I've been complaining all over the place (my most recent rant is here, but there's earlier stuff here and here) about the polling coming from Strategic Vision, the very Republican polling firm run by the GOP stalwart (Honorary Chairman for the National Republican Congressional Committee's Business Advisory Council) and spokesman for arch-conservative Larry Klayman, David E. Johnson. SV came out of nowhere to provide convenient (extremely convenient) and timely (almost daily, it seems) polls of the most troublesome of the battleground states, and these polls find their way in to a lot of news stories and electoral vote status updates without being labelled as coming from a partisan firm.
Typically, polls coming from other partisan firms, both Republican and Democratic, are labelled as such, so that people can decide how much credence they wish to put in them, but Strategic Vision polls are presented alongside those from Gallup, Rasmussen, American Research Group, Zogby, Survey USA, Ipsos and other firms which, while they all have their faults and weaknesses, are basically non-partisan.
My suspicion (which I frankly admit could well be paranoia and tin-foil hat stuff) is that someone is footing the bill for all this Strategic Vision polling (which must be awfully expensive, given that each of them is of 801 likely voters, meaning they must have gone through many more prospects to get to that number), and that that someone is in some way intimately connected to the Republican party. Further, I've got the awful feeling that their polls could either be deliberately skewed in order to provide an "objective" basis for Republican storylines about Bush momenta in those critical states, or, less corruptly (but just as deviously), it could be that their polls all use a likely-voter model which itself skews results, many times in Bush's favor, for the same reason.
Looking at Strategic Vision's website, one sees very little to disabuse the casual visitor that the firm is anything but a non-partisan organization engaging in civic-minded polling for the edification of the public and the media, and certainly very little that explicitly lays out the firm's connections with the GOP. Contrast that with how America Coming Together presents their latest polling in the Upper Midwest: a bunch of press releases strung together, almost impossible to find on the website.
[Update: I crunch some numbers and take a more specific, and less rhetorical, look at Strategic Vision here.]
This disparity of presentation between Republicans and Democrats could well be taken as an object lesson in the gap between the parties in presenting their ideologies, policies and candidates to the public. The Democrats, comparatively speaking, provide a straightforward and honest, but boring and lackluster, presentation of the information they have to offer, while the Republicans take their dope and clean it up, dress it up, spruce it up and make it over into something it's not, all so that people will be taken in.
On Tapped Jeffrey Dubner observes the same disparity:
Watching an "America Can Do Better" Democratic press conference [...] I started to understand why the Democrats aren't getting the traction during the RNC that the Republicans had during the DNC. The press conference was full of substantive arguments and detailed indictments of Dick Cheney and Harvey Pitt; the Dems on display talked about Halliburton and the Small Business Administration and environmental destruction. Paired with the Republicans' "Extreme Makeover" press conference during the DNC that I wrote about at the time, it's an object lesson in how not to get your talking points into the media conversation. The Republicans went directly after the speeches and themes of the DNC; the Democrats were talking about policies and actions of the last four years that have gotten them steamed. The Republicans repeated talking point after aggressive talking point; the Democrats talked. Only New Jersey Representative Bob Menendez talked about the previous night, and his condemnation of Arnold Schwarzenegger was so detailed and specific that most reporters probably couldn't get the punchlines down. The whole thing might as well have never happened.
It's a strange paradox. Research shows that when presented objectively and without labelling, Americans agree with the ideas and policies espoused by the Democrats, so much so that the Republican have taken to dressing up their programs in quasi-Democratic costuming to hide their true nature. They know that, if presented objectively for what they are, their ideas would be rejected soundly by most Americans, which is why they need the glitz and glitter, the trompe l'oeil and sleight-of-hand, the smoke and mirrors, the deception and craftiness and guile. And because they're so damned good at it, and have the major media in their pocket, they control the size, shape and scope of political discourse in this country, so that we're all always dancing to their music, always responding to their initiatives and re-acting on their terms.
We think that frankness, honesty, principles, integrity and sound thinking is enough to carry it off, and we're suspicious of the devices and deviousness of the opposition, but the plain fact of the matter is that the truth is no match for deception and show biz values, which are likely to carry the day more often than not. It's not that I think that Democrats need to lie and deceive the public in order to win, but if we don't start to use at least a modicum of razzle-dazzle and entertainment value in the presentation of our ideas, without stooping to outright chicanery, we're never going to win consistently.
absolutist
aggresive
anti-Constitutional
anti-intellectual
arrogant
authoritarian
blame-placers
blameworthy
blinkered
buckpassers
calculating
class warriors
clueless
compassionless
con artists
conniving
conscienceless
conspiratorial
corrupt
craven
criminal
crooked
culpable
damaging
dangerous
deadly
debased
deceitful
delusional
despotic
destructive
devious
disconnected
dishonorable
dishonest
disingenuous
disrespectful
dogmatic
doomed
fanatical
fantasists
felonious
hateful
heinous
hostile to science
hypocritical
ideologues
ignorant
immoral
incompetent
indifferent
inflexible
insensitive
insincere
irrational
isolated
kleptocratic
lacking in empathy
lacking in public spirit
liars
mendacious
misleading
mistrustful
non-rational
not candid
not "reality-based"
not trustworthy
oblivious
oligarchic
opportunistic
out of control
pernicious
perverse
philistine
plutocratic
prevaricating
propagandists
rapacious
relentless
reprehensible
rigid
scandalous
schemers
selfish
secretive
shameless
sleazy
tricky
unAmerican
uncaring
uncivil
uncompromising
unconstitutional
undemocratic
unethical
unpopular
unprincipled
unrealistic
unreliable
unrepresentative
unscientific
unscrupulous
unsympathetic
venal
vile
virtueless
warmongers
wicked
without integrity
wrong-headed
Thanks to: Breeze, Chuck, Ivan Raikov, Kaiju, Kathy, Roger, Shirley, S.M. Dixon
recently seen
i've got a little list...
Elliott Abrams
Steven Abrams (Kansas BofE)
David Addington
Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson
Roger Ailes (FNC)
John Ashcroft
Bob Bennett
William Bennett
Joe Biden
John Bolton
Alan Bonsell (Dover BofE)
Pat Buchanan
Bill Buckingham (Dover BofE)
George W. Bush
Saxby Chambliss
Bruce Chapman (DI)
Dick Cheney
Lynne Cheney
Richard Cohen
The Coors Family
Ann Coulter
Michael Crichton
Lanny Davis
Tom DeLay
William A. Dembski
James Dobson
Leonard Downie (WaPo)
Dinesh D’Souza
Gregg Easterbrook
Jerry Falwell
Douglas Feith
Arthur Finkelstein
Bill Frist
George Gilder
Newt Gingrich
John Gibson (FNC)
Alberto Gonzalez
Rudolph Giuliani
Sean Hannity
Katherine Harris
Fred Hiatt (WaPo)
Christopher Hitchens
David Horowitz
Don Imus
James F. Inhofe
Jesse Jackson
Philip E. Johnson
Daryn Kagan
Joe Klein
Phil Kline
Ron Klink
William Kristol
Ken Lay
Joe Lieberman
Rush Limbaugh
Trent Lott
Frank Luntz
"American Fundamentalists"
by Joel Pelletier
(click on image for more info)
Chris Matthews
Mitch McConnell
Stephen C. Meyer (DI)
Judith Miller (ex-NYT)
Zell Miller
Tom Monaghan
Sun Myung Moon
Roy Moore
Dick Morris
Rupert Murdoch
Ralph Nader
John Negroponte
Grover Norquist
Robert Novak
Ted Olson
Elspeth Reeve (TNR)
Bill O'Reilly
Martin Peretz (TNR)
Richard Perle
Ramesh Ponnuru
Ralph Reed
Pat Robertson
Karl Rove
Tim Russert
Rick Santorum
Richard Mellon Scaife
Antonin Scalia
Joe Scarborough
Susan Schmidt (WaPo)
Bill Schneider
Al Sharpton
Ron Silver
John Solomon (WaPo)
Margaret Spellings
Kenneth Starr
Randall Terry
Clarence Thomas
Richard Thompson (TMLC)
Donald Trump
Richard Viguere
Donald Wildmon
Paul Wolfowitz
Bob Woodward (WaPo)
John Yoo
guest-blogging
All the fine sites I've
guest-blogged for:
Be sure to visit them all!!
recent listening
influences
John Adams
Laurie Anderson
Aphex Twin
Isaac Asimov
Fred Astaire
J.G. Ballard
The Beatles
Busby Berkeley
John Cage
"Catch-22"
Raymond Chandler
Arthur C. Clarke
Elvis Costello
Richard Dawkins
Daniel C. Dennett
Philip K. Dick
Kevin Drum
Brian Eno
Fela
Firesign Theatre
Eliot Gelwan
William Gibson
Philip Glass
David Gordon
Stephen Jay Gould
Dashiell Hammett
"The Harder They Come"
Robert Heinlein
Joseph Heller
Frank Herbert
Douglas Hofstadter
Bill James
Gene Kelly
Stanley Kubrick
Jefferson Airplane
Ursula K. LeGuin
The Marx Brothers
John McPhee
Harry Partch
Michael C. Penta
Monty Python
Orbital
Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger
"The Prisoner"
"The Red Shoes"
Steve Reich
Terry Riley
Oliver Sacks
Erik Satie
"Singin' in the Rain"
Stephen Sondheim
The Specials
Morton Subotnick
Talking Heads/David Byrne
Tangerine Dream
Hunter S. Thompson
J.R.R. Tolkien
"2001: A Space Odyssey"
Kurt Vonnegut
Yes
Bullshit, trolling, unthinking knee-jerk dogmatism and the drivel of idiots will be ruthlessly deleted and the posters banned.
Entertaining, interesting, intelligent, informed and informative comments will always be welcome, even when I disagree with them.
I am the sole judge of which of these qualities pertains.
E-mail
All e-mail received is subject to being published on unfutz without identifying names or addresses.
Corrections
I correct typos and other simple errors of grammar, syntax, style and presentation in my posts after the fact without necessarily posting notification of the change.
Substantive textual changes, especially reversals or major corrections, will be noted in an "Update" or a footnote.
Also, illustrations may be added to entries after their initial publication.
the story so far
unfutz: toiling in almost complete obscurity for almost 1500 days
If you read unfutz at least once a week, without fail, your teeth will be whiter and your love life more satisfying.
If you read it daily, I will come to your house, kiss you on the forehead, bathe your feet, and cook pancakes for you, with yummy syrup and everything.
(You might want to keep a watch on me, though, just to avoid the syrup ending up on your feet and the pancakes on your forehead.)
Finally, on a more mundane level, since I don't believe that anyone actually reads this stuff, I make this offer: I'll give five bucks to the first person who contacts me and asks for it -- and, believe me, right now five bucks might as well be five hundred, so this is no trivial offer.