A commentary by Martin Frost was posted on the FoxNews Web site Monday. It is still on the front page of the site, under “Views.” See it here: Media Has ‘Kinky’ Way of Covering Texas Politics
 

His facts don’t really seem to check out, though, so here’s the letter I sent him.
 

You’re certainly entitled to your opinions about Kinky Friedman, but I was disturbed by the lack of firm factual basis for your unilateral declaration:
 

“Nothing could be farther from the truth. All polls in Texas have consistently shown Kinky running fourth in a four-person race.”
 

That simply isn’t true–and I’m not sure whether this is irresponsibly poor fact checking, or intentional bias.
 

Admittedly–Kinky DID poll last for several months at the beginning of this year, perhaps you haven’t updated your facts since then. Since April, however, Friedman has polled last twice while polling third 4 times and second 2 times.
 

Granted, I don’t give the polls a ton of credit and the massive discrepancies in Bell/Strayhorn numbers between the rasmussen/zogby/survey USA polls is only serving to enforce that skeptacism.
 

Source Date Bell (D) Friedman (I) Perry (R) Strayhorn (I)
Rasmussen April 20, 2006 17% 15% 40% 19%
Rasmussen June 12, 2006 14% 20% 38% 19%
Rasmussen July 24, 2006 13% 19% 40% 20%
 

Survey USA April 26, 2006 15% 16% 39% 25%
Survey USA May 22, 2006 18% 16% 41% 20%
Survey USA June 26, 2006 20% 21% 35% 19%
 

WSJ/Zogby June 21, 2006 19.7% 17.5% 37.7% 14.1%
WSJ/Zogby July 24, 2006 20.8% 20.7% 38.3% 11%
 

One shows bell sinking, two show him gaining support. None show friedman sinking, all 3 show him gaining support. One shows perry losing support, the others show him holding his ground. Two show strayhorn dropping off and one shows her holding stable. Regardless of these discrepancies, you are still making claims that the numbers don’t substantiate. I don’t trust the “facts,” as such, but you aren’t even responsibly reporting them with accuracy. Unless you’re ignoring some polls in your statement–still, your choice of which facts to presents seems to be indicating a clear bias. This isn’t even responsible journalism until you’re clearly indicating which of “all polls in Texas” you’re counting, here.
 

Likewise, your assertion that Friedman is far from the next Jesse Ventura, while a reasonable “opinion” has little factual basis as supported by the “polls” in Texas.
 

“Much of the national press is treating Kinky as the second coming of Jesse Ventura, the former professional wrestler who was elected governor of Minnesota as an Independent a few years ago.”
 

Let’s try some poll numbers from Ventura’s 1998 election bid.
 

Date Humphrey/Coleman/Ventura/Undecided
February 39% 33% - 28%
June 46% 30% 7% 17%
September 43% 29% 13% 15%
mid-October 44% 31% 15% 10%
late-October 34% 33% 23% 10%
(source )
 

So, maybe you’re right–Friedman is no Ventura. He’s polling roughly three times the support Ventura was at this point in the race. In fact, he’s already polling consistently higher than Ventura polled all the way through mid October–less than 30 days before the election. That race ended with Ventura capturing 37% of the vote. If you want to opine, please do so–but don’t make up or mangle facts to support those positions.
 

Peace,
Travis