“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Will the press ever turn on Obama?




UTICA, N.Y. (WKTV) - With just days to go before the automatic spending cuts kick in if the sequestration takes effect, Americans are still favoring President Obama over Congress. A new poll by the PEW Research Center says close to half of Americans blaming Congress for the automatic cuts and less than a third blaming the President, however pollster and political analyst John Zogby says that could start to change if the sequester goes into effect.

"You know normally, traditionally the guy at the top is to blame for what's good or what's bad but right now Congress is losing its battle in public opinion," said Zogby.
"'A' it's always easy to blame Congress and 'B' they don't have the bully pulpit that one President can have." 

Zogby says President Obama is still enjoying a majority vote but that can change if the cuts go into effect long enough.

"You know you're not going to feel them Monday morning, but you're going to feel them eventually," said Zogby. "And if there's a proactive battle over the next wave which is the actual operating budget for the next fiscal year you know the sentiment towards the President could decline."

He says pollsters like him will continue to conduct surveys to see if the public's opinion changes if the automatic spending cuts kick in. 

"That's when the polls may change and that's why we do them so that we're right there to find out if they did," said Zogby. 

Zogby says he does think the sequestration will go into effect, he doesn't see any suggestion of an agreement being made.

63 comments:

  1. They are just about to the point of having "cried wolf" one time too many, I think.

    Only 27% of the people say they're paying close attention to this latest "crisis," according to a poll I saw last night.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Market has had a hell of a rally the last couple of days. Dow was up 175, today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what did the dollar do? Dropped like a rock.

      Delete
    2. Really? I didn't notice. In all honesty, the sequester issue probably didn't have much to do with either one of those happenings. :)

      Delete
  3. .

    Will the press turn on Obama?

    Naw, not really. Even in their polling questions they express their viewpoint.

    Their are some fairly mute, dispersed rumblings from individual commentators on basic human rights issues and the 1st Amendment (which affects them directly); however, nothing much.

    Everyone likes a rock star even to the point of being ridiculed by your sister publications around the world. But then, they are beyond embarassment.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      There are...

      A correction, not a truncated haiku.

      .

      Delete
  4. .

    ...embarrassment...


    (a correction, not a truncated haiku)


    Typing on this cellphone is really difficult.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  5. House majority leader Eric Cantor is increasingly frustrated with a group of House Republicans who are working against the leadership, and he’s not afraid of voicing his dismay.

    In a closed-door conference meeting on Wednesday, Cantor told one GOP member that if they blocked the Senate-passed Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) from coming to the floor, they’d cause “civil war” in the ranks.


    What a revelation. The Republican Party is over. It is useless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What the heck, Deuce; women are over 50% of the voter census.

      Why in the world would a political party want to alienate them by voting against such an innocuous piece of legislation?

      Delete
    2. Indeed!

      Principles?

      We don't need no stinking Principles!

      Marx and de Tocqueville knew you were the future.

      Delete
  6. Read the details beyond the name of the bill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fill us in. What are the "bad" parts?

      Delete
    2. Deuce said,

      "Read the details beyond the name of the bill."


      Headlines and soundbytes are everything to some.

      ...like Scalia being unable to keep two thoughts in his head at the same time.

      Delete
  7. "With just days to go before the automatic spending cuts kick in if the sequestration takes effect."

    The following is the assertion with untruths redacted:
    (ie, there are NO real cuts in total spending, just minor cuts in the rate of growth.)

    "With just days to go before the the "sequestration" takes effect."

    ReplyDelete
  8. They are not listening in D.C. If they are listening, they don't give a she-it, which is, more likely, the case.

    I find it daunting that 546 traitors ( 435 House, 100 Senate, 2 White House, 9 Supreme Court = 546 ),

    can wreck, with impunity, an entire nation, but that is what has happened, and that is what is happening.

    It is past time for the 200 MILLION, or so, of us, to abolish this governmental SYSTEM run by traitors,

    and replace it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The bill is a typical DC incrementalism expanding into other areas. In particular, a woman who is an illegal immigrant can get a temporary visa for claiming domestic violence.

    It begs the question: Isn’t violence against anyone a crime? Do we need special agencies and federal laws that go beyond what already is illegal in Pennsylvania and Mississippi?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Centralization of power is always the preferred option.

      Sheeple, the Supreme Glory of Creation.

      Delete
    2. Deuce, many local prosecutors just won't prosecute "domestic" abuse cases (except, of course, for the very most egregious cases - and then, usually, only on behalf of white middle to upper class women.)

      Delete
    3. More Ammo for the Feds!

      This is a crisis that we cannot let go to waste.

      My Alinsky Bible tells me so.

      Delete
  10. Where is the documentation on that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe Mississippi is a different Universe.

      Rufus could be cited as proof.

      Delete
    2. Actually, Deuce, this Is something that I've witnessed firsthand.

      Delete
  11. So if it was closed door, how do WE know about it? Bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Do we really need this?

    This bill also protects underserved communities where rates of violence against women are high. It contains new provisions to stop violence against women in tribal communities, and protects immigrant communities with a strengthened U Visa program that in special cases provides temporary legal status and work eligibility to victims. Finally, the bill includes clear civil rights protections to ensure that nobody can be denied services based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So glad you brought this up.

      I will turn all my efforts toward getting Grief Survivors included in this Critical Legislation.

      Delete
  13. I doubt there is anything in this law that is not covered by laws in all 50 states.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No matter, all trust resides with the Feds.

      Delete
  14. It's a right, like Obamaphones.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No one likes women more than I and I would not tolerate abuse by any man towards a woman, but there is no way to perfect society. There will always be another case of violence after this law is passed.

    Will we need another program implanted over this one?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure you're right about the duplication, Deuce. But, you'd still have to be a moron to vote against it. :)

      Delete
    2. That is the point. It is another useless and expensive piece of legislation that is both inevitable and unnecessary as well as an expansion of bureaucracy.

      Delete
    3. I really can't see it being all that expensive; can you?

      Delete
    4. What Me Worry?

      Bring it on!

      Delete
  16. ...not to mention school breakfasts, lunches, and dinner.

    And a curriculum for the masses.

    ...the elite have their own schools.

    ReplyDelete
  17. One in four women (25%) has experienced domestic violence in her lifetime.
    (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The National Institute of Justice, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, July 2000. The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, 1999)

    Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend to 3 million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year.
    (U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998. The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, 1999)

    Women accounted for 85% of the victims of intimate partner violence, men for approximately 15%.
    (Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003)



    No law is going to cure this. It is an indication of the breakdown of civilization, personal responsibility and ethics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It won't "stop" it, but a better law has to help. Right?

      Delete
    2. We don't need no stinking at home parents, religion, or traditional values!

      FREEDOM!

      Delete
    3. .

      No law is going to cure this.

      What about all the good that hate crimes legislation has done?

      .

      Delete
  18. Rufus II...
    "The Market has had a hell of a rally the last couple of days. Dow was up 175, today."


    Replies - Gag Reflex said...

    And what did the dollar do? Dropped like a rock.

    ---

    Please, Gag, Rufus is unaware of Q-infinity, and the fact that Wall Street is being given free money courtesy of us.

    Have some compassion for the 'tards.

    This may be a libertarian blog, but compassionate conservatism still rules in Karl's and My Book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both of the Karls:

      Marx and Rove.

      Delete
    2. And, as I said in my reply, probably neither of these happenings were a result of the sequester happenings.

      Delete
    3. Sure.

      But you also defend the defenseless spending.

      Up almost a Trillion a Year since your hero took office.

      Delete
  19. I'm assuming you mean "indefensible."

    ReplyDelete
  20. I've shown this evidence before. George W. Bush left Obama with $3.52 Trillion in spending.

    Dirty Old Treasury Numbers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that "One Time" injection of funds, which you approved to avert "a collapse of the World Economy" within 24 hours.
      (signed by Obama, if memory serves)

      ...of course it was not approved for two weeks, and Wall Street, much less The World Economy, did not collapse.

      Now a part of the BASELINE for your hero to dole out to fat cats, enviro disasters like Tesla, GE, and etc.

      - I advocated giving the dough back to the taxpayers, where it was earned.

      You sided w/BHO, Wall Street, Unions, and the rest of the special interests.

      Delete
  21. The United Nations agency that administers a trust fund bankrolling Afghanistan's police allowed procurement fraud to flourish for several years, according to an internal U.N. report seen by The Wall Street Journal.

    The report, which hasn't been made public, casts new light on possible mismanagement at a U.N. office that has channeled billions of dollars into the country since 2002. It also raises new questions about the international community's role in Afghanistan at a delicate moment: U.S. and international troops are departing next year, just as the country is bracing for a high-stakes election to pick President Hamid Karzai's successor.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Deuce:

    Typo Alert?

    "Precipitating in No Win Wars" ?

    ...or else the Old Doc's even more out to lunch than I thought.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Karl Rove for Czar of Elections!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Also, He and Bloomberg will head the Fat Jokes Enforcement Division of the Federal Government.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jeeze, I'm hallucinatin:

    The Background used to be a light blue, now I see yellow.

    Could I be staring at Ash's Belly?

    ReplyDelete
  26. A police investigation is underway tonight into the death of an injured climber during an RAF rescue operation on Ben Nevis.

    ...

    Police are due to interview the helicopter crew and members of the Lochaber Mountain Rescue Team. According to one report the death was the result of “basic human error”.

    This winter has seen much of the Highlands blanketed in snow and buffeted by strong winds. Three people have died on Ben Nevis whilst four more have been killed in Glencoe and another four in the Cairngorms.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Conservative Supreme Court justices on Wednesday signaled strong doubts about the ongoing validity of a key part of the Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965 to end a century of attempts by formerly slaveholding Southern states to block blacks from voting.

    ...

    Throughout the argument, conservative and liberal justices alike asked probing, tough questions of all parties, regularly interrupting the lawyers and speaking over one another.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Romney’s generally positive relationship with CPAC over the years notwithstanding, the conference has not been roses for him in every instance. Despite winning the straw poll last year, the lasting headline from the event was the candidate’s assessment of himself as a “severely conservative” governor -- an off-key characterization that left many activists wondering if he was trying too hard to speak a right-leaning language that does not come naturally to him.

    ...

    Romney will have to contend for attention at CPAC with a long list of heavy-hitting Republicans, including prospective 2016 presidential candidates Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, and Paul Ryan, while Sarah Palin is sure to draw a big crowd for her address on the conference’s final day.

    Though everyone knows CPAC is no longer Mitt Romney’s party, his speech next month will be key to shaping his legacy among conservative activists.


    ReplyDelete
  29. .

    In a ruling as cynical as a scene in the Showtime series "Homeland," a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday dodged an opportunity to put some reins on government surveillance run amok.

    The 5-4 ruling upheld a federal law that authorizes the government to eavesdrop on international telephone calls and e-mails in the war on terror.

    Why? Because the whole wiretapping program is secret -- which means the targets of the surveillance don't actually know they're targets.

    So when a coalition of lawyers and journalists and Amnesty International challenged the program's legality, the plaintiffs couldn't prove their lines had been tapped. And the government isn't required to tell them because, again, the program's secret.

    That, the high court said, disqualified the plaintiffs from having standing to challenge the law in court...



    Dejevu All Over Again


    .

    ReplyDelete
  30. The Night Planet Liberalism Turned on Bob Woodward

    Matt Welch|Feb. 27, 2013 11:29 pm

    It has been a special night on Twitter for those of us who take a perverse interest in the way that ideologically aligned journalists and politicos will pack-attack critics of a sitting American president. Seems that Washington Post investigative-journalism legend Bob Woodward crossed a bridge too far when, in talking about reaction to his narrative-debunking Feb. 22 piece pinning the origination of the sequester directly on a White House that had vociferously denied paternity, has now gone on to dish on a "senior White House official" (later identified as White House Economic Council Director Gene Sperling) who "yelled at me for about a half hour" about the op-ed, and warned that "I think you will regret staking out that claim."

    Sperling's "threat" (if you can call it that) ranks a bit low on the things-to-be-worried-about totem pole, and Woodward is hardly an infallible source (here's my 2006 column comparing him to Judith Miller), but the reaction tonight from the leftosphere has been something to behold. A sampling:

    Josh Marshall, TPM:

    Who goes birther first, Scalia or Woodward?

    David Plouffe, recently of the White House:

    Watching Woodward last 2 days is like imagining my idol Mike Schmidt facing live pitching again. Perfection gained once is rarely repeated.

    Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation:

    Smart @thenation interns & young folks have no idea who Woodward is but dc establishment freaked about his critique of WH & sequester.

    Neera Tanden, Center for American Progress:

    My amateur advice: stop cooperating with Woodward in the first place.

    Jason Linkins, Huffington Post:

    I think Woodward will find people will stop yelling at him the very minute he decides to stop sucking so much at his job.

    Dan Froomkin, Center for Accountability Journalism:

    Telling egotist Woodward "I think you will regret staking out that claim" isn't a threat; it's just not realistic.

    Matthew Yglesias, Slate:

    Woodward's managed to make me suspect Nixon got a raw deal.

    My February cover piece: “‘The Truth’ Hurts: How the fact-checking press gives the president a pass.”

    ReplyDelete
  31. WASHINGTON — The United States is significantly stepping up its support for the Syrian opposition, senior administration officials said on Wednesday, helping to train rebels at a base in the region and for the first time offering armed groups nonlethal assistance and equipment that could help their military campaign.

    The training mission, already under way, represents the deepest American involvement yet in the Syrian conflict, though the size and scope of the mission is not clear, nor is its host country. The offer of nonlethal assistance is expected to come from Secretary of State John Kerry at a meeting on Thursday in Rome with opposition leaders. Mr. Kerry is also expected to raise the prospect of direct financial aid, though officials cautioned that the White House still had to sign off on all the elements.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Scalia must be behind this:

    Ohio Poll Worker Voted For Obama...6 Times?

    Two weeks ago, John Fund brought us news from Ohio of democratic poll watcher Melowese Richardson proudly voting for President Obama twice in November. Now, it looks as though Richardson may have voted as many as six times for Obama, twice under her name and four times under the names of others.

    The Obama/Biden lawn sign remains proudly planted in front of Melowese Richardson's Cincinnati home, three months after the presidential election.

    It seems that President Obama has an especially ardent supporter in the veteran Ohio poll worker.

    Richardson told a local television station this month that she voted twice for Obama last November. She cast an absentee ballot and then voted at the polls as well.

    "Yes, I voted twice," Richardson told WCPO-TV. "I, after registering thousands of people, certainly wanted my vote to count, so I voted. I voted at the polls."

    Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Great site you have here.. It's difficult to find high quality writing like yours these days. I truly appreciate individuals like you! Take care!!

    Also visit my web-site: diet plans for women

    ReplyDelete
  34. You can definitely see your enthusiasm in the work you write.
    The world hopes for even more passionate writers like you who are not afraid to mention how they believe.
    Always follow your heart.

    Stop by my web-site teichpumpen günstig

    ReplyDelete