Sacramento Bee reporter Dan Weintraub has a theory.

I think it’s a good one. And by the way, if you want to stay in touch with what’s going on with the recall, and California politics in general, you could do a lot worse than staying on top of Weintraub’s blog.

It’s nice to see the Bee on the cutting edge of journalism, by not being threatened by blogging on the part of their reporters.

Sacramento Bee reporter Dan Weintraub has a theory.

I think it’s a good one. And by the way, if you want to stay in touch with what’s going on with the recall, and California politics in general, you could do a lot worse than staying on top of Weintraub’s blog.

It’s nice to see the Bee on the cutting edge of journalism, by not being threatened by blogging on the part of their reporters.

The Mobile Register isn’t letting MoDo get away with her non-“correction.”

It will be interesting to see the follow up to this one.

Avoid this URL. It will make you angry.

But it will have everyone else in stitches. (Warning, it’s a three-minute mpeg-like dealie.)

[Via Paul Hsieh]

Having successfully ended live-fire exercises on Vieques, Puerto Ricans are now whining about the decision to close down Roosevelt Roads Naval Base.

It apparently never occurred to them that one of the primary purposes of Rosie Roads was to support the Vieques range.

Sila Calderon overplayed her hand. She seems to want it both ways, generally expecting the benefits of being a commonwealth, while demanding the privileges of independence, and now she wanted to end the exercises but keep the money.

The imperceptible sound you hear is the strain of a nanoviolin.

Terry McAuliffe is upset because a local Fox affiliate in Wisconsin won’t air his misleading ad about Bush “misleading” the American people.

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe responded with an attack on the decision to not run the ad: “Apparently Fox has changed its slogan from ‘We report, you decide’ to ‘we let Bush decide what we air.'”

Fox spokeswoman Irena Steffen in New York said the decision was not made at the national level.

“You would think a man in his position would know the difference between a local affiliate and a national news network,” she said.

Yeah, you’d think.

What a maroon. Here’s hoping that the Dems don’t come to their senses, and that they keep him as head of the DNC for a long, long time.

[Update at 1:13 PM PDT]

S-Train is upset with this post, and my apparent approval of the Fox affiliate’s judgment.

Like the Republicans ads won’t be misleading. Ain’t that the purpose? Mislead the people about your opponent so you can get votes. Oh those pious, honest Republicans…

…As long as I have been aware of politics, the Democrats and Republicans political ads during election time have been dubious to say the least.

Sure. So what? If Fox wants to do the same thing with a Republican ad, I’ll have no complaint, if it’s as bad, or even if it’s not.

I was approving the general principle of a media outlet finally standing up and saying “enough” to demogoguery, from any party. This just happened to be a particularly juicy topical example.

I don’t believe that television stations should be required to run political ads that they believe to be misleading. There’s enough diversity of the media that I have no sympathy for the notion that every outlet should have to run everything.

If a station manager wants to use some discretion, I say more power to them. Maybe it will elevate the political discourse a little, if both sides come to realize that they can’t get away with any slanderous lie they want just because they’re a political party.

Terry McAuliffe is upset because a local Fox affiliate in Wisconsin won’t air his misleading ad about Bush “misleading” the American people.

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe responded with an attack on the decision to not run the ad: “Apparently Fox has changed its slogan from ‘We report, you decide’ to ‘we let Bush decide what we air.'”

Fox spokeswoman Irena Steffen in New York said the decision was not made at the national level.

“You would think a man in his position would know the difference between a local affiliate and a national news network,” she said.

Yeah, you’d think.

What a maroon. Here’s hoping that the Dems don’t come to their senses, and that they keep him as head of the DNC for a long, long time.

[Update at 1:13 PM PDT]

S-Train is upset with this post, and my apparent approval of the Fox affiliate’s judgment.

Like the Republicans ads won’t be misleading. Ain’t that the purpose? Mislead the people about your opponent so you can get votes. Oh those pious, honest Republicans…

…As long as I have been aware of politics, the Democrats and Republicans political ads during election time have been dubious to say the least.

Sure. So what? If Fox wants to do the same thing with a Republican ad, I’ll have no complaint, if it’s as bad, or even if it’s not.

I was approving the general principle of a media outlet finally standing up and saying “enough” to demogoguery, from any party. This just happened to be a particularly juicy topical example.

I don’t believe that television stations should be required to run political ads that they believe to be misleading. There’s enough diversity of the media that I have no sympathy for the notion that every outlet should have to run everything.

If a station manager wants to use some discretion, I say more power to them. Maybe it will elevate the political discourse a little, if both sides come to realize that they can’t get away with any slanderous lie they want just because they’re a political party.

Terry McAuliffe is upset because a local Fox affiliate in Wisconsin won’t air his misleading ad about Bush “misleading” the American people.

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe responded with an attack on the decision to not run the ad: “Apparently Fox has changed its slogan from ‘We report, you decide’ to ‘we let Bush decide what we air.'”

Fox spokeswoman Irena Steffen in New York said the decision was not made at the national level.

“You would think a man in his position would know the difference between a local affiliate and a national news network,” she said.

Yeah, you’d think.

What a maroon. Here’s hoping that the Dems don’t come to their senses, and that they keep him as head of the DNC for a long, long time.

[Update at 1:13 PM PDT]

S-Train is upset with this post, and my apparent approval of the Fox affiliate’s judgment.

Like the Republicans ads won’t be misleading. Ain’t that the purpose? Mislead the people about your opponent so you can get votes. Oh those pious, honest Republicans…

…As long as I have been aware of politics, the Democrats and Republicans political ads during election time have been dubious to say the least.

Sure. So what? If Fox wants to do the same thing with a Republican ad, I’ll have no complaint, if it’s as bad, or even if it’s not.

I was approving the general principle of a media outlet finally standing up and saying “enough” to demogoguery, from any party. This just happened to be a particularly juicy topical example.

I don’t believe that television stations should be required to run political ads that they believe to be misleading. There’s enough diversity of the media that I have no sympathy for the notion that every outlet should have to run everything.

If a station manager wants to use some discretion, I say more power to them. Maybe it will elevate the political discourse a little, if both sides come to realize that they can’t get away with any slanderous lie they want just because they’re a political party.

It turns out that the “Bambi hunt” was a hoax, after all. It was just PR to sell the videos.

It’s Friday, which means it’s time to go over and read Victor Davis Hanson’s latest. He puts things into perspective:

These are still perilous times. But if anyone on September 12, 2001, had predicted that 22 months later there would still be no repeat of 9/11; that bin Laden would be either quiet, dead, or in hiding; that al Qaeda would be dispersed, the Taliban gone, and the likes of a Mr. Karzai in Kabul; that Saddam Hussein would be out of power, his sons dead, and an Iraqi national council emerging in his place; that troops would be leaving Saudi Arabia, Arafat ostracized, and Sharon seeking negotiations; that new Middle East agreements under discussion – and all at a cost of fewer than 300 American lives – then he would surely have been written off as a madman…

…So far we have lost fewer lives in Afghanistan and Iraq than we did in a single day’s butchery in the Marine barracks in Lebanon. But unlike that terrible sacrifice, this time Americans are fighting back, winning, and changing for the better the lives of millions in the most remarkable, ambitious, and risky endeavor since the end of World War II.