête as the “coffee summit.”

Yes, Mrs. Clinton, you’ve never met Sarah Palin. You know why that is? It’s because of YOU!

Recall this New York Post editorial of September 20, 2008, “Dems Diss Palin, Israel”:

On Monday, a public rally is set for Dag Hammerskjold Plaza, across from the UN, to protest Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s upcoming speech to the General Assembly and unite in opposition to his nuke program and his vow to wipe the US and Israel “off the map.”

Major Jewish and pro-Israel groups have sponsored such mass rallies for decades. And they’ve always featured political figures from both major parties - often, even rival candidates for the same office.

The point, and it’s an important one, is that support for Israel - and opposition to its warmongering enemies - generally transcends partisan politics in America.

This time, however, Sen. Clinton - who early on accepted an invitation to speak - reportedly hit the roof when she learned that she would share the platform with GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

According to news accounts, the Obama campaign and Jewish Democratic groups likewise loudly protested what they perceived as a Republican tilt to the rally - on the dubious grounds that Palin “outranks” Clinton. Or maybe Hillary was just piqued that she was no longer the star attraction.

At any rate, Camp Clinton announced that the senator would just as soon stay home.

To hell with Israel! Let it be wiped off the map! I’m Hillary Clinton, and I can’t be seen with Sarah Palin!

So my gentle advice, Sarah, is if this woman invites you to a “coffee summit,” tell her to stick her vente where the sun don’t shine.

Also, tell the good Secretary of State that she’s doing great work demanding numerous concessions from Israel, our ally.

Finally, tell her that you don’t like coffee and that you prefer tea.

Michael Bloomberg is nuts.

On the same day (Friday, of course) it was announced that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would be tried in New York City in a civilian court, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani went on Neil Cavuto’s show and blasted that decision. It was one of Giuliani’s finest moments. Said Giuliani: “Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should be treated like the war criminal he is and tried in a military court. He is not just another murderer, or even a mass murderer. He murdered as part of a declared war against us—America.”

Bloomberg thought that it was a splendid idea:

“When I spoke to Attorney General Holder earlier today, I told him New York City stands ready to assist the federal court in the administration of justice in any way necessary. I have great confidence that the NYPD, with federal authorities, will handle security expertly. The NYPD is the best police department in the world and it has experience dealing with high-profile terrorism suspects and any logistical issues that may come up during the trials.”

See the story on POLITICO, “Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani disagree on trials.”

Michael Bloomberg is the same guy who, following the Fort Hood jihadi massacre, decided it was a good idea to have Muslim outreach–speaking with an un-indicted co-conspirator to the 1993 World Trade Center blombing.

DISCLAIMER: I’m a lawyer-word researcher who found the origins of New York City’s nickname, “the Big Apple.” I ran for Manhattan Borough President in 2005, with Bloomberg at the top of the Republican ticket. Although the Manhattan Republicans surely got some Bloomberg money for letting him run, I didn’t see a penny. Although I took assembly-line photos with Bloomberg, I was not allowed to speak with him or any of his staff. As a white male Republican, I was of no use to him. For all this and many other reasons, my wife and I left NYC to raise our family in Texas.

BLOOMBERG BACKGROUND: He’s the richest person in New York City, with assets of over $17 billion. He spent about $100 million of his personal money on each of three campaigns for mayor–plus many millions in soft donations to community organizations. He’s raised taxes more than any other mayor in New York City history. Rudy Giuliani was pushed out because of term limits–something the voters supported twice. Bloomberg went past the voters to entice city council members to overturn term limits with a public vote. Bloomberg went out of his way to make friends with Barack Obama and to prevent an endorsement of his opponent. Bloomberg barely got elected to his illegal third term. Bloomberg, eyeing a possible independent run for president, became an independent in 2007. He’s said to have a big ego.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg should have told Obama “NO WAY!” Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer should have told Obama “NO WAY!” The New York City Council should have told Obama “NO WAY!” Did any one NYC politician come to the right conclusion? If I still lived in New York City, these schmucks would make me quite angry.

Why is Michael Bloomberg wrong and why is Rudy Giuliani right? What could go wrong with Obama’s plan? Let’s count the ways:

1. NEW YORK CITY BECOMES AN EVEN GREATER TERRORIST THREAT. Why wouldn’t KSH’s friends try to attack New York and free him? Or take some hostages? Why not attack a symbol like the Statue of Liberty?

2. NEW YORK CITY MUST SPEND MILLIONS TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS. The trials could take a year or more. This is going to cost New York City millions of dollars. NYC’s bankrupt.

3. THE TRIAL IS ALMOST GUARANTEED TO BE A YEAR-LONG CIRCUS. This isn’t a trial of KSH–it’s a trial of George Bush and his evil waterboarding. It’s a trial of the United States of America. Thanks, Obama.

4. THERE WILL SURELY BE ANOTHER TRIAL AFTER THIS ONE. The jury will have to be politically correct, of course. There must be Muslims in that jury pool. You know what’s going to happen, don’t you? Hung jury! New trial! Wonderful! Or maybe they’ll find that the U.S. is so evil and wasn’t properly read his Constitutional rights (that he shouldn’t have) that KSH must walk out a free man. What would happen if he’s somehow found guilty? Appeal, baby! A military tribunal was the place to go, but Obama wants this hurting on NYC and America. We must never let voters forget what Obama did and Bloomberg welcomed with open arms.

5. REMEMBER THE LESSON OF EL SAYYID NOSAIR. El Sayyid Nosair is the lovely human being who shot Rabbi Meir Kahane in cold blood in a Manhattan hotel. There were many witnesses. I lived near there and I walked by the scene, not knowing what had happened. El Sayyid Nosair received a trial. In December 1991, Nosair was acquitted of murder, but convicted of assault and possession of an illegal firearm. Trial judge Alvin Schlesinger said that the jury’s acquittal of Nosair on the murder charge “was against the overwhelming weight of evidence and was devoid of common sense and logic.” Welcome to your “PC” justice circus.

6. REMEMBER THE LESSON OF LOUIS PEPE. Hot Air linked to this Fox News story. “Ten months before Al Qaeda in 2001 struck a deathblow in the heart lower Manhattan, one of the terrorist group’s founding members plunged a sharpened comb through Pepe’s left eye and into his brain, blinding the 42-year-old prison guard and causing severe brain injuries that plague him to this day.” Pepe says that bringing terrorists here is asking for trouble. No one’s listening.

7. REMEMBER THE VICTIMS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001. Why don’t Barack Obama and Eric Holder and Michael Bloomberg have any respect for the families of 9-11? Why not ask them how they want these people tried. Bloomberg said that it’s just great that they will be tried near 9-11 soil? Ask the victims families if they think it’s just great to bring the terrorists here and give them consitutional rights that they don’t have. Ask them if they think it’s just great that there will be one or two or three Muslims in the jury pool for this year-long trial circus. ASK THE VICTIMS’ FAMILIES!

This is a disaster!

Obama is Obama. We know who he is.

But Michael Bloomberg–what is he? Jewish? Republican? Or clueless politician looking out for Michael Bloomberg?

Rudy Giuliani, we sure do miss you.

I’m glad I left New York!

The Barack Obama Official Friday Afternoon News Dump (BOOFAND) strikes again!

Surely, Barack Obama knew for a long time that several Guantanamo prisoners would get expensive, tell-the-world-that-Bush-tortured “O.J.”-type trials in New York City. When is that information finally released? On a Friday, of course! And when the president is in Asia. Bonus!

Glenn Beck leaked almost two weeks ago that Mau-lover Anita Dunn’s husband, Bob Bauer, would replace Greg Craig as White House counsel. When is that information finally released? Same BOOFAND!

When was it announced that Lawrence Summers, director of the President’s National Economic Council, earned millions from hedge funds and TARP recipients? April BOOFAND!

When was it announced that White House military liaison Louis Calders (of NYC “Scare Force One” infamy) would get canned? May BOOFAND!

When was it announced that the Uighers aren’t coming to the U.S.? May BOOFAND!

When was it announced that there will be military commission trials for captured terrorists? May BOOFAND!

When was it announced that Barack Obama will hold Guantanamo prisoners just as Bush did? June BOOFAND!

When was it announced that restrictions will be loosened on officials discussing stimulus-related policy with lobbyists? July BOOFAND!

When were “Scare Force One” documents finally released, complying with numerous FOIA requests? August BOOFAND!

When did the Office of Management and Budget leak the news that the administration’s ten-year estimate of budget deficits was being raised from $7 trillion to $9 trillion? August BOOFAND!

When did communist “green jobs czar” Van Jones resign? September BOOFAND! (Actually, midnight Saturday on the three-day Labor Day weekend. Even better timing!)

When was it announced that Obama will give yet another gift to his labor friends and impose prohibitive tariffs on imports of Chinese automobile and light truck tires? September BOOFAND!

When was it announced that GITMO will not close within one year? September BOOFAND!

When was it announced that the cap-and-trade bill could cost at least $300 billion annually? September BOOFAND!

When was it announced that Tim Geither’s Treasury Department admitted to lying to congress, stonewalling and misplacing all that taxpayer money that went out with the TARP? October BOOFAND!

When were the bad economic numbers from the “stimulus” package released? October BOOFAND!

When were the White House visitor logs finally released? October BOOFAND!

A short October 16th NRO piece by Jonah Goldberg is titled “Transparency and the Friday Bad News Dump.”

Yesterday’s big news dumps of Attorney General Eric Holder’s new “Hate America” show trials in New York and the new White House counsel–all while President Obama is in Asia–reached new BOOFAND levels of genius.

If everyone is expecting a BOOFAND every Friday, though, what’s the surprise?

Charles Krauthammer’s Friday Washington Post column adds insights that only he can provide.

. “How many of those doctors commit mass murder? It’s been decades since I practiced psychiatry. Perhaps I missed the epidemic.”

. “After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won’t find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as ‘compassion fatigue.’ The poor man — pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity. ”

. “I gave one myself on post-traumatic retrograde amnesia — as you can see, these lectures are fairly technical. Not Hasan’s. His was an hour-long disquisition on what he called the Koranic view of military service, jihad and war. It included an allegedly authoritative elaboration of the punishments visited upon nonbelievers — consignment to hell, decapitation, having hot oil poured down your throat. This ‘really freaked a lot of doctors out,’ reported NPR.”

Thanks, Dr. Krauthammer.

John J. O’Connor III has died. His ill health prompted Sandra Day O’Connor to retire from the Supreme Court.

Is there some name to pin down on the “first husband” of a Supreme Court Justice?

The following New York Times article had only two errors!

–Barry Popik

LiNK:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/us/12oconnor.html?_r=1&ref=obituaries

John J. O’Connor III, Husband of Former Justice, Is Dead at 79

John J. O’Connor III, a lawyer whose struggle with Alzheimer’s disease was a large factor in the decision by his wife, former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, to retire from the United States Supreme Court, died Wednesday in Phoenix. He was 79.

The cause was complications of Alzheimer’s disease, the Supreme Court said in a statement.

Mr. O’Connor was a well-known Arizona lawyer who became prominent in Washington as well after his wife was named to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. She was the first woman to serve on the court.

(…)

Correction: November 13, 2009
An obituary on Thursday about John J. O’Connor III, the husband of the retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor, misstated the title that William H. Rehnquist held on the court. He was chief justice of the United States, not chief justice of the Supreme Court. The obituary also misidentified the publication that was the source of a story about the O’Connors’ early days in Washington. It is The National Law Journal, not The National Law Review.