SECOND EVENING POST:  JULY 28,  2008

Posted at 10:09 p.m. ET

FACTS?

You know, you just can't get good fact checkers these days, as noted in the story below.  And that seems to apply to presidential candidates, or at least one of them, as well as to news organizations.

James Taranto writes one of the best columns in the business, his Best of The Web Today, for The Wall Street Journal's online site.  And he caught Barack Obama in one of the candidate's many factless moments.  Consider:

Well, Maybe Not as We Speak

• "As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic . . ."--Barack Obama, Berlin, July 24, 2008

• "New data from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute shows that there is more ice than normal in the Arctic waters north of the Svalbard archipelago. In most years, there are open waters in the area north of the archipelago in July month. Studies from this year however show that the area is covered by ice, the Meteorological Institute writes in a press release."--Barents Observer (Kirkenes, Norway), July 24

Pay no attention.  Pay absolutely no attention to these Norwegian scientists.  What do they know, compared to Al Gore or the Democratic National Committee?  Haven't they seen "An Inconvenient Truth"?  Why are these people given grants, when Barack knows everything about global warming that we need to know?

It's so stressful to be a liberal.

July 28, 2008.      Permalink          

EARLY EVENING POST:  JULY 28,  2008

Posted at 7:58 p.m. ET

RAISED ALERT

ABC News is reporting that Washington is stepping up anti-terror activities:

Government officials have been quietly stepping up counterterror efforts out of a growing concern that al Qaeda or similar organizations might try to capitalize on the spate of extremely high-profile events in the coming months, sources tell ABC News.

And...

Anti-terror officials in the U.S. cite this summer and fall's lineup of two major political parties' conventions, November's general election and months of transition into a new presidential administration as cause for heightened awareness and action.

This is what the Department of Homeland Security is quietly declaring a Period of Heightened Alert, or POHA, a time frame when terrorists may have more incentive to attack.

According to drafts of government memos described to ABC News, the period would run roughly from this August through July 2009.

That second date seems a bit odd.  We were attacked on September 11, 2001, a bit less than eight months into the Bush administration.  I wonder how they settled on July, 2009.

More:

At the moment, the nation's public threat level will remain at yellow, or "elevated," but not orange, or "high."

The reasons: There are no specifics indicating an attack on the U.S. is imminent, and U.S. officials do not want to be accused of trying to inject themselves into the presidential campaign.

"That's a balancing act," said Jerry Hauer, former Homeland Security official and ABC News consultant. "They really have to focus on these events and this critical time we're going through as a nation, but they have to be very careful about the public message to not make it look political or like they're fearmongering."

And that is a reasonable approach for the federal government.

By the way, not to quibble or appear trivial,  but the story says that 9-11 occurred nine months into a new administration.  You'll notice that we corrected it above to "a bit less than eight months into the Bush administration."  ABC, in an otherwise fine story, made the kind of error that journalists must never make.  Get the facts right.  Count when you have to.  Consult a calendar.  But never guess.  Administrations begin on January 20th.  Just do it on your fingers:  To February 20th, one month; to March, two months; to April, three months; to May, four months; to June, five months; to July, six months; to August, seven months; to September 20th, eight months.  September 11th?  A bit less than eight months. 

Old-fashioned method?  Yes.  Accurate?  Also yes.

July 28, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  JULY 28,  2008

Posted at 3:35 p.m. ET

McCAIN AHEAD?

For the first time, a major poll shows John McCain in the lead.  The USA/Gallup poll of likely voters shows McCain up four over Obama.

Ah, it's so good to write that, but I urge caution.  This is only one poll, and differs from all the others.

Today's Gallup tracking poll, done by the same organization, has Obama up eight.  The Gallup tracker, though, is taken among registered voters. 

Today's Rasmussen tracker, done among likely voters, has Obama up three.

So, what does this mean?  Well, it could mean nothing.  Polls are snapshots, and only polls taken over time tell a significant story.  Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics writes:

This is the first poll showing McCain with a lead over Obama since a May 1-3 Gallup/USA Today survey showed him with a slim 1 point lead. A Fox News poll at the end of April had McCain up 3.

With today's Rasmussen and Gallup tracking both ticking down for Obama (-2 and -1, respectively) and a new Dem Corps poll showing Obama up five, the new RCP National Average has Obama's lead over McCain dipping to 3.2%.

And how does Gallup explain the galloping 12-point gap between their tracker and their USA poll?  If I were the Gallup organization, I'd want to come out with some explanation.  However, you should read a pollster's interpretation of his own polls with some skepticism.  With that in mind, Gallup editor Frank Newport is quoted in USA Today, saying that...

"registered voters are much more important at the moment," because Election Day is still 100 days away, but that the likely-voter result suggests that it may be possible for McCain to energize Republicans and turn them out this fall.

Who is a likely voter? In this poll, Frank says, that was determined by how much thought people have given to the election, how often they say they vote and whether they plan to vote in the election in November.

He says the number of likely GOP voters is up for now, probably in part because of Obama's trip and the "laudatory" media coverage of it. "At least in the short term it may have had the side effect of energizing Republicans," he says. Also, he says that McCain's sharp words about Obama and the media last week may have energized his faithful.

And, ahem, that gap?

As for the difference between the tracking and USA TODAY/Gallup polls, Frank says not to read too much into it. "Statistical noise" may be largely to blame.

That's 12 points worth of noise.  Very noisy out there.  Let's see how the polls develop over the next few weeks. 

July 28, 2008.       Permalink          

ADDITIONAL MORNING POST:  JULY 28,  2008

Posted at  8:38 a.m. ET

HOW CAN HE?

Barack Obama had the benefit of a first-class education.  You'd think he'd want to extend that blessing to all of this country's children.  Well, if you thought that, you'd be wrong.  In a devastating editorial this morning, The Wall Street Journal, an island of journalistic sanity, points out that Obama is in the tank for some of the most regressive forces in education.  Why?  Need you ask?  They're helping him get elected, and he'll owe them:

The profound failure of inner-city public schools to teach children may be the nation's greatest scandal. The differences between the two Presidential candidates on this could hardly be more stark. John McCain is calling for alternatives to the system; Barack Obama wants the kids to stay within that system. We think the facts support Senator McCain.

And McCain graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy.  Obama was an academic star.  But McCain has sense.

Mr. McCain cited the Washington, D.C., Opportunity Scholarship Program, a federally financed school-choice program for disadvantaged kids signed into law by President Bush in 2004...

...A recent Department of Education report found nearly 90% of participants in the D.C. program have higher reading scores than peers who didn't receive a scholarship.

And...

The state of California just announced that one in three students in the Los Angeles public school system drops out before graduating. Among black and Latino students in L.A. district schools, the numbers are 42% and 30%...

...The silver linings in these dismal clouds are L.A.'s charter high schools. Writing in the Los Angeles Daily News last week, Caprice Young, who heads the California Charter Schools Association, noted that "every charter high school in Los Angeles Unified last year reported a dropout rate significantly lower than not only the school district's average, but the state's as well."

But...

On recent evidence, the Democrat Party's policy on these alternatives is simply massive opposition...

...Earlier this month, Senator Obama accepted the endorsement of the National Education Association, the largest teachers union. Speaking recently before the American Federation of Teachers, he described the alternative efforts as "tired rhetoric about vouchers and school choice."

Mr. Obama told an interviewer recently that he opposes school choice because, "although it might benefit some kids at the top, what you're going to do is leave a lot of kids at the bottom." The Illinois Senator has it exactly backward. Those at the top don't need voucher programs and they already exercise school choice. They can afford exclusive private schools, or they can afford to live in a neighborhood with decent public schools. The point of providing educational options is to extend this freedom to the "kids at the bottom."

Despicable, Senator Obama.  Absolutely outrageous.

A visitor to Mr. Obama's Web site finds plenty of information about his plans to fix public education in this country. Everyone knows this is a long, hard slog, but Mr. Obama and his wife aren't waiting. Their daughters attend the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, where annual tuition ranges from $15,528 for kindergarten to $20,445 for high school.

Does the term "limousine liberal" spring to mind?  Here is the one area where Senator Obama has a solid background.  Yet, he caves in to the special interests at the first available moment.  Is he change we can believe in?

July 28, 2008.      Permalink          

MONDAY:  JULY 28,  2008

Posted at 7:25 a.m. ET

MEDIA WHINE

There is something peculiarly ridiculous about the excuses being peddled by media execs for their gushing coverage of Barack Obama.  The basic line, and most of you have probably encountered it, goes something like this: 

We aren't biased, and we aren't slanting the news for Senator Obama.  It's just that he's a much bigger story than is Senator McCain, and our coverage reflects that.  Obama is, after all, a "first."  There's a lot of excitement about him.  People all over the world are curious, and that's what you're seeing in the news coverage.

This, of course, is complete garbage.  It reflects an unprofessional view of journalism, unprofessional because it incorrectly defines the story, then uses the error to justify the coverage.

What is the story?  It's not that Barack Obama is intriguing to some people, and popular in Berlin.  The story is that America will elect a president in November, the most momentous choice the American people make.  Obama's personality, or appeal, or whatever, is simply a subtext of that story.  The media should be covering both candidates equally, explaining their positions to the American voter.  Obama's "rock star" status is certainly a valid part of the story, but only a part.

The media did it far better in 1960, when Jack Kennedy ran.  Yes, his personal appeal, especially to young women, was certainly reported, but only in the context of the national election campaign.  The final vote, despite Kennedy's magnetism, was extremely close.  There were four debates, handled seriously, with proper regard for the office.

Obama isn't the story.  The election of a president is the story.  Things have slipped.

July 28,  2008.      Permalink          

THE PETRAEUS FACTOR

It appears that a bit of a confrontation is looming between Gen. David Petraeus, chief of Central Command, who devised and executed the brilliant "surge" strategy in Iraq, and the next president of the United States.  The general is opposed to the setting of a timeline for American withdrawal.  Field Marshal Obama clearly wants one.  Even Sen. McCain is moving slightly in that direction, although only slightly.

BAGHDAD — The top U.S. military commander in Iraq isn't buying the increasingly popular idea of a publicly stated timetable for American troop withdrawal.

Gen. David Petraeus, the Iraq commander, said in an interview with McClatchy that the situation in Iraq is too volatile to "project out, and to then try to plant a flag on, a particular date."

And...

Petraeus said any timetable must have "a heck of a lot more granularity than the kind of very short-hand statements that have been put out."

"We occasionally have commanders who have so many good weeks, (they think) it's won. We've got this thing. Well we don't. We've had so many good weeks. Right now, for example we've had two-and-a-half months of levels of violence not since March 2004," he said from his office at Camp Victory.

"Well that's encouraging. It's heartening. It's very welcome. But let's keep our powder dry. . . .Let's not let our guard down."

I don't think Petraeus would have any problem with a President McCain.  McCain understands military affairs and strategy.  But he might have a big problem with Field Marshal Obama, veteran of the streets of Chicago. 

That could set up a very interesting drama.  What if Petraeus makes clear his objection to a timeline, and President Obama sets one?  What if Petraeus watches the president overrule him and start to withdraw troops?  We could have, in miniature, a repeat of the Truman/MacArthur clash over Korean War strategy in 1950, ultimately resulting in MacArthur's being relieved of command.

Now, MacArthur was a national hero, and was clearly insubordinate.  Petraeus is less of a household name, but is highly respected.  What would he do if his advice is overruled?  What would the president do if Petraeus keeps stating his opposition?

Would Petraeus resign his commission?  Or, would Obama fire him?  Obama is perceived as weak on national security, and overruling a successful, war-winning general might not be something he'd relish.  On the other hand, how could Petraeus remain if the very core of his strategy is being dismantled? 

Hmm.  This could be better than an episode of "24."

July 28, 2008.       Permalink