Month: November 2004
-
Okrent joins the anti-“objectivity” crusade
In today’s New York Times, public editor Daniel Okrent
-
Filibuster-busting
The Washington Times is already hunting vulnerable Democratic senators (via the Moose): Eight of the 16 red-state Democrats won their last elections with more than 60 percent of the vote. If they feel comfortably entrenched, they ought to review Mr. Daschle’s electoral history. Before being ousted last week, Mr. Daschle won his two previous re-election
-
David Brooks comes clean
It’s rare to see a major columnist offer an admission of error (see Dowd, Maureen), so let’s give credit where credit is due. As I wrote on Spinsanity, David Brooks was one of several columnists peddling the claim had endorsed the “outsourcing” of combat operations in Tora Bora to Afghan troops in 2001, only to
-
Interesting, but unconstitutional
Writing on OpinionJournal.com, Daniel Henninger bemoans the lack of trust in the media, and proposes a solution: The real winners here are the politicians. Pig heaven for them. If much of the public (a margin large enough to decide elections) believes it no longer has access to a settled information baseline, an agreed-upon set of
-
Pot/kettle watch
There’s nothing more depressing than people accusing the other side of Orwellian tactics while they do the same thing. Katrina vanden Heuvel says Republicans twist the meaning of language, then offers a “dictionary” of definitions for what the GOP actually means when it uses various words. Obviously it’s supposed to be funny, but it’s full
-
Karl Rove is right, and other electoral reform news
During a lunch with reporters this week, Karl Rove hit the nail on the head: “Would our system have been better off if the 527s had not been players? I think so,” he said at a lunch with reporters. “I’m a fervent believer in strong parties, and things that weaken the parties and place the
-
Speaking truth to conspiracy
Good for the media for finally going to work on all the ridiculous election-stealing stories. Here’s are a few of the good ones I’ve seen: –Slate –Salon –LA Times –Wired News –ABC News –Washington Post Even The Nation has joined the growing chorus of debunkers, though David Corn soft-pedals his criticism for obvious reasons given
-
The ongoing mandate wars: perceptions vs reality
Bryan Faler at the Washington Post runs more numbers from the mandate beat: Bush’s unofficial three-percentage-point margin of victory, for example, was the fifth smallest since 1920. John F. Kennedy won in 1960 with 0.2 percent more votes than Richard M. Nixon. Nixon, in turn, won in 1968 with a slim 0.7 percent advantage over
-
Offensive post-election commentary continued…
Who writes something like this? Melissa Ruley in this week’s edition of Durham’s own Independent Weekly (via Best of the Web): I find it easier to explain the psychology of a suicide bomber than how it is that most Americans like Bush, think he’s taking the right course. I don’t know what’s worse — the
-
What is Richard Cohen talking about?
Here’s Richard Cohen in yesterday’s Washington Post: And tell me, is there anyone out there who thought you could narrow the deficit and fund all sorts of programs merely by eliminating the tax breaks President Bush gave the very rich — people who make more than $200,000 a year? I voted for Kerry, but I