All posts by Rand Simberg

Media Criticism

Idiotic Question

I’m listening to the Republican debate, and wondering why they put up with this bullshit (yes, I don’t use that word often on this family…sort of… blog) from the MSM. Why do they allow Democrat media types to frame their debate?

The most egregious case of this is the question that just came up–why shouldn’t people vote for Barack Obama?

WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANY REPUBLICAN CARE ABOUT THIS QUESTION IN A REPUBLICAN DEBATE?

Romney responded with a bunch of blather that had little to do with the question, and Thompson came up next. I was disappointed.

It was a “I’m not doing no hand shows” moment, and he blew it.

The first words out of his mouth should have been, “Let me preface my answer with the statement that this is a foolish question for a debate that only Republicans are really interested in. It might be a perfectly fine question a few months from now, in a general election, if Obama in fact becomes the candidate, and I (or one of these other gentlemen) are debating him, but Republicans, or at least smart ones (and I don’t know that many dumb ones) don’t care why I or anyone on this stage thinks that they shouldn’t vote for Barack Obama. They’re trying to pick a Republican candidate. Now, having said that,…[then go on to the response he actually gave].

But instead, he just returned to Republican principles, but I think he missed an opportunity to bash the press again, which a lot of Republican activists would have loved.

One other thought overall. Mike Huckabee is one slick-talking, two-faced socialist son of a bitch. I’ll have to go through the transcript to make the case, though. He’s a combination of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, in Republican clothing.

Must be something about people who were born in Hope, Arkansas, and became governor of the state. If the campaigns of the other Republican candidates are worth anything, there is much fodder here for anti-Huckabee ads that will amply and convincingly demonstrate this.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Here are some related thoughts to the latter point from Jonathan Adler (though more calm than mine, though they weren’t in the wake of the debate):

It’s interesting that Huckabee is now stressing a limited government message, as it has not been a significant part of his platform up until now. Rather this is a guy who celebrates farm subsidies, disavows free trade, and likes the idea of a national smoking ban, and his campaign manager has disparaged the limited government ideology that motivates many Republicans in New Hampshire and elsewhere. That he can deliver such a message effectively is no surprise

Political Commentary

Amidst All The McCain Worship

John Hood makes an excellent point:

There is also a longer, truly heart-felt affection by center-left journalists for McCain, who mirrors their sentiments on the issue they (wrongly) believe is central to American politics: campaign-finance reform.

…in this matter Iowa is inconvenient for the McCain/Left argument. Huckabee had little money and won. Romney spent lots of money and came in second.

This is one of the biggest reasons that I do not want to see John McCain as president. Of course, it’s also one of my many unhappinesses with George W. Bush, who signed a law that he stated himself he believed to be unconstitutional, thus betraying his oath of office.

Media Criticism

Scientific Fraud

At The Lancet. This isn’t really new news–anyone with half a brain who looked at the study carefully at the time (i.e., not all-too-credulous journalists) could see that it was a nonsensical statistical mess. But the case against it is looking even stronger now.

Of course, it fulfilled its political purpose–to damage the Republicans and the Bush administration in the 2006 elections. And when it comes to righteous moral crusades like that, accuracy and scientific integrity be damned.

Political Commentary

Asking The Wrong Question

Everyone (well, not everyone, but the conventional wisdom) is writing off Fred Thompson.

But this prognostication raises a question that (as far as I know) has never been asked. Everyone assumes that if Fred drops out, he throws his support to his old bud McCain. But what if Thompson does much better than expected, and after South Carolina, McCain drops out? Where does his support go? Will he explicitly endorse Thompson? And even if not, will his voters go there anyway?

It’s hard to see them going to Huckabee, Romney or Giuliani. What do they have to offer the conservatives and hawks who were with McCain (assuming that’s why they were with him). Neither Huck or Mitt has been very strong on the war (that’s a vast understatement with respect to Huckabee, who seems to be a Republican version of Jimmy Carter). And Rudy seems too socially liberal to attract McCain voters (many of whom are presumably attracted by his pro-life position).

If Fred comes in third (and two positions above McCain) in Iowa, as predicted above, he will probably have enough momentum to ignore New Hampshire and raise money for South Carolina. Particularly since he will have shown that he didn’t “enter too late” (the other candidates entered too early, as he continually points out) and that he can do well when he focuses on a needed state.

The key point is that with all of these polls, no one has a majority. The real question is: where will people go when their favorite flames out? People should be asking that about every candidate, not just Fred. This is still anyone’s (well, OK, not Ron Paul’s, or the other minor candidates’) race, in that if one can pick off the votes of the others, they can rapidly raise their percentage to a majority. This seems like good news for Fred to me, if he can do well tonight. This is a result of the fact that there’s no Republican incumbent.

And if no one can, then things will be very interesting at the convention. It seems to me that if it ends up brokered, that ends up being good for the most genuine heir to Ronald Reagan as well.

Political Commentary

Sioux Nation

The Lakota are declaring their independence.

“We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,” long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.

A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.

They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free — provided residents renounce their US citizenship, Means said.

They have really gotten a raw deal, having had socialism imposed on them by the Great White Father back east for all these decades.

It will be interesting to see how many countries recognize them (Venezuela and other America haters are a sure bet).

It also will be interesting to see what they actually do, and what Washington’s response will be. Will they implement border controls?