Patterico's Pontifications

10/5/2004

GOP Campaign Office Trashed

Filed under: Media Bias — Charlie (Colorado) @ 8:16 pm

I fully expect to see this story protesters trash GOP campaign office leading off every network news story and on every front page. Of course, I have yet to see any stories on shots fired at a GOP campaign office.

Does anyone have any doubt, any doubt at all, that if it were a Democratic campaign office that was attacked, it would be all over the news? That it very likely would have been the topic of a question at tonight’s debate?

Media Bias, anyone? The blogosphere reports, you decide.

Debate Blogging

Filed under: 2004 Election — Charlie (Colorado) @ 7:29 pm

As you might expect, I’m debate blogging over at thoughtsonline

Rasmussen – part deux

Filed under: 2004 Election — Charlie (Colorado) @ 1:54 pm

I’ve put up a follow up post to my earlier diatribe against Rasmussen’s methodology of using 3-day running averages in reporting poll results. And I use numbers to illustrate my point!

In a shameless bit of home blog traffic pumping, anyone who is interested has to go to the home blog thoughtsonline

BLEG: For those p***ed off at my bait-and-linking, please remember to use nice language when complaining to Patterico when he comes back from his field trip.

Senator Munchhausen

Filed under: 2004 Election — Charlie (Colorado) @ 12:27 pm

Hindrocket of Powerline fame gives us the latest chapter in the continuing series of “I said I did it before I said I did not do it”: Kerry missing his chance to bag a 16 pointer on Cape Cod.

Except for the fact that, according to Hindrocket, “a 16-pointer would be the grand-daddy of all New England deer” and “no one hunts deer on Cape Cod. In fact anti-hunting activists are particularly active on the Cape.”

The above is par for Kerry. “He wasn’t in Cambodia, it’s beginning to look like he didn’t run the Boston Marathon, and now this. Perhaps it’s time we started calling him Senator Munchhausen.” Of course, he can’t play football either.

But I think the real gem is in Kerry’s comment that “I failed to pull the trigger at the right moment”… just the characteristic we want in our Commander in Chief during our time of war, isn’t it?

Saleton’s Wrong

Filed under: 2004 Election — Charlie (Colorado) @ 8:46 am

Over at Slate, Will Saletan tries to defend Kerry’s ‘global test’ from Bush’s attacks. I don’t think he does a particularly good job of it.
(more…)

Edwards – Quick Thinking?

Filed under: 2004 Election — Charlie (Colorado) @ 8:02 am

I don’t mean to single out Captain Ed; his comments about Edwards mirror many others – but I’d like to take issue with the assertion that “Edwards’ success as a plaintiff’s attorney shows that he can think on his feet.” Maybe he is, but just maybe he isn’t…
(more…)

Dog Trainer’s Third [Millionth] Strike

Filed under: No on 66 — Alex @ 7:34 am

Predictably, the L.A. Times has come out in support of Proposition 66, the initiative that would gut California’s “three strikes” law. Equally predictably, their arguments in favor of the initiative are extremely weak. Take, for example, the first paragraph:

The story of Polly Klaas’ [sic] murder by a man with a history of violence galvanized California voters into passing the state’s three-strikes-and-you’re-out law in 1994. Two dozen states and the federal government have now adopted similar laws. Still, only in California can conviction on any third felony put someone behind bars for life. That singularity points to what is wrong with the California law, despite its emotionally wrenching origins.

Since when is any law wrong (or right) simply because other states have or haven’t copied it? If every other state jumped off of a bridge, should we do that, too?

Proposition 66 would limit third-strike offenses to serious or violent felonies;

It would also water down the definition of a serious or violent felony in a way that will “just happen” to spring uber-contributor Jerry Keenan’s son out of prison

[T]that’s the law many voters now say they thought they passed backed in 1994.

“Many” voters? Which ones? I’d like to see the stats. A few years ago, I conducted an informal (and admittedly unscientific) poll of friends, colleagues and acquaintances. Few had even heard of the distinction between serious/violent felonies and regular felonies. Most assumed any three felonies would do, and some even thought misdemeanors counted. If the Trainer has any real, scientific studies that show otherwise, let’s see them. Otherwise, this vague reference to “many” is about as credible as their frequent reliance on unnamed, amorphous Experts.™

(more…)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2101 secs.