Gallup Daily tracking results just in. Obama will be below 50% for the first time when we update our numbers at 1pET. http://bit.ly/F3Izu

Two-thirds of Americans disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court rather than a military court, according to a new national poll.

But six in 10 people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday say that the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks should be tried in the United States, as the administration plans to do, rather than at a U.S. facility in another country.

The poll indicates that 64 percent believe Mohammed should be tried in military court, with 34 percent suggesting that he face trial in civilian court. Six in 10 people questioned say Mohammed should be tried stateside, with 37 percent calling for the trial to take place at a U.S. facility in another country.

“The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in front of a civilian court is universally unpopular – even a majority of Democrats and liberals say that he should be tried by military authorities,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Despite that, most Americans say that he will get a fair trial in the U.S.”

Not sure what Holland’s point is here. Of course he would get a fair trial, but the majority of respondents, in a CNN poll for gods sake, understand that giving this scumbag a civilian trial is ludicrous:

Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.

Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.

~~~

Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.

This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the “blind Sheikh”), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.

In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.

Bin Laden, who was on the list, could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be.

It’s crazy. Simply crazy.

Even more harmful to our national security will be the effect a civilian trial of KSM will have on the future conduct of intelligence officers and military personnel. Will they have to read al Qaeda terrorists their Miranda rights? Will they have to secure the “crime scene” under battlefield conditions? Will they have to take statements from nearby “witnesses”? Will they have to gather evidence and secure its chain of custody for transport all the way back to New York? All of this while intelligence officers and soldiers operate in a war zone, trying to stay alive, and working to complete their mission and get out without casualties.

And the other poll is about ObamaCare. Notice how the AP tries to hide some inconvenient numbers with a article entitled “AP POLL: Tax the rich to pay for health bill”

…what the Associated Press does not even mention in their story is probably the most relevant part:

In general, do you support, oppose or neither support nor oppose the health care reform plans being discussed in Congress? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE Is that strongly support/oppose or somewhat support/oppose?

To no surprise that’s opposed by 43-41%. Eleven percent neither support or oppose and 4% “don’t know.”

Also conveniently left out of their story is the response to whether people should be penalized if they do not buy the government-run health care: Sixty-four percent oppose. Why do you suppose that was left out?

Also left out was of the respondents, 37% are unemployed or retired. No wonder they want someone to pick up the tab.

Forty-two percent think they economy will get worse if this scam is shoved down our throats, while 28% think it will improve. Again, this is left out of the story.

Also, over the past five years, 86% of respondents said the care they received from physician or hospital was excellent or good, only 2% said it was poor. This was left out of the AP story. So why do we have to blow up the entire system?

That’s a couple different polls on the two hot button issues of the day which Obama and company should take heed….but won’t. Now granted, the opinions of a thousand people cannot tell us accurately the sentiments of the entire country but when two liberal rags take a poll and the numbers go against the liberal position….the liberals should take notice.

“See – we have a problem,” Matthews said. “How do we know when someone like Hasan is going to make his move and do we know he’s an Islamist until he’s made his move? He makes a phone call or whatever, according to Reuters right now. Apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?’ That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?”

I love it how Dr. Jasser is trying to get a word in, and the host just goes on and on….and on with his blathering ramble. Just unbelievable to watch this news guy tie himself up in knots, trying to rationalize and come to terms with the fact that Islam played an influential role in Nidal Hassan’s murderous act of terrorism, and all the signs for taking preemptive action were present, yet ignored for fear of being branded racist/bigoted/intolerant/discriminating/etc. Thank you PC!

Here are 34 Clues for Chris Matthews:

1. At the shooting, Hasan first bowed his head in prayer and then shouted “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great) as he shot over 50 soldiers in a calm and measured manner.

2. Store video the morning of the shooting shows Hasan wearing a traditional Muslim WHITE robe and hat. He had began wearing Arabic/Muslim-style clothing in recent weeks.

3. Hasan handed out Qurans to his neighbors a few days before and the day of the shooting, including giving a Quran to his neighbor at 9 am the day of the shooting, telling her, “I’m going to do good work for God” before leaving for the base. Here is the AP photograph taken on Friday, Nov 6 in Killeen, Texas showing the Quran and the business card that Hasan gave to his neighbor the day of the shooting.

4. A recent convert to Islam described how he frequently prayed with Hasan at the town mosque after Hasan was deployed to Fort Hood in July. They last worshipped together at predawn prayers on the day of the massacre when Hasan “appeared relaxed and not in any way troubled or nervous.”

5. Hasan told the convert that the ‘war on terror’ was really a war against Islam. Hasan also expressed anti-Jewish sentiments and defended suicide bombings.

6. During dinner the night before the shooting, Hasan felt he should not go to Afghanistan, that he was supposed to quit. “In the Koran, it says you are not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christians, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell.”

7. Hasan’s deceased parents were Palestinians immigrants from the West Bank/Jordan. Hasan’s father was 16 years old when he immigrated to America and later operated a bar and grill in Roanoke, VA.

8. On a form Hasan filled out at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Maryland, he gave his nationality not as “American” but as “Palestinian.” Yet he was born in Arlington, Virginia on 8 Sep 1970. (See Allegiance in a Time of Globalization, DOD PERSEREC, Dec 2008)

9. Hasan has family in the Middle East, including a grandfather, uncle and cousins which he and they would visit each other.

10. Hasan’s cousin in the Palestinian city of Ramallah, Mohammad Munif Abdallah Hasan, said the Army major had wanted to leave the military because he felt disrespected over his religion.

11. His cousin said: “If he had killed one or two, I could say that he was defending himself. I could say that there could have been a problem between two sides which led to the use of weapons.”

12. Hasan visited websites espousing radical Islamist ideas.

13. Hasan made these kinds of statements to coworkers: Muslims have the right to rise up against the U.S. military. Muslims have a right to stand up against the aggressors. He spoke favorably about people who strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.

14. Hasan gave a presentation to military masters degree students in which he argued the war on terrorism was a war against Islam. This was in an environmental health class at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, MD. When challenged about what does his topic has to do with environmental health, Hasan became agitated, sweaty, nervous and emotional.

15. Hasan “made himself a lightning rod by making his extreme views known to everyone.”

16. Hasan was “put on probation early in his postgraduate work” and was “disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues.”

17. Hasan was a “very devout” member of and daily visitor to the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Md. Attended prayers at least once a day, seven days a week. (See Saudi Publications On Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques. Important reading for security professionals)

18. A friend who also attended the mosque said, “He was my role model when it came to the Islam life. He was so devout. He would come to the early morning prayers — even in the summer when it began at 4 am or 5 am, the early prayers I wouldn’t go to, he would be there.”

19. Hasan wrote “Allah” on his door in Silver Spring, MD according to his neighbor.

20. Hasan wrote an internet posting defending suicide bombers: “…..Suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory…..”

21. At the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, MD, he asked for feedback about a talk he had prepared for his Army supervisors on the role of Muslims in the military. Hasan argued that if military duties contradicted a soldier’s religion, the soldier should be released from duty.

22. After 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Hasan seemed to grow more disenchanted with his duties. “He did not talk war or politics, but he did tell me once the war started that what he worried most about was having to fight against other Muslims. He did not feel it was right.”—Friend at Muslim community center

23. Hasan attended two matchmaking events at his Muslim community center to find a “good Muslim woman” for his wife but he “had too many conditions” for his match . He wanted a very religious wife who adheres to the Quran, wore the hijab and prayed five times a day. First preference was an Arab woman followed by someone of Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi descent.

24. Hasan avoided contact with his female coworkers. Refused to be photographed for an office Christmas photo since women were in the photo.

25. Hasan worshiped at the Texas mosque each day at 6 am, and often prayed there five times a day, especially during the holy month of Ramadan. (See Saudi Publications On Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques)

26. Hasan had been mentoring an 18-year old Catholic man on the ways of Islam. Only once during their 12 meetings did Hasan NOT talk about religion. Hasan told this man that Muslims shouldn’t be in the U.S. military, because obviously Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims. He told him not to join the Army.

27. At the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, Hasan told his fellow military master degree students, “I’m a Muslim first and an American second.” (See Allegiance in a Time of Globalization, DOD PERSEREC, Dec 2008)

28. Hasan gave an hour-long talk on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC. He said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats. That non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire.

29. Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about Islam.

30. During a conversation with a leader of the Texas mosque he attended, Hasan seemed obsessed with the question of what to tell Muslim soliders about fighting fellow Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

31. Hasan attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists.

32. This mosque was led by radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki said to be a ‘spiritual adviser’ to three of the hijackers who attacked America on 9/11. al-Awlaki was born in the US but now lives in Yemen. He is an al-Qaeda supporter who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures on Islam.

33. Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas.

34. Today (9 November 09), al-Awlaki wrote on his blog a post titled, “Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing.”

“Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.
…..Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.
The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former.
The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right — rather the duty — to fight against American tyranny.
Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.
Allah(swt) says: Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment……May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance and steadfastness and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act. Ameen.”

Among the reader comments to his post:

• “May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance and steadfastness and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act.”
• “That’s the first thing that came to my mind, may Allah reward this man for his bravery. Allah has enlightened him with his duty unlike the hypocrites of this age and time. May he be accepted as a shaheed.”
• “May Allah give brother Nidal ease and may Allah give pain to the enemies.”

34 “clues”, probably more to come.

Incidentally, Zuhdi Jasser, who considers himself a devout Muslim, believes in the virtues of profiling:

If more Muslims had the same pro-active attitude as AIFD, rabidly attacking Islamism and political Islam rather than being apologists and deniers for it and playing the victim card, it would go a long way to quelling some of the anti-Islam sentiments. Instead, those Muslims who fear a backlash only encourage such backlash to occur every time they make excuses for Islamic terror and deny that their faith has any role to play in this.

This from a CNN poll of all places:

Of course CNN spins away with this headline:

CNN Poll: Public wants Congress to keep working on health care

Puhlease….

…only a quarter say those bills should be passed pretty much as is, with a third suggesting that Congress should make major changes. The poll also indicates that one in four say lawmakers should start from scratch and 15 percent want Congress to stop all work on health care reform.

The survey’s release Friday morning comes one day before the full House of Representatives is expected to hold a floor vote on the Democrats health care reform bill.

“Most of the Democrats interviewed support some form of heath care reform, but the divisions within congressional Democrats are reflected in the party nationwide,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Forty percent of the Democratic rank and file want Congress to approve the proposals that have passed through committee with only minor changes. But an equal number of Democrats nationwide want Congress to make major changes to those proposals before approving them.”

~~~

“Six in ten independents say they oppose Obama’s health care proposals,” says Holland. “That’s a nine point increase since October.”

The Obama shine is fading fast and it won’t save his vision of a socialist utopia. What a difference a year makes eh? Charles Krauthammer:

Sure, Election Day 2009 will scare moderate Democrats and make passage of Obamacare more difficult. Sure, it makes it easier for resurgent Republicans to raise money and recruit candidates for 2010. But the most important effect of Tuesday’s elections is historical. It demolishes the great realignment myth of 2008.

In the aftermath of last year’s Obama sweep, we heard endlessly about its fundamental, revolutionary, transformational nature. How it was ushering in an FDR-like realignment for the 21st century in which new demographics — most prominently, rising minorities and the young — would bury the GOP far into the future. One book proclaimed “The Death of Conservatism,” while the more modest merely predicted the terminal decline of the Republican Party into a regional party of the Deep South or a rump party of marginalized angry white men.

This was all ridiculous from the beginning. The ‘08 election was a historical anomaly. A uniquely charismatic candidate was running at a time of deep war weariness, with an intensely unpopular Republican president, against a politically incompetent opponent, amid the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression. And still he won by only seven points.

Exactly a year later comes the empirical validation of that skepticism. Virginia — presumed harbinger of the new realignment, having gone Democratic in ‘08 for the first time in 44 years — went red again. With a vengeance. Barack Obama had carried it by six points. The Republican gubernatorial candidate won by 17 — a 23-point swing. New Jersey went from plus-15 Democratic in 2008 to minus-four in 2009. A 19-point swing.

~~~

November ‘08 was one shot, one time, never to be replicated. Nor was November ‘09 a realignment. It was a return to the norm — and definitive confirmation that 2008 was one of the great flukes in American political history.

The irony of 2009 is that the anti-Democratic tide overshot the norm — deeply blue New Jersey, for example, elected a Republican governor for the first time in 12 years — because Democrats so thoroughly misread 2008 and the mandate they assumed it bestowed. Obama saw himself as anointed by a watershed victory to remake American life. Not letting the cup pass from his lips, he declared to Congress only five weeks after his swearing-in his “New Foundation” for America — from remaking the one-sixth of the American economy that is health care to massive government regulation of the economic lifeblood that is energy.

~~~

…Just last month Gallup found that conservatives outnumber liberals by 2 to 1 (40 percent to 20 percent) and even outnumber moderates (at 36 percent). So on Tuesday, the “rump” rebelled.

They fail to report on some pretty significant drops in the poll….drops that if it had been swung the other way would of been in big bold letters:

Fifty-four percent of respondents to the latest CNN poll disapprove of Barack Obama’s performance on the economy, a 17-point swing in six weeks. That isn’t the worst of the poll, either; 57% now disapprove of Obama’s performance on health care, a 19-point swing in that same time.

~~~

a 17-point reversal on the economy and a 19-point reversal on health care would be, well, news. One has to wonder why neither get mentioned in a report on the popularity of a president whose central issues are health care and the economy. The rapid disintegration of his popularity on these positions will have enormous implications for Obama’s ability to push his agenda through Congress in both arenas, and also on the midterm elections a year from now if this becomes a trend.

In fact, it’s hard to find an issue where Obama has not lost ground:

• Economy – 46%/54%, was 54%/45%
• Foreign affairs – 51%/47%, was 58%/38%
• Health care – 42%/57%, was 51%/47%
• Afghanistan – 42%/56%, was 49%/46%
• Taxes – 49%/50%, was 52%/42%
• Helping the middle class – 50%/49%, was 67%/32% (six months ago, last time question asked)

His numbers stayed roughly the same on Medicare, with just a rounding difference. Otherwise, Obama has lost serious ground on every issue, mainly over the last six weeks.

17 point and a 19 point swing into the disapproval area and nary a peep in the article. Ed also notes they fail to note the party identification numbers. Quite telling.

Another quite telling note about the poll. His approval rating on nearly every issue has declined but he is still approved of by 54% as a whole?

Bradley effect?

Following up on Rothenberg’s column, I called Jon to ask for his take on the congressional election. He made so many interesting points that I asked him to reiterate them briefly in a message for Power Line readers. Jon writes:

To recap our discussion of NY-23, I have done three surveys for the Club for Growth. The initial survey was conducted at the very outset of the race, before any advertising was done by anyone. At that time, “Republican” Dede Scozzafava held a narrow lead. But it was apparent that her lead would not withstand the heat of battle.

About half of her support came from Democrats in the Watertown area who knew her pro-labor, liberal voting record and liked it. The other half came from Republicans who did not know about her liberal record but were supporting her because she was the Republican candidate. Once Democrats quickly learned that they could vote for a real Democrat, Bill Owens, they left Scozzafava. And once Republicans learned how liberal her record was, and that they had a conservative alternative in Doug Hoffman, they also left Scozzafava.

What remains is a close race between Owens and Hoffman, with Scozzafava continuing to collapse. Financially, Hoffman is in good shape, thanks largely to the Club for Growth and online donations. The DCCC, AFSCME, and SEIU are now 100 percent negative against Hoffman in their TV ads, which is proof of the closeness of the race.

What remains of Scozzafava’s vote is still about 2:1 Republican, so Hoffman has a good chance of growing further. But it’s a close one that could go either way.

Ironically, the one person who is doing the most harm in the race is Newt Gingrich. Scozzafava has no chance to win any longer. By Newt signaling to conservatives that it’s okay to support Scozzafava, he is making it more likely that Owens wins.

Even the NRCC understands this, as they have wisely limited their advertising message to attacking Owens rather than promoting Scozzafava. If Hoffman wins, and he very well might, it will be a great victory for the conservative movement, and a great lesson to the Republican Party.

Not sure what in the hell Newt is thinking. When the day comes that conservatives vote for someone just because he is Republican, and for no other reason ie: having a real conservative background, then we know we are sunk as a party.

UPDATE

New York Governor Pataki:

That is why tonight, I’m proud to endorse Doug Hoffman, a Republican, running on the Conservative line for Congress in the 23rd Congressional District.

His endorsement comes on his other recent endorsements from Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Congressman Todd Tiahrt, Congressman John Linder, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Senator Jim DeMint, Dick Armey, and many others.

Stimulus jobs overstated by thousands
By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and MATT APUZZO
Associated Press
Oct 29,2009

WASHINGTON (AP) – An early progress report on President Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.

The government’s first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.

The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

For example:

- A company working with the Federal Communications Commission reported that stimulus money paid for 4,231 jobs, when about 1,000 were produced.

- A Georgia community college reported creating 280 jobs with recovery money, but none was created from stimulus spending.

- A Florida child care center said its stimulus money saved 129 jobs but used the money on raises for existing employees.

There’s no evidence the White House sought to inflate job numbers in the report. But administration officials seized on the 30,000 figure as evidence that the stimulus program was on its way toward fulfilling the president’s promise of creating or saving 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year.

The reporting problem could be magnified Friday when a much larger round of reports is expected to show hundreds of thousands of jobs repairing public housing, building schools, repaving highways and keeping teachers on local payrolls.

~~~

…

Here are some of the findings:

- Colorado-based Teletech Government Solutions on a $28.3 million contract with the Federal Communications Commission for creation of a call center, reported creating 4,231 jobs, although 3,000 of those workers were paid for five weeks or less.

“We all felt it was an appropriate way to represent the data at the time” and the reporting error has been corrected, said company president Mariano Tan.

- The Toledo, Ohio-based Koring Group received two FCC contracts, again for call centers. It reported hiring 26 people for each contract, or a total of 52 jobs, but cited the same workers for both contracts. The jobs only lasted about two months.

The FCC spotted the problem. The company’s owner, Steve Holland, acknowledged the actual job count is closer to five and blamed the problem on confusion about the reporting.

The AP’s review identified nearly 600 contracts claiming stimulus money for more than 2,700 jobs that appear to have similar duplicated counts.

Where are the three million plus jobs that Obama promised?

Should we trust the same government officials when they promise health care will cover more people and cost less?

What a laugh!

So what’s their excuse today, now that they are witnessing President Obama’s executive leadership in action? Well, for one, more Americans are discovering their inner conservative. If 8 years of President Bush in no small measure lost us the ‘08 election and set the conservative movement one step back, President Obama in one year’s worth of governance will most likely cost the Democrats 2010 (actually, Dems in Congress who choose to ignore the voices of their constituency will lose seats) and propel conservatism two steps forward.

The other side of this is that Obama supporters might not have jumped ship yet, because they have not been keeping up on the issues, other than to read the latest DNC talking points and Kos misinformation. According to the latest Pew Research Center’s latest News IQ Quiz. Mary Katharine Ham blogs:

Under a section called “Partisan Knowledge Gap,” we find Republicans were more knowledgeable by a double-digit factor on four issues. Although the Glenn Beck question is naturally easier for Republicans, the other three issues are basic political knowledge— what “cap-and-trade” means, who’s in control of the House, and who the new Supreme Court Justice is (a question that should perhaps be easier for Democrats). Republicans also led Democrats on identifying the unemployment rate, Fed chairman, Dow level, Max Baucus’ position. Republicans correctly answered an Iran/Israel question and an Afghanistan question more often than Dems. Republicans and Democrats were even on identifying the “public option” as a health-care plan.

But take heart, Democrats: You lead Republicans by five points on a whopping one question.

Take it for what it’s worth, with a grain of salt. But still, a nice bit of irritant to rub under the skin of liberal Democrats.

Hat tip: Patvann

CNN’s Ratings Falling Faster than Obama’s

from Powerline

CNN, which pioneered cable news, now rates dead last among cable news networks. Prime time ratings are down 68 percent since last year. Of course, much of that is due to 2008 being an election year, but CNN’s fall relative to the other news networks can’t be blamed on the election cycle.

Can some of CNN’s decline, at least, be attributed to the network’s liberalism in general and its attacks on and sniggering denigrations of, normal Americans? It’s hard to tell. But sniggerer-in-chief Anderson Cooper’s ratings are sliding into the toilet. (The midsummer blip was Michael Jackson’s death.):

CNN apparently has tried to market its on-air personalities by having them participate in the television show Jeopardy, thereby showing off their superior intelligence. That hasn’t worked out too well either. If the network really gets desperate, it could consider covering the news straight. But that isn’t likely: look how many newspapers have preferred to go bankrupt rather than abandon their liberal bias.

And the fun is not limited to the Communist News Network.

US newspaper circulation down 10.6 percent as rate of decline accelerates amid rising prices

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Circulation at newspapers shrank at an accelerated pace in the past six months, driven in part by stiff price increases imposed by publishers scrambling to offset rapidly eroding advertising sales.

Average daily circulation at 379 U.S. newspapers plunged 10.6 percent in the April-September period from the same six-month stretch last year, according to figures released Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

It’s the largest drop recorded so far during the past decade’s steady decline in paid readership — a span that has coincided with an explosion of online news sources that don’t charge readers for access. Many newspapers also have been reducing delivery to far-flung locales and increasing prices to get more money out of their remaining sales.

The latest decline outstripped a 7.1 percent decrease in the October 2008-March 2009 period and a 4.6 percent decline in last year’s April-September window.

As both publications indicated earlier in the month, The Wall Street Journal surpassed USA Today as the top-selling newspaper in the United States. The Journal’s average Monday-Friday circulation edged up 0.6 percent to 2.02 million — making it the only daily newspaper in the top 25 to see an increase.

USA Today suffered the worst erosion in its 27-year history, dropping more than 17 percent to 1.90 million. The newspaper, owned by Gannett Co., has blamed reductions in travel for much of the circulation shortfall, because many of its single-copy sales come in airports and hotels.

The New York Times stayed in third place at 927,851, down 7.3 percent from the same period of 2008. Its Sunday edition remained the top weekend seller at 1.4 million, a decrease of 2.6 percent.

Sunday circulation at all the newspapers covered in the ABC survey fell 7.5 percent in the latest six-month span.

The circulation numbers are just the latest sign of distress in the shrinking newspaper industry.

Newspapers are trying to recover from a steep drop in advertising revenue — traditionally their main source of money. The worst U.S. recession since World War II and the lure of the Internet have combined to make the industry’s annual ad revenue $20 billion less than it was three years ago.

To compensate, many of the nation’s largest publishers are raising the subscription rates and newsstand prices for their print editions.

Some newspapers also are planning to charge for access to at least some sections of their Web sites. Besides bringing in more revenue, the online fees could cause more people to keep subscribing to the print editions if fewer stories are available for free on the Web. But it would also threaten to shrink their online audiences, making it more difficult to sell the Internet ads that are gradually replacing some forms of marketing in print.

Although higher prices for print editions alienate some readers, enough of them are footing the bill to funnel more money to newspapers.

For instance, circulation revenue at The New York Times Co. and another major newspaper publisher, McClatchy Co., climbed by 7 percent during the summer, even though they both lost subscribers.

Bringing in more money from readers is now more important than trying to preserve circulation, according to Mark Adkins, president of the San Francisco Chronicle. His newspaper suffered a nearly 26 percent drop in circulation in the April-September period to 251,782. But the remaining subscribers collectively pay the Chronicle more than its much larger audience did in the previous year, Adkins said.

The Chronicle now charges $7.75 per week for home delivery, up from $4.75 in the previous year. Weekday copies sell for $1 on the newsstand, up from 75 cents.

“The new circulation revenue has become an important part of our business model,” Adkins said. “We are pretty pleased.”

The Dallas Morning News attributes about half of the 22 percent decline in its weekday circulation to higher prices. The newspaper, owned by A.H. Belo Corp., averaged circulation of 263,810 during the period. Despite the erosion, the Morning News now gets about 40 percent of revenue from circulation, up from the industry’s traditional average of 20 percent.

“While we knew our reported circulation would be down, the key was that we were growing circulation revenue significantly,” said Morning News Publisher Jim Moroney.

Both the San Francisco Chronicle and The Dallas Morning News say they are investing their additional circulation revenue in improvements aimed at retaining their remaining audiences — with the hope the advertisers will want to connect with a more engaged and loyal group of readers. There’s a potential downside, too: If newspaper circulation keeps tumbling, advertisers may demand rate cuts and could even shift more of their marketing budgets to media that reach more people.

Other newspapers such as the Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News have curtailed their home delivery schedules to save money. Since March 30, Detroit’s two biggest dailies have limited home delivery to Thursdays, Fridays and Sundays — the editions that sell the most advertising. Readers can get electronic versions of the newspapers on the other days or buy a print copy on newsstands.

The Free Press, the bigger of the two newspapers, ended the latest reporting period with average weekday circulation of 269,729, down 9.6 percent from last year.

A few newspapers, mostly smaller ones, added subscribers during the reporting period. Of all the newspapers with a paid circulation of more than 50,000, the York Daily Record in Pennsylvania saw the biggest increase — rising 16.5 percent to 55,370. The newspaper’s publisher and managing editor didn’t return messages Monday.

AP Business Writer Barbara Ortutay in New York contributed to this story.
The link is here.

No one is more deserving of a career change then the lying media, save perhaps the Dems….

GOP officials: We won’t abandon Dede

The National Republican Congressional Committee remains committed to embattled GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava in the upstate New York House special election, even as many of the party’s top names throw their support to Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman.

Two party officials tell POLITICO that the NRCC will continue to air TV ads propping up Scozzafava in the days leading up to the Nov. 3 contest and plans to keep up a near relentless barrage of press releases slamming Hoffman.

Scozzafava, a state assemblywoman who supports gay marriage, abortion rights and has a close relationship with leading labor officials in her region, has been the target of sustained criticism from conservatives who claim she is too liberal for them to support her candidacy.

Hoffman, an accounting executive, is attracting an ever-growing group of conservative backers, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) have also endorsed the third-party candidate.

Public and private polls have shown Hoffman gaining on Scozzafava but both trail the Democratic nominee, attorney Bill Owens.

The link is here.

What the fools at the helm of the wayward GOP fail to realize is that their whole strategy is wrong?

Why? Yes, it is true that more people identify themselves as Dems then Republicans:

Fewer People Identify As Republicans Than Ever Before In Post Poll

Reporting on the new ABC/Washington Post poll has mostly focused on support for a public health care option. But the poll also shows that, while Republicans have succeeded in stonewalling Democratic initiatives in Congress, they have not managed to rebuild their party.

Only 20 percent of respondents identified themselves as Republicans — the lowest number since the paper starting asking the question.

But it is also true that:

Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group Compared with 2008, more Americans “conservative” in general, and on issues

PRINCETON, NJ — Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

Which is Why:

73% of GOP Voters Say Congressional Republicans Have Lost Touch With Their Base

President Obama told an audience at a Democratic Party fundraiser Wednesday night that Republicans often “do what they’re told,” but GOP voters don’t think their legislators listen enough to them.

Just 15% of Republicans who plan to vote in 2012 state primaries say the party’s representatives in Congress have done a good job of representing Republican values.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 73% think Republicans in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters from throughout the nation. Twelve percent (12%) are undecided.

And which is why the GOP continues to do poorly in almost every poll.

It’s as simple as that.

Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

~~~

Conservatism is most prevalent among Republicans. However, the overall increase in this ideological stance since 2008 comes largely from political independents, among whom 35% say they are conservatives thus far in 2009 — compared with 29% last year. Independents have also become more conservative on a number of specific policy issues, including government and union power, the role of government relative to promoting values, gun laws, immigration, global warming, and abortion. Republicans, most of whom considered themselves ideologically conservative in 2008, have also grown more conservative on several of these issues this year, while less change is seen among Democrats.

All of this has potentially important implications at the ballot box, particularly for the 2010 midterm elections. The question is whether increased conservatism, particularly among independents, will translate into heightened support for Republican candidates. Right now, it appears it may. Although Gallup polling continues to show the Democratic Party leading the Republican Party in Americans’ party identification, that lead has been narrowing since the beginning of the year and now stands at six points, the smallest since 2005.

And as Obama and company try to push our country further to the left we will continue to see polls like these:

Bob McDonnell, Virginia’s Republican nominee for governor, holds an 11 percentage point lead over Democrat Creigh Deeds, according to a new Washington Post poll released Monday.

McDonnell, the former state attorney general, leads Deeds 55 percent to 44 percent in the Post poll, a two point increase since the last survey. Deeds’s support remained static at 44 percent in both polls, but McDonnell has cut into the number of undecided voters to pad his lead over the Democratic state senator.

Obama pushes us to Socialism and America will push back. Conservative values like a strong foreign policy, fiscal restraint, pro-capitalism and pro-business become the mainstream once again, as it should be.

As President Obama met with Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, who apparently belong to real news stations who don’t push a point of view, U.S Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) delivered a message to the President of the United States and the White House, Wednesday morning on the Senate floor:

Based upon that experience and my 40 years since then in and out of public life, I want to make what I hope will be taken as a friendly suggestion to President Obama and his White House, and it is this: Don’t create an enemies list.

As I was leaving the White House in 1970, Mr. Harlow was heading out on the campaign plane with Vice President Spiro Agnew, whose job was to vilify Democrats and to help elect Republicans. The Vice President had the help of talented young speechwriters, the late Bill Safire and Pat Buchanan. In Memphis, he called Albert Gore, Sr., the “southern regional chairman of the eastern liberal establishment,” and then the Vice President labeled the increasingly negative news media as “nattering nabobs of negativism.”

These phrases have become part of our political lore. They began playfully enough, in the back and forth of political election combat. But after I had come home to Tennessee, they escalated into something more. They eventually emerged into the Nixon’s enemies list.

In 1971, Chuck Colson, who was then a member of President Nixon’s staff and today is admired for his decades of selfless work in prison reform, presented to John Dean, the White House Counsel, a list of what he Dean called “persons known to be active in their opposition to our administration.” Mr. Dean said he thought the administration should “maximize our incumbency…[or] to put it more bluntly” — and I am using his quotes — “use the available Federal machinery to screw our political enemies.”

On Colson’s list of 20 people were CBS correspondent Dan Schorr, Washington Star columnist Mary McGrory, Leonard Woodcock, the head of the United Auto Workers, John Conyers, a Democratic Congressman from Michigan, Edwin Guthman, managing editor of the Los Angeles Times, and several prominent businessmen, such as Howard Stein of the Dreyfus Corporation, Arnold Picker, vice president of United Artists. The New York Times and the Washington Post were made out to be enemies of the Republic.

Make no mistake, politics was not such a gentlemanly affair in those days either. After Barry Goldwater won the Presidential nomination in 1964, Daniel Schorr had told CBS viewers that Goldwater had “travel[led] to Germany to join up with the right wing there” and “visit[ed] Hitler’s old stomping ground.” Schorr later corrected that on the air. What was different about Colson and Dean’s effort, though, was the open declaration of war upon anyone who seemed to disagree with administration policies. Colson later expanded his list to include hundreds of people, including Joe Namath, John Lennon, Carol Channing, Gregory Peck, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Congressional Black Caucus, Alabama Governor George Wallace. All this came out during the Watergate hearings. You could see an administration spiraling downwards, and, of course, we all know where that led.

The only reason I mention this is because I have an uneasy feeling only 10 months into this new administration that we are beginning to see the symptoms of this same kind of animus developing in the Obama administration.

According to Politico, the White House plans to “neuter the United States Chamber of Commerce,” an organization with members in almost every major community in America. The chamber had supported the President’s stimulus package and defended some of his early appointments, but has problems with his health care and climate change proposals.

The Department of Health and Human Services imposed a gag order on a large health care company, Humana, that had warned its Medicare Advantage customers that their benefits might be reduced in Democratic health care proposals — a piece of information that is perfectly true. This gag order was lifted only after the Republican leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, said he would block any future nominees to the Department until the matter was righted.

The White House communications director recently announced that the administration would treat a major television network, FOX News, as “part of the opposition.” On Sunday, White House officials were all over talk shows urging other news organizations to boycott Fox and not pick up any of its stories. Those stories, for example, would include the video that two amateur filmmakers made of ACORN representatives explaining how to open a brothel. That is a story other media managed to ignore until almost a week after Congress decided to cut ACORN’s funding.

The President himself has not stopped blaming banks and investment houses for the financial meltdown, even as it has become clear that Congress played a huge role, too, by encouraging Americans to borrow money for houses they could not afford. The President was “taking names” of bondholders who resisted the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts. Insurance companies, once allies of the Obama health care proposal, have suddenly become the source of all of its problems because they pointed out — again correctly — that if Congress taxes insurance premiums and restricts coverage to those who are sicker and older, the cost of premiums for millions of Americans is likely to go up instead of down. Because of that insubordination, the President and his allies have threatened to take away the insurance companies’ antitrust exemption.

Even those in Congress have found ourselves in the crosshairs. The assistant Republican leader, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, said to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the stimulus plan wasn’t working. The White House wrote the Governor of Arizona and said: If you don’t want the money, we won’t send it. Senator McCain said this could be perceived as a threat to the people of Arizona.

Senator Bennett of Utah, Senator Collins, Senator Hutchison and I, as well as Democratic Senators Byrd and Feingold, all have questioned the number and power of 18 new White House czars who are not confirmed by the Senate. We have suggested this is a threat to constitutional checks and balances. The White House refused to send anyone to testify at congressional hearings.

Senator Bennett and I found ourselves “called out,” as they say, on the White House blog by the President’s communications director.

Even the President, in his address to Congress on health care, threatened to “call out” Members of Congress who disagree with him.

This behavior is typical of street brawls and political campaign consultants. It is a mistake for the President of the United States and for the White House staff. If the President and his top aides treat people with different views as enemies instead of listening to what they have to say, they are likely to end up with a narrow view and a feeling that the whole world is out to get them. And, as those of us who served in the Nixon administration know, that can get you into a lot of trouble.

This administration is only 10 months old. It is not too late to take a different approach, both at the White House and in Congress. And here is one opportunity: At the beginning of the year, shortly after the President’s inauguration, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, addressed the National Press Club. He proposed that he and the President work together to make Social Security solvent.

Senator McConnell said he would make sure the President got more support in that effort from Republicans than President George W. Bush got from Democrats when he tried to solve the same problem.

President Obama held a summit on the dangers of runaway costs of entitlements. I was invited and attended. Every expert there said making Social Security solvent is essential to our country’s fiscal stability. There is still time to get that done.

Or on clean energy, Republicans have put forward four ideas — build 100 nuclear plants in 20 years, electrify half our cars and trucks in 20 years, explore offshore for low-carbon natural gas and for oil, and double energy research and development for alternative fuels. The administration agrees with this on electric cars and on research and development. We may not be so far apart on offshore exploration. At his town meeting in New Orleans last week, the President said the United States would be, in his words, “stupid” not to use nuclear power. He is right since nuclear power produces 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity.

So why don’t we work together on this lower cost way to address clean energy and climate change instead of enacting a national energy tax?

On health care, the White House idea of bipartisanship has been akin to that of a marksman at a State fair shooting gallery: hit one target and you win the prize. With such big Democratic majorities, the White House figures all it needs to do is unify the Democrats and pick off one or two Republicans. That strategy may win the prize but lose the country.

Usually on complex issues, the President needs bipartisan support in Congress to reassure and achieve broad and lasting support in the country.

In 1968, I can remember when President Johnson, then with bigger majorities in Congress than President Obama has today, arranged for the civil rights bill to be written in open sessions over several weeks in the office of the Republican leader, Everett Dirksen. Dirksen got some of the credit; Johnson got the legislation he wanted; the country went along with it. Instead of comprehensive health care that raises premiums and increases the debt, why should the White House not work with Republicans step by step to reduce health care costs and then, as we can afford it, reduce the number of Americans who do not have access to health care?

The President and his Education Secretary Arne Duncan have been courageous — there is no better word for it — in advocating paying teachers more for teaching well and expanding the number of charter schools. These ideas are the Holy Grail for school reform. They are also ideas that are anathema to the labor unions who support the President. President Obama’s advocacy of master teachers and charter schools could be the domestic equivalent of President Nixon going to China. I, among others, admire that advocacy and have been doing all I can to help him.

Having once been there, I can understand how those in the White House feel oppressed by those with whom they disagree; how they feel besieged by some of the media. I hope the current White House occupants will understand that this is nothing new in American politics — all the way back to the days when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson exchanged insults. The only thing new is today there are multiple media outlets reporting and encouraging the insults 24 hours a day.

As any veteran of the Nixon White House can attest, we have been down this road before, and it will not end well. An enemies list only denigrates the Presidency and the Republic itself.

Forty years ago, Bryce Harlow would say to me: Now, Lamar, remember that our job here is to push all the merely important issues out of the White House so the President can deal with a handful of issues that are truly Presidential. Then he would slip off for a private meeting in the Capitol with Democratic leaders who controlled the Congress and usually found a way to enact the President’s proposals.

Most successful leaders have eventually seen the wisdom of Lord Palmerston, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who said:

We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies.

The British writer Edward Dicey was once introduced to President Lincoln as “one of his enemies.” “I did not know I had any enemies,” Lincoln answered. And Dicey later wrote: “I can still feel, as I write, the grip of that great bony hand held out to me in token of friendship.”

In conclusion, here is my point. These are unusually difficult times, with plenty of forces encouraging us to disagree. Let’s not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list. Let’s push the street brawling out of the White House and work together on the truly Presidential issues — creating jobs, reducing health care costs, reducing the debt, creating clean energy.

In fact, the 9-point drop in the most recent quarter is the largest Gallup has ever measured for an elected president between the second and third quarters of his term, dating back to 1953. One president who was not elected to his first term — Harry Truman — had a 13-point drop between his second and third quarters in office in 1945 and 1946

~~~

More generally, Obama’s 9-point slide between quarters ranks as one of the steepest for a president at any point in his first year in office. The highest is Truman’s 19-point drop between his third and fourth quarters, followed by a 15-point drop for Gerald Ford between his first and second quarters. The largest for an elected president in his first year is Bill Clinton’s 11-point slide between his first and second quarters.

In Obama’s first quarter and second quarter, his job approval average compared favorably with those of prior presidents. But after the drop in his support during the last quarter, his average now ranks near the bottom for presidents at similar points in their presidencies. Only Clinton had a lower third-quarter average among elected presidents. (Gerald Ford averaged 39% during his third quarter in office, in 1975.)

Obama’s 53% third-quarter average is substandard from a broader historical perspective that encompasses all 255 presidential quarters for which Gallup has data going back to 1945. On this basis, Obama’s most recent average ranks 144th, or in the 44th percentile, clearly below average not just for presidents’ third quarters but for all presidents.

Ahhhhh, another historic milestone for this Campaigner-In-Chief. That title being bandied around by Reuters today. Maybe the White House thugs will tell Democrats to stay away from Reuters now eh?

(h/t Hot Air)

Case in point, Chris Good and his little diddy at The Atlantic, “It’s Not (overtly) About Race”.

Centerpiece to the headline, and content of his op-ed, is James Carville and Stanley Greenberg’s polling/strategy/research firm, Democracy Corps, and it’s 18 pg study, “The Very Separate World of Conservative Republicans: Why Republican Leaders will have Trouble Speaking to the Rest of America” released Oct 16th, 2009.

Here the disconnect between Good’s op-ed, and the actual content of the study begin. Good has chosen to focus on race and racism… and dances around the study’s finding that the discontent of “weak” partisans… Republican and Independents… appears to have nothing to do with race.

From the Carville groups research document:

Race: Get Over It

In the wake of Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst during the president’s joint session health care address and other strident personal and political attacks against President Obama, many in the media and Democratic circles advanced an explanation that this virulent opposition is rooted in racism and reactions to President Obama as an African American president. With this possibility in mind, we allowed for extended open ended discussion on Obama (including visuals of him speaking) among voters – older, non-college, white, and conservative – who were most race conscious and score highest on scales measuring racial prejudice.

Race was barely raised, certainly not what was bothering them about President Obama. In fact, some of these voters talked about feeling some pride at his election.

They were conscious of the charge that opposition to Obama is racially motivated and that bothered conservative Republicans and independents alike. They basically could not let it go and returned to this issue again and again throughout our conversations across myriad topics.

You can’t openly criticize Obama. If you do, you’ll be labeled as a racist.

Whatever we say about Obama, no matter what we say about him, it is a racial comment so you know, we can’t say anything, we personally do not like him. I don’t care if he is purple, but whatever we say we’re racist.

As far as a person goes, I don’t want to say I hate him. I don’t like what he stands for… and I don’t like what he is doing and the choices he is making, but I mean I don’t know him as a gentleman so… You would be called a racist. You would not like him because he is black. That is what the media is saying.

They see this as a personal rights issue because the racism charge is being used to prevent them from fulfilling their duty to stand up to Obama and his agenda. They see no difference in the opposition Obama faces and the opposition other liberals have faced, because they believe it is based in the same unwavering, bedrock conservative principles that have always led them to oppose liberal policies. The only factor that has changed is the race of the leader being criticized.

Indeed, in the summary introduction from a very liberal/progressive based firm, they discounted racism as the foundation for Obama discontent.

Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs – but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion – but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.

Bad juju for the devout community organizers, masquerading as reporters or journalists, in these times. To them, removing the ability to label opposition “racist” to advance their agenda is akin to sending a soldier out on the field armed with a water pistol.

So Chris Good leaps in on behalf of the O’faithful to start reinterpreting what staunch members of his own political bent have wrought. And he lays out his game plan in his headline by inserting the word, “overtly”.

This does not mean, conclusively, that racism is absent from anti-Obama politics. Asserting that’s the case means taking up a patently false assumption about racism: that it’s always overt. Democracy Corps’ report seems to walk that line, even if it doesn’t cross it.

Racism is about complex systems of recognition, categorization, and association. If you ask someone what they think about Obama, and they don’t say, “I dislike him because he’s black,” it’s not quite safe to check the “not racist” box and move on. Quiet conclusions are often made–and they can be just as racist as the ones spoken aloud.

So the fact that no one brought up race doesn’t necessarily force a conclusion on the matter.

Yowza… do you think Mr. Good is lobbying for a slot on the Norway Nobel Peace Prize committee? (i.e. “intent” and not “actions”) It’s not conclusive because racism isn’t always “overt”??

Or perhaps Mr. Good elevates himself to a more pious position as a deity, assuming that he… or others… can gaze into a soul and pronounce them “racists” despite any attitude or evidence to the contrary, merely because those feelings may not be “overt”.

Serious chutzpah. But even more laughable is the … if I may so say myself… *overt* desperation to backpeddle on a popular O’faithful weapon of words.

That’s all the time I intend to give to a perhaps-less-than-*overt*-potential-racist. But I will say the rest of the study conducted by Democracy Corps was downright interesting, tho not surprising.

I would anticipate the next twisting of results to center not in Good’s desperate attempt to resurrect racism, but to use it to cast the O’discontent as mildly conspiratorial…. an attempt that may prove difficult in light of Obama’s own track record (now that he *has* one).

Naturally, the first to jump on the “conspiracy” bandwagon is MSNBC

Yeah… what a surprise…. But now to the source of the spin. The study itself.

The study breaks the avenues of disagreement under “pillars”, “…driven by doubt and fear over his agenda and methods”:

Pillar #1 – Deception and a Hidden Agenda (pg 5 of 18)

Pillar #2 – Speed (pg 7 of 18)

Pillar #3 – Driving Government to the Brink and Total Control (pg 7 of 18)

Pillar #4 – The Ultimate Goal: Socialism and End to Liberties (pg 8 of 18)

Rather than place extensive blockquotes for each of these pillars, I urge you to read the study in full…. aka RTFA. But I will summarize, merely for discussion purposes.

Pillar #1 reveals these participants believe as Rush Limbaugh originally said… they are rooting for the failure to implement Obama’s policies because they do not believe them to be in the nation’s best interest. Most genuinely believe Obama’s own promise to “remake” America, and see his policies designed to thwart the very foundations of our country.

There is also distrust of Obama’s associations – which he has, in his own words, invited us to scrutinize. They are speaking specifically of those that have guided and directed Obama to the highest position in the nation.

The below, however, is a worthy quote from this “deception” pillar:

These conservative Republican base voters were not just shooting off half-cocked theories about conspiracies. They actively believe President Obama is purposely lying about his plans for the country and what his policies would do, and that he is exaggerating the threats America faces in order to create support for his policies. A key component to this deception is a pattern of always telling people what they want to hear, regardless of the truth.

Pillar #2 essentially substantiates Pillar #1… the speed with which Obama pressures Congress to push thru legislation in a willy nilly fashion, and sans debate and scrutiny not only in the chambers, but among the populus.

Pillar #3 is the belief that Obama’s accomplishments of the preceding pillars is the concerted effort to induce a greater reliance on government in all facets of our lives. Such dependence, accomplished by driving the country almost impossibly deep into debt, would result in the loss of liberties merely for economic survival. 92% believe Obama is a big spender, and only 17% believed he had good plans for the economy.

Key to the beliefs was the deep aversion to government control…. or as the study wanted to put it, fear of two things… government *and* control.

Fear of government control is at the heart of virtually all of the concerns raised by these voters about Obama’s agenda, and it is literally a fear of two things – government and control. They see government as inefficient, ineffective, and corrupt and believe it preys on the middle class and ‘hard-working Americans.’

~~~

Even more concerning than the waste and corruption of government for these voters is the inexorable movement of government toward controlling an ever increasing share of our economic marketplace, as well as our individual lives.

The beliefs of the first three pillars… an agenda of deception, the speed and secrecy of that agenda, an aversion to being controlled by an inefficient and wasteful government… bring the participants to Pillar #4 – the natural conclusion that ultimate government control will result in a socialized America.

They exhaustively cite examples of this strategy at work, starting with the bank bailouts, the takeovers of Chrysler and GM, and foreclosure assistance making homeowners dependent on government for their homes. Another example repeatedly raised by conservative Republicans that undoubtedly reflects the power of FOX News and conservative commentators among these voters was their concern over President Obama’s policy ‘czars’ wielding power over every issue with no accountability.

~~~

The final, and in many ways most important, piece of evidence they cite is the planned government takeover of health care. The notion that Obama’s health care reforms represent a government takeover of all aspects of health care is an article of faith; they reject as laughable the suggestion that it might not, pointing to his arguments to the contrary as further proof of his determination to lie and deceive to fulfill his ultimate agenda. Even after a description of the health care reform plan in our recent polling, these conservative Republican base voters reject it by a 59-point margin, with nearly two-thirds (64 percent) strongly opposed to reform (77 percent total opposed).

Also buried in Pillar #4 (pg 9) is notables about non-partisan independents expressing similar concerns as the Republican, such as the speed, the spending, and the lack of a clear plan on the economy and jobs. Some of the differences lie in beliefs that Obama would work in a bipartisan fashion, and see him as a strong (if not correct and defined) leader.

Guaranteed to bring liberal disdain is pg 11, where the participants state they believe they are better informed than most Americans.

Several of the women particularly talked about becoming a sort of truth police, spending a great deal of their personal time and energy watching FOX to get the real stories, then turning to CNN, MSNBC, and the networks to document their failure to cover the “real truth.” It was unclear what they did with this information once gathered, other than share it with others within this group.

When it came to the media, only Beck received adulation… most especially among the women. Limbaugh came in with mixed reviews:

Beyond FOX News in general, they have mixed feelings about conservative media figures, but they are grateful for talk radio as the only major outlet, other than FOX, where conservative voices can be heard. Rush Limbaugh, in particular, was greeted with mixed reviews. On the one hand, they recognize his role as a pioneer of sorts and view him as a principled conservative who is willing to speak his mind regardless of the consequences.

~~~

On the other hand, they believe his sensationalism and arrogance can obscure the power of the ideas he champions. They clearly embrace the message more than the messenger.

DOH! Someone better tell the liberals that Rush has lost his de facto “head of the Republican Party” to the Independent Glenn Beck… LOL

It’s also noted that the disappointment in the Republican Party is prevalent throughout the study.

Conservative Republicans in our groups could not have been more negative in discussing their own party. They see the Republican Party as ineffective and rudderless, controlled by a class of political professionals who have lost touch with not only the people but the conservative values that should guide them.

~~~

The disconnect these partisans see between the party leadership and the party faithful is at the root of their discontent. They have no intention of leaving the party per se – they still believe it is the best and only means of opposing Obama and the Democratic Congress – but they also have little confidence in its current direction or leadership, and there is an emotional distance that can be damaging.

Yes… one interesting study. And I have to applaud the heart of capitalism. I mean, someone actually paid for these guys to interview and write up viewpoints that anyone can read for free on any conservative blog… ahem, like Flopping Aces?

But I find it refreshing that Carville/Greenberg and their research finally led them to some truths… that this is *not* about race. It’s about questioning the less than honest and (dare I say it…) *overt* agenda, the speed of that agenda, the debt creating massive government dependence, and the lack of honesty about the end game.

And these are all legitimate issues that I believe most Americans have no qualms in discussing.

If FOX News had aired a White House infomercial on healthcare, would the White House have declared war on FOX News?

If Chris Wallace had decided FOX too would run a factcheck on a comedy skit, would FOX be in the White House cross-hairs?

If FOX had joined the rest of the MSM club in ignoring the Van Jones story and not aired the undercover videos of ACORN,

Perhaps if Sean Hannity got a thrill up his leg over Obamamania, then The One would not have snubbed FOX from inclusion in his 5 interview-weekend blitzkrieg.

But no…instead, FOX does a good deal of what the other star-struck networks have failed to do: Provide a critical look at the Obama Presidency and act in the role of a watchdog press.

62% say that criticism of political leaders is worthwhile because it keeps those leaders from doing things that should not be done, while 22% say such criticism keeps leaders from doing their jobs.

What if the MSM gave proper coverage vetting of candidate Obama in ‘08?

Posts to reflect upon:

UPDATED! The Ties That Bind…The NYT’s Kills Story To Protect Obama Before Election

VDH: MSM Unprofessional Lobbying For Obama Will, In A Decade Or Two, Become Case Study In Graduate Classes On Journalistic Ethics

Mark Halperin: MSM Bias For Obama Worst In Recent History

The WaPo Tries To Buy Back Some Of It’s Credibility

The Suppression Of Bad Obama News By Our MSM

Where Did the Public Get the Idea that McCain is Running A Negative Campaign?

Excellent commentary by Jim Pinkerton:

Transcript:

what is so striking to me about this is the number of liberal journalists or liberal observers who have said the white house is making a huge mistakes not just on the politics of it, but the first amendment issues.

John nichols at the nation magazine and camille polly at salon and megan garner columbia review, on and on and on saying to the white house this is a bad thing to do just on the constitutional principle of it let alone the politics.

~~~

I think what you just heard from jim is more typical people say, thinking back to president nixon and his attitude towards the new york times and “the washington post,” that no matter which side of the political aisle you’re on, to see people in power acting in this way really invites corruption, corruption of a kind that would, you know, impede our democratic principle, our democratic values.

Former Clinton aide David Gergen:

“It’s a very risky strategy and not one that I would advocate. If you’re going to get very personal with the media, you’re going to find that the animosities are just going to deepen. And you’re going to find that you sort of almost draw viewers and readers to the people you are attacking. You build them up in some ways. You give the stature. The press always has the last barrel of ink.”

David Carr- no friend to FOX- in the NYTimes:

Even though almost all the critiques contained a kernel of truth, in each instance the folks who had the barrels of ink, and now pixels, seemed to come out ahead. So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year, and the network basked for a week in the antagonism of a sitting president

It could all be written off as a sideshow, but it may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling. In his victory speech he promised, “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.”

Or not. Under the direction of Ms. Dunn, the administration has begun to punch back. On Sept. 20, the president visited all the Sunday talk shows save Fox News’, with Ms. Dunn explaining that Fox was not a legitimate news organization, but a “wing of the Republican Party.”

The one weapon all administrations can wield is access, and the White House, making it clear that it will use that leverage going forward, informed Fox News not to expect to bump knees with the president until 2010. But Fox News, as many have pointed out, is not in the access business. They are in the agitation business. And the administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight.

Ruth Marcus in WaPo:

The Obama administration’s war on Fox News is dumb on multiple levels. It makes the White House look weak, unable to take Harry Truman’s advice and just deal with the heat. It makes the White House look small, dragged down to the level of Glenn Beck. It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian — Agnewesque? — aroma at worst. It is a self-defeating trifecta: it distracts attention from the Obama administration’s substantive message; it serves to help Fox, not punish it, by driving up ratings; and it deprives the White House, to the extent it refuses to provide administration officials to appear on the cable network, of access to an audience that is, in fact, broader than hard-core Obama haters.

~~~

Where the White House has gone way overboard is in its decision to treat Fox as an outright enemy and to go public with the assault. Imagine the outcry if the Bush administration had pulled a similar hissy fit with MSNBC. “Opinion journalism masquerading as news,” White House communications director Anita Dunn declared of Fox. Certainly Fox tends to report its news with a conservative slant — but has anyone at the White House clicked over to MSNBC recently? Or is the only problem opinion journalism that doesn’t match its opinion? On “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace replayed a quote from an Obama interview: “I don’t always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that’s part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we’re not supposed to all be in lock step here.”

Maybe he should tell the rest of the team.

Curt linked yesterday to The Nation. Even those diversity of free speech-lovers from the left are floored by the White House strategy to go after a media outlet (perhaps taking notes from Hugo Chavez who muses Obama may end up further to the left than himself?).

An administration that won the White House with an almost always on-message campaign and generally friendly coverage from old and new media is now frustrated by its inability to control the debate and get the coverage it wants.

President Bush was supposedly the one accused of stifling dissent and free speech. But here, we have a thin-skinned, intolerant White House that has declared open war against a major news outlet. They may have found their sacrificial lamb in the form of Anita Dunn:

Dunn brags that the Obama campaign controlled the media rather than allowing the press to determine the narrative.

Transcript

DUNN: So it was very much we controlled it, as opposed to the press controlled it. And it did not always make us popular with the press. But we increasingly by the general election very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control.

That certainly explains why the Obama White House is so hostile toward FOX News.

The White House fall gal and attack dog had company over the weekend:

White House officials to appear on Fox News
October 19, 2009
The Front Page
“White House officials to appear on Fox News”
Krissah Thompson, Washington Post, October 19, 2009

“Finding a new model for news reporting”
Leonard Downie Jr. and Michael Schudson, Washington Post, October 19, 2009

“New Age Journalism”
Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, October 19, 2009

“Northwestern University’s Medill Innocence Project is in a standoff with Cook County prosecutors”
Jeff Long, Chicago Tribune, October 19, 2009

“Back on the frontline but without a flak jacket”
Stephen Foley, The Independent, October 19, 2009

“Obama aides say Fox News should not be treated as a news organization”
Ann Sanner, Chicago Tribune, October 18, 2009

“A Newsroom Subsidized? Minds Reel “
David Carr, New York Times, October 18, 2009

David Axelrod on ABC This Week:

Axelrod defended Anita Dunn’s comments about Fox News saying “They’re not really a news station” and “it’s really not news, it’s pushing a point of view.” Axelrod went on to say “other news organizations, should not treat them that way.”

Rahm Emanuel on CNN:

it is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that’s a different take. And more importantly, does not have — the CNNs and others in the world basically be led and following FOX, as if that — what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization in the sense of both sides and a sense of value (ph) opinion.

But let me say this. While it’s clear what the White House and what Anita said, I mean, the concentration at the White House isn’t about what FOX is doing.

And even White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs can’t avoid weighing in:

Q: Chris Wallace called you the “biggest bunch of crybabies I’ve seen in 30 years …

GIBBS: I thought it was “whiners.”

Q: … in Washington.” That was in the New York Times. What’s your reaction?

GIBBS: I haven’t cried yet. (Laughter)

Rather than allow me even one follow-up – as he had done to a dozen other reporters – Gibbs went to another reporter on another subject. After that three-part exchange, I called out my second question:

Q: The Times also quoted the president – (laughter) – as saying, “I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration.” My question: Did he mean to say one television network, or was he informing this opinion watching one station, a Fox network station?

GIBBS: I think the president was clear in what he said, and I think based on your question you understand the answer too.

Another reporter followed-up by asking:

Q: How do you respond to criticism that the administration’s posture toward Fox News constitutes some sort of bullying or chilling of speech?

GIBBS: We get questions throughout the day, seven days a week, about policies here at the White House, questions that you guys want answered. And our goal is to make sure you have the facts to do your job. That’s what we do for everybody.

Q: Well, specifically, the comments by Anita Dunn about Fox not being a real news network.

GIBBS: I have watched many stories on that network that I’ve found not to be true. I think everybody in this room has been likely on the other side of a phone conversation with me when I’ve had issues with your stories. I don’t think that’s new.

Despite Gibbs’ claim “That’s what we do for everybody,” the number of reporters at every Gibbs press briefing who are not recognized for questions continues to average 40 percent, while he gives multiple question time to a chosen few. And the Obama White House war on Fox News continues unabated.

Dunn went on CNN to announce:

“Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.”

Tony Blankley, who once served as press secretary to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, noted on CNN:

“Going after a news organization, in my experience, is always a loser. They have a big audience. And Fox has an audience of not just conservatives – they’ve got liberals and moderates who watch too. They’ve got Obama supporters who are watching. So it’s a temptation for a politician, but it needs to be resisted.”

Last week, Fox News was informed by the White House that Obama would grant no interviews to the channel until at least 2010. The edict was relayed to Fox News by a White House official after Dunn discussed the channel at a meeting with Gibbs and other Obama advisers.

Even that left-wing journal The Nation ridiculed the Obama press operation for turning Obama into “whiner in chief.”

And then there’s this beauty of an exchange between Jake Tapper and Gibbs (Hat tip: Radio Patriot):

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

Pass me the popcorn!