Liberal media and their unqualified “experts” on the Lugar/White cases
Posted by AWB in PoliticsGary Welsh of Advance Indiana has an informative and revealing post today regarding how an AP reporter Charles Wilson uses political hack Bill Kubick’s unqualified opinion as a basis for his story. Kubick is an associate poly-sci professor at Hanover College.
The situations of Lugar and Bayh are totally distinct, but you wouldn’t know that reading Wilson’s elementary-level discussion of the issues.
[...]
Notice that Wilson, like other reporters, relies on the opinions of political science professors who are neither lawyers nor apparently persons knowledgeable of the U.S. Constitution, which alone sets the eligibility requirements for serving in the Senate.
Then again, with prestigious publicans like the Franklin College journalism student’s publication, The Statehouse Files constantly quoting Kubick, he must be qualified.
It’s worth the read. Click here to view the story.
If you find this article informative? Consider donating any amount you choose.
No related posts.
Entries (RSS)
This is how journalism is practiced these days. Reporters will not seek out the most qualified and impartial expert on an issue. Instead, they seek out any expert who will support their agenda and political preference. Anyone who expects balance and impartiality from the media in general and the Associated Press in particular is in for a rude awakening.
Obviously no one has any idea what a real journalist does. They "seek out the most qualified and impartial expert on an issue." Just because YOU don't agree with the source used, OR the article written, doesn't mean the reporter didn't do his due diligence.
The editorial board over at the J-G spent at least a quarter of a grain of their combined brain-power to enlighten us dummies about what really matters about Dicky Lugar. As Jim Traficant would likely say upon observing Democrats (other than himself) supporting Republicans, "Beam me up . . ."
Missnickit,
The reporter sought out an assistant professor of political science. How is that person in any way qualified to give an opinion on the law? No the reporter did not do his or her job. When you are looking to get an opinion on a legal question, most reporters know they need to a lawyer or a law professor, not someone who has no background in the subject of constitutional or statutory interpretation.
WIBC did go to a constitutional law professor and, surprise, surpise, his opinion about the law doesn't gibe with the poli scie professors.
Oh please.
White was not in the service of the State.He held local office and was serving his community.White would be protected after he won his state election not before.White was simply a candidate at the time of his transgressions.There are a lot of laws on the books for elected officials,public safety,judges,etc.That only apply to them after they are sworn in.The law is were their powers come from.It is apples and oranges.Judges will not rule in favor of chaos I predict.And in the mean time the tea party is giving Democrats a reason to come out and vote which is never a good thing for Republicans.I bet Kevin Kunth is smiling
Comrade Zank, we observe that you reserve unto yourself the right to criticism the glorious Revolution and call into question the Ministry of Truth. Room 101 for you.
JBloom,__You apparently aren't well informed about the White case. White said he was living at his ex-wife's house where he was, correctly, registered. The Election Commission looking at the evidence agreed with that. Judge Rosenberg overruled the Commission saying that although White was staying at his ex-wife's house and had not moved into the condo, the ex-wife's house was a "temporary" address and you can't use a "temporary" address as your residence for voting. There are a lot of problems with that, including the fact Rosenberg missed a statute dealing with temporary living situations. As far as the criminal case, Brizzi didn't introduce any evidence which nobody understands. The jury foreman said if Brizzi did introduce the same testimony that was introduced at the Election Commission, acquittal of White would have been likely.
JBloom,
Unlike what you suggest, no one has ever claimed that the law applying to officials in service to Indiana working outside the state applies to White's situation. The problem for Lugar is it doesn't apply to him either. Lugar didn't lose his residency because of his service. He lost it because he sold his home and claimed no other residence in the state. There is nothing in the voter fraud/perjury laws that allow you t sign documents under oath that you live at someone else's house when you go to vote.
I realize it's quite inconvenient for mainstream media reporters to get into the meat of these issues involving Bayh, Lugar and Daniels. It doesn't fit their meme that White did something horribly wrong that is so much different than what other prominent politicians have done forever and are still doing.
I think there are some people claiming it to be a double standard.
And three Attorney Generals say Lugar is within the law.I am going to say Lugar will be exempted from the fraud/perjury laws because of the in service to the state law.
Mr. Ogden,
Does the law say that one must own property to maintain residency? Does it even say one has to maintain a physical presence through other means (renting?) I am no expert on this, but I believe in some instances Indiana law defines residence as that place which one plans to return to after conducting business that has taken them away.
If Lugar is not qualified to be Senator because of this, then what about a soldier who is stationed overseas for a couple of years? If they own no house, are they expected to pay rent on an unused apartment for two years just so they can claim a physical conection to that location?