Liberal lies and the liars who peddle them

This is a post that could go on for days. But I'm going to limit myself to one example at a time. Today while searching through information on the Justice Sotomayor nomination and related background material on vetting, I came across an interesting article. Below is a great comparison of promise versus reality. It's a great example of how the press lies when it is convenient for them to do so.

The Promise

The article in the Toronto Star from November 20th 2008. Take a look for yourself if you want to be dumbfounded by the audacity of the lies or, giving them the benefit of the doubt, suspended disbelief in favor of an ephemeral hope.

Obama cabinet vetting process the most rigid on record

Nominees quizzed on finances, foreign travel, mental health history and brushes with law

Ever taken a puff of marijuana? Overlooked a work permit for your household help? Grazed with a lobbyist at Washington's top tables? Slung a "friendly" arm around an intern? Or been a titch too relaxed with your taxes?

If the answer is no, you can pass go and hand in your application for a job with Barack Obama's new administration.

But don't be too confident. Obama's vetting process, the most stringent on record, is very, very detailed. By the end of a 63-item questionnaire, and an interview worthy of a Catholic confessional, you might be out of the running.

The Reality

Even the liberal Huffington Post had to do some reflection on this issue. February 9th;

"The name got floated early. Everybody wanted Daschle and so they went ahead... and then they started doing the review and they found it," said a source with knowledge of the proceedings. "They told the [Senate] Finance Committee that they liked him and warned them about the issue. [The Finance Committee] went through it and realized it was a big problem... You have got to do more due diligence before you ever get the name out in the public."

The problems that ultimately felled Daschle's nomination were undoubtedly the exception rather than the norm. During the first weeks and months in office, the Obama administration will make thousands of appointments, only a handful of which will cause problems. In addition, the president has set ethical standards for his staff that surpass anything previously implemented in an executive branch.

But the process has also produced some high-profile stumbles, from Commerce Secretary nominee Bill Richardson, to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Daschle, and Chief Performance Officer designee Nancy Killefer. Critics and even former staffers now say those setbacks were unnecessary, the result of a poorly run process that has ended up distracting the administration from pushing its agenda.

"I think that the personnel operation, in the transition especially, was sloppy, and that they were not focused on the ball," a former Obama transition official told the Huffington Post. "When it came to the politically connected people, I didn't get the sense that they were doing any sort of real vetting. I think once they filled out the forms, if they were known quantities, if they were friends of Obama or had the political juice, I think their forms were filed away and not looked at again."

Unfortunately the press copping to the crime of abusing the public's trust, after the fact, is completely valueless. Much like much of the mainstream media frequently is. The fact is the press lies, distorts and misrepresents things (intentionally and unintentionally) on a regular basis. As individuals we haven't got the time or means to scrutinize our media product. If televisions were as faulty, we'd be buying cardboard facades half the time.

Spare no sympathy for the media giants as they falter. If they delivered a good quality product, the free market would be working for them and not against them. They don't even deserve crocodile tears. They deserve only the scrutiny that many of them promised the Obama was going to use to vet it's administration. Instead they seem to get the scrutiny that Obama put into his nomination process.

That's called a gap.