Interersting Facts From Latest WaPo/ABC Trump Poll

With only a week left before Donald Trump completes his "First 100 Days", the Washington Post/ABC News teams released the results of their last polling on Trump (and, also Hillary).  The lead story appears to be that Trump has the lowest `100-day approval' of any President in modern history.  While the average approval of those "modern" Presidents is 69%, Trump's number is just 42%. Of course, the biggest dig on Trump from these two liberal-leaning news agencies is the fact that Obama had a 69% approval as most of his predecessors did.  I guess, from this, we are supposed to regret that Obama isn't still President.

What isn't talked about in the Washington Post polling story is the fact that if the election was rerun today, Hillary would still lose to Trump: 43% to 40%. Another buried but interesting tidbit is the fact that only 4% of Trump voters regret voting for him, while 15% of Hillary voters regret voting for her. As a result, if the election was rerun, Trump would have won the popular vote.

And, guess what?  The Russians had nothing to do with these polling results!

References:

Nearing 100 days, Trump’s approval at record lows but his base is holding: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nearing-100-days-trumps-approval-at-record-lows-but-his-base-is-holding/2017/04/22/a513a466-26b4-11e7-b503-9d616bd5a305_story.html?utm_term=.0b34eccf70dd

ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-100-days-honeymoon-regrets-poll/story?id=46943338

Wash Post poll hides: Trump still beats Clinton, 43%-40%: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash-post-poll-hides-trump-still-beats-clinton-43-40/article/2621016

A Single Email Finally Gives Legs To The Benghazi Coverup Story

One thing reporters can't stand is being left behind on an important story.  They have a phrase for it. They call it "being scooped."

So, it's understandable that Jon Karl of ABC News is more than just a little annoyed after finding out that, for months, he and his colleagues in the White House press corps were being lied to about the true source of the "anti-Islamic video" talking point regarding the Benghazi attack.  Watch this exchange between Press Secretary, Jay Carney, and Jon Karl over a damaging email that proves the White House was the source of this theory, and not the CIA as Carney and the Obama Administration have always asserted:

It appears the press corps has finally become an awakened giant on the coverup.  With the release of just one little smoking-gun memo/email, maybe now the truth about Benghazi and Obama's failed policies on terrorism will be exposed; and, that a massive lie was told to protect his reelection in 2012.  At risk here, too, is Hillary Clinton's potential run for the presidency in 2016 since her fingerprints are all over this one. 

It seems that, for once, Fox won't be the only news outlet dogging the Administration over Benghazi.

References:

Jay Carney fumbles on bombshell email showing how the White House steered Benghazi terror-attack narrative toward an anti-Islam video:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2616506/White-House-aide-advised-Susan-Rice-blame-deadly-Benghazi-attack-protests-anti-Islamic-web-video.html

Release of White House email stirs up a new controversy over Benghazi: http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-wn-email-benghazi-controversy-20140501,0,4609408.story#axzz30mJ297XB

The worst excuse ever: The Rhodes memo debacle: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/05/01/the-worst-excuse-ever-the-rhodes-memo-debacle/

White House e-mails on Benghazi stoke more questions: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/30/benghazi-rhodes-emails-lead-to-more-questions/8527705/

Jay Carney Lies About the Benghazi Email: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/jay-carney-lies-about-the-benghazi-email.php

The Actual Emails Regarding Benghazi: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf

No Fox In This Chicken's House

On Sunday, Obama will, once again, try to sell his health care reform plan by appearing on five Sunday network news shows. Of course, he'll be with those always Obama-loving networks such as NBC with Meet the Press; CBS with Face the Nation; and, ABC with This Week with George Stephanopoulos. He'll even do CNN and Univision.

But, obviously missing is any Fox show such as that network's Sunday news show, Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Apparently, this President isn't even big enough to take on his detractors. Even though, it would be hard to call Fox News Sunday's host, Chris Wallace, some kind of hard hitting right-winger.

Instead, Obama always takes the bike path rather than any off-road challenge.

If he thinks that he's punishing Fox by excluding Fox, he only has to look at what happened to Van Jones and ACORN to see how powerful Fox has become.

It would be smart for this President to use the power of Fox and not try to be so childish and small minded as to run away from it. If he can't handle Fox, how is he going to deal with enemies such as Iran, North Korea, etc? Is Obama going to spend his next 3 years only dealing with people, groups, and nations who are completely in love with him? Is that what we expect from someone who holds the most powerful position in the world?

The Fairness Doctrine: Unintended Consequences

It might just be a totally false belief by the Democrats that the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine (See definition) will benefit them by getting a nemesis like Rush Limbaugh off the air. Take note of these comments by an FCC Commissioner (See Full Story). It just might be the popular Huffington Post and the Daily KOS who gets whacked under that law, too.

Another couple of fat targets for the Fairness Doctrine will be the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). For years, these taxpayer supported radio and television networks have had unimpeded left-wing slants to their broadcasting. These bastions of liberal voice might just have to become a lot more conservative in their programming. You've got to know that every conservative watchdog group in America will be itemizing every time a liberal like Bill Moyers gets airtime and there isn't any offsetting conservative programming. PBS and NPR will ultimately be forced, by the courts, to provide conservative alternatives. Can you picture Nancy Pelosi's face when someone like Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter is forced to get their own show on PBS or NPR! There won't be enough porcelain receptacles on Capital Hill to handle all the nausea and vomiting from the Democratic lawmakers. TUMS will be in short supply for all the heartburn.

ABC, CBS, and NBC will have to watch it, too. There just might have to be a "This Week with Rush Limbaugh" to offset that Clinton guy, George Stephanopoulos. Then, let's not forget about the Chris Matthews Show on NBC. How about an NBC show titled: "The Laura Ingram Show". "60 Minutes" might have to dedicate a few more minutes to conservative viewpoints to offset their liberal pablum. Maybe they will have to call it "90 Minutes" to be fair. Maybe a separate show called "60 Minutes Too!"

I just think the left of the left like Senators Durbin, Kerry, Boxer, and Feinstein and our dear Speaker of the House, little miss Pelosi, haven't really thought through the consequences of reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine. But, "thinking things through" has never been a Democrat's or, for that matter, any politician's long suit. That's why history is littered with so many bad laws that had to be repealed. They are being so blinded by the hatred for Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio personalities that they don't realize that they might be shooting themselves in the foot.

My guess is that, if a Barack Obama is elected, we will the see the ugly face of the Fairness Doctrine. It will become another law that sees too much time in the courts; both in defending it and using it for some biased advantage. Ultimately, it will be rescinded. As for Rush Limbaugh. He will probably keep hammering the Democrats for many years to come and will be untouched by the Fairness Doctrine. Others like Sean Hannity or Laura Ingram might not fare as well but will eventually return to talk radio when the "Doctrine" dies another death. That's just my viewpoint.


Image by Joe Gratz's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing. All rights retained. (Click to View Other Works).

The Networks Are Bleeding Bias

If you listen to the national media, critiquing itself, they claim that they are fair, with absolutely no bias towards any political party or any specific candidate. But, the people on the right have known this to be one of the great lies by the 4th Estate. They are "totally" biased toward the Democrats and NBC is certainly the worst. In fact, NBC's real mascot should be the Democratic Party's red, white and blue Donkey and not that prissy little "Peacock" they would have you believe is their "real" symbol.

So, it is no wonder that each of the three national television networks will be joining Barack Obama, with the highest levels of news personnel available on his photo-op junket to Iraq and other parts of the world. That's right, the big "guns" of Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, and Brian Williams have all been figuratively attached to Barack Obama's hips as they report, nightly, on his trip to Iraq and other far points (See Full Story). This symbiotic relationship is absolutely designed to get their man, Barack Obama, elected; the person with whom their own ideologies is the best match.

When McCain went overseas, I think NBC "sent" one of the "janitors" from the NBC headquarters building at Rockefeller Center to accompany him on his trip. That's about as "high level" as things got. I have to laugh when the Democrats talk about re-establishing the "Fairness Doctrine" (See a recent blog entry of mine) to keep a media "balance" on our radio and television airways.

Obama has been "flopping around" on his military withdrawal plans from Iraq like a carp out of water and the "Big Three Networks" have failed to provide any true judgmental reporting on this. Now he's on his way to Iraq and they are going to make damn well sure that he looks "Commander-in-Chief-ee" to all their network viewers. To me this is similar to what the media did to get Jimmy Carter into office; another Democrat who never had the credentials to be President. Author Lawrence H. Shoup wrote in his book titled The Carter Presidency and Beyond:

"What Carter had that his opponents did not was the acceptance and support of elite sectors of the mass communications media. It was their favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that gave him an edge, propelling him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls. This helped Carter win key primary election victories, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months..."

Carter's election was one that was "manufactured" (primarily) by a favorable media and whose own ideology was duty-bound to get a far-left and progressive Democrat elected President after the "questionable" years of Nixon/Ford. In that election, Carter got all the favorable press and his opponents were shunned; just as Hillary Clinton was shunned during the primaries and John McCain is getting the cold shoulder now. The National Media didn't get it right then; and they aren't going do what is right, now. Mark my words!

Note: The national network's even "appear" to be fudging their polls to make it look like Obama has a bigger lead than he probably has. Often, the CBS/New York Times or NBC/Wall Street Journal or ABC/Washington Post polls will have Obama leading McCain by more that 6 points. This is despite the fact that the two daily tracking polls generally have Obama only leading by no more than the margin of error: about 3 points.

Image by wallyg's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing (Click to View Other Works)

Not A Shining Moment

One last comment about the ABC Debate on Wednesday.

The left wing bloggers, the press, and extreme liberal commentators are all screaming foul over the debate. They feel that their guy, Barack Obama, was dealt a heavy hand and Hillary Clinton was given a pass. But, all the screaming is because Obama looked "really bad" and, so, his defenders are taking it out on ABC, George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson. Believe me, if Obama looked good in that debate, those same people would have lauded Obama for fielding such tough questions. But, Barack looked quite less than "smooth" while he danced around the "cling to guns and religion," the Reverend Wright, and the Ayers questions. In fact, he did a few 180's on what he had previously said on those topics. Further, his (and Hillary's) arguments for getting out of Iraq and raising taxes simply fell flat.

I guess the Barack fans thought that, instead of having a debate, their guy should have had the equivalent of a soft-ball, Larry King-like "don't attack or they won't come back," powder puff type of interview; sort of an audience with the king. But, Barack Obama has a lot of "character" related issues that he has dodged; every step of the way. This is no time for a "Mr. Obama, would you like a pillow" kind of moment as Saturday Night Live once parodied about the media and Barack Obama.

Don't expect those "character" issues about Mr. Obama to go away. His failure to address them, once again, will just fuel more intense curiosity by those in the news media that "aren't" in the bag for Barack Obama .