Dean Rotbart's Blog

Columbia University's Lee C. Bollinger Can Bunk with Ahmadinejad and Gaddafi

Dean Rotbart — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:23:00 GMT

Seems that Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Libyan terrorist leader Muammar Gaddafi are having a hard time finding hotels and speaking venues that will welcome them during their current trip to spew lies at the United Nations.

In my Examiner.com column today, I recommend that the two blood-stained devils bunk with Columbia University's President, Lee C. Bollinger, who has a soft spot in his heart for genocidal maniacs.

Please read the article and share its URL with everyone who disdains the kind of evil embodied in A-Jad, Muammar and my dumb-assed academic nemesis, Lee C. Bollinger.

Cruise America Runs Aground When It Comes To Customer Service

Dean Rotbart — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:18:00 GMT

PAN of the WEEK: Cruise America RV Rental & Sales
8950 North Federal Blvd., Federal Heights, CO 80260

Seldom have I experienced a business that is so daft when it comes to understanding its customers. Based upon a single three-day rental of a 30-foot motorhome this past week, I believe I could teach a graduate-level business school course on how to misunderstand your business niche, relying strictly on Cruise America as a case study.

The Mesa, Arizona company, a 38-year-old family owned business, is the largest recreational vehicle rental company in America. The problem is, Cruise America seems to have lost sight of the “recreational” aspect of its mission in favor of a mechanical, perfunctory execution of the unfriendliest sort of vehicle rental service.

I honestly believe that the worst U-Haul rental location I’ve ever visited is more customer friendly than the Cruise America rental center in Federal Heights, Colorado, where my family and I picked up our motorhome rental.

No one at the Federal Heights location, which has all the vacation charm of a tire-repair shop, smiles. No one welcomes customers. No one thanks customers. No one inquires about your destination, your satisfaction or your needs. Indeed, no one seems the least bit aware that Cruise America is in the vacation and entertainment industry.

I think the Cruise America ethos is actually comparable to what you might expect from a disgruntled parking lot attendant – although that may be unfair to parking lot attendants.

Truth be told, if I hadn’t gone out to our car and phoned company headquarters in Mesa to complain, I never would have gotten off the lot with my reserved RV at all.

Why? Because Cruise America’s so-called “Hub Manager” at the Federal Heights location insisted that I watch a 23-minute video on how to operate an RV before he’d release the vehicle to me, even though I assured him that I had already watched the entire video as recommended on the company’s web site.

To say that the “Hub Manager” was unpleasant and combative is an understatement. He told me that I scare him because I wouldn’t comply with his rule that each customer must watch the Cruise America video on site. He said he has had other customers who claim they watched the video online only to go ahead and damage the RV after renting it and ignoring the warnings of the video. In fact, he bragged that he has made some loyal Cruise America customers watch the 23-minute video as many as eight different times.

Imagine how long Hertz would stay in business if prior to renting a car it required each driver to watch a 20-plus minute safety video – and then refused to believe customers when they attested to the fact that they had indeed already screened the video online? (Ironically, the founder of Cruise America was a former president of Hertz.)

Since I was unwilling to invest another 23 minutes screening a video I had already viewed – and it turns out that despite what the Hub Manager maintained, there is zero requirement that Cruise America customers ever watch the video – the Hub Manager told me to take an inglorious hike and to forget my $300 deposit, since he wouldn’t refund it to me because of my insolence.

But for the fact that I’m a stubborn customer, our family weekend outing and my $300 would indeed have been flushed down the refuse tank.

When I asked the Hub Manager to provide me the name of his supervisor so I might appeal, he refused. Undeterred, I went outside and on my mobile phone tracked down Sean Dickinson, a pleasant and apologetic executive at Cruise America headquarters. Dickinson heard my tale of woe and after his calls to the Federal Heights location, my family and I were out of the driveway and off on our holiday.

Dickinson told me, without yet knowing I was a journalist, that my experience would be used in refining the training Cruise America provides to its customer service personnel.

To wit, Cruise America needs more employees like Dickinson. But the problem, I’m afraid, runs deeper than a dismal Hub Manager.

Indeed, I would strongly advise Dickinson and his bosses, brothers Randall Smalley and Robert Smalley Jr. – the sons of company founder Robert Smalley Sr. – to take an actual aquatic cruise or visit a nice resort hotel and compare the customer service they receive at those vacation spots to the experience of Cruise America travelers.

While it might be convenient for Dickinson and the Smalleys to blame the Hub Manager in Federal Heights, they allow him to continue to treat their customers worse than fingernail dirt. Someone so poor in customer service isn’t in place by accident. The Smalleys enable him and his surely crew of rental agents to haunt unsuspecting vacationers.

To be the largest RV rental company in the country, Cruise America must do many things right. Our vehicle itself was splendid and the cost for our rental was really quite affordable, even in these difficult financial times.

Nonetheless, it is hard to imagine how truly successful Cruise America would be if it designed its rental centers to feel like vacation launch pads and if it trained all of its service agents to send each and every customer off with a smile and a warm bon voyage.

Our first Cruise America experience was an experiment. If it had gone well, we planned to rent another motorhome at the end of this week for a second mini-holiday. As it is, we now plan to use our own mini-van and stay at a hotel instead. None of us can face the prospect of returning to the Federal Heights rental center.

Our lost business alone will cost Cruise America thousands of dollars in the years to come. That’s enough money to invest in better training for its Federal Heights staff.

The bottom line is this: We loved the motorhome but will never again entrust our family vacation to some grumpy parking lot attendants.

[This story originally appeared on Examiner.com]

Colorado's DeGette and Markey Rub Sandpaper in the Faces of State's Small Businesses

Dean Rotbart — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:56:00 GMT

Do small business owners in Colorado just not get it? How hard is it for them to understand that Congresswomen Diana DeGette and Betsy Markey are laboring in the halls of Congress for their destruction?

Fools.

As if higher taxes, grander deficits and the heavy hand of government regulation is not enough punishment, now DeGette and Markey are co-sponsoring federal legislation that will allow powerful -- and intimidating -- national unions to organize businesses with ten or fewer members. The so-called Employee Free Choice Act is a farcically named bill that oppresses small business owners and -- when placed under a microscope -- does little to help anyone but DeGette, Markey and the Democratic Party's union sugar daddies.

I'll be writing more on this topic soon. For now may I recommend you read my most recent article for Examiner.com? If you own or work for a small business, this is a nuclear bomb in your workplace. Wake up before it's too late.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-16299-Denver-Business-Commentary-Examiner~y2009m9d2-Small-business-owners-could-be-wiped-out-by-proposed-union-legislation

Link Here To Examiner Column.

'Half a Tank' Series from Washington Post Is Reason for Optimism

Dean Rotbart — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:47:00 GMT

Since late May, The Washington Post has been running an ongoing series of articles and photos titled, 'Half a Tank.' Written by Theresa Vargas with stunning photos by Pulitzer-Prize winning photojournalist, Michael Williamson, the series has chronicled how America and Americans are responding to the recession.

I had the pleasure of meeting with Theresa and Michael when they passed through Colorado last week. We talked about their series, life, journalism and the lessons provided by all three. You can read my feature story about our time together on Examiner.com.

The photo at left was taken at Emil-Lenes Sirloin House, on the outskirts of Denver International Airport.

Vargas and Williamson plan to continue their road trip until September 15th, when they'll return to the Post newsroom. Their series has been edited by Marc Fisher, the Post's Enterprise Editor. The concept for the project was that of Bonnie Jo Mount, the paper's photo editor.

My appreciation goes to Maria Cereghino, manager of communications for Washington Post Media, for helping me to hook up with Theresa and Michael.

Oral Mucositis Newswire Offers News and Information to Cancer Victims

Dean Rotbart — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:47:00 GMT

It is rather amazing to me how little media coverage I can find about Oral Mucositis, a painful side effect of radiation and chemotherapy treatments for cancer.

Oral Mucositis impacts more than 400,000 cancer patients annually -- killing some of them and making tens of thousands of others suffer -- and yet the mainstream news media largely ignore it.

Worst of all, new treatments are available or will be very soon, that have shown great promise in reducing or even eliminating the symptoms of Oral Mucositis.

Until the news media get plugged into this important health news story, I am hoping to keep the oral mucositis community abreast of important news and related resources at a new site, Oral Mucositis Newswire.

I hope no one ever has to visit that site. But if you, a member of your family, a friend or a colleague does require radiation or chemotherapy, I encourage you to familiarize yourself with Oral Mucositis Newswire (www.oralmucositisnewswire.com). There is no need for cancer victims to suffer additionally.

Draft Rush Limbaugh Journalism School Movement Launched

Dean Rotbart — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:01:00 GMT

This morning in my Examiner.com column, I officially launched the draft Rush Limbaugh journalism school movement. This is a serious bid to gather the needed people, funds and momentum to give birth to a fully accredited, online journalism degree program that will teach students how to report objective, non-liberal, news.

As a long-time Limbaugh listener, I have come to the conclusion that his critiques of the drive-by and state-run media are sadly accurate. For our country and its core values to survive and prosper, we need to ensure that quality journalism does not end up as an exhibit in some museum. It must live and breathe.

Please read the column and contact me if you want to join the effort.

(Photo: Screen shot from the Rush Limbaugh DittoCam")

Whole Foods Throws Its Co-Founder, John Mackey, Under The Bus For His Conservative Views

Dean Rotbart — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Talk about PR messes!

Whole Foods Market, Inc. sure found itself in a major-league PR imbroglio after its co-founder, John Mackey, wrote an August 12th Op-Ed for The Wall Street Journal in which he observes that the "last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement..."

Rather than stand behind their executive, Whole Foods issued a statement in which it told its upset liberal customers, "We offer you a sincere apology."

I've inducted Whole Foods into my voluminous 'World's Dumbest PR Blunders' book. You can read my extended thoughts on the company and its ill-conceived public relations strategy here. If you have comments, please let them at the Examiner.com site.

Bank of America Takes My Tax Dollars Plus $400

Dean Rotbart — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:56:00 GMT

I really wish there was something I could do beyond posting here and on other sites to punish Bank of America for its rude, ineffective, unsympathetic, outrageous customer disservice.

What a lousy bank and a lousy bunch of phone agents and phone supervisors. I plan to close all my accounts as soon as logistics permit and take them to a smaller bank.

Today's Bank of America disaster is that I tried to withdraw $400.00 in cash from a Bank of America ATM. Good luck.

The ATM dutifully deducted the funds from my account, but didn't deliver one cent to me. In fact, AFTER it failed to give me my money, the screen posted a, "Sorry, temporarily out of service" sign and stopped working altogether.

Okay, machines will fail.

So I call customer service, expecting an apology and a rapid refund. Fat chance. The bank isn't parting with any of our $25 billion plus in TARP funds just to issue a refund of my stolen $400.

No, after 45 minutes, two customer service agents and a supervisor -- not a one of whom said, "I'm sorry" for the inconvenience, still no refund and no promise of any funds back for weeks.

The problem is that while I'm a Bank of America customer and was at a Bank of America machine, I tried to withdraw cash using a card from a different bank. It is Bank of America's position that while the machine is theirs, my problem isn't. They suggest I file a claim with my other bank and await research and, possibly, a refund.

Reasoning with Bank of America was impossible. "This is your machine," I repeatedly reminded them. "I am your customer." The three reps I spoke with couldn't have been less concerned if I had told them I lost a paper clip in one of their branches.

Please, please pass this true story along and/or link to it. When it comes to our tax dollars, Bank of America is ready and able. When it comes to taxpayers and customers, it is permanently out of service.

90-Minute Webinar to Explore Media Relations Lessons from Peanut Butter Recall

Dean Rotbart — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:29:00 GMT

Which companies handled media relations well during the ongoing peanut butter recall and which ones erred will be a core focus of a 90-minute webinar to be hosted late this month by an award-winning investigative journalist.

In addition, the webinar, titled “Media Relations Lessons from the 2009 Peanut Butter Recall,” will examine which news organizations and which specific journalists did the best – and worst – job keeping consumers, businesses and investors informed. Registration for this seminar is only $69.95 and includes exclusive briefing materials.

The webinar will be conducted on Friday, February 27th at 2 p.m. EST and is being presented by health.newsbios.com, a journalism service that provides in-depth dossiers on the world’s most influential health and medical journalists. health.newsbios.com is an affiliate of NewsBios.com.

“Every company that could face a future recall, whether in the food industry or not, needs to incorporate the lessons of this massive recall into their emergency communications plans,” says Dean Rotbart, who won multiple prizes for his reporting both while he was a reporter and columnist at The Wall Street Journal and in the years since. Rotbart has reviewed the reporting and reactions of dozens of key journalists and companies that have been in the spotlight as a result of the recent salmonella outbreak linked to peanut products.

Some of the companies that Rotbart will discuss are household brands, including Kellogg, Hershey, Nestlé, Clif Bar and J.M. Smucker. Others distributed affected peanut products, including Costco, Kroger, Rite Aid and General Nutrition Centers. Rotbart will also look at the communications effectiveness of the FDA, CDC, American Peanut Council, and Trust for America’s Health, among others. 

Rotbart will examine how various reporters and news organizations handled their recall coverage, including specifically: Gardiner Harris, The New York Times; Julie Jargon and Jane Zhang, The Wall Street Journal; Maggie Fox, Reuters; Elizabeth Cohen, CNN; Catherine Larkin, Bloomberg News; Mike Huckman, CNBC, Lyndsey Layton, The Washington Post and others.

None of the companies, journalists or other organizations listed are affiliated with this webinar, which promises an “independent, blunt review” of their performance.

The 90-minute session will include an opportunity to ask questions to Rotbart, who has trained senior-level corporate media strategists for more than two decades. Among the materials each registrant receives will be exclusive biographical profiles of a dozen influential journalists.

Those wishing to register must email their names, phone numbers, and company affiliations to: webinar@health.newsbios.com. A webinar service representative will then reply to answer any questions and confirm reservations. Space for the conference is capacity constrained, so health.newsbios.com urges those wishing to participate to register early.

The Yet-To-Be Told Story of Blue Nile v. Yehuda Diamonds

Dean Rotbart — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:15:00 GMT

When David threw the stone that felled Goliath, is it possible that the projectile was actually a diamond?

I ask because of the David v. Goliath epic playing out in courtrooms in Washington State and New York. In this modern version, comparatively tiny Yehuda Diamond, which specializes in so-called clarity-enhanced gems, is defending one lawsuit and prosecuting another against the 800-pound Goliath of online jewelers, Blue Nile.

In one respect, this is an age-old story of two squabbling competitors who are thrusting and volleying accusations and counter-charges that would best be resolved in the marketplace, not the courtroom.

Yet, if anyone bothers to look beyond the obvious, as I have, what they will find at stake here is the right of a business, in this case Yehuda Diamond, to freely compare its products and its prices to that of a competitor.

Additionally, Yehuda Diamond is fighting to force Blue Nile to make full disclosure to Blue Nile customers when its gemstones have been filled to improve their appearance. Such treatments are a common industry practice, but nonetheless one that needs to be noted before a sale.

Whereas Yehuda Diamonds has always been upfront and forthright about its proprietary clarity-enhancement process, such disclosures on Blue Niles’ web site have been off again, on again, at least in part in response to Yehuda Diamonds’ legal parrying.

I profess little objectivity in this matter, as my loyalties lie squarely with David ….er, I mean Yehuda Diamond, and I currently am advising one of its owners, Dror Yehuda, on how best to tell the world his side of the Blue Nile hostilities.

Dror and his family have been in the diamond business for three generations. They are good stock. Honorable. And hard-working.

Dror’s dad, Zvi, a brilliant inventor, perfected a method of injecting a microscopic amount of material into a natural diamond such that light is not reflected off so-called feathers, as it otherwise would be. The result: two lovely natural diamonds, one without such feathers and one whose feathers have been treated by Yehuda Diamond so effectively that only a trained gemologist can tell.

The chief difference? Yehuda Diamond's stones sell for about 30% less than the feather-free diamonds offered by Blue Nile.

Keep in mind we’re not talking about comparing natural diamonds to cubic zirconia. We’re talking apples to apples comparisons of natural diamonds to natural diamonds. Only the treated diamonds sold by Yehuda Diamond sell for a lot less to the public than the equivalent weight and color gems offered by Blue Nile. With Yehuda Diamond, consumers get more bling for the buck.

And lest you think that somehow ‘treated’ gems are unusual, think again. For some gems, such as emeralds, treating them with wax, oil or resin fillers is really the norm – even at Blue Nile.

Still, Blue Nile seems to detest the fact that Yehuda Diamond, on the popular Yehuda Diamond web site, compares its prices to those of comparable diamonds offered at Blue Nile. In December 2007, Blue Nile filed a federal lawsuit in Seattle, its hometown, seeking to silence such Yehuda Diamond comparisons.

Even while Blue Nile is yelping that Yehuda Diamond is remiss for comparing prices of clarity-enhanced diamonds to Blue Nile’s non-enhanced diamonds, Blue Nile itself has been peddling filled emeralds to Blue Nile customers, without even bothering to tell those customers about the fillings, or so Yehuda Diamond says in its own lawsuit, filed last month.

In terms of sheer size, market presence, and legal firepower, publicly traded Blue Nile dwarfs Yehuda Diamond. So, its not exactly clear to me what it is Blue Nile is so hot and bothered about that it doesn’t just leave it to a jury of consumers in the open marketplace to render their verdict.

But Blue Nile decided to take the matter to court and now Yehuda Diamond is presenting its own persuasive legal response.

To my way of thinking, the consumers’ interests are best served if Yehuda Diamond, not Blue Nile, prevails.

Consumers should be able to freely compare prices between Yehuda Diamond and Blue Nile diamonds so long as Yehuda Diamond makes no secret of its clarity-enhancement process, which it doesn’t. Visit the Yehuda Diamond web site, which is where all Yehuda Diamond sales must begin, and you’ll see its disclosures about the clarity-enhancement process are ubiquitous. (Unlike Blue Nile, which sells its gems sight-unseen, Yehuda Diamond customers select their diamonds online but inspect them in person at a quality local jeweler before deciding to buy.)

Likewise, consumers should also be clearly notified, in advance, before they purchase gems from Blue Nile, if any of those gems have been filled. Blue Nile’s record in this regard has been spotty.

Biblical stories aside, the good guys don’t always win; not on the battlefield, not in court and not in the marketplace. But over time, the companies that do right by consumers are rewarded for their character, quality and service. Those companies that use muscle and bullying tactics to keep consumers in the dark also eventually get what is coming to them – i.e. a stone between the eyes, or in this case, an unstoppable clarity-enhanced diamond.

An Ode to Entrepreneurship

Dean Rotbart — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:58:00 GMT

I phoned a business-to-business Internet service recently aiming to become a fresh client. In these difficult economic times I thought that my purchases, certain to be several thousand dollars over the next couple months, would be graciously welcomed.

They were not.

As I endeavored to explain my needs to the representative on the other end of the phone, he consistently cut me off and admonished me for interrupting him. I asked to speak to the owner and he told me he is the owner, just before hanging up on me and my prospective business.

I write this not as a tale of poor customer service, but rather as an ode to entrepreneurship in the midst of our current economic upheaval. A bit of further investigation confirmed that I indeed had been speaking to the independent-minded founder and owner.

Shrugging off clients who annoy you is one of the many perks of being an entrepreneur, a status I’ve enjoyed now for more than two decades.

One of the first lessons I learned is that my business cycles and national economic cycles have minimal correlation. At times, my business has suffered mightily even as the stock market set new records highs. Now that the market has fallen sharply, I find my business fairing better than most publicly held concerns.

I’ve read with great interest of the sad tales of those who staked their retirement nest eggs in stocks or mutual funds only to be jolted into the realization that passive investments are not necessarily safe investments.

Most people perceive, wrongly I might add, that owning one's own business is risky. They read about the failure rate of entrepreneurs and they reckon they’ll place their bets with the name brand fund managers on Wall Street. Such as Bernie Madoff.

Statistics can be instructive. But they mean little to me day-to-day. My business has risen or fallen based upon mostly upon my levels of hard work, creativity, hustle, endurance, flexibility and luck. The economy plays only a small factor.

When I offer advise to my two teenage children about how to secure their lifelong financial well being, I always remind them that when you own your own business its impossible to ever be laid off. You can call it quits, but no one will ever downsize your job if you refuse to give up.

Over the years, if I’m honest about it, I’ve told a select few existing or prospective customers where to put their attitude. Those who build their own businesses and work for themselves come to know that financial success is an important benefit, but hardly the only one.

Sometimes it feels plain good to act haughtily, just because.

Gilbert and Dean Debate the Virtues of Charity and 'Genetic' Jews

Dean Rotbart — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:56:00 GMT

I love intelligent debate, especially concerning issues over which I'm passionate. Since I began actively writing for the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles last month, I have enjoyed a series of debates with Gilbert H. Skopp, who I know only as a member of the loyal opposition.

Right now Gilbert and I are exchanging thoughts on the topic of charity, and specifically my belief that Eli & Edythe Broad should redirect their funding of charitable causes away from the art world and toward worthy Jewish non-profits. You can read our back and forth at the Jewish Journal web site, or view part of the conversation below.

GILBERT: I apologize for Mr & Mrs Broad for not donating to your favorite charity.

DEAN: Apology accepted. If you really want to make amends, write a check, even for $18.00, and mail it to one of Los Angeles’ fine Jewish Day Schools. Send me a copy of the check and I’ll post it on The Memo to show you are after all a truly good guy. Come on, it’s only 18 bucks and it will put you in good with the man upstairs. Deal?

GILBERT: I think that I’m a charitable man, more generous than some, not as generous perhaps as others. Your suggestion to post my check on your blog would lessen the level of my gift. You cited the Rambam in your response to J. Did the Rambam not say that the second highest level of Tzedakah is to give anonymously? The recipient of the donation should not know from where it came and the charity should remain unknown. However, rest assured there is a Jewish Day School that is receiving some support from me.

DEAN: I believe you really do support an area Jewish Day School and I publicly thank you for it! You are a good man after all .

I believe there are some concepts in the world that are absolute and charity is one of them. There is a huge, huge difference between what is legal, what is constitutional and what is right.

Eli and Edythe Broad have not yet met a building they don’t want to see their names on. Do they have the right? Of course. Is it right? Obviously, I think not.

I believe great art museums enrich us all, Jew, non-Jew, atheist, communist, you name it. I am a member of LACMA and my family and I regularly visit area art museums.

But if my enjoyment of art is at the expense of securing the long-term viability of the Jewish people, then I can live without it. I simply can’t equate the two as being morally equivalent.

The Broads have done plenty for the art world. Enough! Time for them to step up and bolster the many worthy Jewish causes.

Some may question whether or not God notes the difference in charitable giving. All I can say is that the God described in the Torah most certainly does—if that matters to the Broads or any other ‘genetic’ Jews.

What, you may ask is a ‘genetic’ Jew? A human whose DNA says s/he is Jewish, but whose behaviors would argue otherwise.

The Two Faces of Bernard Madoff – Good and Evil

Dean Rotbart — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:43:00 GMT

The article below was first published this afternoon on the web site of the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles. But so many people have been trying to read that site, it keeps crashing. For anyone who can't access there, I'm re-posting it.

December 16, 2008

Madoff’s ‘unspeakable evil’ shocks those who thought they knew him well

By Dean Rotbart

In April 2004, Bernard L. Madoff and his wife, Ruth, devised a plan to save Jewish lives.

In the effort to bolster Gift of Life, a Florida-based nonprofit that maintains a unique Jewish bone marrow registry, the Madoffs funded and helped roll out an ongoing program to enlist large numbers of fresh, young donors whose marrow will be available for decades to come to provide life-saving transplants.

The same Bernie Madoff this month decimated untold Jewish lives and institutions.

The paradox -- one man possessed of bountiful quantities of good and evil -- is confounding to many who knew Madoff and only now are discovering his dark side.

"Like everybody else who trusted and invested with Bernie Madoff, he betrayed my trust," said Stanley Chais, a long-time Beverly Hills philanthropist who not only personally invested with Madoff, but also facilitated others who wished to do likewise. The Chais Family Foundation, which for more than two decades provided substantial funding to global Jewish causes, ceased operations on Sunday after Madoff-related losses left it penniless.

Besides shuttering his cherished foundation, Chais, who pronounces his name "Chase," told The Jewish Journal he and his family have lost "a huge amount of money."

Interviews conducted by The Journal with Madoff investors, as well as with officials of charities that were the recipients of Madoff's donations, reveal a complex web of relationships through which Madoff lured unsuspecting investors and they, in turn, helped attract additional prey.

Madoff's commitment to Gift of Life, for example, helped the organization raise funds from Madoff investors, including Fred Wilpon, owner of the New York Mets; J. Ezra Merkin, chairman of GMAC; and Norman Braman, a one-time owner of the Philadelphia Eagles.

One rich vein of prospective clients was the Palm Beach Country Club, home to some of Florida's wealthiest Jewish families. "It is our understanding that a significant number of the individuals harmed are leaders in the Jewish philanthropic community," confirms Jeremy Slusher, an attorney with Broad & Cassel.

Asked whether Madoff used his charitable work as a "cover" to lend his investment scheme credibility or whether he genuinely wished to help the charities he sponsored, a long-time business associate of Madoff, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he thinks the answer is most likely both.

"He lost his moral compass," said this individual. "You have certain challenges and turning points in your life. He crossed a barrier and could never come back."

Having lost $1.2 million in Madoff's scam, Robert and Sarah Chew, who relocated two years ago from Los Angeles to Colorado, never even heard the name Bernie Madoff until a lawyer phoned Robert last week to say the couple's money had vaporized.

Worse, Sarah's extended family, roughly a dozen relatives with strong Southern California roots, lost nearly $30 million over Madoff's deception.

Robert's experience, confirmed by others, is that he and members of his family did not have direct accounts with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. Rather, his investments and withdrawals were funneled through a convoluted legal construct that involved sub-partnerships, limited partnerships and other entities that kept all but a select few from interacting directly with Madoff Investment Securities.

Robert, a writer and public relations consultant who is not Jewish, said that he and Sarah entrusted their monies to Beverly Hills' Chais, who was as close to Madoff as they ever got. In writing about his losses at Time.com, Chew described Chais as "the Los Angeles network organizer" for Madoff.

Others independently confirm that Chais handled Madoff-related investments from limited partnerships and subpartnerships, including those involving Robert and Sarah Chew. Robert said of Chais, "He is completely innocent as far as I know."

Jay Sanderson, whose Jewish Television Network (JTN) had been one of the beneficiaries of the Chais Family Foundation, was not aware that the foundation folded until contacted by a reporter for The Jewish Journal.

"[Chais] is a very good friend and has been a very significant supporter of my work," said Sanderson, who added that his relationship with Chais goes back at least 15 years. "If I was making a list of the best human beings that I know in my life, he'd be on that list."

Sanderson described the funds JTN received from the Chais foundation as "meaningful," although he wouldn't be specific, adding, "In this environment, every contribution is meaningful."

At Gift of Life, founder Jay Feinberg said that due to the tight economy, his group already had been scaling back goals for its bone marrow registry for 2009 when news of the Madoff scandal arrived.

Just after this year's High Holy Days, Gift of Life turned to Madoff to serve as chairman of its board, a position that Feinberg, a leukemia survivor, had held since Gift of Life's founding in 1995. Feinberg said he and other board members hoped Madoff's leadership would help take the group "to the next level."

Asked if he has heard from Madoff since news of the fraud erupted, Feinberg sighed, "I doubt I'll ever hear from him again."

The long-time business associate of Madoff who wishes to remain unnamed, at first wrestled with the question of whether he believes Madoff is good, evil or both. Yet as he spoke, his judgment became obvious.

"I think he did some evil things, let me put it that way," this fellow investor said, expressing disbelief that Madoff involved his brother, children, nephews and nieces in a criminal enterprise. "Unless you are the mafia, would you expose your children to that kind of thing?" he asked.

As if thinking out loud, the investor observed that if Madoff had paused long enough to weigh the fallout from his swindle, perhaps Madoff could have limited the damage even after the line had been crossed. Yet, the investor reasoned, Madoff was "impervious" to his eventual impact.

"Bernie was going to ruin people's lives in an unimaginable way, unspeakable evil," the investor concluded. "It is a real sickness."

Think of All the Good Eli & Edythe Broad Could Be Doing, But Aren't

Dean Rotbart — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:56:00 GMT

Eli and Edythe Broad are revered among many in the Los Angeles Arts community, as well they should be given all the funds they've donated to support worthy art-related causes.

Their own private collection of contemporary art, which they generously lend out to museums around the world, is one of the best anywhere. The Broads spend tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of dollars a year in pursuit of this passion.

Too bad, too!

It boggles the mind to contemplate all the good they could do the Jewish community -- their community -- if they'd leave it to others from this point forward to support the arts and instead concentrate their donations on Jewish Day Schools, Jewish charities and support of Israel.

I have written a memo to Eli and Edythe on my blog at the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles that spells out my full reasoning. I hope you'll click over to it. It's worth reading and emailing to friends and family who agree.

DEAN

THE MEMO: Click on Image Below to Read My New Blog on JewishJournal.com

Dean Rotbart — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:44:00 GMT

MAILBOX: Haaretz Columnist Thinks Right-Wing Israelis Are Self-Hating Jews

Dean Rotbart — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:33:00 GMT

I thoroughly resent the statement by Bradley Bursten ( bbursten@haaretz.co.il ) in his editorial, below, that certain right-wing Israelis are self-hating Jews. I wrote to him, saying just that and more.
I request that anyone who agrees with me will also contact him.

M.
========

An article from Haaretz.
The URL is http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1044645.html

אתר הארץ
www.haaretz.co.il
Haaretz English
www.haaretz.com

Republicans Fumbled Their Right To Govern, Meanwhile Obama Recognized the 'Tide of Discontent'

Dean Rotbart — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:00:00 GMT

Dear Dean,

When you last wrote to me your salutation was "Dear Gilbert". Now it's "Dear Mr Skopp". I'm sorry if we somehow lost a little intimacy with each other. I hope I have been civil to you in my correspondence and that I may continue to address you as Dean.

I agree whole heartily with your observation that the future will confirm the past:

"...If I and other McCain voters are the fools so many family members believe, then time and President Obama will prove us wrong and we will be deserving of a badge of shame."...Rotbart

However, I do not believe that you are a fool for supporting McCain if your reasons are compelling and I do not think that you are deserving of a "badge of shame" should you be wrong in your predictions.

After 8 years of prosperity under President Clinton, we have, in the following 8 years, become bogged down in two wars; we are in a recession brought about by the policies of our lying, incompetent, Republican Administration and supported by a Republican-Controlled Congress; our Constitution has been weakened by the loss of Habeus Corpus, unchecked government spying and torture. For these reason alone the Republicans should not be returned to power. However, John McCain supported all of these Bush Policies, and ran one of the worst campaigns ever, showing that he is largely now inept.

My concern is that we in the USA protect the freedoms given to us by our Constitution, that we remain militarily strong and moral in our foreign policies. I believe in diplomacy before war and I'm not naive to believe that Hitler should or could have been appeased. I do not believe that Ahmadinjhad is a Hitler. I do not even believe that he has significant power in Iran. I think he is a puppet of the Imams and it's the Imams that we should be concerned about. And yes, I believe Iran is trying to build an Atomic weapon and I think that the present government should not be allowed to do that. I think the western powers should take the lead to show Iran that it would not be in their interests to develop an Atomic weapon. Of course it's easier said then done, but better than the "Bring it on" stupidity of our outgoing president and his desire to take on the world alone.

I believe a strong USA is important for Israel, but in the end, Israel must depend on itself.

After 8 years of prosperity under President Clinton, we have, in the following 8 years, become bogged down in two wars; we are in a recession brought about by the policies of our lying, incompetent, Republican Administration and supported by a Republican-Controlled Congress; our Constitution has been weakened by the loss of Habeus Corpus, unchecked government spying and torture. For these reason alone the Republicans should not be returned to power. However, John McCain supported all of these Bush Policies, and ran one of the worst campaigns ever, showing that he is largely now inept.

So, Obama was smart enough to recognize the rising tide of discontent in the USA and used that to champion change and ride that wave to victory. If you recall McCain, in 2000, rode a similar "wave" with his "Straight Talk Express", but in South Carolina Bush's campaign consultants used Robo- Calls to imply that McCain had a natural born black child (actually the child was adopted). Bush won, McCain lost. In 2008 McCain hired the same Bush Campaign Consultants to run his campaign and with that, his desire to win overcame his integrity and the campaign showed it. To me, McCain could no longer be trusted.

Obama, as it turned out, impressed me with his oratory, his ability to answer questions with grammatically correct sentences which made sense to me. He is probably one of the brightest men to be elected President and his selections to date in forming his cabinet have been widely applauded by almost all.

So we shall see how it turns out and I'm sure that we are both wishing him success!

Gilbert

(See next post from Gilbert H. Skopp and comments there)

Critics Are Welcome: 22% of Jewish Voters Who Voted McCain Also Eschewed Judaic Values

Dean Rotbart — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:52:00 GMT

Dear Dean,

After reading your column in the Jewish Journal, I felt it necessary to respond. I wrote a letter to the editor and sent a copy to you. The Jewish Journal did not print my letter (it was relegated to their website) and neither did you in citing examples of responses that you received from your article. I was probably being too "cutesy", but this is the letter that I wrote:

I just read Dean Rotbart's brilliant tongue-in-cheek apology for the Jewish vote for Barack Obama. The tip-off, of course, was his naming of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Mike Gallagher as deserving of an apology.

These talking heads -- with Rush Limbaugh -- have committed one of the worst of Jewish sins, i.e., malicious gossip. Rotbart even repeats some of them in his positive take on guilt by association and fear-mongering.

Unfortunately, as Rotbart points out, there are about 22 percent of Jewish voters who will look upon his opinion piece as being serious, which supports President Lincoln's observation that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Gilbert H. Skopp
Calabasas

Also relegated to the Jewish Journal's Website was the following letter which more clearly describes my feelings:

I apologize for the 22 percent of Jewish voters who voted Republican and gave demagogic credence to the poisonous venom that spews like raw sewage from the convoluted minds and mouths of conservative television and radio hosts.

I apologize for the 22 percent of Jewish voters who voted Republican and embraced hatred, bigotry and fear, while eschewing the traditional Judaic values of love, acceptance and hope.

I apologize for the 22 percent of Jewish voters who voted Republican and want the continuation of the war in Iraq, a war that has left Israel with more enemies and fewer choices and options to chose from.

I apologize for the 22 percent of Jewish voters who voted Republican and abandoned the majority of non-Jews who elected a president that carefully addresses the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio and seeks to end the Wild West shootout that has become the Republican substitute for thoughtful diplomacy.

And finally, I apologize for Rotbart and his ideological cousins at the RJC, who believe that in Orwellian doublespeak, a fact is an epithet and a falsehood is the truth.

Marc Rogers
Sherman Oaks

I wonder if you will print our letters in your newsletter.

I am interested in your views and would like, on occasion, to respond to you. Therefore I will not unsubscribe from your newsletter.

Gilbert H. Skopp

MAILBOX: Let's All Pitch In To Buy Sharp Blades For Our Executioners

Dean Rotbart — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:43:00 GMT

Dear Dean:

Well, well, well. Bunch of enlightened souls we Jews are, with our electoral preferences, aren't we now?

"Martin Indyk (Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution), along with Council of Foreign Relations President Richard Hass, recently provided the foreword and first chapter to Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President. Indyk was [a] strong and visible supporter of Barack Obama's during the campaign who assured Jewish audiences of Barack Obama's strong support for Israel."

Refreshing, isn't it? Isn't our peculiar brand of elitist self-loathing just grand? Aren't we the savvy ones, making common cause with our enemies out of ignorance? Oh yeah, these folks we have supported for so long out of kindness, or pity, or whatever emotion we've intellectually talked ourselves into with our twisted internal dialog can really turn tail, can't they? Boy, are we one enlightened bunch or what? We sure know how to vote those fine Democrats in, we're always thinking about how truthful they are, what selfless public servants they are, and how they've tirelessly supported Israel.

But wait, Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, that proves he's not anti-Semitic. Wow, the brilliance of this insight just leaves us conservatives scratching the heads surrounding our shriveled little neanderthal brains in confusion, doesn't it? Where did we go wrong?

Congratulations, my fellow Jews, nice job on that voting thingy. What's next, shall we pool our resources and see if we can get a wholesale deal on fine German cutlery to donate to the poor suffering Muslims in Palestine, so when they cut our throats, they'll have nice sharp blades and at least it will be quick?

A.P.
December 7, 2008 12:38:49 PM PST

7 Reasons This Conservative Is Actually Glad Obama Got Elected

Dean Rotbart — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 03:45:00 GMT

Below you will find an email I received on November 27th from a non-Jewish friend who is one of the most impressive renaissance men I've met in my entire career as a business journalist and entrepreneur. He is a gifted artist, a best-selling author, a medical doctor and innovator, a savvy businessman, a prolific blogger, a doting granddad, a loyal husband and, so he says, a decent golfer.

He and I met in a business context and never actually discussed politics or religion. So my November 12th article in the Jewish Journal was the first time he learned exactly where I stand. Because his note was intended solely as a private email to me, I've withheld his name.

========================

Hey Dean--

I just read your blog and your piece in the Jewish Journal. And I read the hateful comments you got as a result. There sure are a lot of people out there who can't have a civil debate. I've noticed that most of the most vicious commenters in situations like this are liberals - I think they are just constitutionally nasty people.

Great minds think alike. I have a friend in the UK who, although not an American citizen (in fact, she's never been here), takes a keen interest in American politics and is conservative. We've been writing back and forth about the election and the aftermath. I told her that, although I was devastated at first, I had come around and thought of a number of reasons that I was actually glad Obama got elected. She pestered me for my list, so I finally sent it a few weeks ago. Here it is. Pay close attention to reason # 5.

Hi Susan--

Here is my list, for what it's worth.

1) We (the US) can finally shake off this notion that we're a racist
society. From here on out, we can ask the Brits, the Spanish, the
French, the Italians, the Germans, the Swedes, etc., where is your
black President/Prime Minister? Our national sins from the era of
slavery have finally been washed away.

2) With the state of the economy being what it is, Obama's hands are
tied. All of his ideas of wealth redistribution will have to be put
on hold because if he tries to raise taxes, the economy will
completely implode. He is pretty much forced by events to maintain
the status quo. Or even cut taxes. And how do you think that will
sit with his devotees?

3) The Democrats will be forced to do the right thing. The two
party system is an interesting beast, at least as it breathes here.
Most politicians in both parties are smart because it requires a
fair amount of smarts to rise to the top in this system. Early on a
budding politician has to pick a horse to ride - either a Democratic
or Republican one. That choice decides for the politician which
group of constituents must be pandered to. If a Democrat, then the
'little guy' is the panderee. Democrats know that the economy would
be devastated if they raised the capital gains tax substantially (or
even a little right now), but they blather on about doing it because
that's what their constituents want to hear: let's get money from
the evil rich. In past times the Dems could float bills to raise
taxes (capital gain taxes and others) and depend upon the
Republicans to provide cover for them and defeat the bills. No
longer. And, as I say, the Democrats (most of whom are themselves
rich) are smart enough to know what will happen if the idiotic
notions they use to pander to their voters are made a reality. So,
they will be forced to do the right thing. It will be fun to watch
them twist in the wind, trying to explain to their constituents why
they can't pass all these give-away programs they've been promising
to pass.

4) Obama - as I knew he would - is turning to all the old party
hacks to fill his administration. The grumbling has already
started. Where is all the change we've been promised? His feet are
starting slowly to turn to clay.

5) I think the Obama presidency may well switch the voting block of
Jewish people from solidly Democratic to Republican. People in the
South for a hundred years were what are called Yellow Dog Democrats,
meaning that they would vote for a yellow dog if it were a Democrat.
When I lived in the South, the big local elections were always the
primaries because those decided which Democrat was going to run in
the general election, and said Democrat would always defeat the
token Republican, so the important elections were the primaries.
Why did people in the South vote this way? A holdover from
Reconstruction after the Civil War. Post Civil War it was the
Republicans who foisted Reconstruction on the South, and it took
Southerners a long time to forget. Finally, Southerners have gotten
over it and realized that the Republican party now has their best
interests at heart, and so now the South pretty much votes
Republican. It's the same with the Jews. I don't know why Jews are
Democrats because most Jewish people are successful and socially
conservative, the very group that one would think would be solidly
in the Republican camp. But they're not - they almost always vote
Democrat. Obama is no friend of Israel, that's for sure. He is
pro-Palestinian and pro-Muslim in general. And people living in
Israel know it. Absentee ballots from US Jews living in Israel who
know the score went 3-1 for McCain. Yet here there was a huge
Jewish push to elect Obama. When Obama sells Israel down the river,
which I'm pretty certain he will do, the Democratic scales may fall
from the eyes of Jews here and drive them whole scale to the
Republican party, which has always been the strongest party in
support of Israel. It will be nice to have that large, wealthy
demographic make the move to our side.

6) Obama will certainly try to pull out of Iraq ASAP - it was one of
his major promises. If he does, it won't take long for the Bathists
(Saddam's old party) to take over. They have the smarts and the
wealth and they are secularists. If they do take over, a couple of
good things will happen. First, they will savage the Shiites, whom
they despise and blame for everything. (I hate to see any group get
savaged, but if any deserve it, it is the Shiites. They can never
be made happy unless they are living under Sharia and cause constant
problems wherever they are.) This will, of course, make the news,
and people over here will start asking why we undid all the efforts
so many people died for over the past five years. Obama won't look
good. Second, a country in control by the Bathists right next door
will refocus Iran's attention away from us and Israel and back on to
Iraq where it belongs.

7) When we pull out of Iraq, it will save the US a ton of money.
But, the immediate results will be bad for Obama. Most of the
military over there now are from the National Guard, not regular
military. When these people come home, they will try to go back
into the labor force, which is already laying off people left and
right. Unemployment will skyrocket - and Obama will get the blame.

If the economy continues to crumble, as it will, Obama and the
Democrats will get the blame for it. They all got elected to get us
out of this mess, but the mess is way beyond their control. In
today's times (or any time, for that matter) Obama can't possibly
live up to his soaring rhetoric, which will lead to mass
disappointment. The Messiah is supposed to perform miracles, after
all. I predict a huge Republican gain in the next election in two
years just as there was after Clinton's first two years. Clinton
ruined the Democratic party for a generation - I suspect Obama will
do the same.

This is my list that keeps me from being suicidal over the Obama
election. It will be interesting to see how closely I predicted.

So, as you can see, you and I see eye to eye on political issues. We've never talked politics in all the discussions we've had, but somehow I knew your heart was in the right place. It's good to have an ally in the sea of liberaldom called California.

Pathetic Paul Wrote Back - But Is Afraid To Have His Comments Printed

Dean Rotbart — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:33:00 GMT

In the blog post just beneath this one, I challenge Pathetic Paul S. Kessler to write back and respond to my questions. Big brave Paul, who labels me a "self-hating, kool-aid drinking" Jew, huffs and puffs and tells me that he doesn't want his pitiful response posted.

Frankly, I think Paul is a wuss. Hiding behind his mommy's skirt, he is big and threatening. But having the courage to spew publicly what he vomits at me in private is just too harrowing for sad sack Paul.

I could publish his response despite his warning not to. I never agreed not to publish what he writes me, in fact, if you read my response to him, I specifically promised him that I would publish his unedited response.

So what does Paul do. He writes me and tells me I have no right to publish his remarks. Duh?

Oh yes, Pathetic Paul also tells me if I email him again he'll consider it spam. Ooh. Ooh. He is so scary.

I guess Paul doesn't know the actual definition of spam. Here is what I emailed him back:

I think the definition of spam involves me sending out mass emails to persons I don't know. Obviously, we now know each other. I think the law would say if you don't want email from me, block it or don't open it.

When I studied law, I seem to recall that if you send me mail and ask me to abide by any "restrictions," I'm under no obligation to do so unless I previously agreed to some such restriction, which I most certainly never did.

I'm a journalist and a blogger. You knew that when you emailed me. If you didn't want me to publish what you write to me, you probably shouldn't have sent it.

Could it be that you are full of yourself when you write one-on-one, but sheepish to stand in public exposed for the shallow intellect that you really are? Just curious.

DEAN

ATTENTION PAUL S. KESSLER: When Will You Be Going To Dinner in Gaza?

Dean Rotbart — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:48:00 GMT

Subject:

Your Apology To The Far Right

From:

"Paul Kessler" <p.kessler@verizon.net>

(Add as Preferred Sender)

Date:

Tue, Dec 02, 2008 12:09 pm

To:

<dr@deanrotbart.com>

As a Jew, as an American and as someone with an I.Q. beyond many of those you listed, I was personally offended by your apology.

To ask forgiveness for anything from an anti-Semite, from someone who provides a venue to a virulent anti-Semite and to a political candidate who practices the most fundamental of Christian theology and associates with anti-Israel preachers on many occasions is beyond the pale of reason. While I will not spend too much time in composing a response to your hate-filled, reactionary and canard filled essay, I will say that it is unfortunate that you count yourself among the Jewish Community. Self-hating Jews that have “drunk the kool-aid” of the far right wing of the Republican Party are more dangerous than an Arab with a gun in a group of Jews; at least everyone knows that individual’s true intentions.

I take some comfort in knowing that the mainstream Jewish community has marginalized you.

Paul S. Kessler

    From:     dr@deanrotbart.com
    Subject:     RE: Your Apology To The Far Right
    Date:     December 2, 2008 4:35:34 PM PST
    To:     p.kessler@verizon.net

Dear Mr. Kessler: I wonder if you can or dare to support the accusations that you make in your email to me? Seeing as you believe yourself to have a high I.Q., I challenge you to try.

Let me be specific. First, I ask you to cite the sentence, paragraphs or words in my column that are "hate-filled," and please don't insult both of our intelligence by saying the entire column collectively overflows with hate.

Am I the self-hating Jew or is Marc Stanley, a man who makes excuses for Hamas and its aspirations to kill all Israeli Jews?

Am I Ahmadinejad? Do I call on the world to wipe Israel off the map? That is hate speech. Did I sit at a dinner with Rashid Khalidi and stay mum while speaker after speaker praised him and his Jew-hating ideals? Did I make up President-elect Obama's associations with Rashid and Mona Khalidi, with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, with terrorist Bill Ayers?

Am I a self-hating Jew? Or are you a narrow-minded hater of fundamentalist Christians, including Sarah Palin? Out of curiosity, do you also hate fundamentalist Muslims of the Hamas-Hezbollah variety or do you see them as oppressed people with legitimate grievance against the Zionists and hence pardon their making victims out of innocent Yeshiva students and a Rabbi and his pregnant wife at a Chabad house in Mumbai? That, to me, is the definition of a self-hating Jew.

Do you know your history, sir? Who were the self-hating Jews in the 1930s, those who spoke out against the dangers of the Nazis or those who said, pooh, pooh, the Nazis are just blowing smoke? Little did we know that the smoke would become the ash of six millions of our brothers and sisters and many millions more non-Jewish children of G-d?

What, pray tell, is the difference between the dangers Adolph Hitler represented in the 1930s and the dangers Ahmadinejad presents today? Is Barack Obama a Nevelle Chamberlain or is he Winston Churchill? (If you don't know who they are, try Wikipedia.com.) His record suggests that he and Nevelle would see eye-to-eye.

Finally, let me ask you to rationally try and explain what you mean when you state that I am "more dangerous than an Arab with a gun in a group of Jews; at least everyone knows that individual's true intentions." For real?

I invite you to spend a Shabbos at my home after you've spent a Shabbos with your Arab friends in Gaza. Only then you can make a fair comparison.

If you take some comfort in the thought that the mainstream Jewish community has marginalized me, I'm sure you would absolutely delight if I'd shut up and let you and Marc Stanley represent 100% of American Jews. Alas, you'll have to seek your comfort elsewhere.

If you will respond to me, I will publish your response unedited. If you don't, we'll both know who is the hate-filled, reactionary, won't we?

DEAN

Snowed. Bamboozled. Completely Taken in by Media Spin!

Dean Rotbart — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:21:00 GMT

Dear Dean:

I appreciate your reply to my note 11/21.I sat down and tried to expand my thinking on the topic of Jewish VOTER NEGLIGENCE; a term you coined which I really think captures it.

I think that in general, the great majority of US citizens (not just Jews) are and were completely bamboozled by spin, propaganda, and carefully calculated media PR, which has truly been brought to a high level and very dark art. I'll never understand the utterly vile contempt for Sarah Palin, but one thing that cannot be denied is: It worked! Boy, did it work! Each and every piece of excrement that was slung at her proved to be utterly false, fabricated for effect, made up by some blogger somewhere, and yet published as fact by virtually every arm of the mainstream media. I have no memory of a propaganda campaign so thoroughly biased and so baseless in terms of verifiable facts. Not even close.

Did you see the Howard Stern "man on the street" interviews, where Stern's guy asked Obama supporters whom they were going to vote for, asking fake questions which reversed the positions of the candidates? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg [some crude language] "Does it bother you that Obama picked Sarah Palin as his running mate?" "No, not at all!"

Did you see the Fox News interviews with Obama supporters? They ALL knew Sarah Palin had a $150K shopping spree, but they couldn't generally identify Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or how many branches of government the US supposedly has? Yes, Virginia, they let these people vote?

And how totally did the entire media fall for the "Palin is an idiot" mantra as a result of the interview of "Martin Eisenstadt"; a completely made-up alleged McCain campaign advisor...EVEN AFTER the creators of the hoax came forward and admitted they had completely made up the character...and gave him a semi-Jewish name so "he'd fit in with the neocons who all seem to have 50% Jewish names" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/30/filmmakers-behind-fake-mc_n_147216.html You see any "mea culpas" from the goofed-on media? I didn't. I guess it isn't really news, then, is it?

Snowed. Bamboozled. Completely taken in by media spin! And yet so many are actually proud of it! Ay Caramba! (That's NOT Yiddish!)

More importantly and ominously, I say this: Very, very few in this country have any kind of recollection, personal or otherwise, of true tyranny. The old Soviet Union is gone and forgotten; never mind it threatens to re-emerge under Putin. Hitler? He's so incorporated into ordinary media-speak that folks routinely compare a surly sales clerk or bureaucrat to Hitler. Even Jews who self-righteously compare any number of others whose policies or actions they disagree with to Hitler; Somehow they have forgotten that to casually do so cheapens the memory that Jews, above any other people, must keep finely honed and singular. Shame on them! That is not material for an off-the-cuff throwaway comment in my book! Hopefully, they can just confine themselves to spitting on you and calling you a moron, always the hallmark of an informed opinion, no?

And it's a similar situation we see going on in the financial sphere; we are at the point where one or two generations have passed since this kind of financial turmoil. Forty years, two generations wandering in the desert was for a distinct reason: the passage of two generations was enough to wipe out sufficient collective memory within a people. Without going into too much detail; sufficient generations have passed so that there is no collective memory of the conditions that led up the ascendency of Hitler and Mussolini; Stalin, Pol Pot, these are shadowy memories. Let us not forget that Stalin was viewed VERY favorably in the West for many, many years, well past the late thirties wehn he was murdering millions of his countrymen. Che Guevara is a youth hero associated with "rebellion", never mind the atrocities he committed. Mao Tse Tung, by far the greatest mass murderer of all time; apparently now a benevolent father figure. What has happened is that sufficient generations have passed so that there is no collective memory of a serious, worldwide depression, nor is there a memory of the kind of tyranny that inflicted such mega-slaughter as recently as the last century. It's just gone, hey, did you set the Tivo on "American Idol" tonight?

Jews had better wake up and exert some deeper thinking past swallowing cheesy sound bites. Press coverage of this last election resembled nothing if not a high-school rumor mill. Appalling. Muslims are making astounding inroads into the European populations. England is essentially gone.You can say what you want about Muslims being peace-loving people, but frankly, I see very few examples, and I see utterly NO examples of Muslims speaking out against the aggression and bloodthirsty violence of the Jihadists. Like it or not, these folks are our mortal enemies. Embedded in their religion is to kill or subdue the infidel. That would be us. The Jihadists have not the slightest doubt about this. Their foreheads hit the floor 5 times a day every day. Most secular Jews go to synagogue twice or three times a year. Jews are the casual ones, always liberally allowing for the discourse, the opposing view, empathizing with the victims. Jews in this case are apparently ready to "empathize" great big bloody slash marks across their collective corotid arteries.

There's a lot more at stake here than McCain (a slug of a candidate) vs. Obama; who nobody can say ANYTHING about since so much of his past is either hidden or deemed irrelevant. Personally, I think Obama is an accomplishment-challenged Marxist radical whose associations should be very troubling to Jews. I'm not arguing McCain vs Obama. I am advocating that Jews, who fancy themselves as thinking creatures, should think a hell of a lot harder than they apparently did this past election. I am making a case for intellectual clarity. We don't need ever more effervescent, effusive, and ephemeral theories about how the world owes us this oncoming pile of grief for sins we're not guilty of.

A.P.

Rogovin on Rotbart: "I Cannnot Share Your Enthusiasm" for the Jewish Journal

Dean Rotbart — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:57:00 GMT

Re: Your Nov 12 JJ column, my response: Ill-liberal Liberals

Shalom Dean,

I must decline your kind offer to add me to your elist. I am simply overwhelmed and do not have the time, unfortunately. I am the president of Jarrow Formulas, Inc., a dietary supplement company, and chairman of our manufacturing arm, Jarrow Industries, Inc. I have 170 employees. This is in addition to existing advocacies, including periodic letters such as the one I wrote to you and that so-called Jewish Journal. My inbox is already overstuffed.

True to my letter, of course, the JJ posted no letters in support of yours. Eshman is at least consistent in his dishonesty, which he gets away with because he has a monopoly. I believe the reason why there were so few letters in support of you is because people who do not agree with the Journal know that since they will be ignored anyway, there is no point in writing to it. (They also tend not to be "Bolsheviks" living in retirement or on a union dole. They tend to have to actually work, such as myself.)

I cannot share your enthusiasm for having published you. It is a begrudging crumb to cover their own cynical, manipulative -- and even vindictive -- views. With all due respect to you, if they had any desire to open up that disreputable bird cage liner of theirs to opposing views, they would contract with a nationally recognized conservative Jewish voice on a regular basis. In fact, they do not even have a local one. Editor Rob Eshman is a hypocrite and a disaster for the local Jewish community. His Yiddishkite is a thin veneer for leftist sludge, the real message.

As for the letters to and about you, they are not really responding to any of your points. None of them. This is typical of liberals. They are emotional Exxon Valdezes. They shriek that you are irrationally and improperly invoking the Holocaust. Not one of those Prozac cases who wrote you responded to the fact that the Holocaust 2 to which you were referring is the threat of an Iranian nuclear attack against Israel. Not one of them addressed what sort of credible policy Obama has enunciated regarding Iran. Since the IAEA has recently announced that Iran now has 630 kg of enriched uranium, we now have barely a year left for decisive action before it is too late. Again, Obama has said nothing other than that he would talk to Iran. Since Germany, France and the UK has done that for five years and have recently announced that their talking cure has been an utter failure, your detractors would better serve themselves by addressing Obama's virtual lack of any other approach to date. His references to sanctions have been vague, and in fact, his opposition to the 2007 Senate Resolution 3017, designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, did little more than signify that Obama does not have a serious position regarding Iran. His position would certainly be viewed that way in Tehran. If nothing else, Obama is subject to severe reproach for having no consistent, comprehensible message on or to Iran. Nor, for that matter on anything else....

And that is the further problem with your detractors and their fugue-state support of Obama. For them to crow triumphantly over the appointment of Rahm Emanuel is opportunism at best, like a child receiving an unexpected -- and undeserved -- treat but acting as though it was expected all along. Where or when in Obama's history do we find anything of weight equal to his associations with Arabists, terrorists and radicals? Where? There is a complete lack of self-awareness in the letters written to you that, if nothing else, Obama has set himself up for whatever skepticism, criticism and downright suspicion he has been subjected to. He has never owned up to these associations, such as Khalidi and Abuminah, corroborating with William Ayres at the Woods Foundation to fund Khalidi's Arab-American Action Network $75,000, much less explained where he might have parted company with these disreputable ilk. But these are mere facts and they simply do not get in the way of the sickos that have bombarded your email inbox. It is somewhat mind boggling that your detractors attack Palin for associations she does not have and for which these accusers have no evidence, but are in frothing-at-the-mouth denial of the well-documented associations of Obama with malefactors.

The worst of the screwballs that wrote you accused Governor Palin of Nazi sympathies -- among other things. I find no sense of definition of what the term Nazi means to these people must less what evidence they have for a single one of their accusations. As stated above, they are Prozac cases -- and add to that some lithium and whatever anti-psychotic nooleptics they obviously need.

Fortunately, the majority of JJ readers are not mentally ill like those writers, but they are, as described above, emotionally and intellectually stunted, generally incapable of formulating a well-founded, factual, well-reasoned political positions. (So perhaps they deserve Rob Eshman after all.)

Ever notice how publicly unavailable Eshman generally is? It is not as if he takes the risk of exposing himself to the sort of public debate and criticism someone in his position owes the community over which he has a virtual media monopoly. Now, if only they can get that "Fairness Doctrine" through and really muzzle any opposition....

Last point, I am ashamed to admit it, but liberal Jews are generally a bunch of Christian haters. They don't mind intermarriage with pagan Christians (meaning unchurched), but they really loathe believing and practicing Christians. With the reaction to Palin, I am afraid, this bias is too obvious to deny any longer. They will even accuse of her being a "Nazi" even though it is obvious that she would have hidden Jews if she had been there.

For further evidence, see the November 14 Jewish Forward. It contains a disgustingly vicious anti-Christian "cartoon." When I called the paper and spoke to Jeffrey Goldberg's assistance, she admitted that there had been a number of phone calls from Jews who were outraged by the cartoon's bigotry. She reluctantly admitted that I was not alone in my view. I demanded that the paper apologize for "that filth" and she said that the paper would not do so, that it considered the cartoon to be "satire." I responded there was nothing satirical about it, that it was base bigotry and a disgrace, a shanda, to the Jewish community and I DEMANDED the paper apologize. She said I should write a letter. I did. We'll see whether Goldberg is as "honest" as Eshman....

You have my permission to post this letter.

Jarrow L. Rogovin

Los Angeles

FAN MAIL: Me, George Bush, Dick Cheney and the Other Fear Mongers

Dean Rotbart — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:11:00 GMT

This past Sunday, November 30th, I emailed the first edition of a new weekly newsletter, Dean Rotbart's News & Comment. The email was addressed primarily to readers who had sent me comments in response to my most recent column in the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles.

I didn't just send the new e-letter to those who liked what I had to say in the Jewish Journal. I sent it, too, to my critics. Using the Constant Contact newsletter service, those who wanted to be dropped from my subscriber list could do so easily. Amazingly, given how many critics I attracted, relatively few have canned me thus far.

One reader did not just cut me off. She (could be a he) offered me a chance at redemption. Here is our exchange that took place over the past 12 hours:

Reader: It is difficult to use normal, rationale thinking to understand what your motives are or why you would want to write such negative and hateful propositions. If your intention is to be provocative, you manage to do that. If your intention is to educate, you fail. Why not use your curiosity and desire to write for a higher purpose. In my opinion, you unfortunately are placed on the same level as Limbaugh and Co. Why not be taken seriously and make a real contribution? One thing you might want to try is to present honest news. Unless you elevate yourself to that level of journalism, please do not send me any more of your emails.

Thank you.

Me: I want you to know that I appreciate the tone you have taken. In many ways, I wrote my column and sent out my newsletter in the hopes of creating a dialogue with people who don't share my point of view. Note that I said having 'a dialogue', not changing their minds.

I regret that you no longer wish to receive my email letter. I'm open to hearing from you and learning from you, but I would like the communications to be two-way.

I do believe my motives are not a mystery and my rationale is clear-headed. I also contest your description of what I do as hateful. I hate only one thing: those who will kill innocents in the name of religion or for any other irrational reason.

I don't know your background. I grew up drenched in the holocaust. My father survived Auschwitz, his parents and entire family did not. All the kids in my neighborhood were daughters and sons of the holocaust. I've seen the multi-generational scars of true evil.

I believe that Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wishes to destroy Israel. That is not irrational. He has said so repeatedly. He is also trying to obtain nuclear weapons. So what is dishonest about saying that if no country will stop Iran, it will mean the end of Israel?

If you saw a child running in front of an oncoming car, would you cry out to try and prevent the child from being killed? I suspect so. My columns and newsletter are just such a cry.

If you can think of a "higher purpose" for which I might write, I would like to know it. I can think of none more important than preventing a second holocaust.

If Israel is destroyed, it will not be the end of America's troubles with Iran and the Arab jihadists. It will only be the start.

With every fiber of my being I pray that I'm a fool. I pray that my worry that President Obama will not take actions to stop Iran is unnecessary.

If one of us must be wrong, then please G-d let it be me.

I have removed your name from my mailing list. If you ever have a change of heart and wish to continue to hear from me and reply back, let me know.

Dean

Reader: I think you should really examine the approach you use to get your ideas heard and to get, what you call, dialogue with others. As someone who has studied communication and who spent many years as a mediator, I would like to suggest to you that perhaps it is not your desires or ideas that need refocusing but your delivery system.

Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Expressing concerns. Questioning policy. Exploring options. All well intended and important. But, you have a way of blasting your opinion, using one-sided rhetoric and giving conclusions with few hypotheses. You use the current administration's methodology of fear to drive your points. Its unintelligent and drives people away more than it includes them. Some may say its clever and prefer that approach but this approach is unfortunately used by some very skewed, sick, and hateful media mongers. The majority of the public is sick of this style. I know that I am. That is how you come across. If that is not what you wish to communicate, then find another approach and represent yourself more authentically. Maybe you will then do some educating and even find some people to really dialogue with you.

Good luck to you.

I did not write back. I am, however, open to another approach, if anyone reading this cares to suggest one. What I really wonder is if there is any way to reach her and others like her? How do I warn people of a potential catastrophe without being an alarmist? And if there is such a way, will it do any good?

If you would like to receive my weekly e-letter, which comes out Sunday mornings, email me at dr@deanrotbart.com and put the word "subscribe" in the subject line.

The Ghost of America's Future: December 2010

Dean Rotbart — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:22:00 GMT

(Ames, IA) December 1, 2010 -- With the 2012 presidential election less than two years away, both declared and undeclared candidates agree that the issue of paramount importance to a majority of American voters in the next election will be national security, not economics.

"Are you safer today than you were four years ago?" asks Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut) as he travels to auditoriums, classroom and parlor meetings here.

Democratic challenger Hillary Rodham Clinton, who resigned as Secretary of State in October 2009, just shy of ten months after being sworn in, notes that recent deadly terrorism assaults in Boston, Charlotte, Dallas, Los Angeles and Seattle have done more to cripple the U.S. economy that did faulty lending practices that led to the prolonged recession of 2009.

Clinton resigned her State Department post in protest over the Obama administration's support of United Nations sanctions against Israel. The U.S. sided with other Security Council members in condemning Israel for its October 7, 2009 retaliatory attack against Iran, which three days earlier launched three nuclear-tipped missiles at Tel Aviv, killing 35,000 Israelis instantly and rendering much of the city of nearly 400,000 residents uninhabitable.

"In early 2009, people worried about losing their homes and their retirement savings," Clinton told a receptive audience in Durham, NH last night. " Now, as the coordinated attacks in five American cities clearly demonstrate, we all have to worry about losing our very lives."

President Obama, who has not yet formally confirmed his plans to run for a second term, told the nation in a televised speech after the fifth attack, a series of bombs set off in the crowded Pikes Place Market in Seattle, that the United States will not tolerate such attacks. "When it comes to our security, we are all of one party, all of one mind," the President said.

Meanwhile, Republican frontrunner Tom Tancredo, on the stump in Santa Barbara, California, decried President Obama's planned summit with the leaders of a dozen Islamic nations as "a poorly disguised attempt at further appeasement." Tancredo, a former Congressman from Colorado who advocates the complete closure of U.S. boarders to foreigners and immediate deportation of illegal aliens, has seen his once-fringe position gain popular traction since the recent wave of domestic attacks.

Senator Lieberman, who supported John McCain in the 2008 election primarily because of McCain's stance on defense and maintaining a sufficient U.S. military in Iraq, pins the Iranian attack on Israel and the recent domestic terrorism assaults on the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

"The void we left when we withdrew from Iraq invited a new, more deadly strain of terrorism - one that knows there is no force in the world willing to stand up to it," Lieberman said this week in an Op-Ed article in The Wall Street Journal. "But our President continues to believe we can talk sense into those who are sworn to destroy us."

Despite the charges, President Obama remains popular in broad public opinion polls. Surveys show that large portions of the American electorate continue to support the President's defense and economic positions and believe the charges against him are politically and racially charged.

"The fact of the matter is that President Obama is restoring America's reputation among our allies and the cancer that is global terrorism is too large for any one nation to combat," said Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House. "The tragedies of Boston, Los Angeles, Seattle, Dallas and Charlotte should not be politicized," she added.

Senator Al Shapton (D-New York), who was appointed to fill Clinton's New York Senate Seat when she became Secretary of State in January 2009, called criticism of President Obama thinly veiled racism. "There are some people in this country who just refuse to accept the notion of a black man as president," Senator Sharpton said at a recent Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Manhattan. "It is not President Obama's choices as Commander in Chief that people resent, it is strictly his skin color."

This week marks two years since a series of coordinated attacks in Mumbai, India killed more than 195 people and sent the Indian economy into a tailspin. India's military response against Pakistan precipitated the ongoing regional conflict that to date has claimed tens of thousands of civilian lives on both sides.

"We'll never know what might have been," said Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) on Meet the Press this past week. "But I know this much, those who voted for President Obama because they wanted change, got their wish. Our world has changed."

View Dean Rotbart News & Comment, November 30, 2008

Unpublished Letters to the Editor

Dean Rotbart — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 00:52:00 GMT

My article in the November 12, 2008 edition of the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles has generated a great deal of response. Many thousands of people have read it in print and online. Dozens of readers have written responses to me directly because I listed my email at the bottom of the article.

In the November 19th edition of the paper, three letters to the editor concerning my column were published. A few additional letters are included in the Jewish Journal's online edition. Undoubtedly the paper received many more comments.

At last count, a couple dozen bloggers and other Internet sites are discussing the column. I've been interviewed by one news organization and have an interview scheduled with a second.

I have found the letters instructive. Some accuse me viscously of narrow-mindedness and base motives, without pausing even momentarily to reread -- much less consider -- their own hate-filled screeds. A few have been amazingly thoughtful, even among those who criticize me.

That the column touched a nerve is undeniable. My guess is that I failed to move anyone off what was their basic view prior to reading the piece. Those who share my beliefs were heartened to hear someone else express them. Those who disagree, were only reinforced in their conviction of our idiocy.

I will keep trying in the hope that I may yet plant a seed of doubt even in those who are most forceful in their denials of my words and my right to express them. Can those who speak with such unadulterated anger truly believe that they do so in the pursuit of a greater good?

As comments below, you will find real, unedited emails that I've received from those wishing to comment on my article. They are posted in random order. (Please check back often as I will load fresh posts and am still adding earlier comments, which takes some time.) When I've been able to reply, I have. You can read my replies as well.

If you wish to comment, I encourage you to add your thoughts too. I can be reached at dr@deanrotbart.com.

Republican Jewish Coalition Responds To My Query

Dean Rotbart — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:44:00 GMT

On November 11, I wrote to Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Washington D.C. to ask about his article titled Tough questions about Obama need to be asked. The editorial is posted on the RJC website and has subsequently been reprinted in a variety of venues.

I copied my email to Suzanne Kurtz, press secretary and she replied on behalf of the RJC. I hope you will take a moment to read Mr. Brooks's column, my questions and comments and Ms. Kurtz's reply. Then tell me what you think.

=============================
MY Email to Matt Brooks:

On 11/10/08 1:02 PM, "Dean Rotbart" <dr@deanrotbart.com> wrote:

Mr. Brooks,

I am a Los Angeles-based writer and have a question about your remarks in the Op-Ed titled "Tough Questions about Obama..."

I am planning to comment on your thoughts and hope you can clarify your thinking so I don't inadvertantly misrepresent your remarks.

What most caught my attention was this sentence: "Obama was unable to exceed Bill Clinton or Al Gore, and only slightly improved on John Kerry's support in the Jewish community."

To my eyes, such a result is a huge disgrace. Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry didn't have Obama's long record of associations with anti-Jewish preachers and other hateful leaders. That the Jewish community actually voted Democratic in numbers similar to past Presidential elections sets off five-bell alarms with me.

What am I missing? If the Jewish community didn't abandon the Democratic party in 2008 with Obama at the head of its ticket, what would it take for them to vote Republican?

I'd welcome your elaboration/s for publication. If you prefer to speak by phone, please do call.

[Note: I am not sure where my comments will appear. At the least, I plan to post them on one or more blogs that I author. I am also likely to submit them for consideration to various Jewish and secular publications.]

Thank you in advance,

DEAN

==========================

Suzanne Kurtz's Reply
Friday, Nov 14, 2008 11:49 am
From: Suzanne Kurtz skurtz@rjchq.org

Thank you, Mr. Rothbart [sic]. I read your piece. It was a tough year for the GOP all around. Obama picked up gains in all constituencies, but less so in the Jewish community, actually.

An Apology to John McCain, Sarah Palin, et. al.

Dean Rotbart — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:15:00 GMT

In this Friday's edition of the Los Angeles Jewish Journal I have an Op-Ed piece about the Jewish vote and the non-Jews who continue to offer unyielding support to Israel. It can be found here.

You may also wish to read some of the comments posted on my blog, as well as those on the Sean Hannity forums and Ann Coulter forums. Registration may be required to view the Hannity and Coulter forums. You may comment here without editing.

Please feel free to leave your comments. If you wish me to respond, include your email (not for publication). You may also send comments directly to the editor of the Jewish Journal at: letters@jewishjournal.com. I have zero control over which letters and comments the paper selects for publication.

My column is generating a lot of response, much of it well-reasoned and some of it quite nasty.

Bad Reporting Is Bad Reporting, Even If You Like What Is Being Said

Dean Rotbart — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:57:00 GMT

In the aftermath of the this week's Presidential election, there is one journalistic observation that I believe merits attention: regardless of your political affiliation, bad reporting is bad reporting - even when it favors your candidate or your point of view.

Election 2008 was the granddaddy of all elections when it comes to partisan, ineffectual, inaccurate reporting and in that regards, both John McCain and Barack Obama were losers.

More importantly, the American people were losers because on way too many occasions, we read and watched the sort of agenda-driven news coverage that only fuels public suspicion that all journalists are shills for some puppet master.

Cameron
To single out a specific example is probably unfair because there are so many worthy examples. But I simply can't let pass unnoticed the incendiary, flagrant television dispatch I witnessed the day after the election.

Fox News' Chief Political Correspondent, Carl Cameron, who covered the McCain campaign, breathlessly reported on the O'Reilly Factor about McCain insiders who were now letting out the 'truth' about how dumb, how uncooperative, how greedy and how bitchy Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin really is.

Quoting unnamed McCain campaign sources, here is some of what Cameron reported on Nov. 5th*:

Early on, they [McCain operatives] began to discover that there were these gaps in her knowledge. I just want to rattle off a couple of the things that insiders say she just simply didn't know. There were real problems with basic civics, government structures; municipal state and federal government responsibilities. She didn't know the nations involved in the North American Free Trade Agreement, we're told. She didn't understand, McCain aides told me today, that Africa was a continent and not a country, and actually asked them -- they argue, they say -- if South Africa wasn't just part of the country as opposed to a country in the continent.

And this Leona Helmsley-like characterization from Cameron*:

There are stories that say she would look at her press clippings in the morning and throw what has been described to me as "tantrums." .... They have suggested that she's a bit of a shopoholic and that on more than one occasion she would go out and buy clothes that to many seemed unnecessary because the campaign had already provided her with a very large wardrobe, uh, a wardrobe that famously rang up a bill of $150,000, mostly because they bought extra sizes to make sure everything fit.

For the sake of argument, let's say that Cameron's reporting is 100% accurate. One does not have to be a fan of the Alaska governor to realize Cameron's unprofessionalism in conveying those "facts' in a vacuum.

Cameron made no effort to explain what his sources have to gain from releasing this information. Many solid journalists, obviously not including Cameron, wouldn't repeat such pernicous information coming from sources who ask to remain unnamed.

Nor did Cameron venture to point out that even if all that the McCain operatives are saying about Governor Palin is factual, they were the ones who nominated her in the first place. Might it be in their self-interest, masked behind anonymity, to try to get the public to believe they weren't responsible for their own dumb choice - if that is what they are now contending adding Palin to the ticket was?

Perhaps readers of this column might be thinking, 'Well, what do you expect, Cameron is from Fox News?' -- which in some peoples' minds epitomizes Republican boosterism and a lack of journalism professionalism. I, however, think we must demand more from all journalists, whether they work for Fox, MSNBC, The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal.

Actually, I think Cameron, disappointed that his candidate didn't win, simply lost it and in the process trashed Sarah Palin and his own journalistic credibility. From what I read on the Fox News blogs, thousands of dedicated Fox viewers agree.

In this regard, going forward, political reporters may want to take a page from the playbook of sports commentators.

The hometown newspaper and the hometown broadcast team at any professional sports event have learned to navigate that fine line between boosterism and denial.

Boosterism is shading the obvious truth in a misplaced sense of team loyalty. For a professional broadcast team to mislabel the hair-brained execution of a play by the popular local quarterback only insults true fans of the game, who can spot incompetence for themselves. Likewise a lousy coach or a feckless team owner must be acknowledged as such.

Denial would be, for example, local radio commentators covering the recently completed World Series between the Red Sox and the Rays in such a way that fans would be unable to distinguish whether those calling the game were doing it for the Boston or Tampa hometown station. Any broadcast team that was so 'objective' in its professionalism as to be indistinguishable would be in denial over what job they were hired to do.

Political journalists, too, are wrong to deny which team they root for, just as they are wrong when they underestimate the innate powers of observation of their readers, listeners and viewers.

I'm okay if Cameron roots for McCain or MSNBC's Keith Olberman is an Obama man. And they should call 'the game' knowing which team they favor and who are their like-minded fans.

What Cameron, Olberman and many others still must learn is that you can't mislabel an interception a "completed pass" and still expect even loyal fans to welcome your partisanship.

----------------------

* Here is the full Cameron broadcast of November 5, 2008 as posted on YouTube:

Everywhere I Look I See 'It': Self-Serving Journalists

Dean Rotbart — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:14:00 GMT

Some would say "it" is just one of the perks of being a journalist. "It" is so commonplace, few question the ethics of "it" any longer.

CBS News' Bob Schieffer does "it" quite openly and his colleagues in the media applaud. Literally. Most other journalists are more discreet, but no less guilty.

A recent example is Julie Bain, who writes on health for Reader's Digest. While traveling with her mom not long ago, Julie became worried after her mother complained repeatedly of leg pain.

"Being a health journalist with lots of medical knowledge (although no clinical training), I was worried that she might have developed deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a blood clot in the leg that can block blood flow and cause pain," Julie writes in a September Readers Digest blog post.

Is it acceptable for financial journalists to take their children to special screenings of soon-to-be-released films, when those children don't have a byline and could never get in if mom or pop weren't a journalist?

Worried, Julie did what any concerned family member might well do, she picked up the phone and called DVT expert Geoffrey Westrich, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, who has published more than 20 studies on DVT prevention. The good doctor reassured her that mom was ailing with shingles, not DVT.

Would Dr. Westrich have taken Julie's call if Julie were not an influential health journalist? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

When Bob Schieffer took the stage earlier this week at the Grand Ole Opry and sang to an appreciative, invitation-only crowd comprised of many journalists in town to cover the Presidential debate, he fulfilled a long-held dream.

"Can I say something I've wanted to say all my life?" Schieffer asked the receptive crowd. "I'm Bob Schieffer, and I'm proud to be on the Grand Ole Opry!"

Schieffer's performance, sandwiched between country and western stars Trisha Yearwood and Brad Paisley, is an experience that I'm certain many tens of thousands of other Americans would also enjoy. But they aren't journalists, so they might as well forget it.

Does being a journalist imbue one with the right to accept what is offered strictly by dint of one's chosen profession? Schieffer was not at the Grand Ole Opry to report a first-person story on singing there. He is, after all, not CBS's music correspondent.

No, Schieffer used his journalism renown to buy himself an experience with a currency not available to the bulk of his viewers.

Was it okay for Schieffer to accept the invitation to perform when it has nothing to do with his editorial duties, but everything to do with the stature his job affords him? Is it okay for a restaurant reviewer to use her position to get a hard-to-get table, when she has no plans to review the restaurant? Is it acceptable for financial journalists to take their children to special screenings of soon-to-be-released films, when those children don't have a byline and could never get in if mom or pop weren't a journalist?

A number of years back, Gina Boyd, a reporter working for me, interviewed Robert Thomson, now managing editor of The Wall Street Journal. At the time, Robert was the U.S. managing editor of The Financial Times and seen frequently on national television.

Gina asked him if all the television exposure and recognition ever goes to his head. Robert replied: "I think you have to be careful. One of the things you learn in Australia is to take the piss out of yourself. You have to be self-effacing. Or otherwise, you lose your way. And if you don't have your bearings, in whatever you do, you won't do it well."

Well, I don't know whether Bob Schieffer, Julia Bain, and hundreds like them have failed to take the piss out of themselves or not.

But I do know that journalists, as a bunch, are not held in the high and noble esteem that they should be, and I believe one of the reasons is that they mistake the importance of their jobs for self importance.

"It" means accepting any perk, no matter how trivial or lacking in pecuniary value, that is offered to you that wouldn't be offered just as willingly to the lowliest of your viewers or readers.

I do not ascribe good motives to anyone who facilitates the wishes of a journalist, unless those needs are clearly and openly related to the immediate performance of that journalist's job.

Medill's Richard Hainey

At best, such facilitators are suck ups. At worst, they are dolling out well-disguised bribes for which they expect to collect at a future date. And any journalist who accepts is a co-conspirator.

One of my journalism school professors and mentors, the late Richard Hainey, used to lecture us at Northwestern University about being seduced by journalism's perks and privileges. Like Robert Thomson, he warned us in sometimes colorful language about those who might dangle goodies in front of us, be they gifts, meals or experiences unavailable to others.

Professor Hainey might have liked to sing at the Grand Ole Opry (though I doubt it) or to harvest the best medical minds anytime a family member took ill. But he never would have done it.

No. In his best inimical editor's voice, Professor Hainey would have told anyone who offered him a chance to sing along with Trisha and Brad exactly where they should shove "it." Would that more journalists follow suit!