Frankly this sort of stuff is just funny as hell, in an ironic sort of way. The ever consistent left. Remember when any dissent, as long as it was the left dissenting and George Bush was the target, was the height of patriotism?
Yeah, not so much anymore. Check out this from Ed Schultz. Ed Schultz for heaven sake, talking about dissent and war:
ED SCHULTZ: Republicans are attacking the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war! . . . There should be no debate: we should be kicking [Gaddafi's] ass . . . Whose side are you on, Sarah: are you with the terrorists, Sarah, or are you with the President of the United States? . . . And I have to ask the question tonight: where is the patriotism from all of these war-hawks? Where’s the patriotism of the Republican party? . . . What about being a patriot? . . . So the question now for the doubters who are out and about: why don’t you support the president? . . . We’ve been talking about the lack of patriotism from prominent Republicans . . . Laura [Flanders] what about the patriotism?
Sometimes I have to wonder if these guys are like geese and just wake up in a new world everyday, because they apparently just don’t remember the Bush years at all or what they said during that time. And just as apparently they don’t seem to remember when they argued that dissent was as patriotic and American as apple pie. As I recall Ed Schultz was the voice of dissent about Iraq – in fact he liked to brag about that fact. Change each of the names above to “Ed Schultz” and it would be precisely what he whined about and pushed back against when he was the target of such nonsense.
But now, suddenly, because it fits his agenda apparently, he’s what I can only assume he’d have called a “chicken-hawk” a few years ago. And he’ll brook no dissent, by gosh. You’re simply “unpatriotic” if you disagree.
Ed Shultz – another irony impaired lefty blowhard with no integrity who has a memory as long as … well you pick the proper metaphor, but whatever you choose, it’s not very long at all. You can see the clip of him “leaning forward” on MSNBC here.
It appears we’re again witnessing leftist projection as those on that side of the ideological divide continue to try to sell the “violent and hateful right-wing rhetoric” canard as a reason for concern.
In fact the right can’t really hold a candle to some of the left. Media Research Center provides a little primer.
Under the category of hateful rhetoric, see if you can guess who said this Michelle Malkin?
“…a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”
If you guessed Keith Olberman, give yourself a point. Of course we could probably cite Olberman for any number of hateful diatribes but one example makes the point.
And this about then sitting (2007) VP Dick Cheney?
“I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.”
A little hard but not much – that would be Bill Maher, that paragon of restraint and good taste. Maher also popped this one out there about Rush Limbaugh when Heath Ledger was found dead (2008):
“Why couldn’t he have croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger?”
No cries for “civility in discourse” then, were there?
Hateful? Try this from Charles Karel Bouley, a San Francisco radio host on the announced death of Presidential spokesman Tony Snow from cancer:
“I hear about Tony Snow and say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you. Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot?”
Yeah, “civil discourse”.
Violent rhetoric? Any idea who said this about Congresswoman Michele Bachman in 2009?
“Slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”
That would be Air America’s Montel Williams. Had that been someone on the right we’d have heard the usual suspects on the left denounce Williams as a misogynist, etc. Instead – crickets.
Mike Malloy, a favorite lefty radio talker on Rush Limbaugh:
“I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!
That was just last year when Limbaugh was taken to the hospital with chest pains – you know, “civil discourse.” (more Malloy here)
Ed Shultz joins the civil discourse choir talking about the left’s favorite righty, Dick Cheney. Here he lovingly wishes the former VP a happy life in 2009:
“He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country….Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you?”
And in 2010, Schultz continued his enviable record of “civil discourse” when talking about Cheney and his heart problems:
“We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him!”
Who is “we” Mr. Schultz?
hypocrite master of civil discourse who has been chiding the right for a couple of weeks now fantasized on the air about the death of Rush Limbaugh:
“Somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp.”
Bless their little hearts, when it comes to “civil discourse”, they are the standard, no? And of course, as anyone who has followed the “discourse” during the Bush years (and as the examples above point out, since) they know that what is listed above is the very tip of a honking big iceberg of similar “civil discourse” from the left.
It is the primary reason I refuse to be lectured to by these people. I’ll again make the point that they’re much less interested in “civil discourse” than they are in shutting the right up.
Ain’t gonna work, fellas.
It appears the astroturfed "One Nation" rally – which was apparently organized by unions and socialist organizations – didn’t quite add up to the attendance hype despite claims to the contrary.
You did know that’s what this is all about didn’t you?
It was all about who could claim bragging rights as to who turned out the most. If you don’t believe it, go read the links at memeorandum. In fact, Nicole Belle at the aptly named “Crooks and Liars” lives up to the blog’s name.
Dr. Blue has a cool animated gif that seems to settle the question of comparative crowd sizes. But just as interesting is the seeming attempts by some media outlets to make the crowd at least equal to the Beck rally.
AP had the story which included this paragraph:
Organizers claimed they had as many participants as Beck’s rally. But Saturday’s crowds were less dense and didn’t reach as far to the edges as they did during Beck’s rally. The National Park Service stopped providing official crowd estimates in the 1990s.
However, when MSNBC ran the AP’s story on it’s site, well, as Confederate Yankee points out, that paragraph didn’t make the cut. Of course Ed Schultz, the lefty loudmouth who boasted he could turn out as many as Glen Beck, works at MSNBC.
And then there’s CSPAN’s choice of a crowd shot. They either missed the fact that the picture they used to illustrate the “One Nation” rally had Gadsden flags all through it (i.e. the picture is that of the Beck rally), or they simply ignored them (or, I guess, thought no one would notice).
I offer all this up as a perfect case study in media complicity (some media) in carrying a narrative. The narrative? There is no enthusiasm gap, the left can turn out as many as the right.
Damn inconvenient that the crowd shots and other media reports don’t support the narrative, isn’t it?
As we enter October, now is the time to begin to pay close attention to election polls. As the November election date approaches, more and more people will turn their attention to them and the polls will begin to more accurately reflect the probable outcome.
But there are other polls out there that are interesting as well. They give indicators, moods and trends which, when combined with election polls help better explain why one candidate is surging and the other faltering.
Two of those catch my notice today. The first is the POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll. While it may mean absolutely nothing in 2012, the most important year for Obama, it does provide a snap-shot of the mood of the electorate. In it pollsters found:
- Only 38% say Obama deserves re-election and 44% will vote to oust him out
- Voters trust congressional Republicans to create jobs more than Obama by an 11-point margin
- Republicans hold a 4-point edge in generic ballot
The significance is the difference in his job approval rating (42% – an all time low) and his "deserves reelection" rating. The latter is the most significant, and it says he’s a one term president – for now. Remember, in politics, it is all about the confidence one has in the leadership. This poll could be considered a lack of confidence vote as it concerns Obama right now.
The fact that voters ‘trust’ Republicans to create more jobs than Democrats by 11 points isn’t so much an endorsement of Republican economic policies, but a rejection of Democratic ones. They’re deemed to have failed (and that failure, I would claim, is directly connected with Obama’s reelection number).
You have to wonder if Republicans are able to do a marginally better job on the job front (or the economy begins to rebound naturally and they get some credit) whether it will also pick up Obama’s reelection numbers.
The last number – 4% on the positive side for the GOP on the generic ballot – simply reflects the facts the other two numbers do. Voters are deeply dissatisfied with Democrats. That doesn’t mean they’re wild about the GOP though.
Some other news from the poll concerns the media preferences of the electorate:
- 81% of those polled get midterm election news from cable news channels
- 42% say Fox News is their main source – more than CNN (30%) and MSNBC (12%) combined
- Bill O’Reilly seen to have greatest "positive impact" of opinionated media personalities with 49%, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are second and third
- MSNBC personalities largely unknown – 70% have never heard of Ed Schultz, 55% haven’t heard of Rachel Maddow
Now this is interesting stuff for many reasons. One is it provides proof that the left’s attempted demonization of Fox News has not worked at all. I wonder how that’s going to sit with the White House. In fact, it seems to have been a dismal failure. What the left would characterize as “right biased media” apparently rules.
Secondly, I find it hilarious that the “stars” of the left are unknown to the majority of those polled. And remember, the 30% who say they have heard of Ed Schultz (I’d be one of those) don’t necessarily listen to him (I’d also be one of those). John Stewart, however, did quite well on the “positive impact” side of things.
Last – is Limbaugh’s star being eclipsed by O’Reilly and Beck? I realize that O’Reilly, for some reason, has held the top spot on cable opinion shows for some time, and Beck does both radio and cable while Limbaugh only does radio, but that’s interesting info if correct. However, regardless as to the ranking of those three, they apparently convincingly own the “positive impact” category of “opinionated media”. Wonder what Hannity thinks about all this (and not being really in the running?)?
And as an aside, despite their declining circulation numbers, newspapers remain the most important news source for likely voters:
Despite steady declines in circulation over the past decade, newspapers are more influential than national news broadcasts when it comes to news on the upcoming election, with 72 percent of respondents saying they turn to newspapers or their websites.
Local news did better, at 73 percent, and conversations with friends and family was the second-most-cited source, at 79 percent. Radio was cited by only 58 percent of respondents, and non-newspaper websites and blogs by 39 percent.
Anyway, all of this makes sense when you view the results of the other poll. And, given the majorities who’ve never heard of the liberal show hosts, I’m not sure it would be any different if it was the Republicans in control and failing as dismally as the Democrats are. When that was the case, those folks were on the air and apparently few were tuning in to hear what they had to say.
Why? Because for the most part, Limbaugh, Beck and O’Reilly talk about getting government out of our hair, making it smaller and less costly. That resonates. That reflects the mood of the country. It is also something you’re not going to hear from the Ed Shultz’s and Rachel Maddow’s of the world.
There’s a free clue (and one that should be obvious by now) to any politician or political party that wants it.
Sometimes the mask slips in the most unlikely places. The little watched Ed Schultz show on MSNBC hosted Ralph Nader and Barney Frank. Frank took heat from Nader for not, in Nader’s opinion, regulating the financial institutions enough. Frank responded by saying:
Democrats are “trying on every front to increase the role of government.”
Tell me again why the GOP shouldn’t be the party of “no”? They should embrace the role.
Also included at the press conference was a blogger from the left-wing Huffington Post (and more power to him, I might add):
Longtime members of the White House press corps who are accustomed to sitting in the front row of presidential press conferences were surprised to find their prime real estate occupied by Ed Schultz, a strident liberal who hosts a nationally syndicated radio program originally based in Fargo, N.D., but of late broadcasting from the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.
So, since no right-wing bloggers or talk show hosts were included, does this mean we need a Fairness Doctrine for Presidential press conferences?
Clearly, President Obama was making a point of showing deference to the Left at his first prime-time press conference, which was broadcast to millions from the stately East Room of the White House on Monday.
Like such a show was actually necessary. I can’t wait for Sen. Debby Stabenow to bring the Fairness Doctrine up again in the Senate. Watching someone embarrass themselves is usually pretty entertaining.