Patterico's Pontifications


More Serious Analysis from the Dog Trainer

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 11:06 pm

I have been busy, and somehow missed this bit of buffoonery from a Dog Trainer editorial from Wednesday:

Edwards is handsome. The consensus on Kerry is that he is Lincoln-esque. The traditional grinning-candidates-at-the-podium shot from the Democratic convention will be a thing of beauty, compared with the Republican version, featuring a lumpish Cheney and President Bush trying hard to suppress his patented smirk.

To be fair, the editorial goes on to point out this “shouldn’t matter” — but adds: “But you know it does.”

I could be more charitable about this observation if the editorial writer were decrying the voting public’s superficiality. But read in context, the message seems to be: “Isn’t it great that our guys are so good lookin’?”

L.A. Times Editors: Willfully Misleading, or Stunningly Ignorant? You Be the Judge!

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 5:27 pm

An editorial in today’s Los Angeles Times asks the silly question: Why Snub the NAACP?

[President George W. Bush] has declined to speak at the NAACP’s annual convention, which starts Saturday. Unless he changes his mind, this will make Bush the first president since Hoover not to attend a single NAACP convention during his presidency.

Why on earth not? Bush’s decision to boycott the NAACP is inexplicable as a matter of presidential leadership. And it is just as inexplicable as a matter of low, self-interested politics. We would accuse him of ulterior motives, but it is hard to think of any.

. . . .

Not since Richard Nixon have a president’s motives been so hard to fathom.

You got that? The L.A. Times editors — supposedly well-informed folks — have no earthly idea why George W. Bush might have the slightest problem with the NAACP. Picture Scooby-Doo — shrugging his shoulders and making that canine noise of helpless befuddlement in response to a particularly tricky question posed by Shaggy — and you’ll get an idea of the utter confusion of the Times editors as they ponder the impenetrable mystery of why G.W. Bush wouldn’t want to address the NAACP.

Consider this a pop quiz. I’ll stop for a moment and ask Patterico readers if you can think of any possible reason for George W. Bush to resent the NAACP. The L.A. Times editors haven’t the foggiest. Can you think of anything?

Washington Post Issues Correction on Bremer Farewell Speech

Filed under: Media Bias — Patterico @ 7:45 am

This morning I received an e-mail from Rajiv Chandrasekaran, who erroneously reported in the Washington Post that Paul Bremer left Iraq without giving a farewell address:

When he left Iraq on Monday after surrendering authority to an interim government, it was with a somber air of exhaustion. There was no farewell address to the Iraqi people, no celebratory airport sendoff.

The full text of Chandrasekaran’s e-mail to me follows.

Council Winners

Filed under: Watcher's Council — Patterico @ 6:10 am

The winners of the weekly Watcher’s Council contest for best blog entries of the week have been announced.

Congratulations to INDC Journal for the winning Council entry, INDC Interviews “Military Families Speak Out” – Part Two.

A special congratulations to Iraq the Model for the winning non-Council entry, Small Party and Great Hopes. This blog entry was the starting point for the correction of a mistake that had appeared on the front page of the Los Angeles Times. I have added Iraq the Model to my blogroll, and I am proud to say they have added me to theirs.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2343 secs.