Andrew, look up Romney's interview with Mark Halperin from yesterday, take note of his “born again Keynesian” comments about not making major near-term spending cuts because it will reduce the GDP and lead to a new recession. Then, compare to primary era comments about spending cuts, stimulus policy and, most importantly, his support for the Ryan Plan (which is intended to cut about half a trillion each year).

And, of course, the fact that Zeke worked for Lieberman in 2008 means he's probably not the most pro-Obama guy around anyway…

Alternately, Buzzfeed intentionally skews its coverage to the right because getting links from sites like the Drudge Report and HotAir produce more unique visitors (and thus, revenue). Obviously, no one actually visits Buzzfeed itself for the political coverage and Buzzfeed Politics certainly wasn't created to produce hard-hitting journalism. Buzzfeed Politics exists to attract different demographics to view the more pop culture-oriented paid content on other sections of the site. In other words, its sole function is to get Buzzfeed links on political blogs/aggregators, and given that Drudge is far and away the most popular politics aggregator that doesn't already have an existing business relationship with Buzzfeed (i.e., HuffPost), that means most of the content it produces is Drudgebait. Moreover, given the political climate, conservatives are somewhat more likely to post political links on their Facebook/Twitter pages… at least to the extent that they're currently more energized and interested in the political situation at the moment (due to anti-incumbent sentiment always being noticeably stronger and more obsessive than pro-incumbent sentiment). At the start, it wasn't quite so obvious, but as the Buzzfeed Politics experiment went on and baiting Drudge traffic proved the most effective means of attracting visitors, the Drudgebait became more aggressive and blatant (with ridiculous headlines like the one attached to this article). Just compare an article with a Drudge link to one that does not receive a Drudge link. The article without a Drudge link will have, at best, maybe a dozen or so comments, usually zero. Articles with a Drudge link will often have 3 full pages of Buzzfeed comments in addition to hundreds of Facebook comments. It's where the money is and the “bias” follows the money.

The promise was silly because it was unnecessary. Every proposed bill is posted to Thomas.gov from the beginning of the process and proposed changes are meticulously detailed. Sites like OpenCongress do the same while offering links to analysis, comment sections, etc.

GOOD NEWS FOR MCCAIN

“GOP: Artur Davis Is Welcome to Run as a Republican… Just Not in Alabama Because, Well, You Know…”

Quinnipiac is one of the lowest rank pollsters of the past few election cycles, barely outperforming Research 2000 (who were later exposed as fraudsters who simply fabricated results by guessing). The pollsters to follow for state-level polling are SurveyUSA, PPP and Rasmussen (though Ras did poorly in 2010 congressional races, his state-level presidential polls are usually fairly accurate). Not coincidentally, they're all robo-pollsters (unlike Quinnipiac and most of the newspaper polls) which have proven to be vastly superior in recent election cycles. But hey, this one had Obama losing, so of course, it gets the Drudgebait Seal of Approval from Zeke Miller.

OK, fifth response, but if you want a direct admission of the intent of the Southern Strategy, look up some of the interviews with Kevin Phillips (Nixon's campaign strategist) from the early 70's. He directly states that the key to an emerging Republican majority is securing the vote of “Negrophobes” who are anxious about blacks moving into their neighborhoods and competing for their jobs (i.e., the loss of white economic privilege). He also directly connects the emerging “state's rights” rhetoric in the party with Southern resentment of federal intervention against segregation. He even wrote a book, “The Emerging Republican Majority” that mapped it all out. Now, it's true that national Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act, and interestingly, Phillips argued that preservation of Civil Rights and Affirmative Action was itself a key part of the Southern Strategy as increased economic opportunities among blacks and the emergence of black politicians as the face of the Southern Democratic Party would accelerate the “Negrophobe” conversion to the GOP. And it doesn't end with Phillips. Lee Atwater, a Reagan strategist, was also quite open about it. In a 1981 interview, he said:  Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.  Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?  Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can't say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. So yeah, not lies, just history, and while we've mostly moved beyond it now, these obsessions with imaginary “race wars” that consume some elements of the Republican Party are most certainly a vestige of that history.

Bush ran negative ads against Kerry. Clinton ran negative ads against Dole. Reagan ran negative ads against Mondale. LBJ ran negative ads against Goldwater. With the exception of Washington (who ran unopposed), every incumbent president in American history attacked their reelection opponent. Short version: your argument is kind of stupid.

Sorry for the fourth response… buuuut it's also certainly a fact that, in office, Nixon contradicted nearly every aspect of his campaign rhetoric. He also ran as a “small government,” anti-anti-war candidate then ended the war, created the EPA and tried to pass a universal health care system far, far to the left of Obamacare. In fact, purely in terms of policy, Nixon is probably my second or third favorite president of the 20th century (BONUS OPINION: Clinton was the 2nd or 3rd worst). His rhetoric was awful, but his policies were very progressive (in keeping with earlier incarnations of the GOP). However, it's also true that Nixon's liberalism contributed heavily to emerging frustration in the new GOP coalition which, in turn, led to the rise of Reagan who far more faithfully embodied the new Republican coalition in both words and action.