There is another purpose to this post which I will address in short order. First though, while Drudge and other outlets are showing recorded viewership of Governor Palin’s speech last evening to be in the ball park of 37.2 million, the AP has produced a report which shows these numbers to be even higher.

More than 40 million people tuned in to the Republican convention Wednesday to hear vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin introduce herself to voters.

That audience rivaled the one for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama last week. Nielsen Media Research estimated 37.2 million people watched Palin on either ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel or MSNBC. PBS estimated it had four million viewers for the speech.

Last week Obama had 38.4 million viewers on the commercial networks, topping 40 million with PBS and C-SPAN added in.

It’s wonderful to see such interest in this election coming from all corners of the country. Governor Palin’s numbers should adjust again when C-Span is included. Both of these totals show people are now beginning to sit up and take notice of the candidates and their platforms.

Now to the reason for this post.

I spent a good bit of the afternoon attempting to contact the Fox News Network. It was my desire to express my disappointment with their choice to air this evening a “taped” interview Bill O’Reilly concluded today with Barack Obama.

John McCain was careful to not step on the Democratic Convention in Denver. He showed ultimate class in a taped congratulatory message to their presidential nominee at the conclusion of their festivities and Senator Obama’s acceptance speech. Did he announce his Vice Presidential decision the following day..yes, but he never intruded on the convention. Both parties, their officials, candidates, delegates and grassroot workers earn their few days of pomp and circumstance.

In return is the same courtesy being shown the Republican nominee for President? No. Barack Obama signs on to an “exclusive” interview with O’Reilly and it is being viewed as I write this post.

No, I am not watching. I am appalled by the decision on the part of Fox to air this piece this evening. Will the discussion following Senator McCain’s speech be of its substance or will it be of another change of heart exhibited by Barack Oabama?

My hope is that most will ignore this blatant attempt to alter the subject which should be at hand but alas, this is the press we are talking about. To open this door is a disgrace on the part of Fox and speaks volumes to me as to the character of Senator Obama.

Obama may well congratulate Senator McCain tomorrow but it will be hollow praise. O’Reilly may have gained a few rating points this evening but at what price? He claims to be “fair and balanced.” This one interview aired on this particular evening debunks that theme.

I have quoted and linked to many Fox News stories and embedded more than one of their videos on the site. Today I informed them I would no longer do either. Their response, “We are sorry to hear that but programming is designed in advance.”

Funny, this interview was originally scheduled to appear next week, not on the final night of the Republican convention. Advance, my eye. Ratings and controversy are the name of the game.

Senator Obama is not blameless either as he could have stepped up and refused to have this Q & A session shown this evening.

A basic sense of decency is something we lack in the media and this decision by both Fox and the Obama campaign speaks volumes.

The DNC wants the FEC to investigate a loan John McCain took out from a bank because they say it violates money in politics laws.

Here’s part of the deal. The FEC is supposed to have six commissioners, with four being a quorum. One of the commissioners was recessed appointed and his appointment expired in January.

The panel is set up to have one Republican and one Democrat rotate off and on at the same time.

Now here’s the kicker: I read earlier in the Wall Street Journal that none other than Senator Barack Obama put a hold on the nomination of said candidate and therefore Harry Reid’s man can’t go on the committee, leaving it without a quorum.

Barack Obama is promising to end partisanship in Washington, and here’s a place to start: He could stop playing politics with the Federal Election Commission in a way that could hamper John McCain’s campaign against, well, Mr. Obama.

The Illinois Senator is blocking confirmation of one of President Bush’s appointees to the FEC, which administers election laws. This has left the agency two commissioners short of the quorum it needs to make decisions — with the potential for direct harm to Mr. McCain’s campaign. As we’ve been writing, the Arizona Senator took out a controversial $1 million loan that FEC Chairman David Mason has said might lock him into the public finance system for the primary season. Mr. McCain doesn’t want to do that because he’d have to abide by spending limits that would reduce his campaigning this spring and summer. Mr. Mason says the FEC needs to rule on the matter, but without a quorum Mr. McCain is left hanging.

The FEC must also vote to certify that Mr. McCain can receive an estimated $85 million in public funds for the November election. The Republican has already pledged to accept those funds, and the spending limits that go with them, and he is counting on the money to make him competitive against a Democratic nominee. However, no FEC quorum, no public McCain funds in the fall — and a potentially big advantage for Mr. Obama, who is raising far more in private donations.

The FEC dispute centers on Hans von Spakovsky, a Bush appointee whose two-year recess term ended in December and who has been renominated. Before coming to the FEC, Mr. von Spakovsky was a lawyer in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, where he supported voter-ID laws that Democrats claim will harm black voters but have been vindicated in court. Mr. von Spakovsky’s nomination was approved by the Rules Committee in September, but then Mr. Obama intervened with a “hold.” Other Democrats have since joined him.

Mr. von Spakovsky was supposed to be voted on in a package of four FEC nominees. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid instead demanded that all four get individual votes, hoping to tank only Mr. von Spakovsky. The six FEC commissioners have staggered terms, and one Republican and one Democrat are supposed to end their terms simultaneously so there is no partisan advantage. Mr. von Spakovsky is paired with Steven Walther, a Nevada lawyer with close ties to Mr. Reid. The Majority Leader can hardly expect to get his hand-picked choice, while throwing Mr. Bush’s overboard.

Just what is it the Democrats have against voter ID laws? How hard is it to get a government ID? If one is too poor then the law should provide they get it free.

But then they couldn’t count the votes of the dead and the illegals, could they?

Hypocritical? Nah!

Back in 2000 in the SC primary some dirty tricks were played on John McCain, saying his adopted daughter was his illigetimate child. He vowed never to let anyone get away with something like this without fighting it again.

This Politico story shows what McCain is doing to fight back and fight back hard on the accusations in NY Times hit piece.

Quoting Politico:

The New York Times posted its long-awaited story tonight on John McCain’s alleged relationship with a telecom lobbyist. Both McCain and the woman in question denied having a romantic relationship….

…In the piece, McCain is quoted as telling Times editor Bill Keller that he never did anything unethical. Top McCain advisers, including his former Senate chief of staff Mark Salter also say on the record that there was nothing inappropriate done legislatively.

McCain’s campaign tonight issued a tough statement blasting the Times for their decision to publish the piece, using similar language from a preemptive strike they released after word first leaked on Drudge.

“It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign,” said communications director Jill Hazelbaker, in a prepared statement sent about an hour after the Times posted their story online. “John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”…

…The four Times reporters primarily involved with the McCain story, along with top editors, were in lock-down Wednesday night..

Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet, when contacted by Politico, wrote in an e-mail: “I am going to pass for now. The story speaks for itself.”

Reporter David Kirkpatrick echoed a similar line when reached by phone: “I think the story speaks for itself. This one I can’t help you with.”

Executive editor Bill Keller and political editor Dick Stevenson did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment.

Reporters Jim Rutenberg, Stephen Labaton, and Marilyn Thompson - who’s leaving the paper - also did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

We remember so many NY Times reporters making up stories from whole cloth, being believed, and then being fired after other people did the investigative work the Times should have done.

McCain has hired Washington lawyer Bob Bennett, a Democrat, to fight these sorts of accusations aggressively.

Let’s hear what he has to say:

Hat tip to Mac of Macsmind for the video.

I chose to update and bump ~J’s~ original post rather than beginning one anew as those who have not had the opportunity to follow this story from its inception should have the opportunity to do so. Sue

*UPDATE 1:John McCain speaks on the issue of Ms. Iseman:

Lots more information available at the home page of the link above including a question about Mike Huckabee’s knowledge (or not) that this story was being floated for publication.

*UPDATE 2: If this from Byron York was any or all of the basis for assuming an affair on the part of Senator McCain and Ms. Iseman then the NYT should be considered no more than a gossip rag.

I just got off the phone with John Weaver, the former top McCain campaign official who is now an informal adviser to the campaign. I asked him about his 1999 meeting on the campaign’s behalf with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. He said he “had no reason to think” that McCain might have been having an affair with Iseman, but he was concerned about word he had heard suggesting that Iseman was telling associates she had connections with McCain. “This was a woman who was saying that she had special influence with John’s committee staff and with him,” Weaver told me. “I didn’t believe that was the case.”

“When you hear back from several people that this person is saying they can get anything done, then that is alarming,” Weaver continued. So Weaver met with Iseman, at a Union Station restaurant, and told her to back off. He told me he didn’t exactly say, “Get lost,” but that that was the gist of it. “The discussion lasted all of five or six minutes in which I told her to cut that stuff out,” Weaver told me. “I said, ‘You need to stop this.’” Iseman’s response, according to Weaver: “She was not happy.”

Read the balance, it is most illuminating on the tactics at the NYT.

And this from the good Captain:

Let’s talk about the other supposed intervention — the one claimed by the two staffers who won’t go on the record. John Weaver and Mark Salter have been McCain’s two top men for ages, and were during this period of time. The Times needs to explain how two lower-level staffers could have gotten access to John McCain during a presidential primary race to stage an intervention over his personal life and his ethics without either Weaver or Salter of them being involved — and both of them categorically deny it ever happened. Wouldn’t it have been Weaver and/or Salter that would have had the access to do that kind of intervention, and not two mid- or low-level staffers?

The Times either needs to produce the staffers or retract the story. It’s appalling.

How could one disagree? If there is truth to this story then let the accusers come out of the shadows. Patrick Hynes offered one of the reporters with whom he has had past dealings an opportunity to clarify the story on his radio show:

At 6:51 AM this morning, I e-mailed Jim Rutenberg– whom I know and have interacted with in the past–to invite him onto my radio program “Meet the New Press” on Saturday morning to discuss the sourcing of his New York Times hit piece on my client John McCain.

At 7:24 AM Rutenberg declined my invitation in an e-mail and indicated—without my even asking—that no one else at the Times was likely to come on, either.

It seems very odd to me that after having “broken” (broken, indeed) a big story about a major national figure, a story that is capable of impacting the 2008 presidential election, no one at the Times has any interest in discussing the story any further, especially considering so many have expressed such deep skepticism about its sourcing and the value of its content.

What a disgrace.

We all remember when Cynthia McKinney lost her congressional seat to another black woman. McKinney’s father came right out and said it was because of the J-E-W-S, Jooooos.

Now we have a congressional campaign in Tennessee where a Jewish man is the incumbent and the person running against him is an African American.

Take a look at an ad that was put out by a “preacher” not even in the district:

Now, most Jews don’t believe Jesus is the Messiah, but that doesn’t equate to hating Jesus.

Circulated by an African-American minister from Murfreesboro Tenn., which isn’t even in Cohen’s district, the literature encourages other black leaders in Memphis to “see to it that one and ONLY one black Christian faces this opponent of Christ and Christianity in the 2008 election.”

The flier was sent out by an African-American minister to try to defeat Rep. Cohen. Cohen’s main opponent in the August 5 Democratic primary in his predominantly African-American district is Nikki Tinker, who is black. The Commercial Appeal wrote an editorial in Wednesday’s paper condemning Tinker for not speaking out against the anti-Semitic literature.

“What does Nikki Tinker think about anti-Semitic literature being circulated that might help her unseat 9th District Congressman Steve Cohen in the Democratic primary next August?” the editorial asked. “The question goes to the character of the woman who wants to represent the 9th District, and 9th District voters deserve an answer. But Tinker declined to return a phone call about the flier.”

Indeed it goes to the challenger’s character.

In Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech he said he dreamed of an American where people would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

He must be spinning in his grave today.

I just wonder why so many Jews are Democrats when it is the Republican party that has always been their friend and the friend of Israel.

Mr. Cohen, join the Republican party and we will welcome you.

Maine Senator Susan Collins is in for a tough re-election fight this year, made more difficult by thousands of dollars being spent on behalf of her opponent by MoveOn.org.

She tried to post an ad on Google, but was told the content was unacceptable as it violated Google’s trademark policy.

Internet giant Google has banned advertisements critical of MoveOn.org, the far-left advocacy group that caused a national uproar last month when it received preferential treatment from The New York Times for its “General Betray Us” message.

The ads banned by Google were placed by a firm working for Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ re-election campaign. Collins is seeking her third term.

Earlier this week, Google told Lance Dutson, president of Maine Coast Designs, that the ads he placed for Collins had been removed and would not be allowed to resume because they violated Google’s trademark policy.

Google’s Web site states, “Google takes allegations of trademark infringement very seriously and, as a courtesy, we’re happy to investigate matters raised by trademark owners.” That suggests Google acted in response to a complaint by MoveOn.org.

The banned advertisements said, “Susan Collins is MoveOn’s primary target. Learn how you can help” and “Help Susan Collins stand up to the MoveOn.org money machine.” The ads linked to Collins’ campaign Web site with a headline reading “MoveOn.org has made Susan Collins their #1 target.” The Collins Web site claims that MoveOn has contributed $250,000 to her likely Democratic opponent and has run nine ads against her costing nearly $1 million. The Web site also displays MoveOn.org’s controversial “General Betray Us” ad….

…Dutson said the Collins campaign’s anti-MoveOn ads were intended to raise awareness nationally of how MoveOn and left-wing blogs like Daily Kos and FireDogLake have made the moderate Maine Republican their top 2008 Senate target. The same coalition supported Ned Lamont in the 2006 Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut against Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Lieberman then went on to win re-election as an independent after defeating Lamont in the general election.

Ronald Coleman, a lawyer and leading expert on online intellectual property disputes, noted that, as a private company, Google has the right to treat different advertisers differently.

But he called Google’s removal of the Collins ads “troubling.” Coleman says that there is no such requirement under trademark law and that Google appears to be selectively enforcing its policy.

“In a recent ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the notion that there is anything like a cause of action under the Lanham Act, the statue governing trademark law in the United States, for so-called ‘trademark disparagement,’ ” Coleman said. The courts have also rejected the notion that the use of a trademark as a search term is a “legally cognizable use” as a trademark use under federal trademark law, he added. Coleman is also general counsel for the Media Bloggers Association.

Google routinely permits the unauthorized use of company names such as Exxon, Wal-Mart, Cargill and Microsoft in advocacy ads. An anti-war ad currently running on Google asks “Keep Blackwater in Iraq?” and links to an article titled “Bastards at Blackwater — Should Blackwater Security be held accountable for the deaths of its employees?”

So, what’s the deal? The deal is Google is in the hip pocket of the Democratic party and will not be fair to anyone who isn’t.

Yesterday when reading of Representative Waxman’s latest endeavor to silence conservative talk radio and anyone else who might get in the path of the democrats, I was both angered and saddened.

Are these not the same democrats who support the likes of Michael Moore, Al Franken, many in Hollywood, Code Pink, Media Matters, George Soros and countless others claiming that they are entitled to Freedom of speech? Is this not the same Congressman who has wasted both taxpayer time and money on senseless hearing which have proven absolutely nothing?

It is time for conservatives to band together now and fight this latest attempt by Mr. Waxman to abolish the same rights for those on the Right.

Via The American Spectator:

Bad grammar and ill-informed opinions aside, the DNC hopes to raise millions of dollars of Limbaugh. “If we can’t silence him, we should at least make some money to make his life more miserable in a Democratic-controlled Washington in 2008,” says a Senate Democrat leadership aide.

Others on the Democrat side are pushing ahead with other plans. Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”

“Limbaugh isn’t the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio,” says a House leadership source. “We don’t have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we’ll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail.”

[Emphasis: Mine]

For a party which seems so confident that they have the 2008 elections in the bag to resort to investigating the opposition at this level is rather drastic. Let’s make them pay because they don’t think or believe like us. Let’s not debate them on the issues, but demand they cowtow to our manner of governing or we will destroy them. Is that the message Americans should be supporting or for that matter encouraging?

I waited through yesterday to post on this topic hoping that one of the Republican candidates for President would take this head on and I might have something to post further. I must say, I was pleased to read this at Fred Thompson’s website:

The real issue here is not what you “can” see or hear — which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It’s what you’re “choosing” to see or hear.

Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio station “Air America” that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can’t compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts — because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can’t attract a market or advertisers.

The funny thing is that the success of the current crop of radio talk show hosts is due, in part, to a lot of people’s perception that broadcast television doesn’t give the views of their audience a fair shake. Maybe I shouldn’t admit it, since I dabble in radio myself, but this media used to be viewed as a kind of broadcast ghetto. The bicoastal elite had such a grip on the major newspapers and television networks; they pretty much ignored the hinterlands. It was media flyover country.

Now congressional leaders say they want to “level the playing field” there too – meaning they want to diminish the importance of conservative talk radio. In other words, they don’t trust the results of freedom and the marketplace. Why am I not surprised?

This is not an issue which only affects Conservative talk show hosts. It should be a major concern to all citizens. We are not a one party country. The media should not be a cheerleader for one side of the aisle. Whether we “like” Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Mike Gallagher or Michael Medved or countless others should be of no consequence.

The fact that one political party would attempt to silence the views of another for political gain is not what the United States stands for but it is what we could become should Representative Waxman succeed.

Louisiana, the state known for political corruption, has come up with something I thought would be below even them.

I have heard of many dirty tactics and tricks used by Congress on both sides of the aisle but to remove the record of a legitimate vote goes well beyond the pale.

Via Captains Quarters:

The bitter partisanship in Congress will apparently get a lot worse after some shenanigans by Democratic leadership in the House last night. According to the Politico, the Democrats have not only attempted a revote after an embarrassing loss on an agriculture bill, but they’ve changed the records to expunge any mention of the vote they lost:

Follow the links at Ed Morrisey’s to read and hear more.

This is an absolute disgrace and those in the House who engaged in this behavior should be ashamed of themselves.

Again, the Captain:

The rules exist for a reason — to make sure that the House functions regardless of the rancor between its members. Once a vote has been gaveled closed, it becomes part of the record and should become official. Votes should not be changed after that point, nor should the entire record of the vote get expunged.

Also blogging this issue with links to articles and c-span video is Sister Toldjah.

The other day I wrote about some groups such as Moveon.org and Daily Kos organizing a boycott of Fox News Advertisers.

Today, I get the news that it goes deeper than at first thought.

Here’s a little bit of the story to show you some of the organizations in charge of this boycott:

Yesterday, I wrote about MoveOn.org, the Daily Kos and the Campaign for America’s Future joining forces to silence the conservative voices on FNC. I’ve now uncovered more information who’s all involved in this unholy alliance. First, I went to CAF’s About Us page. Here’s what it said:

Over 100 Prominent Americans, citizen activists and policy experts concerned about our country and our planet, joined together to launch and build the Campaign for America’s Future. We are challenging the big money corporate agenda by encouraging Americans to speak up, to discuss and debate a new vision of an economy and a future that works for all of us.

America’s Future insists that the question of falling wages and rising insecurity be placed at the center of our national debate. We challenge those who suggest that nothing can be done and expose the conservative agenda that has made things worse. America’s Future works to revitalize a progressive agenda, and fights to make this economy work for working people once again. We engage citizens, activists and political leaders in a renewed debate about the kind of country, and the kind of world, we want to build for the generations yet to come.

When I read the line about CAF being a group of citizen activists and policy experts, red flags galore went off so I went to their advisors page. Here’s some of the people that serve as advisors to CAF:

Ann Beaudry, PFAW; Mary Frances Berry, US Commission on Civil Rights; Julian Bond, NAACP Board Chair; Hodding Carter; Betty Friedan; Tom Hayden, ex-husband of Jane Fonda, fmr. Gore Campaign manager; Denis Hayes, Earth Day founder; Jim Hightower, Hightower Radio; Patricia Ireland, fmr. Pres. NOW; Jesse L. Jackson, Rainbow Coalition; Gerald W. McEntee, AFSCME; Howard Metzenbaum, US Senator (retired); Robert Reich, Brandeis University, Former Secretary of Labor; Mark Ritchie, Inst for Agriculture and Trade Policy; John J. Sweeney, AFL-CIO; Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO.

Does that sound like a list of “citizen activists”? In my opinion, it sounds more like a group of paid lobbyists and Democratic strategists. That’s why I did more digging. In CAF’s FAQ page, someone asked if they could contribute to their organization. The unsurprising response was “Yes!” They then linked to a secure website to contribute online. After that, they listed this address for people wanting to simply send a check via snail mail:

Campaign for America’s Future
1825 K Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006

Please make your check out to “Campaign for America’s Future.”

I didn’t think that citizen activists maintained offices on K Street in Washington, DC. That’s because K Street is known for housing major lobbying firms. That’s why I’ve nicknamed K Street the Lobbyists’ Lair. I’ll stand by that nickname.

Read the rest of the story on Let Freedom Ring Blog. It will open your eyes to the concerted effort to shut down conservative free speech on our nation’s television airwaves.