|
|
Predicting a President: The Late
Predicting a President: The Latest Electoral College Shakeup Brings Some Good News for Bush
After a brief respite yesterday, three Web sites today decided to shake things up in E&P's exclusive tracking of seven major newspaper Web sites' electoral maps. President Bush fared a little better than Sen. John Kerry after today's changes, gaining at the Los Angeles Times and holding steady at the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Both candidates lost ground at USA Today. And four sites did not change.
With an average of 199.6 electoral votes across the seven sites, Bush has maintained his lead over Kerry, whose vote count dropped to an average of 184.4. Both still fall far short of the 270 needed to win the election.
The most drastic changes occurred at the Los Angeles Times, where Bush took North Carolina and Colorado, for a total of 24 votes. He lost Nevada, however, as it was put back in the undecided category, leaving him with a net gain of 19 electoral votes. Kerry, meanwhile, took Maine and lost Hawaii to the contested category, for a net gain of zero. After all the shifting, Bush's lead increased to 177-153 at the paper.
Surprisingly, USA Today put both New Jersey and Missouri back in play, dropping New Jersey from Kerry's column and Missouri from Bush's and labeling them ''closely contested.'' This may be news to the candidates. The reasoning behind the decisions: USA Today's polls show the candidates in a tight race in both states, with Bush and Kerry each at 46% in New Jersey. Bushs holds on to a 205-171 lead over Kerry at the site.
For its part, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel shifted Minnesota's 10 electoral votes from ''leaning Kerry'' to ''toss up,'' putting it in line with all the other sites except The New York Times' (where it leans to the Democrat). The president leads 222-207 at the Sun-Sentinel.
By seven major newspaper Web sites'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is That All There Is?
Peggy Lee used to croon, in one of the most depressing popular songs ever, ''Is That All There Is?'' Can this ridiculous missing ammo dump really be the Democrats' big October surprise?
Even the news media aren't holding ranks on this one. Along with Fox, NBC is off the reservation. I'm not going to detail the absurdity of the claim. That's been done by a lot of others, with perhaps the clearest statement being the one by Ralph Peters in this morning's New York Post. I don't care if they took the stuff out through the ventilation ducts, as the original UN report fears could be done. I don't care if the Russians trucked it to Syria or Jordan or Chechnya. I don't care if Uday and Qusay used it for Ba'athist Fireworks. I don't care what happened to it. As a political bombshell, it's a dud. As they say in the red states, that dog won't hunt.
To be sure, the story has all the by-now tiresome earmarks of a modern Democratic conspiracy. UN, New York Times, 60 Minutes, Kerry commercial; all the usual suspects. The scenario is now so old it's got to be in somebody's manual. The only thing missing is a disgruntled ex-Republican with a book to hawk on Nightline. One thing I know for sure is this: if John Kerry had been President, that ammunition would still be in Al-Qaqaa, and still at the disposal of Saddam Hussein.
The Al-Qaqaa scandal is all ca-ca. I want to associate myself with the ''Boycott CBS'' idea being pushed by Rich Galen. Among the conspirators in this outrage, it is CBS that deserves the most censure. The UN is an organization run by the enemies of America, so their part is to be expected. The Times is the personal political vehicle of the left-wing Sulzberger family. They have a perfect right to publish all the nonsense they think fit to print, and always have done so. John Kerry has believed since the 1960's that American foreign policy ought to be turned over to non-Americans, and has consorted with our country's enemies from the Vietnam communists to the Nicaraguan Sandinistas to the soft-on-terrorists of Old Europe.
But CBS is a subsidiary of a publicly held corporation. It should suffer the market consequences of their actions, and the way to get at them is through their affiliates, including the one in your town. That's the proposal Galen has made, and it's right on the mark.
There's another point here, too. One of the most important arguments against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill last year was that by restricting the ability of other political voices, it enhanced the power of the news media to influence campaigns.
The retrospective argument against the law is that it contained a giant loophole through which the 527 Committees have rushed, making a mockery of the supposed restrictions on the specious but massively demonized ''soft money'' problem in politics. But what we now see is that the news media cannot be trusted to be a neutral player. Power corrupts, and organizations like CBS have used their protected muscle to engage in the most despicable sort of partisanship. Sure, they always did, but never to the extent we are seeing in 2004.
Network news organizations will phony up documents, issue directives to their personnel to favor the Democrats, and collude with the campaigns of their (Democrat) favorites to mislead the voters, even in a time of war, when their actions carry the most serious of consequences.
The proper response, of course, is not to abridge freedom of the press, but to use market forces to do the job. Consumers and investors alike have a role to play.
Let us not be blinded the fact that this latest example of the perfidy of the news media is going to be a big flop. Let us seize the moment when they have been exposed for their corruption and squash them once and for all.
By Boycott The CBS Conspirators
|
|
|
Retired brass reject Kerry
Retired brass reject Kerry
A group of retired senior military officers called Sen. John Kerry unfit for command Thursday because he voted against supplies for troops in Iraq.
The 121 retired flag officers issued the statement in an open letter to Kerry promulgated by the campaign of President George W. Bush.
''Senator Kerry voted against troops in combat for his own political benefit,'' they said. ''A candidate who sends troops into harm's way and then denies them the supplies they need to do the job cannot lead our nation in the war on terror.''
The officers, all retired generals or admirals, had come out in support of Bush earlier in the campaign.
Kerry had earlier voted for use of force against Saddam Hussein, but later voted against the $87 billion measure to fund continuing military operations in Iraq and provide troops with supplies and equipment such as ammunition, fuel and body armor.
President Bush says the negative vote was an effort to blunt gains in the Democratic primaries by Kerry rival and anti-war candidate Howard Dean.
The officers in their letter also slammed Kerry for a history of voting in the Senate against military spending.
|
|
|
The French write off Kerry
The French write off Kerry
The French have announced they are seeking renewed good relations with the U.S., calling it a ''a new alliance'' with the U.S., no matter who wins Tuesday's election, according to The Telegraph of London. For fun, I called up my favorite French diplomat at a distant embassy and asked him what he made of that particular statement.
''Don't call it a 'new alliance' just yet,'' mon ami told me on the phone. ''We don't want people to think it's some political-party alliance with the Democrats.''
I asked him why anyone would think that.
''You know every one of us here is for Kerry.''
Well, obvious enough. Yes? So?
''We have to be very cautious now. Just call it friendlier relations.''
Suddenly the point of the new policy is clear:
The French have written off Kerry.
By TheFrench have written off Kerry
|
