Repubs Crossover to vote for Dems

The New York Times is getting desperate in its support of Obama, and ignoring reality as the agitprop anecdotes from Indiana keep the Upper West Side in its cloud-cuckoo fix of the day.

Of course, Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos is completely changing the tenor of the primary, but reporting that would be journalism, and the NYT stays away from old-fashioned stuff like that.

Mickey Kaus agrees with me 1000%

"Minister's Comments Hold Little Sway in Indianapolis Enclave": On the one hand there's the New York Times report:

[N]o one interviewed here said that Mr. Wright had affected how they or anyone they knew would vote.

On the other hand, there are the actual polls, showing Obama tanking. Who you gonna believe? ... P.S.: A staple of cocooning journalism is the quickie poll showing that "Voters Say They Aren't Troubled by X," with X being an issue the polltakers don't want voters to be troubled by. Typically, these stories 1) ignore the tendency of voters to lie to pollsters, especially when it comes to admitting they might be influenced by thoughts of the sort that they suspect polltakers don't approve of; and 2) even if everyone's telling the truth, if only 10% of voters say they will vote against a candidate because of X--while fully 90% of the voters say they are untroubled--that means the candidate has been badly damaged by X. In most races a candidate can't afford to lose 10% of the vote on a single issue. ... In today's story, of course, the Times strikes a blow for transparency and cost-efficiency, dispensing with the expensive, scientific-sounding claptrap of polling and cutting right to the soothing BS, interviewing a handful of upscale Indianapolis shoppers who duly deny they would be influenced by the Wright flap (but who knows what those "less cosmopolitan" Hoosiers down South will do). ...

Yeah, that doctored YouTube of "War Room" that Mickey Kantor did[n't} expletive-deleted concerning the Hoosiers.