There are at least two problems with today’s L.A. Times article discussing the political hit that the GOP is taking for its actions in the Schiavo case.

First, see if you find anything odd about the article’s discussion of the “talking points memo”:

GOP strategists are hoping to build on those gains next year in the fourth-largest state by ousting Nelson — a goal underscored by a memo, ascribed to the Senate leadership, that surfaced amid the Schiavo debate in Congress extolling the political advantages of using the Schiavo case to rally the conservative base against the Democratic senator.

Okay, so I gave you a hint. “Ascribed to the Senate leadership,” eh?

By whom?

It’s always good advice to beware the passive voice when reading a news article, and that advice applies with special relevance here. Who exactly “ascribed” this mysterious unsigned memo to Republicans? As John Hinderaker convincingly argues, the answer is “Democrats”:

What, then, was the evidence for the claim that it was created and distributed by Republicans? As far as the public record shows: There is none. On the contrary, the only published report identifying the purveyors of the memo on March 17 states that they were Democrats.

Hinderaker sets forth numerous reasons why — despite the mainstream media’s assumption that the memo was generated by Republicans — it is at least equally likely that it was generated by Democrats engaged in dirty tricks. Yet the L.A. Times simply states in the passive voice that the memo was “ascribed to the Senate leadership” without even bothering to investigate just exactly who is doing the ascribing.

The problems with the article don’t end there. We also get the inevitable reference to recent polls supposedly showing that Congress’s action in the Schiavo case was unpopular:

Polls show the public overwhelmingly opposed to intervention by Congress and President Bush in the case of Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman whose family has been bitterly split over the decision to remove her feeding tube.

This case is a perfect example of why I distrust anything attributed to “polls.” Every poll I have seen on this issue brainwashes the clueless respondents first, and asks questions later.

Captain Ed has already taken apart the ABC poll, which said that Terri Schiavo has been on “life support” for 15 years, and adds: “Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible.” Captain Ed concludes that this was, in essence, a “push poll” — and it’s hard to disagree.

But the CBS News poll makes the ABC poll look like the height of objectivity. Check out the brainwashing that takes place before the poll gets around to asking the money question:

q8 Suppose a patient is in a coma, doctors say brain activity has stopped and the patient is getting food and water through a feeding tube. Should a close family member have the right to tell the doctor to take away the feeding tube and let the person die, or not?

q9 Suppose you were in a coma with no brain activity and were being kept alive by a feeding tube. Would you want your doctor to remove the feeding tube and let you die, or not?

Already the poll respondent is being set up. Schiavo has never been in a “coma.” She has never had “no brain activity.” That’s okay: a comatose, brain-dead state is about to be equated with her alleged persistent vegetative state, in the next question:

q10 Suppose a patient is in a coma or vegetative state, and there is no legal document stating what the patient would like done for them medically. If members of the family do not agree about what to do, who do you think ought to have the final decision — the patient’s spouse, the patient’s parents, or the patient’s adult children if there are any?

Gee, all other things being equal, I’d say the spouse, myself. Except that — at least according to the Schindlers — all other things are not equal in this case. Their argument is that Michael Schiavo suffers from numerous emotional and financial conflicts of interest that render his judgment suspect. But that point of view is represented nowhere in the polling questions.

The brainwashing continues:

q13 Terri Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state since 1990. Terri’s husband says his wife would not want to be kept alive under these circumstances and he wants her feeding tube removed. Terri’s parents believe her condition could improve and they want the feeding tube to remain. How closely have you been following news about the case — have you been following it very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?

Again, the Schindlers’ side is completely unrepresented. Several doctors have opined that Terri Schiavo is not in a PVS — most recently a doctor from the Mayo Clinic. No matter. Her PVS is stated as fact, and all doubts are suppressed.

In addition, the dichotomy is presented as Terri’s wishes (as represented by the husband) vs. the parents’ belief that she could get better. The fact that Terri’s parents, sister, brother, and several friends have questioned the husband’s view of her wishes is not mentioned. Nor is the fact that numerous doctors agree with the Schindlers that she could improve.

Nowhere in the questions is it mentioned that basic neurological tests like an MRI and PET scan were not done. Nowhere is it mentioned that Terri is not terminal — or at least would not be terminal if she weren’t being starved to death by the courts.

Basically, the “pull the tube” arguments are all set forth in the poll questions, none of which allude to the main arguments for keeping the tube in.

And finally, we get to the Big Question:

q14 What do you think should have happened in this case — should the feeding tube have been removed or should it have remained?

Is it any wonder that most brainwashed respondents say the tube should have been removed?

If the L.A. Times were not engaged in agenda journalism, you’d think that they’d be able to figure out that this polling is all phony. But the paper’s position on Congressional intervention in the Schiavo case is a matter of record, and I doubt there’s much critical analysis going on. I’m sure they just assume that the overwhelming numbers shown in these push polls are 100% accurate — after all, it comports with what everyone in the newsroom thinks.