Greetings from the Left Coast!
Most fair-minded people who take a moment to think about it will agree that if George W. Bush had taken Laura to New York City for a “date night” when the rest of the country was mired in recession, we would have seen a completely different response from the media in this country. The networks would have been shouting from the rooftops about what a waste it was of taxpayer dollars, and how insensitive it was when ordinary people were suffering so much.
And if Laura had stayed behind in Paris to do a little shopping with the twins while George traveled on to the Middle East and back to the U.S.? Please. You know the pundits would have been apoplectic. And don't even get me started on the Air Force One flyover in New York City.
The media has been so far in the tank for Obama that they’ve dropped any pretence of objectivity. But I thought that media bias had reached its maximum possible peak with the comments made by Newsweek’s Evan Thomas to Hardball’s Chris Matthews (he of the tingling leg) a couple of weeks ago. In case you haven’t heard, Thomas was comparing Obama to Ronald Reagan. While Reagan was “all about America,” Obama is “above that now.” “In a way,” he went on, “Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world. He’s sort of God. He’s going to bring all different sides together.” Two days later, on Inside Washington, Thomas went on to explain that “We’re understanding what Obama is. He is the great teacher. He is this guy that stands above everybody. There’s some condescension in it, [ya think, Evan?] but he stands above everybody and says, ‘Now listen. You people have to stop blaming each other unreasonably. You have to get along here and I am going to show you the way.’”
But, unfortunately, even this messianic pronouncement wasn’t the peak. Tonight, ABC’s Charles Gibson will anchor the evening news broadcast from the Blue Room of the White House. Following this, ABC News will broadcast an hour-long infomercial for Obama’s health care plan. Reportedly, Obama will answer questions from audience members who have been pre-selected by ABC News. No opponents and no opposing views will be presented. Opposing groups have attempted to buy commercial time during the broadcast – ABC has rejected the ads. They’ve tried to buy time before or after – ABC has rejected that as well. Needless to say, you won't see any Republicans there.
I’ve been around a while, folks. I was born in the final year of the Truman administration. Grew up during Ike’s tenure. Became politically aware during Johnson’s. Barack Obama is the ninth President to hold office since I’ve been old enough to have some grasp of politics. And I have never, in my entire life, seen anything like this. The mainstream media has become a caricature of itself. And they wonder why their ratings continue to decline. Thank God (and by “God” I do not mean Obama) for the “new media” of the Internet, cable TV, and talk radio.
Thanks for listening.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama Votes "Present" On Iran
Greetings from the Left Coast!
So… over the last week or so, President Obama has gone from “gravely concerned” to “deeply troubled” to, as he said earlier today, “appalled and outraged” by what’s been going on in Iran. He’s even gone so far as to “strongly condemn” their beating and killing of their own citizens as “unjust actions.” Wow. At the same time, though, he made it clear that “the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering in Iran’s affairs.” In other words, we will do nothing but wring our hands and voice platitudes about how deplorable the situation is, and hope that it all blows over soon so we can get back to being nice to them in the hope that, contrary to all experience and reason, they’ll be nice to us in return. “We are going to monitor and see how this plays itself out before we make any adjustments about how we proceed.” Boy, now that's courageous leadership.
Meanwhile, regarding the murder of Neda Agha Soltan, which the ever-courageous MSNBC refers to as an “apparent shooting death,” Obama said, “While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.” Unfortunately, when they are in a ruthless theocracy like Iran, they are frequently on the wrong side of the gun barrels, since those in power go to great lengths to insure that they are the only ones with guns. But that’s OK, I’m sure her fiancé and family will take great comfort knowing she was on the right side of history, and that Obama is also suffering in this raw and painful loss.
Furthermore, “The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion.”
Here’s a news flash, Mr. President: they don’t care about the respect of the international community. Most people in this universe already have that figured out. If it wasn’t obvious before the blood started flowing in the streets, it should be now. They have utter contempt for the international community because they believe it is weak and cowardly, and so far, the international community has done little to prove them wrong. They know that you’re not going to do anything, because you and your party have spent the last several years watching them kill our servicemen in Iraq and doing nothing other than maintaining that the war was lost and we should just declare defeat and go home. And they know that the rest of the world isn’t going to do anything, because without strong leadership from the United States, it never does.
So we sit and watch and pretend that the West in general, and the United States in particular, has nothing at stake in the outcome – that it wouldn’t make any difference to us one way or the other if the people of Iran were able to bring down the theocracy. I guess that’s just another example of Obama’s God-like leadership as he stands above the world, the great teacher, working to bring all different sides together. Funny, but to me it seems a lot like the Second Coming – of Jimmy Carter!
Thanks for listening.
So… over the last week or so, President Obama has gone from “gravely concerned” to “deeply troubled” to, as he said earlier today, “appalled and outraged” by what’s been going on in Iran. He’s even gone so far as to “strongly condemn” their beating and killing of their own citizens as “unjust actions.” Wow. At the same time, though, he made it clear that “the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering in Iran’s affairs.” In other words, we will do nothing but wring our hands and voice platitudes about how deplorable the situation is, and hope that it all blows over soon so we can get back to being nice to them in the hope that, contrary to all experience and reason, they’ll be nice to us in return. “We are going to monitor and see how this plays itself out before we make any adjustments about how we proceed.” Boy, now that's courageous leadership.
Meanwhile, regarding the murder of Neda Agha Soltan, which the ever-courageous MSNBC refers to as an “apparent shooting death,” Obama said, “While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.” Unfortunately, when they are in a ruthless theocracy like Iran, they are frequently on the wrong side of the gun barrels, since those in power go to great lengths to insure that they are the only ones with guns. But that’s OK, I’m sure her fiancé and family will take great comfort knowing she was on the right side of history, and that Obama is also suffering in this raw and painful loss.
Furthermore, “The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion.”
Here’s a news flash, Mr. President: they don’t care about the respect of the international community. Most people in this universe already have that figured out. If it wasn’t obvious before the blood started flowing in the streets, it should be now. They have utter contempt for the international community because they believe it is weak and cowardly, and so far, the international community has done little to prove them wrong. They know that you’re not going to do anything, because you and your party have spent the last several years watching them kill our servicemen in Iraq and doing nothing other than maintaining that the war was lost and we should just declare defeat and go home. And they know that the rest of the world isn’t going to do anything, because without strong leadership from the United States, it never does.
So we sit and watch and pretend that the West in general, and the United States in particular, has nothing at stake in the outcome – that it wouldn’t make any difference to us one way or the other if the people of Iran were able to bring down the theocracy. I guess that’s just another example of Obama’s God-like leadership as he stands above the world, the great teacher, working to bring all different sides together. Funny, but to me it seems a lot like the Second Coming – of Jimmy Carter!
Thanks for listening.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Common-Sense Economics
Greetings from the Left Coast!
I’m going to walk through this as slowly and simply as I can: In your own family, you cannot indefinitely spend more money than you take in. Your savings will be exhausted, you will fall deeper and deeper into debt, and you will eventually reach the point where no one is willing to lend you any more money. When you reach that point, you have three choices: (1) Reduce your expenditures to a level that is low enough that you can at least break even, if not begin paying back some of your debt; (2) Increase your income somehow…although that only helps if you don’t increase your expenditures by the same amount; (3) Go broke.
How might those principles apply to a nation – say, the United States? First of all, we have increased our deficit spending to an amount that staggers the imagination. This year’s deficit will be at least four times as large as last year’s which was already the largest on record. And, no, the fact that the last administration had such a large deficit doesn’t justify the current administration quadrupling it. We don’t allow our kids to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior – we shouldn’t let our Presidents do it either. And we’re rapidly approaching the point where no one is going to want to loan us any more money. Even the Chinese are getting nervous about our level of deficit spending. So where are we?
We’ve seen that it’s awfully hard to stop spending on a government program once it’s been started, so #1 is the hardest thing of all to do. #2 can certainly be done – and there are two ways to do it. One is to grow the economy, so that the same tax rates, or even lower tax rates, will yield more revenue. This is called “supply side economics,” and despite the fact that it has worked every time it has been tried, the Democrats still maintain that it doesn’t work, so we can’t do it. The other is to raise taxes. And don’t kid yourself that only the richest Americans will see increases. You could raise their income tax rate to 100% and still not offset this year’s deficit.
Governments, however, do have another choice other than going broke. They can simply print more money. Unfortunately, this causes two bad things. The first is inflation. If there’s more money in circulation, but the supply of goods and services to be purchased hasn’t increased, prices go up. The second is rising interest rates caused by the inflation – if you loan someone $100, and you know that the $100 you get back in the future won’t have as much purchasing power, you’re going to demand higher interest on your loan.
The current administration is spending money at a rate that makes drunken sailors, Alaskan Pipeline workers, and turn-of-the-century loggers hitting town after six months in the backwoods all look like Ebenezer Scrooge. It has to stop. All the “hope” in the world isn’t going to “change” the basic laws of economics. Some of us remember the days of high inflation and double-digit mortgage interest rates. They weren’t fun…and what’s coming down the road will make those look like the good old days.
Thanks for listening.
I’m going to walk through this as slowly and simply as I can: In your own family, you cannot indefinitely spend more money than you take in. Your savings will be exhausted, you will fall deeper and deeper into debt, and you will eventually reach the point where no one is willing to lend you any more money. When you reach that point, you have three choices: (1) Reduce your expenditures to a level that is low enough that you can at least break even, if not begin paying back some of your debt; (2) Increase your income somehow…although that only helps if you don’t increase your expenditures by the same amount; (3) Go broke.
How might those principles apply to a nation – say, the United States? First of all, we have increased our deficit spending to an amount that staggers the imagination. This year’s deficit will be at least four times as large as last year’s which was already the largest on record. And, no, the fact that the last administration had such a large deficit doesn’t justify the current administration quadrupling it. We don’t allow our kids to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior – we shouldn’t let our Presidents do it either. And we’re rapidly approaching the point where no one is going to want to loan us any more money. Even the Chinese are getting nervous about our level of deficit spending. So where are we?
We’ve seen that it’s awfully hard to stop spending on a government program once it’s been started, so #1 is the hardest thing of all to do. #2 can certainly be done – and there are two ways to do it. One is to grow the economy, so that the same tax rates, or even lower tax rates, will yield more revenue. This is called “supply side economics,” and despite the fact that it has worked every time it has been tried, the Democrats still maintain that it doesn’t work, so we can’t do it. The other is to raise taxes. And don’t kid yourself that only the richest Americans will see increases. You could raise their income tax rate to 100% and still not offset this year’s deficit.
Governments, however, do have another choice other than going broke. They can simply print more money. Unfortunately, this causes two bad things. The first is inflation. If there’s more money in circulation, but the supply of goods and services to be purchased hasn’t increased, prices go up. The second is rising interest rates caused by the inflation – if you loan someone $100, and you know that the $100 you get back in the future won’t have as much purchasing power, you’re going to demand higher interest on your loan.
The current administration is spending money at a rate that makes drunken sailors, Alaskan Pipeline workers, and turn-of-the-century loggers hitting town after six months in the backwoods all look like Ebenezer Scrooge. It has to stop. All the “hope” in the world isn’t going to “change” the basic laws of economics. Some of us remember the days of high inflation and double-digit mortgage interest rates. They weren’t fun…and what’s coming down the road will make those look like the good old days.
Thanks for listening.
Thank you, Representative Forbes...
Greetings from the Left Coast.
This past Sunday, I shared some thoughts about our heritage in my post about Flag Day. Just today someone pointed me to a YouTube video of Congressman Randy Forbes (R-VA), who makes the case as well as I've ever heard it made. So I'd like to share it with you:
Thank you, Representative Forbes, for standing up to be counted, and as always, dear reader, thank you for listening.
This past Sunday, I shared some thoughts about our heritage in my post about Flag Day. Just today someone pointed me to a YouTube video of Congressman Randy Forbes (R-VA), who makes the case as well as I've ever heard it made. So I'd like to share it with you:
Thank you, Representative Forbes, for standing up to be counted, and as always, dear reader, thank you for listening.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Some Thoughts On Flag Day
Greetings from the Left Coast!
Flag Day fell on Sunday this year. In the church I attended today, there were lots of red, white, and blue ties on display. The choir sang a beautiful arrangement of America the Beautiful. And as the closing hymn, the congregation sang The Star-Spangled Banner – all three verses. (It actually has four, but there were only three in the hymnal.) As the organist played the introduction, the congregation spontaneously stood. I did the best I could around the large lump that had somehow appeared in my throat.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about President Obama’s statement in Turkey that we were no longer just a Christian nation, and many have questioned whether we have ever been a Christian nation, since the Constitution forbids Congress to pass any law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But there is absolutely no question about the faith of the founding fathers and their views on how that faith affected the operation of our nation.
Consider these words from John Adams: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
And consider also the words of Benjamin Franklin to the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.”
Unfortunately, freedom of religion has somehow degenerated into freedom from religion, and no one seems to be willing to draw a line anywhere between right and wrong, good and evil. Moral judgments aren’t allowed anymore, it seems, particularly in terms of judging someone else’s behavior. Yet, oddly, we also bemoan the results that years of moral relativism have had on our culture. Here's just one example. In an article published yesterday by Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria, writing about the causes of our current economic situation, said:
“Most of what happened over the past decade across the world was legal. Bankers did what they were allowed to do under the law. Politicians did what they thought the system asked of them. Bureaucrats were not exchanging cash for favors. But very few people acted responsibly, honorably or nobly (the very word sounds odd today). This might sound like a small point, but it is not. No system—capitalism, socialism, whatever—can work without a sense of ethics and values at its core. No matter what reforms we put in place, without common sense, judgment and an ethical standard, they will prove inadequate. We will never know where the next bubble will form, what the next innovations will look like and where excesses will build up. But we can ask that people steer themselves and their institutions with a greater reliance on a moral compass.”
Really? What moral compass will we ask that they rely on? To what will we appeal if there is no objective standard of right and wrong? Where will that “ethical standard” come from, if, as Franklin suggested, we have “now forgotten that powerful friend?”
The Founders had that moral compass. They knew what their ethical standards were founded upon. And it is reflected in the writings they left for posterity. In closing, consider the final verse penned by Francis Scott Key in 1814:
Thanks for listening.
Flag Day fell on Sunday this year. In the church I attended today, there were lots of red, white, and blue ties on display. The choir sang a beautiful arrangement of America the Beautiful. And as the closing hymn, the congregation sang The Star-Spangled Banner – all three verses. (It actually has four, but there were only three in the hymnal.) As the organist played the introduction, the congregation spontaneously stood. I did the best I could around the large lump that had somehow appeared in my throat.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about President Obama’s statement in Turkey that we were no longer just a Christian nation, and many have questioned whether we have ever been a Christian nation, since the Constitution forbids Congress to pass any law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But there is absolutely no question about the faith of the founding fathers and their views on how that faith affected the operation of our nation.
Consider these words from John Adams: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
And consider also the words of Benjamin Franklin to the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.”
Unfortunately, freedom of religion has somehow degenerated into freedom from religion, and no one seems to be willing to draw a line anywhere between right and wrong, good and evil. Moral judgments aren’t allowed anymore, it seems, particularly in terms of judging someone else’s behavior. Yet, oddly, we also bemoan the results that years of moral relativism have had on our culture. Here's just one example. In an article published yesterday by Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria, writing about the causes of our current economic situation, said:
“Most of what happened over the past decade across the world was legal. Bankers did what they were allowed to do under the law. Politicians did what they thought the system asked of them. Bureaucrats were not exchanging cash for favors. But very few people acted responsibly, honorably or nobly (the very word sounds odd today). This might sound like a small point, but it is not. No system—capitalism, socialism, whatever—can work without a sense of ethics and values at its core. No matter what reforms we put in place, without common sense, judgment and an ethical standard, they will prove inadequate. We will never know where the next bubble will form, what the next innovations will look like and where excesses will build up. But we can ask that people steer themselves and their institutions with a greater reliance on a moral compass.”
Really? What moral compass will we ask that they rely on? To what will we appeal if there is no objective standard of right and wrong? Where will that “ethical standard” come from, if, as Franklin suggested, we have “now forgotten that powerful friend?”
The Founders had that moral compass. They knew what their ethical standards were founded upon. And it is reflected in the writings they left for posterity. In closing, consider the final verse penned by Francis Scott Key in 1814:
“Oh, thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!”
Thanks for listening.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
What a Fascinating Day!
Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at Left Coast Blues do the heavy thinking for those who just can’t be bothered.
Earlier today, former Vice President Dick Cheney delivered an absolutely brilliant speech on national security to the American Enterprise Institute. This speech, as you might expect, was scheduled weeks in advance. What a coincidence, then, that President Obama also chose to make a speech on national security today, just 45 minutes before Cheney’s remarks were due to begin! One can’t help but wonder if this has something to do with the fact that President Obama’s approval rating has fallen by 9 points since his inauguration (from 65% down to 56%, according to Rassmussen), while Cheney’s has actually risen by 8 points, according to a CNN poll! In campaign-speak, that’s referred to as a “17 point swing.”
One might almost think that President Obama’s speech was intended to be a pre-emptive rhetorical strike against Cheney, who has been increasingly vocal lately. One thing is certain – Obama’s remarks sounded downright defensive.
If you missed Cheney’s speech, and would like to read it in its entirety, you can find the text at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/raw-data-text-dick-cheneys-national-security-speech-aei/. I would strongly recommend that you read it, since it’s not going to be fairly reported by most media outlets. Indeed, liberal commentators are already frothing at the mouth over the fact that anyone is paying serious attention to anything Cheney says. Of course, they don’t debate the substance of what he’s saying, they just attack him personally. Most debate coaches will tell you that when you move to personal attacks, it’s a sure sign that you’re not capable of winning the contest of ideas.
One thing is for sure: if you wanted a clear contrast between the conservative and liberal positions in the war on terror, you now have one.
Some people are wondering out loud why we didn’t hear this kind of straight talk while Bush and Cheney were still in office. My guess is that it was because Cheney was, at the time, working for George Bush, who was content to let history be the ultimate judge of his national security performance. Cheney doesn’t work for Bush anymore, so he is as free as any other private citizen to speak his mind. And he’s doing so. Brilliantly.
Thanks for listening.
Earlier today, former Vice President Dick Cheney delivered an absolutely brilliant speech on national security to the American Enterprise Institute. This speech, as you might expect, was scheduled weeks in advance. What a coincidence, then, that President Obama also chose to make a speech on national security today, just 45 minutes before Cheney’s remarks were due to begin! One can’t help but wonder if this has something to do with the fact that President Obama’s approval rating has fallen by 9 points since his inauguration (from 65% down to 56%, according to Rassmussen), while Cheney’s has actually risen by 8 points, according to a CNN poll! In campaign-speak, that’s referred to as a “17 point swing.”
One might almost think that President Obama’s speech was intended to be a pre-emptive rhetorical strike against Cheney, who has been increasingly vocal lately. One thing is certain – Obama’s remarks sounded downright defensive.
If you missed Cheney’s speech, and would like to read it in its entirety, you can find the text at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/raw-data-text-dick-cheneys-national-security-speech-aei/. I would strongly recommend that you read it, since it’s not going to be fairly reported by most media outlets. Indeed, liberal commentators are already frothing at the mouth over the fact that anyone is paying serious attention to anything Cheney says. Of course, they don’t debate the substance of what he’s saying, they just attack him personally. Most debate coaches will tell you that when you move to personal attacks, it’s a sure sign that you’re not capable of winning the contest of ideas.
One thing is for sure: if you wanted a clear contrast between the conservative and liberal positions in the war on terror, you now have one.
Some people are wondering out loud why we didn’t hear this kind of straight talk while Bush and Cheney were still in office. My guess is that it was because Cheney was, at the time, working for George Bush, who was content to let history be the ultimate judge of his national security performance. Cheney doesn’t work for Bush anymore, so he is as free as any other private citizen to speak his mind. And he’s doing so. Brilliantly.
Thanks for listening.
Friday, May 1, 2009
A Poll You Didn't Hear Much About
Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at Left Coast Blues do the heavy thinking for those who just can't be bothered.
Last Wednesday, April 29, I happened to spot a poll on msn.com. It was being run by msnbc, and entitled, “The President has completed 100 days in office. Based on his performance so far, what grade would you give him?” At the time I cast my vote, 280,404 votes had been cast. They broke down as follows:
Last Wednesday, April 29, I happened to spot a poll on msn.com. It was being run by msnbc, and entitled, “The President has completed 100 days in office. Based on his performance so far, what grade would you give him?” At the time I cast my vote, 280,404 votes had been cast. They broke down as follows:
- 32.9% - A
- 8.8% - B
- 6.2% - C
- 13.9% - D
- 38.2% - F
Yesterday (the 30th), as the vote count continued to climb, the percentages stayed about the same. With 348,545 votes in:
- 32.1% - A
- 8.5% - B
- 6.1% - C
- 14% - D
- 39.3% - F
Yes, over half the people who voted gave him a D or an F. Of course, this poll wasn’t “scientific.” But here’s what’s funny: Go to msnbc and try to find the poll now. You can’t. If you do a Web search, you’ll find other posts about the poll. But if you try to follow the links back to MSNBC, you’ll find a page that says “The page you are seeking has expired and is no longer available at msnbc.com.” And if you search msnbc.com for polls on the first 100 days, all you’ll find is links to stories about polls that talk about what high marks Obama has received. You won’t find a peep about their own poll, where almost 40% of the respondents gave him an F. Why do you suppose that is?
Your American news media. In my lifetime, we’ve gone from “All the news that’s fit to print” to “All the news that fits our agenda.”
Thanks for listening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
