President Obama’s job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.
Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and even Richard Nixon all had higher approval ratings 10-and-a-half months into their presidencies. Obama’s immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 86 percent, or 39 points higher than Obama at this stage. Bush’s support came shortly after he launched the war in Afghanistan in response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he doesn’t “put a lot of stock” in the survey by Gallup, which has conducted presidential approval polls since 1938, longer than any other organization.
“If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I’d visit my doctor,” Gibbs said in response to questions from Fox. “I’m sure a six-year-old with a Crayon could do something not unlike that. I don’t put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is daily Gallup trend. I don’t pay a lot of attention to the meaninglessness of it.”
Emphasis added. Bear in mind, however, that Gibbs isn’t attacking Gallup for being inaccurate. He’s attacking them for the same reason the administration attacked Fox and Edmunds: dissent. It’s not currently allowed in our country to disagree with The One or The One’s Minions. Disagreement with Obama is a crime tantamount to treason and is being treated as such. It’s a strategy straight out of Saul Alkinsky’s playbook.
Regarding the actual data from Gallup, however, check this out:
When Gallup began taking presidential approval polls 71 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt had been president for more than five years. During his remaining time in office, his job approval rating never fell below 48 percent.
The next 11 presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, all had higher job approval ratings than Obama at this stage of their tenure. Their ratings were:
– George W. Bush, 86 percent
– Bill Clinton, 52 percent
– George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
– Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
– Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
– Gerald Ford, 52 percent
– Richard Nixon, 59 percent
– Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
– John Kennedy, 77 percent
– Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
– Harry Truman, 49 percent
Hilarious. I’m surprised MSNBC didn’t make a bigger grab for the bottom spot, cause with Maddow and Olbermann making obscene sexual references every night while trying to undercut a grassroots movement (while giggling like 12 year olds), you would think they’d drop further.
CNN, which invented the cable news network more than two decades ago, will hit a new competitive low with its prime-time programs in October, finishing fourth – and last – among the cable news networks with the audience that all the networks rely on for their advertising.
The official monthly numbers will be finalized at 4 p.m. Monday and will include results from Friday. CNN executives conceded that will not change the competitive standing for the month. CNN will still be last in prime time.
That means CNN’s programs were behind not only Fox News and MSNBC, but even its own sister network HLN (formerly Headline News.) Three of its four shows between 7 and 11 p.m. finished fourth and last among the cable news networks. That was the first time CNN had finished that poorly with its prime-time shows.
I’m going to put my money on Wolf “Where am I?” Blitzer and Campbell “Everyone is a Racist” Brown as having a large part to do with this.
So much for the hoopla and highly publicized activities of this week’s G-20 economic summit.
Fifty-four percent (54%) of Americans say the U.S. economy will be helped more by the decisions of U.S. business leaders to grow their own businesses than by the actions of world leaders on behalf of the global economy.
[…]
Sixty percent (60%) of investors place more faith in U.S. business leaders. Confidence as measured by the Rasmussen Consumer and Investor Indexes is down slightly after a week of gains.
“Adam Smith would be proud. While all the media attention is focused on the G-20, the American people are looking in a different direction for solutions to the global economic slowdown,” Scott Rasmussen, founder and publisher of Rasmussen Reports, explains. “By a nearly two-to-one margin, voters say decisions U.S. business owners make will do more for the economy than pronouncements by the world leaders gathered in London.”
What, oh, how crazy? Americans feel that AMERICANS are better suited to fixing the AMERICAN economy than a bunch of socialist Europeans? Tell this to the MSM, who can’t fall over themselves quick enough when explaining how the socialists are going to “fix everything.” Maybe it’s time we went back to basics and relied upon our own devices instead of crawling to Europe like Obama did asking for help from, as previously mentioned, SOCIALISTS!
Barack Obama, the World’s Greatest Orator (™all news organisations [sic]), didn’t exactly cover himself in glory when the BBC’s political editor Nick Robinson asked him a question about who was to blame for the financial crisis. Normally word perfect, Obama ummed, ahed and waffled for the best part of two and a half minutes. Here, John Crace decodes what he was really thinking …
What follows that introduction is a hilarious blow-by-blow recounting of Obama’s stuttering, stammering and “deer-in-the-headlights” response.
Some highlights:
Barack Obama: “I, I, would say that, er … pause [I HAVEN’T A CLUE] … if you look at … pause [WHO IS THIS NICK ROBINSON JERK?] … the, the sources of this crisis … pause [JUST KEEP GOING, BUDDY] … the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . pause [I’M IN WAY TOO DEEP HERE] … a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system … pause, close eyes [THIS IS GOING TO GO DOWN LIKE A CROCK OF SHIT BACK HOME. HELP]. I think what is also true is that … pause [I WANT NICK ROBINSON TO DISAPPEAR] … here in Great Britain … pause [SHIT, GORDY’S THE HOST, DON’T LAND HIM IN IT] … here in continental Europe … pause [DAMN IT, BLAME EVERYONE.]
The rest of the column is just as entertaining. Go read it. Now.
Wikipedia is apparently out exercising their censorship legs. How dare anyone question The One! Comrades, there must be no dissent. We will all live in the great paradise he provides us, for he is the Obamessiah, the one we have been waiting for who shall lead us from the darkness.
Or, he might be a crooked know-nothing politician from inner city Chicago who associates with terrorists and has more skeletons in his closet than Ted Kennedy has in the backseat of his car.
I guess the jury is still out, you know?
Wikipedia, the online “free encyclopedia” mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama’s presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned.
A perusal through Obama’s current Wikipedia entry finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. Some of Obama’s most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year.
Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama’s eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.
Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now!
Indeed, multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days.
The first argument I would expect to hear is that the entry was some maniacal attack on BHO, claiming ludicrous theories that had no factual evidence.
Not the case:
In one example, one Wikipedia user added the following to Obama’s page:
“There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts.”
As is required on the online encyclopedia, that entry was backed up by third-party media articles, citing the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com
The entry was posted on Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. EST. Just three minutes later, the entry was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the websites rules against “fringe” material.
“Fringe” material? Yeah, I suppose it’s “fringe” to want to know if the President of the United States of America is CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT. Somehow, I think that most Americans would be interested to know the answer that that question. This was covered in major news outlets like the Chicago Tribune, so it’s not like it’s just some crackpot theory.
Maybe Wikipedia just wants to not have people insulting the President. You know, maybe it’s one of those pro-America things, where they just want to keep the office clean and not throw mud in a public forum at our highest elected official.
Oops, wrong answer; apparently mud-slinging at President Bush is just fine.
The Wikipedia entry about former President George W. Bush, by contrast, is highly critical. One typical entry reads, “Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple accounts of alcohol abuse. … After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism. In 2005, the Bush administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession.”
The entry on Bush also cites claims that he was “favorably treated due to his father’s political standing” during his National Guard service.” It says Bush served on the board of directors for Harken and that questions of possible insider trading involving Harken arose even though a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation concluded the information Bush had at the time of his stock sale was not sufficient to constitute insider trading.
Wikipedia can go punch itself in the face. I highly recommend reading WND’s full article here. Obviously it’s their sandbox that we are playing in so they can do whatever they want (in the same way Twitter removed #tcot from their “trending topics” feed), but it’s still just a blatant example of censorship and bias.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that –
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!
MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.
Matthews wasn’t done with his odd new job description . . . An incredulous Scarborough kept pressing, astonished at such a complete 180 from Matthews’s repeated insistence during the Bush presidency that he had to hold the government accountable.
SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?
MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.
Keith Olbermann’s brand of commentary may carry his network’s dismal ratings, but MSNBC executives are scrubbing the talkmeister’s anchor duties after the cable channel finished dead last in the Nielsen rankings of all news coverage during the two weeks of political conventions.
MSNBC announced Monday that Olbermann and Chris Matthews have both been booted as co-hosts on political night coverage in favor of David Gregory, whose White House press corps experience may make him better suited to deliver sober and less opinion-driven assessments of the news.
Shocking. Matthews and Olbermann, not being impartial newsmen? I just can’t believe it. I mean, hasn’t every news host in the country said that he felt a thrill go up his leg when Obama speaks? Hasn’t everyone compared Bill Clinton to Jesus? Isn’t that everyone’s reaction? Whoops, nope! Try again next time, you MSM tool.
How amazing is it that Olbermann spends nearly half his show every day insulting Bill O’Reilly and Fox News, and now, due to how badly FNC mopped the floor with MSNBC over convention week, he’s been removed from the political team.
You would think that now that we are clearly winning the War in Iraq that the media should be reporting our success. After all, they’ve spent the last five years singing the defeat of the United States and it would only be fair for unbiased, professional representatives of the mainstream media should at least try to cover both sides.
Of course, since we have a lunatic fringe collection of neo-socialists bent on the destruction of America spoon feeding us ’spin’ every night, they are running from Iraq as fast as possible now that the surge is working.
The number of embedded reporters in Iraq has plummeted 74 percent over the past nine months, from 219 in September 2007 to a low of 58 in June, as U.S. troop casualties have plunged, according to Department Of Defense data analysis by CNSNews.com Staff Writer Kevin Mooney. U.S. casualties were down 84 percent in May and 75 percent in June from year-ago numbers, for example.
Amazing. US casualties drop, and suddenly the MSM has nothing to say about Iraq. How utterly unsurprising. These jackals in the MSM need to shed the sheep’s clothing and just admit to the American people what they are. They’re not out there to inform the public or serve the public good. They are sneakly little socialist spin doctors out to make sure everyone in America hates themselves and their country just as much as the reporters and editors do.
As columnist Paul Greenberg puts it, “For much of the American media, good news is no news.”
Apparently, this was announced back in April, but I just saw a commercial for it tonight.
G4 has a new show coming out this summer called “Hurl,” and as the title would suggest, the point of the show…vomit, and lots of it. Contestants eat mountains of food, and then perform stunts designed to make them upchuck. The last person standing wins $1000, while all of them permanently lose every shred of dignity and any chance at ever going on a date again.
This new reality show that has five contestants attempting to prove their iron stomach prowess by eating food in a short period of time. This is immediately followed by nausea-enducing acts. Those who managed to complete each feat without “hurling” will be crowned winner.
This really is, I think, the worst idea for a TV show in the history of television. Whoever thought this up (and whoever signed off on it) should be shipped to a deserted island and forced to contemplate the meaning of the words “decency,” “intelligence” and “common sense.”
This is unbelievable. Have we as a society sunk so low that we are entertained by this sort of garbage? (I say we rhetorically, because I doubt that I or anyone reading this blog would be entertained by this).
I am reminded of the “Idiocracy” movie, a fantastic sci-fi flick that has a society so dumbed down that a 100 IQ man is a genius and they spend their evenings watching a TV show called “OW MY BALLS” amid Internet banner ads and towering stacks of garbage out the windows.
This show is the first step down that path. Congratulations television industry.
In the comparison of the major news networks and Fox News Channel, the study found that Fox News reports on Democratic presidential contenders were 51 percent positive and 49 percent negative, while for Republican contenders the percentages were 49 percent positive and 51 percent negative. For the three major news networks, the study found that reporting of Democratic candidates was 47 percent positive and 53 percent negative, and reports on Republican candidates was 40 percent positive and 60 percent negative.
Basically, this is something we knew already, and they are just making it official. It is really funny to see this, because with all the flak the Left wingers give Fox, they actually showed the Democrat candidates in a favorable light more often than the Republicans.
