On Thursday, the Drudge Report splashed a video of an undentified woman who claims to have recieved a free “Obama Phone.”

The video has captured the attention of the right online, who see it as proof that Obama supporters are dependent on government. On his show today, Rush Limbaugh weighed in:

So these are the people that don’t like Romney because of what he said about 47%? No, these are the 47%!… She knows. She knows how to get this free Obama phone. She knows everything about it. She may not know who George Washington is or Abraham Lincoln, but she knows how to get an Obama phone.

Thousands of conservatives are on Twitter, telling jokes about the #ObamaPhone.

There is one problem with the Obama Phone: It doesn’t exist.

Since 2009, there has been an urban myth that Obama created a program to provide free phones to low-income Americans at taxpayer expense. There is, in fact, a government program that will provide low-income people with a free or low cost cell phone. It was started in 2008 under George W. Bush.

The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized phone service was originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.) The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, not through tax revenue.

Senate candidate Todd Akin (R-MO), who is still trying to make it up to women since he suggested that victims of “legitimate rape” cannot become pregnant, blew another hole in his pro-woman persona on Thursday when he said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is not as “ladylike” as she was in 2006.

In an interview with the Kansas City Star, Akin implied that a woman taking an agressive stance in a competitive election is somehow unpalatable, expressing apparent displeasure not with McCaskill’s politics, but with her personality:

“I think we have a very clear path to victory, and apparently Claire McCaskill thinks we do, too, because she was very aggressive at the debate, which was quite different than it was when she ran against Jim Talent,” Akin said. “She had a confidence and was much more ladylike (in 2006), but in the debate on Friday she came out swinging, and I think that’s because she feels threatened.”

Akin’s been trying to get back on track with his female constituency and Republicans alike since he blew past the September 25 deadline to drop out of the election. He just launched a “Women for Akin” group last week.

As nearly every major public opinion poll puts President Obama ahead of Mitt Romney, conservative pundits’ new favorite accusation is that the polls are biased because the media is oversampling Democrats. On Thursday, Romney’s senior adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom, repeated this line on Fox News to explain why the polls couldn’t be trusted:

FEHRNSTROM: Some of these polls have been called into question because they assume a higher Democratic turnout in 2012 than we experienced in 2008. I don’t know of any campaign operative or political scientist in the country who thinks Democrats are going to show up in the same number as they did four years ago.

Watch it:

The oversampling of Democrats has become a common complaint in the past week, particularly in reaction to a CBS/New York Times/Quinnipiac poll that showed Obama leading significantly in many swing states. But this oversampling, as Business Insider argues, can likely be attributed to the fact that there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in the country. Republicans also point to independents favoring Romney, which includes the 40 percent of Tea Party members who identify as independent voters. Even adjusting for this disparity and assuming Democrats, Republicans and independents show up in equal numbers, Obama maintains a lead. Not satisfied with these numbers, a new website has popped up to “unskew” polls’ alleged liberal media bias — which puts Romney ahead in every poll.

Though turnout in 2008 was indeed extraordinarily high, the number of minority voters, who historically lean Democratic, has grown to 29 percent of the electorate. Romney would need 61 percent of the white vote to win the election without these minority voters. However, voter suppression efforts that were not a factor in 2008 — in the form of voter ID laws, voter purges, and poll watchers — could hinder many low-income, minority and elderly voters on Election Day this year.

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) denied manmade climate change in a debate this week against his congressional challenger Ami Bera (D).

Responding to a question about global warming, Lungren claimed there’s a “question” on whether climate change is caused by human activity:

LUNGREN: There is no doubt that there is global change, climate change. The question is who causes it and is it caused predominantly by human activity. It seems to me we ought to take reasonable steps but not steps that so put us in a disadvantageous situation economically that we will have less jobs. There’s those that cry about their concern for jobs and then support the very things that would absolutely destroy jobs. We have an example of that in the current administration that I believe is supported by my opponent to try and basically ruin the coal industry in the United States, losing us tens of thousands of jobs instead of pursuing the cleanest technology in the area of coal. [...]

MODERATOR: So you’re suggesting the global warming change may not be caused by manmade sources?

LUNGREN: No, my suggestion is we don’t know to what extent it is and to what extent moves we would take on our own in the United States would have an effect. At the same time I believe it makes good common sense to try and reduce carbon emissions where possible, as I’ve done in the U.S. capitol.

Watch the clip:

Lungren is part of the camp of Republicans with close ties to the oil and coal industries, and attempt to cast doubt on the science. But there is firm scientific consensus that carbon pollution is driving global warming, with 97 percent of published climate scientists in agreement.

The oil and gas industry has donated more than $147,000 to Lungren’s campaign since 2006, including $10,000 contributions from Koch Industries and Chevron PACs, based on Open Secrets data. He’s received thousands more from the coal industry.

While Lungren denied climate change, he promoted coal industry-sponsored myths of a “War on Coal” and “clean coal.”

The congressman has faced heat before on climate change. At a town hall meeting in August, a constituent confronted Lungren, saying “I’m horrified that you would ignore scientific evidence just to appease the moneyed interests of big oil which gives generously to your campaign.” Meanwhile, Lungren’s home state has suffered from damaging wildfires and extreme heat this summer.