"One wonders if liberals believe there is any element of our lives that would not be better under government control. But imagine what a nightmare it will be if things devolve to the point where government chooses who can report news in a newspaper, or on radio, television or the Internet.

"Defeating this power grab depends upon the free flow of reliable information, which is a significant challenge, given the degree to which the mainstream media has abandoned its duty to produce balanced and accurate reporting to keep the citizenry well informed.

"Barack Obama believes there is too much information available to people and that they can’t tell the good from the bad. That’s insulting. The answer is more information, not less, and less information is what we’ll have with government management of the news."

Writer James "Smokey" Shott's entire column is here.

Now, as I've done probably 6 or 7 times before, after reading Smokey's latest rant I fired off a letter to the editor in response. Do you think it ever saw print? No.

The Bluefield Daily Telegraph seems to be very selective which letters to the editor they choose to print. If it's from a conservative reader, it sees publication. If it's from anyone who leans to the left, forget it.

Here is my unprinted letter to the editor, written in response to Shott's column referenced above:

Leave it to a right-wing pundit to dream up a conspiracy by the Obama administration where there is none.

So, we are apparently supposed to believe that the sinister administration is actively pursuing a plan to take over the news media, based on some pretty flimsy (actually nonexistent) evidence and a vague similarity between a title in the report in question, and a remark made by Emanuel. While we're at it, why not believe the government is responsible for the state of today's news media? It's all part of the plan, you know!

The tabloid has cred.  (Well, until now it did)  And some conservatives and anti-Obama liberals are complaining about the media’s refusal to “cover” the Enquirer’s web splashes about then-Senate candidate Obama’s alleged extramarital affair with a finance staffer, Vera Baker. The lead reads: “PRESIDENT OBAMA in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a D.C. hotel with a former campaign aide.”

 Is the media covering for Obama? Are they too afraid to ask the question, fearing ridicule from their peers?

Whatever collective motivations may be operating on this story, there is a simpler explanation for the lack of coverage: the story has no legs. It doesn’t even have thighs. It is, as Slate’s John Dickerson said, an “investigation about an alleged rumor,” but we don’t know who is doing the investigating and what precisely ought to be investigated.

Also, when this rumor came up during the campaign, mainstream news organizations did investigate, and found that there was no evidence to support the charge. There are no new developments to speak of, and the Enquirer has already revised its claim about “an alleged surveillance tape.” Says the Enquirer: “Now, the investigators are searching for a hotel surveillance videotape”.

Investigators? That implies something criminal. No, no. We learn that these investigators are “top anti-Obama operatives” who are offering a million dollars for solid evidence.

This “affair” is destined to become a white whale for right-wing haters and nutcases who have no other impulse than to bring down a president they “know” in their hearts is illegitimate. It’s the birth certificate, all over again.

It seems abundantly clear that repealing and resisting healthcare reform will be the GOP’s signature issue for 2010.  The ink is not yet dry on the nation’s new Healthcare Policy and Republicans are already geared up for a grand march towards its repeal. Senator Jim DeMint has  introduced a bill to the Senate to strike the measure which, just hours after the President signed the Senate bill into law, is  festooned with a gaggle of co-sponsors including, as Eugene Kiely of USA Today informs us, “Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Robert Bennett of Utah, Kit Bond of Missouri, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Mike Crapo of Idaho, John Ensign of Nevada, Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, George LeMieux of Florida, James Risch of Idaho, Pat Roberts of Kansas and David Vitter of Louisiana.”

Meanwhile Mitch McConnell is pledging that the Republican slogan will be “Repeal and Replace” and, in the lower House, Michele Bachmann has taken it upon herself to introduce a short bit of legislation paralleling Senator DeMint’s.

Which brings us to the matter of civics education.  As any High School Senior can tell you, the Republicans can’t overturn this law, not in 2010 anyway.

This isn’t a political prognostication; it’s math.

Overturning a law is no different than passing any other piece of legislation.  The bill must make its way through both houses of Congress and across the President’s desk.  As Democrats learned after the Republican Revolution of 1994, however, the President’s veto is not an insurmountable obstacle; a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress can pass a bill over the objections of the White House.  Needless to say, President Obama will oppose – staunchly – the repeal of his most significant domestic policy victory.  Thus, if Republicans want to overturn healthcare reform, they will have to do so over the President’s veto and that will require two thirds of both Houses.

Two thirds of the House of Representatives is 290 votes; to reach that number Republicans will have to defend their existing 177 seats and win an addition 113 more, mostly from Democratic incumbents.  Such an electoral victory is improbable but not impossible.  Chalk one up for the audacity of obstructionism.

Two thirds of the Senate, however, is 67 votes.  The election of Senator Scott Brown put the GOP at 41 seats in the United States’ Senate which means that the GOP must win an additional 26 seats from the Democrats in the 2010 race.  This is not just improbable; it is impossible: only 18 Democratic seats are up for grabs in the 2010 race.  Even assuming a complete electoral sweep, the Republicans can – at most – hope to hold 59 seats in the 112th Congress’ Senate.

Yet, after a year of doomsaying and predictions of veritable apocalypse should Health Care Reform pass, the Republicans can not simply abandon the issue on the campaign trail and they certainly can’t stump on a message of impotent incompetence.  Increasingly desperate attempts to look at all relevant in the political arena have lead nearly more than a dozen Republican state-attorneys general  to bring suit challenging the constitutionality of the bill and pledges of resistance from several more.  Zach Wamp, a candidate for Governor in Tennessee, promised to meet the federal government “at the state line,” while Virginia’s Governor Bob McDonnell signed legislation declaring that Virginians are not required to purchase health insurance.

Clearly civics education is lacking at the state level as well.

The lawsuits challenging the Constitutionality of Health Care Reform focus on the law’s mandate which requires Americans to hold a health insurance policy or face a tax penalty.  Critics charge that such a measure is outside the bounds of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, the section of Article I that gives the Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states.  “We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce,” Cuccinelli said, “and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.”  Legal scholars are divided on what the Court’s likely decision will be but even should the Court strike down the mandate provision that is all it can do; the rest of the law – unchallenged by any lawsuit – will stand and the result could destroy the health insurance market.

Pledges to resist the law at the state level are no better informed.  State laws which directly contradict the recently passed Federal one are overruled by it per centuries old Supreme Court precedent set in McCulloch v Maryland and pledges of less legislative resistance like that alluded to by Zach Wamp have historically ended badly; don’t take my word for it, ask Jefferson Davis how that worked out for him.

All of this is more than a little absurd, childish, and petulant yet the Republicans really have no choice in the matter.  The GOP bet the house, as former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote, on “hysterical accusations and pseudo-information” and as a result of that they have convinced their base that Health Care Reform is the gravest danger facing America today.  Conservative radio host Neil Bortz even went so far as to charge that “[health care reform] will do more damage than 9/11.”  The resulting ideological meltdown suffered by the GOP in the wake of Health Care Reform lead Frum to conclude that “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox… [the] balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network is the thing that undermines a strong Republican party.”

"I don't know. I'll just tell you this, if this passes and it's five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented — I am leaving the country. I'll go to Costa Rica."

You hear that, guys? Health-care reform will not only cover 30 million Americans and reduce the deficit, but it'll also get rid of Rush Limbaugh! This is, like, the best bill ever!

Unfortunately, it turns out that Rush was merely referring to seeking medical care outside the U.S. Which is still pretty funny, since the country he chose, Costa Rica, has a universal health care system… you know, the kind he doesn't want to see in this country.

How long did it take George Bush (whom the opinion writer has professed in the past to admire) to make a public statement on shoe bomber Richard Reid? Six days. Did the writer complain back then? For some reason I believe probably not.

He intimates Obama doesn't take terrorism seriously without offering any real evidence of this other than to regurgitate the standard right-wing talking points, including the accusation the president won't even use the words "terrorist" or "terrorist attack". This is an outright lie.

During Obama's radio address on the attempted Christmas Day bombing, he used the word "terrorist" or a variation at least six times. It seems strange to me that Obama's detractors would make such a baseless and actually silly claim, so easily refuted, about such a serious matter. The writer should have at least troubled himself to look at the actual transcript of the speech instead of just recycling what other right-wing pundits have been saying. I guess it's easier to write a column if you don't bother to fact-check while writing it.

He wrote, " He didn’t grasp the seriousness of the situation, and he sped through a weak public statement that left too much unsaid so he could get back out on the golf course." Now, whether the president's statement was weak or strong is a matter of opinion. But the writer's implication that Obama was only interested in resuming his vacation is amusing, since he staunchly supported George W. Bush, who was infamous for taking regular (and lengthy) vacations even very early on in his presidency Oh, the hypocrisy.

He even accuses the president of giving the war on terror "back seat" status so he can focus on his "radical" domestic agenda. Again, we have an accusation being made with absolutely nothing to back it up. This seems to be his writing style – sling lots of mud and hope something sticks – reminiscent of other right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

I will defend to the death this opinion writer's right to criticize whomever he wants to criticize. Unfortunately, when a writer is blinded by his or her own bias, it's all too easy to put words to paper without doing a thorough check of the actual facts of the topic at hand. This columnist is a somewhat competent writer, and it's a shame he chooses to throw around half-truths and misstatements of fact in his zeal to attack anything and everything Obama has done (or hasn't done).

Time for a fact check, my right wing friends – politics is a dirty business and adherents of both parties have been guilty of gutterball tactics. Everyone’s favorite bellowing right wing pundit, Rush Limbaugh, once called Chelsea Clinton “a dog”. Hillary Clinton was, and continues to be, the butt of jokes regarding her husband’s dalliances, her own physical appearance, and even her sexual preferences. And let’s not forget the endless baseless accusations bandied about concerning Barack Obama’s citizenship, his “palling around with terrorists”, his patriotism and his religious persuasion.

Still, this type of nonsense is part and parcel of a prominent politician’s life. Countless leaders in our government have endured this, remained above the fray, kept their head held high, and continued to serve. By resigning her governorship, Mrs. Palin shows that she simply doesn’t have what it takes to play the game. This is a person who many see as a potential presidential candidate? Would we want a president who has shown a remarkable lack of fortitude in walking away from a job because the going got tough? Would President Palin decide to step down the first time her approval ratings dropped or one of her measures failed in Congress?

Many on the right are spinning her resignation as a smart move in preparation for a 2012 presidential run. Of course! The best way to show you’re presidential material is to quit.

Deep down, not even those spouting the spin really believe it.