One of the reasons blogs like this one have sprung up over the past few years is the fact that too often liberals find that the media, rather than being liberal or conservative, is clueless and is subject to being rolled by conservatives in an attempt to fool the public.
On Wednesday the Washington Post's Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt got rolled during a Post Q&A. The questioner asked why a "recent Gallup Poll had Obama at 58 percent approval, the lowest 100-Day presidential rating in forty years except for Bill Clinton's 56 percent in 1993."
Hiatt gave a rambling answer about how that Obama is still popular, just not among Republicans. But somehow Hiatt never thought to question if the reader was correct, or to spend a few seconds checking out the claim before validating it.
If Hiatt had bothered to check it out, as reporters are supposed to do, he would found the reader was parrotting the right-wing talking points spun by the Washington Times who wrote that "President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years" at 56% approval.
One problem, the Gallup Poll says Obama's approval rating is at 65%.
How can that be? Because the Times, and conservatives, are cherry picking data from a poll with different methodology and comparing to past 100 day polls. Using comparable data Obama is fourth among Presidents over the past 50 plus year, just after Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Reagan, but well of Bush I & II.
But why should Hiatt think to challenge the reader? It's not as if Hiatt worked for a place that recently conducted a poll showing for the first time in six years more people think that the country is on the right track than wrong track (ABC News - Washington Post poll). If he was aware of that poll then he would have been aware that percentage of people thinking the country is going in the right direction has gone from 8% in November to 50% now, signifying strong support for the President.
But that's just one indicator. It's also not like Hiatt would have been aware that the previous day the Conference Board reported that a leading indicator, the Consumer Confidence Index, had increased by 50% in the last month, going from 26% to 39%.
No, if the reader claimed Obama had lower approval ratings than other past presidents, it must be so and there was no need to wonder why that conflicted with his own paper's data or other leading data. Anyway people can figure out the truth for themselves. Surely they can find it in a blog somewhere.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Where Have All The Moderates Gone?
When the 108th Congress closed out in early January 2007 the Republican Party had 55 Senators and 229 House Representatives. With the defection of Sen. Arlen Specter, the GOP is today looking at 40 Senators, 178 Representatives and the only thing keeping the Democrats from getting to a filibuster proof 60 votes in the Senate the seating of Al Franken.
What happened? In the GOP house the moderates have left the building, or at least most of them, leaving the GOP as a party of southern whites, rural America, religious conservatives and the wealthy.
Previously, as Thomas Frank pointed out in What's the Matter With Kansas? the Republican party was able to convince a slight majority of Americans that by helping the party improve the economic fortunes of the wealthy that the party would deliver on so-called moral issues. Instead the working class found that the GOP's policies were hurting them economically and little was accomplished on the moral issues.
Today more and more people are looking at the economy and back at the 1990s and deciding that the GOP hasn't delivered and so they are looking for other options. The trend had its base in the Northeast and the west coast, as shown by the states Sen. John Kerry won in 2004. Since then Ohio and Florida flipped to the Democratic Party, as have states like Indiana and Virginia.
It is a only a matter of time before much of the rest of the country decides they have had enough also of the GOP and the party is looking at 37 Senators. To Republicans the problem is not that they aren't out of touch with mainstream America but that they aren't conservative enough.
That kind of thinking led Sen. Specter to give up on the GOP in Pennsylvania, understanding that conservatives will win the primary and lose the general election. Since the GOP is apparently OK with the moderates leaving, one can only expect the voters to follow.
What happened? In the GOP house the moderates have left the building, or at least most of them, leaving the GOP as a party of southern whites, rural America, religious conservatives and the wealthy.
Previously, as Thomas Frank pointed out in What's the Matter With Kansas? the Republican party was able to convince a slight majority of Americans that by helping the party improve the economic fortunes of the wealthy that the party would deliver on so-called moral issues. Instead the working class found that the GOP's policies were hurting them economically and little was accomplished on the moral issues.
Today more and more people are looking at the economy and back at the 1990s and deciding that the GOP hasn't delivered and so they are looking for other options. The trend had its base in the Northeast and the west coast, as shown by the states Sen. John Kerry won in 2004. Since then Ohio and Florida flipped to the Democratic Party, as have states like Indiana and Virginia.
It is a only a matter of time before much of the rest of the country decides they have had enough also of the GOP and the party is looking at 37 Senators. To Republicans the problem is not that they aren't out of touch with mainstream America but that they aren't conservative enough.
That kind of thinking led Sen. Specter to give up on the GOP in Pennsylvania, understanding that conservatives will win the primary and lose the general election. Since the GOP is apparently OK with the moderates leaving, one can only expect the voters to follow.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Understanding Capitalism & Conservatives
Monday's New York Times and the Washington Post showcased the differences between the Democratic and Republican approach to the economic system and whether the tax system is fair.
The New York Times featured a couple in Indiana who found, and were grateful for, an extra $50 in their weekly unemployment checks. The Washington Post, on the other hand, featured a couple who made more than $500,000 last year and was concerned amount that they would pay additional taxes.
For conservatives, and Republicans, the pity falls on the couple making a half million dollars and the burdens they face in paying taxes. Democrats focus on the $50 the couple receives in order to help them make ends meet.
Conservatives proclaim business are what provides jobs for people when in reality it is demand that provides sales for businesses. As the country is now figuring out, when consumers choose, or are forced to cut back, sales drop and businesses suffer. A company can have great products but if consumers don't have money to buy those products there won't be many sales.
None of this should come as a surprise. Democrats tend to be Keynesians who believe that consumers and their demand for goods and services are key economic drivers, while Republicans are supply-siders who believes that producers and their willingness to create goods and services set the pace of economic growth
Supply side economics has been largely discredited yet conservatives and Republicans apparently haven't gotten the message. The public can continue to expect to hear this debate because it is difficult to promote half millionaires as victims without promoting the interests of the rich and supply side economics. Getting the public to understand that the concentration of wealth in a limited segment of society does not provide for a stable economy, in fact produces bubbles, which when burst hurt all segments of society.
The New York Times featured a couple in Indiana who found, and were grateful for, an extra $50 in their weekly unemployment checks. The Washington Post, on the other hand, featured a couple who made more than $500,000 last year and was concerned amount that they would pay additional taxes.
For conservatives, and Republicans, the pity falls on the couple making a half million dollars and the burdens they face in paying taxes. Democrats focus on the $50 the couple receives in order to help them make ends meet.
Conservatives proclaim business are what provides jobs for people when in reality it is demand that provides sales for businesses. As the country is now figuring out, when consumers choose, or are forced to cut back, sales drop and businesses suffer. A company can have great products but if consumers don't have money to buy those products there won't be many sales.
None of this should come as a surprise. Democrats tend to be Keynesians who believe that consumers and their demand for goods and services are key economic drivers, while Republicans are supply-siders who believes that producers and their willingness to create goods and services set the pace of economic growth
Supply side economics has been largely discredited yet conservatives and Republicans apparently haven't gotten the message. The public can continue to expect to hear this debate because it is difficult to promote half millionaires as victims without promoting the interests of the rich and supply side economics. Getting the public to understand that the concentration of wealth in a limited segment of society does not provide for a stable economy, in fact produces bubbles, which when burst hurt all segments of society.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Living in Oblivion
After watching Peggy Noonan's "performance" on This Week the 2000 presidential results came into focus. For years many on the left considered George Bush and his fellow conservatives gutless hypocrites for claiming an election they lost.
Afterall, how could they claim the presidency when they were behind in both the electoral and popular vote going into Florida? Didn't they want to know that they truly won the election? Apparently it didn't matter, just as it doesn't really matter if the U.S. tortured as George Bush promised that we didn't.
"Some things in life need to be mysterious," said Noonan about the release of the so-called torture memos, "Sometimes you need to just keep walking.
"It's hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, oh, much good will come of that."
Actually none of this should come as a surprise to anyone. In 2000 when the Supreme Court ordered a stop to counting ballots in Florida because counting votes could determine that Al Gore won would, in Scalia's words "threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.”
Actually the reverse happened. By not allowing the votes to be counted the Supreme Court cast a cloud upon the legitimacy of Bush's "election." Rule first and count second was not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.
Scalia's statement, made by a member of a court in a democracy was shocking, but in the Noonan view of the world, we should just keep walking and not look too closely so we don't find out things we don't want to know. Living in Oblivion, a conservatives mantra.
Afterall, how could they claim the presidency when they were behind in both the electoral and popular vote going into Florida? Didn't they want to know that they truly won the election? Apparently it didn't matter, just as it doesn't really matter if the U.S. tortured as George Bush promised that we didn't.
"Some things in life need to be mysterious," said Noonan about the release of the so-called torture memos, "Sometimes you need to just keep walking.
"It's hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, oh, much good will come of that."
Actually none of this should come as a surprise to anyone. In 2000 when the Supreme Court ordered a stop to counting ballots in Florida because counting votes could determine that Al Gore won would, in Scalia's words "threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.”
Actually the reverse happened. By not allowing the votes to be counted the Supreme Court cast a cloud upon the legitimacy of Bush's "election." Rule first and count second was not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.
Scalia's statement, made by a member of a court in a democracy was shocking, but in the Noonan view of the world, we should just keep walking and not look too closely so we don't find out things we don't want to know. Living in Oblivion, a conservatives mantra.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
GOPHers Unite!
After eight years of supporting a presidency that nearly destroyed the American economy, conservatives have now decided that it is time to complain.
Now, not in 2000 when the Supreme Court decided to throw out an election and give the White House to the guy in second place in both the electoral and popular vote. Nor in 2000 when the Democrats were looking to extend the peace and prosperity the country had achieved.
Instead conservatives choose someone who managed to quickly bankrupt the economy through tax cuts and an ill conceived war in Iraq.
So four years later surely the conservatives must have risen up in anger and sought a return to peace and prosperity. No, they turned out in droves to continue the path of deficits and war.
And in 2008, as the economy was falling off the cliff, did they abandon the GOP? For the most part no. Sen. John McCain received 46% of the vote, only 2% less than Gov. Bush received in 2000.
But now, upset that their candidates no longer have the opportunity to lead the country to ruin, they have decided it is time to protest. They say they are afraid of what will happen to the country. Instead they are probably more afraid that just as the Democrats fixed the economy in the 1990s after Bush I, they will fix the economy again after Bush II.
Maybe they need to rename the Republican party from the Grand Old Party to the Grand Old Party of Hypocrites, or GOPHers.
Now, not in 2000 when the Supreme Court decided to throw out an election and give the White House to the guy in second place in both the electoral and popular vote. Nor in 2000 when the Democrats were looking to extend the peace and prosperity the country had achieved.
Instead conservatives choose someone who managed to quickly bankrupt the economy through tax cuts and an ill conceived war in Iraq.
So four years later surely the conservatives must have risen up in anger and sought a return to peace and prosperity. No, they turned out in droves to continue the path of deficits and war.
And in 2008, as the economy was falling off the cliff, did they abandon the GOP? For the most part no. Sen. John McCain received 46% of the vote, only 2% less than Gov. Bush received in 2000.
But now, upset that their candidates no longer have the opportunity to lead the country to ruin, they have decided it is time to protest. They say they are afraid of what will happen to the country. Instead they are probably more afraid that just as the Democrats fixed the economy in the 1990s after Bush I, they will fix the economy again after Bush II.
Maybe they need to rename the Republican party from the Grand Old Party to the Grand Old Party of Hypocrites, or GOPHers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)