“Heavily edited and deceptive” is the phrase that comes to mind, for some reason:
In sum, Brad Friedman’s splashy claim about Charles Koch comparing the President to Saddam Hussein is false and Mother Jones really has no leg to stand on refusing to correct it.
Shocking and disappointing!
Given Brad’s well-known penchant for accuracy at the expense of partisanship, you can expect a correction posthaste.
[Posted by Karl]
The Week neatly rounds up all the conventional wisdom you need about tonight’s GOP presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. Viewers will get their first real look at the putative frontrunner, Rick Perry, an infrequent but reportedly solid debater. Perry will come under rhetorical fire from chief rival Mitt Romney, as well as those who want the NotRomney slot, e.g., Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul. After all, these candidates will not want to “pull a Pawlenty’ by backing away from their offstage critiques of Perry. Jon Huntsman will likely target Romney also, although any buzz he got from his tax plan may evaporate with the news that he has a touch of laryngitis. All concerned will have nice things to say about Reagan while at his library.
However, if no one pulls a Pawlenty, folks ought to watch solely for the entertainment value, if any. As political scientitsts John Sides and Brendan Nyhan will tell you, a presidential candidate who hopes to change the dynamic of a campaign in a debate is likely to fail. Candidates will spin their performances and those of their rivals. Much of the establsihment media — and the blogosphere — will pretend it matters, because they have space to fill. Absent the unforeseen, I will have a difficult time getting worked up over it. This is why I am a bad blogger.
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Consider this your open thread. I just came in on the debate right when they asked Perry about Social Security. Perfect timing. And I liked his answer. It sounded like straight talk.
TSA agent puts part of her hand in passenger’s vagina. Passenger writes about incident and calls it rape.
TSA agent threatens half-million dollar lawsuit.
Judging from the number of comments at Hot Air about this segment, you guys want to talk about this. Coulter and Laura Ingraham seem to agree that Palin isn’t really interested in running for President. Coulter says that no conservative wants to criticize Palin because of the blowback. Coulter argues that just because liberals call some conservatives unelectable doesn’t mean there is no such thing as an unelectable Republican. Both seem to think that Chris Christie needs to get into the race, and that Palin needs to decide one way or the other.
By the way, for balance, John Nolte (whom I respect quite a bit) has been making the case that an October announcement is just fine — and he cites the late entries of Reagan and Clinton as examples of successful late announcements.
Exit question, as they say: Ann Coulter: the new Karl Rove?