Ezra Klein writing at the LA Times needs some remedial lessons.
THE LOSERS: Since LBJ, six sitting or former U.S. senators have been nominated to run for president. None was elected
LBJ was elected in 1964. So lets start counting in 1968 all past or present senators who ran for President. I'll put their years served in office in parentheses.
Hubert Humphrey(49-64)
Richard Nixon(51-53)
George McGovern(63-81)
Walter Mondale(64-76)
Bob Dole(69-96)
Al Gore(85-93)
John Kerry(85-present)
Barak Obama(05-present)
John McCain(87-present)
Now lets count the total above. 1...2...3...4....5....6...7....8....9. Nine isn't six. If you think Klein wasn't counting McCain and Obama, it is still 7. Klein most likely forgetting Richard Nixon's short tenure in the US Senate. Where are all those factcheckers the MSM is so proud of? Why doesn't the LA Times fix the columnist's mistake at their website?
That ends my nitpick of the day. Open heart surgery hasn't changed me that much.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Dumbasses, LA Times, Media
Comments (11)
"None was elected"... (Below threshold)1. Posted by retired military | September 9, 2008 8:14 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
"None was elected"
Sorry if my Catholic education was lacking or I am not all that smart due to being a repbublican but shouldn't that say
NONE WERE ELECTED?
I guess liberal newspaper explains the quality of writing.
----------
Also if you look at the list you have:
Hubert Humphrey(49-64) (D)
Richard Nixon(51-53) (R)
George McGovern(63-81) (D)
Walter Mondale(64-76) (D)
Bob Dole(69-96) (R)
Al Gore(85-93) (D)
John Kerry(85-present) (D)
Barak Obama(05-present) (D)
John McCain(87-present (R)
Six on the list are democrats. Obviously they only care about the demeocrat side of the house as republicans dont matter.
1. Posted by retired military | September 9, 2008 8:14 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 9, 2008 08:14
2. Posted by Jay Tea | September 9, 2008 8:19 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
What's even dumber is that they don't take into account what position they held when they ran for president. Humphrey, Nixon, Mondale, and Gore were sitting or former vice-presidents. And by starting their count with Johnson, they omit Kennedy -- the last sitting Senator to win the presidency.
J.
2. Posted by Jay Tea | September 9, 2008 8:19 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 9, 2008 08:19
3. Posted by Webster | September 9, 2008 8:31 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I am no fan of the LAT, but the guy makes his meaning clear in the second paragraph where he says "sitting" Senators. Humphrey, Nixon, and Gore were not "sitting" Senators when they ran. He is still wrong, but only because he is sloppy.
3. Posted by Webster | September 9, 2008 8:31 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 9, 2008 08:31
4. Posted by Oyster | September 9, 2008 8:52 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Qualifying the issue with "sitting" Senators gives him more leeway to still be wrong (but only a little) and to omit Kennedy. It also paints a different picture. It's like looking at a Dali painting and saying, "What's anatomically incorrect? The eye is in perfect proportion to the rest of the body," while ignoring that it's on the foot.
4. Posted by Oyster | September 9, 2008 8:52 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 9, 2008 08:52
5. Posted by Edward Sisson
| September 9, 2008 9:03 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Usually what people mean when they raise this is Senators who did not, before getting the nomination, at one time hold the VP slot; and of course the upcoming election wouldn't be included. We can call them "Senators only." But since Johnson this would make a list of 3 , not 6: McGovern, Dole, Kerry.
If we look at all "Senators only" since the Civil War who got the Dem. or Repub. Presidential nomination, we have the three losers above, balanced against two winners: Kennedy and Harding (Blaine, Dem who lost in 1884 was Secretary of State after being Senator; LaFollette in 1924 was an "only Senator" who got the Progressive Party nom. and got lots of Dem voters).
On those odds, being an "only Senator" nominee isn't so bad. After the 2008 election, it will be an even 50/50: 3 winners and 3 losers.
5. Posted by Edward Sisson
| September 9, 2008 9:03 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 9, 2008 09:03
6. Posted by Mark L | September 9, 2008 9:18 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I am not sure it means anything, but since Nixon, the Republicans have never lost an election where both Presidental and Vice-Presidential nominies were not lawyers (Reagan-Bush, Bush-Cheney), and one only one election where at least one was a lawyer (Bush-Quayle 1988).
6. Posted by Mark L | September 9, 2008 9:18 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 9, 2008 09:18
7. Posted by Mark Ducharme
| September 9, 2008 9:29 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Why they are in Alaska Bill Jempty, fantasy checking, er, uh, I mean, fact checking all of those rumors about the evil Sarah Palin.
After all, guys with terrorist ties and who think that Chinese infrastructure surpasses ours by leaps and bounds (did he actually repeat that whopper on the o'really show, and "Mr. lookin' out for us" didn't call him on it!?!), are not nearly as much a threat to democracy herself as an Apostolic Christian who doesn't even have the good sense and decency to kill her own imperfect baby before he can get out here and make disengenuous leftists feel uncomfortable.
7. Posted by Mark Ducharme
| September 9, 2008 9:29 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 9, 2008 09:29
8. Posted by Falze | September 9, 2008 10:18 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"None was elected." Wait, Nixon wasn't elected? How did I miss that?
Maybe there were listening to Steel Prophet's 'When Six Was Nine'?
8. Posted by Falze | September 9, 2008 10:18 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 9, 2008 10:18
9. Posted by Arthur | September 9, 2008 2:21 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
That was a petty and mean-spirited nitpick. I heartily approve!
9. Posted by Arthur | September 9, 2008 2:21 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 9, 2008 14:21
10. Posted by Herman | September 9, 2008 7:15 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
It's not just Nixon who was overlooked. Al Gore was elected President in 2000 but his election was nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court.
10. Posted by Herman | September 9, 2008 7:15 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 9, 2008 19:15
11. Posted by John Irving | September 10, 2008 3:48 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Al Gore was elected President in 2000 but his election was nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thanks, but if I want to read alternative history, Harry Turtledove does it better and much more realistically than you.
Ask Jesse Jackson, even Rainbow/PUSH did a recount, and lo and behold, George W. Bush won Florida. And went on to win it again in 2004.
Anyone remember that show Herman's Head? If they remade it about our little Herman, it would be filming an empty room, decorated in soft padded floors, walls, and ceiling. . .
11. Posted by John Irving | September 10, 2008 3:48 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 10, 2008 03:48