I Always Hated Numbers--And McCain on SNL

Today was Shabbat, and my husband was out of town, allowing me the perfect opportunity to catch up on my sleep...and my newspaper pile. As noted in a post below, I'm increasingly weary and wary of the news, which seems to have crept into nearly all sections of the paper. And this weekend, as the election draws perilously close--or, relievedly close--the intensity is gut-wrenching.

The bias in favor of Obama in my three newspapers seems to be even more obvious and forthright, even as newscasters lament the election overkill and the almost humorously one-sided coverage. I supposed I should have guarded the sanctity of the Sabbath and concentrated on this week's portion of the Torah--Noach, where the world is destroyed for its immorality--but that simply returns my mind to the election. There's no escape.

Then, immediately after the conclusion of the Sabbath, I got a phone call from my husband, who announced cheerfully--"Did you hear? McCain's ahead by one point in the Zogby poll!" My cynical little heart was not comforted, after an afternoon of journalistic depressives. Two hundred stories touting Obama, and eighty stories bashing McCain had done their work.

So, I decided to confirm in my brain the good news--McCain was ahead in a poll! I couldn't get into the Zogby site, since I don't pay the $75 to be a member, and every other reportage on McCain's lead was stifled by negations. The USA Today "On Politics Breaking News" site had the following: "Gallup just released new national tracking results that may calm Democrats who got jittery this morning about a new Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll and whose jitters were front-paged today in The New York Times."

They don't actually quote the Zogby poll there; they just discredit it. Then they go on to say, "Gallup's latest numbers show Democrat Barack Obama leading Republican John McCain 52%-42% based on both the traditional definition of likely voters and a new one that includes more first-time and infrequent voters.
The margin is 'the largest Obama lead among likely voters to date' in the traditional model and it matches the largest in the expanded model. Gallup also says today is the first time the two likely-voter numbers have been the same."

Well, whoop-de-doo. It's true, USA Today is not the standard of journalistic objectivity. But can McCain actually overcome a TEN POINT trail in Gallup? Is it true that people are shy about admitting to voting for McCain (lest they be labeled racist)? Am I crazy to be looking at this stuff?

Of course, the answer is yes. But I fear that the average voter, the ones who aren't as wrapped up as politics as I am, hear those numbers, and are influenced by them. I read a statement by pollster Zogby that today, Nov. 1, the numbers are way back in Obama-land: "Obama has consolidated his lead over McCain. His single-day lead today was back to 52%-42%."

He went on to break down that lead and ended his statement with the following admonition: ""Remember, as I said yesterday, one day does not make a trend. This is a three-day rolling average and no changes have been tectonic. A special note to blogger friends: calm it down. Lay off the cable television noise and look at your baseball cards in your spare time. It is better for your (and everyone else's) health."

I'm not Zogby's blogger friend, nor do I have a collection of baseball cards, but he's right--at this point the only thing to do is pray some more and throw some parts of the paper into the recycle bin, unread.

For something more upbeat, I looked online to find John McCain's performance on SNL tonight (we don't own a TV). I thought his show opening, where he and Tina Fey as fake-Palin did a QVC infomercial that included products like Joe action figures (pull the ring on the Joe Biden and he talks for 45 minutes), and McCain Fine Gold (with Cindy showing the necklaces) had its moments, but was dominated by a Fey solo where she disses the veep candidate with a "Palin in 2012 t-shirt," suggesting the Alaska governor is an opportunist.

The Weekend Update where McCain reveals his unworkable campaign strategies was lame except for one "bad strategy" that made me laugh: "Sad Grandpa." What the clips showed was what a great sport John McCain is, and how easy he is even when being insulted under his nose. The guy is intensely likeable, the personification of integrity.

Now if only the nation can vote with its head instead of its emotion, which is...aarrgghh...unlikely, we can start reading the newspaper again.

The Task for McCain in Tonight's Debate

Could the economic news be more depressing? The stock market is at its lowest in five years. This is giving my husband anxiety, and the thought of Barack Obama trying to implement his spending proposals and consequent tax increases on the people who provide the jobs only deepens the nausea.

It's in this climate that we await the debate tonight. Barack got points (and his echo, Joe Biden, repeated the trick) when he stared into the TV camera at the first debate and swore that "Under my tax plan NINETY-FIVE PERCENT OF YOU would get a tax cut!" The other five percent, the obscene filthy rich who of course need to be coerced under threat of imprisonment to part with any of the loot they hoarde, clearly owe their underlings a further chunk of their earnings.

Now, 40% of the population pays NO income tax, so giving them a "cut" would mean a gift from the eeeevil wealthy 5% in the form of a government check. And the vast majority--70% to be exact--of that 5% are owners of small businesses. You know, like the corner laundry, the neighborhood restauranteur, the quick-print store where you get your xeroxing done--these are the guys who would be taxed more, WAY more than the at LEAST 35% they already pay. That will really stimulate the economy, because then these guys will be unable to expand and create more jobs. Make sense?

I'm really nervous. Tonight I'll be watching the debate hoping John McCain explains why his approach--lowering taxes on business--trumps the tax business plan of Obama. It's a hard sell to those 40% who pay nothing and would get free money. McCain has to show how it's a small consolation when stocks and jobs suffer as a result.

New Hampshire Happiness, Steinem & Hillary, and a Computer comes home

Hope you're having a happy day, too!
I got back my computer with no loss of data! And I have 25,000 photos, not just 20,000. Turns out my home had apparently had a power surge; it fried my power source in my computer, my mouse and my keyboard. The dead accessories have now found their way to the trash. And I have found relief.

And the New Hampshire primaries have our house a bit giddy, as well. We are a home steeped in politics; we are a home brimming with opinions, many of them very independent. But we are happy tonight that Republicans chose John McCain, because we think he has the best chance of any of the GOP candidates to beat the inexperienced and potentially dangerous (when it comes to international relations) Hillary and Obama.

Gloria Steinem wrote an op-ed in the New York times today saying that poor Hillary is victimized because American's can't give a woman a chance. Poppycock. We would have given the right woman a chance; we just don't have our own Margaret Thatcher.

What galled me in Steinem's article was that she says Hillary had more experience than Obama, including "eight years of on-the-job training in the White House." Exactly what WAS her job?? Meddler? Unelected and unappointed adviser? Her health-care plan flopped not only because it was unworkable and against what the American people want, but because she was not "on the job," but rather trying to usurp influence by marriage. That's devious. As I recall, the only thing American taxpayers paid her was too much attention.

Why were "her negatives" always so high? Because she presented herself when questioned like a deer in the headlights. Because she was often incoherent. Because her positions and plans seemed half-baked, and because next to Barack, she seemed to have had a charisma-ectomy. Plus, dear Gloria, she didn't have the backing of another woman, a woman of even greater influence and popularity than the candidate--Oprah.

Yep, for all her conniving--and I do see her terms as New York senator as merely conniving means toward her aspirations of the presidency--and dispite her two-percentage-point lead in New Hampshire tonight, Hillary's not going to have an easy time snagging the nomination. We saw how complicated her situation is when her husband wagged his finger and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky..." and then had to come back and somberly recant. We all wondered, "Now, what, Hillary?" And she responded, "I still love him...and I'll just become President!" Well, it could happen. She probably struck a bargain with her "play-uh" that she'd let him philander if he'd use his popularity to campaign for her.

But I'm not here to bash Hillary. Instead, I'm just happy that God is blessing this land with a chance for someone who stands by his principles and can be strong. Can McCain beat Hillary? Obama? If he has the right running mate, definitely. Perhaps Lieberman, who endorsed him and would unite the parties--or how about Alaska's governor, the religious, 39-year-old, vivacious, mother,Sarah Palin (right)? The only thing for sure is that New Hampshire voters showed they're aware of the most serious issues we face, and that's a good omen for the future of this race.

Now if I could get my returned computer to have sound...