POWIP Piece of Work In Progress

29Oct/1010

Poll: If you could be a fly on the wall, watching one lib talking head melt down on Tuesday night . . .

whom would it be?





Which lib would you like to watch melt down on Tuesday?




Chris Matthews
Ed Schultz
Andrea Mitchell
Keith Olbermann
Dylan Ratigan
Joy Behar
Other: Please specify in comments

View Results


Make your own poll

Please comment on why you chose whom you did, too!

Crap. I forgot Maher. Just use other and specify in comments, please. (thanks to @jamesonlewis3rd)

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Share
20Nov/0936

The Renaissance of Sarah Palin.

sistah wasilla

TV ratings for November 18, 2009; courtesy of the Drudge Report. (click to enlarge)

Sarah Palin sure seems to be gathering steam lately, and there’s strong evidence that the public is giving her a second look; perhaps the realization of Mr. Obama’s shortcomings is accentuating her positives more than any negatives that the lamestream media tries to keep the public’s attention focused on.  Efforts that have achieved a whole new level of transparent desperation lately, with MSNBC reporters attending Palin book signing events armed with talking points to challenge her many fans, and Chris “Tingle” Matthews obsessing about the “monochromatic” nature of ‘Cuda’s fans.  I guess Chris “Tingle” needed to find a new angle, since lately the race card is looking a bit dog-eared from overplaying it; attempting to use it against anyone opposing the President’s political agenda.
 

The evidence of this resurgence is manifold.  To begin with, her new book, “Going Rogue: An American Life”, sold 300,000 copies on the first day it was released!  I guess it won’t be so hard after all to reach the 400,000 copies sold break even point, eh?  And then there are the TV ratings that spike when she’s on interview programs.  Not only did her interview last night propel Hannity’s ratings past O’Reilly's usual high metric, but her recent appearance on Chewbacca’s Michelle Obama’s friend Thulsa Doom’s Oprah Winfrey’s program registered the largest audience that show has drawn in years!
 

But a real measure of the change in public perception of Palin is reflected in a recent Fox news poll where her favorables were found to be 47/42 (favorable/unfavorable opinion):

Despite being characterized by many as a divisive force in her party and the nation, Americans are much more likely to give Palin a positive rating (47 percent favorable) than another prominent female leader — Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (28 percent favorable). Moreover, about six in 10 Americans (61 percent) think Palin has been treated unfairly by the press, according to the latest Fox News poll…

Among self-identified Republicans in the survey, Palin gets the highest favorable ratings (70 percent) amid a group of other possible contenders for the GOP nomination, including Mike Huckabee (63 percent), Mitt Romney (60 percent) and Newt Gingrich (58 percent). Palin’s favorable score among all voters is 47 percent, up nine percentage points over last July’s reading of 38 percent…

President Obama recently stated that he “probably won’t” read Sarah Palin’s new book. But his possible opponent in the 2012 elections trails him in personal favorability by only seven points (54 percent to 47 percent). Among the critical segment of independent voters, they are virtually even (Obama at 50 percent; Palin at 49 percent).

That last part is especially topical and should concern the President, considering how his poll numbers are fading across the board.  Of course, there is the Rasmussen daily Presidential tracking poll and approval index, which today stand at 46% of respondents at least somewhat approving of Obama’s overall performance, and an approval index rating of -14.  And less those numbers be dismissed as wingnut fantasy, Quinnipiac reports an overall policy approval rating of 46%-although a higher number of respondents “like” the President, Gallup has him hovering around 50%, John Zogby has Obama’s popularity holding steady at 49% as does Public Policy Polling, and finishing off this round robin of popularity polling is Fox, who show the POTUS having the same favorability rating as Rasmussen-46%.

That’s a whole lot of “below 50%” going on…
 

What should be of larger concern to President Obama is the growing dissatisfaction with his performance among self identified “independents”; a 34/51 split (overall approval/disapproval).  Perhaps more troubling still is a Zogby poll which reports that independents think that the Bush administration was more transparent than the much heralded, celebrated, most Ethical!, Honest!, Brilliant!, Judicious!, and Transparent! Administration-EVAH!  And the Democrats as a party need to recognize that Obama’s coat-tails work in reverse also, as Rethugs! now lead in generic congressional balloting; an advantage that Republicans in the modern era have never enjoyed, not even in 1994 when they were swept in to power in the House of Representatives.
 

None of this data means that any electoral success  is “in the bag” for Sarah Palin, quite the opposite instead since the legacy media, and the fightin’ nutroots, will almost certainly strive to cement her public image as being a divisive figure primarily through the bitter, deranged, openly misogynistic, acrimonious arguments, and belittling attacks that figures such as Chris “Tingle”, Olbermann, Maddow and other “gatekeepers” of information will subject the public and Sarah Palin to.  And, wittingly or otherwise, there will be alleged conservatives “wizards of smart”, such as the Davids-Brooks and Frum, that will aid them in this endeavour by using what limited sway they have in Republican circles to  gainsay her at every opportunity; publicly supporting the elitist arguments that she is just a rube, hicktard, chillbilly that’s bad for the party in general and who will be unable to attract moderates.  It’s been more than 30 years since I’ve heard this kind of rhetoric; the same sorts of criticisms were leveled at Reagan, the only difference being the slur substitution of doddering-avuncular-doofus for rube-hicktard-chillbilly.  And that’s why it is so clear to me that the far left is reacting to what they rightly perceive as an existential threat to all the sway they’ve worked to regain; especially over the last 4 to 6 years. 
 

The far left Democrats fear that, just as with Reagan, Sarah Palin’s cheery optimism, can-do attitude, and dedication to the traditional American ideals of national exceptionalism and individualism will resonate in a way that the elitist notions of our “betters” deciding what’s good for us never will; and fear that combined with a charisma that far exceeds the media enabled “cool” of Obama, will make for an unstoppable juggernaut.  Indeed, based pretty much solely on her charisma and  personal appeal the public is willing to give her another serious look; a development that drives liberals in the legacy media, as well as a few conservatives, to resort to doing whatever it takes to eliminate her viability as a candidate.  This dedication to the destruction of her potential political career is revealed by the maniacal response by some journalists and commentators, such as Ana Marie Cox’s decision to not let a silly detail, you know, like actually reading the entire book get in the way of her panning of it; a suspicion some have about Rod Dreher as well.  Or consider that the Associated Press assigned 11 reporters to “fact check” Palin’s book; an astonishing development on it’s face when you realize that to this day they have assigned none to fact check either of Obama’s books-either now or when he was an unknown, un-vetted, candidate who essentially came out of nowhere.  As if this doesn’t reveal sufficient and unfair bias on it’s face, as Mark Steyn wryly observes, all this squad of muckrakers uncovered were 6 minor, inconsequential errors, and between them produced a 695 word story.
 

What none of the folks in any of these organizations realize is that they are actually helping Palin through their deranged efforts.  Just as during the 2008 campaign, the public can tell that many legacy media outlets, and of course the nutroot blogs, are biased against her; indeed, the Fox poll showed that 6 out of 10 respondents recognized this biased and agenda driven reportage.  Add to this the public’s perception of the legacy media’s liberal bias, and the President’s continued bungling, dithering, and dedication to his far left base and their agenda, and you have a perfect storm that could possibly result in Palin’s favorable perception by the public exceeding the President’s;  resulting in a monumental sense of delicious irony, in the literary sense, writ large as well as a generous helping of schadenfreude for the targets of the left’s coordinated political attacks.
 

All of their efforts might just aid in Sarah Palin’s resurgence and might just propel her solidly into history too; not the dustbin though, but the annals instead, as perhaps the first woman to be elected President of the United States.

UPDATE: Dan Riehl weighs in on Sarah Palin 2.0, noting that in the public's eye she has what amounts to a fresh slate and that what happened in the past is of less importance than what happens going forward.  Oh, and he also mentions perhaps her most deranged and obsessive critic-RawMuslglutes...

Share
5Nov/098

Matthews bristles at a “tingle” reference.

Here's video of Chris "Tingle" Matthews condicting a rollicking interview of Mark Williams on election night.  He's having a grand time until Williams resonds to one of his points by saying, "You're making my leg tingle..."  Revenge for all of the "tea-bagging" slams?  Maybe, but it's still pretty...audacious !

Share
17Sep/0917

We knew the card game, and now recognize the dealer.

It seems like ever since Chris “Tingle” Matthews declared, “My job is to make the Obama Presidency a success!”, the legacy media has been doing it’s best to ensure that result.  But, in a rare moment of candor and, you know, actual reporting, they seem to have pinpointed the real source of all the race card dealing and opponent vilification of late:

 

The White House officials are eager to avoid the perception that the president is directly engaging critics who appear to speak only for a vocal minority, and part of their strategy involves pushing material to liberal and progressive media outlets to steer the coverage in their direction, senior advisers said.

When critics lashed out at President Obama for scheduling a speech to public school students this month, accusing him of wanting to indoctrinate children to his politics, his advisers quickly scrubbed his planned comments for potentially problematic wording. They then reached out to progressive Web sites such as the Huffington Post, liberal bloggers and Democratic pundits to make their case to a friendly audience.

 
[emphasis-ed.]
Behold, a trifecta of admissions casually tossed out as if they were common knowledge; and confirming suspicions held by this writer and others.  First, an admission that the Obama administration is directing the tone and content of the coverage to achieve the narrative they desire.  And, it seems that the CRAZEE H8TING WINGNUTZ were not far off the mark in voicing concern over the President’s address to the nations schoolchildren; otherwise why would the speech text need “scrubbing”.  Finally, they are pushing out the talking points through a network of nutroot bloggers, Democratic pundits, and friendly legacy media outlets; utilizing their go-between channels of “jouno-list”, CAP’s “Progressive Media”, MoveOn.org, “Common Purpose”, and of course, the daily conference call featuring Rahm Emmanuel, George Stephanopoulos, Paul Begala, and James Carville.

As I noted yesterday, the distributed talking points are faithfully parroted in many publications such as, McClatchy and the NY Times; the latter providing the double service of not only pushing the desired meme, as MoDo did here while breathlessly bemoaning today’s lack of civility, but also declaring faithfully the intent of the President and all his men to steer clear of the growing “race debate”.  I guess this is not part of the “conversation on race” that Obama wanted to have, in which case they shouldn’t have brought it up !

But this strategy is not working out the way it was intended, or as it usually has.  While the usual suspects profess their usual OUTRAGE!, some writers are starting to openly mock the strategy as well as the melodramatic crying and gnashing of teeth.  And this seems to only make the liberals even more angry, as Peter Wehner notes:

It’s fascinating to watch how furious liberals have become despite Obama’s being president and Democrats’ controlling the Senate and the House by wide margins. This period should be—they expected it to be—years of milk and honey for them. But events and reality have intervened. They see the Anointed One, Barack Obama—their “sort of God”—failing. He is not only a mere mortal but also a deeply flawed one.
…
Many liberals simply cannot process this new data, this horrible turn of events. What we are seeing is the equivalent of a computer crash. As a result, they are returning to what has become for some liberals an emotional and psychological norm: anger and fury, overheated and reckless charges, bitterness and pettiness. It is embodied in people like Frank Rich and Keith Olbermann and Joe Klein, but some version of this affliction extends to many others.

Maybe it is simply misdirected anger, but the always astute Victor David Hanson sees it as more like a frustration:

A better explanation than right-wing racism for the Left's exasperation is that in the Bush wilderness years, the Left assumed permanent political marginalization, adopted an ends-justify-the-means strategy of street rhetoric against Bush, then found themselves unexpectedly as the establishment, and now are appalled that anyone might emulate their own past emotional outbursts.

[emphasis-ed.]
That same old hypocrisy of, “What’s good for me, is not for thee”; as always, some animals at the farm are more equal than others.  As I’ve said before, this canard is wearing thin.  People are starting to notice that criticism of the President’s agenda results in one being branded a racist, and reject it.  This definitely won’t help Michelle’s children…

So to the President and his administration I say, what’ll it be?  A straight up debate; a clean game?  Or will you keep dealing those race cards from the bottom of the deck?

UPDATE: The inimitable Ric Locke weighs in on the careless use of the race card.

Share
   

Switch to our mobile site