Polling watch, Gallup now has the two candidates gap narrowing to 1 point (their poll is a 7 day rolling average, I should add). These two sentences at the start of this post are also the only good news for the GOP today.
So, anyone in the 47% who don't pay federal income tax believes they're entitled to everything under the sun and all vote Obama (despite that of this 47%, 60% of them are in low-paid jobs and not getting many entitlements and a further 20% are pensioners, a key right-wing voting group). Also, the Palestinian people have no interest in middle eastern peace and Iran is likely to be trying to attack the US with dirty bombs in Chicago.
This groundbreaking news came from Romney at a fundraiser. I mean, even if he believes that sort of thing the idiocy of saying it is incredible. I don't know if it will change the game much in terms of votes, but certainly the Middle East stuff makes the man more of a laughing stock abroad than insulting our Olympics etc already made him. It does seem stupid to be implying that a group that includes war veterans, many of the lowest paid and most struggling workers, and previously hardworking pensioners are all layabouts who want to rely on the state.
Also read an interesting article pointing out that Fox News is employing several people who directly advise the Romney campaign to comment on the election - and not in their capacity as election advisers, as independent analysts. John Bolton (advises Romney on foreign policy, paid by Fox to analyse foreign policy), Jay Sekulow (legal analysis for Fox, conservative liason in the Romney campaign), Walid Phares (foreign policy and security advice for Romney, analyses Middle Eastern affairs for Fox), Karl Rove (runs a large Super PAC that spends money for Romney, analyses politics for Fox) and Elaine Chao (who has now left Fox, but her patch there overlapped with her position as a National Chair of Romney's campaign). None of this is, of course, illegal, and most of these guys aren't being paid by Romney strictly speaking, but it calls into question Fox's reputation for independence and it would seem a damn sight wiser to draw a clear distinction - if you're an advisor to a political campaign or a leader of a super PAC it seems reasonable that news organisations should be required to state that. It's not like there aren't other conservative pundits in the world, and even if I want to watch Fox I think there may be better people to independently analyse the impact of Karl Rove's advert campaigns than Karl Rove (yes, this actually happened).
Still not hearing much from Johnson or Stein on the news sites, sadly.
And as my final update, as well as the Presidential debates we are apparently going to get Jon Stewart VS Bill O'Reilly in October, which should be a laugh.
Poll