I know, the Pants-on-Fire GOP barrage is getting old. It may even have gotten you down. Who could blame you? The lies have been coming so quicly, it's hard to have the airtime to refute them all. That's by design. GOP spokespersons and candidates are just throwing XXXX at the wall and hoping some sticks.
Having no ideas, except budget busting tax cuts and failed trickle-down economics, at this point, the GOP cares only about winning at any cost. And already tracking as the biggest liar ever to run for president, Romney deserves unfavorability even higher than 49%. Put another way, half of Americans have a negative view of him. That data point makes me feel a bit better. But, despite that, I still have been dispirited.
And then I thought, hmmm, I'll see what Intrade has to say. And it brought a smile to my face. InTrade says there's a 55.6% Obama will win. Then, I went to Nate Silver's site 538. And the news was even better. Before I say the number, remember how well Intrade and Nate Silver have predicted the last presidential election. They did better than the "polls." So, with that, here 'tis (below the fold):
Today, we have another classic example of everything wrong with the Post, with Glenn Kessler's "Fact Checker" column Does a majority of millionaires really support the Buffett Rule?
In this edition, Kessler takes on the question of support for the Buffett Rule, "to require an individual taxpayer whose adjusted gross income exceeds $1 million to pay a minimum tax rate of 30% of the excess of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income." Specifically, Kessler looks at whether President Obama's claim that "Millionaires stand in support of the Buffett Rule" is factually accurate.
According to Kessler's calculations, Obama's claim isn't accurate, and thus gets "Two Pinocchios." The problem is, this is utter nonsense on basically every level. Where do we even start fact checking the failed "fact checker" (using the phrase VERY loosely)? How about the following?
1. Kessler's discussion of polling is beyond laughable, into words like "pitiful," "pathetic," "cringe inducing," and "mind boggling clueless." According to Kessler - and apparently he's serious (although I find it hard to believe that any intelligent human being could write the following sentences with a straight face):
The Washington Post has strict standards about the types of polls that we quote. We are especially wary of online polls, and a standard practice before quoting a poll in a news story is to make sure it is vetted by The Post's polling unit.Hahahahahaha. Seriously? "Strict standards" on polling at the Post? My god, these people are hopeless.
*Newt's "at 41% [in Virginia] to 15% for Mitt Romney with no one else in double digits. Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry at 8%, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul at 6%, Jon Huntsman at 3%, and Gary Johnson at 1% round out the field.
*"[W]e took a very early look at the 2013 GOP primary for Governor and again find Ken Cuccinelli with a big early lead over Bill Bolling, 44-25."
*"There continues to be very little appetite for a Tea Party challenge to George Allen in the Republican Senate race."
Actually, I'm surprised that Cuccinelli's not leading Bolling by more than 44%-25% Where Cuccinelli's trailing Bolling is interesting: among Huntsman and Romney supporters, among "moderate" Republicans (but oddly, not among "liberal" Republicans, whoever those people are!), and among Democrats. That does not bode well for Bolling in a Republican primary or convention, but we'll see; maybe Virginia Republicans will have moved back a bit towards sanity by then? Naaaaah, who am I kidding?!?