OffQ

For the many who missed my most recent OffQ performance, it's been posted.

Here.

Enjoy!

We talk about Fred Honsberger a bit. The fun stuff is towards the end where Heather Heidelbaugh calls global warming "socialism" and McIntire and I both try to correct her by saying (in near unison) "It's science."

Fun times!

Fred Honsberger

It is with great sadness that I write these words: My friend Fred has passed away.

As with Maria, Fred and I had some serious political differences. In fact, I think I agreed with about 2% of most anything he said on any given day (and this would include weather and traffic). In spite of all that, one-on-one I found him to be quite a warm and approachable guy. He had me on his radio show a few times and on Sunday mornings, as I happily skewer the P-G's Jack Kelly, I just as happily drink my Sunday morning coffee from a bright and shiny Honzman Mug.

He even announced my engagement on KDKA's 50,000 watt airwaves - how cool was that?

Maria is exactly right when she wrote:

It might not even be a stretch to say that there may have never been a 2pj without Fred Honsberger as I had developed a fondness for blogging at the old blog but wanted to stretch beyond the limitations about writing on Honsberger's chosen topics of the day.

I can say that the day-to-day rhetorical jousting I did with Fred paved the way for the blogging I do here.

My heartfelt condolences to his wife and his family and those folks who knew him better than I did.

RIP Fred Honsberger

Via the Post-Gazette:

Longtime KDKA-AM radio talk host Fred Honsberger died this morning. He was 58.

The station reported that Mr. Honsberger died at home following a lengthy battle with medical issues.

It probably goes without saying that Fred and I had real philosophical differences. Back when he had his TV show Honsberger Live I was a frequent caller and we argued pretty much all the major issues of the day. And, that goes to one thing that I highly respected about Fred: he wasn't afraid to hold up his opinions to criticism. I know that I was bumped up in the caller queue so that we could go at it. He wasn't an O'Reilly who cut people off when they were making real points (though he didn't suffer fools gladly). Fred relished the challenge. He was also extremely gracious when I met him in person.

Many may know that David and I had a blog before 2pj which was all about refuting Fred's TV show. Fred read it daily. He had me on his radio show even after he knew that I was "Liz Adobe" on the old blog.

It might not even be a stretch to say that there may have never been a 2pj without Fred Honsberger as I had developed a fondness for blogging at the old blog but wanted to stretch beyond the limitations about writing on Honsberger's chosen topics of the day.

So, RIP Fred. I will miss not having the chance for one more go-round. You gave as good as you got.
.

Hill District Will Have To Start All Over Again Looking For A Grocery Store

Pittsburgh's predominately African American Hill District neighborhood has been without a grocery store for 30 plus years. A year ago, it looked like they'd finally found an operator in Kuhn's Market but the deal has fallen through.

Kuhn's Market says that it's due to one of the owners of the chain of nine stores having cancer.

KDKA radio personality Fred Honsberger (via a FaceBook message) -- surprise, surprise -- is trying to blame it on recent talk of a prevailing wage law in City Council even though the Post-Gazette reports that "the plan began to stall over the summer."

Having lived in neighborhoods in NYC which were predominately minority and low income (Alphabet City, Harlem, etc.) and which had supermarkets, I have never understood how The Hill could have gone so long without some operator coming in to establish one -- especially if the City would have made this a top priority.

When you do your shopping for your Thanksgiving menu this year, try to imagine carting it all home on the bus -- make that on buses with transfers. Now, imagine doing that every week of the year.
.

Facts: They Should Matter

First, I received a Facebook message from Fred Honsberger yesterday claiming:

"A million people march in the DC tea party….see much about that in the MSM?"

Then later that same morning, I heard Chris Moore repeating ridiculously overblown attendance figures of 1.7 to 2 million for this event on PCNC's "Pittsburgh Now."

Moore seemed to be unaware of any controversy with the numbers, but I'm betting Fred knows the real story. Of course this is exactly how the right operates -- they repeat a lie over and over until it becomes "the truth" in the MSM.

In case you missed it, there was a FreedomWorks/Glenn Beck 9-12 Project hootenanny/tea-bagger party on Saturday in DC. The president of FreedomWorks, Matt Kibbe, announced on stage at the rally that ABC News had reported that 1 - 1.5 million people were at the event. That got tweeted/blogged around the right side of the Internet. Problem was, it wasn't true. According to ABC News:

At no time did ABC News, or its affiliates, report a number anywhere near as large. ABCNews.com reported an approximate figure of 60,000 to 70,000 protesters, attributed to the Washington, D.C., fire department. In its reports, ABC News Radio described the crowd as "tens of thousands."

The figure kept getting bumped up on the right until they were claiming attendance of 1.7 - 2 million -- 30 times more than reliable crowd estimates -- and akin to me claiming that I'm 162 feet tall.

Moreover, they tried to pass off an at least five-year old photo of the mall as being from this past Saturday's protest. How do we know it's an old photograph? Because the photo is missing the National Museum of the American Indian which opened in 2004.

It also turns out that there was another group on the mall last Saturday. One might be tempted to forgive the tea-baggers for confusing that group with their own, except for the fact that the group was the National Council of Negro Women Black Family Reunion Celebration. And, if you look at pictures from the tea-bagger party on Saturday (or any other day) you'll notice that the attendees are not only overwhelmingly white, but also the kind of crowd where someone would fell comfortable carrying a Confederate flag or explaining how Obama will oppress "white America."


I'm happy to report that I was able to call-in to the Pittsburgh Now show and let Chris know the real deal.
.

Governor Casey Sr, James Carville and the 1992 Convention

I heard part of Fred Honsberger's show today.

I am not sure how the discussion started but by the time I turned on the radio, a caller named "Dave" (though it was NOT me - I go by "David" exclusively) was trying to convince my friend Fred that; No, Governor Casey (our current Jr. Senator's father) was NOT denied a slot to speak at the 1992 Democratic Convention on because he was pro-life.

Fred said that Governor Casey himself told him he was in 1992. That part may be true but it's irrelevant. As we'll see considering that an important source of the myth is Governor Casey himself it's hardly surprising that he'd tell Fred that.

In fact, Casey was denied an opportunity to speak because he refused to endorse then-Governor Clinton's candidacy for the presidency.

When caller "Dave" claimed that James Carville said so, Fred countered by saying that it was Paul Begala who made that claim, not James Carville. Fred went on to say that Carville actually corroborated Casey's story recently.

This is a zombie story - it just won't die.

Luckily Jamison Foser has good condensation of the story at mediamatters.org. Here's the primary reason Fred's Casey story is wrong:

The Hill reports this morning that in 1992 "Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey (D) was barred from speaking at the DNC because of his anti-abortion rights stance."

This is a common claim, but it's completely false.

There were no fewer than eight speakers at the 1992 convention who opposed abortion rights. Therefore, it cannot be the case that Casey was barred because of his stance on abortion. [emphasis added.]

Foser writes elsewhere at mediamatters:

People involved in planning the 1992 Democratic convention have long maintained that Casey was not given an opportunity to speak because he refused to endorse Bill Clinton, who was to be nominated at the convention. That's what they said at the time, too. The Washington Post's first report on Casey's request for speaking time included a quote from the Democratic National Committee's press secretary: "anyone who is speaking at the convention will have endorsed Governor Clinton by the time of the convention and Governor Casey has not."

It should be noted that it wasn't merely that Casey hadn't gotten around to endorsing Clinton. He was arguing that Clinton had only a "flyspeck" of support and that the party should consider nominating someone else at the convention.

Yea, that'll make you lots of friends at a political convention. Foser again:

It's also important to keep in mind that Casey didn't merely want to speak at the convention. He wanted to devote his entire speech to opposing the Democratic Party on a single issue. After the convention ended, Casey released the text of the speech he would have delivered had he been given the chance. The speech ran more than 1,000 words -- and not one of those words was "Clinton." Nor was the word "Gore" mentioned. Casey's speech did not include a single word of praise or support for the ticket being nominated at the convention he wanted to address. Instead, it accused the party of being "far out of the mainstream and on the extreme fringe" on abortion. That's what the entire speech was about: disagreeing with, and insulting, the Democratic Party on abortion.

See? Casey, by releasing the text of the speech, was at the very least an important early source for the story. Whether he believed the myth is irrelevant now. Casey can't be used to corroborate his own testimony, in a sense.

Let's do a thought experiment to show why. Let's ask George W Bush if he ever thought he was lying and when he says NO we'll KNOW he was always telling the truth.

Yea, right.

In 1996, the New Republic published this (text via mediamatters.org):

According to those who actually doled out the 1992 convention speaking slots, Casey was denied a turn for one simple reason: his refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket. "It's [Casey's claim that he was denied a convention speech because of his pro-life views] just not factual!" stammers James Carville, apoplectic over Casey's claims. "You'd have to be idiotic to give a speaking role to a person who hadn't even endorsed you." [emphasis added.]

Then there's this from the New York Times in 1996. Note that while continuing the myth they wrote:

They (The White House) have always said that had he not declined to endorse Mr. Clinton in 1992, he would have been allowed to speak to the convention.

If only he'd endorsed, this whole myth would be lost in time, like tears in the rain.

Can anyone find for me Carville's corroboration about the '92 Convention? I can't seem to find it. Anywhere.

By the way, I wrote about this some time ago.

Fred Honsberger Gets It Wrong...

And asks the wrong questions.

Fred's facebook announcement regarding today's radio show:

Is putting a bug in a room with a terrorist torture? The president thinks so. He's released the CIA "torture memos"...has this hurt the country?

From the get-go, Fred's got it wrong. Here's what he's talking about. In one of those torture memos (and we're happy Fred recognizes that we're talking torture here - at least I hope he recognizes that it was torture), specifically this memo written August 1, 2002. The memo was written as a response to a request by John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. Rizzo evidently inquired whether a number of interrogation techniques would violate Section 2340A of title 18 of the US Code. Ninth on the list we find:

(9) insects placed in a confinement box

In a confinement box, Fred. Not "in a room." Here's what the memo says about "cramped confinement:

Cramped confinement involves the placement of the individual in a confined space, the dimensions of which restrict the individual's movement. The confined space is usually dark.

The duration of confinement varies based upon the size of the container. For the larger confined space, the individual can stand up or sit down; the smaller space is large enough for the subject to sit down. Confinement in the larger space can last up to eighteen hours; for the smaller space, confinement last for no more than two hours.

So Fred's imagery is misleading at best and if he knew what the memo actually said,he's just being plain dishonest.

But while we're at it, let's take a closer look at title 18 - specifically the definition of torture found there. It starts:

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control

It then goes on to further define "severe mental pain or suffering" as prolonged mental harm caused by (in this instance):

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

Now let's go take a look at the memo. We see what the CIA wanted to do (page 3):

You would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects. In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him. You would, however, place a harmless insect in the box.

And Bybee's advice (page 14):

In addition to using the confinement boxes alone, you also would like to introduce an insect into on of the boxes with Zubaydah. As we understand it, you plan to inform Zubaydah that you are going to place a stinging insect into the box, but you will actually place a harmless insect in the box, such as a caterpillar. If you do so, to ensure that you are outside the predicate act requirement, you must inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain. If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without informing him that you are doing so, then, in order to commit a predicate act, you should not affirmatively lead him to believe any insect is present which has a sting that could produce severe pain or suffering or even cause his death [redacted material] so long as you take either of the approaches we have described, the insects’ placement in the box would not constitute a threat of severe physical pain or suffering to a reasonable person in this position. An individual placed in a box, even an individual with a fear of insects, would not reasonably feel threatened with severe physical pain or suffering if a caterpillar was placed in the box.

So putting a man (one with an irrational fear of insects) in a confinement box with a harmless insect, as long as you don't lead him to believe:

1) that an insect is present (presumably hoping he'll discover it himself) or
2) that the insect will cause "severe physical pain" or death

isn't torture, so sayeth the Bush Administration.

However if the fear is irrational, you wouldn't need to inform him of the "danger" of the insect. He'll already believe it. The end result is the same. And they knew that. What's the whole point.

All of this, of course, is besides the point - as weighed against Fred's rhetorical question:

has this hurt the country?

The damage there has already been done. Torture has already been shown to have occurred.

The Red Cross said so:

The allegations of ill-treatment of the detainees indicate that, in many cases, the ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program, either singly or in combination, constituted torture. In addition, many other elements of the ill-treatment, either singly or in combination, constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

By attempting to divert attention to "a bug in a room" Fred is doing a disservice to his audience and the truth.

I'm still here, Fred

It was brought to my attention that conservative KDKA Radio personality Fred Honsberger announced on air this afternoon that he read or heard that I had left this blog and that it should be renamed "One Political Junkie."

While it's true that I have not blogged much lately (for a variety of personal reasons) perhaps Fred is referring to a post that I wrote last week which read in part:

Starting tomorrow, I will be posting exclusively at Twitter -- no more blogging here at 2pj (You can find me at Twitter here). Words are the enemy! Also, I'm really, really happy that I wasn't laid off yesterday along with many of my co-workers.

If that's the case, Fred should have noticed that the post was written on the 1st of April and that the links led to a Wikipedia page for "April Fool." (He should have also been tipped off by the Sen. Bob Casey "quote" wherein Casey labels Blue Dog Dems as "that bunch of obstructionist douches.")
.

Pintek Tonight

Like Fred Honsberger, Mike Pintek has a Facebook page. And also like Fred, Mike announces the day's topic to his Facebook friends.

Here's today's anouncement:

What genetic mutation motivates a person to wallow in paranoid delusions and then decide to kill to defend his warped world? A criminal justice expert who studies these scumbags tackles that one...

Plus, Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney warns that the Obama administration is giving away US Sovereignty...

Obviously, the first part's about The Shooter. But what of the second? I didn't hear the show and so I have no idea exactly what they said (or how they said it) but I wonder if Pintek's thought this fully through.

Here's the thing, Mike: There are crazy unbalanced people all over the place. Fueling their crazie only makes things worse.

Some fuel for teh crazie? Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney.

Point one:

Another question yet to be resolved is whether Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, a prerequisite pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. There is evidence Mr. Obama was born in Kenya rather than, as he claims, Hawaii. There is also a registration document for a school in Indonesia where the would-be president studied for four years, on which he was identified not only as a Muslim but as an Indonesian. If correct, the latter could give rise to another potential problem with respect to his eligibility to be president.

Point two:

When [Obama] uses the word "respect" in the context of a waist-bow to the King of Saudi Arabia for example and talks about respectful language. Which is code for those who adhere to Sharia that we will submit to Sharia.

And Pintek said he was going to talk to Gaffney about how the Obama administration is "giving away US Sovereignty." Presumably they discussed this column from the Washington Times:

How many Americans are aware that some, let alone an actual majority, of the Supreme Court's justices believe that this country should be ruled by something other than the Constitution of the United States, laws made pursuant thereto and treaties clearly consistent with it? Assuredly, few of us know that such an assault on our sovereignty is afoot; in all likelihood, fewer still would support it.

The same would likely apply to Harold Koh's embrace of myriad other controversial transnationalist initiatives. He favors U.S. submission to the International Criminal Court, enabling that tribunal to have the right tomorrow to take up the sort of foreign prosecutions of Americans contemplated by Spain's Judge Garzon today.

Richard Poplawski was determined to protect his constitutional rights.

Fred and the iPod

Word is out that Fred Honsberger will be talking about the iPod the President gave to the Queen.

I have no idea what Fred will say or how he'll say it but if you're reading this and you plan on listening to Fred's show today, here's some actual facts for you.

From the AP:

Obama gave Queen Elizabeth II an engraved iPod during his visit to Buckingham Palace. The portable music device came with headphones and already loaded with 40 songs, all classic show tunes — including several from "Camelot," based on the King Arthur legend, and "My Fair Lady," set in London. The president and first lady also gave the queen a rare book of songs signed by "The King and I" composer Richard Rodgers.

The iPod also included photos and video from the queen's visit to Washington and Virginia in 2007.

Now you might ask "an iPod? Why would someone give the Queen of England an iPod?" And to those rhetorical questions you might find yourself answering, "That's just crazy. Or maybe it's because the person giving the iPod lacks the proper understanding of Royal Etiquette. That must be it"

Or maybe, (this via Fox "News" - transcript via mediamatters):

BRET BAIER (host): Major, my wife tells me I'm not the best gift giver, but after President Obama gave Prime Minister Brown the set of DVDs that didn't work in Great Britain, we hear that he gave the queen an iPod?

MAJOR GARRETT (Fox News senior White House correspondent): Yes, a video iPod, which we are told by White House staff the queen requested. She has an audio iPod, but not a video iPod.

Remember that: The Queen requested the iPod.

UPDATE: In the first hour and a half of his show, Fred said he was playing the music found on the iPod given to the Queen by President Obama. This is the music he said was on the iPod:

• Super Freak - Rick James
• I'm Too Sexy - Right Said Fred
• Lady Is A Tramp - Frank Sinatra
• It's Raining Men - Weather Girls
• The Bitch is Back - Elton John
• Bohemian Rhapsody - Queen
  

Fred told the story of the Sinatra tune. He said that when the Queen visited the White House during Gerald Ford's administration the Marine Corps band played that song as she danced. This story is true.

Too bad Fred is completely wrong about the songlist on the iPod.

According to CNN here's what was on the iPod:

Oklahoma! / Alfred Drake
If I Loved You / Jan Clayton From Carousel
You'll Never Walk Alone / Jan Clayton From Carousel
There's No Business Like Show Business / Ethel Merman From Annie Get Your Gun
Once in Love with Amy (Where's Charley?) / Ray Bolger
Some Enchanted Evening / Ezio Pinza South Pacific
Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend / Carol Channing Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
Getting to Know You / Gertrude Lawrence From The King and I
Shall We Dance? / Gertrude Lawrence From The King and I
I Could Have Danced All Night / Julie Andrews From My Fair Lady
I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face / Rex Harrison From My Fair Lady
The Party's Over (Bells Are Ringing) / Judy Holliday
Maria / Larry Kert From West Side Story
Tonight / Larry Kert From West Side Story
Seventy Six Trombones / Robert Preston
Everything's Coming up Roses / Ethel Merman From Gypsy
The Sound of Music / Mary Martin
Try to Remember / Jerry Orbach The Fantasticks
Camelot / Richard Burton
If Ever I Would Leave You / Robert Goulet From Camelot
Hello, Dolly! / Carol Channing
If I Were a Rich Man / Zero Mostel From Fiddler on the Roof
People / Barbra Streisand From Funny Girl
On a Clear Day (You Can See Forever) / John Cullum
The Impossible Dream / Richard Kiley From Man of La Mancha
Mame / Charles Braswell
Cabaret / Liza Minnelli
Aquarius / Ronald Dyson From Hair
Send in the Clowns / Judy Collins From A Little Night Music
All That Jazz / Chita Rivera From Chicago
One From A Chorus Line
Tomorrow / Andrea McArdle From Annie
Don't Cry for Me Argentina / Patti LuPone From Evita
And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going / Jennifer Holliday Dreamgirls
Memory / Elaine Paige From Cats
The Best of Times / George Hearn La Cage Aux Folles
I Dreamed a Dream / Aretha Franklin Les Misérables
The Music of the Night / Michael Crawford From The Phantom of the Opera
As If We Never Said Goodbye / Elaine Paige Sunset Blvd.
Seasons of Love Rent

I am assuming the music Fred (or his producers) chose to present to his audience as the music put on the iPod is more or less a joke. Maybe not the best or the most respectful joke to make (Rick James singing "Super Freak"? Elton John singing "The Bitch is Back"? TO THE QUEEN?? C'mon).

No law against that, however.

More On Palin's Book Banning

This has gone back and forth.

Back in early September, the OPJ blogged about Sarah Palin's book banning proclivities. The by-now completely untrustworthy McCain campaign has denied everything, of course. Governor Palin herself regarded the story as "an old wives tale" This is from ABC:

In the remaining part of Charlie Gibson's interview with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, to air later tonight on "20/20," she denies ever having tried to ban a book while mayor of Wasilla.

Of course. But when she was on the city council:

But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to [Laura] Chase (the campaign manager during Ms. Palin’s first run for mayor in 1996)and [former Mayor John] Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”

Ahh, wiggle room. Republicans just love their wiggle room.

Note to Fred Honsberger: It's nice to hear you on KDKA, my friend. But Fred, recently I've heard you defend Governor Palin with this line of reasoning:

But no books were ever banned from the library.

You have to know that that's not really much of a defense. Here's why: It's pretty obvious that she tried to ban books she (and/or her church) found offensive. Isn't that bad enough? What defender of free thought would even want to ban a book?

Whether she succeeded is another matter altogether. But just trying to get a book banned is sin enough in a free society, don't you think?

2PJ on the air!

If you were to listen to Fred Honsberger's show this afternoon at, say, about 5:20pm, you won't hear the usual Five O'Clock News Hour stuff.

No, no, no.

BOTH Maria and I will be on.

My guess is that Fred wants to talk to us about how some plumbing problems shut down the Canadian Government for a day.

Or maybe about the primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. I'm not sure.

Facts and Fred Honsberger

My friend Fred Honsberger had Ronald Kessler on his radio show today. Kessler is the guy who wrote the original article that said that Senator Barack Obama was in the church on July 22, 2007 when the Rev Jeremiah Wright said some goofy stuff.

Here's how NYTimes columnist William Kristol explains it:

For one thing, it’s becoming clear that Obama has been less than candid in addressing his relationship to his pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. For example, Obama claimed Friday that “the statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity.”

It certainly could be the case that Obama personally didn’t hear Wright’s 2003 sermon when he proclaimed: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, not God bless America, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. ... God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.”

But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That’s when Wright blamed the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much of the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain.

Here's Kessler's column at Newsmax.com column.

Here's where the story gets fun. Fred's show starts at 3pm. At 1:03pm (nearly two hours BEFORE Fred's show) Talking Points Memo posted this:

In his latest column, Bill Kristol falsely claimed -- based on reporting by Newsmax, of all things -- that Obama had attended Trinity Church last July 22nd, when Wright blamed blamed the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much global suffering.

The Obama campaign responded with an aggressive fact-check last night, saying that, no, in fact Obama was not at the service.

In fact they reported that Kristol had added a correction to his own column. This is what it said:

In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama campaign has provided information showing that Senator Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error.

This, as I said, was almost exactly two hours BEFORE Fred show was to begin. So even before Fred started talking on the air, William Kristol had acknowledged that the story was wrong.

Nice going, Fred. In all fairness (and I am nothing, if not fair) Fred and Ron did try to spin things with, of all things, Newsmax's own correction:

The Obama campaign has told members of the press that Senator Obama was not in church on the day cited, July 22, because he had a speech he gave in Miami at 1:30 PM. Our writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama's church during the month of July, including July 22. The church holds services three times every Sunday at 7:30 and 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. Central time. While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr. Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story. Mr. Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama's attendance. Mr. Davis' story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr. Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator's attendance and Rev. Wright's comments during his sermon. The Senator's office declined to comment.

Note that they don't pin Senator Obama down to a particular service (looks like they can't). And they say that he could still have heard the sermon if he attended the early morning or late evening service. No proof, of course, that he actually attended. Only that he could have. It's all tied up with a nice bow of the reassurance that Jim Davis, who wrote the original piece back in August, "stands by" the story that Obama heard an angry sermon that Davis heard sometime in the month of July, 2007. That's a long long way away from slam dunk proof that he was there on July 22, isn't it?

You'd think that things couldn't unravel more. But you'd be wrong.

It turns out that Jim Davis (who posts at freerepublic as Philo1962) can't find the notes he based the story on. Go read his explanation over at freerepublic, if you want a good chuckle.

And yet things unravel some more. This evening TPM Election Central posted this:

As I noted below, Bill Kristol had to append a correction to today's column, after the Obama campaign convinced him that his claim that Obama had attended a controversial Jeremiah Wright column was, well, false.

Kristol had cited, of all things, a piece on Newsmax by Ronald Kessler as the source for the tall tale. Kessler's piece, too, featured an update that acknowledged error -- sort of, anyway.

But there's been an amusing epilogue to this otherwise dispiriting tale.

It turns out Kessler has been busy today scrubbing references to this episode of fact-bungling from his page at Wikipedia.

And the proof of this? Someone named Ronald Kessler:

I checked in with Kessler himself, and he confirmed that he had done the deed. He said he'd cut out the reference to his own fact-bungling because it also contained a reference to an article criticizing him for his stance on torture -- and that all of this was part of the same "left-wing" assault.

Fred, Fred, Fred. You've got to do better than this. You can't be putting on such badly sourced material on KDKA's air. It's just too easy for someone like me to bat it down.

Just too easy.

Don't worry my friend, tomorrow is another day.

Jack Kelly Sunday

In a quandry...

There is nothing I can add to this week's column. Basically it's because there's so little right-wing spin in it at all (as far as I can tell).

Sheesh! I get this and a nice interview wtih Fred Honsberger in the same week!

What's a lefty blogger to do?

One Political Junkie on KDKA Radio Today

My co-blogger David DeAngelo will be on Fred Honsberger's radio show today.

KDKA Newsradio 1020 AM around 5:50 PM -- livestream here. You can hear the podcast here.

They'll be discussing the post David wrote on his interview with PA Speaker of the House Dennis O'Brien.

(We forgot to mention that David was also in last week's article in the Post-Gazette about religion in America.)

Props to Fred Honsberger

This afternoon, I got a chance to listen to a little KDKA while I was at work.

My friends, I have to give credit where credit is due because Fred Honsberger - conservative radio guy at KDKA, Fred Honsberger - former panelist on OffQ, Fred Honsberger - the subject of my previous blog "Honsberger is a liar" was DEFENDING Senator Barack Obama against the "Obama is a Muslim" smear that's swirling around the toilet bowl of wingnut rhetoric these days.

Fred held no punches when callers tried tactic after tactic to push the smear onto the public. (Isn't "push a smear" a mixed metaphor? I'm just asking.) One guy insisted on saying he hadn't made his mind up even after hearing Senator Obama profess his Christianity - his argument seemed to be that since you can't trust Muslims to tell the truth, Senator Obama could be a Muslim and still say he's a Christian. So hearing him say it is no proof of anything. I think he was the same caller who said that electing Obama president would be like electing someone Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

I kid you not, that's what the caller said.

Now Fred and I have disagreed on any number of topics (go read the blog and you'll see) and we'll probably still disagree on many more but today I was proud of him. He's on the side of the Truth with this one.

Good going, Fred. We may save you from the Dark Side yet.

Congratulations, Maria!

I was sitting at my desk at work yesterday - listening as I usually do at that time of the afternoon to Fred Honsberger.

Fred was mid-rant about the UPMC gift quid pro quo, when I heard him start to talk about this blog. Yes, the very blog you're reading right now: 2 Political Junkies.

He said that while he disagrees with most of what's posted here, every now and then he's surprised when he finds some area of agreement. He added that we're "good people."

Thanks, Fred. Yer gonna make me blush.

Anyway he then proceeded to read this blog posting by Maria, the OPJ.

Congratulations, Maria - you've been endorsed (yet again) by the Honzman himself.

And thanks for the shoutout, Fred. Your listeners are probably not frequent readers of this blog. If we can usher just one into the reality-based community, it'll all be worth it.

:-)

Heard on Fred Honsberger's Show Yesterday

Kathleen Willey has written a book. And for that, she was on Fred's air. You can listen to the interview here and here.

For those who don't remember, in 1998 Kathleen Willey accused then-President Clinton of sexually assaulting her in the White House in 1993.

During the interview with Fred, she stated that she'd been offered a great deal of money from the tabloids for her story. She didn't take that money because she felt that it would damage her credibility.

Oops. Too late.

Take a look at what the Office of Independent Counsel (the good folks who spend tens of millions of dollars investigationg the Clinton White House in the late 90s) had to say about Willey's honesty.

Page 7:

The Independent Counsel agreed not to prosecute Willey for any offense arising out of the investigation, including false statements in her Jones deposition, so long as she cooperated fully and truthfully with the investigation. Following that first immunity agreement, Willey gave false information to the FBI about her sexual relationship with a former boyfriend, and acknowledged having lied about it when the agents confronted her with contradictory evidence. Following Willey’s acknowledgement, the Independent Counsel agreed not to prosecute her for false statements in this regard.

She acknowledged lying to the OIC and the FBI.

And then there's the contradictions with other OIC testimony. For instance Linda Tripp's. This is from Salon.com:

Tripp testified she saw Willey "a lot" the day of her meeting with Clinton. "A lot," she repeated. And she met Willey after the meeting, as planned, and described her as being "very excited, happy, but flustered and completely overwhelmed by the event." Tripp said her face was "flushed," and she "smiled from ear to ear." Tripp said Willey related that she told Clinton "something to the effect that she was throwing herself" on his mercy, when he suddenly kissed her forcefully. "'His tongue was down my throat'" and "'I think I kissed him back,'" Tripp quoted Willey as saying. "His hands were all over her backside," and "he put her hand on his penis," Tripp claimed Willey told her. That night Willey and Tripp "discussed whether Willey would be a girlfriend of the president," said Tripp.

Hardly good news for Bill, but a far far cry from a sexual assault. And given the context of the feeding-frenzy at the time, why would Linda Tripp tell this story and not an assault story if she knew the assault story? Why wouldn't Kathleen Willey tell Linda Tripp the assault story?

According to the salon.com article, Willey and Tripp had been working together for months to somehow get Clinton to return Kathleen Willey's flirtatious affections.

Finally there's this from the OIC:

Willey and President Clinton, the only two percipient witnesses to the alleged encounter, substantially and materially disagree on what occurred. The burden of proving what actually occurred in a case against President Clinton rests on the prosecutor, and Willey would be the government’s principal witness. In the Independent Counsel’s judgment, the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the President’s deposition testimony about his conduct with Willey was false.

Linda Tripp’s testimony that Willey had a previous romantic interest in President Clinton (and appeared to view his alleged advances positively) departed from Willey’s testimony. Tripp’s cooperation with this Office in the Lewinsky investigation ultimately yielded evidence about President Clinton’s conduct with Monica Lewinsky that was contrary to the President’s testimony. Thus, evidence supplied by Linda Tripp regarding Willey that was consistent with President Clinton’s testimony would likely be favorably received by a jury.

Even assuming Willey’s testimony was truthful about the incident with President Clinton, her testimony at trial would be subject to further challenge based on the differences between her deposition and grand jury statements, as well as her acknowledgement of false statements to the Office of the Independent Counsel. Concerns about the probative effect of Willey’s testimony would likely be sufficient to negate a conclusion that “the person [charged] probably will be found guilty by an unbiased trier of fact.”

In short, there was insufficient evidence to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that President Clinton’s testimony regarding Kathleen Willey was false. Accordingly, the Independent Counsel declined prosecution and the investigation of potential criminal wrongdoing relating to Willey’s allegations is now closed.

This is the OIC talking here. In short, Kathleen Willey has some serious credibility problems. None of which made it onto Fred's show, of course. In fact, he did say on the show that he believes Kathleen Willey. Ugh.

Fred also made mention of Yassir Arafat "waiting in the Rose Garden" during one of the Clinton/Lewinsky encounters. Uh, not so fast, Fred. This is from the Committee of Concerned Journalists. The CCJ's mission is described here:

The Starr Report differed in some key areas from the Drudge Report. Lewinsky testified to using the cigar sexually and to Clinton then putting it in his mouth and commenting on it. But according to Lewinsky's testimony there was no mutual masturbation and the meeting was in general less sordid than the leaks. There is also no support in the Starr Report for Drudge's allegation that Yassir Arafat was waiting in the Rose Garden when an encounter took place (the Drudge Report is not clear about what encounter it is writing about)[emphasis added]

So Fred was channelling the Drudge Report?? Oh, Fred. You gotta do better than that.

Oh, and Fred also reran the discredited Juanita Broaddrick story.

All in all, standard Fred.

Every now and then it's good to go home.

Fred Honsberger Still Spins

Good to know the ole Honzman can still spin the quasi-factoids like the best of them.

I took a listen yesterday to his show and heard him berate the Clintons for owning stock in companies they'd denounced: Fox News, Walmart and so on. He said they were dissolving the trust in order to avoid any election year embarrassments. There was wailing and gnashing of teeth over the millions made by the hypocritical Clintons.

Too bad only part of the story got out on the KDKA airwaves. Take a look.

CNN/AP:

Bill and Hillary Clinton liquidated the contents of their blind trust upon learning it contained investments of $5 million to $25 million that could pose conflicts of interest or prove to be embarrassing to her presidential campaign.

Notice what my friend Fred left out? The five letter word "blind." It turns a "trust" into a "blind trust." A couple of paragraphs later:

The Clintons looked at the contents of the blind trust in April under instructions from the Office of Government Ethics and sold the assets in May, according to a disclosure form filed Friday. The Clintons had the blind trust since former President Clinton was governor of Arkansas in 1983 and had no control over its transactions.

Fred must've missed those last few words: "had no control over its transactions."

So you'd think blaming them for what was in the blind trust would be, well, absurd. Wouldn't it?

Once this point was raised by a caller (not me, by the way), Fred moved the goal posts. He said he was using the same criteria that anti-war critics use when talking about the Iraq war: They say Bush invaded Iraq to get more profits for his oil company buddies, but HIS money's also in a blind trust!

So...yea you got me. I don't understand the Fred-logic either.

Luke Ravenstahl's Weasel Words

Yesterday on Fred Honsberger's radio show (transcript here), Mayor Luke Ravenstahl said this:

The Jon Delano story is inaccurate simply because I didn't force my way anywhere. I was at Oakmont on April 23rd. I did meet Tiger Woods. But his suggestion that I was asked to leave and not welcome is inaccurate and I really think that's the unfortunate part of the story and I'm not sure where it came from.

This got me thinking. Is that actually what Jon Delano said? That Luke "forced [his] way" into the Country Club? That he was asked to leave? That he was "not welcome" at the Oakmont?

Let's take a look at Delano's story.

[W]hen the mayor learned that Tiger Woods was out at Oakmont practicing, he had his office call the club to secure an invitation. The club told him politely, but firmly, that this was a private affair, and he was not invited. Nonetheless, the mayor got in his car, drove out, and tried to crash the club.

Sources say Ravenstahl was stopped by Oakmont’s security guards who told him the golf outing was a private event for American Express and its customers. But he talked his way into the club. [emphasis added]

I guess this depends on how you define "force."

And no where (and this is the big part) in the Delano piece is there any mention of the Mayor "was asked to leave."

Luke uses his invitation to lunch as evidence that he was welcome at the club:

[W]hen I walked in literally they invited me to sit down and have lunch. I think that shows you right there that I was welcome...

But Delano points out that he was invited for lunch - adding that the Tiger Woods event was private:

Once inside, Ravenstahl was recognized and invited to dine with members of the club’s board of directors where, once again, he was told the event with Tiger Woods was private and not open to him.

I mean, what were they (the Club's board of directors) supposed to do? Toss the mayor of the city of Pittsburgh out on his ear? Then there's Luke's weasel words:

[B]ut we were never told, at all, that we were not welcome on the grounds. [emphasis added]

Which is different, of course, from saying "we were not welcome at the party."

Looks like Luke knows he's done wrong and is trying to weasel out owning up to it.