Why not support the site which is right!


We’ve been right since 1972 and since 1999: In this morning’s major post, we blow our own horn about the statewide test-score scam we uncovered a few years ago.

Of course, when it comes to education issues, we’ve been right since 1972! In that year, we first approached the Baltimore Sun about the problem of cheating in Baltimore schools on the city’s standardized tests.

In February 1981, we wrote an op-ed column about some Baltimore schools which had impossibly strange scoring patterns. To peruse the text of that ancient column, just click here.

The nation’s education reporters began to catch on to this problem in the past two years. Did we mention the fact that that column appeared in early 1981?

We’ve been right about public schools since 1972. Meanwhile, consider our companion site, the incomparable How He Got There.

We’ll grant you this: The career liberal world will never allow the world to hear about the press corps’ war against Candidate Gore. But you’ll have to admit that we were also right about that.

In that case, we were right from the week that war began, in March 1999. To this day, the fiery liberals you like best have never told you what happened. And they never will!

Why not support the site which is right? To support that fine site:

Just click here.


  1. I wish you were as active about discussing the press corps' war against Hilary Clinton in 2008 and the consequences of that behavior for all of us today as we contemplate a Democrat president who is proposing cuts to social security payments just as he said he would do during his campaign, when no one paid attention because he was the anointed candidate.

    1. Anon 2:33:

      Besides my other comment about Hillary 2008, I don't believe Obama in 2008 said he would cut Social Security. He apparently accepted the "unsustainable" meme, and made neo-liberal noises about the need for "Social Security reform." This prompted well-deserved rips by Hillary and Krugman, and he backed off and basically reversed course on it. I consider the chained CPI proposal to be a clear breach of campaign promises.

    2. Anonymous on May 1, 2031 at 2:33pm:

      Here's a Howler post from March, 2008 where I'm not seeing any evidence that Bob Somerby was inactive in discussing the kind of "press" coverage Sen. Clinton was receiving during her presidential campaign.

      Here's another "discussing the press corps' war against Hilary Clinton" from a month earlier.

      Here's Bob Somerby on Obama and Social Security from a 2007 post [my emphasis]:

      >>>>>...But Krugman mainly discusses Obama—more specifically, his recent stance concerning Social Security. By now, every well-informed Democrat knows there is no “crisis” afflicting this program—that the claims of a crisis which Russert pimps came to us from right-wing spin-tanks, where they were conjured decades ago. The question: In recent weeks, why has Obama been going out and reciting this tired old right-wing cant? On this question, Krugman is a bit more generous than we may be. But then, we just read Obama’s book.

      Why has Obama peddled this cant?
      Krugman calls his recent statements “mistakes”—mistakes made by a “sucker.” This preserves the possibility that Obama has been engaged in good-faith, bone-headed error. On the other hand, Krugman suggests that Obama had a motive for adopting this know-nothing stance:...

      What does Obama actually think about the Social Security “crisis?” It’s perfectly clear that, just last year, he didn’t believe there was one. Last year, he published The Audacity of Hope, a superbly written compilation of his political views. But uh-oh! Here’s what he wrote in that book, just last year, concerning Social Security:...

  2. Anon 2:33

    The Howler was quite active on the War Against Hillary in 2008. You weren't paying attention.

    So why would journalists, many of whom were certainly liberal and sympathetic to the broader movement towards racial equality, conspire to keep this story secret? I suspect it's a complex story in which many liberals wanted to believe the scores and thought debunking them showed underlying racism. But rather than constantly railing against liberals for being evil, analyzing why this happened would be more useful.

  3. As I recall The Howler documented the atrocious conduct against Hillary in 2008, and was the only source that didn't either participate or pretend not to notice.

  4. My point is that Daily Howler continually returns to the savaging of Gore and asks how Bush worked out for us after our press put him in office. He does not ever talk about the savaging of Clinton and how Obama is working out for us after our press put Obama in office. I never said Daily Howler said nothing about Clinton but I asked why Gore is the main atrocity and not Clinton, who is a more recent example and one that many women still feel strongly about. Obama was given the presidency at the nominating convention by a perversion of democratic process, just as surely as Bush was given his presidency by our Supreme Court. I care about both situations but only hear about one of them here -- now that Obama is in office.