Possibly Horrifying Findings About Independent Voters

The New Republic has a brief article on their site about independent voters. The subhead of the article, "What if these voters are just a clueless horde?," seems tongue-in-cheek but pretty much summarizes why this is so scary. Money quote: "At a time of economic peril, when one party wants to protect the essential structure of our limited welfare state and the other party seeks to destroy it, most independents, according to this poll, appear to be seduced by the last thing they have heard." Yikes!

Morning Roundup

Nate has a a really interesting article about a confrontation between McCain and Obama supporters at a McCain rally (it ain't pretty). It's a quick read but worth it. Nate is turning into quite the roving reporter.

The AP is calling the election for Obama barring some huge change in voter intention.

One hot chick wanted to take Chicago guy to Obama rally.

Obama widens his lead in NC and NV accdg to a new Time poll.

Bill and Barack take the stage together for the first time.

Only a hint of narrowing in the polls, but I still don't like it.

I keep forgetting Bush is still president but then he pulls a stupid stunt like this. Luckily he's being rebuffed by his own department.

Oh, and one more thing, from the city of brotherly love.

McCain/Palin '08: The Lie Is The Plan

i hate to start sounding like dave (well, you know what i mean), but WTF?!?!! seriously, the repugs are drinkin this kool aid? just going along, cheering when the applause sign tells them to, with a complete disregard for what is objectively, unequivocally false. i don't get it. wait, but i do get it. this is the same crap they pulled in '04 when they elected bush--forget the facts (you're voting against your own self-interests and, oh by the way, the case for war in iraq is based on lies). republicans like their life to be black and white, yes and no, good and bad. and, like paglia said, they totally cave in to their fear and suspicions. why? how are they so different--in motivations, in morality, in interests, from democrats?

bridget, seana and john--you're related to a few of them, any insights?

from daily kos

Jonathan Weisman at WaPo has a story about the damn lying (my highlights, below):

From the moment Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin declared that she opposed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," critics, the news media and nonpartisan fact checkers have called it a fabrication, a distortion or, at best, a half-truth. But yesterday in Lebanon, Ohio, and again in Lancaster, Pa., she crossed that bridge again.

"I told Congress: 'Thanks but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere up in Alaska,' " Palin told the crowds at the "McCain Street USA" rallies. "If we wanted a bridge, we'll build it ourselves."

Palin's position on the bridge that would have linked Ketchikan to Gravina Island is one example of a candidate staying on message even when that message has been publicly discredited. Palin has continued to say she opposed a project she once campaigned for -- then killed later, only after support for it had collapsed in Congress.

I maybe detect a wee bit of an exasperated tone, in those opening paragraphs -- or perhaps it is just wishful thinking. But it's not all that often that you can see a report that pretty much says "yep, it's a lie," and even in this article Weisman bends over backwards for "balance" against lies coming directly from the Republican candidates' mouths.

So then, what's the Republican response?

John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said the campaign is entering a stage in which skirmishes over the facts are less important than the dominant themes that are forming voters' opinions of the candidates.

"The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent," Feehery said. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."

Yeah -- piss off, all you media truth thugs. Palin's an insurgent, and to insurgents facts don't matter. Only themes. (Since when were we using the word insurgent as a good thing, by the way? Somebody needs to go back to their Newspeak manual.)

Scary Poll Stuff

the conclusion of this article is what has concerned me all along about the new polls showing mccain ahead. perception creates reality.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/poll-madness-mccain-takes_n_125158.html

if this link doesn't work (and it doesn't seem to be), go to huffingtonpost.com and click on "Are the Polls Wrong Again" for the story (Poll Madness: McCain Takes Lead Even As Democrats Out-Register Republicans?)

Aargh!

Let me start with the disclaimer that I'm very sleep deprived from my weekend away, and hence prone to grumpiness. That said, all the coverage I'm reading today has me pretty glum. McCain leading in the polls. Really? McCain polling better than Obama on education, energy, and health care(!). Really? McCain doesn't even have an education policy! And, pretty much everyone agrees that Charlie Gibson will just lob Palin softballs when he interviews her.

Meanwhile, the LA Times has a story about Palin's leadership style that mentions that she won't tolerate dissent and shows little interest in the actual details of governing. Money quote: "[Palin] underestimated exponentially how much more complex state government is than the city of Wasilla." People have to start noticing this stuff, right?

A couple things are giving me a little hope, though. First, Obama's campaign openly called the McCain-Palin claim that she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere a lie. They need to call it like it is, and it appears that while some reporters have been dancing around the word "lie" ("Convenient Untruth"? Seriously?), by openly calling the claims lies, they seem to be getting that message across. Second, the Enquirer is reporting that Palin had an affair. That just makes me happy because I'm feeling mean-spirited.