CASSC: Wrong Way to Go.

In all honesty, it doesn’t surprise me very much to see the California State Supreme Court ruling the way it did on homosexual marriage, the other day. While correct in terms of the legal precedent involved over the last several years, it strikes me that this ruling was the culmination of leftist activism on several levels.

No, hear me out, here.

It’s the kind of governmental activism that we’ve seen on the national level for generations now, where the Supreme Court is obligated by its desire to achieve a particular outcome to magically find rights guaranteed within a document written by people who had no such intention. The Constitution of the State of California is a document many times the size of its federal counterpart.  One might therefore fairly expect that it wouldn’t take the California State Supreme Court nearly as long to achieve a particular outcome with such a massive document at their disposal. The only right, as a matter of fact, that one will never find in such a document is the right to not have half your income taken by the state in taxes.

Do not misunderstand me; I do not suggest that the ruling of the other day of itself was activism.  It is simply the culmination of many decades of activism, which left the state supreme court in California no place else to go in terms of precedent.

When the state Constitution was written, and for that matter.  Its federal counterpart as well, homosexuality was considered an aberration.  The assumption about such matters has historically been that of the culture, which is to say, a marriage is a man and a woman. And again, I point up that the primary task of any government that wants to survive very long is the support of the culture that gave it life.  Thus any rights found in either text to the end of allowing and legitimizing homosexual behavior, is invented by the courts, not written into the respective constitutions.

So, this leaves us in a situation where here again, we have the state and federal governments attempting to alter the culture by means of law and government, instead of their primary task of upholding it.

You say what you will about it, but at this juncture I make no statements either way about whether or not this law is well-intentioned.  Further, I make no statements about homosexual behavior per se’. That, for another time.  I merely state it is a bad law, a bad ruling, and the wrong way to go.

For the purpose of backing my statements, here, allow a comparison.  There has been an awful lot over the last several years of people comparing the situation surrounding homosexual marriage, to the situation surrounding slavery, and minority rights, et cetera.  Fine, let’s do that.

Following the civil war, and right up to today, there was a great deal in the way of well-intentioned effort to bring the black man and woman and child up to the level of everyone else in the society, by means of governmental fiat.  Thing is laws, are easy to make.  Minds, however, are not so easy to change.  That, dear reader, is where the battle ground lies.

Bruce Hornsby once wrote,

Well they passed a law in 64
To give those who aint got a little more
But it only goes so far
Because the law can’t change anothers mind
When all it sees at the hiring time
Is the line on the color bar

What I am suggesting here, is that those well-intentioned efforts by government and those so totally dependent on law have bypassed the real responsibility, which is to change minds.  As a result, we have had the last 150 years of racial turmoil and separation. Had the concentration of effort been, rather, on changing minds on the subject, as opposed to forcing compliance by means of law, I suggest we would’ve avoided that 150 years worth of turmoil.  It might have taken us a little longer to get to that stage, but the results would have been far better, and complete, and their condition as a group would be far better.

Have Homosexuals just opened themselves up for a similar experience? I think they have. Instead of changing minds, they shortcut the process by involving government.  That’s not going to overcome the culture… and of the two, they will find, as other minorities have, that culture is by far the larger battle.

THE remains of a woman have been found sitting in front of her TV – 42 years after she was reported missing.

Hedviga Golik, who was born in 1924, had apparently made herself a cup of tea before sitting in her favourite armchair in front of her black and white television.

Croatian police said she was last seen by neighbours in 1966, when she would have been 42 years old.

…

The cup she had been drinking tea from was still on a table next to the chair she had been sitting in and the house was full of things no one had seen for decades. Nothing had been disturbed for decades, even though there were more than a few cobwebs in there.”

So reports the Daily Record.

I’m not sure I trust this one, but it’s a weird enough story to pass along, just the same. I don’t know if I dare to comment, past this.

Our position on Mike Huckabee is simple. He is an idiot.

Mike Huckabee another person too stupid to be allowed to be President.  

Huckabee, the Dope from Hope, has beem rumored to on the top of John Mccain’s short list for veep.   A thought which scares the heck out of us as  unthinkable:

Huckabee for VP? Please say it ain’t so.

Hopefully the idiot has shot off his own toe and disqualied himself:

(CNN) – During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

Michelle buys in: 

“Confirmed: Huckabee is an idiot”

SITYS.

?

• Yet another Honorable Mention at OTB’s Caption Contest
• It’s time to sign the petition to drill in ANWR.
• Baloney, James. Why would Hamas be heaping praise on Obama if not for Obama representing and promoting a policy favorable to their goals?
• The ruling yesterday on the homosexual marriage ban is decidedly not the end of the story, but the beginning. It strikes me that the timing on this is rather interesting, given the proximity to the ramp up to November’s election.
• Glenn asks some rather pointed questions.
• Exactly, Mike. On the money. I’d further it by saying his grandfather would do a better job of defending the country… and he’s been dead for how long?
• There’s one more body to add to the investigation surrounding Eliot Spiter’s misconduct. I may write more on this later, but it strikes me just now that there’s something very dirty at the heart of this… it’s the only thing that would explain this suicide.  Someone’s political machine was about to be exposed at the wrong time.
• Memo to John McCain; Craig Shirley did nothing wrong. Get your head out of your cheeks. You need all the help you can get, and turning it away isn’t helping. Oh, and John? This isn’t the help you need.
• So, Dennis Rodman is in trouble again? (Yawn) What ya s’pose the odds were on that one?
• Identity politics again?
• BinLaden has long since gone toes up, gang. The tape they’ve just released is a little out of date.
• I suppose this is Democrats reacting to reality.
• The Great Paul Harvey, observed not long ago in his comments to a listner’s letter:
  

  Paul Harvey, why don’t you newsmen report more good news instead of all of that tragedy and destruction and discord and disaster and dissent?

  Well, now wait a minute. My own network, ABC, once tried broadcasting a program of just good news. You know how long that lasted? Thirteen weeks. Not enough listeners wanted just good news.In Sacramento, Calif., a little tabloid called itself The Good newspaper, printed just good news, lasted 36 months before it went bankrupt. As far as I have been able to ascertain, there’s only one newspaper in the USA today printing just good news. It’s a little tabloid, comes out once a week in Indiana and they have to give it away, because that good news that you all keep saying you want just won’t buy. And that’s why you can listen to any broadcast, and records are crashing and it’s the worst wind and the worst flood or fire or earthquake or whatever, because noise news makes news, and sex and noise and sin make news, and one gunshot makes more noise than a thousand prayers. It doesn’t mean it’s more important, just that it sells more newspapers.

  It gets more votes, too. In fact, I would venture to suggest to you that this is the biggest draw the Democrats have, just now.  So what happens when John McCain eschews all the negativity?  Why, the predictable, of course.

• Hey, McGehee… That’s what safe mode is for.
• A rainy weekend. Not much shaking, though I’m getting the camper ready for whatever happens the following few weekends. We’ve discussed the idea of going out on the Memorial day weekend, but tha’s always such a hassle in terms of getting a decent camping site. All the ameteurs showing up on the holidays. We’ll see about the weekend AFTER that.
• The IRS is having a bit of problem with the load involved in the sending of those tax rebate checks. If you have questions, here’s a good place to start.

Plembo, Daily Kos:

The President’s quotation came from the last year of Borah’s life, a time when the 75 year William Edgar Borah old former Republican Presidential candidate had become increasingly erratic in his public statements on the crisis in Europe. In that context, I find myself feeling sympathy for the Senator, who may have let his desire for peace cloud his judgment. Or maybe it was the onset of the cerebral hemorrhage that would finally kill him. Either way, I can’t help think that he deserves just a little more respect than he’s been accorded by the current administration. But then, showing disrespect for, even distorting the memory of, the dead is something that that crowd seems to take particular pleasure

The Senator in question is William Edgar Borah (1865-1940), and the author of the quote:

“Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.”

While a republican, Borah seems to endear some fondness from the leftards.   After all Borah was for surrender, before surrender become popular.   Boroh fondness for peace wins leftard sympathy albeit with the suggestion that his judgement had become clouded.   I suggest that a current Senator’s desire for peace has also cloud his judgement even if Barack Hussien Obama some twenty-eight years younger than Boroh as at the time.   Some minds just get clouded before others, and there is little to suggest that BO is capable of clear and rational thinking.    After all, clear thinking is just not BO’s department, Scott, Powerline:

To the charge that Obama is a remarkably naive, inexperienced, and unknowlegeable candidate to fill the position of Commander-in-Chief, we can add a count that he is unserious as well.

BO needs to go back to the Senate, and close the considerable gap between his soaring rhetorical and his weak knowledge of history.

?

Jason Riley at the WSJ, notes that illegal Immigration has disappeared from the election cycle radar screen, and wonders why. He concludes after examining the situation in some detail:

If American culture is under assault today, it’s not from immigrants who aren’t assimilating but from liberal elites who reject the concept of assimilation. For multiculturalists, and particularly those in the academy, assimilation is a dirty word. A values-neutral belief system is embraced by some to avoid having to judge one culture as superior or inferior to another. Others reject the assimilationist paradigm outright on the grounds that the U.S. hasn’t always lived up to its ideals. America slaughtered Indians and enslaved blacks, goes the argument, and this wicked history means we have no right to impose a value system on others.

But social conservatives who want to seal the border in response to these left-wing elites are directing their wrath at the wrong people. The problem isn’t the immigrants. The problem is the militant multiculturalists who want to turn America into some loose federation of ethnic and racial groups. The political right should continue to push back against bilingual education advocates, anti-American Chicano Studies professors, Spanish-language ballots, ethnically gerrymandered voting districts, La Raza’s big-government agenda and all the rest. But these problems weren’t created by the women burping our babies and changing linen at our hotels, or by the men picking lettuce in Yuma and building homes in Iowa City.

Keep the immigrants. Deport the Columbia faculty.

And therein lies the heart of the matter. For all the wailing and gnashing of  teeth that invariably shows up with the subject about how we don’t like immigrants because we’re all just basic racists, the true center of the issue… the heart o the matter… is one of culture. Specifically, the survival of our American culture.

 I saw a sign yesterday that said it well;

 Ask the American Indian about what happens when you don’t have border control.

The issues there were not that the Indians were racists, when they started attacking us. They saw, (correctly, may I say) that their culture would eventually be over-run. The results of this can be seen today on any reservation.

I rather doubt however that their view was quite so sophisticated as to identify the issue as a cultural one. They simply reacted on a more or less instinctual level to what they saw on that level, as a threat.  Similarly, I suppose that most American don’t have a full handle on the import of their culture to their daily life, simply accepting it as a given. So, they never fiully identify the threat we now face as a cultural one, either.  This would seem to explain the dichotomy in the polling data that Riley mentions in his article;

For example, last year a CBS News poll asked, “Should illegal immigrants be prosecuted and deported or shouldn’t they?” And 69% of respondents favored deportation. When the same interviewers asked the same respondents what should happen to illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the U.S. for at least two years, and then offered a specific alternative to deportation, only 33% favored deportation; 62% said they should be given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status.

When a separate Gallup poll asked a similar question but offered four alternatives, just 13% favored deportation, and 78% said illegal immigrants should be allowed to keep their jobs and apply for citizenship.

It should be pointed out however, that not identifying this as a cultural issue dangerous for two reasons.

One, because the charge of racism tends to get bandied about in an effort to shut down all opposition to, and even discussion of wide open borders and

Two,  because as I’ve written so often, much of our concept of rights  is culturally driven.  When the culture is endangered, so too are the culturally unique recognition of rights within that culture.

Multi-culturalism is, as Riley suggests, the true danger, here. That can be confirmed  by examination of the purposes of our borders.  Our nation had other races from it’s inception… yes, including blacks, so don’t start with me on that.  But looking at the list of immigrants and their lands of origin, their racial background, and so on makes the point that the issue of illegal ‘immigration’ is not racism, but of culture. During the heyday of Ellis Island and beyond, people came to American soil to be part of the American Culture.  The problem most Americans see on an instinctive level, even if heir identification of the problem is less than a conscious one, is that we’ve lost sight of the value of steeping those coming to our country, in our culture, to the end of that culture’s preservation.

And that, in the end is what this fight is all about.

We know what Mr. Bush said… I posted the quote here yesterday:

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Bush said at Israel‘s 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

“We have heard this foolish delusion before,” Bush said in remarks to Israel‘s parliament, the Knesset. “As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Now, Obama comes back and says, as quoted by David here this morning:

George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists,

Well, let’s see what Mr. Obama is so upset about. Let’s take a little trip back in time. November 2, 2007, to be exact which is when this report was posted… days after it was filed at the Times. Let’s also make the assumption that the New York Times actually reported this incident accurately:

CHICAGO, Oct. 31 — Senator Barack Obamasays he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops.

Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns.

But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

Note, please, the phrase “Without preconditions”. That’s called ‘appeasement’.  That’s called giving a group of terrorists a weapon called legitimacy.   Talking with them at all, other than giving the criminals an ultimatum, is ” engagement with terrorists” .

David correctly notes in his post that neither Obama nor any other Democrat is issuing anything substantive to the charge that Obama isn’t talking about ” engagement with terrorists” . That’s beacuse in light of the fact that Obama has been making it a centerpiece of his foreign policy on the campaign trail, which was dutifully ballyhooed by the press, (And much admired by the Koom-By-Ya leftist moonbats) …he cannot now separate himself from his proposals, without being exposed as the liar he is.

Obama knows this. So does everyone else. The exposure of this is devistating to the Democrats. All of them, not just Obama. Which explains the frenzied frothing at the mouth response of the Democrats, inclduing the of-late-unusual specticle of Hillry Clinton rising to Obama’s defense. … Ya see, they were making similar noises to Obama’s.  Obama’s proposal to deal with the terrorists in Iran, nor his denials serve to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.

This is a trap of Obama’s own making, pushed along by Bush Derangement syndrome. THe Democrats decided to make an issue of the war… make it the very heart of their run. Trouble is, they know what Bush has been doing in the region is the right thing to do. They’re now paying the price of coming down on the wrong side of the issue.

And where is John McCain, to point all of this out, and hold Barack Obama accountable for his lie?

Wasn’t the USS Cole under Bush? I mean, I don’t know what I’m talking about here.

Chrissy Matthews, courtesy Newbusters.

For once, Matthews is right.  He does not know what his he talking about.

.

As attributed to the BO campaign by the New York Times:

It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power – including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy – to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.

This ts the entire statement as published by the Times.  If BO said any more, the Times did not see fit to publish it.

The BO campaign accuses the President of making a false political attack.   Yet the BO campaign makes no allegations which refute anything the the President said.   That is, if the President’s remarks were indeed false, there must be one, or more, false elements contained in them.   Yet the BO campaign fails to identify any false statement.   So all we have left is fuzzy BO math, while the President made no specific statement which the BO campaign refutes, the campaign still asserts, albeit without evidence, that somehow the President’s statement was false.   Sure BO.

In the mean time, BO is still accepting the political support of the terrorist Bill Ayers.

 ?

The experiment with those added functions from last weekend has changed.
Link Summary, BitsBlog Tags, and Related posts will still be shown on individual postings, but not on the index page. This will save us some bandwidth, and help with the index load speed. Index page will continue to carry Technorati linnks, however.

The debut column of the newest Townhall columist:

Second, change – whether it “real change,” “bold change” or the “change we can believe in” variety others are selling – isn’t itself an innovative policy or a particularly strong leadership stance. In fact, from Burke to Buckley, there has been an acknowledgment that change in the political arena is inevitable and necessary, and we in the U.S. tend to experience it in regular, 2, 4 and 6 year intervals, so 2008 is hardly our first rodeo. The challenge for conservatives is calibrating whether the change being proposed is consistent with our principles and our philosophy, and whether that change is appropriate

Now Bit may disagree, but I still think Mary Katherine is cuter.

Update: (Bit)

Well, I don’t disagree, but given Donna reads this site daily, I suppose I’ll withhold comment.

I do find this resurgence of Fred Thompson timely, though, and to my mind, it answers some queestions about why he was less than running full bore toward the nomination, and why he dropped out when he did. Can Fred be eyeing the VP slot?

The idea has much going for it, from a political perspective; He and Mccain are freinds, it’s said. Fred is widey seen… correctly I think… as being to the right of McCain, and would thus bring in some voters who might not vote for McCain otherwise.

From a practical perspective, however, can Fred counterbalance some of the patent nonsense coming from McCain’s mouth these days? I wonder.

• Look, the Daily Kos is the website of Modern Democrat thought. They represent what passes for thinking in the Democrat party. They are not ‘far left‘ They are Mainstream Democrat. Are we clear on this?
• Why do I get the feeling that the usual hollywood corwd is going to be disappointed, no matter what happens with Obama?
• Look, Billy, you of anyone I know should understand that the law… any law… is by it’s very nature arbitrary, and thereby for any law to address the problem of drunk driving some arbitrary standard will be set.  That’s the nature of the government beast. 
• So, Olberman is now complaining, labeling Bush’s statements on how he doesn’t pay golf now because of the war is ‘ludicrous’? Hey, Baldy; What would you be complaining about if he WAS out on the course? We all know you’d be right on the front lines complaining about how such was a symbol of how he didn’t care about the troops, as if YOU do. So, we now see you’re going to bash the guy no matter what he does, hmmm? Yeah.  Now go get that hairpeice fixed, you drooling idiot. Looks like a piece of lettuce.
• Polar bears are ‘threatened’? Well,  sanity has been threatened for a long while, and this is just one more example of that.  This is decidedly not about the polar bear, this is about Al Gore’s relentless pursuit of power, under the guise of protecting us from ‘global warming’. Factoid: There are around 20,000 more polar bears on earth today in the wild, than there were 30 years ago. Explain this to me; how is this a threat?
• Anyone remember the huckabee commercial where Oama and the left had kittens about there being a super-imposed cross… that turned out to be a bookshelf? Double standard, thy name be Obama.
• It’s amazing on two counts that Sean Penn is complaining about Obama’s record, since in reality he doesn’t have one.  The oother count is that Penn is complaining about a Democat at all. And for the bonus, it’s amazing that anyone is taking him seriously. Well, perhaps not; Penn’s complaint is Obama isn’t liberal enough. The press will always bow to someone getting on their perch about that.
• I suppose the one thing we can take from Edwards, that profile of courage, and his endorsement of Obama, yesterday, is that we’ll see a betting pool started over who will get the nod from Al Gore. John McCain is clearly thinking about that endorsement, if we can take this story as indication. Memo to McCain; That’s not Republican, that’s “Democrat lite”, and it ain’t selling.
• I see Bob Barr failed to get an outright endorsement from outright libertarians.  Well, I know that’s a big loss. (Snort)

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Bush said at Israel’s 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

“We have heard this foolish delusion before,” Bush said in remarks to Israel’s parliament, the Knesset. “As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

So says the Political Ticker at CNN

Hasn’t that been their entire schtick with Iraq and Iran since day one?

Look, gang, far as I can tell McCain, if he’s smart… a point I’ve long since begun to doubt… will encourage this fight. The knockout blow will be when Obama gets asked to explain how he’s going to separate Mahmoud AhMyDinnerJacket from the terrorist groups in Lebenon, in the Gaza and in Syria, that his government has been supporting all along. Obama cannot squirm out of that one.

I say, bring it on.

Addendum:  ( David L )

For the record, I question the intelligence of any fool who believes in anthropogenic global warming, as John McCain does.   However compared to BO, McCain is a bleeding Rhoads scholar.   It the BO campaign has the sense Sunny Lucas had, it would either had no comment, or implied that President Bush comments refereed to Jimmy Carter.

Confederate Yankee:

The White House went on to state that they were not talking about Obama, but as the saying goes, “it’s the bit dog that barks loudest.” Barack Obama recognized his own weakness in Bush’s speech, even though Bush never mentioned him.

BO, via Don Surber:

George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists

That is unless the terrorist is BO’s neighbor and political supporter Bill Ayers.

Speaking of fools, the Senior Senator from Delaware stuck his foot in his mouth again.  In the course of a single day Biden declared that Bush’s assertion was bullshit.   Thus meaning that there were no some to whom the assertion could refer.   Biden then added the statement fits Robert Gates and Condoleezza Rice.   Ergo, there is indeed a some to whom statement does fit and hence is can not be bullshit.  Hat tip:  Daniel W. Reilly.

By way of Henke, I note:

…it’s Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar who says speculation is behind high oil prices, and actually introduces legislation to “curb” speculation.

Our next step should be to stop the speculation that is driving up prices in world energy markets. Oil company executives have testified recently that oil should be trading for about $55 per barrel, but that a frenzy of speculative investment has driven up its price artificially. That’s one reason why I cosponsored the Consumer-First Energy Act.This, says Paul Krugman, is the Republicans fault.

Paul Krugman blames the Republicans for his looks, OK?

That point aside, the point that Klobuchar makes is exactly the one I’ve been making here for months now.

The bubble has to break, and it will soon.

Meanwhile, isn’t George Soros speculating in the oil markets?

Addenudum: (David L)

Citing a politician, especially a United States Senator, on an econmic issue, is like bring a butter knife to a gun fight.  As Doctor Sowell demonstrated, politicians, at least our current crop, don’t know squat about economics.  Klobuchar is standing proud among the ranks of the clueless.  To lower price we need to increase supply.  The way to increase the supply of oil is drill for it.  for now and the foreseeble future, there is no practical alternative to fossil fuels, even in Minnesota.  This ain’t rocket science, but is several ranks above Klobuchar’s meager understanding of economics.

Addenudum II: (Bit)

Well, no argument there, David. I did not mean to imply that her solution had merit, merely that her identification of the PROBLEM.. that oil was artificially high, even absent added drilling, was correct.

The misery index is now at 8.

Democrats want to portray this as the worst economy since Herbert Hoover was president.

Unfortunately, the economy is not cooperating.

Unemployment dropped to 5.0% last month.

And inflation is at 3%.

Under the Misery Index, that’s pretty much the sign of a good economy.

So says Don Surber. And he’s right. Hume piles on, last night:

It appears that CNN has decided the U.S. is in a recession even though the economic data do not support that claim.

On its Web site, CNN posted the exit poll results from Tuesday’s West Virginia primary which asked voters if and how the “recession” has affected their family. All the major television networks use the same exit poll questionnaire.

And, while that generic survey asked voters, “Has the current recession or economic slowdown affected you and your family?”

Other networks, including this one, used the term “economic slowdown” when reporting the results. A recession is defined as at least two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. The last quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008 were marked by slow, but positive economic growth.

A lie told often enough and loud enough…. is still a lie. The news media is lying to us. Have you consdiered why they’d want to lie about the economy? Maybe they’re cheering for the Democrats who also want you to think things are worse than they are?