ABC's Golodryga: Fact that 66 percent of Facebook respondents said "a Democratic president [could] keep America safe" "surprised us"
SUMMARY: During ABC News' coverage of the ABC News-Facebook debates, correspondent Bianna Golodryga asserted that the fact that 66 percent of respondents answered yes when asked, "Could a Democratic president keep America safe?" "surprised us." But she did not say why those results were "surpris[ing]." Other media figures have previously asserted that Republicans have an advantage on issues of national security and terrorism, despite polls showing Democrats either tied or at a slight advantage against Republicans on that issue.
During ABC News' coverage of the January 5 ABC News-Facebook debate, ABC News correspondent Bianna Golodryga cited a Facebook "debate group" question asking respondents, "Could a Democratic president keep America safe?" Golodryga continued: "66 percent of you said yes; 27 percent, no." Golodryga did not cite a question asking whether a Republican president could "keep America safe"; indeed, no such question (registration required) was asked on ABC News' Facebook "debate group" page. Golodryga introduced her discussion of the responses to the questions ABC posed on Facebook by asserting, "Now let's go to what surprised us," but did not say why the results of the "keep America safe" question were "surpris[ing]."
As Media Matters for America has documented, other media figures have asserted that Republicans have an advantage on issues of national security and terrorism, despite polls showing Democrats either tied or at a slight advantage against Republicans on that issue. For example, a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted September 27-30, 2007, asking, "Which political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?" found that 41 percent of respondents favored the Democrats, while 40 percent chose the Republicans.
Following are the questions ABC posted (registration required) on its Facebook "debate group" page on January 5, the day of the Republican and Democratic debates:
- Did the ABC News/Facebook Debates give you a better sense of whom you will vote for?
- Based on the debate, do you think a Democratic President could keep America safe from foreign threats?
- Which issue do you wish the Democratic candidates spent more time on? (Environment, Economy, War in Iraq, Immigration, or Health Care)
- Which Democratic candidate appeared the most "presidential" during the debate?
- Which of the following surprised you most about the Republican debate? (Huckabee rarely discusses religion; McCain stays restrained during debate; Romney says drug companies aren't the "Bad Guy;" Thompson stays cool, calm, collected; or Giuliani joins attacks on Romney)
- Which issue do you wish the Republican candidates spent more time on? (War in Iraq, Environment, Immigration, Health Care, or Economy)
- Do you feel more informed about the Republican candidates' positions on foreign policy after this debate?
- Which Republican candidate appeared the most "Presidential" during the debate?
- Do you agree with Barack Obama that Hillary Clinton is "likable enough"?
- Is a Presidential candidate's national "electability" a big factor in deciding your vote in the primaries?
- How much confidence do you have about the US economy in 2008?
From ABC News' January 5 broadcast of the ABC News-Facebook debate:
SAWYER: But of course, the evening isn't just about what the candidates and their forces say. It's also about what you feel at this pivotal moment in history, and for some instant reaction from those watching and taking part on Facebook, we go back again to Bianna Golodryga. What are you hearing, Brianna?
GOLODRYGA: We're hearing a lot, Diane, actually thousands of people are debating the debate, and we picked a few key issues right now we want to talk to you about. Charlie brought up foreign policy, and so we asked people: "Are they more informed about the candidates' foreign policy?" Sixty-seven percent say yes; 33 percent say no.
Another interesting issue: "Is tonight's debate giving you a better sense of who you will vote for?" Some people must be saying the right and the wrong answers, because 75 percent of the people answered yes; 25 percent answered no.
And lastly, this could be the most interesting out of what we found thus far: "Which issue do you wish the Republican candidates spent more time on?" Overwhelmingly, the economy came up as first: Forty-five percent said the economy; 13 percent said health care; 10 percent said the war in Iraq. Now the economy is a big issue right now. Of course, we got a weaker than expected jobs report -- the worst unemployment level in two years. Recession was not even brought up during this debate. We'll have to see what the Democrats say, as far as the boards lighting up to their response on the economy.
[...]
SAWYER: We're going to turn now to the Facebook command center, co-sponsors, of course, of tonight's debate, and Bianna Golodryga is there. Now that both debates have concluded, what are you seeing from the audience participating on Facebook?
GOLODRYGA: Well, a lot of people weighing in right now. I want to start with your question on what people's responses were to the surprises in the Republican debate. The one thing people were saying is that Romney -- they were surprised at how beaten up he was a lot throughout the debate. Another person said, "I was surprised at how much mud-slinging there was going on, stemming from this Romney." And another person said, "I'm surprised at how out of touch these politicians are. They have no understanding of poverty." Lastly, a person said, "I'm surprised there was no more talk about the environment."
Now let's go to what surprised us. We're going to start with the Democrats' response. On to the charts now, "What issue do you wish the Democratic candidates spent more time on?" This surprises because, still, just like the Republicans, the economy was a key issue here: Forty-four percent said the Democrats didn't spend enough time talking about the economy; health care followed that by 13 percent.
Moving on -- "Could a Democratic president keep America safe?" -- 66 percent of you said yes; 27 percent, no. And lastly, "Is tonight's debate giving you a better sense of who you'd vote for?" Eighty percent said yes; 20 percent said no. Diane, this is just beginning. And of course, people can weigh in on Facebook until the elections in November.
mccain was on meet the press this morning, and even though he did some of the usual clinton blaming, he called tora bora a missed opportunity to catch osama. which was the bush administration.
Maybe he's courting those independent New Hampshire voters?
It doesn't matter. He's one of those war forever Republicans.
Republicans love war and hate children. Forever.
Time for ABC and the rest of the Corporate Media liars to crank up to a new level, the "Security belongs to the Repugnants" storyline.
Apparently there has been too little invested to date - else how could 66% continue to think otherwise?
The only reason this clown of a "journalist" was surprised is because people feel the Democrats can provide security without the fear.
After seven years of Republicans keeping power by increasing the fear level, Americans have finally caught on.
A doctrine of "preemptive war" makes us LESS safe in the world.
Policy of torture makes us LESS safe in the world.
Refusing to conduct diplomacy with friend AND foe makes us much LESS safe in the world.
Having open contempt for the UN and its actions makes us MUCH less safe in the world.
Leaving Afghanistan before capturing or killing Bin Laden has made us much LESS safe in the world.
Fomenting hatred and fear indiscriminately against all Moslems has made us MUCH less safe in the world.
Overextending our military makes us MUCH less safe in the world.
Sending too few troops into Iraq, failing to equip them properly, and failing to secure ammo dumps full of explosives and conventional weapons ... resulting in the needless loss of the lives of uncounted hundreds of American Troops ... has made us MUCH less safe in the world.
Hiring "freelance" military groups to do our fighting makes us much less safe in the world.
Running up our debt, with foreign nations like China HOLDING that debt, makes us much less safe in the world.
Failing to identify ENERGY properly as a national security issue, and making deliberate emergency strides towards developing alternative energy sources makes us MUCH less safe in the world.
Denying civil rights to our own citizens, negating their freedoms for an empty promise of "more security", makes us much less safe in the world.
Treating prisoners as if they have NO human rights makes us much less safe in the world.
Bogging our troops down in a quagmire war to where they cannot respond to threats or terror cells which MAY pose the USA a threat, that makes us much less safe in the world.
Exposing our intelligence assets for purely partisan political gain makes us much less safe in the world.
Failing to properly secure our borders and ports has made us MUCH less safe in the world.
Having a policy of NOT attacking other nations that have nuclear weapons makes us MUCH less safe in the world; we are telling the world the way to avoid invasion is to get nukes.
Bush's actions (and INactions), every day, have combined to undermine and destroy SECURITY for American citizens, and we are MUCH less safe in the world than we were when Bush took office.
An insult wrapped in a lie based on unChristian values.
The agent for ABC news (“…surprised us”) has the unmitigated gaul, the unequaled temerity, the unbridled naked hubris, to tell we the people, who are this country, that we are so stupid as to not be able to see beyond their neocon lies which they kindle and protect. As you show Tex, the lie in this case is beyond peer in its depth --- that the GOP has been fostering our ongoing security. And ancillary to that lie, that the Democratic Party has less of a stake in security than the Republicans which in fact is exactly backwards. The leadership of the Democratic Party knows its constituents are not psychologically touched by the desire to enhance their self-esteem by “going out for a beer with the President” or in some other way to personally identify with the President, as if he were a king and they had a blood connection, a tribally based connection.
No, the good members of the Democratic Party have far less lofty goals in the selection of the head civil servant of this country--- because their values are different from those among the GOP members who vote against their long term personal economic interests to satisfy their lust for world dominance, for empire. These GOP voters, these useful idiots see the extension of USA influence around the globe as superior to their own individual interests. They bask in the reflected glory of military bases strewn hither and yon. They get a thrill from seeing themselves as part of something so gargantuan in scope that even the Roman Ceasers would be envious. However, the bill will eventually come due and it will all coming crashing down, and the insecurity from the boogey man of today will pale by comparison to the BRUTAL POVERTY THAT WILL HOUND MOST ALL OF US ON A DAILY BASIS IN A REAL WAY, NOT AS SOME SPECULATIVE POTENTAIL THREAT.
Tex, you're doing what I hate seeing in the media- extremism You drop these one liners that are not accurate. We do NOT have a policy of torture, we have NOT left Afganistan, etc. You find an item or two that you disagree with and suddenly it is official US policy used in everyday decisions. I agree that there have been issues and mistakes made (we agree there) but not to the degree that you insinuate- and definately not to the point of saying that the US has a policy of torture. If you have one bad cop on a police force, would it be right to condemn all cops.
There have been cases of mistakes made, but I would still choose the US over any other country in which I could live. I have lived abroad, and it was great to come home. Perfect, no. Safter than most places, yes.
Yeah, torture is our policy and despite your bad apple theme that policy has come from the top down.
And Furthermore, if you have one bad cop it is an indictment of all cops because they were looking the other way.
Joe Conason wrote a book called "Big Lies" (endorsed by David Brock no less) that counter the assertions of the big media conventional wisdom. Some of the canards he covers are: Conservatives are paragons of moral rectitude, elitist liberals control the media, GWB is a compassionate conservative, Republicans know how to run the economy, Democrats are spendthrifts who bust budgets, Bill Clinton is the root of all evil and tough right-wingers never coddle terrorists.
It should be required reading for all of these pundits/anchors/bloviators who are surprised that "U.S." Americans" (sorry, I couldn't help myself HBL) are more informed than themselves.
That is surprising since it was the Clinton administration that allowed the terrorists to do what they did all through the 90's and on 9/11
Isn't Facebook just a bunch of socially backward teenagers making "friends"?
Why were they even asked in the first place.
Typical uninformed, condescending, elitist Republican response.
You see Obama rallied the young voters participating in the face book network and he crushed the competition with their help.
Keep condescending you political dinosuar.
You should be more concerned with the gaping fractures in your ridiculous shell of a Republican Party
Starngo, time for better talking points. The old ones don't work here (never did work), but you are seriously overusing the fossils you now have.
Starngo is an anagram. Or else I'm a seriously bad speller today. :-)
It's OK, JuliaJayne, many U.S. Americans don't have spellcheck, such as afrika and Irack and such.
And THE Irack HBL...
There was a cover story in Newsweek about Facebook and it's differences with MySpace. It seems Facebook (with which I am a former member, but have since divorced myself from all social-networking sites, in the interest of full disclosure) is more for the business professionals and is generally used by people with a higher education. (This could stem from either the fact that Facebook focuses more on social networking, or the fact that when it was first implemented, the only way to get on Facebook was to have an active university e-mail.) Myspace, on the other hand, is more for the social outcast. So it seems that Facebook is much more than just "making friends."
strange one, i just pointed out in the first post that mccain said we failed to get osama at tora bora. that was when we had troops in the country of afghanistan, something that clinton did not have. the fact is bush did not care. he admitted he was "not on point" about bin ladin before 9-11, and he said about a year after, that he did not know where bin ladin was and was not that concerned about him. it would have been a huge propaganda victory to capture him, but we decided to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9-11. and who said iraq had nothing to do with 9-11? bush. why do you refuse to listen to the words of your own heroes?
That is surprising since it was the Clinton administration that allowed the terrorists to do what they did all through the 90's and on 9/11
That's pretty darn amazing since Bush was in Charge on that day. Clinton must have had lots of power keeping Ol' boot licker from concentrating on them terrerists. Wrote him a note about maintaining the focus, got the CIA or whoever it was to send that major report about terrorists using airlines to attack, all those warnings Clinton falsely planted to make lil' boot licker think it was an underhanded attempt to trick him.
We've been over this.
Clinton allowed bin Laden to attack time and time again during his reign of incompetence and sexual assault.
He sent Sandy Burglar in to destroy the documents that showed he allowed bin Laden to kill 3000 Americans.
Hell...he even turned down the offer from the Sudanese to nab him and send his ass over.
Clinton couldn't be bothered. He was too concerned with sexually molesting chubby, semi-retarded White House interns.
You are a liar and a fool. Berger took no original documents copies only so nothing was destroyed. You just regurgitate whatever the hivemind TOLD you to believe.
pretend for a moment that steven hadley is caught tomorrow doing the same thing that sandy berger was... i suppose you and the press would be as kind?
in the end it would have nothing to do with the fact that george w. bush did nothing about osama. in fact, bush told bob woodward that he was "not on point" about bin ladin prior to 9-11. again, why is it so hard for you people to accept his own words?
Bungle already done it - times 5,000,000 (at least) - the missing emails? And that doesn't include the destroyed video tapes. Or the White House visitor logs. Or the millions of Ohio ballots illegally destroyed before they could be compared to the reported (and extremely bogus) reported counts from 2004.
And who knows what was in Cheney's office before it burned down.
Or what was discussed in Cheney's "secret" energy meetings.
My guess is these "discussions" set the stage for the entire Iraq conflict based on a goal of $100+ oil and billions in profits for contractors, with a sub-benefit of using terrorism to scare the bejeezus out of Americans in order to get King George re-elected in 2004 in order to continue to steal.
You are changing the subject. I never said he didnt do anything wrong. He plead guilty to a crime and lost his security clearance. I dont care WHO did it. I would want and expect the press to treat them the same, and NOT LIE ABOUT THEM, like Stranger just did. What Berger did was wrong what he DIDNT DO was destroy or steal or in any way make documents unavailable to hide anything. THAT is a lie. He took and later destroyed COPIES ONLY.
strange one, on what charge was clinton supposed to bring bin ladin here in 1995?
"He sent Sandy Burglar in to destroy the documents that showed he allowed bin Laden to kill 3000 Americans."
What was in the documents?
Permission slips? Plane tickets? Clinton Crime Family "hit" contracts? 3,000 individual capital punishment executive orders?
I'm intrigued, what was in those documents?
Yes, Stranger, that's exactly what "Facebook" is. Which no doubt leaves you even more frustrated than before, as these Socially Awkward Teenagers are still not desperate enough to respond to your anonymous advances.
That is surprising since it was the Clinton administration that allowed the terrorists to do what they did all through the 90's and on 9/11...
-----
The book's opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
-----
Amazing that a man can leave office in January, 2001 and yet still be held accountable in Stranger's mind for events that took place nine months later. Meanwhile, the guy who was really in charge actively resisted doing anything to stop the carnage he had every reason to expect was coming, yet the so called liberal media and enablers like Stranger think of him as "tough on terrorism."
the "flurry of reports" were the reason the 9-11 commission called chapter 8 of it's report about the summer of 2001, "the system was blinking red". they noted on page 256: "threat reports surged in june and july..". and on page 265: "in sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response the threat."
Here's the time line.
the weirdest one is actor james woods telling a stewardess on august 1 that he thought his plane was being studied for a hijacking by a group of men. i saw him discuss that on letterman years ago. it is a fact that "dry runs" were done.
Another hivemind talking point. Regurgitated by Stranger as IF it had some dim connection to reality.
That is surprising since it was the Clinton administration that allowed the terrorists to do what they did all through the 90's and on 9/11
No wonder you are still confused. George W. Bush was President of the United States on 9/11.
Here let me help you: George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the forty-third and current President of the United States of America, first inaugurated on January 20, 2001.
See January 2001 is BEFORE Sept. 2001.
Isn't Facebook just a bunch of socially backward teenagers making "friends"?
Oh, let me help you with the Facebook question as well: Facebook was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, a former Harvard student. Initially the membership of Facebook was restricted to students of Harvard College. It was subsequently expanded to MIT, Boston University, Boston College, and all Ivy League schools within two months. Many individual universities were added in rapid succession over the next year. Eventually, people with a university (e.g .edu, .ac.uk, etc.) email address from institutions across the globe were eligible to join.
Also, my son who is carrying a 3.85GPA at Embry Riddle, the youth director at my church, who is a young hip grandma. Facebook is America.
The amazing thing is that not only did Clinton fail to stop Osama on 9/11, he also failed to capture him afterwards, and continues to fail to do so. On the other hand, George W Bush deserves all the credit for the fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11. In fact, Bush deserves credit for the fact that we weren't attacked between February 1993 and Sept 2001 as well.
George Bush also deserves credit for the successful D-Day Invasion; however, Clinton must bear responsibility for failing to protect Pearl Harbor on the eve of December 7 1941 and for our lame reaction to the Tet Offensive. I'm sure there are many other examples of Clinton's failure to defend us- the British burning down the White House in 1814 comes to mind- but I'll let The Stranger continue to educate us on these.
THE STRANGER...
Has a very unusual and unique history book. It was written in a galaxy far, far away and it was printed in the dead on center of the Twilight Zone.
I just wonder if The Stranger is dishonest on purpose or has just overdosed on Republican Kool Aid believing it's actually true.
Nah! Stranger is dishonest and knows it.
There's THESTRANGE, and then there's THESTRANGER.
THESTRANGER manages to take STRANGENESS to the max.
The Stranger has a weird perspective of history and all. I mean, one made up, and taught to him by Rush, Boortz, Hannity, FoxNews, and a bunch of other talking heads that said it, so it must be true.
His whole talking point of it was Clinton's fault is totally and utterly false. Want a good timeline of how things were going down during the time before 9/11 and shortly after? Read Ghost Wars, by Stephen Coll. It will then make some sense to you. Stranger's claim about not doing anything about the terrorists? Well, imagine my surprise when we caught the guys who carried out the 1993 bombing on the WTCs. I mean, doing nothing except catching the folks who planned and carried out that attack is amazingly inept of Clinton and his Justice Department. Not to mention they busted Tim McVeigh, and his buddies for bombing OK City and all.
Also, if Clinton was distracted during the time when Bin Laden was rising to more prominence in the middle east I wonder what could have been distracting him and his team during that time? Oh right, I remember now. A highly charged and highly partisan witch hunt to get him impeached for lying about a BJ in the Oval Office. And yet still, during that time, Clinton was still trying to get Osama. Remember the cruise missiles that were launched into Afghanistan in a "decapitation" type strike against Bin Laden? You don't? Maybe you should go back and check the records, because when Clinton did that, the republicans on the Hill, and everyone else were yelling and screaming about how Clinton just did that to make everyone else look another way, and not pay attention to his upcoming impeachment and all.
Funny how you guys sometimes forget this when you want to play the "blame" Clinton game. Sort of along the same lines as, Clinton doesn't get credit from the republicans for the booming economy when he was in office. Oh no, they say GHW Bush did all that.
So I want to ask the republicans on this board, and more directly the Stranger what does Clinton get credit for? The man spent 8 years in office, we had a booming economy, we were at peace, we had almost unprecedented prestige around the world and good feelings toward the US, a balanced budget, a budget surplus, and a whole bunch of other what most folks would call, pretty good things. How are we better off now with W in the front seat? I say, we're not even close.
Magnolialover posted:
"we were at peace, we had almost unprecedented prestige around the world and good feelings toward the US,"
_____________________________________
I'll field this grounder:
-"we were at peace"
Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, continued patrols of the "no fly zone" resulting in our aircraft coming under fire, bombing of Khobar Towers attack, Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, U.S.S. Cole attack...did I miss something?
Now that is a ton of PEACE and PRESTIGE!
I love how it is prestigious in liberals minds when we capitulate to European socialists and middle east terrorists, even while we clean up their messes over there! Then the bastards have the nerve to shoot at us!
Very prestigious!
No period in history is without conflict, it's the human condition. If you like the BushCo economy and foreign policy, you can have it. I'd take Clinton's any day over Bush's
As for the words "liberal" or "socialist", you have no point. The military is a socialist organization. If you don't like any and all government programs, start with defunding the military. If you don't like social security, try to eliminate it, but don't complain if our elders start dying of hypothermia and starvation again as they did before social security.
Mary posted:
"No period in history is without conflict, "
___________________________
You are very astute and thanks for helping me make my point. Which was we were not at peace for all of the Clinton years, nor did we enjoy any more prestige from any other time before or after Clinton.
Like it or not when things go wrong out in the world, the rest of the world looks to the US for guidance or more matter of fact for funding.
Here is some bathroom reading for you:
http://shelby.senate.gov/legislation/ForeignAid.pdf
and every time that our planes came under fire or radar even locked onto them, we destroyed those sites. we did not need to invade.
A fair observation. Although I would argue it was not as simple as shooting an AGM-88 and getting out. Iraqi AD did get more sophisticated, but we maintained air superiority. I'm pretty sure we did not lose a manned aircraft during Operation Southern Watch.
What a stupid premise for a question: "Could a Democratic president keep America safe?"
It's like a cartoon version of life. Ooo we all feel so SAFE now that superman is in metropolis... Of course a president can take steps to appoint competent people to run FEMA, for example; and push for legislation to inspect more cargo at ports
But is an asteroid hits the earth, a super volcano erupts, or warming sea temperatures disrupts the chain of life on the planet, the president probably won't be able to "keep us safe."
What a sniveling bunch of hooey.
Ahhh...MMfA...I think you're twisting this a tad.
As I read this Golodryga puts the "surprises" statement to "what ISSUE do you wish the Democratic candidates spent more time on?" The answer to that was the ECONOMY. She then "Moves(ing) on" and states another question (America Safe). At no time does she say that is surprising. She just states the last two questions matter of factly. She does ascribe "surprise" to other questions where she relates interviewee's comments.
Picking a nit eh? Below italics were mine:
Golodryga:
"
Now let's go to what surprised us. We're going to start with the Democrats' response. On to the charts now, "What issue do you wish the Democratic candidates spent more time on?" This surprises because, still, just like the Republicans, the economy was a key issue here: Forty-four percent said the Democrats didn't spend enough time talking about the economy; health care followed that by 13 percent.
Moving on -- "Could a Democratic president keep America safe?" -- 66 percent of you said yes; 27 percent, no. And lastly, "Is tonight's debate giving you a better sense of who you'd vote for?" Eighty percent said yes; 20 percent said no. Diane, this is just beginning. And of course, people can weigh in on Facebook until the elections in November.
except there were eleven questions in all, and they had already discussed some of the questions before going to the "what surprised us" part. that clearly suggests that the surprises were held until last.
Not according to the transcript MMfA has posted. There were eleven questions posted on ABC's website, but the reporter only talked about four. She did mention a couple of interview questions that were commented on, but not all eleven.
She also did not mention "surprise" with the question that lead this thread. MMfA is making an assumption and putting words in her mouth.
Picking a nit I say!
perhaps. But it was in the section that she had announced "surprised us."
Not perhaps Mary, it is fact. Are you still making the assertion that she said surprise with Dem safety? Remember just a couple of threads up from this, there is whole article on whether or not Hills said "for" or "from".
If we're going to parse words and argue over what the meaning of "is" is, then let it cut both ways.
You're making a leap in logic or divining what the reporter said, when it is clear from the transcripts exactly what she said.
MMfA should pull this thread.