Coulter's credibility rating drops even further with repetition of Obama approval falsehood
SUMMARY: Echoing other conservative media figures' claims about Gallup polls, Ann Coulter falsely claimed President Obama is "actually the second least popular president, 100 days in, we've had in 40 years." In fact, Gallup itself recently reported that, by two different measures, Obama's approval rating is the second highest of any president since 1969.
Syndicated columnist Ann Coulter falsely claimed during the April 30 edition of Fox News' Hannity that President Obama is "actually the second least popular president, 100 days in, we've had in 40 years." As Media Matters for America recently documented, this falsehood, which has made its way from a blog post to Fox News and The Washington Times, is based on an apples-to-oranges comparison between an April 20-21 Gallup poll question that asked respondents to "rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as president so far -- excellent, good, just okay, poor, or terrible," and the historical results of the traditional Gallup approval rating poll question that simply asked whether respondents "approve" or "disapprove" of the president's performance. Based on its traditional presidential approval poll question, Gallup itself recently reported that Obama's average approval rating for the first quarter of his first year in office is the highest of any president since 1969 other than Jimmy Carter, and Obama's most recent weekly average approval rating is higher than the April approval ratings of every first-term president since 1969 other than Ronald Reagan.
From the April 30 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
SEAN HANNITY (host): What do you say -- how -- we all know how this country's changed. I've given my opinion. What do you make of the 100 days of Barack Obama?
COULTER: Well, it was nice that he got a dog for his children and the vice president, so I'd put that in the plus column. And the negative column, I think we're about to see -- I mean, it did -- I linked to this on my Web page. He's actually the second least popular president, 100 days in, we've had in 40 years -- something else the mainstream media seems to be portraying in a different way. I mean, they're all pretty close. But 100 days, you haven't really seen the effects of his policies. I don't see any of the fundamentals changing in the economy. We ought to be going --
HANNITY: Oh, I do.
COULTER: -- through a bad time. And then --
HANNITY: Oh, wait a minute, Ann.
COULTER: -- oh, yeah. No -- well --
HANNITY: Oh, he's bankrupting the country. You know, we are --
COULTER: No, I know. But that the effects of that won't be felt for a while. And right now, to the extent Americans still have a favorable opinion of him, I think it has a lot to do just with the irrepressible optimism of Americans. Things aren't going to get better. They will see their 401ks not -- not getting any better and this could be a good opportunity for Republicans.
HANNITY: Weaken our defenses -- America, the socialist utiopia of France. All right. Ann Coulter good to see you. Thanks for being with us.
I'm going to try to beat everyone to the punch here and say "how can it drop from zero?"
I don't know... Is "Glenn Beck" a number?
I'm going to try to beat Brabantio to the scatalogical punch here and say "Number 2"?
No, but he is a tool.
Brabantio, you beat me........dammit!
Think of credibility like the temperature. Not only can it go below zero, the wind chill (Sean Hannity opening his trap) makes it feel even worse than that.
So there's 'zero' and then there's 'absolut zero.' :)
"So there's 'zero' and then there's 'absolute zero.' :)"
Isn't that like... -280 (Celsius, or is it Fahrenheit?) degrees or something close to that? Yikes... I always knew Hannity was a negative... but I never put it in that kind of perspective... first time for everything I guess.
what about kelvin?
He's hanging around with Hobbes plotting the next new makeover of the GOP.
1000 points for the one to guess who Hobbes is...
Calvin's stuffed tiger? ;-)
good call, but no. You will be quite surprised at the irony!
Thomas Hobbes, the political philospoher?! What would he have to do with Hannity?!
In his book Leviathan he argued that the only way to secure a civil society was through universal submission to the absolute authority of a sovereign. Hannity et al have been pushing for a one party government with their annointed king in command, hence the irony!
So... Thomas Hobbes, Emanual Kant and Sean Hannity: Roadmap to a perfect society, huh?
I've heard of Godwin's Law, in which the first person to call someone a Nazi loses the argument.
I'd like to suggest another law in which the first person to reference France loses the argument.
(Except for Matt Groening)
I'd like to propose ANOTHER law that states that if the transcript of your tv show reads like one of those spam e-mails that contain nonsensical phrases, you must turn over the corresponding amount of time in subsequent shows to Joe Biden.
Trying to locate a coherent thread from a conversation between these two is like pushing a one-handled wheelbarrow.
What, Neon? You're saying these aren't well thought out, relevant closing remarks?
HANNITY: Weaken our defenses -- America, the socialist utiopia of France. All right. Ann Coulter good to see you. Thanks for being with us.
"Ann Coulter, good to see you. Thanks for being with us." might be the worst part of that.
Perhaps it's my own deficiency in comprehension that is at fault here. Perhaps I'm being too critical of Shyawn. Perhaps Shyawn and Ann are actually pundicratic artistes, akin to Picasso, painting a comtemporary abstract verbal picture of the state of modern society recognizable not by the eye, but by the heart...
Perhaps Mothra will save the earth from global warming by flapping her big giant wings to cool it.
They're certainly more abstract than realist.
Why is every talking about Ms. Coulters' droppings? They obviously fall from her mouth when she opens it. Geez, leave this poor unbalanced woman alone. Not only does she have to fight off Mikey Malkin, the new young babes from Fox and now she is getting pushed aside by the nutty Congresswoman from Minnesota. Her territory is shrinking.
Sorry, I misunderstood the meaning of dropping. I thought I saw an 'S'. Shame on that liberal edumacation system.
If she ever sang, it would give another meaning to the word "scat."
At least they're close to complete sentences/thoughts.
I've heard of Godwin's Law, in which the first person to call someone a Nazi loses the argument.
Technically, that's not Godwin's Law. His law states that "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." (Source: Wikipedia)
Further: The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases in direct proportion to the length of the discussion. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
Hey... I had a pedant coupon burning a hole in my wallet and it was about to expire.
Ann Coulter is a fine example of why so may people have turned their backs on the Republican Party. You might expect ignorant gooberism from the undecuated knuclkedragging crowd, but Ann Coulter is a well-educated woman. She can't possibly believe all the nonsense she spouts...and if she does she must be crazier than a loon. And don't you think most sane, rational people are becoming a bit weary of the gratuitous, 24/7 negative attacks on Barack Obama? Since the election, FOX News' coverage of Obama has actually gotten worse. I read recently where only 13% of their coverage of Obama is favorable. Frankly, I was shocked at the 13% number because in my observation Obama cannot do anything right according to FOX. It makes you wonder how people can engage in this sort of constant negativity and retain their own emotional balance. I wonder how their bodies deal with the stress od constant anger...that is if they really are angry and not just faking it.
Good point, Irony. Hannity and Coulter in the same conversation adds up to empty calories for the mind. Hannity, who just doesn't have the intellectual equipment to do any better, has an excuse (although his bosses don't); Coulter, either because she's genuinely unbalanced or that she's so wedded to her ideals that she voluntarily closes her eyes, ears, and mind to obvious truths, could be doing so much better, maybe to the point of actually acquiring a little credibility.
In my opinion, it has little to do with politics. It has everthing to do with money. These clowns have a loyal audience and they feed them anti-Democrat red meat in order to sell books and get ratings.
They call that "riding the tiger"... You just have to be careful not to fall off and get malled by it... you know... like the Repubilcan Party has.
Money and power--but the two are equivalent much of the time.
you make excellent points. Coutler and her crowd are only shrinking the Republican party, marginalizing it even more. And that is sad, we need at least two viable healthy political parties, if for no other reason than to keep the other in check. But Coulter and Hannity and those like them really don't care about that at all, I mean they have to act like they do, but it's all about self preservation for them. They don't need a working majority of Republicans or even a strong minority, they need who they have now, and if they broaden the tent and appear more moderate they are likely to alienate their hard core listeners and they personally may suffer and get squeezed out. So their strategy is to hold on to what they have and keep them angry and listenening. They are revolting and harmful. The Republicans would do themselves a favor and throw them under the bus and start distancing themselves from them, but they have no cajones so they won't. too bad.
I agree two healthy parties. For the checks for the dialectic.
She believes in the almighty dollar, and has proved she will do whatever it takes to get it, even if it means compromising her principles. For some reason that attitude now passes for modern day conservatism. Quite funny for the party of GOD to think that way. That must be what confession is for.
The 13% is the celebrity side, reporting on fashions, the dog and the like.
Anyone with eyes can see he (Bush) left a huge mess.
Since leaving office Bush's favorability rating has actually declined...from 31% to 26%. Why? IMO, because even some of the die hards are now accepting the obvious truth of how terribly incompetent Bush was...and, now, in comparison to an intelligent, multi-tasking President like Barack Obama, Bush looks like a junior high school kid. People not only like Barack Obama, they respect him. And that is driving the people at FOX crazy...so much so that they will tell their viewers anything, regardless how outrageously false, to perpetuate a negative image of Barack Obama.
Yeah, I have a lot of rightwing friends and they are all now saying how they think Bush was terrible. They say that when I defend Obama from their personal attacks, (Obamabam, maybe not a citizen, etc) or when they falsely claim that he's going to do something that's just not true. They think they gain credibility in bashing Bush. Of course, they didn't bash him while he was in office, so, like so many other Republicans, they are hypocrites!!!
Because to some of us politics is not about bashing or attacking. It's about respectful debate. I also have many friends who are Republicans and they are not hypocrites. They don't engage in personal attacks against political opponents, they don't condone Coulteresque politics. They simply have different ideological positions than I do and feel strongly in their convictions. They feel that Bush let them down but they don't bash him in order to avoid some hypocritical label.
I, too, know Republicans like that, but they are far outnumbered by those who defend the Republican party at all costs, no matter what. But in either case, those who defended and/or refused to criticize Bush are, in my opinion, part of the problem--his actions were indefensible, illegal, and immoral. Republicans were consipcuously supportive and uncritical during W's time in the White House.
For that matter, Republicans have increasingly shown that they are not interested in cooperation or being reasonable for years. I think that most honest conservatives have left the party as it has become increasingly hard line right wing.
For that matter, Republicans have increasingly shown that they are not interested in cooperation or being reasonable for years.
We should dub that the Gingrich Effect.
Good point.
Anything for ratings. Ms. Coulter thrives on negativity. We know what is coming, and bite eveytime. Just to be mad at one person? She is smart. A darling of punditry.
That is her hook, and everyone bites. Good fish, bad fish, which are you?
RONIN, SO TRUE
Fox opinion polls are like a two headed coin toss. The outcome is predictable. In this case, Haniity tosses the coin, Coulter makes the call and the audience loses.
I have no particular love for Ann Coulter or anyone who will always find fault in the other political party's actions (sort of how most of you are regarding Republicans, and particularly George Bush). I also know that Obama's poll numbers are not head-and-shoulders above any other respectable President's poll numbers in his 1st 100 days. This is how it usually happens after an election. Most level-headed American's will give the new President a chance at the start. The problem is that most MSM networks seem to be trying to make Obama's poll numbers sound better than they are. Thus, Fox tries to make them sound worse. I have no use for either of these scenarios. I want the facts. Sorry to use this over-used phrase, but I want it to be "fair and ballanced" and I don't think ANY of the networks are at this point (despite how many times they tell us they are). They all seem to have their agenda.
100 days is a split-second in the world of politics. America has not had time to see any significant results (positive or negative) from Obama's policies or decisions. Again, sorry for the phrase, but he is still in the "honeymoon phase". Most American's are still willing to give Obama a chance and hope foir the best. Just as they would do for any President. And, just like it was for Bush, Clinton, Carter, and Regan, his approval ratings are high in his first 100 days. Once we see some real effects (good or bad) from Obams's policies, we will begin to see how Americans really feel. This 100-day report card idea on the Presidency is dumb IMO.
you are right, the 100 day report card is essentially meaningless, it's a media driven benchmark to give people like this something to talk about.
Jp,
You are right about the 100 days, but the broad brush you are painting posters here is unnecessary. The reasons most of us had for disapproval were based on not only his policies, but their results.
You're also right about most willing to give presidents a chance. The problem here is that Hannity and Coulter have totally disregarded the facts. Period. They are willing to outright lie here without any kind of balance. Its absolutely ridiculous and should not have any place in public discourse. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts.
This, however, was not a case of making Obama's poll numbers sound better or worse. Skeletor was simply lying about them.
I agree wholeheartedly about the 100-days benchmark.
'I have no particular love for Ann Coulter or anyone who will always find fault in the other political party's actions (sort of how most of you are regarding Republicans, and particularly George Bush)'
but you love ann coulter when she attacks the democrats/liberals, right? because the left attacked george bush, and its only fair to attack obama now, right? well, the left never 'attacked' bush because he was republican - only the right plays that game - the left, and the rest of the free-thinking country, was trying to save our country from bush and his lunatic cabal (and people like yourself still believe that they were working for you - they didn't give a crap about you!)
'The problem is that most MSM networks seem to be trying to make Obama's poll numbers sound better than they are. Thus, Fox tries to make them sound worse'
no, no, no! bad conservative! bad! - how does the media benefit from higher approval ratings for obama? it doesn't. why is the msm liberal? it isn't. these are just neo-con tricks to make people like yourself, easily misled, think that foxnews and rush limbaugh are the only source of 'fair and balanced' news - and the rest of the world is wrong and socialist, and out to tax you to death - and if you ever really watch the likes of jon stewart or olberman, you'll notice that they go after anything ridiculous about government - not just right or left (but this upset you neo-cons during the bush admin because, god forbid you question the president during a time of war!)....take some time to think for yourself! - jeeeez.....
"and if you ever really watch the likes of jon stewart or olberman, you'll notice that they go after anything ridiculous about government - not just right or left (but this upset you neo-cons during the bush admin because, god forbid you question the president during a time of war!)....take some time to think for yourself! - jeeeez....."
I'm not here to get in an argument, so I won't even entertain the first part of your response that is filled with generalizations and Bush insults that pretty-much proves my statement about how most of you will hate republicans no matter what. Now, to the statement I quoted from you - are you really here trying to justify Olberman's joke of a show by saying he doesn't hate Bush, but only the ridiculousness of government? He has a daily segment on his show called Bushed! for heaven's sake. He made it a point to criticize something Bush did every day of his presidency (no matter how far he had to stretch it) and keeps it up to this day......a full 101 days after Bush left office. Take a look in the mirror before you criticize people for agreeing with a moron like Ann Coulter. Olbermann is no better.
And I'm pretty sure that you'll find that most of the people posting here don't watch, or don't really care for Olberman.
Please stop comparing Olbmerann to Coulter. Olbermann uses facts, while Coulter uses lies/smears/innuendo. Get the difference.
Hmmmm.....seeing the responses from some of your MMFA "friends" I see that most of them agree with me that basically Olbermann is a moron and his show is crap. Also, see my response to Brabantio.
So what. I like Keith. Watch him a few times a week. So maybe I'm in a better position to judge his quality as a news "analyst" as compared to Coulter.
Um, please point out where "most of them agree with me that basically Olbermann is a moron and his show is crap." While I'm only an occasional viewer, that sure as heck isn't my assessment of his program or him. A lot of things can be said about Olbermann, but "moron" wouldn't be accurate by a long stretch. And one's appreciation of his program probably has more to do with political bias than quality.
If that's what you see, you are blinder than Coulter.
The problem with Coulter goes far beyond mere partisanship. The problem is that she makes wildly inflammatory comments. Has Olbermann said anything about wishing that the Washington Times offices were blown up, or anything of that sort? I'm not a fan of Olbermann, but I find the comparison to be poorly thought-out.
I agree completely. I am also no fan of Olbermann but he is no Ann Coulter. I do wish Olbermann would have contrary opinions on his program once in awhile, I believe he could hold his own and it would make for a more thoughtful discussion. Not the screaming matches some of the others have, but respectful debate with both sides offering their views. He never does this and I don't know why. As a result, his program is just a Democratic infomercial, and I don't need to watch that. The best way to formulate ones arguments is to have them tested against the other side, watching Olbermann there is no opportunity to do that.
As for Ann Coulter, she is strictly a shock-a-pundit. She offers nothing any intelligent person craves.
Coulter offers me nothing, she speaks to a amped up bigoted fringe of conservatives that keep her in the limelight, I suppose. She is less relevant now it seems, good thing.
I like Olbermans show. I don't think most of subjects he chooses to report have two sides. The format of bringing on both sides to repeat talking points does little to inform and is more about entertainment. Infact, i like the format of Bill Moyers where he might have on 1 or 2 people at most but have an in depth discussion about the subject of the night. I get more information from that type of discussion than this false equivalency that most pundit shows seem to practice.
An example is the torture debate: Why are we debating torture? What two credible sides to this issue are there? Global warming is another? I mean what contrary opinions are you advocating Olberman have on his show? I think there is enough of the other side presented on cable TV. Infact you hear more of the other side than you do the truth. Your characterization of Olberman being a Democratic informercial is flat out wrong! Maybe the reason he doesn't have more Republicans on is that maybe they refuse to go on his program! I've John Dean on and many times he brings on informed people to discuss the topics he chooses. I've heard him criticize President Obama on his wiretapping stances and apologize when he's gotten things wrong, but I've never heard him outright lie to push an ideological point.
Conger, I never miss Bill Moyers show for the reasons you site. And you make very good points about there not always being opposing sides to an issue. Well, that's if you don't have some political ax to grind that is.
I don't watch cable much, but I was trying out "The Ed" show with Ed Schultz the other day, and I happened to see a small bit of Chris Matthews show. He had Jonathan Turley, the constitutional scholar on, along with Pat Buchanan. And the Tweetster and Buchanan are shouting over Turley, who always makes good points, about some supposed merits of the latest talking points on torture. I don't even remember the point. I just remember Turley not being able to speak and being frustrated that this person with knowledge was being talked over.
And you're also right that Olberman and other liberal pundits I know, as well as other publications I read, will call out Obama when they don't agree with him. And Rachel Maddow will correct even the smallest mistakes on her program, which I now watch once or twice a week.
Thankyou juliajayne, amazing that you mentioned that "hardball" segment as I too was thinking the same thing.
New York Times. A small but important difference. Can someone make the WT go away?
I know it was the New York Times. I was adjusting it to fit ideology.
No one here is taking up for Ann Coulter....ROFRATU is the one who brought up Olberman and my response was to him/her, so I find your response to be poorly thought out.
So my response is invalid because you weren't talking to me? Are you in the third grade, or what?
If you can't find some borderline psychotic quotes from Olbermann (which he also didn't apologize for, since Coulter doesn't apologize for what she says), then the comparison doesn't work. I'm sorry if pointing that out to you hurts your feelings.
I don't mind you responding to my posts. That's not what my last post was about. It was about the fact that I was only mentioning Olberman in the conversation because ROFRATU brought him into it. BTW, I an 100% certain that I could find psychotic (not even boprderline) quotes from Olberman if I wanted to try.
I don't see what difference your reason for mentioning Olbermann makes. Whether you were responding to someone or making an original post, you compared him to Coulter, and I find that ridiculous. I didn't suggest that you weren't responding to someone, either, because it had precisely zero relevance to my point.
If you want to support what you said, I invite you to make the effort.
BTW, I an 100% certain that I could find psychotic (not even boprderline) quotes from Olberman if I wanted to try.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Quotes like we should poison a sitting Supreme Court justice? Beat liberals with baseball bats? Drop daisy cutters at random through the middle east? That it is a personal fantasy of hers to take the right to vote away from women? That she wishes John Edwards had been killed? That she regrets Timothy McVeigh didnt blow up the NYTimes building? I seriously doubt you could but good luck with that.
Solon, the people that push these canards about Olberman and others never have a thing to back up their stance, unless it's either made up or taken out of context.
I have contended for years the left wing equivalent of Ann doesnt exist. As of yet no conservative has shown me to be wrong. I am still waiting.
I think you'll be waiting a long time, Solon. Maybe you'll wait as long as the people who offered the $10,000 reward to anyone who could prove they served in the Alabama National Guard with George W. Bush. Eight years have gone by, and no one has claimed the reward.
Brabs comments are NEVER poorly thought out
I wouldn't say "never", but thanks for the compliment!
so I won't even entertain the first part of your response that is filled with generalizations and Bush insults that pretty-much proves my statement about how most of you will hate republicans no matter what.
Sorry, but for those of us on the left, Bush gave us plenty of concrete reasons to disagree and ultimately dislike him. The Iraq War, which many of us were firmly against before we went in. Abortion gag rules which we believe kills and harms more than helps. Underfunded education policies. (Basically underfunded policies all over the place.) Stem cell decision based on religion rather than science -- heck, all sorts of decisions that should have been based on science being decided by politics or religion. Torture policies. Extraordinary Rendition. Domestic wiretapping.
You may agree with those decisions and policies and therefore think "What's the big deal?" But for those of us who don't agree, those things were each and every one was an affront to our concepts of decency and our understanding of the Constitution.
So you might think that we all just "hate Republicans no matter what" but those things matter to us. It is those sorts of decisions and policies that make us dislike Republicanism. This isn't about supporting the home team and just waving some flag. This is stuff we care about, and Bush essentially crapped all over it.
So, disagree all you like, but do NOT trivialize our reasons for our opposition to Bush.
The fact that Sheer Insannity must turn to such re-treds as Ann Falter, J.C. Watts, Newt & Pat B. and "Dick" Morrisand Karl Rover pretty much says it all. I hope they keep trying to make big deals out of iPods and airplane flights and the rest of the trivia they spend their time with. Spew the talking points and same tired lies over and over and over and over again.
Note to GM: How's all that advertising on Sheer Insannity's shows working out for you?
They can continue to advocate 19th Century solutions for 21st Century problems to their hearts' content. As they spiral down into further lack of relevance to the real world they will shout louder and louder...and be heard less and less...
"They continue to advocate 19th century solutions to 21st century problems". Well said NEWSHOUND,although sometimes I think what they are advocating is right out of the DARK AGES.
assuming she had any credibility to begin with
Like she ever had any credibility anyway. In spite of her tough, macho image Coulter has always been one of the more spineless right wing noise bags. Whenever she gets called on her bs she claims it was a "joke."
ANNTHRAX COULTER has never had any credibility at all except with the 21% that still identify themselves as REPUKES.
Yes we understand the deranged and brainwashed like you think what you are told to think. Thats a good troll now get the nurse to increase your medication.
worst president ever... since the last one?
Meanwhile, the stock market has risen more in Obama's first 100 days (10.6%) than any other modern president. I'm guessing you won't hear much about that on Fox. But of course, when it was tanking in the closing days of the election campaign, it was an "Obama recession".
You may have missed it, Fock Snooze said the market gains were a result of their teabagging.
so they gave the market mouth to joint resuscitation to create this full blown recovery?
I'm not sure what you just said, but I know it's dirty!
This claim by MMFA, that according to Gallup poles President Obama's popularity rating is the second lowest has been refutred has itself been refuted. Gallup had published the poll with a headline claiming Obama's support was above expectations. But their poll showed him at a 56% rating of good or better, the second lowest such rating since Gallup began. To coverup their mislabeling of the pole's implications they published the average results of dailies to bring him up to 67%. These dailies do not compare acurately with the poles that rated other Presidents and gave the results Ann Coulter referenced. Gallup answered the exposure of a false headline with a coverup using falsely applied data and MMFA accepted their coverup as the truth. This is excusable. Nobody is perfect. But they should stop claiming this "second lowest" statistic has been refuted.
What galaxy are you visiting from?
His approval ratings are somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 percent. That's all you need to know.
Coulter's credibility rating?
I wasn't aware that she ever had one!
Unless you call initiating smears, lies and malicious assertions of all types "credible", Coulter could not ever have had any "credibility" rating higher than zero.
Hey blondie blue, I get the distinct impression you don't care for Sean Hannity!
Coulter has to be living in a cave.