Question For Ohio Bizzyblog's Tom Blumer: When Have You Ever Been To Iraq?

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Mr. Bizzyblog writes from the confines of Mason, Ohio, a comfortable Cincinnati suburb where an occasional traffic jam on I-75 may be life's greatest inconvenience. That, and those pesky tourists who clog Interstate 71 when they visit Kings Island. But Tom Blumer, the proprietor of Bizzyblog is torqued. Why? Because Barack Obama hasn't visited Iraq for 900 days:

"Oh, and remind Obama that he hasn't been to Iraq in over 900 days. So he'd best go to an airport, notify air traffic control, start flapping those ears (snicker, snicker) and get over here."

So Tom, knowing of your interest and strong opinions about the Middle East, the Muslim religion, the war -- and your view that people should visit Iraq -- when are you going? Have you bought a ticket yet? Have you notified air traffic control that Bizzyblog will be filing from the front lines? How many days has it been since your last visit, if ever? Or is your comment about Obama flapping his ears just you flapping your lips. Or was it diarrhea of the keyboard? Nine hundred days days without visiting Iraq? Tell us, when did you last take a stroll around Baghdad, and is it lovely at this time of year?

Ohio GOP Now In Bizzyblog's Marc Dann Cover-Up: Doesn't Describe AG As Democrat

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- This item appears on State of the Union today, and it doesn't mention that Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann is a Democrat. Apparently, the Ohio Republican Party thinks the allegations outweigh Dann's party affiliation. Tom Blumer at Bizzyblog has been hammering the media for leaving out Dann's party ID in news stories. He views it as a plot to protect Dems in scandal. What's his explanation for the Republican Party's omission? Perhaps Mr. Blumer has launched a pointless crusade and an empty attack. The bias he is so concerned about seems to be a non-issue even among Republicans.

Bizzyblog's Mr. Blumer And Ohio Media's Collective Amnesia: His Diagnosis Of Democratic Bias Seems Offbase

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Bizzyblog proprietor Tom Blumer is worked up because news stories about Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann fail to routinely mention that Dann is a Democrat. Blumer doesn't seem to notice that news stories about President George W. Bush do not always mention that Bush is a Republican. In fact, here's a story about Bush from The Fort Leavenworth Lamp, and it doesn't mention that Bush is a Republican. The Lamp, by the way, is the official post newspaper published at the Kansas military reservation and prison. Its story about the president points out he was reducing the length of service tours in Iraq from 15 t0 12 months. Certainly, good news for the troops. Under Blumer's theory, it must have been a Pentagon/news media conspiracy to conceal Bush's political party affiliation from the very forces he leads as commander-in-chief.

Here's a Bloomberg news service story about Bush and a visit with South Korea's chief executive. Again, no mention of Bush's Republicanism. And the Voice of America carried a report about Bush's April 19 radio address attacking "opposition Democrats in Congress" without mentioning that Bush is a Republican. Then there is this April 18 report about Bush and the importance of his tax rebate/economic stimulus plan that also was aired on the government-owned VOA, and it also fails to mention President Bush is a Republican.

Is this really some kind of conspiracy? Is the government in on it, too? Or is it just the media not applying a party identifier where it is probably unnecessary? Undoubtedly the latter. Bizzyblog's Blumer seems to be contending that the media is intentionally omitting Marc Dann's Democratic tag in order to protect Ohio's attorney general in a sexual harassment scandal. The GOP-leaning conservative blogger -- a frequent media critic who contributes to Newsbusters -- writes that Ohio's reporters have collective amnesia about Dann's political affiliation:

"Strangely, this disease only appears to effect the left side of the brain, as Ohio's reporters usually have little trouble identifying the party of scandal plagued Republicans."

But it's clear that the media doesn't cling to party identifiers. It uses them most (as a Google or Yahoo search quickly will indicate, or a newsroom style book will reveal) in stories about legislative officeholders -- as in Rep. So-and-So, D-Lake Erie; or Sen. So-and-So, R-Ohio. And it uses them when candidates are contesting elections -- when Dann, a Democrat, ran against Betty Montgomery, a Republican. That is the common formula, or style. Governors and presidents and judges and cabinet members are not typically identified by their party when it's not around election time. Perhaps that style rule, or tradition, needs to be changed. No argument there. But it is hardly a conspiracy or "collective amnesia." And Tom Blumer's shot at the journalists covering the Dann scandal could be cheap. Many of them have dug, and dug deep for their stories. The Columbus Dispatch broke the story two weeks ago today. And if the Columbus Dispatch journalists had been inclined to protect Marc Dann out of party fealty, well, there wouldn't be any knowledge of the Dann scandal in the public domain. And if nobody knew about the scandal, Tom Blumer wouldn't have anything to fuss about.

Send Prank Calls To Your Friends From Mitt Romney

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- A friend passed this along: There's a hugely entertaining feature on Mitt Romney's campaign Web site that allows you to send phone calls to your pals and family in Mitt's voice. Unfortunately, the messages are limited to things like "match my campaign donation," or "Join Team Mitt." Still, The Daily Bellwether hears that the feature should put pranksters in heaven. One Ohioan today had Mitt making calls to a boss, who was bemused by the attention. A caveat: The Mitt recording says first names and it can't handle monikers that are somewhat atypical like "Wilhemina."

[Note: The Bellwether was tempted to send a few Mitt calls to right-leaning Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog, who considers the former Massachusetts's governor a political huckster. But The Bellwether feared prosecution for telephone harassment.]

Ohio Bizzyblog's Tom Blumer: Did He Write Today's DNC Mitt Romney Blast?

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Bizzyblog's Tom Blumer has been hammering Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney as "Unfit Mitt." The rap: Romney sounds conservative today, but didn't just a few years back. He seems to change his mind on political issues as often as he changes socks.

The Democratic National Committee has noticed, too. And it's out with a fresh collection of what it calls flip flops by "Massachusetts Mitt." The DNC's collection has a tone similar to Blumer's criticism of Unfit Mitt. Both conjure up visions of Romney as a figure who fits Kahlil Gibran's description of a babbler: "In much of your talking, thinking is half murdered."

Of course, the DNC hits Mitt from the left; Blumer pokes from the right. A good shot delivered by the DNC was about Romney's shifting view of President Ronald Reagan:

"Mitt Romney Today: 'The right way for America to proceed is to pursue the strategy Ronald Reagan pursued in the last century.' [NBC's Meet The Press, 12/16/07]

"Massachusetts Mitt Romney: 'I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.' [1994 Senate Debate]"

[UPDATE: 10:00 pm -- Fred Thompson also weighed in with a Romney smackdown that recounts the shifts, along with the I-was-an-independent-when-Reagan-was-president bit of history.]

More Wide Open Mopin': Do Tell Other Names Considered

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Jill Miller Zimon is still storm tracking the F-5 cyclone that roared through the 'sphere and blew the roof off Wide Open last week. But there is something still unsaid. What other names were considered for the flattened Plain Dealer-financed homestead that was shared by the MSM and indy bloggers? Was it always to be Wide Open? Or something saucier?

Somewhere along the line, I recall reading that Jill was not exactly sold on the nameplate that wound up gracing the experiment on Cleveland.com. At least, that is what I think I recall. Maybe Wide Open was jinxed from the start. Sailors believe names are important. Ships with unsuitable names are thought unseaworthy; they risk the lives of their crew and can disappear under the waves at the mere hint of a ripple.

The bloggers who no longer blog for the newspaper all used clever or stolid names for their personal sites -- Nixguy and Bizzyblog and Ohio Daily and Writes Like She Talks. Wide Open always seemed a little weak compared to monikers like those.

Bizzyblog's Tom Blumer And A New York Times Writer Go Mano a Mano: Timesman Posts Comment On Blumer's Blog

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Ohio's Bizzyblogger Tom Blumer ripped The New York Times for underplaying personal income data to make the Bush years seem dismal. New York Times staff writer David Cay Johnston promptly fired right back with a long comment on Blumer's Website that defended the attack on his economic analytical skills. It wasn't so long ago that journalists ignored blogs, or deemed them too unimportant to dive in with comments. Now a sea change: They appear ready to duke it out. Kudos to Mr. Blumer for attracting such attention. And kudos to Mr. Johnston for punching back. Everyone benefits from the dialogue.

Click the link (above) to Blumer's post, then eyeball Johnson's response, which appears verbatim below. The Timesman says he didn't get into the news biz to make things up:

"You make interesting points — and also some unfair ones, especially leaping to the conclusion that I am dishonest.
"The idea that in the most scrutinized news report in the world I could twist facts for some venal purpose is laughable. We fire reporters who do that and we should.
I have been active in exposing dishonest reporting since 1973. I am the only reporter whose expose of news manipulations and blackouts lead to a broadcast station being sold to avoid losing their licenses (six stations were sold). I have many other published articles on such issues over the decades in both newspapers and journalism publications.
"Readers and reporters can reasonably disagree on what is significant and the choices in the limited space and time I had.
"I did not get into this line of work more than 40 years ago to make things up or twist them. If I wanted to I would have become a novelist or a screenwriter.
I got into it to tell people things they did not know and would not know but for my work. That’s the joy of it. And throughout my career I have found things were not at all as I imagined, including in the world of tax that I have covered for more than a dozen years.
"Given your jaundice it may surprise you to know that I was the reporter — the only reporter — to do the calculations revealing that the very highest income America got a much bigger tax cut from a law signed by Clinton than they did from Bush, reporting this several times in articles and with detailed graphics.
"That is to say, I report the numbers the same way regardless of who is in the White House or any other position of power. My focus is on what happens after the politicians speak and enact laws, not on what they say.
"When I write about one-year changes bloggers criticize me for not taking a longer look at the data. In this article I focused on the peak of the previous economic expansion (and compare it to results going back to 1945) and you accuse me of being dishonest for not cherry picking data from the late 90s.
"It is reasonable to disagree about whether using the high point of the last economic expansion is the most informing measure. It is certainly common to use this measure. Making that choice is neither dishonest nor absurd.
"Behind my article today are extensive spreadsheets I did analyzing the data by income group, components of income (wages, dividends, etc.) and other factors. I then took care to not cherry pick the data, but to select those data points that exemplified what careful checking and cross checking showed. There are problems with using this analysis because of what might be called income bracket creep, which cannot be backed out from the data I relied on.
"EITC is not in the IRS data, which you use as a cudgel against my work. This money totals less than a half of one percent of all income (and is not market income). There are other forms of income not counted as well that you do not mention. For example, this administration and has said that there is widespread and significant understating of non-wage incomes at the top, as did the last.
"That is to say, there is no perfect measure and my article identified the measure I used — income tax data.
"Not in my report today was this finding from my analysis, which in light of your closing comments you may want to ponder:
"Among the under $100,000 income group, comparing 2005 to 2004, the number of taxpayers rose 0.5%, total real AGI fell by -$73 billion, or -1.9 percent, and average AGI incomes declined by -$801 from $33,847 to $33,046.
"In the year 2000 the average AGI (in 2005$) of those making under $100,000 was $35,286. That means, compared to 2005, that average incomes in this group are down -$2,240 or -6.3 percent from the peak year of the economic expansion.
"The figures are not directly comparable because some people moved up and out of that bracket. However, in 2000 this group comprised 90.7% of all taxpayers and it is now 88% of all taxpayers.But that is also not a large change in share of taxpayers.
I cite this to show the care I take to analyze the data fully before I wrote about it and to make sure anomalies are not treated as substance.
"The fact is that average incomes remain below their peak and when you look at groups below $1 million of AGI, which 99.77 percent of all taxpayers in 2005, the declines are clear. It suggests that my reportorial observation about many people feeling economic stress (of which there is plenty of evidence from polls and other sources) is not absurd and does not lack a reasonable basis for mentioning.
"The growth in incomes from 2002 to 2003 is statistically insignificant at 0.2 percent or $99, contrary to your assertions about how many years we have had growth in average incomes.
"Whatever the data show is what I report. If, for example, the data showed that the incomes of those at the bottom were rising I would report that. Oh, gosh, I did report this morning that the number of Americans reporting very low incomes declined by more than 5 percent. That could have been the lede, but average incomes provides a broader measure of greater interest so I lead with that. Reasonable people can disagree without resorting to attacking the reporter’s integrity.
"Comment by David Cay Johnston — August"