Que Sera, Sera, Whatever Curt Sees Won’t Be

I’m going to pick three statements from Curt Smith’s column in the Webster Post to show why nobody should listen to this guy:

Knowing [that Maggie is a good candidate], Louise last year began to slightly curb her liberalism, as private polls show Brooks at least even.

Never trust anyone referring to a “private poll” because the privacy of the poll means that you don’t know what was asked, to whom, and when. Without that information, you know nothing about the poll. Either Curt knows this and chose to mention the poll anyway, or he actually believes that the poll is worth mentioning. Either way, he’s misleading the readers of the Post.

As for Louise’s supposed new-found conservatism, National Journal gave her an 89% liberal score last month. Barney Frank got 91%. In 2010, Louise was scored at 91%. ¬†Barney was 93%. Either Barney is curbing his liberalism in exactly the same ratio as Louise, even though he’s retiring and has nothing to lose, or Curt just pulled that little assertion out of thin air.

Speaking of unfounded assertions, here’s the hand wave Curt uses to dismiss ROBUTRAD:

Brooks has brooked development and crony scandal. Few worry.

I might be willing to accept that the indictment and conviction of some of Maggie’s staff will not be a major issue in this election, but I’m not willing to do that without an argument, and neither should Curt’s readers.

Even though Curt could’t be bothered to do serious political analysis, he did name check ¬†Doris Day (last movie: 1968) and Red Barber (last breath: 1992), and he references Thelma and Louise (released: 1991) to make a point about feminism. Curt seems like a pleasant fellow and I honestly do hate to pick on him, but if he would just become a mental as well as physical inhabitant of the current century, his analysis might have some relevance to this year’s race in NY-25.