Lexington for independents

The Economist's Lexington columnist wrote in the Feb. 14th issue that independents may determine the next president. Perhaps. Lexington's conclusion is not so much the issue.  His or her reasoning is. That and the cheap shots. 

Lexington begins by calling George Bush the "polarizer-in-chief," an unnecessary assertion having nothing to do with the central theme. Next, he or she mentions Arnold Schwarzenegger, suggesting Arnold's "post-partisanship" makes him what? Quicker? Faster? Stronger? Then Lexington cites Colin Powell, who supposedly said he would vote for the presidential candidate who will "do the best job for America," as if that were a unique thought.  

Arnold and Colin are personalities but neither has been inspiring in his second career. It could be argued that both prove the truth of the Peter Principle. Bush is no more polarizing than Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, either Clinton, Carter, Kerry, Gore or any other Democrat. 

Lexington goes on to argue that Republicans, "by a chapter of accidents," may have "stumbled" into nominating a man who may appeal to independents, though the "silver-tongued" "Obama sounds the themes that most appeal to independents." We're lucky Lexington isn't biased.