Bloody Basin Observer

Why did AP run this now?

2004-10-26T19:27:00.000-07:00

On the drive home this evening, a short news story on the radio ran something like, "Two prominent conservative groups have announced a boycott of Proctor and Gamble products because the company is too supportive of gay rights." I immediately wondered if the Right could come up with any other ways to energize the Democratic base.

The source of the story is the AP. Today's AP story from the San Francisco Chronicle begins:

Two powerful conservative groups hope to extend indefinitely an election-related boycott of Procter & Gamble Co., contending that the consumer products giant is too supportive of gay rights and urging customers to stop buying Crest, Tide and Pampers.

Notice the "hope to extend" language. This is not new. Google News shows a total of of only three stories about this, the first going back to September 24. The question, is why did AP resurrect this previously ignored story now?

Journalists not satisfied with their election performance

2004-10-24T16:53:00.000-07:00

Key findings from a recent survey of journalists:

A new survey of members of a national journalism organization finds that nearly three quarters of journalists give the press a C, D or F grade for its campaign coverage so far.

In the survey, conducted by the Committee of Concerned Journalists of its members, only 3% give the press an A grade, while another 27% give the news media a B. At the same time, 42% give the coverage a C and 27% say D or F.

The press release is here, and the complete survey (PDF) is here. One of the interesting internals is that Online media scored more A's (15%) than any other medium: Newspapers (8%), Magazines (12%), Cable (5%), Network TV (3%), local TV (3%), radio (8%). Now, I will admit that an organization called Committee of Concerned Journalists may have a disproportionately high number of folks who tend be critical of their own profession, but still it is interesting.

Bow and arrow productivity enhancer

2004-10-23T11:15:00.000-07:00

Go here (hold the left click down and move the mouse; let go to fire)

Wolves dispute Bush ad

2004-10-23T10:51:00.000-07:00

The wolves portrayed in the latest Bush commercial claim they were tricked. (c/o Josh)

Major negative story on Kerry coming?

2004-10-23T10:24:00.000-07:00

Power Line is reporting:

that a major newspaper will break a front-page story Monday morning that could create a serious problem for the Kerry campaign. We don't yet have any details, but it relates to a foreign policy issue, and it will call into question--amazingly enough--John Kerry's truthfulness.

Is the election getting boring?

2004-10-22T20:30:00.000-07:00

Is it just me or is the presidential campaign starting to get a boring? A lot of it is burnout, I know, but I really cannot get enthused over discussions over whether the new Bush "Wolf" ad is more powerful than Reagan's 1984 "Bear" ad, green eyeshade microsurgery on the polls that seem to come out hourly, or breathless tales of voter fraud that sound like snopes material.

This is not nearly as much fun as the Swift Boat days of August or the heady Rathergate victories of September. I feel now like I used to when I had studied for finals so much that I almost didn't care what my grades were any longer; I just wanted the damned tests to be over.

Thought screen helmet plans

2004-10-22T20:23:00.000-07:00

Make your own thought screen helmet to stop alien abductions with the plans here. (Hat tip Dave Barry)

Bush/Kerry hip-hop debate

2004-10-22T20:13:00.000-07:00

Check this out if you haven't seen it. I like the Bush Money Walk..

"Brain" in a dish

2004-10-22T20:08:00.000-07:00

I'm all for science and all, but I find this really creepy. The lede:

A University of Florida scientist has grown a living "brain" that can fly a simulated plane, giving scientists a novel way to observe how brain cells function as a network.

Schlesinger on Bush

2004-10-19T05:53:00.000-07:00

Arthur Schlesinger (God, he's still alive?), an adviser to President Kennedy, disapproves of Bush's going abroad to slay Monsters. In the Guardian he writes:

President Bush is a militant idealist. He proposes to use America's military, economic and cultural power to spread "liberty". However, there are a lot of bad guys on the planet. Is the US obliged to eliminate them all? Does the US serve
as the world's judge, jury and executioner?

As John Quincy Adams, perhaps our greatest secretary of state, said, America, while sympathizing with struggling peoples, "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy". Should
America seek out monsters, Adams continued, "the fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force ... She might become the dictatress of the world: she would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit."

Far be it for me to get into an argument with a noted historian, but it seems to me the U.S. has been chasing monsters abroad for some time now, from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli. There was a time when the CIA seemed quite obsessive about it. I'm with Bush on this one. Get the monsters over there.

David Brooks on the Democrats

2004-10-19T05:33:00.000-07:00

David Brooks writes today on how John Kerry's attack dog act seems to be backfiring. I think the following point is a good one:

Some Democrats have been unable to face the reality that people have been voting for Republicans because they agree with them. So these Democrats have invented the comforting theory that they've been losing because they are too virtuous for the country.

According to this theory, Republicans - or usually some omniscient, omnipotent and malevolent strategists, like Lee Atwater or Karl Rove - have been tricking the American people into voting against their true interests. This year, many
Democrats decided, we'll be vicious in return.
The truth, however, is that voters are not idiots. They are capable of independent thought. If you attack your opponent wildly, ruthlessly, they will come to their own conclusions.
I think that's about right.

It's Halloween so it must be time for...

2004-10-18T07:01:00.000-07:00

..the Pumpkin Gun! Every guy I know who has seen this thing says something along the line of "Holy shit, that is cool!" All I get from my wife and daughter is the all-too-familiar "guys are sooo weird" look. I started to write on what I thought the reactions of George Bush and John Kerry would be, but I will leave that to your imaginations. Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright?

Annenberg survey of military personnel

2004-10-17T20:53:00.000-07:00

Annenberg has released an election survey of military personnel and their families from September 22 through October 5.

The report is 11 pages long with A LOT of information, but here are some of the highlights:

1. 63% approve of the way George Bush is handling Iraq
2. 62% think regular forces sent to Iraq were properly trained and equipped
3. 38% percent think National Guard and reserve forces were properly trained and equipped
4. 59% think too much burden was put on NG and reserves
5. 73% think troops should remain in Iraq until Iraq is stable

There are also questions about Abu Ghraib, gays in the military, health care for veterans and how well women serve. The support for Bush’s handling of the war seems consistent with reports about military support for the president. Of course, some of those who do not approve of Bush's handling of the war may still vote for him because they don’t trust Kerry to support the military. The full report is here.

Paratrooper who lost leg re-enlists

2004-10-17T13:03:00.000-07:00

WOAI in San Antonio reports:

George Perez lost his leg to a roadside bomb in Iraq more than a year ago, but despite the phantom pains that haunt him, he says he is determined to prove to the Army that he is no less of a man — and no less of a soldier.

He is one of at least four amputees from the 82nd Airborne Division to re-enlist. With a new carbon-fiber prosthetic leg, Perez intends to show a medical board he can run an eight-minute mile, jump out of airplanes and pass all the other paratrooper tests that will allow him to go with his regiment to
Afghanistan next year.

Where the White Went Wong

2004-10-17T11:24:00.000-07:00

This is my work in progress on the growing influence Asian-Americans. So far I have the title.

AZ Senators GO

2004-10-17T11:00:00.000-07:00

In endorsing Arlen Specter for Senate, the Philadelphia Inquirer notes that Jon Kyl is in line to become chairman of the judiciary committee if Specter loses. That promises to be a high-profile position with the prospect of Supreme Court appointment(s) looming.

Paul Vitello at Newsday ponders the Presidential race: "Perhaps, the final count of who says those special words, "John McCain and I" more often than any other. Will that be the clincher?"

Instapundit better off if Kerry wins

2004-10-17T07:48:00.000-07:00

I don't mean will Glen Reynolds be better off, but will the blog instapundit be better off in a business sense if Kerry wins? The same question could be asked of any conservative/libertarian/Jacksonian blog. I personally provide several hits a day to Glen's blog, primarily because of the horse race for the presidency. I am voting for Bush, but if he wins I expect my blog surfing to go down considerably. If enough people share my attitude, site traffic and ad revenue will go down. If Kerry wins, though, I will probably keep reading. Who is the cabinet going to be? Blogger investigations in to backgrouds of new appointees. What will Kerry really do Iraq? Outrage over the opponent in office is much easier to write and more fun to read. On the other hand, a Bush victory would mean primary battles in both parties starting a couple of years from now, with the chance of Hillary v. Rudy in four years. But that is a lifetime in Internet years.

Secretary McCain?

2004-10-16T18:44:00.000-07:00

The New York Times is calling Senator McCain the "only person who could conceivably be offered the [Secretary of Defense] job by either Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry." The also quote McCain as saying he doesn't want the job.

A lack of class

2004-10-16T18:06:00.000-07:00

I've been mulling over Senator Kerry's reference to Vice President Cheney's daughter. I would really like to like Kerry, but this has been gnawing at me. I've read Andrew Sullivan's argument that the Republicans are being hypocritical in attacking Kerry on the issue, and he has a point. But I come down with Glen Reynolds on this one: it was a mistake. But more than that, it was a mean-spirited mistake. If the Cheneys had a mentally challenged daughter, would Kerry have mentioned that? After all, I'm sure the Cheneys would have loved such a daughter and been open about her disability. Kerry would not have mentioned it. Because it would have shown a total lack of class? No, because he could see no political advantage from doing so.

McCain for Senate

2004-10-16T10:55:00.000-07:00

John McCain is up for reelection. Who knew? I live in Arizona, and I wasn't sure there was a race for that seat until I opened up my early ballot. No TV ads. I don't recall seeing a sign. The only reference to a poll I could find was a statement that " a poll of Arizona voters in July indicates McCain is as popular as ever." I think we have the definition of a safe seat.

Study: 8% of voters change their minds

2004-10-16T10:25:00.000-07:00

Power Line reasonably points out that we should be skeptical of polls (especially those from the Star Tribune, right John?) In connection with that, the American Political Science Association recently released a study stating that traditionally 8% of voters change their minds in the last 30 days, and that this percentage does not really decrease until the last two weeks of the campaign. Typically, 4% don't make up their minds until election day. I see no reason those numbers would change much this election. The press release for the study is here . Unfortunately for the wonky, the link to the full report doesn't seem to be working.

Update: Now the press release link doesn't work, but it seems as though the whole site is down.

Chris Matthews sucking up to GOP?

2004-10-16T08:51:00.000-07:00

Is it now Softball? Chris Matthews has mentioned several times on Hardball that Republicans weren't coming on his show. Does that explain the recent post-debate gushing over the performances by Bush and Cheney? Not that I blame him. It's hard to do the format Matthews does if one of the two major parties is boycotting you. Still, it feels a little creepy.