Articles Tagged ‘Allahpundit’

Enjoy it while it lasts - top reasons Obama’s polling success won’t last

Friday, September 11th, 2009

A CNN snap poll from after Wednesday’s speech looked rosy, showing that viewers increased in their support for Obama’s proposals, from 53% up to 67%.

That’s before you consider CNN totally oversampled Democrats who support reform in the first place.

The problem is way more Democrats watched the speech than Republicans - as if the above numbers wouldn’t tell you that. Compared to the general population Democrats made up 45%, Republicans 18%, and the rest were independent.

“Those [gains] are almost identical to a poll conducted immediately after Bill Clinton’s health care speech before Congress in September, 1993.”

And we all know how that turned out.

CBS Poll

CBS Poll

CBS News hopes their poll will be more credible, showing a more modest 12 percent gain, but most people don’t think reform will help them (or really understand “Obama’s Plan”).

The poll shows Americans now give him the “best marks of his presidency on handling health care,” but people still aren’t sure what his “plan” entails. Only 22 percent said the reforms now being considered would help them personally.

Thursday, CBS re-interviewed 678 adults first questioned August 27-31.

Last week, just 40 percent of these adults approved of how the president was handling health care. More, 47 percent, disapproved. After the speech, 52 percent said they approved and only 38 percent said they disapproved. Those are the best assessments for Mr. Obama’s handling of health care shown all year by CBS News Polls.

CBS Poll

CBS Poll

The re-poll reached 648 of the 678 original respondents and CBS claims the original margin of error at plus or minus 4 percent. “While the error for subgroups is higher, the error on measures of individual change is smaller.”

Based on that poll, Salon.com is caling President Obama’s address to Congress, “mostly, a winner.”

Not so fast.

Politico blogger Glenn Thrush pointed out that Americans are skeptical of polls, however, after the CNN post-speech poll “skewed Democrat.”

One other critical detail I should have added — Obama’s coattails are microscopic: When asked if the bills floating through Congress would help or hurt, 22% said help, 27% said hurt and a whopping 47% said it would have no effect. Those stats are slightly better than a week before but virtually unchanged.

The huge number of undecideds-unsures-pursuadables underscores what the Gallup survey released earlier this week showed, that when it comes to public opinion health care reform — despite all the hype and vitriol — is still basically a jump ball.

Democracy Corps‘ dial-tested focus group of debate-watchers in Denver, Colo. focused on evenly devided swing voters who sided 54 to 46 percent between Obama and John McCain in the 2008 election.

These voters’ support and opposition of the health care plan went from 46 percent for and 46 percent against before the speech, to 66 to 30 percent afterward. In addition, before the speech only 44 percent described the plan as “the right kind of change,” with 52 percent saying it was not. That number then shifted to 50 to 40 percent after the speech.

A Rasmussen survey found only 2 percent increase in support for the Democrats’ health care reform proposal - up to 46 percent since the two days before Obama’s speech.

RealClearPolitics’ Kyle Trygstad points out that, “The speech appears to have had more of an impact on Democrats, though, as Rasmussen reports that the boost comes “entirely from those in the president’s own party.”

“Enjoy it while it lasts, champ, because no one — including liberal Democrats — thinks it will,” writes Hot Air’s Allahpundit.

The One’s struggling just to pull a bare majority. Soon liberals and moderates will start freaking out anew over the public option and then the erosion will begin again. The only thing he can do now to keep Democrats from tearing each other’s throats out is to give them some Republican throats to tear at instead, which, as Karl noted yesterday, is why his speech was so partisan and why the media will continue to wet itself over Joe Wilson for as long as it can.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Harder edge, still vague

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

President Barack Obama pleased supporters with more of what he’s good at, fiery campaign rhetoric and a firmer-than-usual stance on health care reform.

However, he’s sure to disappoint with little direction or clarity on the biggest stumbling block for the Democratic caucus: the public option.

How did the blogosphere react?

“Barack Obama is a terrific salesman with a bad product,” said HotAir’s Ed Morrissey in his post-speech broadcast. “I think in the end, the Kennedy thing is really going to not work for him. I think that whole sad story at the end of the speech was a downer.”

Blogger DDay reacted positively to the “Spark of Life” in his speech, “I will say that there’s a bit of a harder edge in these remarks, particularly toward out-and-out opponents of reform, the likes of which have disrupted town halls all last month. This follows the fiestiness of Obama’s Labor Day speech to the AFL-CIO.”

Jonathan Cohn, blogging for The New Republic says, “Looks like there’s some news in the speech after all.  Quite a bit.

“On the policy front, President Obama tonight endorses, clearly and unambiguously, a requirement that everybody obtain insurance–that is, an individual mandate. He has not done that before, not this explicitly.”

The newsworthiness of Obama’s noncommittal defense of the public option is questionable, but Cohn also points out, “he also comes down hard–very hard–on opponents who are merely out to defeat reform.”

The Neo Neocon, who might fall under that category, points out some serious flaws in Obama’s tough-guy stance:

(3) He offers still another reiteration of the fact that if you have private health insurance now, you won’t lose it. It will only get better. But he doesn’t answer critics who offer reasons why this is unlikely to be so.

(4) For the uninsured, there will be an insurance exchange. This particular exchange is a nebulous, poorly-explained, and poorly understood entity in terms of how it would actually work. But I am willing to bet that it won’t work … the way it works for members of Congress.

And as for the deficit neutrality? She has this to say: “Of course, it’s technically true that “our deficit will grow” if we do nothing—thanks to Obama. But even the CBO has said that, if the present health care plan is passed, it will make the deficit grow even more.”

Leftie blogger Mahablog shows the danger in blind following: “Not one dime to deficit. OK.”

Because Obama says it’s so, it must be.  many of the blogger’s comments follow a similar strain.

And the Bhuddist’s take on the Boustany rebuttal? “No insurance across state lines. It’s a scam.”

Thanks for all that backing logic.

And the usually loquacious leftie blog Hullabaloo has one quick post-speech post, by tristero - The Whole Point.

picture-41

The right, on the other hand, picked up on South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “LIAR!” on Obama’s assertion that illegal immigrants won’t be covered.

Biden shakes his head, Pelosi stares gape-mouthed and Obama stops mid-stride.

Biden shakes his head, Pelosi stares gape-mouthed and Obama stops mid-stride.

Within minutes, the footage excerpt was up on Allahpundit and Gateway Pundit, who also pointed out the back and forth between the president and Sarah Palin on “death panels”.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Eye on the Media | Start the Discussion

Twisting the news for a racial narrative

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

MSNBC blatantly cropped a shot of a black man carrying an AR-15 assault rifle outside a Veterans of Foreign Wars town hall meeting with the president in Phoenix, Ariz. to avoid showing any skin color.

Then white host Contessa Brewer abuses the footage to create a racial narrative. “Here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or their legs.”

This is followed with a token black anchor who can “legitimately” wax on about racism because of his skin color. “It is real that there is tremendous anger in this country … anger about a black person becoming president.”

He then invokes assasination attempts by Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme and Mark Hinckley.

On a side note, MSNBC also mischaracterizes the protesters as a “pro-health care reform” group.

ABC News Channel 15 in Arizona showed the full-length shot, and even interviewed the well-armed black man, who refused to give his name but definitely opposed reform.

Even so, ABC’s Nicole Beyer points out “You have to remember, this is perfectly legal for him to have this gun out in public for everyone to see.”

The implication is we should change the laws so right-wing gun nuts have to hide in a dark closet to caress their implements of destruction.

CNN shows the full-length clip as well, and notes that Secret Service and local police officers had created a loose cordon around the individual.

Hot Air’s Allahpundit puts the deception into context:

Never will you see a starker example of MSNBC getting away with the sort of deception for which Fox News would be pilloried, especially in the context of race.

Blogger Moe Lane argues that stirring the pot like this is more likely to endanger the president, as tensions already run high this August.

This was an insanely stupid move on MSNBC’s part - and one that was dangerous to the safety of the President of the United States of America, not to mention his security staff. I am appalled that a supposedly reputable news agency would do this.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Eye on the Media | Start the Discussion

Who’s the Biggest Godwin Offender - Perhaps, LaRouche?

Thursday, August 13th, 2009

Can we as a nation please stop with the Nazi/Hitler insults?

Seriously.

People speaking their minds at public forums are suddenly jack-booted Nazi thugs? (Forget that they are carrying anti-nazi slogans - or forget the implication they are comparing reformers to Nazis, depending on your political stripe.)

An African American member of Congress has a swastika painted over his Senate emblem?

Obama = Hitler?

Fictional death panels?

Are we really, as a nation, so devoid of anything productive to say to one another about health care reform that it’s just down to a contest about how often we can bring up the Nazi holocaust.

Unless we’re talking about the copy of Mein Kampf up for auction in the UK, or the German high court’s ruling on Nazi symbols, there is no excuse.

I hearby invoke Godwins Law and propose a national backlash against anybody making spurious references to their opponents as neo-fascist Nazis or Hitler, and will chronicle the worst offenders here.

Forget about the pundits - the shock jocks paid to enrage - Rush limbaugh has already been declared the “big fat loser” (can we please stop attacking people’s personal, physical characteristics while we’re at it?) in a Chicago Tribune editorial.

We’re just going to focus on the news media.

Conservative Hot Air’s Allahpundit uses it ironically to describe the other side’s description of anti-reform protesters.  But is it even necessary there?

Either indies have suddenly developed a taste for Nazi mobs of political terrorists or the Democrats’ message war on ObamaCare opponents is a rather epic fail.

Already the backlash has begun.  American Jewish groups and the Anti-Defamation league cry “enough is enough.”

But that doesn’t necessarily mean they agree on which side is the most egregious in abusing the Nazi analogy.

In Jewish Groups Argue Over Nazi Analogies, Washington Post reporter Jacqueline L. Salmon points out there is a lot of blame to spread around.

Rush Limbaugh’s recent remarks comparing Democrats to Nazis has drawn widespread condemnation among Jewish groups, but has also triggered a fight among them over which party is abusing the Nazi analogy.

Limbaugh was commenting on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s assertion that some protesters at town meetings bore swastika signs. Limbaugh said similarities between the Obama health-care logo and the Nazi logo were “overwhelming.” He then drew comparisons between the Democratic party and the Nazi party.
…
But some Republican Jewish groups, who also criticized the remarks, went after Washington Rep. Brian Baird, a Democrat, who last week decried what he called “brown-shirt tactics” by health-care reform opponents.

Post colleague Dan Eggen ignores the brown-shirt reference by Baird to focus on Limbaugh, Glen Beck and the anti-reform protesters wielding swastikas, including “a toddler in a stroller was photographed holding a sign featuring a crossed-out swastika and the slogan: ‘Say No to Fascism!’ ”

The comparisons appear to stem in part from erroneous claims by opponents, including some Republican lawmakers, that a House health-care reform bill would lead to euthanasia for the elderly.

Eggen ignores Democratic excesses, focusing on the opposition’s abuse of the analogy, quoting DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan without any counter-point.

“The repeated use of Nazi symbolism at community meetings by the Republican-incited mob proves that these protests have nothing to do with health care, but rather that the Republican Party is willing to sink to the lowest, most despicable levels to accomplish their goal of ‘breaking’ President Obama,” Sevugan said.

One commendation goes to National Headlines Examiner Charisse Van Horn for debunking the Obama-Hitler references on the grounds of his civil rights awards given out yesterday.

Lyndon who?
Conservative bloggers Ed Morrissey and John McCormac point to another major offender: the disgraced party of Lyndon LaRouche.

McCormac claims LaRouchies are responsible for the Obama/Hitler references.

To put it mildly, comparing your political opponents in America to Nazis is inappropriate–no matter if the comparison is made by Pelosi or left-wing talker Bill Press or Rush Limbaugh (in response to Pelosi’s “swastikas” statement) or Andrew Sullivan who routinely compares those who support harsh interrogations of al Qaeda members to the Gestapo.

Not necessarily.

Non-LaRouche protester

Non-LaRouche protester

Washington Independent writer David Weigel points out that not all the Obama-Hitler references belong to the LaRouche camp.

Unfortunately, as NewsBusters writer Seton Motley points out, many news organizations have run the LaRouche posters as color for pieces criticizing Limbaugh and other Conservatives.

Apparently “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” doesn’t hold water in this case, Motley notes, as LaRouche is explicitly calling for an extreme, single-payer solution.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Eye on the Media | Start the Discussion

Are conservatives ‘blowing their chance’ at the town hall?

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009

After a protestor came armed with a gun to the President’s New Hampshire town hall meeting Tuesday, many are asking if the town hall meeting format has jumped the shark or if conservatives are overstepping the bounds of civilized society.

Even blogger Allahpundit, writing for the conservative Hot Air site, put gun rights health care reform opponent William Kostric in the “spiteful incendiary douchebag” category.

The worst part? According to a new book about the Secret Service, the number of daily threats against Obama is already four times the number Bush faced. Every pair of eyes diverted to watch this tool make his point about liberty is a pair that’s not watching the rest of the crowd.

Hardball

A large segment of the American public are unhappy with the direction health care reform is taking on The Hill. A smaller, but more vocal and more publicized segment of the conservative base has promoted disruption and chaos at town hall meetings throughout the country.

Is the disruption of the public debate hurting conservative goals or dooming reform efforts during the month of town hall hell that is August?

Atlantic.com writer Marc Armbinder falls firmly within the “shame on organized disruption” camp.

Remember, the target audience for Republicans is Blue Dog Democrats in Congress. They won’t panic unless they perceive organic anxiety.  The White House’s goal was to prevent the Blue Dogs from panicking. The swing constituents in these congressional districts aren’t angry Republicans, and the Blue Dogs know this.  They’re political independents for whom the sanctity of the process is important. These are the type of voters who like President Obama because he appears willing to bring people together even though they don’t agree with their policies.

But NextRight’s Patrick Ruffini argues that organized opposition movements are acceptably disorganized in the public eye.

For the Bush Administration in mocking the anti-war movement, and Obama deligitimizing the “mob,” what both White Houses missed is that the general public has different sets of expectations for political leaders and opposition movements. Oppositions are supposed to be loud, vocal, off-message, inchoate. The President of the United States is supposed to have his stuff together.

But like the Bush Administration’s anti-war protests, the Obama administration is facing a vocal opposition who’s main points are impossible to safely ignore, Ruffini points out. “The public option is, at the very minimum, now perceived as divisive. As controversial. As anything but the sweetness and light upon which Obama uniquely depended to govern.”

It is becoming clear in some contexts that the opposition cannot be dismissed as corporate-funded, Republican-staffed, astroturf movements - the line the press has been happy to promote so far.

The New York Times reported that Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa) clearly faced a majority conservative, disenfranchised and unhappy audience at Tuesday’s town hall meeting.

New York Times

The tired and most-often unverified media line that these are organized or paid agitators, not a grass-roots opposition, is getting threadbare as more meetings are met with higher levels of opposition – no mere seeding of the front ranks of the audience.

CNN political analyst David Gergen asks the question: Are town hall protests threatening health care reform?

Beneath the din it is also obvious that there is a growing bloc of voters on the right and a good many in the middle who are becoming passionately opposed to the overhaul of the health care system envisioned by liberal Democrats, especially in the House. It is the intensity of their feeling as much as the size of the crowd that may shape the voting on Capitol Hill in coming weeks.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Eye on the Media, Miscellaneous | 2 Comments »