The Most Important Voter in America

A lot of people laughed at this news last week, but if only she lived in a swing state, Lindsay Lohan would be the perfect example of why Barack Obama’s on the verge of losing this election:

Lohan is a low information voter convinced that (a) employment is really important, (b) thinks that employment is not being sufficiently handled by the White House right now and (c) thinks that Mitt Romney is better equipped to handle employment.
That arguably logical sequence is all that it takes for a low-information voter to support Mitt Romney. The thing is, there are millions of voters like her. That should terrify the Obama campaign.

Matthew Cochrane feigns outrage at the characterization of Lindsay as a “low-information voter,” but contrary to what you might think, the term is not necessarily synonymous with stupid.

A “low-information voter” is simply someone who doesn’t pay a lot of attention to politics. Whereas most people who read blogs like this are political junkies, the typical “swing” voter isn’t. People who tend to vote only in presidential elections — never a primary, and rarely if ever in an off-year — aren’t stupid, they’re just busy with other things: Jobs, families, DUIs, court hearings, probation, rehab . . .

These people show up in polls as “don’t know”/”don’t care” most of the time. They’re not all into the issues, they’re not glued to the tube watching cable news 24/7, but they feel a patriotic duty to vote in presidential elections and they tend to ignore politics until a month or so before Election Day, when they say to themselves, “OK, which one of these clowns am I going to vote for?”

The basis of their decisions may seem simplistic to us political junkies, but this is just how regular Americnas think, and the simplicity of Lindsay Lohan’s logic — “Hey, the economy sucks and Mitt’s a business guy who might know how to fix this problem” — doesn’t mean she’s wrong or stupid. Sometimes things are both simple and true. Look at the latest headline from USA Today:

Swing States poll: Women push Romney into lead

It’s as simple as three words: Chicks dig Mitt.

Further Proof That Chicks Dig Mitt UPDATE: @Tawny_Kitaen, Too? OMG!

The so-called “gender gap” is caused by ugly women who feel rejected by successful men, whereas the really smart, sexy, confident chicks are wild about the Mittser:

Four years ago, Lindsay Lohan referred to Obama’s Presidential victory as “amazing,” but cut to 2012, and it seems the “Mean Girls” star has had a serious change of heart.
“I think unemployment is very important for now, so as of now I think (my vote) is Mitt Romney,” Lohan told reporters, including FOX411’s Pop Tarts, at the Mr. Pink Ginseng Drink Launch Party Los Angeles on Thursday night.
Lohan also hinted at mysterious underlying motives for supporting the GOP candidate and turning her back on Obama under wraps. . . .
“It’s a long story, but you’re going to have to wait for that,” she remarked . . .
Last month, the troubled actress went as far as to tweet the President requesting he “cut taxes for those who need it: middle-class families, small businesses” as well as “those that are listed on Forbes as ‘millionaires’.”

(Via Memeorandum.) Of course, I understand that some readers may be puzzled by this: Hitherto, this blog has treated Lindsay Lohan as just another celebrity bimbo, a troubled starlet whose personal foibles (and impressive cleavage) were fodder for humorous jibes. This is admittedly true — but she just endorsed Mitt Romney, so now she’s our celebrity bimbo, and that makes all the difference in the world.

We love you, Lindsay, and we hope you’ll help persuade other sexy starlets to see the light. “Rule 5: Hollywood Hotties for Mitt”!

Readers may want to hit my tip-jar, so I can get some on-the-scene coverage of this Important New Development in the 2012 campaign. IYKWIMAITYD.

 




 

UPDATE: Folks, I think we’ve got a trend happening:

Udpdate II (Smitty): welcome, Instapundit readers!

‘All Is Proceeding as I Have Foreseen’

So says Vodkapundit, observing that “RCP moved MI and PA into the tossups this morning,” which I hadn’t noticed, but it’s one of the necessary preconditions for a full-blown liberal freakout.

Disaster is now coming at Democrats from multiple unexpected directions. Yesterday, Bob Belvedere observed that “James O’Keefe and his Mission: Impossible crew have done it again,” and what they did is what I call impact reporting: News that results in action, in this case the firing of DNC official Stephanie Caballero:

The Democratic National Committee has terminated the employment of Houston, Texas, Organizing For America Regional Field Director Stephanie Caballero after she was caught on camera calling voter fraud “cool” and “so funny” while advising a presumably-liberal voter how to vote twice.
In a comment to the liberal Talking Points Memo, DNC spokeswoman Melanie Roussell accused James O’Keefe and Project Veritas of selectively editing their videos – but admitted that what Caballero did on his tape was wrong and she’s now been fired.
“There is obviously a history here of making selective use of taped material, and we will certainly not vouch for the completeness of what was released,” Roussell said. “However, what we saw was enough for us to take the action that we did.”

Once again, as with the ACORN sting, O’Keefe is accused of “selectively editing” video, without anyone expecting Democrats to produce evidence to support the accusation: What did O’Keefe allegedly edit out? Never mind — the DNC simply makes the accusation to provide an ironclad excuse for any reporter at a mainstream news organization who wants to ignore the story: “Oh, this isn’t really news because, selective editing!”

Hey, Scoop: If this is all a ginned-up nothingburger — if the unsubstantiated charge of “selective editing” automatically disqualifies it as newsworthy — why did Caballero get fired?

Unanswered (and usually, unasked) questions like that were what used to annoy the hell out of Andrew Breitbart, and rightly so. Leave aside entirely the question of a professional journalist’s obligations. Just normal human curiosity would make ordinary people ask questions: What’s going on with Democrats and voter registration? Is it true that many hundreds of people have been documented as voting illegally in two states during the same election year? What, if anything, are Democrats doing to prevent this? Or is it all just a bunch of ginned-up phony outrage? Like I say, this is the kind of stuff that ordinary people find interesting, and which you might think an editor at the Washington Post or the New York Times or CBS News would therefore find worthy of further reporting: “Hey, this is kind of weird and it might make for an interesting story, let’s assign somebody to poke around and see what they can dig up.”

But . . . no.

It’s frustrating, because you have the sneaking suspicion that if the mainstream media ever devoted serious effort to such stories, the result would be a lot more interesting than the dreck they usually produce. And it used to make Andrew Breitbart very angry:

Toward the end of the new movie Hating Breitbart, there is a scene that captures the essence of what the late New Media entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart did — and how he did it. The camera follows Breitbart as he makes his way up Capitol Hill, past the crowd at a 2010 Tea Party rally where the founder of Breitbart.com was about to give a speech. “Hey, Andrew, remember me?” says a man amid the throng on the opposite side of the crowd-control barricade. “I’m the one who sent you that video … the nine-second clip.”
Breitbart knew exactly which clip the man was talking about, and remembered the online moniker of the amateur cameraman who sent it: “Marooned in Marin, right?”
The significance of that moment isn’t explained in the movie, as director Andrew Marcus is content to let viewers connect the dots for themselves when Breitbart takes the stage to give one of his many impassioned speeches. While he was at times credited with singlehandedly destroying the mainstream media’s suffocating liberal stranglehold on news, Breitbart always understood that his work depended on people like Marooned in Marin who sent him e-mail tips, including videos and photos, that exposed the untold truths that too many professional journalists were willing to ignore. And so when he stood on the stage in front of the Capitol that September afternoon in 2010, Breitbart pointed to the audience and told them, “You are the army!”
Marcus’s camera then captures Breitbart’s reaction, after he leaves the stage to cheers and applause, telling a friend that he didn’t have any idea what he was going to say until he started talking. That’s how it was with Breitbart — a master of improvisation, an impulsive personality who learned to turn his attention deficit disorder into an asset. The astute viewer of Hating Breitbart recognizes that the chance encounter with Marooned in Marin (whose name Breitbart had stored in his amazing memory) triggered the thought that led to the inspirational words he spoke on stage that day at the Tea Party rally. And every new day brings fresh reminders of how the inspiration has outlived the man who died in March at age 43. . . .

Please read the rest at The American Spectator. You’re sure as hell never going to read anything like it in the New York Times.

 

Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World!

Obama Official on Vote-Fraud Scheme: ‘This Is So Funny. It’s Cool Though.’

What if you’re registered to vote in a swing state, but you’ve moved to a state that’s not in play for the presidential election? No problem, according to Stephanie Caballero, a DNC employee who is also a regional field director in Texas for Obama’s Organizing For  America:

“So I spent some time in Florida, and I got my voter registration card for Florida. So and I know that we have you know it’s a battleground state there,” the Project Veritas reporter said to Caballero.
“Keep it, keep it… so you’re going to vote by ballot?” Caballero responded. . . .
The videographer responded: “Yeah, I don’t want to get in trouble. But like I said, if no one’s going to know I don’t have a problem with it, yeah. So anyway, but…”
Caballero then said: “Oh, my God. This is so funny. It’s cool though.” . . .
After Caballero sets the videographer up to vote in Florida, she asked the Project Veritas investigator: “Are you going to do what I think you’re going do?”
The videographer responded: “Well, I mean, if no one’s gonna know…”
Caballero audibly laughed, then said: “You’re so hilarious!”

Watch the video:

(Hat tip: Memeorandum.) Darn that James O’Keefe and his crafty hidden cameras! How dare they catch Democrats telling the truth about their indifference to vote fraud. What kind of evil person would link O’Keefe’s Project Veritas and urge you to hit their tip jar for $100?

 

Will Ryan Hold Biden Accountable?

Michelle Malkin reminds us of something:

Remember when President Obama bragged about Joe Biden’s fiscal discipline cred in 2009? “To you, he’s Mr. Vice President, but around the White House, we call him the Sheriff,” Obama warned government employees. “Because if you’re misusing taxpayer money, you’ll have to answer to him.”
Fast-forward to 2012. Call in the search teams. Since being appointed the nation’s stimulus spending cop, Sheriff Joe has taken a permanent donut break. He’s AWOL on oversight. In fact, he’s been bubble-wrapped, boxed and kept completely out of sight. The garrulous gaffe machine hasn’t sat down for a national media interview in five months.
The Democrats’ trillion-dollar “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” however, keeps piling up waste, failure, fraud and debt. Who benefited most? Big government cronies. . . .

Read the whole thing. Malkin makes an excellent point: If Biden was supposed to have been the enforcers of fiscal discipline, he’s been an abject failure and the scandals surrounding, for example, “nearly 4,000 stimulus recipients who received $24 billion in Recovery Act funds — while owing more than $750 million in unpaid corporate, payroll and other taxes.”

Maybe Paul Ryan will bring this up Thursday night.

UPDATE: Speaking of “big government cronies,” did you know that Barack Obama was a guest at the wedding of ABC’s Martha Raddatz, who will moderate Thursday’s debate. No bias there!

Is ‘Full-Figured’ an Insult?

As opposed to, for example, “Holy kamoley, look at the incredible size of the ginormous hooters on that redhead“?

Mad Men star Christina Hendricks has slammed a reporter for being rude after she was asked whether she has inspired other women with her ‘full figure’.
The 37-year-old TV star was offended when asked about her curvy shape, getting her publicist to ask the journalist to rephrase her question. . . .
Kate [Waterhouse, fashion editor for Sydney’s Sun-Herald newspaper] asked: ‘You have been an inspiration as a full-figured woman. What is the most inspiring story that you can remember where you’ve inspired someone?’
Seeming a little flustered at the question, Christina replied: ‘Um, I don’t know… I’m sorry.’ . . .
According to E! Online, Christina later said off-camera, ‘I think calling me full-figured is just rude.’

(Via WeSmirch.) Obviously, the fashion editor meant to praise the famously curvaceous Ms. Hendricks as having served as a sort of celebrity role model for women whose shape doesn’t match the usual skin-and-bones fashion-industry standard of beauty. 

Furthermore, I think “full-figured” is both reasonably accurate and far less rude than some terms that might have been used if any of Ms. Hendricks’s male fans — and c’mon, guys, we’re all fans, aren’t we? — were given a chance to interview her.

In other celebrity news Continue reading Is ‘Full-Figured’ an Insult? →

‘Someone Trying to Breathe Life into a Three-Year Old Dead Horse’

Thus does John Fund dismiss an attempt by Nadia Naffe to create controversy around James O’Keefe III over a planned “sting” video that never happened, as embarrassing as the details may be.

O’Keefe, as you certainly know, is the young activist who became famous for his collaboration with Hannah Giles in the 2009 undercover videos that destroyed ACORN, and which sparked the successful launch of Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website. Naffe is a former Republican operative who worked with O’Keefe until, in March of this year, she accused O’Keefe of sexual harassment and worse.

Naffe had been “terminated” by the Florida GOP in 2004, which led to a lawsuit that, if O’Keefe knew about it before he hired her, should have given him pause. Who would knowingly hire anyone whose former employment resulted in litigation? And this is especially true of someone whose work would require a high degree of confidentiality.

So now Naffe has made herself a weapon with which O’Keefe’s enemies seek to destroy him. She has made league with Neal Rauhauser — assisting Rauhauser in an attempt, on behalf of Brett Kimberlin, to get access to e-mails that Naffe wrongfully obtained from O’Keefe — and is now apparently ready to file a lawsuit against Patrick “Patterico” Frey:

Rauhauser has been obsessed with Patterico for more than a year, going back to the 2011 WeinerGate scandal, when Rauhauser (under his “Stranded Wind” alias) published a series of posts at Daily Kos accusing Patterico of all manner of wrongdoing:

It was in the aftermath of the WeinerGate scandal that Rauhauser evidently joined forces with Brett Kimberlin and Kimberlin’s tax-exempt 501(c)4 group Velvet Revolution. Kimberlin had his own grievance against Patterico dating back to October 2010, when Kimberlin threatened a lawsuit against Patterico.

Similarly, both Rauhauser and Kimberlin had been striving for some time to destroy Andrew Breitbart and James O’Keefe, which is how Nadia Naffe’s complaints against O’Keefe brought this together with their grievances against Patterico. When Naffe made her accusations against O’Keefe in March, Patterico raised questions about Naffe’s story and subsequently discovered the public-record documents relating to her 2004 lawsuit against the Republican Party.

Patterico’s criticism of Naffe and his publication of those documents is, so far as I can tell, the only grounds for complaint Naffe has against him and I can’t imagine any court finding Patterico guilty of anything, but this lawsuit is just another typical product of the Kimberlin-Rauhauser “accuse the accusers” strategy. Once they target someone, the accusations proliferate endlessly as part of an orchestrated effort to discredit anyone who might accuse them of wrongdoing. (See my June 17 article, “‘Scrubbed’ Writings Show Kimberlin Associate Neal Rauhauser’s Obsessions,” for some relevant examples.)

Remember that Rauhauser solicited the same California attorney, Jay Leiderman, in an attempt to get SWATting target Mike Stack to file a nuisance suit against Patterico.

It is most unfortunate that Rosie Gray of Buzzfeed has assisted O’Keefe’s enemies in what is, in fact, nothing more than the latest manifestation of a bizarre personal vendetta. “Dead horse” though the story may be, innocent people still suffer real harm from these deliberate attacks. Assisting sadists in the satisfaction of their depraved appetites is not properly the business of a journalist.

UPDATE: Linked by Jackie Wellfonder and Bill Hoge — thanks! — and thanks likewise to the commenter who points out that Jay Leiderman is also the attorney who represents imprisoned former “Anonymous” spokesman Barrett Brown.

Brown’s involvement with Rauhauser became public last month when Barrett threatened me, then published a series of private online chats he had with Patterico, evidently in an effort to defame Patterico as being party to a (wholly imaginary) conspiracy.

Brown’s motives in that incident are impossible to determine, nor do we know what (if anything) connects that failed smear with Barrett’s subsequent public meltdown that led to his arrest. Absent such knowledge we can only observe that, in general, bad things happen to people who actively ally themselves with evil.

 

Democrat Sluts Can’t Do Math

The image above is one of the “e-Cards” available at BarackObama.com that offers a phony statistical argument for ObamaCare:

Dear Mom,
Mitt Romney says he would repeal the Affordable Care Act.
So here’s a quick question:
Can I borrow $18,000 to help pay for my birth control?
Thanks!

Whoa! $18,000 for birth control? If that number sounds strangely large to you, join the club. Conservative college student Christine Rousselle does the math, based on the simple fact that there are 14,600 days between the ages of 12 and 52:

Because our letter-writer has been reduced to asking her mom for money, we’re going to assume that she’s not very well off and she’s a bargain hunter. On Amazon.com, one can purchase a fishbowl filled with a variety pack of 144 Durex brand condoms for $25.89. Assuming she’d use one condom per day every single day between the ages of 12 and 52, that only equals $2,624.96 for 14,600 Durex condoms. For those of you who aren’t great at math, $2,624.96 is far less than $18,000. She’d have to be using around four or five condoms a day for 40 years for that number to even approach $18,000.
Suppose our cash-strapped friend prefers to use the birth control pill instead of condoms. In 41 states, she can get the pill for $9 a month at a Target or Walmart. That totals $108 per year, and $108 multiplied by 40 is $4,320, which still winds up less than $18,000. In the nine other states, the cost per month is around $30, which reaches around $14,400 over 40 years. These figures assume that our letter-writer plans on using birth control pills over the full length of time that she is able to get pregnant.

Using birth control every single day for 40 years, a slut’s total cost is still not $18,000 in a lifetime. So even if she’s putting out like a Pez dispenser — and, after all, she’s a Democrat, IYKWIMAITYD — she’ll have plenty of cash left over for vodka and Newports.

Another conservative student, Inez Feltscher, explains that to reach the $18,000 number, the Democrat propagandists assume that a woman will need “high risk AIDS testing”:

 

 

 

So the moral of the story: If you’re a slut who can’t do math — and you’re dumb enough to date Bill Maher — vote Obama!

 
Update (Smitty): glad I made it home to figure out what Blutarsky was on about. I’m looking at the Twitter client on the ‘droid phone and just rolling with whatever arrives: