Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts

Monday, November 3, 2008

The World and US Elections: Israelis Favor McCain; Iran for Obama

Israelis Favor McCain, Iranians Prefer Obama

By Bob McCarty at BobMcCarty.com


Barack Obama has, according to many news accounts about the 2008 presidential race, won the love and admiration of many people around the world. Perhaps more worthwhile than the results of any global opinion poll is a look at how Israelis and Iranians would vote if given the chance.

Published one week ago, a ynet news article, Poll: Israel votes McCain in US elections, revealed that 46% of Israelis would vote for Republican Party presidential nominee John McCain if given chance to elect the U.S. president while only 34 percent would vote for the Democratic Party contender. Further, almost half of those polled believe McCain would better impact Jewish state.






[ABOVE: Click image to read article.]

Published a few days earlier, another ynet news article, Larijani: Iran prefers Obama, revealed that Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani believes his country is leaning towards Obama in the U.S. presidential election "because he is more flexible and rational."



[ABOVE: Click image to read article.]

Summary: Israelis like McCain, and Iranians like Obama. Any questions?*

*If, after carefully considering the facts above, you find yourself still undecided about who to support in the presidential election Tuesday, remember to listen to "The Poll Whisperer" before you cast your vote.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Obama-Khalidi Video: $175,000 Bounty Raised on Internet for Tape



Your Ad Here


LA Times Obama-Rashid Khalidi Video:
LA Times Won't Release Video of
Obama and Wife at Jew-Bash
McCain accuses the Times of covering up the information

Blogger Doug Ross Gets Tip on Two Obama Quotes at 2003 Event




“We should know about their relationship including, apparently, information that is held by the Los Angeles Times concerning an event that Mr. Ayers attended with a PLO spokesman.”

“The Los Angeles Times refuses to make that videotape public. I’m not in the business about talking about media bias but what if there was a tape with John McCain with a neo-Nazi outfit being held by some media outlet, I think the treatment of the issue would be slightly different.”

--John McCain, to WAQI, also known as Radio Mambi



Other Obama Ties to Hamas Fund-Raiser Revealed by LGF
Bloggers Offering $175,000 For Copy of Video
McCain Campaign Calling LA Times to Release Video

An Eye-raising Guest List


DBKP reported earlier today that Doug Ross received a pair of quotes from a source who had seen the video the LA Times is holding, "Obama-Khalidi Tape: Blogger Obtains Quotes from Hidden Video UPDATED".

Ross' story "RED ALERT tip: Two Quotes from the Obama-Khalidi Videotape", cites a source "from a person who has provided useful, accurate and unique data from LA before (e.g., "All six of CNN's 'undecided voters' were Democratic operatives"). Take it for what it's worth, but I believe this person is on target.


The two quotes offered by Ross' source are certainly reason enough that the LA Times would want to suppress the video. Obama is supposedly congratulating the

"Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine."


and

"there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

The source said that Obama used the quotes to "rile the audience (largely pro-Palestinian) up".




Obama Campaign Has Still Refused
To Release Medical, College and University Records




The Wall Street Journal is reporting that McCain Accuses L.A. Times of Holding Back Obama Video.

John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, today accused the Los Angeles Times of withholding a videotape of an event that he asserted was attended by both Barack Obama and 1960s-era radical Bill Ayers. The campaign has repeatedly argued that Obama has not been straight about their relationship.

The videotape, described in an April L.A. Times story, was of a 2003 banquet honoring Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian activist and scholar. At the dinner, Obama spoke of their friendship and how much he had learned from him.

On Tuesday, a McCain spokesman first called on the newspaper to release the videotape, saying it would shed light on the relationship between Obama and Khalidi. Today, McCain repeated the call in an interview with a Cuban radio station, accusing the newspaper of bias and asserting that Ayers was at the event as well—a point that has not been reported anywhere. Palin made the same points from the stump.


The Times has provided four different excuses for not releasing the tape--finally settling on the latest, that "it was provided by a confidential source on condition that it not be released."
In a story published today, the newspaper said it did not publish the tape itself because it was provided by a confidential source on condition that it not be released. “The Times keeps its promises to sources,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton.


Ross responds to this latest reason for not the LA Times not publishing the news:

"How frickin' stupid do they think we are? Someone gave the Times a videotape so it wouldn't be released? And they can't publish a transcript?"



ALSO at DBKP:
Obama's Refusal to Release Medical, Other Records

* Obama Records: Obama Medical, College, University, Other Records Still Hidden
* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Obama Medical Records: MSM’s Don’t Ask, Obama’s Don’t Tell Policy
* Obama Records: Obama Campaign Still Refuses to Release Medical, Other Records




Michelle Obama "Friend" of Hamas Fund-Raiser
MO's Name Later Scrubbed from Website Page


The website, Little Green Footballs, has been reporting on the existence of the Obama-Khalidi video at the LA Times and has been keeping track of the excuses the Times has used since being called upon to release the tape. [The LA Times is Hiding an Incriminating Video of Barack Obama at a Party with Radical Palestinian Activists and Bill Ayers]

LGF today reprinted a story from April that was ignored by Big Media at the time: Another Disturbing Unreported Barack Obama Association: a Terrorist Fundraiser.

Back in April, we reported on a page at the Barack Obama website belonging to a fundraiser named Hatem Elhady, former chairman of the Hamas-linked Islamic charity “Kindhearts.” One of the friends listed on Elhady’s page was none other than Michelle Obama, and we have the screenshots to prove it. When this page was exposed at LGF, the Obama campaign first erased Michelle Obama’s name from the page, then shortly afterward, the entire page disappeared.

I’m reposting these LGF articles below, because they got virtually no attention at the time.

***

Another big Barack Obama supporter: Hatem El-Hady, former chairman of the Toledo-based Islamic charity Kindhearts, closed by the US government in 2006 for terrorist fundraising: Terrorist Fundraisers for Obama.

El-Hady has now devoted himself to raising money for Barack Obama; he has a page at the official Obama campaign web site, with three “friends” listed on it: “Rick,” “Fatima from Toledo, Ohio,” and ... Michelle Obama.





The story at LGF has the page screenshots, both before and after it was laundered.




What the LA Times will report is that Khalidi was often a spokesman for the PLO and that Khalidi and Obama, just like Bill Ayers, lived in the same neighborhood.

J-MAC ATTACK! CHARGES DAMNING BAM VID SUPRESSED:
In reporting on Obama's presence at the dinner for Khalidi, the article noted that some speakers expressed anger at Israel and at U.S. foreign policy, but that Obama in his comments called for finding common ground.

The Times reported today "Khalidi in the 1970s often spoke to reporters on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi later lived near Obama while teaching at the University of Chicago. He is now a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University in New York."







BLOGGER BOUNTY for Khalidi VIDEO




Signs that the capitalist spirit is not dead in the Right half of the blogosphere.

From Newsbusters' PJ Gladnick: Obama/Ayers/Dohrn/Khalidi Video: $175,000 Reward/Bribe Offered to Newsmen to Report News:

This is pretty funny. A $175,000 reward/bribe is now being offered for a Los Angeles Times reporter to actually report the news, namely to release the Khalidi video that the Times refuses to let the public see. It started out with a mere $25,000 offer made by Ace of Spades (emphasis mine):

Well, I don't know if one will step forward. I can guarantee, though, that if the goods are delivered the blogosphere can contribute $20,000. In a matter of hours.

Maybe more. More would depend on the tape.

This offer includes is particularly directed towards Los Angeles Times employees. Maybe ones that just got fired. Or will get fired in the next couple of weeks.

Guaranteed.

Anonymous.

That's how we roll.

Pretty pathetic that we have to try to bribe "newsmen" to release newsworthy tapes.

If your conscience is troubled, They should have released it anyway.

Plus that $25,000. You know what helps an aching conscience? Rubbing it with crisp hundred dollar bills, that's what.

Yeah it just went up five g's. If I can get $5 grand in a donation drive, I'm pretty damn sure I can get $25,000 for the tape.

And no, not a stunt. One little blog gets $5 k in a donation drive. Something like this, with every blogger linking the donation button, would easily get in excess of $25,000.



From Dirty Harry's Place, "$150,000 Offered for Obama/Khalidi/Ayers Tape"

I’ve also received another offer from a private donor for an added $25,000 that I’m currently working to verify.



If Jerry Lewis showed up, we might get the bounty up over a quarter mil.




THE GUESTS

Change and Experience Blog have done a lot of research and have compiled a lot of information including the guest list:(via Stop the ACLU, "$175,000 Reward Offered for Obama Khalidi Tape")


Those who attended (the guest list):
1. AAAN (Arab American Action Network)
2. Not In My Name
3. Ali Abunimah (a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, who met Obama in 2000)
4. Bernadine Dorhn and Bill Ayers
5. Barack Obama
6. Mayor of Chicago Richard Daley
7. Rashid Khalidi
8. Mona Khalidi
9. Gihad Ali, a Palestinian spoken word poet
10. NPR Worldview host Jerome McDonnell (not McDonald as written in the e-mail)
11. Camilia Odeh (director of SWYC Southwest Youth Collaborative)
12. Sanabel debka troupe (traditional Palestinian dance group)
13. Hatem Abudayyeh
14. Others - Up to 50 to 500, possibly 600 guests (based on Burbank Manor’s seating capacity capabilities)


Who knew?

Will the LA Times release its obviously newsworthy tape, in spite of the political fallout that could affect its chosen candidate?

Like the New York Times and AP, the LA Times makes more news when it suppresses the news than it does when it reports the news. This was true during the media blackout surrounding the John Edwards' scandal.

It's true in this case also.

Maybe the LA Times has hit upon a new business model. One that the editors feel will stop the layoffs, reverse the sagging ad revenues and lift circulation figures.

Or it could just be another sign of the Great American Media Putz-dom continuing--this time in the City of Angels.


by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file



Tuesday, October 28, 2008

MSM Death Watch: Polls, TV News and AP Rogue Newspapers



Your Ad Here


Mainstream Media:
Gatekeepers' Media Death Watch

October 29, 2008



* Why Polls Don't Work
* Why TV News Never Worked Out As Adversarial
* AP Papers Going Rogue
* Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) Wants "Fairness"
* Obama RedistributionMania
* LA Times: Arrogant Info Overseer






MSM Shake, Death Rattle and Roll


"Look! Up in the sky!
It's a Hawk!
It's over Iowa!
It's IowaHawk!"




We present for your edification:

The Short Course in Why You Should Mathematically and Statistically Distrust Polls 101;
or, in layman's language, "Balls and Urns".
Brought to you as a public service by IowaHawk Educational Services.
Hat tip: Little Green Footballs: IowaHawk on the Abuse of Statistics







The Future of TV News in the Post-Russert Era
explains why TV network news will eventually go the way of the buggy whip.


This idea of a friendly news-government relationship is the opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted. They wanted an adversarial relationship between the press and the government. The country’s founding premise was that the public must continually protect itself from governments’ natural inclination to encroach on their individual rights. Jefferson wanted newspapers to serve as a “fence” to stop this encroachment and encouraged them to engage in a process of “attack and defense” with government. In fact, he established a newspaper with James Madison to bloody-up Alexander Hamilton’s Federalists during Washington’s administration.

You didn’t notice that network news deliberately tries to be friendly to politicians? Just compare network to cable news coverage. Cable TV requires no broadcast licenses from the federal government – there’s no need for these channels to keep FCC political appointees happy. Note how much hotter the political talk is on cable vs. broadcast news. On cable, you find politician-attackers like Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann. On broadcast, you find suck-ups like Brian Williams and Katie Couric.


The only TV stations engaging the Obama campaign in an adversarial relationship seem to be getting hit with the ban stick: first, in Florida, Obama Campaign Cuts Access for Florida TV Station Asking Unpleasant Questions UPDATED; then, in






* Democratic Senator Tells Conservative Radio Station He’d Re-impose Fairness Doctrine--on Them

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) told radio station 770 AM KKOB in Albuquerque, N.M., that he didn’t know if Democrats in Congress will try to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine next year – but he would certainly like them to.


AP and Rogue Newspapers


* Bob McCarty: Newspapers Turning Away From Associated Press?

AP = Associated Pap

* Brewing battle between AP and its member newspapers will make papers healthier and their readers happier

Lost Remote reports that there is growing interest around the country in Ohio newspapers’ plans to side-step the Associated Press and share statewide news only among themselves, ensuring that their papers are the exclusive sources for their original stories. Some papers feel they are simply being taken advantage of by the AP. The editor of the Columbus (OH) Dispatch said “What has happened is we’re becoming the wire service for the wire service,” as the AP lifts their statewide stories and distributes them to others.





Obama's tricks with your treats.

* Is Obama Planning to Redistribute Chocolate, Too?

Barack Obama shrugs off charges of socialism, but noted in his own memoir that he carefully chose Marxist professors as friends in college.

* Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days

The LA Times makes decision (again) to not inform their readers.

Remember when the LA Times circulated a memo telling its reporters not to write anything about John Edwards in their blogs? [John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Love Child: LA Times Censors Reporters on Story] Now the Times is formalizing its policy of Arrogant Info Overseer, Southern Cal Division, with its refusal to release a 2003 video tape it has obtained of Barack Obama yukking it up with--ready?--some questionable associates.

* McCain Campaign Demands LA Times Release Hidden Video Tape

The Times is working on its fourth or fifth different excuse for not releasing the tape. #6 is right around the corner...

by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file



Wednesday, October 8, 2008

CNN's Handheld Audience Reaction Meters: Entertainment, Not Polling



Your Ad Here

It's Entertainment; not Polling:
Former Gallop Pollster Lampoons CNN's "Audience Reaction Meters" used in Presidential Debates





Special to Stinky Journalism
by David W. Moore





Still wonder what-the-heck those squiggly lines are at the bottom of your CNN screen during the Presidential debates?

David W. Moore, the author of The Opinion Makers: An Insider Exposes The Truth Behind The Polls, and former senior editor at the Gallop Poll for thirteen years will tell you the folly of this pseudo-science.

Mr. Moore lampoons CNNs use of live Audience Reaction Meters during the Presidential debates as junk science. He tells you where the 25 year old hand meter technology came from and how its use in the debates, is completely counter to the concept of focus groups. He writes, [focus groups] are designed to obtain in-depth responses from the participants, who actually discuss the issues with each other and arrive at more considered views than what polls normally measure.

Moore argues that CNN has presented a 32 member groups reactions to candidates comments (shown in squiggly lines [0-100 with 0 equaling bad and 100, good]) as representative of American without one scintilla of scientific basis.

Should Americans really care what 32 people from Ohio think?

Continue reading: Latest Journalism News Updates


by David W. Moore

image: Stinky Journalism
Source: Latest Journalism News Updates



Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Mainstream Media Practicing Voter Suppression



Your Ad Here


Mainstream Media's Favorite Voter Suppression Methods
* Lie, Damn Lies and MSM Polls
* Projecting the Media Favorite as the Winner
* Exit Polls and Fraud
* Pro-Obama, Anti-McCain-Palin Bias
* Hit Pieces Masquerading as "News"





The Mainstream Media is conducting a none-too-sophisticated campaign of conservative voter suppression. It's Big Media's largest partisan campaign effort--ever.


Voter suppression is a form of electoral fraud and refers to the use of governmental power, political campaign strategy, and private resources aimed at suppressing (i.e. reducing) the total vote of opposition candidacies instead of attempting to change likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters. This method is particularly effective if a significant amount of voters are intimidated individually because the voter might not consider his or her single vote important.


Is the blatant pro-Obama, anti-McCain-Palin Mainstream Media bias an attempt at voter suppression?

Some conservatives and independents--after listening to CNN, the AP and other MSM reports--may not vote in November. Perhaps, deciding that it will do no good--as they've been told repeatedly that the election has already been decided in Barack Obama's favor.

Previously, the MSM usually reserved voter suppression efforts to Election Day: calling Florida for Al Gore, broadcasting that the polls in Florida were closed in 2000 and the Kerry exit poll hoax in 2004. Before election day, the MSM contented themselves with publishing wildly-skewed polls, which strangely, always favored the Democrats by wide margins. [See below.]




POLLS SEEMS to SKEW WRONG--ONE WAY

MSM polls from 1976-2004 [with the exceptions of 1984 and 1996] always work out wrong. And they prove to be consistently wrong in the same way: they predict victory for the candidate with the "D" after his name.

1976

Late July - Gallup Poll

Jimmy Carter 62%
Gerald Ford 30%

Election Results

Carter 50.1%
Ford 48.0%

-----
1980

November Gallup Pre-election Poll

Carter 44%
Reagan 41%

Election Results

Reagan 50.7%
Carter 41.0%

----
1988

CBS-New York Times Poll


Michael Dukakis 49%
George Bush 39%


Election Results

Bush 53.4%
Dukakis 45.6%

-----
1992


June 1992 Time/CNN Poll

Ross Perot 37%
George Bush 24%
Bill Clinton 24%


Election Results

Clinton 43.0%
Bush 37.4%
Perot 18.9%

-----
2000

Sept 2000 Newsweek


Al Gore 49%
George W. Bush 39%

Election Results

Bush 47.9%
Gore 48.4%

by Mondo
image: daytona beach real estate
Sources:
* General Election Polls: A History of Inaccuracy
* Wikipedia


One of the most egregious example of MSM voter suppression tactics is the exit polls. This fraud reached its most distorted heights in 2004, when voters in the afternoon learned, via the major networks, that John Kerry was not only winning--he was winning in a landslide.

John Wambough wrote in January 2005 about the exit poll scam.

Shortly after 1pm on Election Day the National Networks' raw exit-poll data was posted on the Internet showing Kerry winning the National Election in a landslide. From the standpoint of the American voter, this data was projecting / forecasting / indicating the winner of the National Election and it was doing so before a single poll had closed in any state. Stringent Network standards for projecting or calling a state over the national airways mean little when the Internet is used as an alternative avenue for subverting the electoral process.

...

National Network disinformation tactics (telling the public the polls were closed when they weren't and telling the public that Al Gore had won the election when he didn't) proved highly effective in curtailing Florida voting in Election 2000. Many citizens of the Florida Panhandle know voters who chose not to vote once the networks (CBS in particular) announced that all Florida polls were closed and that Al Gore had won Florida and therefore the National Election. According to the Clerk for Elections, Okaloosa County, Florida: "In past elections, there was usually a rush of people coming from work, trying to get to vote before the polls closed" Soon after 6 p.m. in the Central Time Zone, voting volume dropped almost to zero in 361 polling places in the Panhandle.
--Election 2004: exit-poll disinformation hoax backfires?


When the obituary of the Mainstream Media is written, 2008 will go down as a year when all pretenses of objectivity were dropped. Not content to rely on the usual tactics of anti-conservative (Republican) stories, skewed polls and election day shenanigans, MSM editors are leaving nothing to chance, in what might be, their last hurrah.

The onslaught of pro-Obama, anti-McCain-Palin propaganda pieces, parading as "news" stories, far surpasses anything the MSM has attempted in years past.

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS:
"Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working." I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.


Is it any wonder that three times more Americans believe in UFOs than trust the Mainstream Media?

Jeff G. at Protein Wisdom, asks Can 50 million Americans file suit for fraud?: "Because that would be the kind of big news not even the mainstream press could make disappear."

The Anchoress lays out an eerily-Apocalypic scenario “The fix is in, and it’s working…”

I suppose this is why print media and the press in general don’t care about their tumbling revenues; when The Pelosi gets the regulated internet and restricted Congress that she wants, and Obama gets his thugs and his Justice Department monitoring, intimidating and shutting down alternative media (and the dissenting voices we’ve been told are “patriotic” when a Republican is in the White House) the incestuous mainstream press will go back to being the only game in town. Pravda West.


Anchoress reader Eric Schubert: "The Edwards debacle was proof enough of where the heart of the MSM lies, and lack of curiousity of the press about Edwards probably cost Hillary the nomination. And that shameful episode offers a warning to the MSM. What if Obama does have a skeleton in his closet (such as a shady deal or outright bribe) that is revealed after he wins the election? While the chance of this scenario is remote, imagine the backlash against the MSM if it could be shown that a reasonable investigation by the MSM would have easily revealed this secret to the public prior to the election?"

[
John Edwards and Sarah Palin did indeed get very different MSM coverage
.]

John Hinderaker at Powerline agrees that the fix is in, it is working--and you knew it all along.

Sadly, it's true: it is indeed working. We live in a political system that has not yet been adequately described, but one might call it a "mediated democracy." Mediated by a self-appointed, generally ignorant but highly opinionated "elite" that is not elite by any conventional measure--income, intelligence, education, social position--but that successfully dictates the terms of political discourse even though it no longer controls (exclusively, anyway) the means of production of the news.


The MSM is "In the Tank and not even Trying", according to Confederate Yankee.
If you recall, several weeks ago Charlie Gibson used a doctored quote when interviewing Sarah Palin.

Gene Johnson of the Associated Press was the person (I hesitate to use the term journalist at this point) who purposefully truncated the quote to make it mean something entirely different, and so I contacted his superior, and noted he had clearly violated APs code of ethics by doctoring the quote.

After a period of silence, I asked the AP "In what way is altering a subject's quote to change the entire context of the quote, and present an entirely false interpretation of what the subject clearly said, not at odds with the Associated Press' ethics policy?"


The AP's response?

"[T]he remark could be interpreted in different ways".

Of course, when it comes to the Blogosphere, the AP's position is that they have no ethics.

Details about Barack Obama, the questionable tactics traced back to his campaign and his many questionable associates get the "John Edwards treatment" in the Mainstream press. [See also "Barack Obama: The Strong-Arm Tactics of Team Obama", "Sarah Palin, Hillary Attacks: Fear and Loathing in the MSM" and "Sarah Palin: Far Left French Foppery, Vampires, and Elitist Palin Attacks".]

As shown with the John Edwards affair/scandal/coverup, the AP's ethics are highly-situational. The Edwards story demonstrated not only the MSM's blantant failure to report, but also a damning indictment to even investigate allegations concerning a Democrat presidential candidate.

Allegations which were true.

CNN, CBS, NBC, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times grudgingly ran articles of the Edwards' affair only after John Edwards himself gave them the go-ahead on August 8. They have since descended into their comforting media blackout, with only ABC News pursuing the Edwards' money trail.

Is the MSM voter suppression effort coordinated?

Only in the sense that like-minded people are inclined to act the same way at different times and places. Just because cars get stolen on the same day in Florida, Wisconsin and Maine doesn't mean the thieves in those different locales are operating as a criminal conspiracy.

It only indicates that people who steal cars are active in all three states at the same time.

Is the massive MSM bias another attempt at voter suppression?

Does the Pope wear a beanie?

Will any MSM outlet question the tilted coverage in favor of Barack Obama?

Will Big Media be successful? What new tactics will the MSM unveil on Election Day 2008?

As always, the election day results will be the judge.

But Big Media has moved from reporting the news into injecting themselves into the political process, into becoming the news itself.

In Election 2008, they have dropped all pretenses of a disinterested, objective press.

The Mainstream Media, like the Chicago machine, are not content with watching events on Election Day unfold.

They want to be the kingmakers.


NOTES:

* It's interesting that the "voter suppression" article at Wikipedia cites "caging lists" as a form of voter suppression.

Caging lists have been used by political parties to eliminate potential voters from the other party's voting roll. A political party sends registered mail to addresses of registered voters. If the mail is returned as undeliverable the party uses that fact to challenge the registration, arguing that because the voter could not be reached at the address, the registration is fraudulent.


Huh?

That sounds like a good way to prevent voter fraud--unless the Wiki writer is a project director for ACORN.


* MSM PALIN ATTACKS

Patterico not only fact-checks the LA Times on Sarah Palin--something that might exhaust the resources of a small army working around the clock--he also provides comic relief by working in a reference and video to convicted conman, Larry Sinclair.


by Mondo Frazier
image: stealing democracy



Saturday, September 27, 2008

McCain-Obama Debate: MSM Declares Obama Winner



Your Ad Here

Debate Winners Decided By Mainstream Media
But Only 19% Trust the MSM
A short history of the past several debates "winners"




Big Media Declare Victory for Its Candidate


Who won the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama?

Depends on who you ask.

Debate winners are in the eye of the beholder. If the beholder is a member of the Mainstream Media, you already knew the answer to the question before the debate was held.

THE USUAL SUSPECTS

* Washington Post - The Debate: An Edge for Obama
* CNN - Round 1 in Debate Goes to Obama, Poll Says
* Time - Grading the First Presidential Debate (Time's Mark Halperin--surprise!--gave the win to Obama.)
* CBS - CBS Poll: Obama Boosted Most by Debate


Rewind four years: back to the first Kerry-Bush debate. What judgment did our impartial media render then?

* ABC - Poll: Kerry Wins Debate, But No Change
* CNN - Polls: Kerry Won Debate
* CBS - Poll: Bush And Kerry Tied; Democratic Challenger Bounces Back After First Debate


Eight years ago, who won the first debate between Al Gore and George Bush?

The Daily Howler: "Gore won every instant poll that night, polls taken right after viewers watched his disgraceful conduct."


So, who won the first debate?

Readers can see that one of the favorite vehicles for MSM stories about debate "winners" is the poll. Another favorite: ask another MSM member who won.

CBS News issued their press release in the guise of another poll: predictably it claimed a win for--surprise!--Barack Obama.

Thirty-nine percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-four percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-seven percent saw it as a draw.


Who won last night's debate?

Depends on who you ask.

FAST FACTS:

Today is Barack Obama's 1342nd day in the U.S. Senate. He's spent 45%, or 602 of those days, campaigning for president. Obama has authored no major legislation. He's been in one presidential debate, that on the 601st day of his perpetual campaign.

Obama's voted "present" 129 times during his three years, eight months and 3 days in the Senate. Not "yes"; not "no": "present".

2007 Poll:
19.6% - trust the American Mainstream Media news organizations to deliver "news".
23.9% - believe little or nothing that comes out of the MSM;
55.3% - believe some of what Big Media spews.


by Mondo Frazier
image: no blood for hubris



Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Joe Biden: Dump Biden Rumors Swirl Amid Obama's Dipping Poll Numbers



Your Ad Here

Bye Bye Biden?
Obama Biden His Time?






As the Democrat ticket experiences the turbulence of campaigning in the country at large, rumors are flying that Joe Biden will soon be dumped.

JoshuaPundit asks, "Biden to Leave the Ticket??"

The way it's supposedly going down is that sometime after October 5th Biden will step down from being Obama's running mate because of 'health reasons'and Hillary will come on the ticket. The reason for the October 5th date is the VP debate on October 2nd, which Biden will handle either because Hillary wouldn't have sufficient time to prep or simply refused..and anyway, they want Hillary to be an October surprise and try to pull things out at the last minute.


Say Anything's Rob has also heard the "Dump Biden" talk.

Apparently there’s some buzz about Joe Biden possibly resigning from the Presidential race (or Obama giving him the boot from his ticket, depending on how you see it). Is that what’s going to happen?

I don’t think so.



InstaPundit, Glenn Reynolds, says of the "Dump Biden" rumors, "Don't see it happening myself, but obviously some people do."




InstaPundit reader Jim Beam thinks the rumors may have some substance, however:

"Get ready for Obama to pull a Torrecelii/Lautenberg switcheroo. There are waaay too many rumors, trial balloons, and headfakes going around for this to not have substance behind it.

Have your responses prepared. Whatever "narrative" they concoct for the switch, it's obvious that they're doing it only because The Anointed One is behind in the polls. It destroys Obama's claim of judgment being his prime qualification, trust of the voters and convention delegates, and his claim to experience in running a successful campaign."

But reader Mike J. at Hennesey's View, isn't buying the Biden-for-Hillary switcheroo.

There are other factors that mitigate against Hillary moving onto the ticket:

–Obama’s followers HATE her with a passion. He could easily lose more votes than attract by picking Hillary. There are also lots of media types that despise her. Obama allying with Hillary might be too much to swallow.

–Obama cannot stand to be overshadowed by anyone. While McCain is perfectly comfortable in the presence of a charismatic politician like Sarah Palin, Obama is not. It doesn’t help that it does not take much to overshadow Obama.

–The Democratic Party has resolved this would be the year in which the Clintonistas are purged from the party. The move of the DNC to Chicago was almost entirely due to the desire to purge the party operation of Clinton appointees.


Ace says the Biden pick highlighted what kind of 'experience' Obama has in making crucial decisions.

Barack Obama’s judgment was that Joe Biden was the best possible vice presidential candidate.

Joe Biden says he’s wrong. This was Obama’s first major decision as a would-be president.

He got it wrong.


We agree with Allahpundit: "Even more serious question: If Obama’s imploding, why would Hillary agree to come aboard? Better to let McCain finish him off and then skip to the nomination in 2012."

Will Joe Biden be dumped for Hillary Clinton?

Will this help the Democrat ticket?

We'll let Joe Biden plead Hillary's case: "She is easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me, but she is first-rate. I mean that sincerely."

Lastly, we'll revisit an interesting quote from our June article, "Astrologer’s Presidential Election Predictions Troubling".

The astrologers looked at the planetary circumstances surrounding election day, how it had been 45 years since the last time Saturn opposed Uranus, which could portend “social change, transformation, and possibly upheaval”.

“With Saturn opposite Uranus on Election Day, the person elected on Election Day may not be the person who’s inaugurated in January.” Raymond Merriman, Astrologer.


Could part of the "tranformation" and "upheaval" mentioned above be Joe Biden jumping from the ticket?

Time will tell.


by Mondoreb
image: dbkp file

YAHOO BUZZ
 
coompax-digital magazine