Karen Crummy has a rural voter poll article. It’s mostly ambiguous fluff. Something she spent some time on: a majority polled said McCain shares their values. Really: values? Rural voters support unauthorized torture as a value? Rural voters don’t support health care or education benefits for our troops? That’s a value worth holding? This value argument was torn apart after the 2004 election. It’s sad that the corporate media and ideologically driven pollsters still focus so much on it. A majority of adults in the U.S. support progressive policy positions. Due in no small part to the media’s narrative, those that vote don’t know they hold the same values as progressives across the board.
There is an important note about this poll: 682 people responded. Thousands of scientists’ work worldwide don’t add up to enough proof that humans are forcing the climate system. But 44% of respondents said McCain shares their values (versus 35% for Obama) and it’s written in stone that Obama can’t win the rural vote. That’s ridiculous.
Interestingly, that’s about the only subject that McCain does better than Obama. The economy, taxes, “being on your side” (WTF?!), and bringing change. McCain edged out Obama on the Iraq war also. And somehow, everybody comes to the conclusion that Obama is the one who needs to do better with rural voters. 4-2-1 (O-M-tied) and Obama is identified as needing to do something. Riiiight. Not only does McCain have work to do with rural voters, you’ll notice the poll didn’t do urban voters. McCain is going to get killed in the cities and the corporate stenographers keep trying to distract us with “maverick” talk. The “maverick” is going to be buried under a landslide in November.
****
I just knew the headline from Chuck Plunkett would include a division within Democratic ranks (I would have bet on it, but nobody would put money down on a different headline). Sure enough, “Record crowd shows signs of rift”. No actual data was provided to support that headline, it was just something Chuck obviously “felt” at a gut level or something. No mention that they ran out of Obama ballots though. Isn’t that interesting.
I’m sure we’ll see similar headlines after the Republican Convention, right? I want Chuck and the Post to tell us what magic line is enough for Democrats and enough for Republicans. What kind of a lead would a Democratic nominee have to garner so that “rift” doesn’t show up in the headline? Similarly, what kind of a lead would a Republican nominee have to achieve? What measure is indicative of a rift, exactly?
****
Terence Hunt is no better. There’s no alternative viewpoint in his article that should have read, “Saudis tell Bush who’s really in charge“. At the end, we get to read about Bush throwing a tantrum. Not at the Saudis that refuse to refine more oil (they’re not operating at full capacity, for the record), but at Democrats who want to withhold a $1.4 billion arms sale to a regime that supports terrorists while they put the squeeze on our economy. Somehow, it’s Democrats’ responsibility to force energy corporations to expand refineries. That’s funny, I thought Republicans were supposed to be against government involvement in areas that corporations can handle so much more efficiently. Another Republican lie laid bare.
