Jerry Bever, general manager for Anchorage station KTVA, issued a statement today regarding the inadvertent voice mail left on the phone of a senior staff member of the Joe Miller campaign. He claimed that the discussion his staff members had regarding potential scandals for the Miller campaign was taken out of context: The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do. The American public is supposed to believe that the staff of KTVA were sitting around imagining potentially scandalous stories that others might foist upon the Miller campaign and not ideas that they, themselves were conjuring. Instead of just taking Mr. Bever’s word for it (like so many in the media and at Soros-Funded left-wing activist organizations have), lets actually hold the statements made on the recording up to the context Mr. Bever has provided. Look at what was said and try as hard as you can to fit these sentences into that context: MALE REPORTER: Oh yeah… can you repeat Joe Miller’s…uh… list of people, campaign workers, which one’s the molester? [INAUDIBLE] FEMALE VOICE: We know that out of all the people that will show up tonight, at least one of them will be a registered sex offender. [Laughter] MALE REPORTER: You have to find that one person… If they were discussing what others might do, why do they keep saying “You” and “I”? Why don’t they say “ They have to find that one person…” or “ They know that out of all the people…” FEMALE REPORTER: And the one thing we can do is ….we won’t know….we won’t know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever we can put out a twitter/facebook alert: saying what the… ‘Hey Joe Miller punched at rally.’ FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul…I like that. Again, do you notice how the reporter says, “And the one thing we can do is…”? If she is discussing what others might do, as Mr. Bever assures us, why doesn’t she say “And one thing they can do is…”? The answer is simple. But clearly Mr. Bever and his apologists on the left think the American people are too stupid to scrutinize their embarrassingly lame explanation. No one believes that these reporters were sitting around discussing what “others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign.” At least no one who is not taking a Soros paycheck believes it.
Read the rest here:
Alaska Station’s Alleged ‘Context’ Doesn’t Match Content of Miller Recording
Dilma Rousseff of the ruling leftwing PT won a comfortable victory in Brazil’s presidential run-off election on Sunday, beating her rival José Serra of the centrist opposition PSDB after failing to secure an outright majority at the first round on October 3
Here is the original post:
Rousseff wins Brazilian presidency
(Paul) The three latest generic polls of the battle for control of the House all point strongly in favor of the Republicans, with two of them suggesting that the Republican gains could be of historic proportion. A CNN poll has the Republicans holding a 10 point generic lead. A Fox News poll has the Republicans up by 13 points. Finally a Washington Post/ABC News poll puts the Republican lead at 4 points. These polls, viewed collectively, were taken during the period October 25-30. CNN’s, the most recent, was taken between the 27th and the 30th but had the smallest sample size (542 likely voters). There is a tendency, I believe, for the generic polling to understate Republican performance. Not all of those who identify themselves as “likely voters” end up voting, of course, and in many years Republicans tend to do their best with those who are most likely to vote. This tendency may be more pronounced this year (the enthusiasm gap). But let’s put this consideration aside. The average of the three latest polls is Republicans plus 9. If Republican candidates for the House were to outpoll Democratic candidates by this margin on Tuesday, I believe this would translate into a pick-up of 60 to 70 seats. I say this because in 2004, Republicans won the “popular vote” in House races nationwide by 7 percentage points. In the process, they ended up with 232 seats. To match that number of seats, the Republicans would need to pick up 55 seats. A 9 point margin would, other things being equal, mean more pick-ups than that. The 13 point lead Fox News is showing translates, by similar reasoning , into a Republican gain of 80 seats or more. Even the smaller 4 point lead the Washington Post/ABC News poll reflects would probably mean a gain of around 50 seats. So at a macro-level at least, 50 to 80 seats looks like the range and a pick-up of 60 seems probable.
Read more from the original source:
More fun with numbers
Democratic voters are closely divided over whether President Obama should be challenged within the party for a second term in 2012, an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks Poll finds. Among Democrats, 47 percent say Mr. Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination, and 51 percent say he should not be opposed. …
Read the original:
Democrats split over '12 challenge to Obama
(Scott) Having left a message for Joe Miller’s campaign spokesman, an assignment editor from the CBS affiliate in Alaska had one of those equipment malfunctions that has contributed so much to the entertainment value of this election season. While his phone remained connected to voicemail, he joined his colleagues in a conversation that is suggestive of skullduggery against Miller: FEMALE REPORTER: That’s up to you because you’re the expert, but that’s what I would do…I’d wait until you see who showed up because that indicates we already know something… [Laughter] [INAUDIBLE] FEMALE REPORTER: Child molesters… MALE REPORTER: Oh yeah… can you repeat Joe Miller’s…uh… list of people, campaign workers, which one’s the molester? [INAUDIBLE] FEMALE VOICE: We know that out of all the people that will show up tonight, at least one of them will be a registered sex offender. [Laughter] MALE REPORTER: You have to find that one person… [INAUDIBLE] FEMALE REPORTER: And the one thing we can do is ….we won’t know….we won’t know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever we can put out a twitter/facebook alert: saying what the… “Hey Joe Miller punched at rally.” FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul…I like that. [Laughter] FEMALE REPORTER: That’s a good one. Big Journalism comments that the reporters were conspiring to set up some type of smear of Joe Miller. “With glee, they even cite a recent controversy over an incident involving the Rand Paul campaign, while discussing how they would spread the story via social media after whatever incident they had in mind came off.” I’m not sure what to make of the conversational fragment the Miller campaign has released — we’re clearly in the middle of things — but the statement released by the CBS affiliate makes no sense: A press release issued Saturday October 30, 2010, by the Joe Miller campaign claims that KTVA personnel, “openly discuss creating, if not fabricating, two stories about Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Miller.” KTVA General Manager Jerry Bever says, “It’s unfortunate that this recording has happened. It’s unfortunate because it does not accurately reflect the journalistic standards of our newsroom and the garbled context will no doubt leave more questions than answers. The Miller campaign’s analysis of the recording is incorrect in many material ways ranging from personnel involved in the conversation, the interpretation of conversation snippets and the reported transcript of the perceived garbled conversation.” “While the recording is real, the allegations are untrue,” said Bever. “The recording was the result of a cell phone not being hung up after a call was placed to Randy DeSoto, Joe Miller campaign spokesperson, Thursday afternoon to discuss Joe Miller’s appearance on that evening’s newscast. That phone call was placed near the end of a coverage planning meeting in our newsroom regarding that evening’s Miller rally in downtown Anchorage. The group of KTVA news personnel was reviewing potential “what-if” scenarios, discussing the likelihood of events at the rally and how KTVA might logistically disseminate any breaking news.” Bever continues, “The perception that this garbled, out of context recording may leave is unfortunate, but to allege that our staff was discussing or planning to create or fabricate stories regarding candidate Miller is absurd. The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do.” While Bever would not discuss any personnel issues linked with the recording, Bever says “Have we had internal discussions about the level of professionalism we need to bring to our conversations, internally and externally? Of course we have, this is a lesson to learn from.” I can’t do better than Ed Morrissey : KTVA’s explanation is absurd. What possible context can they put around the suggestion that they start looking for child molesters at a political rally in order to exploit that for their television coverage? That’s a “potential what-if scenario”? Yeah, thanks for clearing that up.
Read the original here:
Plot still thickening in Alaska, cont’d
(Paul) ABC News claims that Republican party leaders have given up on Joe Miller in Alaska and are now banking on Lisa Murkowski as the best bet for Republicans to keep the Alaska Senate seat. As evidence, it cites a “high level” Republican source and the fact that the National Republican Senatorial Committee in its latest ad spent 25 seconds attacking Democrat Scott McAdams and less than five seconds mentioning Joe Miller. The NRSC denies ABC’s story, and I believe the denial. First, there’s no reason why anyone should give up on Miller’s campaign. Although he’s behind in the polls, I don’t think it’s possible to conclude from these polls that he has no chance, or even that he is less than even money to win. The polls do not, and cannot, adequately take into account the obstacle that Murkowski’s non-presence on the ballot poses to her campaign. Second, as Ed Morrissey points out , there is good reason for the NRSC to focus its fire on McAdams – he represents the only way the Republicans can lose the seat. The Republicans can hold the seat with either Murkowski or Miller. It’s also important that Miller finish ahead of McAdams. If McAdams were to finish second behind “write-in candidate,” the write-in votes would then have to be counted and some of Murkowski’s votes would probably be disqualified for technical reasons. Thus McAdams could squeak out a victory. But if Miller is ahead of McAdams, only Murkowski or Miller can win. Under these circumstances, it makes sense for the NRSC to try to drive down McAdams’ vote and, in particular, to discourage any voters who have become disaffected with Miller from voting for McAdams. Quite simply, that is the optimal strategy for keeping the seat in Republican hands. It’s possible that there are influential Republicans in Washington who are rooting for Murkowski, either because they like her or because they think Miller may be difficult to work with. But there’s no reason to believe that the focus on attacking McAdams stems either from any belief that Miller can’t win or any preference that he not do so.
Here is the original post:
Plot still thickening in Alaska, but not as much as ABC news claims
Crazy on you. Sanity is apparently in the eye of the beholder, as is coherence. Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie and Michael Moynihan eschewed the stage show and talked directly to the participants in the Restore Sanity rally yesterday and discovered that many of the people who attended had little notion about the politics of the moment. The best Read this post
If the Republicans are victorious at the polls next Tuesday, President Obama will demonize them the same way Bill Clinton did after the 1994 midterm elections.
What costume is Abdullah Abdul-Malik wearing? Fatwas will be issued.
Continued here:
Blog Sabbath Caption Contest Halloween Edition
(Scott) I’ve learned a lot from Richard Brookhiser’s short books on the founding fathers, so I especially enjoyed his review of Pauline Maier’s new book on the (incredible) history of the ratification of the Constitution. Brookhiser summarizes the history on offer in Maeier’s book and concludes: Maier does not lard her conclusion with Big Thoughts, so let me rush in. The ratification process was a tribute to what Nathan Dane of Massachusetts, a reluctant convert to the Constitution, called “the attention of this intelligent people.” Elites who disdain or ignore their fellow citizens come to grief. Witness the mess of the European Union, made and run by Brussels wire-pullers. Americans who tut-tut about our political process sometimes have a point — we can always do better –but sometimes they go too far. The process was not that different in 1787-88, and we did all right. It’s “the attention of this intelligent people” that we fervently hope will assert itself on November 2.
Excerpt from:
Ratification