Friday, October 31, 2008

Don't miss these: 10/31/08

Anything of interest going on, being said? Oh, yeah:
  • Victor Davis Hanson has a devastating essay lamenting (and documenting) the end of journalism. I'll add an even sadder note, though: as in church, so in journalism. If people didn't enable it, things would change. We've seen even here, folks drop in and adamantly resist any line of information, facts, or reason contrary to the MSM meme. They'll take a post that contains documentation exploding an MSM-manufactured myth, and simply repeat the myth. These folks are complicit in journalism's demise.
  • Related? Obama campaign kicks out reporters from outlets that did not endorse him. The Times itself reports.
  • Andrew McCarthy has a lengthy and compelling scoff at the LA Times' claim of "ethics" in withholding the tape of Obama and the terrorists/terrorism supporters. He calls on the Times to release either a tape or a transcript. I think he lets them off far too easy. I'd never trust a transcript from the Times.
  • Keep your eyes on the shiny watch. You are growing sleepy... sleepy... sleeeeepy.... And what does The Other Paper of Record find critical to report on, this Friday before election day? What did its tireless investigative reporters unearth? Did they locate Obama's drug-dealer? His birth-certificate? His academic records? The LAT video? No, no no. No, they find "growing doubts" about fitness to serve. Ah, at least that's about Obama, right? The man who has accomplished nothing, and written two books about it? The question-mark? The most liberal empty suit in the Senate? The man with genuinely frightening alliances? No again; what am I thinking? This is the MSM! This is The NY Times! Remember the meme! No, they write about "growing doubts" about the only person on this ticket with executive experience, whose accomplishments far dwarf Obama's nothings. But you read this blog! You already knew that, didn't you? Somehow, they claim to have found souls dim-witted enough to say, "Because I have doubts about the GOP #2 candidate, I will vote for the far LESS-qualified Donk candidate." Ah, behold govenment re-education camps at work.
  • Obama tries to channel Tony Soprano; America's enemies snicker. The One vows, "We will finally finish the fight and snuff out Al Qaeda and bin Laden, those who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11." Yes, of course. But, also of course, if he even tries, our enemies know in advance that it will be only if it isn't too hard, and if it doesn't take too long, and if it doesn't make him unpopular with the extreme left wing of the Democratic party.
  • Charles Krauthammer lodges another powerful argument for McCain, and against Obama.
  • Is McCain just Bush 3? Ezra Klein says "No." I say, "Duh."
  • John Hawkins offers thirty reasons to vote for John McCain. Won't persuade trolls, but... what would?


Rabbit said...

Did you see what Bill Clinton said at the FL rally? Transcript here:

Relevant snip: "And he may even be mad at me for saying this so closest to the election but I know what else he said to his economic advisers. He said tell me what the right thing to do is. What's the right thing for America, and don't tell me what's popular. You tell me what's right and I'll figure out how to sell it. That's what a president does in a crisis, what is right for America. "

Um - in a crisis, a good president does what is right for America after he asks his advisers what that right thing is? Because he has no idea himself?? Horrible English but can you hear my voice spiraling upwards in horror???

Lieutenant Pratt said...

Every good president consults his advisers before making a decision. Just like every military commander takes good counsel before sending men to their deaths. No man is an island and no man can know every right move, especially when the decision does not involve moral issues. Isn't that what Bush did with Iraq? He was convinced by his advisers that it was right and then sent them out to sell it with images of mushroom clouds and rose petals paving the way into Baghdad.

Haven't we had enough of a president who "knew the right thing to do" and plunged the nation into a bad war and a miserable economic crisis?

These are the kinds of opinions you get when watching too much FNC and reading right-wing media lies. I'm not a fan of the other media either and try to pay as little attention as possible. But it occurs to me that when one limits their sources to writers that spend all their energies confirming a presupposed position...duh!

DJP said...

Anyone wondering about "Lieutenant Pratt," check here.

Mesa Mike said...

Dan, you should be proud of the fact that your blog has been deemed worthy enough to attract seminar posters.

Lieutenant Pratt said...

Mesa- You've gone off the deep end.

candy said...

My bet is that Lt. Pratt will disappear from this blog on November 5.

DJP said...

My very thought, though I didn't voice it; don't want to motivate him to "prove" us wrong.

Andrew said...

If a blogger along with many commenters believed I was a shill for somebody else's agenda, that would at the very least give me pause to consider why.

I might actually examine my motivations for commenting and check where my ideas originiated.

Lt just keeps rolling with the punches.

Terry Rayburn said...

A common thought is that Obama's campaign is financed entirely by the "little people" as masses gave less than $200, unlike those mean ol' Republicans.

Patterico has an interesting article showing the reality that Obama will have a HUGE number of people he would be beholden to, if he were elected.

CR said...


Obama has raised $300 million with with donations of $200 or under. (I think is about 50% of what he has raised). He refuses to release those donors of less than $200, which is not required by law. McCain releases all his donors. Most likely, much of those contributions are from foreigners (which is illegal) and people going over the limit. You can purchase these "disposable" credit cards where you deposit money in and use it anywhere. It's virtually untraceable.

DJP said...

Really, Carlo?

Wow! Wait until the mainstream media gets wind of that!

< /sarcasm >

Lieutenant Pratt said...

Most likely, much of those contributions are from foreigners (which is illegal) and people going over the limit.

Sounds like a lot of speculation to me. Have you got any proof? Or is it another conspiracy theory of FNC and the right-wing? I doubt you'd care about this if McCain were the one raising the money.

DJP- All the major news organizations reported on problems with Obama's fundraising last month. Your assertion that the media won't cover it is wrong and you're late to the party. The story indicated problems with both campaigns receiving donations from fictitious donors. The analysis was limited to the primary period since McCain can't raise money now except through the RNC.

I tested both campaigns online fundraising after reading the stories by simuating a donation. Obama's made me enter full information. I even had to attest to being retired. The McCain website asked similar questions.

DJP said...

Actually, all already anticipated and answered, again and again. Not going to reinvent the wheel for you because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Dude, it's not working. How can I say this more plainly? IT'S NOT WORKING.

So here's your first warning. Nobody is required to comment. But commenters are required actually to read the posts. Change your ways, or you're heading for a banning.

Lieutenant Pratt said...

Banned? Dude! Is that your MO? I thought you valued the freedom of speech.

I must be pretty dumb because I don't see what I've done to deserve your wrath. All I want are honest answers to the questions I ask. But you don't have to ban me, I'll just go back to lurking in the shadows.

DJP said...

You clearly do not want honest answers to your questions. But that's laid out at length in this thread and meta. I won't repeat.

Whoever you are, you have completely blown your credibility here.

Carol Jean said...

Susan Estrich:"The only way all these polls could be that far off is if people are lying in numbers never before seen in American politics."

Or, it could be that they word their questions in a way that increases the chance they'll get the outcome they're looking for. Today I received a call about a ballot issue in Ohio. The man asked whether I thought the economy in Ohio was (a)completely in the gutter and on the road to utter destruction (paraphrase) or (b)on the right track, on the road to prosperity. There was no option for anything in between.

Then, he asked a question about the gambling issue on the ballot that turned into a lengthy diatribe on the benefits of said issue. I interrupted him to ask him what the question was. Apparently this was an "infosurvey."

He ended with the usual demographic question, including a question about my religion. I said, "Christian." Then, he asked...ready for this....he asked whether I considered myself to be "born again" or "evangelical." Apparently, (at least to the pro-gambling lobby), they're not the same thing. Fascinating.

Anyway, my point being that the polls are often not worth the script they're written on. However, if Obama loses, we know how they're going to spin it.

As for the assertion that people would lie about it to pollsters: my own dear mother (who is not a Christian), will not vote for Obama because he is black. It's ridiculous to think that she would lie to a pollster on the phone about who she's voting for. It's not like there's a high likelihood they're going to accuse her of being a racist or come and burn a cross in her yard if she says she's voting for McCain. What would be the incentive for people to lie to pollsters?

Lieutenant Pratt said...

People lie to pollsters for all kinds of reasons. Some just don't want anyone to know how they plan to vote. People lie in exit polls about who they just voted for and we know this because the results of the precinct are often significantly at odds with the exit polls. If the exit poll is conducted correctly and randomly then the actual result should come close to the exit poll tally within a margin of error.

Other people lie to pollsters because they assume it is what the pollster wants to hear. Some do it because they fear being branded as racist if a poll asks if you are white and will vote for a black candidate. The opposite is also true. Lying to pollsters is a well known problem to people who try to conduct honest polls.

It sounds like what you experienced is push-polling where the pollster tries to elicit a particular response. No pollster worth his salt would engage in that kind of polling.

If they're not lying to the pollsters then that is not good news for John McCain.