Federal Review Dot Com

FOURTH ESTATE OR FIFTH COLUMN
Here's what really chaps my ass about the journalism "profession." More and more you will see little statements thrown in that purport to tell you what everyone thinks, or flog a story that has been rebutted or is no longer "news," except to the extent kept alive by reporters.

In a recent CBS radio report about the recent announcement that terrorists are in the country and planning nefarious deeds, the reporter said "The announcement is causing many people to rethink their summer travel plans." Then, nothing. Nothing to support the statement. It hadn't even occurred to me to delay my trip to the heartland in July. My mom and dad, who cancelled a trip to their grandson's 1st birthday only 2 months after September 11, were on a plan 2 days after Ashcroft's latest announcement. I don't think the reporter had any agenda in making that assertion, but she was just intellectually lazy.

Here's a story about Iyad Allawi, the choice for provisional Prime Minister of self-governing Iraq. "Journalist" Tom Perry of Reuters (the news service that can't refer the 9/11 attackers as "terrorists") writes:

It was unclear how far U.S. officials or Brahimi influenced the choice of a long-time exile known to few Iraqis and whom people in Baghdad said was an outsider they could not trust.

Emphasis added. It takes Tom about another 9 paragraphs, after you've already got it into your head that the U.S., Brahimi or someone just made a stupid choice by picking someone clearly rejected by the Iraqis, that we get a single quote from a "Baghdad hotel manager" to back up each part of his broad statement, that "people in Baghdad" think such and such. Who did Tom want, al-Sadr?

Then there's the U.S. media, who can't get it through their thick heads that John McCain doesn't want to be on the ticket with Kerry. Disregarding the fact that McCain rates an 84 from the American Conservative Union and Kerry scores a 5, while Americans for Democratic Action give McCain a rating of 9 and Kerry a Kennedy-beating 92, the press still thinks that a Kerry/McCain ticket would be a great idea. Why do they keep pushing this? Some would argue that everyone considered for vice president says he is not interested (John Edwards notwithstanding), but McCain goes several leaps further, professing his support for George W. Bush, saying, among other things, "President Bush has shown resolute leadership to protect Americans in the war against terror. The President will continue to be a strong leader for the people of Arizona," and even serving as a chairman of the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign. While saying that Kerry is not "weak" on defense, he did say that Kerry still has to defend his voting record. Kerry argues that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq without U.N. approval, but McCain has said "The president has handled this, in my view, skillfully. And I would point out that those who are criticizing the failure to get the United Nations to act in accordance with our will were the ones who urged the present vote in the United Nations."

Based on McCain's public statements and congressional voting record, it's much more likely he runs on the ticket with George W. Bush than with John F. Kerry. He and Kerry are political opposites. One conservative, one liberal. One resolute and principled, one shifting an evasive.

Despite all that, the medialibs are still stalking McCain like some lovesick Halle Berry fan. CBS even had the lack of journalistic integrity to run a poll with a Kerry/McCain ticket as a choice (they would lead by 12). Is it odd that CBS didn't ask what people would think of a Bush/McCain ticket? I'd love to see those numbers. It didn't even cross the collective minds of CBS, because they think like liberals. How can their guy win, not how can Bush win. [And CBS ignored another part of their poll, showing that veterans prefer Bush by a greater margin than the generally electorate -- that's something I'd have highlighted as an editor.]

They only pursue this McCain on the Democratic ticket fantasy because they need to have their preferred candidate associated with someone that the public, especially the swing voting independents, like. And they downplay McCain's support of Bush for the same reason.

Or maybe the megacorporate owned media really just want McCain to destroy the Democratic party from the inside by handing the party's number 2 most powerful post to a conservative. Maybe that would be good for the country.

One more thing, if Kerry picks McCain and McCain accepts, I'll turn over this blog to DrFrankLives for a day.

ODD ADVERTISING DECISIONS
I mentioned yesterday the big expense of chartering and painting Kerry One, and I'm always pleased to see the opening blowing its campaign dollars. Here's the latest, a Kerry Ad on James Taranto's Best of the Web -- not exactly a refuge for those included toward Kerry's leftward view.

What's next? The O'Reilly Factor Sponsored by Kerry 04?

HOW TO END TERRORISM
According to African and Latin American leaders meeting in, of all places, Communist China, the way to end terrorism is rushing headlong into the 1920s and demanding a check from those with ability because they have need.

In an apparent swipe at the United States, African and Latin American leaders meeting in China on Wednesday urged rich countries to fight terrorism by sharing wealth, not through military intervention.

So, to sum up, if we don't want to be killed by suicide bombers and airline hijacking kamikazes, we better come across with the cash. This used to be called extortion.

But who's complaining?

The President of Tanzania, who's country is getting $34,000,000 from U.S taxpayers in the 2004 Budget. They'll get money next year, too.

Super leftist President of Brazil Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is unhappy, despite his check this year from U.S. taxpayers of $17,000,000. I don't know why we need to give Brazil money.

None of this current sharing-o-the-wealth is mentioned in the AP story linked above, and these countries are certainly receiving money from other "industrialized nations" as well. Their hands are out and they want more. No surprise. The real suprise is the author didn't find a chance to mention Abu Ghraib.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE JAMES A. BAKER III
The Washingtonian's gossip column is reporting that Washington insiders think that Donald Rumsfeld will be replaced in midsummer by former White House Chief of Staff, Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State James Baker.

This strikes me as a smart move (if you must throw Rummy over) that would be help Bush politically, and may have positive results for our relations in the middle east. The press seems impressed with Jim Baker (though they'd probably mention the 2000 Florida mess in every story about his nomination), the news might come near the Democratic Convention, sucking further life out of it, and it would go a long way toward healing any divisions between State and Defense. Plus, the Arab world tends to like the guy.

HAIR FRANCE
It sure is nice to see the Kerry Campaign blowing some serious bucks on something other than demagoguery and shifting positions. "The Real Deal!" Now that's funny too.

NEW COMPOSITE POLL UPDATE - KERRY TAKES THE LEAD
Bush 46.86% - 254 | Kerry 49.24% - 284
Despite a slightly smaller margin of 2.38% in favor of Kerry, compared to last week’s 2.38%, Bush falls behind in the electoral vote after losing Pennsylvania. Two recent polls show Kerry with leads of 5 and 6 in Pennsylvania, returning that state to blue. Pennsylvania now Leans Kerry, with a lead of 1.17% of the two-party vote. This is consistent with historical Pennsylvania trends. Pennsylvania has voted more heavily Democrat than the nation as a whole every year since 1960. Sure, Ronald Reagan won Pennsylvania in 1980 and 1984, but each time by a smaller margin than the national popular vote. What does this tell us? If this election is as close as 2000 and Pennsylvania remains consistent with its past, Kerry will win its electoral votes. Keep in mind, of course, that past performance is not indicative of future results.

Despite Pennsylvania’s tendency to be more Democratic than the nation, the trend may be in the Republican’s favor. In 1984, Reagan won the state by a margin of 7.35%. But he won the national popular vote by 18.22%. Thus, Pennsylvania in 1984 was 10.87% more Democratic in 1984 than the nation as a whole. In 1988, it was only 5.42% more Democratic, and in 1992, 3.46%; 1996, 0.68%. The trend since 1984 has been in favor of the Republicans. However, in 2000, Gore won Pennsylvania by 4.17%, which was a win of 3.65% of greater than the national popular vote. The overall trend since 1984 might favor the Republicans, but the 2000 results suggests that Pennsylvania may have turned around.

That’s why they call it a Battleground State.

By analyzing a state’s popular vote as compared to the national popular vote, we can determine whether a state leans Democrat or Republican. Sure, Bush 41 won California, but does that mean that after 3 elections voting Republican, that California was trending Republican? No. It began its pro-Democrat trend in 1984. Reagan won the state by 2% less than he won the national popular vote. Bush 41 won California by 4.16% less than he won the national popular vote, and the numbers only get worse for the Republicans in the 1990s.

So, what are the other Battleground States assuming the national popular vote is close, based on trends? I have categorized a state as a 1988 Battleground if its median variance from the national popular vote margin since 1988 is less than 6%.

1988 Battleground
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Michigan
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Washington
Wisconsin

That’s 19 states. Of those, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin are most often mentioned among today’s list of Battlegrounds. Not included on the list, but mentioned as 2004 Battlegrounds because of the 2000 results are Arkansas, Arizona, Minnesota and West Virginia.

But, by looking at the trend lines (I’ve used a polynomial trend line in Excel because, well, it looks reasonable and I admit I have no idea what would be the best type of trend line), we can say that the following states should be in play in 2004 – assuming a close national popular vote. If the trend holds and the national vote is near even (the winner is in parenthesis).

2004 Battlegrounds
Arizona (Bush)
Florida (Kerry)
Iowa (Bush)
Louisiana (Bush)
Maine (Kerry)
Michigan (Kerry)
Minnesota (Bush)
Missouri (Bush)
Nevada (Bush)
New Hampshire (Kerry)
New Mexico (Kerry)
Ohio (Bush)
Oregon (Bush)
Pennsylvania (Kerry)
West Virginia (Bush)
Wisconsin (Bush)

Out of play, Colorado (Bush), Delaware (Kerry), Tennessee (Bush) and Washington (Kerry). More on these trends another day.

The Job Approval numbers are interesting. Approve/Disapprove numbers this week are as follows: Gallup: 47/49; ABC News 47/50; CBS 41/52; Fox 48/43. That’s interesting, CBS and Fox seem odd. Perhaps there’s a reason for Fox’s odd number, while CBS’ is probably a statistical aberration (consistent with its head-to-head numbers, which show a Kerry lead of 6 while all the other polls are within 2). Fox asks a different question than Gallup, ABC and CBS. Fox asks “Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?” The other pollsters ask “Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?” One question sounds like it is asking about the job someone is doing. The bottom line. The other seems to be about style as well. Not about the job that is done, but about the method in which it is handled. I wonder why?

Now, this week’s data. Kerry has been running his ads and Bush’s approval ratings have dropped. Result, bump for Kerry. As Bush begins his speeches about the Iraq transition, we’ll see if there’s any movement his way over the next few weeks. CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL DATA, MAPS and GRAPHS.

UPDATE: Damn! The map on the next page colors Pennsylvania pink. It should be light blue. I'll correct it tonight.

YES, DEAR
After weeks of reporters' and pundits' complaints that the Bush Administration has failed to lay out a clear strategy for Iraq, President Bush will give a speech tonight intended to do just that. Here's how CBS plans to cover it:

After Mr. Savitsky's driver's license gets revoked, Jimmy takes on the job of driving him to and from work. Spending time with Jimmy and his family makes Mr. Savitsky realize how lonely he is, so he offers to have Jimmy and Christine to move into his guest house. Although hesitant at first, they accept, but realize that they may have made a mistake when Mr. Savitsky imposes on their parenting style.

And here's the good news. Dan Rather will decide which portions of the speech you'll be able to see on Tuesday at 6:30 EDT.

SENILTY SETS IN
Carl "I know who Deep Throat is" Bernstein writes with breathtaking simplicity that Republicans should toss George W. Bush overboard because, in Carl's mind, Iraq equals Watergate. Carl complains that:

1. Bush used "ginned-up intelligence to justify war". "Ginned up" by the Clinton Adminstration, John Kerry, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera, all of whom believed that Iraq had WMD and was prepared to use them.

2. There have been "652 American deaths since presidential operatives declared "Mission Accomplished". So, terrorists kill Americans working to restore peace, order and freedom to Iraq, and Carl Bernstein's reaction is "the president must resign". Sounds like al Sadr's goal, expect this to be in the good cleric's talking points this week.

3. White House counsel suggests that the Geneva Convention is outdated in that it applies to prisoners of war and was written at a time when wars were conducted by nation-states and not paramilitary islamofacists who wear the uniform of no nation and answer to no general, monarch, president or potentate. Carl complains, but offers no argument, but surely his leftist appeasers of fascism are nodding their heads at Carl's genius in pointing this out. And Carl somehow thinks this memo regarding the Geneva Convention constitutes a decision that "the Constitution could be bent on [Bush's] watch." The Geneva Convention, maybe, but no the Constitution, or are you thinking about the Patriot Act, which John Kerry voted for (I guess, before he was going to vote against it)?

4. The Bush Administration should have held a public press conference mea culpa self-flagelation session in January upon first learning of the Abu Ghraib abuses, rather than simply launching an investigation. Surely Carl would have liked this press conference to be held at a mosque of Moqtada al Sadr's choice.

5. Bush held a "pep rally" with 35 Congressional Republicans and didn't take any questions. Gasp.

Carl complains that the Republican Party "these days is more concerned with politics and PR than principle," while at the same time arguing that a politician with whom he disagrees ought to just quit. There's a principled position unconcerned with politics or PR. Perhaps it's Carl's OWD (Obsessive Watergate Disorder), or he just came from Cannes, or he's jealous that Bob Woodward is getting all the press, but this childish rant is not even worthy of Democratic Underground. I guess that's why it appeared in USA Today.

STOP THE PRESSES - 'CAUSE THEY'RE LIBERAL
The press is liberal, so says a new survey by The Pew Research Center. Despite ownership by the big corporations, the people who actually write and report the news and select what gets reported and what doesn't (think the defeat of Sadr's militias) identify themselves as more liberal than the average population. But as Jay Reding points out, despite their self identification, more are shown to be liberal by their answers to specific questions about God, homosexualtiy and the role of government in our lives.