Stephanie Cutter & Alleged NYT anti-Obama bias!!!

James Taranto in the WSJ scorches Ms. Cutter's comely tush with a great column demonstrating that when it comes to Libtard chutzpah, there is nothing remotely like it elsewhere in the known universe:

It's not the first time the New York Times has been accused of bias, but it may be the funniest. Charlie Spiering of the Washington Examiner reports that the charge was leveled this morning by the Obama campaign. MSNBC host Chuck Todd asked deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter to comment on the latest Times/CBS News poll, and she said: "The methodology was significantly biased." She then "said that she didn't want to bore the viewers with talk of methodology, but repeated that she believed the poll was flawed." Pressed by Todd, she said: "It's a biased sample, so they re-biased the same sample." Glad she cleared that up. The Times's headline finding was that an overwhelming majority of respondents, 67%, think the president backed same-sex marriage last week "mostly for political reasons," while only 24% think he did it "mostly because he thinks it is right." This column agrees with the 24% more than the 67%, but in any case Obama has managed a neat trick: He has managed to look like a cynical opportunist while taking an unpopular position.

In any sane organization, Cutter would be out the door, being told not to let it hit her on her comely tush as she leaves. But this is politics down the rabbit hole, in Malice in Wonderland's Obamarama world.

One reason to think this Times poll may be more unbiased than usual is its findings on the substantive question of same-sex marriage:

About 4 in 10, or 38 percent, of Americans support same-sex marriage, while 24 percent favor civil unions short of formal marriage. Thirty-three percent oppose any form of legal recognition. When civil unions are eliminated as an option, opposition to same-sex marriage rises to 51 percent, compared with 42 percent support.

That makes the Times/CBS poll an outlier among polls, but puts it in line with the results of actual voting. Every state where same-sex marriage has been on the ballot, it has lost--usually by considerably larger margins, but mostly in socially conservative states. Forty percent support and majority opposition seems in the right ball park.

This doesn't sit with the POV of the hard-left Marxist pervs who are the useful idiots of the LGBT mafia, whose ability to raise money & donate same to Obungler derives from their lack of a wife & kids to support.

The Times/CBS poll of registered voters (not likely ones) found Mitt Romney leading Obama, 46% to 43%. A curious finding is that over the past month, the "gender" gap seems to have vanished. When the same respondents were interviewed in April, men favored Romney 49% to 43%, while women favored Obama 49% to 43%. In May both sexes favored Romney, the gents by 45% to 42% and the ladies by 46% to 44%. Independents favored Romney by one point in April and seven in May.

But wait, the one-man posse from the Times, a so-called "conservative" columnist named David Brooks, who is a walking talking writing oxymoron of a sport of nature, rides to the rescue of the crime syndicate the Obama administration is turning out to be.

If the Obama campaign is mad at the Times, maybe David Brooks can make it up to them. In a column today, Brooks marvels that Obama is "even close" in the polls: "If you look at the fundamentals, the president should be getting crushed right now." The economy stinks, the country is far more conservative than Obama, his major policies are unpopular, and he is losing ground among independents, Catholics, young voters and Hispanics. But this is an Obama-flattering column. Brooks rates the president as only "a slight underdog," and "most of the cause is personal. . . . Obama has displayed a kind of ESPN masculinity: postfeminist in his values, but also thoroughly traditional in style. . . . He has defined a version of manliness that is postboomer in policy but preboomer in manners and reticence." We're not exactly sure what a "version of manliness" that is "postfeminist" might mean, but we suspect it's similar to what the Washington Post's Dana Milbank has in mind when he calls Obama "the first female president."

Yes, and the geek from Kenya, Indonesia, Punahoe High, and Occidental U. is getting worse all the time.

When Stephanie Cutter accuses the Times of bias because its poll delivers some hard truths, one assumes it is because the campaign is accustomed to media flattery of the sort that Brooks and National Journal are dishing out. It seems to us that flattery is actually running counter to Obama's goal of being re-elected, because it masks his weaknesses. True, he had fawning media coverage in 2008 and won the election. But to think the former caused the latter is a classic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Similarly, John Podhoretz of the New York Post is astonished that re-election effort has stumbled so badly, "given how astonishingly competent the Obama 2008 campaign was." But was the '08 campaign really all that competent? Or was it successful because he was lucky enough to have incompetent opponents?

McCain was a stone-cold dolt and Palin's know-how was buried by feminizes like perky Katie & other hellhound females, plus an ABC anchor long disappeared from public view. But Romney has know-how, and despite the slanders and lies of the WaPo re his high school pranks 47 years ago, Mitt will be POTUS 45 unless the mad men media & their Amazon reserves finally get their guttersnipe game into the happy horseshit they achieved in 2008.