Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Immigration Facts

Immigration Facts
GOP predicts violence if Obama acts like Republican presidents did.

Friday, January 30, 2009

YOUR "LIBERAL" MEDIA


In the last two elections, the American people turned Republicans out of office. The 2006 election saw the Republicans lose seats in the House and the Senate. The 2008 election ushered in a Democratic president, and more gains in the House and Senate for the Democrats.

A map of the US on how it voted also showed that traditionally red states turned blue for Obama. More people registered as Democrats in the last election than Republicans.

During the recent election a Gallup poll showed that the Republican Party as an institution had a 61% unfavorable rating, with only 34% favorable. And the numbers have only gone downhill since the election -- in October they were at 40% favorable and 53% unfavorable.

After the election in November, Tim Pawlenty, Republican Governor of Minnesota had this to say:

"We cannot be a majority governing party when we essentially cannot compete in the Northeast, we are losing our ability to compete in Great Lakes States, we cannot compete on the West Coast, we are increasingly in danger of competing in the Mid-Atlantic States, and the Democrats are now winning some of the Western States," he said. "That is not a formula for being a majority governing party in this nation."
"And similarly we cannot compete, and prevail, as a majority governing party if we have a significant deficit, as we do, with women, where we have a large deficit with Hispanics, where we have a large deficit with African-American voters, where we have a large deficit with people of modest incomes and modest financial circumstances," he said. "Those are not factors that make up a formula for success going forward."

All of the above would suggest that the country is trending toward Democrats/liberals and rejecting the once current wisdom that this country prefers Republican/conservative government.

But you wouldn't know that if you watched cable news or the Sunday morning talk shows. The above chart illustrates that even though the country has shifted toward the Democrats/liberals, those cable news and broadcast news stations still overwhelmingly feature Republican/conservative Congressmen for commentary.
What liberal media?


Source

25 comments:

TAO said...

I have lived in Kentucky for over 20 years now and it has always been a very dependable Republican state, at least as far as federal elections go.

While Obama did not carry this state the change from 2000 to 2004 to 2008 has been overwhelming to observe.

Where once Bush was seen as a messiah and as one of us it is now all about how the Republcians don't care about 'us' where Repbulicans are nothing but crooks who enrich their cronies...

You also do not hear Rush blasting through the radios like you used to.

While there is some mistrust and comments about Obama being black, and being too smart, for the most part that absolute disgust toward the Republicans and their 'values' and 'principles' is overwhelming.

While the democrats have not sealed the deal by any means the scorn and disgust toward the Republicans is ovewhelming. It was John McCain being a war hero and a decent guy that got the Republicans their votes in Kentucky this year.

Sarah Palin did not help at all.

Tax cuts and all of that are fine policies when the economy is sound but when people fear losing their jobs, their homes, and their retirement tax cuts just do not seem to hit the spot.

Then when you add the CEO's, Cunningham, and Stevens to the News it just gives voters a total negative perspective on anything under the Republican and or Conservative brand.

Its going to be a long trip back to power for the Republicans as long as they continue to focus on Obama....he really is not the issue for them, they are their own issue.

Rush may have his supporters as does Fox News but right now the average American do not see them as the purveyors of the 'way' or the 'truth' but rather as big fat white guys who can run their mouths because they are not threatened with economic ruin.

We are now a country of 'us' against 'them' but the tables have turned on who 'us' and 'them' are.

The longer it takes for conservatives to realize that the majority see conseravtives as 'them' rather than MSM as 'them' the longer they will stay the irrelevant minority party.

dmarks said...

"Sarah Palin did not help at all."

I've seen several on the left hate Palin because she's a woman (including one commenter in this area of the blogosphere). There's certainly a segment of the Right that hates her for this sexist reason, too.

John said...

"I've seen several on the left hate Palin because she's a woman (including one commenter in this area of the blogosphere)." - dmarks

That's unfortunate, if true, but I think most (on both sides) do not like her because she is woefully ignorant.

Patrick M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Patrick M said...

Two points:

1. McCain doesn't count as a Republican, even though he is apparently going to vote against the porkulus bill.

2. Notice that Fox News is the most balanced of the networks.

TAO said...

Patrick,

Last time I checked John McCain was the Republican choice for President. Which means he is the Republican Party. Now, he may not be Patrick's choice but he did win the majority of Republican Primaries.

Now you CAN question how much influence conservatives have on the Republican Party as a whole as it is apparent that the Republicans dumped conservatives.

Fox News may be balanced in regards to the guests that they invite on their NEWS Shows but what we need to know is what shows were included in this study and then the guests do not determine the tone of the show its self.

Dmarks, If sexism was an issue then Hillary Clinton would not have achieved what she achieved. She did not lose the election because of sexism she lost it because her campaign was flawed.

So, to claim that Sarah Palin was penalized by sexism is really WAY out of line. It actually is more sexist to claim sexism in her case than it is otherwise because you attempt to mask her weaknesses by her sex.

Its obvious with two women and one black man in this election that Americans were looking for something different and we willing to overlook race and sex in the search for something different...obviously, after all the hoopla initially they realized that Palin did not have what it takes to get their votes.

Stupid and unprepared is what stupid and unprepared is.

I know its easy to blame the media and everything else for how America votes but lets not forget that Americans voted for lots of people you approve of so lets not be so quick to assume that the voters missed something when it comes to Palin....

John said...

"2. Notice that Fox News is the most balanced of the networks." - patrick M

C'mon...seriously? If you believe everything Fox News reports then I suppose they would appear to be the most balanced.

If I admit that I believe MSNBC has a left bent then will you admit that you believe Fox News has a right bent?

If you watched the post debate analysis on Fox compared to the other networks then their bias was quite obvious. Whereas most panels thought the debates were close (or favored Obama slightly) almost all panelists (and Fox hosts) categorically thought McCain won easily...how balanced is that? Are the Fox hosts/panels that much smarter or more insightful than the rest of the networks or America, for that matter? Or are they just partisan?

Arthurstone said...

Liberal media indeed. I wish we had one.

Remember one of the leading cheerleaders for the administration, in the run up to the Iraq invasion was the New York Times. They were invaluable disseminating the neo-cons ever shifting rationale for attacking Iraq.

Not owning a television myself I can't say whether or not Fox is most balanced. They advertise themselves as such. But as most reasonable people know, advertising is lying.

Shaw Kenawe said...

I've seen several on the left hate Palin because she's a woman (including one commenter in this area of the blogosphere).

I recall the name "Hitlery" applied to Hillary Clinton by the right. And that was kind, compared with the other names given to her.

I also recall that people on the right AND left had rotten things to say about Secretary of State Clinton. They were equal opportunity nasties.

Same thing with Palin. There were a number of Republicans/conservatives who did not take to the former 2nd place beauty queen.

There's certainly a segment of the Right that hates her for this sexist reason, too.

There were also a number of males who were enamored of her because they lusted in their hearts for her. That's as sexist as it comes--going ga-ga over a political candidate because of sexual fantasies.


It's funny because people on the right were outraged at "sexist" remarks about her, while at the same time a lot of rightwing bloggers concentrated on her dominitrix black boots and red high heels--obvious indications of her nimble mind and supple intellectualism. /snark

LOL!

Anonymous said...

Well that puts to rest the idea that MSNBC is in the tank for the Dems.

Patrick M said...

I'm just going by the data on the graph in determining who is most balanced in this instance.

BTW, I never trust any source completely.

And Tao, I never said the GOP was smart.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

Tao: I never claimed that Palin was done in because of sexism. I'm not sure it was true. I just know that many hated her (and Hillary) based on gender.

"So, to claim that Sarah Palin was penalized by sexism is really WAY out of line."

It is not way out of line. I am sure she was penalized by sexism. I doubt it was enough to do her campaign in, but it was there.

"It actually is more sexist to claim sexism in her case than it is otherwise because you attempt to mask her weaknesses by her sex."

I had in mind the person around here who said that the only thing she was good for was making babies. It is hard to get more blatant than that.

@arthur "They [NYT) were invaluable disseminating the neo-cons ever shifting rationale for attacking Iraq. "

What neocons? There were few actual neocons among the conservatives involved. And then you get Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden (not any kind of conservative) supporting and voting for retaliating against Saddam Hussein's regime also.

Patrick: A major factor ignored here is the different parties' Congressional organizations policies on media appearance by their members. Which blunts the idea that the difference in the columns was entirely due to network bias.

Arthurstone said...

dmarks wondered:

What neocons? There were few actual neocons among the conservatives involved

Feith, Bolton, Kristol (pere & son), Gaffney, Scooter, Kagan, Abrams, Podhoretz, Wolfowitz, Perle, Boot, Mead, PNAC, The National Review, The Weekly Standard, etc. etc. all enthused endlessly about invading Iraq. The list is lengthy.

Now that there is a certain well earned distaste for many things 'neocon' these days one may try and argue that none of these persons, publications or organizations toe the "actual" neo-con party line.

But we know better.

And we also now know (and many of us believed then) that the administration did in fact lie to garner support from across the aisle for this 'excellent' adventure.

Cheers.

Anonymous said...

I'm so sick of Palin lovers claiming she's gotten a raw deal. She. IS. DUMB. I'd love nothing more than the RIGHT WOMAN (as opposed to ANY WOMAN) for President, but GOD, not her!!

dmarks said...

I will have to look up the rest of them, but "The National Review" is not neocon. It is regular ol' "conservative". I wonder how many in the list you got wrong?

What we do know is that actual neoconservatives are few and didn't call the shots, and so many on the left and also non-neoconservatives supported retaliating against the Saddam Hussein regime.

Can you provide even one of these?

Anon: When someone says that the only thing a woman is good for is making babies, that woman has gotten a raw deal. Even Sarah Palin. As for the "dumb" part, that's pretty much a meaningless insult.

Arthurstone said...

And right on schedule dmarks piped up:

'What we do know is that actual neoconservatives are few and didn't call the shots, and so many on the left and also non-neoconservatives supported retaliating against the Saddam Hussein regime.

Can you provide even one of these?'

Richard Perle
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1315.html

Paul Wolfowitz
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1390.html

Robert Kagan
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1241.html

PNAC
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1535.html

And yes, The National Review
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/4000.html


You get the idea I think. But trust me, I feel your pain dmarks.

And it isn't that there are few 'actual neoconservatives' (though they aren't quite so eager to be identified as such these days) the larger problem is less their actual number than the fact that it is virtually impossible to find a neo-conservative who has got anything right in this entire tawdry episode.

Cheers!

And that various neo-cons cooked the intelligence before it was served up to

Arthurstone said...

And that various neo-cons cooked the intelligence before it was served up to various Secretaries of State, Ambassadors to the United Nations, senators and representatives to game the outcome of GWB's desire to attack Iraq regardless of the real facts has become painfully obvious over the years since the invasion. To begin, take the time to read just a little bit about Feith and the Office of Special Plans. They made it up as needed to further the Administration's agenda in the Middle East.

Cheers!

Handsome B. Wonderful said...

Sarah Palin is not qualified intellectually to be president and that has NOTHING to do with being a woman.

She's simply inept and I DO hope she is the Republican candidate in 2012 because she'll get crushed.

I want to see a woman elected but not her. I want to see Barbara Boxer as the first. She's a genius intellectually and politically. I'd vote for her in heartbeat.

dmarks said...

Handsome: Though I suspect that your evaluation of Palin vs Boxer is based primarily on whether or not they share your political ideology, you are certainly not the guy on Patrick M's blog who said that the only thing Palin is good for is making babies. A very sexist comment: you won't find the same guy or anyone else tell a father that the thing they are good for is fathering babies.

Arthur: I followed the link on National Review to a far-left rant site that did not actually bother to identify National Review as neoconservative. Actually, the rest of the links are from the same rant site that gets its facts wrong a lot of the time. Quoting them or linking to them is about as sensible as linking to Newsmax. These are very slanted editorial sites, not fact sources.

Do you have any sort of centrist, balanced site to link to?

Arthurstone said...

dmarks-

Heh. Heh.

Just go to the PNAC website. geT whole gang's there.

libhom said...

Finally, people are starting to see that CNN is getting to be as nutty right wing as Faux News.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

ok dmarks, you don't like the word dumb. So.... how's, very very very very very unintelligent. Better? Whoever said she's only good for making babies was being sexist. Ok, we get it. But not all people who dislike her feel that way, some people just think she's snarky, condescening, sneaky and unintelligent and in no way shape or form ready to be President of the free world. Not by a long shot.

dmarks said...

Which is typical partisan rhetoric: about the opponent being stupid/etc and not worthy.