Don't Let the Polls Affect Your Vote

They were wrong in 2000 and 2004.By KARL ROVEArticle

There has been an explosion of polls this presidential election. Through yesterday, there have been 728 national polls with head-to-head matchups of the candidates, 215 in October alone. In 2004, there were just 239 matchup polls, with 67 of those in October. At this rate, there may be almost as many national polls in October of 2008 as there were during the entire year in 2004.
Some polls are sponsored by reputable news organizations, others by publicity-eager universities or polling firms on the make. None have the scientific precision we imagine.
For example, academics gathered by the American Political Science Association at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington on Aug. 31, 2000, to make forecasts declared that Al Gore would be the winner. Their models told them so. Mr. Gore would receive between 53% and 60% of the two-party vote; Gov. George W. Bush would get between just 40% and 47%. Impersonal demographic and economic forces had settled the contest, they said. They were wrong.
Right now, all the polls show Barack Obama ahead of John McCain, but the margins vary widely (in part because some polls use an "expanded" definition of a likely voter, while others use a "traditional" polling model, which assumes turnout will mirror historical trends but with a higher turnout among African-Americans and young voters).
On Monday, there were seven nationwide polls, with the candidates as close as three points in the Investors Business Daily/TIPP poll and as far apart as 10 points in Gallup's "expanded" model. On Tuesday, the Gallup "traditional" model poll had the candidates separated by two points and the Pew poll had them separated by 15. On Wednesday, Battleground, Rasmussen and Gallup "traditional" model polls had the candidates separated by three points while Diageo/Hotline and Gallup "expanded" model polls had the spread at seven points.
Polls can reveal underlying or emerging trends and help campaigns decide where to focus. The danger is that commentators use them to declare a race over before the votes are in. This can demoralize the underdog's supporters, depressing turnout. I know that from experience.
About Karl Rove
Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.
Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.
Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.
On election night in 2000 Al Hunt -- then a columnist for this newspaper and a commentator on CNN -- was the first TV talking head to erroneously declare that Florida's polls had closed, when those in the Panhandle were open for another hour. Shortly before 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Judy Woodruff said: "A big call to make. CNN announces that we call Florida in the Al Gore column."
Mr. Hunt and Ms. Woodruff were not only wrong. What they did was harmful. We know, for example, that turnout in 2000 compared to 1996 improved more in states whose polls had closed by the time Ms. Woodruff all but declared the contest over. The data suggests that as many as 500,000 people in the Midwest and West didn't bother to vote after the networks indicated Florida cinched the race for Mr. Gore.
I recall, too, the media's screwup in 2004, when exit-polling data leaked in the afternoon. It showed President Bush losing Pennsylvania by 17 points, New Hampshire by 18, behind among white males in Florida, and projected South Carolina and Colorado too close to call. It looked like the GOP would be wiped out.
Bob Shrum famously became the first to congratulate Sen. John Kerry by addressing him as "President Kerry." Commentators let the exit polls color their coverage for hours until their certainty was undone by actual vote tallies.
Polls have proliferated this year in part because it is much easier for journalists to devote the limited space in their papers or on TV to the horse-race aspect of the election rather than its substance. And I admit, I've aided and abetted this process.
In the campaign's final week, though, the candidates can offer little new substance, so attention turns to the political landscape, and there's no question Mr. McCain is in a difficult place.
The last national poll that showed Mr. McCain ahead came out Sept. 25 and the 232 polls since then have all shown Mr. Obama leading. Only one time in the past 14 presidential elections has a candidate won the popular vote and the Electoral College after trailing in the Gallup Poll the week before the election: Ronald Reagan in 1980.
But the question that matters is the margin. If Mr. McCain is down by 3%, his task is doable, if difficult. If he's down by 9%, his task is essentially impossible. In truth, however, no one knows for sure what kind of polling deficit is insurmountable or even which poll is correct. All of us should act with the proper understanding that nothing is yet decided.
As for me, I've already cast my absentee ballot in Kerr County, Texas -- joyfully, enthusiastically marking the straight Republican column. I would like to have joined the line Tuesday outside the polling place in Ingram, where I've been registered the past few years. But I will be in New York, part of the vast horde analyzing exit polls, dissecting returns, and pontificating on consequences. I'll thoroughly enjoy myself that night, and probably feel guilty the next morning. But this year's 728 national polls and the thousands of state polls made me do it.
Mr. Rove is a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
Please add your comments to the Opinion forum.

IF ELECTED WILL HE BE LATE FOR THAT CALL AT 3:00 IN THE MORNING?

The Left Keeps Hate Alive

October 28, 2008

By Paul Miller

I'll never forget watching Senator Barack Obama give his Democratic presidential nomination acceptance speech in front of 80,000 screaming fans at Mile High Stadium in Denver. "This is an historic moment in American history," I told my wife. She was still disgusted that Hillary Clinton didn't get the nomination, but understood exactly what I meant.

Regardless of politics, the fact that an African American had received a major Party nomination to be President of the United States speaks volumes about how far this country has come since the days of the Civil Rights Movement. No one could argue this wasn't a proud moment for our country.


As America witnesses the closing of the racial divide, some people refuse to believe that the attitudes that gave us the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow are taking their final breath. This refusal doesn't stem from those who long for the days of segregation, it comes from the political left. In other words the people who claim to be the champions of diversity are doing everything they can to make sure the appearance of racism is still alive and well.


Instead of embracing this obvious progress, they are making unsubstantiated accusations of racism against those that disagree with them and do not support the candidacy of Barack Obama. Unfortunately for GOP presidential candidate Senator John McCain and his running mate Gov. Sarah Palin, they have the misfortune of being the Caucasian opposition to the first serious Black presidential hopeful. Simply put, it's not a good time to be the white guy.


As McCain and Palin campaign throughout the country it seems impossible for them to open their mouths without somebody accusing them of being racists. The most recent accusation comes from columnist Lewis Diuguid of the Kansas City Star.


The editorial page writer claims that their use of the word "Socialist" to label Barack Obama is "an old code word for black." Diuguid based his charges of racism on the behavior of J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the FBI for nearly a half-century. According to Diuguid, Hoover "used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality."


It is well documented that Hoover was a leading force in the anti-Communist fervor that gripped the United States and its government during most of the Cold War. Diuguid wrote that "freedom fighters" such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., W.E.B. Du Bois and Paul Robeson, were labeled by Hoover as Socialists. This is his entire argument why the word "Socialist" is code for "Black." What the Kansas City Star columnist is either unaware of or purposely fails to mention is that Hoover was an equal opportunity accuser.


As the country was overcome with the fear of Communism, Hoover utilized the Red Scare to launch investigations into anyone he deemed a threat to the American way of life.


Nobel Prize winning physicist Albert Einstein was the object of a 23-year mission by Hoover to discredit him. Also subjected to Hoover's investigations was the inventor of the Polio vaccine, Dr. Jonas Salk. With Einstein and Salk on his list, does this mean that Socialist is also a code word for Jew?


Many significant political and cultural figures were targeted by Hoover. John and Bobby Kennedy, were despised by the FBI director and first lady Eleanor Roosevelt was believed to have Communist ties in the mind of Hoover. How many more codes can Diuguid find in these historical facts?


Joining the Kansas City Star writer in his quest to keep the race issue alive, it pains me to say, is a hero of the Civil Rights movement, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA). The twenty-year veteran of the House of Representatives earlier this month had the audacity to compare John McCain to segregationist Gov. George Wallace.


"Senator McCain and Governor Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse," Lewis said in a statement.


"George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights," Lewis added. "Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."


What specifically did John McCain or Sarah Palin do to deserve being compared to an icon of segregation? Lewis was right when he said that Wallace "created the climate and the conditions" that led to the murder of four children in a church bombing. Can any fair-minded person legitimately argue that McCain or Palin has said anything remotely as horrific as Wallace did in his career? No.


Unfortunately Congressman Lewis has created an image in his head that a few bad apples at political rallies, which McCain has disavowed countless times, somehow make up the majority of his supporters and the Arizona Senator is at fault. I don't recall the former civil rights leader or Sen. Obama, for that matter, condemning their supporters who showed up at Palin events wearing T-shirts calling the mother of five a C-word.


Political pundits have also joined the fight to make sure the race issue never dies. Washington Post Op-Ed columnist Harold Meyerson, just this past week, wrote a column stating that a "desperate John McCain is transporting us back to the wedge issues of yesteryear." Meyerson alleges, through unfounded claims of voter fraud that McCain is attempting to "suppress minority voting". Mr. Meyerson either doesn't read his own newspaper or he is being dishonest in his attempts to paint McCain as a bigot.


The free exchange of ideas as well as having a civil, honest and open debate in our country, no longer exists. People who identify with the political right in America or even claim to be an Independent are subjected to a new form of McCarthyism that some have already deemed reverse McCarthyism.


Question and criticize at your own risk.

That is the new motto of the Democratic Party as well as the Progressive movement in the United States. Expect to be labeled a racist, sexist, homophobe, fascist or any term that means hate, if you question or disagree with their ideas.


As John McCain and Sarah Palin have experienced over the past few months, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.


As the McCain campaign asks legitimate questions regarding Obama's associations with domestic terrorists, vile anti-Semites, and ACORN, and as the campaign disagrees with his policies, especially his economic plans that have been labeled Socialism by various financial publications, the response is always the same: Racism!


No honest-thinking person will deny racism still exists in America. The same can be said for anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, and -- dare I say -- the growing phenomenon of anti-Christianity. Society will never rid itself completely of bigotry because ignorance will always be part of humanity.


The sad reality is that the political left needs racism. They need it as both an issue and a weapon to discredit those who disagree with them and stand in their way.


They need to keep hate alive.

PRICELESS,

Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory

October 25, 2008

By Steven M. Warshawsky

Despite there being an entire cottage industry devoted to exposing the liberal bias of the mainstream media, Republicans and conservatives continue to allow themselves to be unduly influenced, and even demoralized, by what they read and hear in the big city newspapers and on network television.


What are they reading and hearing? That Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. It's inevitable. It's his election to lose. What proof does the media offer? Public opinion polls that supposedly show Obama "winning" the race. (But see here and here.) The thousands of devoted supporters who attend Obama's rallies. The legions of blacks and young people who are more "inspired" than ever to vote for a candidate who understands their needs and interests. Etc. We all know the story by heart by now.


This is the "narrative" that the mainstream media has been imposing on this year's presidential campaign almost from the start. Remember how quickly the MSM jumped off the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and onto Obama's? Remember how annoyed and angry they became as Hillary refused to concede the nomination? The MSM decided that electing the nation's first black, socialist, anti-American president was politically and historically more important (and, for them, more exciting) than electing the nation's first female, socialist, patriotic president. And they are doing everything they can to achieve this goal.


Well, there is another story out there that the MSM refuses to address. A huge story. One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race. I'm referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain. There are numerous "Democrats for McCain" type organizations. There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain's candidacy. There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats. And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush - but who are going to vote for John McCain this year.


Yet, surprise surprise, the mainstream media is not talking about these voters, not talking about the real rift that is occurring within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Needless to say, if a similar rift were occurring in the Republican Party, it would be treated as the major story that it is. (Indeed, as such stories about the political fault lines in the Republican Party have been treated in the recent past.)


Who are these pro-McCain Democratic voters? They overwhelmingly tend to be former Hillary supporters. Perhaps the most well-known of these voters are the "PUMAs" - which stands for Party Unity My Ass. These are Hillary supporters who are adamantly opposed to Obama. Let's not forget that during the Democratic primaries - real elections, not polls - Hillary crushed Obama among white working-class and middle-class voters in such key states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. If a meaningful number of these voters end up voting for McCain, as I predict they will, then Obama's smooth road to the White House is going to run smack into a brick wall.


Earlier this week, I attended a John McCain campaign event in New York City. There were several Democrats in attendance. Not only people who are registered Democrats, but party leaders and workers who had been actively involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign. Indeed, the gentlemen who "keynoted" the event was a former publisher of the left-wing Village Voice magazine and a veteran of the Robert Kennedy, George McGovern, and Jimmy Carter campaigns. Hardly a right-wing conservative. He gave one of the best stump speeches I have heard why Barack Obama should not be elected president. (It comes down to not trusting Obama to keep the United States safe and strong in a dangerous world and rejecting Obama's "government knows best" attitude when it comes to domestic issues.) Another person I met at the event was a sprightly elderly woman who manned telephones for Hillary for five months, and now is supporting McCain.


There is nothing remotely similar to this taking place among Republicans. (No, Christopher Buckley endorsing Obama is not the same thing at all.)


Some more anecdotal evidence of a lack of support for Obama among Democrats: I live in the Upper West Side neighborhood of New York City. You cannot find too many places in the country that are more liberal than that. Walking around my neighborhood during the 2004 presidential campaign, I felt "assaulted" on all sides by Kerry-Edwards buttons, bumper stickers, and posters. This year, there clearly is not the same level of outward support for Obama. It is remarkable (and welcome). Will most of the people in my neighborhood vote for Obama on election day? Of course. Will Obama win New York? Almost certainly. But the lack of enthusiasm for Obama among these Democrats, who I'm sure would be going gaga for Hillary, speaks volumes about Obama's true prospects for victory this year.


The point is simple: Don't believe the Obama hype coming out of the mainstream media. If the media were truly objective and unbiased, they would be covering the race much differently. Instead of trying to browbeat the country into voting for Obama, they would be analyzing the issues and factors that favor and disfavor both candidates. Instead of focusing on college students and intellectuals, they would be focusing on working-class and middle-class voters, especially "Hillary Democrats." These voters may very well determine the election. Yet this huge story is being ignored by the MSM.


Furthermore, the media would not so consistently confuse intensity of support for breadth of support. Granted, Barack Obama's supporters tend to be more enthusiastic about their candidate than John McCain's supporters are about him. Leftists are always looking for their earthly messiah. But this does not mean that Obama's supporters, come election day, will outnumber McCain's. Whether in support of McCain or in opposition to Obama, I predict these voters will go to the polls. Contrary to the wishful thinking of Democratic pundits, they are not staying home. These voters may be unexcited, but they are not apathetic. And 51% of "unexcited" voters will defeat 49% of even the most "inspired" voters. Every time.


Of course, we all know what the mainstream media's "narrative" will be if (I believe, when) John McCain wins the election: The American people refused to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin (and not because of the content of his politics). The "right-wing attack machine" scared voters into voting for McCain, even against their own social and economic self-interest. Black and poor voters were intimidated by Republican thugs and prevented from voting. We know this story by heart as well.


So be prepared. In a few more weeks, the political environment in this country is likely to become a heckuva lot nastier. For there are real signs pointing to a McCain victory this year, whether or not the mainstream media wants to acknowledge them.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/signs_pointing_to_a_mccain_vic.html at October 25, 2008 - 11:07:21 PM EDT

ABC News' Malone: Ashamed To Be Known As a 'Journalist'

Opinion | Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:59:19 pm PDT

In his latest piece, ABC News columnist Michael Malone absolutely skewers the mainstream media for debasing and corrupting a once-honorable profession: Editing Their Way to Oblivion: Journalism Sacrificed For Power and Pensions.

The traditional media is playing a very, very dangerous game. With its readers, with the Constitution, and with its own fate.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer”, because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist.

You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I’m cut. I am a fourth generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kansas during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian). My hard-living - and when I knew her, scary - grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I’ve spent thirty years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national by-line before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I’m deeply ashamed right now to be called a “journalist”, you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

I'll take 10-1 that she casts her vote on election day

Oh please !
I would like to know just how many times over the past 5 years or even the last two years Obama has taken time out to go see his grandmother. I am a consummate cynic about this mans character and personal composition and see everything that he does as self serving. Therefore he needs to show me by past proof and action that this was not just another publicity grabbing stunt to pull on the heartstrings of the older voter who may be teetering between a more reliable candidate John McCain and this "straw man' with no sufficient vetting or traceable history as to his who he really is.

Before my mother died, I called her once a week. as did my father with his mother, and my grandmother before me. My mom and I lived 3000 miles apart so visiting her was not always convenient and affordable.
I confess that I was not perfect in the weekly calls but when a week was missed I received a call from her, and a stern inquiry as to my state of mind.

The calls were much more frequent between us when my father passed away leaving my mother alone after 44 years of marriage. During that same time I was going through a bitter custody battle and as it turned out we were a great support to one another while suffering through our individual grieving. I am certainly glad I was able to be there for the woman who instilled many of my values.

In the end when mother was diagnosed with terminal colon cancer, I was able to visit and spend time. I was at her side when she died. For this I am grateful. In those last days of her life she depended on me to do what was right by her, seeing as no one else in the family was in any state of mind to tend to her wishes.

I think the press is taunting the McCain campaign with this little tidbit of "homey sentiment" just to see if they can grab a misplaced sound bite to further attempt to drive the stake home in the final closing days of the campaign.

It is obvious to those of us who have followed the campaign with a microscope, that Barack Obama's campaign machine has run one of the dirtiest races in election history while attempting to keep Obama himself aloof from any of the mud slinging, thus giving him an appearance of Pontius Pilot. I am amazed at how the masses have sucked down the vial tranquilizer of deception, as the press eschewed the truth, all the while running blindly behind the head lemming to the edge of the cliff.

What is even more frightening is, the more we see of hear about Barack Obama the more we don't know about him. Who is he, who made him? Who is actually behind his campaign and what are their true motives? Only days away from a historical election people are blind to the potentially disasterous direction in which they are headed while being manipulated by what once was a free and open information source.

We are about to see the possibility of history being made by electing a Black President. We are about to see the first election of historically disasterous decisions leading to the downfall of this country if he is elected, and if there is anything left to record historically. I harbor no doubt that if Obama succeeds to the Presidency, he will do more damage upon the country as a whole than has been done in the last two hundred and thirty two years. The Enlish lords of yesteryear will have finally been successful in returning us to the status of a subjugated colony after two hundred and thirty two years.

Secret of Obama tax planned revealed?

October 23, 2008
By William Tate

I have learned how Barack Obama plans to cut taxes for 95% of the public, even though only 40% of people pay income taxes. The explanation came from a young man calling from an Obama phone bank, one of millions of such calls being made these days.


Before we discussed the tax proposals, the college-age caller informed me that:


-Sarah Palin belongs to a church whose pastor believes in witchcraft, and that she is anti-Semitic.


-Obama will give me government-run health care and will pay for it, and all his other programs, by taxing the rich and corporations. When I pointed out that the wealthy already pay the majority of income taxes, and that corporations don't really pay taxes, that they -- for the most part -- simply pass those taxes on to consumers, he sounded confused, as though they were concepts he had never heard before.


-Under Obama's health plan I will be able to go to any doctor, including the most expensive specialists I can find, and the government will pay for it and all my other medical expenses, no matter how high the cost. Again, paid for by increased taxes only on the rich and corporations.


-After my questions about Obama's connection to ACORN, and the numerous investigations into widespread ACORN voter fraud, that John McCain was trying to prevent students from voting. His evidence? He had heard that nugget on one Air America talk show. He sincerely believed it to be the moral equivalent to the numerous investigations into ACORN voter fraud.


-McCain's economic policies would be devastating. When asked if he knew anything about McCain's proposals, he admitted he did not.


-Obama will hire people to drive down "high" unemployment, although he was unaware of where unemployment current stands (6.1% in September) or that it is low by historical standards.


-Obama will increase employment by giving tax breaks for corporations to bring jobs back to America. When I said my understanding was that the tax break would be $3,000 per job and asked how many people he thought would be willing to work for $3,000 a year, he said he would. He apparently had no concept of how little money that would be.


-The stock market will tank further if McCain is elected. When I pointed out that the stock market is a forward-looking mechanism, and that at least some of the market's recent fall has been the result of pricing in an expected Obama victory, he simply continued to maintain the market would fall if McCain is elected.


Finally, I asked the troubling question about how Obama will ensure a tax break for 95% of people--despite the fact that about 40% don't pay income taxes. He struggled with that one for a while. Again, it seemed to be a foreign concept to him, like no one had ever raised the subject before.


He stumbled through a series of answers. Obama would "give" the unemployed jobs so that they could pay taxes and get a tax break. When I reminded him that would only account for 6%, he--in a tribute to the American education system--said that Obama was really talking about the 55% difference between 95 and 40. I reminded him that Obama had specified 95%, not 55%. He replied that "Obama didn't really mean that." I asked if he, the caller, was really supporting a candidate who lied about something so important?


He told me to wait while he talked to his supervisor. I could overhear bits of a conversation in which he referred to me, rather politely, as "a difficult one." (At least he didn't call me THAT one.)


When he returned to the phone, he informed me that Obama would reach the 95% figure by initiating taxes on the 40% who don't pay income taxes now, so that he could later give them their promised tax break.


Out of the mouths of babes.


I don't know which is scarier: that the young man knew so little about the policies of the candidate for whom he had volunteered to work, that the young man's supervisor apparently knew little more, or that the talking heads say that young people like him could determine this election.


The Obama caller was polite and sincere ... and utterly clueless.


I thanked him for his sincerity and for a civil discourse on the subject. He thanked me for the same. Then we hung up.


And then he made his next call.


William Tate is an award-winning journalist and author.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/secret_of_obama_tax_planned_re.html at October 23, 2008 - 08:29:00 AM EDT

Study: Coverage of McCain Much More Negative Than That of Obama

By Howard Kurtz
Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says.

Fifty-seven percent of the print and broadcast stories about the Republican nominee were decidedly negative, the Project for Excellence in Journalism says in a report out today, while 14 percent were positive. The McCain campaign has repeatedly complained that the mainstream media are biased toward the senator from Illinois.

Obama's coverage was more balanced during the six-week period from Sept. 8 through last Thursday, with 36 percent of the stories clearly positive, 35 percent neutral or mixed and 29 percent negative.

McCain has struggled during this period and slipped in the polls, which is one of the reasons for the more negative assessments by the 48 news outlets studied by the Washington-based group. But the imbalance is striking nonetheless.

Sarah Palin's coverage ricocheted from quite positive to very negative to more mixed, the study says. Overall, 39 percent of the Palin stories were negative, 28 percent were positive and 33 percent neutral. Only 5 percent of the coverage was about her personal life. But McCain's running mate remains a media magnet, drawing three times as much coverage as the Democrats' VP nominee, Joe Biden. He was "nearly the invisible man," the group says, and his coverage was far more negative than Palin's. That may be because Biden tends to make news primarily when he commits gaffes.

The project says McCain's coverage started out positive after the GOP convention but nosedived with his frequently changing reaction to the financial crisis. McCain's character attacks against Obama hurt the Democrat but yielded even more negative coverage for the senator from Arizona.

Obama's coverage since the conventions represents a fall to earth from the early primaries of 2008, when the project found that, horse-race stories aside, positive narratives about Obama were twice as frequent as negative ones, 69 percent to 31 percent.

The Wall Street meltdown appears to have been a turning point for both candidates. Thirty-four percent of the stories about Obama's reaction to the crisis were positive, while 18 percent were negative. McCain's coverage, though, went into a free fall after he initially declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." By the following week, more than half the stories about McCain were negative and only 11 percent positive, just as Obama's coverage was turning positive by a margin of more than 5 to 1.

The most negative element of the Palin coverage involved scrutiny of her record as Alaska governor, with 64 percent of the stories carrying a negative tone and just 7 percent positive. The coverage of her interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson was a wash, but stories about her subsequent sitdown with CBS's Katie Couric were 57 percent negative and 14 percent positive.

While some will seize on these findings as evidence that the media are pro-Obama, the study says they actually contain "a strong suggestion that winning in politics begets winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls ... Obama's numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago, and McCain's numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore."

If that be the case then McCain is a sure winner,just as much as Gore was the winner and has consistently declared that he was robbed. But this time, there is no Republican candidate to rob McCain.

Posted at 2:05 PM ET on Oct 22, 2008 |

HERE'S A QUOTE FOR ALL THE CONSERVATIVES

“If it wasn’t for Sarah Palin, I’d move to f***in’ Sweden…John

McCain, God bless you for discovering a Republican with massive amounts of balls. The good governor, Sarah Palin, is the bureaucrat-crushing, status quo-punching conservative that I’ve been looking for. I knew of her before John did, I had worked with Gov. Palin on numerous issues up in Alaska, where she proved she was a ‘we the people’ person and not a bureaucrat monger. We are voting Republican this year, not because of John McCain as much as for Sarah Palin.”

AP presidential poll: All even in the homestretch

Oct 22 01:23 PM US/Eastern
By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.
The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.

Three weeks ago, an AP-GfK survey found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead over McCain, lifted by voters who thought the Democrat was better suited to lead the nation through its sudden economic crisis.

The contest is still volatile, and the split among voters is apparent less than two weeks before Election Day.

"I trust McCain more, and I do feel that he has more experience in government than Obama. I don't think Obama has been around long enough," said Angela Decker, 44, of La Porte, Ind.

But Karen Judd, 58, of Middleton, Wis., said, "Obama certainly has sufficient qualifications." She said any positive feelings about McCain evaporated with "the outright lying" in TV ads and his choice of running mate Sarah Palin, who "doesn't have the correct skills."

The new AP-GfK head-to-head result is a departure from some, but not all, recent national polls.

Obama and McCain were essentially tied among likely voters in the latest George Washington University Battleground Poll, conducted by Republican strategist Ed Goeas and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. In other surveys focusing on likely voters, a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Obama up by 9 percentage points, while a poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center had Obama leading by 14. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, among the broader category of people registered to vote, found Obama ahead by 10 points.

Polls are snapshots of highly fluid campaigns. In this case, there is a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; that means Obama could be ahead by as many as 8 points or down by as many as 6. There are many reasons why polls differ, including methods of estimating likely voters and the wording of questions.

Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political science professor and polling authority, said variation between polls occurs, in part, because pollsters interview random samples of people.

"If they all agree, somebody would be doing something terribly wrong," he said of polls. But he also said that surveys generally fall within a few points of each other, adding, "When you get much beyond that, there's something to explain."

The AP-GfK survey included interviews with a large sample of adults including 800 deemed likely to vote. Among all 1,101 adults interviewed, the survey showed Obama ahead 47 percent to 37 percent. He was up by five points among registered voters.

A significant number of the interviews were conducted by dialing a randomly selected sample of cell phone numbers, and thus this poll had a chance to reach voters who were excluded from some other polls.

It was taken over five days from Thursday through Monday, starting the night after the candidates' final debate and ending the day after former Secretary of State Colin Powell broke with the Republican Party to endorse Obama.

McCain's strong showing is partly attributable to his strong debate performance; Thursday was his best night of the survey. Obama's best night was Sunday, hours after the Powell announcement, and the full impact of that endorsement may not have been captured in any surveys yet. Future polling could show whether either of those was merely a support "bounce" or something more lasting.

During their final debate, a feisty McCain repeatedly forced Obama to defend his record, comments and associations. He also used the story of a voter whom the Democrat had met in Ohio, "Joe the plumber," to argue that Obama's tax plan would be bad for working class voters.

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Obama told the man with the last name of Wurzelbacher, who had asked Obama whether his plan to increase taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year would impede his ability to buy the plumbing company where he works.

On Wednesday, McCain's campaign unveiled a new TV ad that features that Obama quote, and shows different people saying: "I'm Joe the plumber." A man asks: "Obama wants my sweat to pay for his trillion dollars in new spending?"

Since McCain has seized on that line of argument, he has picked up support among white married people and non-college educated whites, the poll shows, while widening his advantage among white men. Black voters still overwhelmingly support Obama.

The Republican also has improved his rating for handling the economy and the financial crisis. Nearly half of likely voters think their taxes will rise under an Obama administration compared with a third who say McCain would raise their taxes.

Since the last AP-GfK survey in late September, McCain also has:

_Posted big gains among likely voters earning under $50,000 a year; he now trails Obama by just 4 percentage points compared with 26 earlier.

_Surged among rural voters; he has an 18-point advantage, up from 4.

_Doubled his advantage among whites who haven't finished college and now leads by 20 points. McCain and Obama are running about even among white college graduates, no change from earlier.

_Made modest gains among whites of both genders, now leading by 22 points among white men and by 7 among white women.

_Improved slightly among whites who are married, now with a 24-point lead.

_Narrowed a gap among unmarried whites, though he still trails by 8 points.

McCain has cut into Obama's advantage on the questions of whom voters trust to handle the economy and the financial crisis. On both, the Democrat now leads by just 6 points, compared with 15 in the previous survey.

Obama still has a larger advantage on other economic measures, with 44 percent saying they think the economy will have improved a year from now if he is elected compared with 34 percent for McCain.

Intensity has increased among McCain's supporters.

A month ago, Obama had more strong supporters than McCain did. Now, the number of excited supporters is about even.

Eight of 10 Democrats are supporting Obama, while nine in 10 Republicans are backing McCain. Independents are about evenly split.

Some 24 percent of likely voters were deemed still persuadable, meaning they were either undecided or said they might switch candidates. Those up-for-grabs voters came about equally from the three categories: undecideds, McCain supporters and Obama backers.

Said John Ormesher, 67, of Dandridge, Tenn.: "I've got respect for them but that's the extent of it. I don't have a whole lot of affinity toward either one of them. They're both part of the same political mess."

___

Bailout seen hitting Obama, McCain health plans

Tue Oct 21, 6:34 pm ET

CHICAGO (Reuters) – The U.S. government's $700 billion plan to bail out Wall Street will likely take a toll on both presidential candidates' plans to reform health care in America, Lancet Oncology reported on Tuesday.

Policy experts quoted in the report said plans proposed by Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain would need to be scaled back.

"This will be the largest budget deficit in U.S. history, and will present an immense challenge for either plan. Reform will likely be very incremental and around the edges," Roger Feldman of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis told the journal.

People quoted by the journal disagreed over which plan would take the biggest hit.

Obama's plan seeks to build on the current employer-based insurance system and would require all employers except small businesses to offer health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage. It would replace the current individual insurance market with an insurance exchange in which small businesses and those without access to coverage could buy a private or public health plan with tax credits.

McCain's plan seeks to put health insurance into the hands of individuals by removing tax breaks for employer-paid health benefits and offering tax credits of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families instead.

"Obama's plan would be more impacted, but it will be very difficult to fully implement either plan," Feldman said.

Michael Cannon of the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, agreed. "Obama's plan involves more spending and proposes a new Medicare-like program costing $140 billion a year in new spending. There's not going to be money for that," Cannon was quoted by Lancet Oncology as saying.

Sherry Glied of Columbia University in New York said McCain's plan, which emphasizes cost containment over health insurance expansion, may be hit harder.

"It's hard to imagine Congress will want to expend political capital taking on its expense with little to show in terms of expanded coverage," Glied told the journal.

Researchers at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center project McCain's plan would cost $1.3 trillion over 10 years and Obama's would cost $1.6 trillion.

A Done Deal?

Pundits prematurely declare victory for Obama.
by Matthew Continetti
10/20/2008 12:00:00 AM
Is there something about chilly weather that makes the media jump to conclusions? Does the changing of seasons make pundits eager to pronounce Barack Obama a sure thing? Because fall has finally arrived in Washington, and suddenly it seems like we're back in January.

You remember January. That's when Obama trounced Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucuses, and more or less every commentator on the planet pronounced the Democratic primary a done deal. After Iowa, polls showed Obama in the lead in New Hampshire. And when Obama won New Hampshire, we were told, the primary would be over. Except the primary wasn't over. It wasn't over at all. Clinton won New Hampshire, and the primary lasted until early June. Clinton won every big state except Obama's home state of Illinois. She positively trounced Obama in states like Pennsylvania and Kentucky and West Virginia. She won Ohio by nine percentage points.

Obama won the nomination in the end, of course. And now he is leading John McCain in the polls. And now, once again, the media have decided that the race is over. Newsweek's cover asks how "President Obama" will be able to govern our center-right nation, even though Election Day isn't for two weeks. Politico's Mike Allen wonders how the networks will cope if it becomes clear Obama is the winner "before most Americans have finished dinner." The Obama campaign has so much money that it's buying advertising space in--I'm not sure how this works either--video games.

If you watched Meet the Press on Sunday, you came away feeling as though Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama was more important than the actual election. Andrea Mitchell said Powell would make a huge difference in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, "even South Carolina." The editor of Newsweek, Jon Meacham, was talking about Powell in such reverent tones that for a second I thought it was Douglas MacArthur who had somehow risen from the dead and endorsed Obama. NBC's political director, Chuck Todd, observed that the electoral map is shifting in Obama's favor, including in places like West Virginia, where, and this is not an exaggeration, McCain's lead is only in the high single digits. A Republican wag told Politico after the show that the Powell endorsement was "the nail in the coffin."

It's true that Obama is, at least for the moment, winning the presidential campaign. But I can't shake the feeling that the growing sense of inevitability among our political class is oversold. According to Saturday's New York Times, Obama is "outadvertising" McCain by a ratio of "at least 4 to 1." Yet the national tracking polls show a tightening race. Typically the polls in swing states end up in about the same place as the national polls. This should give pause to Obama and his supporters.

After all, we've been here before. Last year, every political analyst on the scene, including me, said John McCain didn't have a chance of winning the Republican nomination. Boy were we wrong. Throughout this year, folks thought Obama would win the big states and the Democratic primary would be over. Wrong again. We thought the general election would be about the war in Iraq. As it turns out, not so much.

This is a close race and McCain is a wily underdog. More important, perhaps, he's an underdog who is often helped by outside events. The success of the surge strategy in Iraq helped McCain win the GOP nod. Over the last month, the financial crisis and McCain's haphazard response to it all but torpedoed his chances to win the presidency. But now, thanks to a global effort, the immediate crisis seems to have passed, and the worst seems to have been avoided. Yes, we are probably in a recession, and there are tough economic times ahead. But the sense of impending economic collapse has faded. And that helps McCain.

Obama won the debates, but the debates are finished. Obama has a lot more money, but money does not determine elections. President Bush is still incredibly unpopular, but McCain is finally telling audiences that he's not President Bush. Obama has almost every advantage--but it ain't over yet.

Matthew Continetti is the associate editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Is Yahoo News in bed with George Soros ?

A day old release published on "Yahoo News" written by Deborah Hastings, an Associated Press National desk writer, purports that the the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee's accusations of voter registration fraud committed by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, ACORN is false and she implies that ACORN along with a spokesman from the Obama team are correct in discounting allegations of registration fraud as not true.

For the source of authority used to falsely support her opinion Ms Hasting's cited, the following,I quote:"Voter fraud is rare in the United States, according to a 2007 report by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law" . Further support was garnered for her article dismissing registration fraud, from another authority who is Alex Keyssar, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government,whom she quotes as saying [a]"chapter 22 in a drama that's been going on awhile.The pattern is that nothing much ever comes from this. There have been no known cases of people voting fraudulently." Again the author of this article attempts to misdirect the gist of the argument that in fact voter registration fraud is happening. To address the latter first let's read between the lines here.

Alex Keyssar may be perfectly correct and truthful in his statement that "chapter 22 in a drama THAT'S BEEN GOING ON AWHILE." Just exactly what does this say. That part of his statement is a plausible truth. Yes this type of fraud HAS been going on for awhile, so he has stated a truth. Now comes some more almost truth, "nothing much ever comes from this". This latter part of his statement is partly true and partly false, a half truth. By again stating an obvious the sentence can be interpreted in more than one way. It could mean "nothing much ever comes from this...because they don't get caught" or "nothing much ever comes from this... because it is not caught until the election is over and one way or the other the winner of said election was so far above a reasonable question of his success, it was not worth making an issue of.

There are other conclusive sentences that could be coupled with this part of Keyssar's response but I think you get the idea. Now here comes the lie in Keyssar's assertion. "There have been no known cases of people voting fraudulently." What did he just say?. Does anyone out there in the peanut gallery believe this part of the statement? But wait let's go back.
There is a clue here but we must go to Ms Hasting's other authority to discover the possibility of how Keyssar may actually not be lying at least not technically.

Today is October 19, 2008. The quote first used by Ms Hastings as authority was that of the "Brennan Center", she covers her direr by slickly placing the date of the report cited in her article which was 2007. Either Ms Hasting's does really shoddy research and failed to note the date as at least sometime in the year before today's current accusation's of voter fraud, which have been notably committed within these last two month's of the article. Or the outdated and out of context cite was intentional on Hasting's part to mislead her readers by using an inaccurate citation.

Perhaps Ms Hasting's forgot to post the date of Professor Keyssar's statement which could be from another earlier time as well. Or again perhaps Ms Hasting's just did it on purpose. The final conclusion is that Professor Keyssar is just plain lawyering and lying if his statement is current, and maybe not if it is in fact, an outdated statement or it was made prior to the current allegations and events before discovery.

I cannot remember exactly where or who said it, but it may have been Noam Chomsky if my feeble brain serves me at all. He said something like; there is a method to misleading and propagandizing. In order to be successful one must have some truth, or some half truth, incorporated with a bold face lie, and then repeat it often. If repeated often enough it becomes the center of the argument and detracts from the first argument and real truth or point attempting to be made, because it is palatable. Eventually it becomes accepted as the argument focused upon and in truth remains apart from the original statement and even though it is a bold face lie the shift goes undetected.

This is a tactic taught in all higher centers of learning for propaganda, trial lawyering and politicking. Professor Keyssar is a law professor and social engineer, and has perhaps been a mentor of Barrack Obama,while at Harvard. Obama has practiced this method on a daily basis in his campaign as well as the debates quite eloquently.

Professor Keyssar proves in his statement above that he is an expert in the field of distorting the truth, if in fact his statement is current, and directly addresses the ACORN scandal presently at hand.

Of more concern however is the burning question of, who put Deborah Hasting's up to this bold lie? Is it solely her leftist leanings alone,or is she in bed with George Soros? Moreover was AP aware of this fabrication of authentication? Even more so, does Yahoo share the blame? Is it Yahoo who is doing Soros's bidding? I suspect all three may be pandering to Soros.

The case for consorting with Soros becomes even more clear when you look into Hasting's first statement that "Brennan" is a non partisan organization. On the web site www.discoverthenetworks.org, there is a plethora of leftist organizations listed who are connected with Soros's pet project "Open Society Institute". The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law" is one of those orgs receiving money from Soros's Institute. Ms Hasting's has herself misled the public by not pointing out that if Brennan is receiving money from Soros which seems to be the case it can hardly be called non-partisan or perhaps it can!

You see Soros doesn't really care which political party you belong too, he merely cares about your support of his socialist idea's. So if you go along with his ideology but just happen to be a registered Republican instead of a Democrat, and you are involved with Brennan I guess it could be fair to call Brennan non-partisan. After all as "Joe the Plumber" said. "That's the reason for those little curtains on the voters booth".

Once again distortion of the truth is carefully sculpted through the way the writer puts her words together to mislead her audience. By leaving out other tell tail signs as to the cited organization's and individuals leanings,she is using as authority, she misdirects her readers ability to filter the facts about the real question of their politic's and which originally was, "is ACORN committing voter registration fraud"? If readers were made aware that although Brennan may be non partisan, its connection with George Soros might clearly indicate that it is sufficiently a leftist organization. Soros is left leaning, Obama is left leaning and therefore Obama, Soros, Open Society are all cut from the same cloth. Whew could it be any more suspicious at the least? Oh by the way, ACORN is also listed on the same page that Brennan is.

As of yet this writer hasn't found "Harvard's Kennedy School of Government", showing up along with the others funded by Soros but, there are many many law projects,and in time I will find the connection if it exists.

As for Alex Keyssar,one needs look no further than his publishing and affiliations plus overall background to discern which way the wind causes him to lean. He writes a column for Huffington Post. He has published a book on whats wrong with the present election process,and numerous articles on the subject. He is an avid supporter of open access to the polls by all who are capable of physically falling into a voting booth without the much needed verification as proof of their legal right to cast a ballot.

In further use of citing another organization as impressive authority Hasting's refers to a study published around April 2008, by "Common Cause", a known conclave of left leaning social engineers originated by one of Lyndon B. Johnson's founding father's of the "Great Society", the late John W. Gardner. Here is the portion appearing to have been extracted from the study and used by Hasting's to validate her argument.

" Voter Identification: In spite of the ever-mounting evidence that has emerged since 2006 demonstrating that fraud committed at the polling place by the voter is extremely rare, fraud is still regularly used as a justification for passing harsh voter identification laws by state legislators and other elected officials. These laws exist in many of the states we surveyed, and are of a particularly disenfranchising nature in Georgia and Florida. Moreover, legislatures
throughout the country have considered passage of strict voter identification bills within the last two years, and some of those bills have come very close to being enacted. Stringent voter identification laws potentially disenfranchise
hundreds of thousands of eligible voters and disproportionately impact minorities, young people, the elderly, poor people, and voters with disabilities, while serving no benefit to the integrity of the election system."

Two points here again we see Orwellian "speech". The bold lettering needs to be focused on "fraud committed at the polling place by the voter", this is a play on semantics, "at the polling place by the voter" of course not. Due to a system generally enforced of checking an identification with picture and cross referencing a prechecked list of verified name and social security matches pretty much eliminates not all but many acts of literally walking in and casting a vote by a fraudulently registered voter at a polling place. The study depicts this method as "harsh" and later as "stringent"

Besides this type of inundation of physical bodies appearing at the polls would eventually be noticed, especially in cases where one person may be registered multiple times under multiple names and addresses. This is not how the fraud is committed. I must mention however that same day registration and voting such as just happened in Ohio, has done just that, inundated the polling official. Fortunately these ballots are placed in a provisional status until verified. But given the other tactics taught by Saul Alinsky in conjunction with bodily inudation who know's if all of these ballots will be lawfully verified before being counted.

HERE IS HOW THE FRAUD IS COMMITTED
The fraudulent names are submitted and as long as they can be placed onto the voter lists without being flagged, the act of fraud is carried out by a select group of insiders positioned at various access points such as large voting precincts and once the polls are closed these individuals either alone or in numbers carry out the task of multiply casting votes for their candidate, by going down the list of ringers who never physically appeared because they do not exist or are dead. Thereby increasing the number of ballots cast for one or another candidate. Another method depending on the type of voting mechanism being used is to already have all of the known non showers and fraudulent registries stored aside perhaps in a separate box, and then simply sending this prearranged ballot collection of frauds along with the real voters ballots to centralized counting facilities. So again we see the use of a partially true statement being utilized to divert away from the real topic of the issue.

The use of the adjectives "harsh" which is generally associated with crime and punishment and "stringent" generally applied along side credit requirements or bank regulations, and which means rigorously binding, is also obviously intended to leave the reader with the impression that people are being oppressed when entering a polling place to vote. Does the requirement to have a license in your possession to drive to the polling place seem harsh? So whats so harsh about getting it out of your wallet to match your face? State I.D's as much as this author doesn't like paying for one are not expensive, and still require not much more than a birth certificate to obtain. Is it too much to ask of an informed voter to make a little self preparation before they cast a ballot for the nations boss? Or are we in reality admitting that voter registration drives seek out uniformed voters for the purposes of body counts, and not knowledgeable participation. If your life depended on whose name was picked as the personal judge overseeing whether you lived or died would those names be so randomly thrown in?

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ACCUSATION
The original accusation by both the McCain campaign and the RNC, was that ACORN was committing "widespread voter fraud registration " by submitting thousands of illegal and false voter names throughout the country. Not that voters themselves were actually voting using these illegal names, but even now that may have entered into the controversy. We won't address that latter part ot the issue here however.

Again by a simple elimination of certain phraseology the accusation has been altered to fit the argument. It is the act of the registerer that is being questioned not the act of the legal voter. Another attempt at diverting from the truth to half truths and lies.

Nice try Hasting's but no cigar.

Now the final question is... who has allowed this distortion of the truth about about what the McCain campaign and the RNC has alleged to happen? AP, Yahoo, or both. Well through past articles we know that AP has sold out. Given that You Tube has now been recognized as bowing to the wymms of Liberal Media Pressure as well whose to say naught that Yahoo has now followed suit.

STONE FILM TANKS AT BOX OFFICE

The much hyped "W" by Oliver Stone with an expenditure of $25,000,000.00, literally proved to be a tank this past opening weekend. After much a dew about nothing it is recording weekend sales of give or take $10,000,000.00. It showed in 2500 + theatres nation wide. Of course the critic's puked acolades for fear of hurting Stone's feelings or just to be Obama correct, but truth be known it sucked for a Stone production box office draw.

I can't tell you about it's story line because it would violate my moral code of ethics as a conservative to go and see it. So you will have to draw you own conclusions as to the value of its content.

For comparison though I think it is only fair to say that "American Carol" which I would rate along side "Airplane" in funniness, drew almost exactly the same amount of opening weekend gross. However it only showed in 1639 theatre's nationwide. And its cost were $5,000,000.00 dollars less to make. Just goes to show you how a real conservative manages his money as compared to a liberal producer/director who "HOPES" his film will do well. There they go with that "HOPE", thing again. I guess the "CHANGE", part would be in what it made, as in "CHUMP".

Media Declares Obama The Winner

Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
October 20, 2008

When I logged onto Drudge this morning, I had a Rip Van Winkle moment. According to the headlines, Obama has somehow become president. Nope, its still October 20. The election hasn't been held yet. But you wouldn't know that by scanning the headlines of one of the major news outlets in America.
According to headlines on Drudge, Obama is in the process of planning his transition. His team is in place and already planning the nuts and bolts of installing 'The One' in the White House. "Under the direction of John Podesta, a former White House chief of staff under Bill Clinton, the transition effort includes a dozen separate groups divided into different areas of responsibility." Bye-bye Bush. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
As Obama's transition team meets, others in the Obama camp are busy lining up an all-star Obama Cabinet. 'Barack Obama Lines Up A Cabinet Of Stars As John McCain Struggles On', the Times reports. “It’s important to send a signal,” an Obama adviser said. “With a comparatively new person in office and the awful mess we’re in, these appointments are going to resonate around the world.” Note the operative words: 'in office'.
Heady decisions, those. Deciding who to reward, who to slight, and determining which 'experts' to install as the anointed one's top dogs. After all, he's going to need alot of help running the world.
Meanwhile, other headlines trumpet Pelosi's prediction of a 250-seat Democrat House. "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says Democrats will expand their majority to 250 seats in the House next year and might have gone further if the party had more money." Note the operative word: 'will'.

Just in case anyone has any doubts that this election is over, Drudge has thrown in a token conservative, Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, whose article entitled 'Palin's Failing'
bemoans the fact that America still doesn't know....Sarah Palin. That's right. Hmmm..

Acting 'as if' an Obama presidency is a fait accompli, other media stories have been reporting about the cool election eve celebration bash being planned by camp Obama.
On the off chance we still haven't gotten the message, on the off chance a few Americans still believe the November 4 election actually determines the outcome of the election, we are treated to a cool story about how Irelands largest bookie has decided to pay off more than $1 million euros to people who bet on an Obama presidency. I guess that means Obama has won.
The media has decided. Case closed. And those pesky polls, like Zogby's most recent one showing McCain trailing by only 3 points (the margin of error), have fallen into the left's favorite chasm, the 'fake but accurate' void which has become so popular on the left these last few years.
Now that Obama has been anointed, we are informed that he is going to change the world. Headlines on Drudge tell us so. 'Barack Obama Vows To 'Change The World'. An image pops up in my mind, unbidden: Barack Obama, shirts sleeves rolled up, bending over a babies' crib, extending his opening arms to the little tot, preparatory to changing his stinky diapers. What a guy, sensitive, wise, and not afraid to get poop on him. Our president. Swoon....
Before Joe the Plumber starts to slink off in defeat, I'd like to add my take.

I predict John McCain will win on November 4th. I base this on a firm belief in America. Sure, we've got a plethora of useful idiots who will pull the lever based on promises of utopia. But we also have all the guys in fly-over country. You know, the guys that actually research the issues and form their own views independently of popular opinion and media mantras - the ones that still value facts over perceptions and reality over spin. The ones whose voices have yet to be heard in this one-sided media orgy. Dare I say, the ones who will determine the outcome of the coming election?
As long as I'm making predictions, I also predict the Dow will go up, America will win the war in Iraq (oops, we already have, haven't we?) and Sarah Palin, the one that's failing, will be the one to continue what Ronald Reagan started. That said, whose set of predictions are you going to believe?
The left is hoping to win this election by manipulating voter's perceptions, by acting 'as if' the game is over. They know that perceptions are powerful things and they've decided that the media generated perception of Obama is enough to sweep him into the White House.

I have a friend who is grossly overweight. Despite this, she carries herself like a queen. After hanging around her awhile, my perception changes. I see her as beautiful, mostly because that's how she sees herself.
But no matter how beautiful she appears to me, my perception doesn't change the fact that she is still grossly overweight. And I haven't heard her sing yet.
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina

Article may be reprinted, with attribution

Socialism is a euphemism for the road to a Communist totalitarian state

It may not be politically correct to use the word Communism anymore since the fall of the Soviet nation and China's new thought philosophy leaning toward capitalism, heretofore it is time to point it out.
In Marxist theory, history progresses through a number of stages from slave society to feudal society to capitalist society to socialist society to communist society.

From Wikipedia:
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.[1][2][3] Leninist's have attempted to produce communist societies by setting up political parties, which in some cases have become governments. These attempts have never produced a communist society, and have frequently led to totalitarian states.[citation needed]

Communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism, a broad group of social and political ideologies, which draws on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.[4] Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems believed to be inherent with capitalist economies and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Communism states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class, or proletariat, to replace the wealthy bourgeoisie, which is currently the ruling class, in order to establish a peaceful, free society, without classes, or government.[2] The dominant forms of communism, such as , Leninism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarchist communism) also exist.

After defeating Hitlers regime in World War II, the allies allowed Russia to claim some of the spoils of a devastated continent in order to rebuild their society, and replace a work force of almost 20 million people sacrificed at the hands of Hitlers army defending their homeland and parts of Europe especially Germany. History has shown this was a big mistake. Hence the beginning of America's struggle to defeat worldwide communism, and totalitarian rule ever since.

Shortly thereafter under Harry Truman we were sucked into the Korean conflict facing the same forces of ideological evil. Before total victory, the war was halted with the U.S. holding onto a bloody stump of victory we now proudly call the Republic of Korea an ally and an adamantly anti communist country. If nothing else it was a gallant attempt that partially succeeded to secure sufficient real estate for those who chose to not be Communists under the domination of China, a place to heal and start anew. History has proven it was the right thing to do.

Then once more America became entwined in a fight against the "hammer and sickle" on the continental peninsula stretching southward from mainland Asia (China), previously called Annam, French Indo China, and most recently referred to as Vietnam. We failed miserably there in our eleventh hour of struggle for victory, which was snatched away thanks to left leaning politician's who were determined to see us loose in disgrace despite our ability to win.

Out of the rubble caused by that latter conflict there evolved two schools of thought:

1. As a nation we could never again afford the insolent thinking that we could dominate small nations at our will because we housed the industry to do so. This was declared by McGeorge Bundy when he said "there is no safety in unlimited technological hubris", after his conversion to liberalism.

Conservativism since then has leaned on the side of caution. We must be more sophrosyne when picking our battles and convince the nation that our reason's are just and not just self serving. Afghanistan and Iraq were just contrary to present day argument.(See this column,10/16/08. "McCain's War Story".)2. The other thought was and remains that of apologetic neurosis: as a nation we are guilty of overbearing pride and self serving opportunism, we unrighteously bully the rest of the globe into our way of thinking , and unfairly dominate it through monetary manipulation of capitalism. We should continually feel guilty and apologize for our way of life and ideology and for our unfettered pursuit of personal happiness, in exchange for giving away our worldly possessions and bow to the ignorance, greed of the rest of mankind. Sharing equally with them all that we have accomplished as a capitalistic world leader so that they too can enjoy what we have. In so doing ideally the other nations will treat us fairly, forgive us for our sins, and welcome us into the realm of global socialism. Together we will live happily ever after as equals,slipping slowly into the trappings of pure unadulterated communism sharing everything proportionately and fair.

Oh please ! For the sheep who believe this shit wake up !: " Killing is the precondition of all living what so ever, life lives on life, eats life, and would otherwise not exist. To some this terrible necessity is fundamentally unacceptable and such people have, at times, brought forth mythologies of a way to perpetuate peace. However, those have not been the people generally who have survived in what is termed the universal struggle for existence. Rather it has been those who have been reconciled to the nature of life on this earth."

I am not advocating this as an ideal way of life but it is reality. There are alternatives without slipping apologetically into the stew pot of world cannibalism. One of them is to stay armed to the teeth. Discourage through obvious strength those who would be feeble enough to think they could win against you and act benevolent and protective to those who dare not try. Is that Democratic,hell no. Democracy only works within select ideological and philosophical theater's of engagement and world events, not self defense. Once you have secured those who desire to practice democracy and they are safe through strength in defense of ones boundaries it then can be implemented as a political ideology.

The difference is the comparison of living under a benevolent ruler, who maintains the ideological belief of individual respect and tolerance for different views while not necessarily having to agree with them. As opposed to totalitarian oppression which tolerates no other view and deals with contradictions of their view through visceral violence against whomever does not meld with the pod. This simply vindicates my contention that the latter statement about killing as a precondition is factual.

Why is it not recognized that those among us who would have a desire to see the United States grand experiment of world wide democratic capitalism fail are too blind and stupid to see the present day leanings of those nations who have previously tried socialistic/communism without capitalism and proved it is dysfunctional.The answer is these individuals en masse' suffer from severe emotional arrest and narcissism.

Show me one society based on Leninism, Maoism and Trotskyism or Marxism,that has succeeded without violent totalitarianism,and or social and financial ruin and I will agree we should try it as opposed to capitalism. Left with the accusation that capitalism is just as equally violent, I will always choose it above all other forms of philosophy. Why? Because it has a better health plan.

PREDICTIONS OF AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY

This is the first time I say it: but by all gods of all religions I hope I am wrong.

Those of us who recognize the possibility of an Obama victory, despite our best efforts to prevent such a tragedy can only anticipate the worst outcome. Here are my predictions. Obama wins; what happens;

Two years into office a universal health plan has yet to be passed and Obama admits that because of government spending trying to save the economy it won't be happening for some time yet. In the mean time more and more providers of medicare, medicaid drop out due to increasing inflation and costs plus government pressure to lower prices,There is a spiral reduction in service to those already receiving it and because of an umbrella law passed by the Democrats giving free assistance to the family members of illegal aliens presently in the United States. More and more illegals flood across the border seeking medical aid despite lack of employment declaring past residency.

The government raises Social Security taxes both for employer and employee and increase the age of full retirement to 72 years old and partial to 67. Obama rescinds his promise not to raise taxes declaring he has no choice.

Government increases the tax on oil and gas causing the price at the pump to rise again above $4.00 a gallon after an almost eighteen months leveling off.

No new military contracts for equipment are passed most all are dropped from discussion, spending on current programs increases but fail to provide sufficient increase in protection for our soldiers. More and more veterans are applying for disability from PTSD due to repeated tours of duty overwork and destroyed family circumstances.Military wives and children are given a special exception in receiving welfare.

The war in Afghanistan becomes bogged down and more American lives are lost in increasing numbers, Obama talks about leaving, but is stuck. NATO pulls out most of its support troops, the U.S is obligated to fill the gap, and Russia makes a move on Georgia. The U.S. halves its missile installations in Poland and leaves the rest of newly liberated eastern Europe vulnerable to more Soviet more. Aid to Democratic Romania is reduced to nothing and its economy goes into depression.

Certain sectors of Iraq come under threat of falling back into enemy hands due to troop reductions and shifting of the troops to Afghanistan. India comes under increased terrorist attacks. Pakistan and India once again engage in border warfare plus warfare over Kashmir. Nuclear force is threatened. The Taliban and Al Queda take advantage of the chaos and become stronger in Pakistan then India.

Two major U.S. Airlines fail and go bankrupt.A major auto manufacturer fails, and the government can't bail them out.

Several famous American park systems are closed to the public due to lack of funds for upkeep. those left open have an exorbitant entry fee introduced and visitation limited.

Growth of American business is stymied, there is a reduction of 35% in new starts in the first two yrs of a four year Obama Presidency. More money is handed out to minority businesses' but fail to produce successful results.

Ohio and Illinois declare insolvency, and must issue warrants to pay employees. Twenty five percent of the State labor forces are laid off. The federal government does not have the money to loan. Cleveland, Dayton and Cincinnati experience summer riots. Obama calls for "His people" to settle down. African Americans become dissilusioned with him.

Wall Street, experiences a bear market for four more years with relatively low returns which are eaten up by inflation and new capital gains tax. Oil and gas reserves are stymied by lack of insensitive to increase national production, for the first two years of administration and then finally a slight reduction in gas taxes are passed. Yucca Mountain in the Nevada Desert is opened. New refineries are put on the drawing board in the U.S. but held back by environmental restraints of the past, no new laws are passed to aid in this situation.New Nuclear power plants are not built, money approved to improve existing facilities is so small it is insignificant.

Wind generation is promoted and tax breaks similar to the ones in the 70's and 80's are passed but no significant decrease in dependency on oil is apparent. More windmills go up in insignificant places, but yet domestic demand remains at same as 2008. Domestic auto manufacturers are told to build more efficient cars but no government assistance is forth coming a major American auto manufacturer goes belly up for good. No one buys them up. Electric cars become an apparent failure due to their use of fossil fuel to regenerate their batteries.

Gay marriage is approved in numerous states. More laws are passed to protect gays as a special group in need of special protections.

Border security is decreased giving rise to illegal immigration but no new jobs are waiting, Obama passes an amnesty act which increases the flooding of illegal immigration across our borders.

Iran is bombed by Israel, and the United States backs down on supporting its ally of some sixty odd years.

Due to falling oil demand Iran is unable to maintain a sufficient response although Israel is placed in deep jeopardy because of other Middle Eastern support from Muslim countries for Iran.
Parts of Israel are laid waste and thousands of lives are lost by terrorist attacks escalating within its borders.

Israel denounces the United States as an ally, and threatens not to provide badly needed intelligence from within the middle eastern region.

New socialistic programs will be implemented and the pariahs of self serving greed will descend upon the ghetto population and encourage them to take all the free hand outs they can get, thus giving them the fish, but not teaching them how to fish. Obama's social reform fails badly after four years in office, but will continue to damage the U.S. for years to come. Generational welfare continues introducing new immigrants to its rolls. The Democrat's continue to derive their profits from Social Welfare Programs. The Core name of this should be changed to Regenerative Social Dependency Programs.

The economic bail out falters. A unified Democratic Senate and Congress pass several more which brings the economy to the brink of depression. After two years of failures, they present the American public with a huge tax increases the Democratic Congress is voted out of Office. The Federal Reserve chairman is replaced and the reserve is given broad powers over Wall Street a new precedent this will continue for two more years.

2012 The Democrat's have made a mess. Even Hillary Clinton admits that her party has failed to turn the country around. Hillary changes parties and runs as a Republican candidate. She promises new reduced medical reform, and to lower capital gains tax. She also promises to drill and drill now. The cycle begins again, the age of modern socialism in America continues.

REMEMBER THIS WILL ONLY HAPPEN IF OBAMA IS SUCCESSFUL IN STEALING THE ELECTION. AS OF YET I HAVE NOT GIVEN UP MY CONVICTION THAT MCCAIN WILL SUCCEED THANKS TO THE INDEPENDENT VOTERS.

The Sacrifices of our son's were for.............

October 16, 2008
McCain's War Story
By Adam G. Mersereau

A broad consensus is forming -- encompassing the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Whoopi Goldberg -- that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake regardless of the outcome. Senator McCain has defended the Surge, but not the Iraq War. He is missing a chance to reveal the naïveté of his opponent.


Everyone knows that the Bush Administration made some avoidable mistakes early in the Iraq war. However, after the bold troop surge and the change of strategy designed by General Petraeus, victory is in sight. But no one is celebrating.


Senator Barack Obama fuels the growing consensus by referring to the Iraq war as a "dumb war." In the first presidential debate, when Obama confronted Senator John McCain on his early support for the Iraq war, McCain changed the subject. In their second debate, Obama attacked the wisdom of the war even harder, and McCain conspicuously avoided the issue. No doubt McCain feels Obama's "dumb war" narrative tightening around his neck like a noose.


But McCain should not hide from the true story of the war in Iraq. Far from being a "dumb war," underneath our mistakes in Iraq laid several strokes of strategic genius. The American people-especially those who have made great personal sacrifices-deserve to hear again the compelling reasons why we invaded Iraq, and how a victory in Iraq could vindicate their sacrifices.


Choosing the Battlefield


It is a basic principle of warfare that a commander must never allow his enemy to select the terrain on which he fights. The attacks of 11 September 2001 were designed for the primary purpose of drawing the United States into Afghanistan, which is Al Qaeda's preferred kill-zone. Al Qaeda helped defeat the Soviet Union there. When the Soviet Union subsequently collapsed, Al Qaeda leaders were convinced they had discovered a formula for destroying infidel super-powers: draw them into the God-forsaken moonscape of Afghanistan to fight a protracted war. Al Qaeda knew it would require a spectacular provocation to lure the U.S. military into Afghanistan. Hence 9/11.


Rather than fall for Al Qaeda's "rope-a-dope" ploy, the Bush administration's war planners examined the global situation. Just as America did not charge headlong into Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor, we would not launch a massive invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. Sure, we could have staged a massive invasion of Afghanistan, but to what end? A large-scale war there would cost many lives and untold resources but would render almost no strategic advantage against the global network of terrorists and their state sponsors.


Instead, President Bush would send a small force to Afghanistan to disperse the Taliban and work with NATO to disrupt Al Qaeda and police the border with Pakistan. To engage the enemy head-on, he would select a battlefield better suited to our strategy.


Iraq - the Obvious Choice


The biggest threat to America was -- and still is -- another 9/11 style attack incorporating nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Even before 9/11, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a beehive of terrorists and WMD activity. Saddam funded Palestinian terrorism. He gave safe haven to notorious terrorists. He hosted bases for six different terrorist groups. His own "Fedayeen Saddam" was operating training camps in Iraq for terrorists from all over the Middle East.


Just prior to 9/11, a Washington think-tank concluded that the most lethal threat to the United States would come from a biological or chemical attack. Biological and chemical weapons were Saddam's forte. One of the few living humans to have actually deployed chemical weapons on a large scale, Saddam was known to possess large stockpiles of them (inspectors inventoried them after the first Gulf War) but refused to provide evidence of their disposal. He had vigorous anthrax and smallpox programs, and he maintained dual-use facilities that could be converted within mere weeks to biological and chemical weapons factories. And yes, he maintained a skeleton nuclear weapons program, ready to be reconstituted as soon as he could beat U.N. sanctions and inspections with help from Russia and France.


All of this made a good case for regime change before 9/11, which is why regime change was the stated goal of the Clinton Administration and Congress before George W. Bush was elected. Every known method to contain Iraq had been tried and had failed: weapons inspections, economic sanctions, U.N. resolutions, and targeted strikes. Editors of the Washington Post and New York Times warned that containment was not working. Military action against Iraq was publicly espoused to varying degrees by Democrats Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and others.


Although these Democrats were among the first to call for retreat when the war became difficult, their pre-9/11 assessment of the Iraqi threat was correct. After 9/11, leaders of both major parties were all the more devoted to "connecting the dots" between terrorist groups and WMD. For anyone paying attention, Iraq was covered with dots.


In addition, the Bush team knew an invasion of Iraq would bring the terrorists to a battlefield on which an American victory could change the entire course of the global war on terror. If a stable representative government could be established there, the entire dynamics of the region could be altered for the better. We would have a new ally that shares a passable boarder with Iran. Perhaps a new Iraq would even give rise to the one antidote for the spreading disease of militant Islam: a Muslim nation willing to fight against Muslim extremists. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq had the infrastructure, resources, and political history to make such a vision possible.


When Barack Obama quips that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to our invasion, he shows his naïveté. The influx of Al Qaeda into Iraq did not discredit the Bush plan, it vindicated it. Further vindication came when in 2005 Ayman al-Zawahiri deemed Iraq the "place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era." We had refused to take the bait in Afghanistan. Instead, we selected a battleground that could yield results beyond mere retribution. We had a lot to learn about our chosen battlefield and would make fateful errors, but ultimately our military would learn to fight well in Iraq.


The Surge


The small-force strategy that routed the Taliban did not work in Iraq. It actually prolonged the Iraq war and gave credibility to Bush's critics. When things got bad, Obama and others clamored for the U.S. to withdraw. Biden argued for a partition of Iraq that would have yielded disaster. But when President Bush teamed with Senator McCain to support a troop "surge" coupled with the new Petraeus strategy, they delivered a devastating blow to our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere. At a moment of fierce political opposition and great military risk, Bush and McCain committed our nation to victory. We showed the terrorists that despite the calls for surrender coming from the left, some Americans had not lost their nerve.


To discredit the success of the surge, Barack Obama cites the Anbar Awakening as the real turning point in the war. But again he fails to understand a fundamental truth of warfare. The surge and the Awakening were symbiotic. The surge allowed us to consolidate the gains resulting from the Awakening, and vice versa. This is the kind of "luck" that often follows in warfare when commanders make bold, well-reasoned decisions.


To prove his mettle after calling for retreat, Obama now argues for a troop surge of his own, this time in Afghanistan. Apparently, it was dumb to invade Iraq but it's smart to expand the war in Afghanistan. What is his strategy? What is his definition of victory? What if our allies balk? He should answer these questions before Election Day.


Senator Obama presents himself as a new kind of diplomat, saying he would open presidential talks with enemies like Iran. Ironically, if Iran's leaders agree to speak with a future American president, it will only be because President Bush has placed them under tremendous pressure. Obama fails to understand that before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, we could not engage Iran from a position of strength. There was no way the U.S. could transport a land army to Iran. The only threat we could muster was air strikes which, when used alone, are often counterproductive. The mullahs knew they were nearly untouchable. As a result of decisions now mocked by Obama, however, the next American President will have real bargaining power. Added to the NATO force on Iran's eastern border, America may soon have on Iran's western border an ally and a long-term military presence.


A dumb war? Rest assured, the leaders of Iran and other Muslim nations see the strategic wisdom of the Iraq war. McCain should tell the story as it ought to be told.


A former officer in the United States Marine Corps, Adam G. Mersereau studied the basics of warfare at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia in the early 1990's. He left the Marine Corps in 1995 at the rank of Captain. He is now an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia.

The best of Looney Tunes, Penn and Teller, and JOE THE PLUMBER

I Believe this to be true !

Borrowed from Ann Coulter:10/16/08

With an African-American running for president this year, there has been a lot of chatter about the "Bradley effect," allowing the media to wail about institutional racism in America.

Named after Tom Bradley, who lost his election for California governor in 1982 despite a substantial lead in the polls, the Bradley effect says that black candidates will poll much stronger than the actual election results.

First of all, if true, this is the opposite of racism: It is fear of being accused of racism. For most Americans, there is nothing more terrifying than the prospect of being called a racist. It's scarier than flood or famine, terrorist attacks or flesh-eating bacteria. To some, it's even scarier than "food insecurity."
Political correctness has taught people to lie to pollsters rather than be forced to explain why they're not voting for the African-American.

This is how two typical voters might answer a pollster's question: "Whom do you support for president?"

Average Obama voter: "Obama." (Name of average Obama voter: "Mickey Mouse.")

Average McCain voter: "I'm voting for McCain, but I swear it's just about the issues. It's not because Obama's black. If Barack Obama were a little more moderate -- hey, I'd vote for Colin Powell. But my convictions force me to vote for the candidate who just happens to be white. Say, do you know where I can get Patti LaBelle tickets?"

In addition to the social pressure to constantly prove you're not a racist, apparently there is massive social pressure to prove you're not a Republican. No one is lying about voting for McCain just to sound cool.

Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.

Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.

In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points -- 45 percent to 43 percent. (For the kids out there: Before it became a clearinghouse for anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was considered a credible journalistic entity.)

A week later -- or one tank ride later, depending on who's telling the story -- on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in The New York Times Poll by a mere 5 points.

Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to 15-point error in 1984. But it's striking that even small "margin of error" mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans.
In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7 percent. (Ross Perot got 18.9 percent of Bush's voters that year.) On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent.

So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by only 5.3 points.

In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent.

In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent.

In the last presidential election the polls were surprisingly accurate -- not including the massively inaccurate Election Day exit poll. In the end, Bush beat John Kerry 50.7 percent to 48.3 percent in 2004. Most of the October polls showed the candidates in a dead-heat, with Bush 1 to 3 points ahead. So either pollsters got a whole lot better starting in 2004, or Democrats stole more votes in that election than we even realized.