Tuesday, September 21, 2004

What Liberal Media?
Though I often agree with his sentiment, it is rare that James Taranto makes a point that I find myself unable to dispute on some logical ground. He makes such an important, and obvious point in today's OpinionJournal - Best of the Web that I feel the need to repeat it in full:
From an interview with Dan Rather, published by Broadcasting & Cable on Aug. 30:

Is the media doing a good job covering the 2004 election? Or is there too much attention on the Swift Boat flap?
I would like us to concentrate more on issues and less on campaign process. But there is always a tendency to go with what's sensational. Also, we're human, and humans keep making the same mistakes. In the end, what difference does it make what one candidate or the other did or didn't do during the Vietnam War? In some ways, that war is as distant as the Napoleonic campaigns. What's far more import is this: Do they have an exit strategy for Iraq? If so, what is it? How will they address the national deficit? And what are the chances their plans will work?
When John Kerry was under attack over Vietnam, Rather pooh-poohed the idea that a candidate's Vietnam record was relevant, and never mind that Kerry sought to build his whole campaign around his war-hero legend. But nine days later, Rather broadcast old news about President Bush's National Guard service as if it were the story of a lifetime (which we suppose it was, though not in the way he'd expected).
Under such circumstances, is it unreasonable to harbor suspicions of partisan bias?

Monday, September 20, 2004

Future headline: Nader's vote-share doubles, nationwide
Political Wire: Nader's Traders: "Vote-trading activists, who worry that Ralph Nader could sway the election again, are arranging to have Nader voters in swing states trade their votes with voters in more secure states."

Sounds like a golden opportunity for Nader supporters to sign up, and then vote for him anyway...