Patterico's Pontifications


Sheer Awesomeness

Filed under: 2004 Election — AMac @ 9:18 pm

I missed this when it first got posted. A taste:

Well, let’s try this then. Let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that everything the Left claims to fear about the Bush admin and mainstream red-state America is true.

* * *

So what’s left, Lefties? Where do you go from here? What are you gonna do about it?

I’ll tell you what you’re going to do about it: you’re not going to do one damned thing but continue with your whining, that’s what, and it’s not because deep down you’re all cowards either. It’s because deep down, you know you’re full of shit. You don’t even believe half the stuff you’re currently crying about yourselves.

Because if you did, you wouldn’t be talking about it. You wouldn’t be writing whiny letters to the editor; you wouldn’t be fearfully mincing down to the Canadian Consulate to half-seriously inquire about moving; you wouldn’t be sitting in coffee houses denouncing the moronic inhabitants of Jesusland with your fellow smug, self-satisfied pseudo-hip doofuses. You’d be gearing up and arming yourselves for the fight of your lives. And much to your surprise, you’d have a lot of us over here on the right offering to help load mags.

The rest is equally priceless.


PrestoPundit’s Moral Values Ticket

Filed under: 2004 Election — Patterico @ 1:25 am

PrestoPundit confesses: he voted a moral values ticket. But it’s not what you think.


51% Bush, 48% Kerry

Filed under: 2004 Election — Patterico @ 1:26 pm

100% creepy.

(Via Dean’s World.)

I Just Noticed Something

Filed under: 2004 Election — AMac @ 7:29 am

What with all the people looking in to moving to Canada, or otherwise generally complaining that their extremist views make them feel like strangers in their own country, or complaining about the mouth-breathing idiots they’re subjected to on a daily basis, I just realized something.


Another Urban Legend Dispelled

Filed under: 2004 Election — Patterico @ 10:12 pm

That guy who supposedly killed himself because Bush was elected, actually didn’t. Is my B.S. detector good or what?


Filed under: 2004 Election — Patterico @ 6:30 am

The Commissar reports that Bush is closing in on a vote total of 60,000,000.

What do you think the chances are that the next Democratic presidential candidate will hire Bob Shrum in the final days of the campaign to fashion a class-warfare message?


Missing the Point

Filed under: 2004 Election — Patterico @ 7:35 am

Newsday reports:

Distraught over the re-election of President George W. Bush, a Georgia man traveled to New York City, went to Ground Zero and killed himself with a shotgun blast, police said yesterday.

The story and everybody quoted therein miss the point: there was obviously something wrong with this man that went deeper than politics. I guess it makes a good news story to say that he killed himself over Bush’s election, but there’s obviously much about the man’s mental state that we’re not being told.

(Via Ace of Spades.)


Mainstream Media Hid Full Extent of Kerry’s Indecisiveness

Filed under: 2004 Election,Media Bias — Patterico @ 12:18 pm

During the campaign, Hugh Hewitt argued that John Kerry was running a terrible campaign, which should cause Americans concern about the type of president he would be.

I was initially skeptical of this argument. After all, most people agree that Karl Rove, not George Bush, was the mastermind behind the Bush campaign. If Karl Rove can run a better campaign than Kerry, does that necessarily mean that Bush would be a better president than Kerry?

But it turns out that Hugh’s observation was dead right, as a recent appearance by Newsweek‘s Evan Thomas on the Today Show confirms. (Transcript available on NEXIS.) Thomas revealed a Kerry campaign in chaos — headed by a John Kerry so paralyzed with indecision that campaign staffers took his cell phone away from him so he would stop calling people for advice:

Mr. THOMAS: The Kerry campaign was even worse run than you think. Kerry was a bad manager. He could never make up his mind. He would dither and he’d second-guess every decision. They had to take away his cell phone twice, because every time they made a decision he’d get on his cell phone and start calling a hundred of his closest friends.

Now, we heard a little something about Kerry’s penchant for calling friends for advice when he was picking his vice-presidential nominee. But even Thomas agrees that the full extent of the chaos in the Kerry campaign was not revealed to the American people during the campaign:

LAUER: What would be the biggest surprise? You had great access. The average American, what would they be most surprised about that goes on inside campaigns at this level of politics?

Mr. THOMAS: I think the kind of level of chaos and that they don’t–it’s not that–well, the Bush campaign was pretty organized, but I think the disorganization of the Kerry campaign is going to be shocking.

If a presidential candidate is running a shockingly disorganized campaign, paralyzed by the candidate’s indecision, the American people have a right to know.

So why weren’t we told the full truth until now — when it’s too late??

Yes, it’s a rhetorical question — because Evan Thomas himself has already told us the answer: the media wanted Kerry to win.

UPDATE: Commenter Steve M. says that the Newsweek people were given inside access to the Kerry campaign in return for a promise not to reveal details until after the campaign. Turns out Steve is correct: the introduction to the Newsweek feature (which I had read only excerpts of) says:

The reporters were granted unusual access to the staffs and families of both candidates on the understanding that the information they learned would not be made public until this Election Issue�after the votes were cast on Nov. 2.

Thanks to Steve for clarifying this.

I find this access-for-silence arrangement disturbing. It reminds me of Eason Jordan’s decision to withhold disturbing facts about Saddam so that CNN could remain in Baghdad. For example, how was Newsweek to report accurately on the central issue of Kerry’s indecisiveness, while withholding the clear evidence of that character trait learned by the reporters who observed Kerry close up?

So, while the existence of the agreement does make the issue of non-disclosure more complex and subtle, I am still disturbed by the end result: voters learned the true facts too late.

I think it’s time that reporters renounced access-for-silence agreements like this. If candidates can’t handle the truth being reported in time for voters to use it, then they shouldn’t grant close access, period. Arrangements like this are unsavory, and justifably lead the public to wonder whether they are being told the whole truth.

UPDATE 5-16-05: Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link. I have reopened comments.


Big Media Myth Could Help Steer Bush Rightward

Filed under: 2004 Election,Dog Trainer,Judiciary — Patterico @ 6:03 pm

Media sheep consistently bleat that President Bush governed like a hard-right conservative in his first term. For example, today’s L.A. Times says:

Four years ago, George W. Bush won his first term with fewer votes than his opponent, but governed as if the nation had granted him a clear mandate to pursue conservative policies.

This is nonsense, of course. It’s the kind of thing Big Media types keep repeating until it becomes Conventional Wisdom, but there’s little to back it up. To take one example near and dear to my heart: name one conservative judge who Bush truly fought for. [sound of crickets chirping]

But I hope I keep hearing this myth repeated — because it will result in a more conservative second term.

To see why, let’s pretend the myth is true, and see where that logic leads us.


Arizona Results: Not So “In Play”

Filed under: 2004 Election — Patterico @ 10:53 pm

Presidential results show Bush won in Arizona, 55% to 44%. (For purposes of comparison, Kerry won California by exactly the same margin: 55% to 44%.)

Guess Arizona wasn’t so “in play” after all . . .

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2222 secs.