A magnitude of 6.0.

I'm mentioning this just in order to explain why I didn't mention this before -- or, for that matter, why I don't cover obviously important stories.

For one thing, I assume that, for most, Ace of Spades HQ remains a second or third stop at best on the information superhighway. I don't bother linking stories that I assume everyone knows about from normal LLM channels or other, bigger blogs (like Instapundit).

For another thing, I usually don't link stories I have nothing to contribute to. The slaughter in Darfur is horrific; and of course I hope for a minimum of destruction and deaths due to this earthquake. As I similarly hoped for Florida and the Gulf Coast during this savage storm season.

But I think that's pretty obvious. True, sometimes the obvious just needs to be said anyway. But I try to keep in mind that this is a political/comedy blog, and not really a one-stop source for links on breaking news.

At any rate, my best wishes to California readers and their families -- and all Californians, of course -- during this tremulous time.

Posted by: Ace at 11:52 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

CNN reports that Tough Crowd With Colin Quinn will be going on haitus in November, and its future will be determined "at that time."

That means they're cancelling it.

If you don't watch the show, it's funnier than Leno and Letterman, and you really ought to check it out. It's on 11:30PM (EST) on Comedy Central.

You might also want to know this: It's one of the most right-wing shows ever put on TV. It has a mix of liberal and conservative comics, but for once the conservatives aren't outnumbered, and Colin Quinn -- the self-styled "Total Package" -- is a strong Bush supporter, and defends Bush night after night.

The show is a little uneven, because how funny it is depends on the comics appearing that night. But when the Big Guns are in -- Nick DiPaolo, Greg Giraldo, and Da Goddess' personal favorite, Jim Norton, are on, it's usually howlingly funny.

So, look: Why not support the show by tuning in once in a while? Especially if you're a Nielsen-metered household. Conservatives have kept a couple of shows off the air; can we keep one on the air?

If you're already a fan of the show, let Comedy Central know it by writing them a little letter at this form. And if you've not yet watched it, check it out this week and then write a letter, telling them, truthfully, you've watched it and you like it.

I wouldn't mention politics or how they need a counter-balance to the left-wing and unfunny John "Cutesy-Cute" Stewart. They don't care about politics; they only care about viewers and ratings.

Quinn beats Leno and Letterman hands-down. I don't think I've watched either of those shows more than three times since "The Total Package" has been up against them. If you're up at 11:30, there are worse ways to spend half an hour.

Sorry to Be So Bossy Update: Jeepers, I've got a BOLO up at the sidebar and now I'm trying to enlist you in saving a show I like a lot. Sorry for the presumption.

But honestly, I think most of the readers here would like the show. I imagine many of you already are watching it anyway.

Posted by: Ace at 11:29 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 398 words, total size 2 kb.

Eight points, and that from a poll which has tended to show, ahem, more generous levels of support for Kerry than commonly assumed.

It's getting silly.

Update: It Just Got Sillier. Jackie Stallone's psychic dogs now scent a Bush victory, too.

Her dogs show Bush with a 49-44 lead, trending well with Catholic women.

Hat tip to Rich Lowery at NRO.

Correction: Mark of Rational Explications says I've got a lot of loose shit going on with my math; the lead is 8, according to Geraghty, not 6 as I first wrote.

I could have sworn the poll was 48-42. But it's 48-40.

Update: Poll's now up.

Posted by: Ace at 10:44 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

No, not Mary Mapes; the other one. Josh Howard.

Certainly no "shadowy links" here!

One of the most offensive things about this whole scandal was Rather's dismissal of critics -- who were of course not only right, but obviously so -- as "partisan political operatives." That's the liberal media in a nutshell-- those who argue against the liberal media line a "partisan" and "extremist" and not to be trusted, while they happily quote left-wing sources and "experts" without noting the partisan affiliation of those sources.

So Dan Rather did the following:

-- He called Bill Burkett, a rabidly-partisan, viciously anti-Bush crank an "unimpeachable source."

-- He let hardcore feminist and liberal Mary Mapes dick around on this story for five years, and then defended her unethical behavior in putting these forgeries on the air.

-- He employed a former staffer for Chuck Schumer as a main producer on the story, while simultaneously dismissing his critics as "partisan political operatives."

The liberal media doesn't, it seem, really mind "partisan political operatives," so much as it objects to Republicans and conservatives generally.

I would like the liberal legacy media to explain why it is that half of the country is to be presumed dishonorable and dishonest for daring to express an opinion that diverges from its own.

Posted by: Ace at 10:25 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

A FreeRepublic poster digests Rasmussen's state-by-state polls, showing Kerry with a [edited due to Rasmussen's complaint about proprietary information] small lead in the Garden State.

FreeRepublic also points me to this poll by StrategicVision (no, I've never heard of them before either) which finds that Kerry leads by a single point -- 45-44 -- among likely voters.

Now, that isn't much of a lead at all. That really is a virtual tie.

These latest polls seem to confirm previous indications of a big shift in favor of Bush. One earlier poll had the race tied; another had Bush ahead by 4. I don't believe Bush is ahead in NJ, but I do now believe the race is approximately tied.

In 1992, Peter Jennings called Bush the Elder's loss of New Jersey as "the dagger in George Bush's heart," or something very close to that. That wasn't really true at all -- NJ had been Republican a long time ago, but, by 1992, it was a true swing state and trending Democratic -- but whatever. I don't think that's liberal bias; I just think that's a guy trying to fill time on a boring election night, and saying dopey things.

But I'm hoping we'll get to see New Jersey finally get to play a genuine "dagger in the heart" role 12 years after Jennings' premature announcement of its blade-like qualities.

Update: Robert comments:

Since the Democrats held their convention in July, and the Republicans in August this allowed the Bush campaign to spend money from his war chest much longer than Kerry. Kerry had to move to the $75 million 5 weeks before Bush. Now that all of the "safe" blue states are suddenly in play, he probably can't afford to advertise in all of them. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, even Oregon for Gods sake. Not to mention of course Florida and Ohio...

This is true, and especially true with regard to New Jersey, one of the most expensive media markets in the country. NJ doesn't really have its own TV stations (not big ones, anyway); it gets its broadcast signals from two of the priciest markets in the nation (NYC and Philly).

But I don't know if that matters. I always think that a candidate has to act as if his base is secured -- there's no point pouring money into NJ; if NJ isn't in the bag on election night, ad-blitz or not, then Kerry's going to lose. I think he has to just assume/hope that NJ is in the bag and continue putting the bulk of his resources into the so-called swing states, even if many of them seem more like Bush states than swing states at the moment.

Bush will certainly visit NJ a couple of times, though. To gin up support, to show the flag, and to announce that he's now playing on Kerry's assumed turf.

Can Bush win NJ? I really think he might. Kerry has to hope for more bad news on the economy and in Iraq/the GWOT and that such news changes the polls in NJ for free.

As if he wasn't doing that already.

Update: Gerry from Daly Thoughts says that StrategicVisions is a polling firm which has previously done most of its political work for the Republican Party, although they're now doing their own independent polls to increase their visibility. But, as he says, keep in mind the possible bias.

Gerry is also proud he's been calling New Jersey a battleground for quite some time. Big deal. Ever been to Newark?

FreeRepublic pulled the thread on the state-by-state numbers, as that's Rasmussen's proprietary (i.e., subscription only) information. So I'll be a stand-up guy and pull the numbers, too.

I'll just say that Kerry's lead right now is the same number that King Arthur was supposed to count to before releasing the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. Not the number he did count to, mind you; the number the Book of Armaments instructed him to count to.*

"Two" points is not the lead; neither shalt thou say that "four" points is the lead.

"Five" is right out.

* If right now you're dying to tell me he did eventually count to the number I'm talking about, you're a big freakin' dork.

Don't run from it. Own it.

Yet Another Update: Joe the Unabrewer points out that the Philly market has lots of campaign ads running, because Pennsylvania is in play. So NJ -- especially southern & western NJ -- will see lots of Kerry ads, whether Kerry makes a specific play for NJ or not.

Duh. I should have known that.

Posted by: Ace at 09:10 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 775 words, total size 5 kb.

They're hunting him, but he's vanished.

Does anyone know where I can find a picture of this Lawrence Ward guy? (Don't bother with Yahoo or Google images; no dice there, at least for me.)

It could help the hunt to have his picture widely publicized in, say, oh, I don't know, blogs or something. I for one would put his mug in the sidebar.

Posted by: Ace at 09:03 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

Real Clear Politics has a must-read article running in FrontPage Magazine.

Why is it that Kerry was prepared to act unilaterally against Saddam under a Democratic President but not under a Republican?

It appears that the Crossfire "quote" published first in the Washington Times and then linked here wasn't quite authentic. But, ironically enough, it was accurate; Kerry didn't use the precise words earlier attributed to him, but he argued both on Crossfire and on the Senate floor that ultimately Saddam would have to be brought to account, whether with our scary-important allies or without them.

Posted by: Ace at 08:58 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

Emphasis mine.

The CNN/USAT/Gallup poll shows Bush ahead by 8 with likelies and, oddly enough, ahead by 11 with registered voters. (The ABCNews/WaPo poll also finds Bush doing better with RVs, so maybe this is a real thing going on here.)

CNN's headline: Bush is apparently ahead.

"Apparently"?

He's on the very edge of the margin of error. The MoE is +/- 4 for either candidate; but that doesn't mean that a 8 point lead is meaningless-- far from it. It is pretty unlikely these men are tied at the moment; furthermore, Kerry can't be ahead, unless this is one of those 1-in-20 polls that is simply unreflective of the greater population.

With the ABCNews/WaPo poll confirming the general picture -- Bush ahead, and significantly so -- the "1-in-20 polls are garbage" theory would seem to be weak.

Does CNN typically say that one candidate is "apparently" ahead by a whopping 8 points (more with registered voters), or do they only do that when the wrong candidate is "apparently" ahead?

Ace of Spades HQ Headline:

Panicked CNN Liberals Apparently Still Believe They Can and Should Cocoon Their Audience

Hey, look, I only said apparently.

Ace of Spades HQ Future Headlines (provided to me by my friend, the time-travelling bologna sandwich called Johnny Coldcuts):

Bush Apparently Wins Re-Election

Apparently Takes 325 Electoral Votes; Apparently Nets 55% of Vote in Reagan-Like Avalanche

Will Take Second Oath of Office in January, Apparently

Judy Woodruff Apparently Suffering From Clinical Depression; Will Apparently Spend a Few Weeks at the Hazelton Clinic

Posted by: Ace at 06:51 PM | Comments (25)
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

...but at least there's the occasional non-leftist liberal to tell them to grow the fuck up already.

Paul Berman bitchslaps Robert Redford for the disgusting haigiography to Che Guevera he produced.

And he wants to know when the Che-lovin' Hollywood community will get around to making a movie about one of Che's many victims.

So Stupid It Hurts My Teeth Update: Travelling Shoes highlights a just-plain-brilliant idea from the Daily Kos on how Kerry can win Pennsylvania:

The question is, will John Kerry speak out and call for the release of [convicted cop-killer Abu-Jamal] Mumia, or at the very least demand a new trial for him?

No, "Kos." The question is, have you been mixing medications, or are you just plain fucking retarded?

But let me answer your question, dearheart. Will John Kerry call for the release of a convicted cop-killer? How about: Will John Kerry even allow the words "Abu-Jamal Mumia" to pass his lips?

Um, no.

Good Lord All Mighty. This is what passes for reasonable thought among the biggest of the big left-wing bloggers.

For the love of all that's holy, you don't hear me calling for the release of, I don't know, Bucephalus "Stony" Herkemer, three-time race-murderer and leader of the White Power Militia gang.*

*Although, to be fair, Mr. Corrigan also claims to be a "political prisoner." He claims that ZOG (the Zionist Occupational Goverment) is frustrating his attempts to begin the RaHoWa (racial holy war) which will "cleanse" the country of "undesirables."

Now that I think about it-- when will President Bush call for the release of this poor man? I think doing so might really help him in Oregon.

Posted by: Ace at 06:32 PM | Comments (9)
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember, we have to elect John Forbes Kerry because he's so much smarter than Bush. W is for wrong, now "misleadisments" -- Jonathan Swift has nothing on this guy.

Kerry is whining yet again, this time about advertisments. Apparently Bush's work and his don't, or else he wouldn't be making this cynical call to pull them off the air.

Well, there's that, and the fact that liberal 527's would continue to put out ads. Meaning that while Kerry's and Bush's ads might be off the air, there would be a lot of advertising remaining -- 90% of it liberal, from The Media Fund and MoveOn.org.

How fucking transparent is that ploy?

Anyway:

SPRING GREEN, United States (AFP) - Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry appealed for an end to the TV advertising war that has marked his election battle against President George W. Bush.

Kerry said the avalanche of negative television spots and attacks being shown on US screens was scaring off voters.

"Americans need a real conversation over our future," Kerry said in a speech at a school in Spring Green, Wisconsin.

"What they don't need is all these trumped up advertisements, they just make people curl up and walk away," added the Massachusetts senator.

"I'm calling them 'misleadisments,'" Kerry said of the adverts. "It's all scare tactics ... because (Bush) has no record to run on."

I'm calling the "misleadisments."

He seems terribly proud of that.

I'm calling this election a "misleadisblowout."

Posted by: Ace at 02:25 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.