According to a number of conservative blogs I read, the polls are skewed and wrong in their reports and the MSM is biased toward President Obama, and it's "in the bag" for him as well.
Except here's another nugget of truth [otherwise known as a "false fact"] that the conservatives won't face:
Wall Street Journal accused of concealing writers’ Mitt Romney links
"Veteran journalists attack Murdoch paper for failure to disclose writers’ political sympathies
The Wall Street Journal has been criticised by senior US journalists for failing to disclose that 10 of its op-ed writers are Mitt Romney advisers.
According to an inquiry by Media Matters, 23 pieces in the WSJ’s op-ed pages attacked President Obama or praised Romney without the writers acknowledging their political connections to Romney.
Max Frankel, a former New York Times executive editor, called the lack of disclosure 'shameless.' He added: 'They ought to put a banner saying Romney has approved of this page… It looks like the Wall Street Journal editorial and op ed pages have enlisted in the campaign. They should be disclosing that.'
'Not disclosing is inexcusable,' declared Stephen Henderson, editorial page editor of the Detroit Free Press. 'It is important to disclose that so that the reader can evaluate the argument intelligently,”'said Nicholas Goldberg, Los Angeles Times editorial page editor, adding that transparency is 'absolutely essential.'
[skip]
A review by Media Matters on September 19 named the 10 WSJ writers with strong Romney links as John Bolton; Max Boot; Lee Casey; Paula Dobriansky; Mary Ann Glendon; Glenn Hubbard; Paul Peterson; David Rivkin Jr; Martin West; and Michael Mukasey.
The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. Murdoch has made it abundantly clear in his many tweets that he supports Romney."
And let's not forget Murdoch's sleaze.
"Murdoch himself has taken considerable personal fire. After he testified that he had known nothing about the phone-hacking scandal, he was blasted for being out of touch, and a May British parliamentary report found that the media mogul 'is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company.'
Earlier this week, Murdoch resigned from the boards of his British newspapers in a move that analysts said was designed to distance the media mogul from the hacking scandal and restore shareholders’ confidence in the company. However, a company spokeswoman told the New York Times that the move was 'nothing more than a corporate housecleaning exercise' and staff were reassured that Murdoch would remain involved with the papers."
The guy who's "not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company" is the guy who owns FAUX NOOZ, the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. The cable news station that employs melonheads like Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity, and that gave the self-described "rodeo clown," Glenn Beck, his own show in which he made a colossal ass of himself every night.
It is not surprising that a number of conservative blogs are so angry and upset over what the polls are telling us at this point. They've been reading from and listening to the GOP news outlets that sell them only what they want to hear.
18 comments:
WSJ is conservative? Wow! Who knew?
"The very fact that the Journal hired Rove, a GOP fundraiser, to write columns about the races Rove is trying to win for the GOP represents a glaring ethical lapse. The Journal's refusal to disclose those ties only compounds the problem; a problem that extends from the opinion pages to the newsroom.
Today's [9/24/12] front-page Journal article examines whether conservative super PACs have been effective in denting the president's re-election chances. Rove's Crossroads group is featured as the pivotal conservative super PAC in the article. Yet nowhere in the piece is it reported that Rove also works for the newspaper.
That transparency failure has become commonplace. On September 6, the newspaper published an article about super PAC fundraising efforts by liberal and conservative groups and noted, "By contrast, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, two Republican groups founded with the help of Karl Rove, have spent $67 million combined."
There was no mention that Rove's a Journal employee.
On Sept. 5, the Journal focused on the surprisingly tight U.S. senate race in North Dakota, and the amount of outside money pouring into the campaign:
Crossroads GPS, a Republican campaign fund co-founded by Karl Rove in 2010, and Majority PAC, a group that aims to protect Democrats' Senate majority, have spent heavily and run negative ads in the state.
No mention that Rove's a Journal employee.
And back on July 19, the Journal reported that Crossroads was coming to the aide of Romney with new television ads designed to defend the candidate's career at Bain Capitol. The Journal noted the super PAC "was founded with the help of Bush White House aide, Karl Rove."
No mention though, that Rove's a Journal employee." --MediaMatters
Oh Silver... really?
You've written some good stuff, even objective, but really?
Are you being sarcastic?
Look, I can understand the conservative dilemma.
The GOP is a party that preaches conservatism and God. And yet, if we are to look at the history of the last 30 years, apart from Obama, who is still in office, under what presidents have we seen the biggest expansion of the deficit?
In those years, when GOP Presidents pushed for tax cuts, arguing that those cuts would pay for themselves and not increase the deficit, why has that not happened?
And why, if it was such a good strategy, when President Obama proposed payroll tax cuts, did the GOP complain that they were not paid for?
I don't understand it. Maybe you can explain this stuff to me.
As for the God thing, maybe you can explain to me why a party that tells everyone they are God friendly, and Christian at that, acts so uncharitable towards the libs on the right wing blogs?
I don't even comment anymore because I got tired of being called a libturd, evil, stupid, devil spawn, uninformed and any other number of names.
I admit I can be snarky sometimes, but let's be real, I generally try to find some balance and middle ground. yes I am a partisan, but I can admit when I am wrong or inconsistent in my thinking and i expect others to do so as well.
Sorry, but as Shaw has pointed out recently, the conservatives are coming unhinged.
Now we hear even FOX News and the Wall Street journal are skewing their poll numbers.
Incredible
Tell me how this is not just a group of people angry at what they see as another 4 years of President Obama?
I am really trying to understand all of this.
It's anger, Dave, that and facing a fact that a many **[not all]** conservatives have refused to deal with: That Mr. Obama is NOT a Marxist Commie Fascist Muslim Kenyan-born America hating son of a "slut." (Yes, imagine that, they're maligning Mr. Obama's dead mother--can you get any deeper into the cesspool?)
A lot of SF's commenters as well as commenters on other conservative blogs [including Ralphie/The Malcontent's sock puppets and their fake blogs] who made a caricature of the president as stupid, incompetent, malignant, naive--and I won't mention how they've viciously attacked the FLOTUS.
They bought into that extremist lie and swallowed the hate soaked narrative promoted by apoplectic spittle-flecking raging bullsh***ers like Breitbart, Beck, Malkin, and Limbaugh.
Now that they're faced with the fact that their armies of frenzied haters are NOT in sync with the country, they've turned into "facts that are in front of your nose" deniers. One of the saddest stage of grief.
These are the folks who thought the highlight of the RNC convention was an old white guy talking to an empty chair, and that we liberals were driven mad by how well that bit of theater went over, when in fact people ridiculed Romney & Co. for allowing that wreck of a performance to precede Mitt's--one that had FEWER PEOPLE watch it than watched all the DNC speeches at their convention AND that watched Eastwood's.
They continue to ignore reality. And the more reality settles in, the louder their howling denials and doubling down on their malicious attacks on the president and his wife.
At this point, I'm spending most of my time doing all I can for Elizabeth Warren, and giving as much as I can to President Obama's campaign.
According to Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation polls conducted in Florida, Ohio and Virginia and released Thursday, registered voters trust Obama over Romney to handle Medicare by wide margins. Respondents preferred Obama on the issue by 53 percent to 38 percent in Florida, 56 percent to 37 percent in Ohio and 52 percent to 39 percent in Virginia. More than 70 percent of voters in each state said they consider Medicare either "very" or "extremely" important to their vote.
Similarly, CBS/New York Times/Quinnipiac surveys in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania found that likely voters think Obama would do a better job than Romney on handling Medicare: 55 percent to 40 percent in Florida, 55 percent to 39 percent in Ohio and 55 percent to 39 percent in Pennsylvania.
Perhaps for some it's anger, and for many it's because he's perceived to be Marxist or one of the other variants of socialism.
For those, like me that see trough the fluff and BS it is a question of competence, leadership, and philosophy. In my opinion he is marginal in all three.
My projection, Obama wins 2012 by 7%.
RN, how many socialists do you know? Marxists?
I actually do know someone who is a socialist, and she laughs at people like you and others who label the president as such.
If he's a socialist or Marxist as you and other rightwingers claim,
he's lousy at it, since Wall Street, big corporations and billionairs have thrived during his administration.
How many American corporations has he seized and taken control over?
How many oil companies does the Obama administration run? Coal? Natural Gas?
What people like you, RN,
"...and others brandishing the "socialist" s-word are really complaining of is a return to the policies of John Maynard Keynes, the English economist who advocated vigorous government involvement in the economy, from regulation to pump priming, says labor historian Peter Rachleff of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn.
"Socialism suggests getting rid of capitalism altogether," says Dr. Rachleff. "Mr. Obama is not within a million miles of an ideology like that."
For what it's worth, socialists deny that Obama is one of them – and even seem a bit insulted by the suggestion.
"I have been making a living telling people Obama is not a socialist," says Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America. "It's frustrating to see people using our brand to criticize programs that have nothing to do with our brand and are not even working.
[skip]
Probably the last president to be tagged as a socialist was Franklin Roosevelt, who took office during the Great Depression.
"FDR tried all kinds of things and was accused of all kinds of things," says Tom Cronin, a presidential scholar at Colorado College in Colorado Springs. "But in retrospect, he is someone who helped capitalism survive."
He suspects that Obama and his appointees are firm believers in the free-market system. But, he adds, "It's a free country, and people can say what they want about their president."
From the CS Monitor Jan. 2010
Perhaps for some it's anger, and for many it's because he's perceived to be Marxist or one of the other variants of socialism."
Because of the lies you Republiscums push on an uneducated public.
Angry and upset.
"Findings like these undercut the basic premise of Romney’s campaign, that economic anxiety will be enough to prompt swing voters to give up on Obama and use Romney as a vehicle for their protests. For this strategy to have any chance of working, a majority of voters must conclude that Obama’s policies have failed or are failing, and that Romney (or, really, any president not named Obama) would do a better job managing the economy. But this isn’t happening. As Greg Sargent has been documenting, national polling on economic questions has actually swung in Obama’s favor since the Democratic convention, and now we see the same thing happening in these battleground states.
Romney is also dogged by serious image problems. In both Florida and Ohio, just 41 percent of voters have a favorable view of him, while Obama’s score is well over 50 percent in both states. And only 41 percent of voters in Florida and 38 percent in Ohio say that Romney cares about people like them. This reflects the failure of Romney over the summer months and at his convention to repair the battered image with which he emerged from the GOP primaries. It also adds context to a study released earlier this week that shows Romney struggling with white working-class voters outside of the South."
After observing Obama I came to the rational view that he is in fact neither.
Obviously you have paid zero attention my later posts. Ones several "rightwingers" took issue with me.
I guess in your mind if one is not a democrat one must be a right wing delusional nutball, as I find myself LMAO.
As for your question as to how many socialists or Marxist I've known... 1) my brother studied Marx heavily in college, let's just say he admires much of Marx's writings and his economic models if you will. He taught me much about Marx that dispelled many of my preconceived notions about Marx. We continue to disagree on a few key points.
As to socialist, the answer is a few. So your point is what? If I, or others disagree we are rightwing hopeless wackos? I know the answer to that question having visited many progressive blogs before I started my own.
I write as I do in response to the elitist better than thou attitude of the progressive left.
As I said Shaw, LMAO.
President Obama is the most conservative Democratic President ever.
Some liberals expected Obama to be like FDR and start government work programs.
Would Carter, or any other Democratic president spend billions to save GM, a huge corporate entity?
What other Democratic president would have extended the Bush tax cuts?
Why have we not heard much from the liberals of the Congress defending Obama's decisions (especially the Senate) while conservatives attack Obama on false pretenses?
What other Democratic president would offer up 100's of millions of dollars in social program cuts?
Most liberals would not have an inner battle with themselves over same sex marriage.
Would a true liberal open up twice as much land for oil drilling, than his Republiscum predecessor?
Some liberals are not happy with Obama, but they won't be voting for Romney.
For conservatives to call Obama a socialist, or Communist is so obviously a lie. it reflects the true concern they have, his skin color.
I will be surprised Shaw if you print my rebuttal.
RN: "For those, like me that see trough the fluff and BS it is a question of competence, leadership, and philosophy. In my opinion he is marginal in all three."
That's something we can disagree on.
I don't buy into the "he's a Messiah" crap that the GOPers keep pushing, no liberal I know ever, ever said that of him.
Obama came into the presidency in one of the worst economic times in our history, while we were engaged in two wars.
He hasn't fixed all of that in 3 1/2 years--no one could have, including McCain and Romney.
It's very easy to stand on the sidelines and bark at the people actually doing the job of cleaning up the mess the GOP left.
You don't think he's competent has leadership or a good philosopy--whatever that means?
History will make that decision, not you or I.
On your closing.statement we are in complete agreement.
Quote for the day -- after the landslide
"Anyone who doubts the reaction of the GOP stalwarts to Romney’s impending defeat should bear in mind this single, if chilling, fact. Most of them still think he’s going to win. They genuinely believe the polls are fixed. They seriously think the surge in support for Obama is nothing more than an 'MSM' conspiracy. Some of them clearly even believe the good Lord himself will appear in the spin room at the University of Denver next Wednesday. And when none of these things turn out to be true, the reaction will be truly terrible to behold. It will be like what happens inside one of those doomsday cults the morning after they all wake up and realise the world hasn’t ended after all. First the shock, then the denial, then finally the anger and retribution."
Dan Hodges, trying to explain American Republicans to the British
RN,
Either Obama or Romney will be the next president. You think Obama lack competence, leadership and philosophy. Do you think Romney is better in these three areas? If so, how?
@Dave and @Shaw, I get what you are saying about anger and name calling. Recall, I get called very similar names by posters on the left, here and at other blogs. The far left is (or has been when out of office) as angry as the far right. If you cannot see that, perhaps the gravity of the name calling and lies lose meaning when they are not hurled at you, your candidate or party. Trust me, it is equally disturbing.
Think about, what stings more; when your spouse is called hateful or when somebody on a blog who is a Republican is called hateful? One probably carries more weight and is more easily remembered.
Leaving you two aside, just review the past posts of some regulars here. One accuses Republicans of being racists with its name/avatar (and in each comment) and another has called me a fag and a racist. The commenter that called me a fag is so unhinged he/she (name is male but she is female) called our host a c- -t because she dared talk civilly to RN. I have learned to gloss over these types of silly posts so I never have to answer their silly questions, comments and name calling.
But even if you believe, deep down, that the far right is more angry than the far left, you should understand why. It was just 3+ years ago the left was unbalanced in its hatred for Bush. I have never, ever seen anything like it. I didn’t support him either but I didn’t hate the man himself. I see goodness in Bush, Obama and Romney.
Bottom line: there are about 10% of people who follow politics who are unusually attached to their candidate and party in ways that would probably make their actions and speech unrecognizable to loved ones, friends and business associates. It’s far healthier, (mentanlly and physically) to focus on the 80% of the population who can be reached. Dave, in your mission you know what I mean. You cannot save everyone but you can provide a platform and tools that provide an opportunity for everyone to be saved. Likewise, when dealing with an alcoholic or compulsive eater; I cannot save all of them but I can provide an opportunity to healed. Hint, it’s not in a bar.
@ Jerry... you said. "RN,
Either Obama or Romney will be the next president. You think Obama lack competence, leadership and philosophy. Do you think Romney is better in these three areas? If so, how?"
No Jerry I don't think Romney is appreciably better in these area's. perhaps that os why I have advocated for Gary Johnson and will vote foe him. Some think principles are not all that important, I do. Haven't won many friends on the right side of the median political line either.
Thanks for asking Jerry. AND, I believe you and Dave might be two here who actually get it. That I am indeed NOT a republican or a democrat.
Post a Comment