The Democrats are whining that the Taco Bell “poll” is rigged.

Taco Bell announced the first installment of its Taco Poll results yesterday, in which 54 percent of the votes went to Schwarzenegger and his crunchy beef taco, and just three percent of the votes went to Davis and his chicken soft taco. All other candidates received 43 percent of votes through purchases of the chain?s Grilled Stuft Burrito.

Unhappy with the mock poll results, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, former state Sen. Art Torres said yesterday that ?Taco Bell should stick to making tacos, not rigging elections.?

In a press statement released yesterday, Torres said beef tacos always outsell chicken tacos, which cost twice as much at the restaurant chain. In Sacramento, Torres said, Taco Bell sells beef tacos for 74 cents and chicken tacos for $1.50.

It gets harder and harder to parody these clowns. No matter how wacky a thing you come up with, reality always trumps it.

The Democrats are whining that the Taco Bell “poll” is rigged.

Taco Bell announced the first installment of its Taco Poll results yesterday, in which 54 percent of the votes went to Schwarzenegger and his crunchy beef taco, and just three percent of the votes went to Davis and his chicken soft taco. All other candidates received 43 percent of votes through purchases of the chain?s Grilled Stuft Burrito.

Unhappy with the mock poll results, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, former state Sen. Art Torres said yesterday that ?Taco Bell should stick to making tacos, not rigging elections.?

In a press statement released yesterday, Torres said beef tacos always outsell chicken tacos, which cost twice as much at the restaurant chain. In Sacramento, Torres said, Taco Bell sells beef tacos for 74 cents and chicken tacos for $1.50.

It gets harder and harder to parody these clowns. No matter how wacky a thing you come up with, reality always trumps it.

So says Ron Bailey. He’s right.

So says Ron Bailey. He’s right.

So says Ron Bailey. He’s right.

Over at the Speculist.

I know I’ve been dissing barsoomheads lately, but go read Phil’s interview with Bob Zubrin, to celebrate the opposition of the Red Planet.

Over at the Speculist.

I know I’ve been dissing barsoomheads lately, but go read Phil’s interview with Bob Zubrin, to celebrate the opposition of the Red Planet.

Over at the Speculist.

I know I’ve been dissing barsoomheads lately, but go read Phil’s interview with Bob Zubrin, to celebrate the opposition of the Red Planet.

I’ve heard three references today (from NPR this morning, from Greta on Fox, and from Cici Connally on Brit Hume’s show) that today is a “milestone,” because the number of US military casualties since President Bush declared major hostilities over is now equal to casualties in Iraq during the war itself.

Can someone explain to me why this is a significant number?

Two points.

First, to make such an equation is to engage in an exercise of irrational numerology. I can’t imagine why the number, or the ratio of the two numbers, is of any significance.

Second, it seems to me that, like Warren Buffet’s comparison of California with Nebraska property taxes, this makes exactly the opposite point from that intended. To wit, rather than implying that California’s taxes are too low, it really implies that Nebraska’s are too high. Similarly, for those who complain about the “high” number of deaths since the end of major combat ops (less than the murder rate of any major city in the US), it simply points out how low our casualties in the war itself were.

But leave it to the liberal…errrmm…excuse me, “progressive” media to attempt to make good news seem like bad…