After smearing Obama, media figures call him polarizing
SUMMARY: Several conservative media figures who have repeatedly spread falsehoods and smears of President Obama are now highlighting a poll analysis to suggest that Obama has polarized approval ratings, and have made the disputed suggestion that Obama himself has caused that polarization.
Recently, several conservative media figures have cited an April 2 Pew Research Center poll analysis to suggest that a March 9-12 Pew Research poll found that President Obama "has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades." Several of those media figures have also made the disputed suggestion that Obama has caused that polarization. These same media figures have repeatedly spread falsehoods about and smears of Obama and his policies. According to Washington Post Co. blogger Greg Sargent, Michael Dimock, an associate director at the Pew Research Center, stated that it is a misreading of the poll on which the analysis is based to conclude that Obama has "caused this divisiveness." Sargent further reported that "Dimock also said this phenomenon is partly caused by the recent tendency of Republicans to be less charitable towards new Presidents than Dem[ocrat]s have been."
Media figures who cited the Pew poll analysis, and who have a history of misrepresenting Obama and his policies, include:
- On the April 7 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough claimed that the Pew poll analysis "said [Obama] split the country more than any president in modern history." Scarborough later added, "It's more divisive than ever. I think there is a great separation between the personal affection and trust people have for Barack Obama and these policies. You have Joe Biden trying to push these policies -- they would put him in a penitentiary somewhere."
- During the April 6 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Lou Dobbs claimed, "Turning to political news, there's hard evidence tonight that President Obama is a more polarizing president than any other over the past four decades."
- In an April 8 Wall Street Journal column, Karl Rove wrote, "Part of Mr. Obama's polarized standing can be attributed to a long-term trend," but asserted that "rather than end or ameliorate that trend, Mr. Obama's actions and rhetoric have accelerated it."
- During the April 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that "the president has polarized Americans. Eighty-eight percent of Democrats approve, but only 27 percent of Republicans like the job he's doing."
Prior to highlighting the Pew poll analysis, Scarborough, Dobbs, Rove, and O'Reilly each misrepresented Obama's positions and those taken by his administration in a way that would arguably polarize people's views of Obama:
Scarborough
- During the March 23 edition of Morning Joe, Scarborough falsely claimed that Obama is "trying to pass budgets" that his own "budget director says [are] unsustainable." In fact, asked during a March 20 conference call about the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) projection that deficits would "remain between 4 percent and 6 percent of GDP" from 2012-2019 under Obama's budget, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Peter Orszag said that deficits in the "5 percent of GDP range ... would ultimately not be sustainable" but also said: "I think that what you're going to see, again, under our assumptions, our policies lead to lower deficits than that." Moreover, in a March 20 blog post on the OMB website, Orszag specifically said that "[t]he President's Budget," if enacted, would "put the nation on a sustainable fiscal path."
- During the March 24 edition of Morning Joe, Scarborough advanced the myth that Obama was the "most liberal" United States senator.
- During the February 27 edition of Morning Joe, Scarborough asserted that nations "are testing Barack Obama in a way ... that they wouldn't have tested Dick Cheney," citing as examples Iran "g[etting] the uranium they need," "North Korea going ahead with this long-range missile launch," and Pakistan "strik[ing] a deal with the Taliban." Scarborough later said, "You've got the situation where you've got hard-liners like George Bush and Dick Cheney out of the office, that's one reason they test him." However, during Cheney's two terms as vice president in the Bush administration, Iran enriched uranium, North Korea tested missiles and reportedly detonated a nuclear bomb, and Pakistan negotiated a cease-fire with tribal leaders that the Bush administration reportedly pointed to in explaining the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
- During the March 6 edition of Morning Joe, Scarborough aired a cropped graphic, labeled "Dow Since Election Day," and stated: "[W]e've also been frustrated about the lack of clarity out of the Treasury Department. We've been showing graphics of the Dow Jones just collapsing since Barack Obama's election." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, the Dow was on a downward trajectory months before the election, dropping 3,738 points from May 2, 2008, to November 3, 2008.
- During the March 9 edition of Morning Joe, Scarborough claimed that Obama has "cho[sen] this time to nationalize health care with a $635 billion down payment." Scarborough's assertion that Obama would "nationalize health care" echoed Sen. John McCain's false characterization of Obama's health care proposal during the 2008 presidential campaign.
- During the February 3 edition of Morning Joe, while attacking the economic recovery package, Scarborough and co-host Mika Brzezinski misrepresented New Deal unemployment figures to argue that government spending does not boost employment. Scarborough cherry-picked unemployment data to claim that unemployment was at "20 percent" in 1938, a conservative tactic used to ignore the downward trend in unemployment that occurred under the New Deal.
- During the March 20 edition of Morning Joe, Scarborough declared, "Socialism is hard. ... You want to socialize entire sectors, and you can't even get people to work in the Treasury Department."
- During the February 2 edition of Morning Joe, Scarborough claimed of the economic recovery bill: "This is as close to unprecedented of a total, all-out, socialist bill as I've ever seen in my life."
- During the March 4 edition of Morning Joe, Scarborough discussed America "moving ... closer to European-style socialism," and claimed, "That's not a right-wing claim, it's the truth."
- During the March 19 edition of Morning Joe, Scarborough agreed with the assertion,"We have 535 Hugo Chavezes out on Capitol Hill, and one in the White House."
Dobbs
- On the March 24 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs stated that in proposing that Congress enact legislation allowing the federal government to take over failing nonbank financial institutions, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had "made a pitch for even more power, expanded, unprecedented power that would allow the government to virtually shut down failing financial companies, such as AIG." In fact, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) chairman Sheila Bair -- both Bush appointees -- previously stated that the federal government needed and should have such power.
- During the February 17 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs falsely claimed, "President Obama sign[ed] a $800 billion stimulus package that we now know will come to about $3 trillion with debt servicing over the next decade," echoing a false claim that the CBO estimated that the full cost of the bill would reach $3.2 trillion by 2019. In fact, more than half of the $3.2 trillion figure comes from the cost of permanently extending more than 20 provisions in the recovery bill, which the bill does not do.
- Echoing a frequent Republican talking point during the February 3 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs claimed that in the House-passed economic recovery bill, "There's more than $4 billion for so-called neighbor -- are you ready, neighborhood stabilization activities -- $4 billion, which translates into funding for so-called advocacy groups such as ACORN -- ACORN, the left-wing advocacy group. That organization and its voter-registration drives are under investigation in more than a dozen states." In fact, the recovery bill does not mention ACORN or otherwise single it out for funding; ACORN itself has said that it is ineligible for the funds and has no plans to apply for them. Dobbs repeated the claim during the February 4 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight.
- On the January 20 broadcast of United Stations Radio Networks' The Lou Dobbs Show, Dobbs claimed that Obama's "inaugural celebration from start to finish will cost an estimated $170 million, and that dwarfs the $42 million spent on George Bush's inauguration just four years ago," thereby joining a growing list of media figures who have repeated a false comparison between projections of the cost of Obama's inauguration and estimates of the cost of Bush's 2005 ceremony and surrounding events. The figure given by Dobbs and other media figures for the cost of Bush's last inauguration excludes security, transportation, and other incidental costs to federal, state, and local governments, as Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert noted.
O'Reilly
- On the April 2 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly asked, "Is President Obama selling out America? That is the subject of this evening's 'Talking Points Memo.' " O'Reilly later added, "Key question: Where does Barack Obama stand? Are the right-wing pundits correct? Is he down with the global-justice jihad?"
- On the March 4 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly misrepresented comments Obama made to characterize Obama as dishonest. O'Reilly aired a clip of Obama stating, "We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review," which O'Reilly falsely characterized as "President Obama pledging last January to end earmarks in federal spending." Later in the show, referring to earmarks included in the omnibus appropriations bill, O'Reilly stated, "But Obama's on record -- we just played the clip -- that he's going to do away with this. And then he takes 9,000 of them and signs it?" In fact, in the January 6 clip O'Reilly played, Obama was referring to his desire to "ban all earmarks" from his "recovery and reinvestment plan," which he specifically distinguished from "the overall budget process."
Rove
- During the April 6 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Rove claimed of Obama's trip to Europe: "European leaders must be looking at him saying, 'What the heck is going on?' " because Obama mentioned his predecessor, and that "at times this kind of rhetoric puts him into a place where he seems to be running down the United States of America."
- On the March 26 edition of Hannity, Rove accused Obama of having put forward a "radical budget," that "Obama wanted the country to turn to the issue of green jobs, education, health care, and instead, people are looking at these huge deficits and the huge power grab and the huge spending, and saying, really, what I'm concerned about is taxes, deficit, and spending. And he's succeeded in putting the agenda back on to terms that are -- that are more convenient and comfortable for conservatives, and he's done so through a very radical budget." But in response to such claims, Obama has repeatedly raised the argument that health-care reform is essential to the long-term economic health of the country.
- On the March 1 broadcast of ABC's This Week, Rove echoed House Republicans' distortion of research by White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) chairwoman Christine Romer and her husband in claiming that the GOP's alternative stimulus bill "produced 50 percent more jobs at half the cost" of President Obama's economic recovery plan. Rove claimed: "[T]he House Republicans took their plan and ran it through the Obama chairman of the economic advisers' econometric model -- Romer. And it produced 50 percent more jobs at half the cost, according to the economic model used by the Obama White House." As the blog Think Progress noted, according to the White House, "Romer's view is that the House analysis is absolutely incorrect" and "the plan the President supports would result in substantially greater job creation than the House Republican plan."
- In his February 5 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Rove also echoed the myth that the economic recovery bill directed funds to ACORN, writing of the House-passed economic recovery bill: "And it should not shock Americans that Democratic appropriators would funnel tax dollars to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now."
- During the January 23 broadcast of Hannity, Rove falsely asserted that "[t]he Army Field Manual, for example, prohibits you from using good cop-bad cop in interrogating." Rove made the false claim while discussing Obama's January 22 executive order stating that a detainee in U.S. custody or control "shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2 22.3 (Manual)." In fact, the Army Field Manual explicitly permits good cop-bad cop interrogations under the name of "Mutt and Jeff" interrogations, which involve two interrogators "display[ing] opposing personalities and attitudes toward the source."
From Rove's April 8 Wall Street Journal column:
The Pew Research Center reported last week that President Barack Obama "has the most polarized early job approval of any president" since surveys began tracking this 40 years ago. The gap between Mr. Obama's approval rating among Democrats (88%) and Republicans (27%) is 61 points. This "approval gap" is 10 points bigger than George W. Bush's at this point in his presidency, despite Mr. Bush winning a bitterly contested election.
Part of Mr. Obama's polarized standing can be attributed to a long-term trend. University of Missouri political scientist John Petrocik points out that since 1980, each successive first term president has had more polarized support than his predecessor with the exception of 1989, when George H.W. Bush enjoyed a modest improvement over Ronald Reagan's 1981 standing.
But rather than end or ameliorate that trend, Mr. Obama's actions and rhetoric have accelerated it. His campaign promised post-partisanship, but since taking office Mr. Obama has frozen Republicans out of the deliberative process, and his response to their suggestions has been a brusque dismissal that "I won."
From the April 6 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: Turning to political news, there's hard evidence tonight that President Obama is a more polarizing president than any other over the past four decades. Polling data compiled by Pew Research shows a 61-percent gap between Democratic and Republican support for the president. The president has 88-percent support among Democrats; only 27-percent support among Republicans. And our latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows an even larger spread: 65 percent between Democratic and Republican support.
The poll shows 95 percent of Democrats support the president; 30 percent of Republicans support him.
From the April 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Can the Republicans find a leader? And that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."
Writing in The Wall Street Journal today, Karl Rove points out that President Obama's job-approval rating among independents has dropped nine points in a month to 52 percent. Also, the president has polarized Americans. Eighty-eight percent of Democrats approve, but only 27 percent of Republicans like the job he's doing. That gap is 10 points larger than the one President Bush had coming off the controversial election of 2000.
Now, the problem for those Americans disapproving of President Obama is where do they go? At this point, the Republican Party does not have a high-profile leader. And the campaign that Senator McCain ran was woefully ineffective. The Obama machine laced him on almost every front.















Republican Presidents have a "Mandate to Govern," and if Democrats don't go along, they are being "divisive" and "sore losers."
Democratic Presidents must "reach across the aisle," and if the GOP refuses to work with them, it's the PRESIDENT who is being "Polarizing." Got it.
Republican Presidents jam their agendas through Congress with the thinnest of margins, always with the help of some Democrats. Democratic Presidents get ZERO help from Republicans, so it's the Democratic President who is "ignoring the other party" and is being "Polarizing."
WTF-ever. This is getting soooooo old.
If Obama fails to get Republican support, that means he's "polarizing". Riiiggghhhttt.
Obama: "will you work with me?" McConnell and Boehner: "NO!" Reporters: "Obama is too partisan and hasn't been willing to enlist the support of Republicans for his policy goals."
Hell, on the stimulus, Democrats gave the Republicans everything they wanted, Republicans still voted no, and then they had the arrogance to take credit for the items that are included in it. It used to be that if you voted no that meant you were opposed. Only in the current media climate can you vote no and then claim that you supported the proposal. Well, that is if you're a Republican.
The conservative strategy in 1993 was to call Clinton liberal and polarizing, claim he was going to take your guns and lock you away, claim that he was personally corrupt, and claim that he didn't believe in bipartisanship. The GOP drove up his negatives because they had no way to beat him, so they settled for trying to minimize his influence. They're doing the same exact thing against Obama. It's so easy to spot that the media ought to have no trouble covering it for the crass partisan tactic it is. Any bets on when the media will do its job? My guess is they won't.
Oh my goodness. These guys wouldn't contemplate accusations of fascism and encouragement of armed rebellion when finding out who's polarizing?
I should have proclaimed this after the election, but it's really obvious now. Either the republican party is permanently dead, or the United States is. The intellect of the conservative movement is swirling down the toilet and we are officially entering one-party rule.
If republicans ever achieve national power again, I'm seriously getting the hell out. Democracy doesn't work if fewer than 50% of the voters have their knuckles off the floor.
The only way to end one-party rule is for a new party to arise that's to the left of the Democratic party.
The only way to end one-party rule is for a new party to arise that's to the left of the Democratic party.
You hit it right there. Demographics are trending towards Democrats right now and far into the future. But this will only continue if Democrats are progressive. If they're gonna act like Republicans (put a fork in those cats), which many do, then there will be a rise of a populist left party.
Many of the national Dems are what Republicans were years ago. And now they're almost just as bloated and corrupt. The Democratic party needs to become more progressive, not less. This country needs sweeping changes if we're to survive.
We're also seeing a trending towards independent media voices. Smart people realize that the major media we have now is a corporate propagandized beast. And there is a grass roots movement towards the independent media voices.
Unfortunately right now, the smaller outlets are scratching for money to stay alive in the current economic crisis. And they're being hit with disproportionate postal hikes. So if you have an outlet on the internet or in print that you like and depend on for real news, please do offer your financial support as much as you can. I donate to truthout.org right now. And of course, don't forget MMFA. ;-)
*applause*
Well said!
Franks, dudes ;-0)
Possibly, but I think there's still room for a MODERATE center-right party. The Republican's biggest mistake, starting back in 1980, was to court the evangelical christians so heaviliy and let the preachers take control of the party over the libertarians. (The idea that only Republicans can be 'hawks' is absurd on it's face, so I won't even mention that leg of their stool.) But it's like Barry Goldwater said [PP] "You let the preachers get control of the party, and soon you won't HAVE a party." We're seeing that now. The current crop of republicans are hard-right, christian fundy's, who take their mandate from GOD rather than the VOTERS. THEY have no place making public policy. But a pseudo Libertarian / Populist Center-Right party could do well, and have a legitimate place in US politics, if they took their cues from Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, rather than "Reagan" and Bush.
(I put "Reagan" in quotes, because the "Reagan" they are emulating is more the MYTH than the man anyway!)
I would put "God" in quotes, too--it takes careful, selective, out-of-context reading the Bible to get to their positions.
Excellent post.
the republicans DID have that kind of party. led by men such as Theordore Roosevelt and Bob LaFollete. and guess who in the 1912 election got their rear handed to them on a silver platter. thats right the hard right reactionary republicans (Taft and those chuckleheads) by TR no less. now they wern't fanatical evangelicals at the time but thats the only difference between the republicans of the early 20th century and the neo cons of today
steeve, you're dead-on when you fix the misinformation as the cause of polarization. I want them to do an approval poll that asks why they approve or disapprove. I'll bet the reasons to disapprove are all falsehoods, smears, and unfounded fears.
Let me get this straight. Obama tries to work with republicans, gets his hand slapped away repeatedly, and somehow he is polarizing? OK, I get it. No, wait, I don't. Add to the mix of course the falsehoods and lies being spread about him from one end of the media to the other, and I can really imagine "why" he's being called polarizing, but doesn't he still have an approval rating of over 60%, and if so, there are plenty of republicans in there as well, so possibly he's not as "polarizing" as some would suggest?
Jimmy Carter's approval rating was 72% in his first year, remember? Obama is carter only on steroids, and carter left office with 34% approval rating. In the lead in to this discussion media matters said scarborough lied about 20% unemployment during the new deal, some sources say it was in between 16.5% and 19%. In all the new deal left us the biggest ponzi scheme in all USA history the social security act which has a deficit for the first time since 1984. It seems obama's hero FDR has a lot in common with Bernie Madoff after all.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1890542,00.html
In order to be a Ponzi scheme, it has to make the participants think it's an investment. That's not what social security is, so stuff that talking point back into your mouth and see if it goes back through your empty skull and into your radio or television and lands on the caveman you heard it from when you thought it was clever.
The article you cite states that social security has a surplus, not a deficit. You make me sick.
well.....i would agree with you if you were right.....but your not. you couldn't be more further from the truth.
and plugging neo con talking points is going to make you look very foolish very fast, so cut it out if you want to be considered a rational person and viable citizen of this country and not someone who thinks that he can say whatever he wants and not be called out on it.
Great strategy: first lie and misrepresent what Obama does, then report it in a polarizing and mistrust-inciting fashion, then blame Obama for causing mistrust and polarization.
Cable news channels is the worst thing that has ever happened to politics and national discourse in this country. Not kidding.
Fawltylogic I agree with what you wrote. I have become so disappointed with cable news that I find PBS being one of the best news sources to date
Nope. Cable news is a distant secodn to AM TALK RADIO. Even Fox doesn't hodl a candle to AM TALK RADIO.
fawlty, the logic of your last post is right on target.
The REPUKES just can't handle the fact that they were removed from power last NOVEMBER.
Actually they were removed from power in 2006. Last November just proved that 2006 wasn't a fluke. 2010 will likely go much the same way.
Jim, You are so "right" with how Joe Scarborough is just a mean-spirited bully on Morning Joe. Viewers see how Mika and Willie are too "afraid" to challenge Joe's bias non-sense every morning. In fact, just this morning Joe really went after Mika because of something she said on their radio show last Friday. Mika stated that she felt sorry for the pirates, and boy oh boy, Joe (the bully) wasn't hearing this at all. Joe and Pat Buchanan gave Mika a hard time as they laughed and laughed at Mika's statement.
If you agree with the Republican Bully i.e. Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh then you are a "great" American. But if you disagree, the Republican Bully would rip you apart to show how un-American you are.
I didn't hear the show, but if Mika stated she was sorry for the pirates she deserved to be bullied. How dumb are people really? The captain was an innocent man doing his job, maybe she ought to go live in somalia and see how sorry she feels. The ship he was piloting was also delivering food aid to somalia and other areas around them as well.
Three pirates were shot and killed, however one was wounded. Some are saying he will be brought to justice in the USA with a max of life in prison. That means that taxpayers will foot the bill for a pirate in the usa, wow. The pirate should be hung in his homeland of somalia in public.
Nobody seems to be mentioning that what those pirates did was an act of war, if those pirates ever see another ship with a usa flag it will be bad for those onboard. The obama administration needs to show somalia what the usa does to pirates and rid the world of such a travesty ever happening again.
The obama administration needs to show somalia what the usa does to pirates and rid the world of such a travesty ever happening again. - anebriated199
Wasn't it the Obama administration that sent in the Navy to take out these pirate swine? If so, wouldn't that show that the Obama administration is showing Somalia what the USA does to pirates?
You're obviously drunk already this morning.
incorrect. it was not an "act of war" it was an act of piracy. there is a difference. war is officialy sanctioned by a government. piracy is someone acting on their own without government permission.
if you can't see the difference....well i can't help you
when it comes to mika, i have to say its both. her own father slammed the door on her once for parroting scarborugh
HEY LOOK AT THE SAD FACES ON CABLE NEWS SINCE PHILLIPS HAD BEEN RESCUED. OBAMA GAVE THE OK AND LOOK AT FOX NEWS WHO JUST KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO MAKE OBAMA LOOK BAD. BUT LOOK WHAT HAPPENED. HE WAS RESCUED AND NOW FOX WAS DOWN PLAYING THE RESCUE AND LARRY KING AT CNN LOOKED LIKED THE MAN HAD DIED. HEY HE PASSED THAT 3 AM CALL.
They were also quiet when AG Eric Holder followed the letter of the law and cited prosecotorial errors and dropped charges on Sen Stevens. Instead of elevating Holder to a higher standard they immediately went into a " seat Stevens in Congress "mode. bunch of hacks. Like following law of the land is something they weren't aware of. and still aren't.
Yeah, I heard all that too, wolf. As if the fact that Stevens was unprosecutable somehow invalidated the AK senatorial election...
Just like obama is following the constitution right? Taxation without representation? Ring a bell? He will be regarded as the worst president in history right along with carter when it is all said and done, watch. That is my prediction, and bush will be judged more favorably in history than obama, that is my prediction also.
Just like obama is following the constitution right? <-- Obama is not dismantling the Constitution and replacing it with the patriot act and signing " cerimonies
Taxation without representation? Ring a bell? <--- you are kidding, right ? another limbaugh joke ?
He will be regarded as the worst president in history right along with carter when it is all said and done, watch. Bet you a six pack you are totally wrong. I'd recommend you ditch limbaugh and think for yourself
That is my prediction, and bush will be judged more favorably in history than obama, that is my prediction also. <--- pres Obama has already shown more diplomatic prowess than Bush 43 ever thought existed. More favorably than 29% is mathematically possible so i am not risking a six pack on this one
He's not joking about taxation without representation. But he doesn't realize it's the Republicans' fault that wingnuts don't have representation.
Obama IS following the Constitution. He just gave most of the country a tax cut and Congress, which is a body elected by the people of the United States, ratified it. That is taxation WITH representation, and it's a decrease in taxes for 95% of the people. Bush, who ignored the Constitution (remember illegal domestic spying, habeas corpus laws, signing statements), was the worst president we ever had (with the possible exception of Pierce).
I read somewhere Hoover wasn't all that great either for the freedom of speech portion of the Constitution. I think he went after newspaper editors.
well......sorta....
he actually had a very good relationship with the white house press corps.
the whole "source close to the white house" was started by him.....cause he himself was leaking the information.
and he actually had more press briefings than any president up until i think reagan. and more often than not he was doing them himself, acting as his own press secretary.
take your head out of the sand please....
taxation without representation? are you serious? do you even know the history that led up to the american war for independence?
whatever you think you know...you don't. so please hush up and let us adults converse here.
Youo betcha, RW (oops, sorry for the Simple Sarah moment!). Had the President been Bush or McCain, the media would be trumpeting this news as if The Prez personally went out and did the sniping himself. As it is, they can't wait to bury this story as deeply as they can.
My guess is that the media will now spin this as a matter of Obama being indecisive for waiting until today to make the take-out call. The WH has released a timeline (CNN called it a tic-tock) detailing how Obama handled the crisis, and he waited to make the call until it was clear that immediate action was needed. The media is probably going to snipe him about why he didn't order an immediate SEAL rescue and portray Obama as indecisive for waiting until the crisis point. This from the same people who had no problem at all with Bush and the My Pet Goat fiasco on 9/11/01...
They really are first-graders.
Can the conservative harping seals stop complaining, or just STFU, that Obama didn't do anything about the pirates who captured the ship captain Phillips?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/12/somalia.pirates/index.html
Navy snipers, took out the pirates, rescued the captain. 'Nuff said.
Newt Gingrich stated to George Papadoupolos that the US is doing nothis to stop the 66 attacks this year and was promptly corrected only one US registered ship was captured , and we all know what the NAVY seals did and we all know who the CIC is. Right ? Gingrich was also corrected when he stated the loss of jobs if the F22 fighter gets cancelled and Paul Krugman reminded him the republicans claim there is no such thing as government jobs. Krugman also said you can't have both. I decided to stomach G Papadopoulos today.
Government jobs = Taxpayer funded
And 20% of obama's new jobs he predicted, 600,000 in all are in the public sector which of course I bet or hope you know increases our tax burden.
Jobs created by corporate tax cuts = Taxpayer funded.
Government jobs = Taxpayer funded <<--- how can you believe this.? Who funds the taxpayer to begin with ? Who prints the money the taxpayer is funded with ?
how is that? because the people are paid by the government......but then don't the people getting public sector jobs then have to pay taxes?
are actually saying that people employed in the public sector don't pay income tax?
It's the Republican Party of Hate-and their conservative media mouthpieces-that has polarized Americans. The goal of the Republican Party of Hate is to smear Obama so they can win the next presidential election in 2012. This hateful and immoral organization will stoop to new lows to win seats.
Hatemongers with hidden agendas have taken over the GOP and is leading the party over a cliff. Unless the GOP ditches the hatemongers-including Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and Levin-it will cease to exist in two years.
Amazing. Anybody criticizing W after years of incompetence was obviously suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome (according to the wingnuts and their media).
But those who started smearing Obama before he was even elected, and who continue to try to undermine the country over the past few months, are victims of a polarizing president.Who falls for this crap?
The 28% who still vote GOP.
Very ture, except that their agendas are hardly "hidden."
Obama's policies have nothing to do with polarization you think? If the GOP does not get rid of their hatemongers? Do you ever listen to them really? I do not beleive you do, I listen to each of them every day and their approach to the listeners is common sense, not hate. Rush did not say he wanted america to fail, he said he wanted obama's policies to fail, how great is that, wow. Someone actually speaking who is not concerned with being politically correct. It is more that in which we need to restore this country to the founding principles of this nation.
Its not about hate, you liberals say hate,hate,hate. It is liberals who attack palin and say hateful things about her in an attempt to smear her. It is liberals who attack glenn beck, o'reilly, hannity, why is it you cannot win a debate on substance rather you feel the need to attack with hateful words? I say it is cowardly at best.
you must listen only with blinders on.
and as for beck.....i recall him saying that the governemt was going to take our guns which put enough fear in a guy to go out and shoot people.
yeah real good example
ROFLMAO . . . you gotta love how somebody can win a presidential election with a better than 2-to-1 electoral vote count and 7+ million more votes than his opponent, then go on to have a 60% approval in the US - and an 80% approval rating throughout most of the rest of the world . . . and be considered "POLARIZING" . . .
Puh-LEEZE . . . the only way Obama appears to be a "polarizing" figure in this country is between the intelligent and the stupids - and there appears to be more of the former than the latter . . .
The only thing polarizing about Obama is his sunglasses.
Its called ACORN. And obama is so smart, almost godly, right? Wow, I remember those town hall meetings where he babbled on and on without his teleprompter. He is only a decent speaker with it and he does not connect with americans looking right and left at his teleprompter instead of straight ahead. Someone as smart as obama should be in command of the issues and not need the teleprompter every speech.
On another note, if he is so smart why did he seal his academic records? Is he embarassed? Bush released his, they were not great, mccain also. If he is a genius to all you kool-aid drinkers tell him to release them, hell bush did.
He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard. And what does ACORN have to do with anything?
And of all the problems going on, you all think Obama's teleprompter is the worst thing going on. Wow.
"On another note, if he is so smart why did he seal his academic records? Is he embarassed? Bush released his, they were not great, mccain also." -inebriated1
You need to stop drinking so early in the morning, inebriated - you'll be better focused and able to use the googles to find things like this:
Federal law limits the information that Columbia can release about Mr. Obama's time there. A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors, Mr. Connolly said, though specific information on his grades is sealed. A program from the 1983 graduation ceremony lists him as a graduate.
More is known about Mr. McCain's experience at the United States Naval Academy, where he was a self-described troublemaker and graduated in the bottom 1% of his class. The McCain campaign has declined to release his transcript, saying that his performance at the academy can only be viewed in the context of his larger military career.
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/
.
you really can't give up on this can you. i have counted at least 5 neo con talking points you are plugging for and all have long ago been debunked as crap?
have you nothing better to do? seriously?
Which is the dictionary definition of Fascism. That's why they're trying so hard to spin that label onto the current administration, to inoculate themselves from the truth.
The GOP doesn't even reflect the old America. It doesn't reflect any incarnation of America.
When you overhaul something, like a broken down car, for instance, you take out the bad parts and replace them with new shiney parts that work and improve the performance. But as far as I can tell the Gone Old Party doesn't seem to have a storehouse of new parts around nor a factory to produce them. No, they just prefer to try to keep the old jalopy running and stealing bad parts to replace bad parts. That's fine with me because it makes my job as a Democrat all the more easy. I like our shiney new car.
This reminds me of the primaries when some pundit (Matthews?) was talking about how "controversial" a figure Hillary was. The only controversies I can recall involving Hillary were lies that people like Dick Morris told and the White Water witch hunt. It's not controversy if it's just made up sh*t. And Obama isn't polarizing just because a bunch of Republicans can't get over the fact that they lost the election.
I really, really dislike Lou Dobbs. His 'independant' status is a fake as his florescent teeth. That man disgusts me. He is just anothe right-wing hack job on CNN.
Polarizing, no thanks to the Party of No and No New Ideas. Obama's reached out to them, but the GOP congressional leadership keeps slapping his hand away. Why, the Party of No and No New Ideas go out of their way to say "NO" before anything is even proposed to them. And, it's the mental giants at FALSENews that call for 'armed' revolution against the president; call him a socialist, a nazi, a fascist.
So tell me again, WHO has polarized this country??
One thing that will really help to fund Social Security well into the future is the fact that ALL Republicans are going to refuse their Social Security checks when the come of age to collect, right? As a matter of principle? I mean--you surely don't want to be on the receiving end of a socialist dole program, do you? And no Medicare, either, correct? All your health care expenses will be paid by you Republicans personally because you had the foresight to save up in order to take care of yourselves the way "individuals" do. Whew! It's a relief to know that you will cost the country nothing in your collective old age, Repubs!
BRAVO!