Daniel Friedland sounds a lot like me, about seven or eight years ago. We’re happy to have him and the other 98 — I can’t even tell you how happy.
This is a shorter version of my recent rant about why Paul Krugman’s likely defense of his recent “Gore won two out of three undervote recounts” is still dishonest. I thought a quick summary might be a nice idea, since some readers said my earlier post was just too long to slog through.
I am assuming your familiarity with the controversy, and with Tom Maguire’s suggestion as to Krugman’s likely defense. Briefly, in an April 4, 2005 Miami Herald article that I found, Maguire found language that seems on its face to support the “two out of three” claim — if a full statewide recount were conducted, including new recounts in counties that had already done recounts. But in truth, the article doesn’t help Krugman — it just reveals new deceptions on his part.
To get the full background, or the detail regarding any of my arguments, please read my earlier comprehensive post on the topic. This is just the skeletal version.
Why is Krugman still wrong, even given the article found by Tom Maguire? Several reasons:
1) Krugman pretends that an unrealistic afterthought buried within the articles is really the study’s major finding.
2) Krugman claims that the study shows what would have happened if all undervotes were counted, but the study itself acknowledges that it didn’t necessarily examine all the undervotes.
3) Krugman collapses two standards where Bush was the winner into one, using cleverly deceptive language. The original study actually examined four standards, not three — and Bush won two, not one.
4) Krugman claims that the standard under which Bush won was unreliable and “almost certainly wouldn’t have been used in a statewide recount.” But the Miami Herald described it as “the standard most commonly used nationally.” Krugman claims this standard “would have discarded some ballots on which the intended vote was clear.” But his reference is to dimpled ballots, and dimpled ballots are far from clear — as I point out in my comprehensive post with numerous quotes, which are certain to bring up painful flashbacks of the 2000 post-election circus.
Interestingly, Don Luskin has independently picked up on my point number 3 above, and did some legwork of his own to confirm that there were indeed four standards, not three, even in Krugman’s hypothetical statewide recount. Krugman clearly owes yet another correction.
Although Erwin Chemerinsky initially appears to be smarter, repeated exposure to his opinions confirms that Beavis is actually the more intelligent of the two. Discuss.
Although Butthead initially appears to be smarter, repeated viewings confirm that Beavis is actually the more intelligent of the two. Discuss.
UPDATE FROM THE HOLLYWOOD BOWL: Sentiment seems to be running against me. But answer me this: who has the imagination to be Cornholio?
A friend of mine told me that Rush Limbaugh read from my recent “Outside the Tent” piece on his radio show last week, either Tuesday or Wednesday. If anyone knows a way to get a clip of that, I’d appreciate it.
Here is a good example of why I read Xrlq. Two completely bizarre facts/stories, related in a humorous way — in one economical sentence. Brilliant.
My Hopefully Final Word (Well, More Like a Whole Lotta Words) on the Krugman Election Controversy, Responding to the Half-Hearted Defense of Krugman Proposed by Tom Maguire
Tom Maguire thinks he has come up with an explanation for Paul Krugman’s recent assertion that two of three recounts of undervotes would have given the 2000 election to Al Gore. If Maguire is right, then Krugman’s assertion is still dishonest — but in a slippery and underhanded fashion, rather than a blatant and easily disproved fashion.
That sounds more like the Krugman we know and love! Which makes me think Maguire is on to something.
Warning: the following post contains some painful resurrected details of the 2000 post-election brouhaha. If reading those details stressed you out then, re-living them today may have similar effects. Pregnant mothers and those with weak hearts are warned that they proceed at their own risk.
A transcript of Tim Rutten’s interview with Hugh Hewitt is available here. I am hoping to hear the interview itself, since transcripts often contain some inaccuracies and don’t necessarily convey the flavor of particular exchanges. But there’s some interesting stuff there. If you want to understand how the people at the L.A. Times can be as blind to their own biases as they so obviously are, go read it.
P.S. One of my favorite parts of the interview: Rutten considers himself a “pretty conservative guy” because he goes to church, has remained married to the same woman his whole life, and takes care of kids. In the world of the L.A. Times, I guess that makes you pretty conservative.
P.P.S. Recall that Rutten is also the guy who once wrote, without a trace of irony, of the “mythology of liberal Hollywood.”
P.P.P.S. Another favorite part is the part where he bemoans the lowering of our public discourse:
And you notice, that’s the thing about our public discourse now? That whether it’s in the blogosphere, whether it’s on talk radio, whether it’s just two guys shouting or two people shouting at each other on TV, nobody’s every wrong anymore. They just…they’re liars.
Thank goodness Tim Rutten eschews such words when describing conservative bloggers — preferring instead the high-flown terms “[m]alice, mendacity, and misrepresentation.”
I’ll likely have more comments once I have heard the interview. Hopefully Hugh will run it during the 5:00 hour.
When the news was announced that a vacancy was opening at the Supreme Court, I was thrilled to be a blogger and to have the chance to take part. But things haven’t gone the way I thought they would. Oh, sure, there has been plenty of unfair trashing of John Roberts and his record. But it seems clear to me that none of it is going to stick. The man is going to be confirmed, and he is going to be a solid Supreme Court Justice — and he certainly doesn’t need my help for any of it.
Which is not to say that I’m entirely bowing out of commentary on this nomination, or that we should be complacent. When the hearings begin, in particular, there should be plenty of grist for the blogging mill. But right now, I’m just sitting back and watching the radical left dribble away its last remaining drops of credibility opposing a man most Americans see as solidly within the conservative mainstream.
The saying goes something like this: “when your enemy is destroying himself, shut up and get out of the way.” That seems like good advice right now.
P.S. A hearty “kudos!” from Patterico to the first reader who can correctly identify and source that saying.