Patterico's Pontifications


to clear things up

Filed under: 2004 Election — Charlie (Colorado) @ 3:43 pm

Before I go, I’d like to respond to the charges that, to quote one commenter, “Mr. Sturm now desperately hopes against hope that Bush loses, so Sturm won’t look the fool”

Au contraire…

Welcome back and goodbye

Filed under: Media Bias — Charlie (Colorado) @ 9:31 am

Welcome back Patterico, it’s been fun playing here while you were gone.

For my final post, I give you Donald Luskin taking some well placed shots at Daniel Okrent, the Public Editor over at the NYT.

Me, I take the position that Luskin misses the big picture – there’s no way the Times could ever have their Public Editor do what they claim he’s there to do. To the extent you’re interested in this, here’s more.

Thanks again for reading and remember, when Bush ends up losing, I’ll be thinking “I told you so”. If I were feeling petty and small, that is…


Wapo and CBS – brothers in arms

Filed under: Media Bias — Charlie (Colorado) @ 4:58 pm

According to this Washington Postcorrection, they “incorrectly attributed a quotation to Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq. The statement, “We were almost all wrong,” was made by Duelfer’s predecessor, David Kay, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Jan. 28.”.

Now, it’s nice that the Post corrects its mistakes, and the very next day too. But, let’s remember that the original column ran below a FOUR COLUMN HEADLINE. Now, it’s been a long time since I was kicked off my


TTFN and a bleg

Filed under: 2004 Election — Charlie (Colorado) @ 6:03 pm

I’m off for an extended weekend trip and I don’t know if I’ll be able to post while I’m away (if you want to know, I’m off on a cruise, and I don’t know if I’m going to want to pay the big bucks they charge for Internet access). So this may be it for me… perhaps by the time I come back late Monday, Patterico will be back and have pulled my access. So I’d like to say goodbye, I’ve enjoyed posting in his absence. I hope it hasn’t been too bad for you, his regular readers. And I wouldn’t mind if some of you might even stop by my blog after he returns.

I would like to make a parting request: since I don’t think I’ll be watching tomorrow night’s debate, but would very much like to get the wrap-ups, would some of you be kind enough to post your comments and impressions on this post as a comment? They’ll get through to me as email, which I am pretty sure I am set up to get.

And, in one final cheap attempt to boost the hometown traffic, I offer up proof of my hypothesis that, while Kerry claims that he would use pre-emptive military force, the record shows that he would not…. at, where else, but thoughtsonline

Thanks again.

Proof Bush is toast

Filed under: 2004 Election — Charlie (Colorado) @ 10:59 am has their predictions up for how the race turns out…. Kerry 538 Electoral Votes, Bush 0.

I know, I know there’s likely to be a glitsch in their programming… I doubt that Texas is going to go 98%-2% for Kerry. But signs like this only serve to feed the paranoia…

LAT on Duelfer Report

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Charlie (Colorado) @ 10:51 am

Captain Ed has an interesting perspective on the LA Times coverage of Duelfer’s report.

NYT Bias?

Filed under: Media Bias — Charlie (Colorado) @ 10:47 am

Tom Maguire has this on the oh-so-evenhanded NYT coverage of the stem cell debate.

CNN anchor not allowed to touch Rush

Filed under: Media Bias — Charlie (Colorado) @ 9:22 am

In today’s Washington Post, its gossip columnist, Richard Leiby has a piece on Daryn Kagan, CNN’s midmorning anchor , who reportedly has a relationship with Rush Limbaugh and who isn’t allowed to “touch news regarding her sweetie pie”.


LA Times Repeats NYT Error

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Charlie (Colorado) @ 7:52 pm

Courtesy of Beldar,

LAT repeats NYT’s error on Kerry meeting with “both sides” in Paris


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.

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0908 secs.