Jessica McBride: Crack Journalist!

I love what some people consider to be a "journalist" nowadays.

Take Jessica McBride for example. Young Jessica is a teacher of young journalists - a molder of minds if you will. The future of journalism is in her hands, a thought that absolutely frightens me to no end.

I happened to surf on over to Young Miss Jessica's blog, and an entry of hers on the scandal involving Senator Larry Craig (R - Bathroom Stalls) caught my eye. What caught my eye was not the groundbreaking content (there's not much of that to be found in her blog), but rather the fact that Young Miss Jessica directly contradicts herself in the same blog entry. In said entry, YMJ states:

Enough with the "he's innocent until proven guilty" stuff and "if he did it" stuff that I've been hearing on some conservative shows. Regardless of what he says now, Larry Craig PLEADED GUILTY in a court of law and was convicted. That should mean something. He's not innocent until proven guilty. He's guilty.

Then she follows up the whole, "HE'S GUILTY" point with this doozy (I added my own emphasis):

Bill Clinton was accused of raping a woman. Ted Kennedy was accused of leaving a woman to die. They enjoy respect from the Democratic party and the media. Larry Craig was accused of nudging the foot of an undercover cop, and the Democrats want to put him in a stockade in the public square.

Now maybe I dwell in a different reality than YMJ, but in my reality you can't follow up a statement like, "HE'S NOT INNOCENT, HE'S BEEN PROVEN GUILTY!" with, "He was accused of..." without directly contradicting yourself. I can only hope YMJ isn't teaching that trick to her students, because it's bad form to directly contradict yourself when reporting the news.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

McBride, not satisfied to leave well enough alone, felt the need to post a second piece on Larry Craig (R-Airport Bathroom Stalls). She misleads the reader by making one think she's going to get another one right (a rare occurrence) when she criticized some fellow conservatives that came to defend Craig. But she drops the ball when she tries to portray a criminal conviction to allegations. She has to go back decades to bring up Ted Kennedy's scandal-now that's reaching.

But among her "couple of comments" (note to McBride: A couple means two, not nine), she pulls the classic McBride maneuver of "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" with

The Idaho Statesman needs to realize that Craig's arrest shouldn't mean they print every single unverified rumor they've ever heard in the newspaper

.

If McBride held herself to these same standards, she would have nothing to blog about, much less anything to use to distort the minds of the youth she lectures to.

What part of 'no amnesty' doesn't she understand?

I stand accused of putting words into Jessica McBride's mouth, and not for the first time.

Love the way she responds with personal attacks, don't you?

Here's the thing:

She says immigrants who haven't committed crimes are not her "priority." She says:

Illegal immigrants should be kicked out of the country the first time they offend. Focus on the criminals first.

Who, you might ask, would we focus on second?

She's been on a campaign to frighten people into thinking there's a big crime wave caused by illegal immigrants. (Lack of evidence notwithtanding.)

The way to prevent that alleged crime wave, of course, is to deport illegal immigrants BEFORE they commit crimes. She is part of the "What part of illegal don't you understand?" crowd.

And, as Jay Bullock pointed out awhile back, McBride is clearly in the "no amnesty" camp.

If there's no "amnesty," what's her alternative? Logic would tell you it is deportation.

But logic does not seem to enter the picture.

I rest my case.

Now Everyone Wants A List

First it was McBride's former BFF with droll commentary. Then came the enlightenment of the 50+ Things. Now, while McBride shows her in-depth journalistic skill by covering quiche and blue lines, commenter Dennis replies to her previous tirade with a list of his own:

Jessica, they are following the first five Liberal rules:

Liberal Rule #1 - When in doubt, tell a lie.
Liberal Rule #2 - When caught lying, go into hysterics
Liberal Rule #3 - Arguments are lost only to bigots
.Liberal Rule #4 - When faced with facts, ignore them
.Liberal Rule #5 - Anyone who disagrees is a Fascist.

Liberalism: The Politics of Arrogance.

In the interest of fairness, Whallah will now present the five Republican Rules:

Rule #1-Even when sure of the facts, tell a lie.
Rule #2-When caught lying, lie some more.
Rule #3-Arguments are only lost to liberals.
Rule #4-When faced with facts, put comment moderation on your blogsite.
Rule#5-Anyone who disagrees is trying to silence me (other options: They are juvenile, sexist, slime merchants, etc.)

Republican: The Embodiment of Undeserved Arrogance

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is McBride

McBride again takes on her favorite role of martyr as she lashes out at Whallah contributor Xoff, who wrote about her failure to produce any statistical data to substantiate her argument. She starts out with:

I don't read liberal abuse-hate blogs. Why bother? It's juvenile, sexist stuff that belongs on a junior high school playground. (although I do sometimes marvel at how obsessed they are when readers send stuff my way. They spend so much time and energy...)

.

She may not read liberal abuse-hate blogs, but she does write and read conservative abuse-hate blogs. She also should be aware that it is pretty quick and easy to point out the fallacies in most of her posts. But even as she complains that Whallah is juvenile, she continues with:

.

Bill Christofferson, the slime merchant and Democratic political strategist who was behind all those nasty Mark Green ads, is apparently now turning his trash machine my way...

.

Whallah, McBride's version of maturity.

.

She focuses on one line of Xoff's argument, denying that she wants all illegal immigrants to be deported, but ignores the context of his post, trying to distort the point he was trying to convey. Just like she accuses liberals of doing to her, as she continues with her tirade:

.

The liberals know it. But they simply don't care. They distort everything they can to achieve their political goals, like when they falsely said I was mocking a little girl's death when they knew I was mocking Eugene Kane for not having the guts to debate and had actually made the point that the little girl's death was a crisis. You have to wonder why the partisan left in this state has made it such a priority to try to silence me. I am in good company. It simply fortifies me.

.

Ah, yes, the Eugene Kane incident...It is good to she is over that and has moved on with her life.

.

But the best part is when she claims that the left is trying to silence her. Why would the left want to silence her? She is, single-handedly, the best thing that could happen to bolster the arguments of the left, with the possible exception of George Bush himself.

.

Addendum: After two of McBride's acolytes offer solace and comfort for the poor, unfairly persecuted McBride, she adds a comment of her own: When you can't win the argument....

.

Seeing as that she apparently couldn't finish the thought, we will help her. When you can't win the argument...Whallah, you claim to be a martyr and stop letting the winners post comments on your blog.

No statistics? Well, tell a scary story

Vintage McBride. Priceless.

She complains that those awful liberals complain about people like her, who inflame anti-immigrant sentiment by trying to find an illegal immigrant behind every crime.

It's not fair that liberals complain about that, she says.

Her "evidence" is an article describing the backlash against illegal immigration: The crux of her objection to the article is this sentence:

The [Newark triple murder] case revitalized an argument made during the congressional debate that the flow of illegal immigrants, though predominated by job-seekers lured by the prospect of higher wages and better conditions, includes a menacing criminal element.

It's not just an "argument," McBride says. It's a fact that illegals are committing lots of crimes and terrorizing American citizens.

Why, McBride asks, doesn't the writer offer some statistics:

Why not just look up the known numbers, Mr. Montgomery? (of course, in many states, like ours, no one really knows how many illegal immigrant criminals there are). Or why not just mention Newark again? Or the man who allegedly shot the cop in Kenosha?

Classic. The thrust of the whole article is the backlash since the Newark killings. There is hardly a need to mention it again.

No statistics for Wisconsin? Well, just throw out one horrible example where an illegal immigrant is charged with a murder, she says. That's exactly how she operates.

To some degree, that's what the article is all about. McBride is already on record calling for the deportation of all 12 million illegal aliens now in the country. McBride and hubby/demagogue Paul Bucher would like to frighten people into believing there is a crime wave caused by illegal immigrants.

All they are missing is the proof.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Did I forget to mention she teaches college journalism?

Wait, She Can't Do That, Can She?

McBride again shows her journalistic integrity with a post deriding Hillary Clinton, a presidential candidate, for answering a question about terrorism as she promotes her candidacy. McBride goes starts with:

Her first thoughts about another terrorist attack occurring involve how it could help her politically.

.

She then goes on to state that the Democrats are at a disadvantage, in her opinion, in the event of a future terrorist attack, because the Republicans are the deciders and the do-gooders, while the Democrats are just a bunch of obstructionists.

.

Several issues could be brought up about this posting of McBride's. One could be trivial and point out that McBride's link leads to the Blogger sign in page, as opposed to a real news story like this.

.

Or one could discuss how McBride thinks that infringements of rights, isolationism, violations of the Geneva convention and human rights, and an illegal war which caused a recruiting boom and training camp for terrorists is actually a good thing. This could be followed up with McBride's disdain for diplomacy and statesmanship.

.

But the true McBrideian part of the post is that she lambastes Clinton for answering a question about terrorism, but puts on her cheerleader uniform and picks up her pom poms for Mr. 9/11, Newt, and her real life version of Jack Bauer (who not only capitalized on terrorism politically, but also monetarily).

Campaign Deja Vu

McBride remarks that she laughed when she saw a headline saying "Clinton vows to improve healthcare". She then asks "Didn't she have her chance, circa 1993?"

We at Whallah can appreciate where she is coming from. We are still laughing from from this headline, thinking didn't Paul have his chance at a state seat, circa 2006?

And of course, Whallah would also like to remind the gentle reader of Rule #83: Paul Bucher has never been a judge, not even for one day

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Legal scholar Jessica McBride asks:

Should the states get to decide if a man can legally murder his wife or a woman her husband?

Illusory Tenant answers:

That is precisely what the States get to decide, always has been, and as a matter of fact, it wasn't all that long ago that adultery was a successful affirmative defense against a murder charge.

In which case there might not be the ex-Mrs. Bucher, but the widow Bucher.

More from Illusory Tenant here.

Calling a bluff by Texas Hold 'Em

This may seem a little inside baseball, but we think it's important to hold bloggers accountable for what they write, and to point it out when they are unwilling to acknowledge the truth. (And there's something about being called a liar by someone who's lying that just kind of sticks in our craw.)

Which brings us to the blogger known as Texas Hold 'Em. For economy, we'll just call him Tex.

We noted last week that Tex seemed confused about two Wisconsin "right to life" groups, and who said and did what to whom when.

Tex defends Pro-Life Wisconsin, a fringe group that believes women should be allowed to die rather than have life-saving abortions, among other tenets.

Recently, Paul Hill Days, a celebration and reenactment of the murder of an abortion provider, took place in Milwaukee. Among those present in the same place and at the same time as the event was the director of Pro-Life Wisconsin. The organization's van, clearly identified, was parked in a prominent location as well. Here's a report from someone who attended.

When we pointed out the discrepancy, between his claims and what had actually happened, Tex commented:

Read NARAL’s own release. The Feminazis said flat-out that Pro-Life Wisconsin also condemned the rally. Why would NARAL say that if PLW didn’t condemn it?

We read NARAL'S release, as he suggested. Despite his claim, it never mentioned Pro-Life Wisconsin.

So we left a comment on Tex's blog last week, but it has been "awaiting moderation" ever since. In other words, he is not going to allow it to be posted.

That's unfortunate, since the comment simply printed the press release from NARAL, the pro-choice group Tex loves to call Femi-Nazis. The release, which he had been citing as proof that Pro-Life Wisconsin had condemned the Paul Hill event, shows that his claim is clearly untrue. You can read it here. It actually condemns Pro-Life Wisconsin director's participation and calls on the group's endorsed candidates to disavow the group and return contributions.

Instead of posting that, he linked to an irrelevant release from the other "pro-life" group, Wisconsin Right to Life, which also says nothing about Pro-Life Wisconsin.

We started our exchange with Tex by saying he clearly was confused. But it looks like it's more than a simple misunderstanding. He now knows he was wrong, is unwilling to admit it, and continues to misrepresent Pro-Life Wisconsin's position.

We call, Tex. Up to you.

A review you won't hear on talk radio

"The Council Bluffs Community School District superintendent also characterized the book by Wisconsin radio and TV talk-show host Charles Sykes as an offensive publication that lacks wit and insight."

More here.

Deport all 12 million!

Jessica McBride's obsession with illegal immigration, and her attempts to frighten people by linking immigrants to crime, has put her in the vanguard of immigrant bashers.

But this appears to represent a new, even harder line.

Caught up in a back and forth over the "50+ Things You Won't Learn From Talk Radio," she says:

Not a single illegal immigrant criminal should remain in this country.

Apparently, extremism in the attack on immigrants is no vice. McBride is clearly on the lunatic fringe on this issue.

Forunately, the American public is more rational, as an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in June illustrated. It asked:

"Regardless of how you feel about it personally, do you think that deporting all illegal immigrants who are currently in the United States back to their native countries is a realistic and achievable goal, or not?"

The response was: 13% is achievable, 85% is not achievable, 2% unsure.

UPDATE: James Harris, the newest dim bulb in the conservative talk radio galaxy, goes McBride one better. He wants to deport a US citizen, born in this country.

She Doesn't Teach Logic Either

Most people would agree that a basic logic example would be if a=b and a=c, then b=c. But not in McBride's world, where it would be more like if a=b and a=c, then x=z.

In another response to the 50+ Things, McBride changes the rules to fit her need to try to construe that Bill Clinton's popularity was because he was such a rabid conservative. The obvious question would be, "If extreme conservatism is so popular, why is she off the air?"

UPDATE: Further and more profound dissertations have been done by both Other Side and Illusory Tenant

McBride Strikes Back

McBride, not known for her originality, has responded to Tom McMahon's response to the "50+ Things You Won't Hear On Talk Radio". At first glance, one would have thought she was coming to the defense of her once former friend and mentor, Charlie Sykes. But upon further reading, it turns out to be, at best, a pedestrian and sophomoric attempt to get back at all those darn lefty blogs that would point out the errors of her thinking and/or writing. However, instead of repudiating "50+ Things", she ends up validating them.

In the interest of time and space, as well as the reader's sanity, only a few of the more special ones will be highlighted here. Those with strong enough constitution and/or masochistic tendencies, are welcome to go to the site itself.

The original rule will be in regular type, McBride's response will be in red (I couldn't resist the scarlet letter analogy) and Whallah's response to the response will be italicized.

7) The rich get richer and the poor get poorer; it's the Republican way.

So you admit that the economy is thriving?

The poor are supposed to get poorer and they don't deserve health care either.

14) I'm sorry.

Liberals only say they're sorry when they are gunning for cheap political gain by repudiating their earlier Iraq votes.

See, she can't say it either.

15) I was wrong.

Ditto.

Ditto.

18) George Bush made a mistake.

And supports amnesty for illegal aliens.And didn’t send enough troops to Iraq to secure the peace.But he’s pretty darn good at picking Supreme Court justices (the second time around).

See #14 and 15.

21There were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq.

Too bad so many leading Democrats misled the country into believing there would be WMD found in Iraq.

It's the Democrats fault that Bush told them incorrect information? See #14 and 15.

28) Bill Clinton was incredibly popular.

So incredibly popular he was impeached.

Bill Clinton was incredibly popular, the Republicans had to try to impeach him, in order not to lose all power.

36When a poor person dies of hunger, it has not happened because God did not take care of him or her. It has happened because neither you nor I wanted to give that person what he or she needed. – Mother Teresa

Or because Angelina Jolie was overextended.

She makes fun of a nun, but it's supposed to be the liberals that have no respect for religion.

54The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russell

The fools and fanatics are the terrorists, and the self-doubters are the Democrats.

See how she proves the original point.

64Be a class act. Class seems to be inextricably related to kindness, consideration, and a general recognition of human worth. -- Roy Beers.

Maybe you should preach to the choir, liberals. Read your own blogs. Listen to your leaders. Read your last rule.

Do as I say, not as I do.

71Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth

Guess that rules out most liberal bloggers.

Guess that rules out most talk show hosts, and former talks show hosts.

83Paul Bucher has never been a judge, not even for one day.

Paul Bucher has never been a public defender.

No, but he is a trial lawyer.

This just in: US citizen accused of crime!

The Nutosphere continues its crusade to report every crime that involves an illegal immigrant.

They've been at it for a long time, starting with a Memorial Day shooting in 2006 that was commited by someone who turned out to be here legally. It was truly an Emily Litella moment, Jessica McBride blamed the police for providing the wrong info, but she had been claiming, long before any police announcement, that the shooter must have been an illegal.

McBride challenges the news media every time an illegal is found to have committed a crime or even been accused.

Her mentor, Charlie Sykes, does the same.

It seems less about crime than about looking for one more way to fuel anti-immigrant sentiment, using fear. Mr. McBride, Paul Bucher, tried to demagog the issue to victory in his failed race for attorney general, but he couldn't even sell the idea to the conservatives voting in the GOP primary. We are not experiencing an illegal immigrant crime wave. Our guess is that illegals commit fewer violent crimes than US citizens, although we haven't seen any statistics.

Here's a modest proposal:

If the right wing thinks it is so important, and so relevant, for the media to report it every time an illegal immigrant is accused of a crime, let's be fair about it. Crime stories could all include information that identifies the suspect as (a) an illegal immigrant, (b) an alien living here legally, or (c) a US citizen.

The media doesn't single out and identify suspects by race only when they are black. Why should it single out illegal immigrants, unless it is to promote another agenda?

Refighting the last war #2

Time for a reality check: McBride really believes a one-liner from 2002 will matter to anyone in a legislative race a year from now:

Alberta Darling ad #1.

You've probably heard:

Madison - In what could be the closest state Senate race in Wisconsin next year, state Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) said today he will give up his
Assembly seat to challenge veteran Republican Sen. Alberta Darling of River Hills. All Politics Watch/Aug.8)

You may have forgotten this story (in fact, even though I wrote it, I forgot about it until someone tipped me off):

The hundreds of messages that have flooded the office of embattled Milwaukee County Executive F. Thomas Ament since the pension scandal erupted run the gamut from vicious hate mail to gushing support.

Among those messages was one from Wasserman to Ament, written in Ament's own hand. At the time, Wasserman was rumored to be running for county executive. The message read:

"1, He supports me. 2, Not running," from state Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee).

Ament as bogey man is even wearing a little thin as a Scott Walker schtick.

It'll never work for Darling. Let's hope she uses it -- and makes McBride her chief strategist.

Refighting the last war

McBride is still steamed that JB Van Hollen kicked her hubby's butt in the Republican primary for AG last fall.

And now, even worse, Van Hollen's getting some positive stories from the "liberal media" -- of which she is a former active member. (It makes you wonder. Did she see how liberal the media were when she was a reporter? Did she ever complain about it? Or did her recent conversion to conservatism -- some say she's a conservative by marriage -- open her eyes?)

She's clearly unhappy about Van Hollen's good fortune, offering this backhanded compliment to JBVH's media honeymoon:

Attorney General Van Hollen has some good PR people working for him. The backlog in the crime lab (his signature issue) has actually increased since 2006 (through July 31st of this year), and his people turn it into a series of positive headlines around the state. Finally, the liberal media have found a Republican they won't spin everything negative on. Wonders never cease. The Democrats would be ill-advised to underestimate Van Hollen as a potential gubernatorial challenger in 2010. The linked story is a classic political PR example of how to take a potential negative and turn it into a positive.

UPDATE: McBride may be pleased to learn than JBVH is under fire for his association with Pro-Life Wisconsin, the extremists who recently celebrated with a re-enactment of the murder of an abortion provider.

UPDATE 2: Even her fellow wingers, like Little Miss Sunshine, see what she's up to:

I'm afraid Mrs. Bucher loses a little credibility when she blogs so bitterly about the Attorney General who defeated her husband in a primary race. I guess old grudges die hard.

UPDATE 3: Mr. Hold 'Em of Texas is confused about who said what to whom when. But if you want to see for yourself what NARAL did and didn't say, here is the press release.

Calling the McBride sexism police

Does our friend Jessica -- hear her roar! -- only see sexism when she's criticized by someone of the male persuasion (espcially liberal males)?

Let's see if her friend at Texas Hold 'Em rates a scolding for his What every man wants for Christmas post.

Or will these be one of those "Omigod, I am laughing so hard I could die" moments?

You go, girl!

Lest there be any remaining question about whether Jessica McBride can claim the mantle of "journalist," this piece of cheerleading should settle it once and for all:

Go Rudy

I know there are questions over Rudy's approach toward illegal immigration in the past. But this story below is exactly why I like Rudy. I started out instinctually supporting Rudy. I then briefly gravitated toward Fred Thompson. But he hasn't gotten in, and that speaks to a certain indecision. I confess to liking Duncan Hunter. I remain undecided, but gravitating back toward Rudy:

AIKEN, S.C. (AP) -- Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani vowed Tuesday to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States by closely tracking visitors to the country and beefing up border security.

Go Rudy???

Just a few months ago, her live blogging of a GOP presidential debate included this insight:

McCain trashes Harry Reid. GO MCCAIN

Illusory Tenant described it thusly at the time:

The rest of her "liveblogging" reads like entries in a 14-year-old girl's diary, and is just about as embarrassing to read: "McCain trashes Harry Reid. GO MCCAIN."

And she complains when some black journalists and students applaud two Democratic presidential candidates who came to speak to them in person?

Go Jessica!

With Obama, seeing is believing

She continues to attack him on content, but McBride has done an about-face on Barack Obama's speaking ability after hearing him firsthand.

A July 24 post entitled, "Barack Obama's Lack of Eloquence:"

The MSM myth is that Barack Obama is a powerful and moving orator. I realized this was myth when I heard the audio from his Milwaukee appearance a few months ago, in which he blamed Virginia Tech on Don Imus, Iraq, and everything including the kitchen sink. I was shocked then how much he LACKED eloquence.

And Today:

I saw Barack Obama speak in person. And I have to say he is a good speaker (that's not a media myth, his rambling Milwaukee speech on Virginia Tech aside). He is able to connect emotionally with his audience in a way that Hillary Clinton does not (she connects through logos; he connects through pathos). He also seems like a very decent person (if you can really tell that from a stump speech), and it's true he's bringing additional people into the political process (such as the younger voter), and that's a positive.

We don't see an endorsement in the future, and she didn't join in the standing ovation. But maybe she can understand why it happened, with an audience of black journalists, including student journalists.

(Re)Public Speaking

McBride again displays her own unique brand of schizophrenic logic in this post about the fairness doctrine. Jay Bullock at folkbum's performs the analysis here. You know it's gotta be good when it starts out with the statement, "...a perfect example of what for most people would be mind-splittingly painful cognitive dissonance".

'Poor Tommy' just doesn't have it

We don't remember Jessica McBride being so supportive of Tommy Thompson's presidential bid in the past, but now that it's over she's all for him:

I admire him for giving it a shot. He brought ideas to the table. It bothers me that money and media attention (which comes first, the chicken or the egg?) handicap the candidates, turning those without either one into punchlines. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney, a governor without any accomplishments to match Tommy's (welfare reform, school choice, etc.) comes in first. Why? Because his mix of east coast celebrity, "presidential" looks, political name, and money made him "electable" in the minds of the media.

Campaign finance reform isn't the answer. It would be nice if the media would voluntarily stop handicapping the candidates based on money and star power. Rather, it would be nice if they simply reported on all of the candidates' ideas, forgetting such labels as "frontrunner", and focusing on the issues instead. Why should the media decide who's a "serious" candidate? And why is Mitt Romney a more serious candidate than Tommy Thompson, if you look at track record and ideas?

You can't blame it all on the media, Jessica.

If you want to know what Tommy's real problem was, look a little more closely at the candidate. The problem was Tommy.

He declared, and the media reported, time and again, that he would win in Iowa because it was retail politics -- the kind of politics where you didn't need a lot of money, or television advertising, because you could get to know the voters up close and personal.

After months of stumping the state, the candidates at Saturday's straw poll in Ames had probably met just about every one of the candidates.

There's the old joke about a reporter asking an Iowa farmer how he's going to vote in the straw poll. Does he like Tommy Thompson? "Can't say yet; he's only been in our house twice so far."

Iowa Republicans didn't reject Tommy Thompson because the NY Times told them he couldn't win.

They decided, after sizing him up against the rest of the pack, that he just didn't pack the gear.

Frankly, he comes off on TV like a doofus. He may be better in small groups or one-on-one, but he yells his speeches like he's angry at the audience. And he looks a little goofy, with his whitewall haircut. One observer said Tommy had either the worst haircut or the worst hairpiece they'd ever seen.

And, yes, appearances matter when you're running for president. It all counts.

McBride says Romney won because of good looks, money, media attention, a well-known name (? His father ran 40 years ago), and East Coast celebrity.

All of that isn't worth a warm bucket of milk in the Iowa straw poll, if you listen to the Iowans, or even to Tommy, describe it.

It's not like Tommy was edged out by Romney. Tommy placed sixth, with 7% of the vote. A mere 1,039 votes after all that money and work.

How does Jessica explain Mike Huckabee's second place finish? He got more than double Tommy's vote, at 18%. And Huckabee, former Arkansas governor, did not have good looks, money, media attention, a well-known name, or that killer, East Coast Celebrity. But he whipped Tommy pretty badly.

Heck, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, and Ron Paul -- the latter two candidates a lot of people joke about -- all beat Tommy.

You just can't hang it on the media.

Tommy just didn't have what it takes, and came up way short.

Now we can watch the debates without cringing every time we see him, hoping no one will say "Wisconsin."

UPDATE: Power Line, a national right wing blog, also bemoans Tommy's failure, but is honest enough to call him "uncharismatic." That counts, too.

50+ things you won't learn on talk radio

OK, McBride's not a radio presence any more (if she ever was), but this effort is too good to go unrecognized by Whallah!

Wisconsin's lefty bloggers have teamed up to produce this gem, a response to Charlie Sykes's book blaming the schools for everything wrong with the younger generation.

It's posted all over the Cheddarsphere.

Here's the Milwaukee Rising version.

McBride undercover; poses as black journalist

Well, not exactly.

She's apparently at a convention of the National Assn. of Black Journalists, with some students, and was inspired to to try to ask Barack Obama a question.

Good grief.

Do you think we are paying her to be there? (It's in Vegas.)

UPDATE: Her question is whether Obama would meet with Al Qaeda. Would Republicans meet with Saddam Hussein? Well ...

Rummy and Saddam, in the happier days of the Reagan administration. (Hat tip: Illusory Tenant.)

The one that got away

So a guy shows up late for a job interview and starts it out by announcing, “you’re a damn fool if you don’t hire me.”

Jessica McBride thinks the Journal Sentinel should have hired him anyway.

Why? Because the guy in question, Jason Whitlock, is a black sports columnist who followed the right-wing line during the ugly Don Imus controversy in April, saying black culture and gangsta rap, not Imus, are the real problem, and accusing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of exploiting the Rutgers basketball team and making the issue too big of a deal.

That, of course, is the diversity of opinion the right wing loves, whenever they can find a black person who agrees with them. (They are few and far between.)

"He would have been a really fresh voice in town," McBride says.

Right.

UPDATE: Illusory Tenant digs a little deeper and finds that McBride, avowed affirmative action foe, is the advisor for a student group whose goal is to increase diversity.

JBVH is warned: The wingnuts are watching

We learned here the other day that Jessica McBride thinks JB Van Hollen has broken his promise to be a partisan right wing hack as attorney general.

It's spread. Van Hollen's bona fides are now being questioned by the other half of the duo formerly known as McSykes. Charlie put JBVH to the test on his show this week, and gave him an incomplete. The wingnuts are watching, JB. Xoff has more.

Judging a cop by his cover

Welcome once again to McBride World, where candidates for police chief are evaluated by how tough they look.

If that's the criterion, the Fire and Police Commission should look at the mug shot of the guy charged in the triple murder in Connecticut.

McSykes is dead; long live McSykes

Some lefty bloggers used to use the term "McSykes" to denote how Charlie Sykes and Jessica McBride's mutual admiration society resulted in them writing the same thing about the same subject, or, more often, simply linking to one another's blogs to steer readers there.

"How insightful," Charlie would say, with a link to McBride's latest drivel. "What an eye for talent," McBride would respond, linking to Sykes.

Since Charlie's protege was banished from the WTMJ Kingdom, the echo chamber appears to have stopped. She still speaks highly of him, but doesn't even make it onto his blogroll of 23 right-wing Wisconsin blogs, including some that are pretty marginal.

But there's a new relationship blossoming with Sykes and the Journal Sentinel's resident wingnut, Patrick McIlheran, who have formed a new and improved mutual admiration society and send readers back and forth. Can a permanent McIlheran chair on the Sunday Sykes TV show be far behind?

So, the old McSykes may be history, but there's a new McSykes tandem to carry on. Praise the Lord.

Patrick and Charlie, we now pronounce you wing and nut. It's a match made in heaven.

UPDATE: McCarthy McIlheran says liberals aren't entitled to describe themselves as Americans, because they're really unpatriotic:

Time and again, left-leaning organizations have, in the years since, sought to wrap themselves in an outer mantle of traditional Americanism, despite their distaste for it.

These foreign policy views are a riot

Jessica McBride doesn't like it when Democrats talk about foreign policy. That's why she is willing to rewrite the Constitution to say, for example, that Senators like Russ Feingold can't complain about the conduct of the Iraq war. And, presumably, why she would blame Democrats for "inflaming the Muslim world" when introducing and article mostly about a Republican. And, I guess, why she is willing to risk Godwin's Law just to diss Barack Obama.

That's from Jay Bullock at folkbum, and he's just getting warmed up.

'Every reporter's worst nightmare'

Jessica McBride wrote this recent one-liner, with a link to a story about the assassination of a black newspaper editor in California:

Arrests made in slaying of Oakland journalist
Every reporter's worst nightmare.

That's the entire post by journalism teacher McBride.

Let me preface this by saying that, as a former journalist, I do not want to minimize or understate the courage of those reporters and photographers who put themselves in danger to report the news, in war zones and in other dangerous situations. Many of them regularly risk their lives.

But it is a giant leap from recognizing that bravery to suggesting that "every reporter's worst nightmare" is that he/she will be gunned down on a street corner in the US by masked assassins, as the Oakland editor was.

If that truly is their worst nightmare, they should not lose any sleep over it.

The Committee to Protect Journalists reports that 636 journalists have been killed worldwide in the last 15 years, including 109 in Iraq. From the group's website:

CPJ applies strict journalistic standards when investigating a death. We consider a case “confirmed” only if we are reasonably certain that a journalist was killed in direct reprisal for his or her work; in crossfire; or while carrying out a dangerous assignment.

Since 1992, four journalists have been killed in the US under such conditions.

One was a Haitian, killed for political leanings, one a Cuban-American exposing a NYC drug ring. Another was a 9-11 victim and the fourth a victim of terrorists who sent anthrax to his newspaper. (Details below.)

What's my point?

That a journalism instructor who is introducing college students to the profession does it a disservice by portraying it as a glamorous, dangerous business where reporters routinely risk their lives. It's far more likely that I will be bitten by a rabid right-wing blogger than it is that one of McBride's students will be shot for some crusading piece of journalism.

They may well get an abusive phone call now and then, an angry email or letter to the editor, but anything more, like even a punch in the nose, would be a rarity. (Read this morning's Journal Sentinel and ask yourself who's likely to be murdered for what they wrote. See what I mean?)

Her students' worst nightmares should be that they end up in a dead-end reporting or editing job where they're just punching the clock and waiting to retire in 30 years.

McBride's worst nightmare should be that someone will fact-check her work.

--

Details on the journalist deaths:

Manuel de Dios Unanue, El Diario/La Prensa, March 11, 1992, New York City

Cuban-American de Dios, the outspoken former editor of El Diario/La Prensa and the founder of weekly magazine Cambio XXI and monthly magazine Crimen (Crime), was shot in the head in a New York City restaurant. Police believe that more than a dozen drug traffickers and businessmen plotted to murder de Dios in retaliation for hard-hitting stories he had written about their drug and money laundering operations. Daily death threats were telephoned into the offices of El Diario/La Prensa after the journalist's murder.


Dona St. Plite, WKAT, Miami, October 24, 1993, Miami

St. Plite, a Haitian-born reporter and commentator for radio station WKAT in Miami, was murdered at a benefit for the family of Fritz Dor, a colleague killed two years earlier. His name had appeared on a hit list of supporters of ousted Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. He was the third Haitian-born journalist killed in Miami in three years.

William Biggart, free-lancer, September 11, New York City

Biggart, a free-lance news photographer, was killed in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. The journalist's body was found on September 15 in the rubble at Ground Zero, near the bodies of several firefighters. Biggart had rushed to the scene with his camera shortly after hearing about the attacks.

Robert Stevens, The Sun, October 5, 2001, Boca Raton

Stevens, 63, a photo editor at the tabloid newspaper The Sun, died of inhalation anthrax in Boca Raton, Florida. Authorities opened a criminal investigation into the killing but have not determined where the anthrax came from. However, officials did confirm that the type of anthrax that killed Stevens is the same strain that was mailed to NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw.

Dog shoots no one; McBride shoots self in foot repeatedly

Illusory Tenant says McBride sets the bar high in her post about a mis-reported "dog shoots owner" story:

... {I}f there is a lesson to be learned from the so-called teacher of journalism here, it's as a model of concision and brevity: it will be hard to top making so many errors and omissions in the space of a couple of paragraphs, even for McBride.

Sour Grapes Makes For A Bitter Whine

Apparently, McBride still isn't over the drubbing that J. B. Van Hollen gave her hubby, Paul Bucher, in last year's primary for Attorney General. She has, in the past, been generally critical of some of Van Hallen's decisions and writings. But now, she apparently has reached her threshold of tolerance for ole J.B., when he is praised in a column in the Wisconsin State Journal.

She even uses her old friend, Mark Belling, to bolster her argument.

All the two of them manage to do is show that they believe adhering to the law and the constitution are only for liberals, and that their brand of conservatism is above the law.

McBride wrong? Surely you jest

Ken Mobile says McBride gets it wrong when she beats up a Milwaukee alderman over his quote on housing sex offenders.

McBride gets it wrong? C'mon, Mobile! Who's gonna believe that?

Using the 's' word

Illusory Tenant has caught someone red-handed in "a textbook double standard" over use of a racially-charged term.

Guess who?