This is the type of news that worries and alarms us:
“Senior Mitt Romney campaign adviser Ed Gillespie said the campaign has a “no whining rule” when it comes to media coverage of the presidential race.
“We have a ‘no whining’ rule in Boston about coverage in the media,” Gillespie told “Fox and Friends” on Wednesday. “We just deal with the facts.”
Republicans have long complained about a liberal bias in the mainstream media, and frustrations have been voiced in this cycle about soft coverage of President Obama and tough coverage of Romney.
Conservatives have also criticized a possible bias in polls that show Obama building a lead over Romney in several key swing states. President Obama has posted noticeable gains in most recent polling, which is magnified by the fact the race had been almost completely static ahead of the conventions.
In a post titled “Media double standards,” Washington Post conservative writer Jennifer Rubin on Wednesday criticized a lack of media outrage over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) comments that Romney had “sullied” Mormonism.
Rubin also said coverage of Obama’s remarks this week that violence in the Middle East represented “bumps in the road” was soft and showed a bias. “Media double standards are nothing new, but it seems that nothing will provoke more exacting coverage of the president,” she wrote.
Gillespie on Wednesday echoed an argument made by some conservatives in recent weeks that polling sample sizes are disproportionately weighted to include too many Democrats.”
This is a no whining zone also. No one is proposing that the Romney campaign “whine”. But we do think it is imperative that the Romney campaign recognize that Big Media is the threat. Big Media will protect Barack Obama and unless Mitt Romney overcomes that bias we are all going “forward” – into the abyss.
It’s good that in the same interview Gillespie discussed the skewed polls but this has to be part of a narrative and most certainly not a “whine”. Gillespie had this to say about the polls:
“It is not consistent with our polling,” Gillespie said. “In every single one of them they have a Democratic voter participation that is higher than the Democratic voter participation in 2008, I don’t know anyone on the ground in any of these swing states that believe there will be a higher percentage of the electorate in 2012 than 2008, and yet in every single one of these surveys there’s a higher percentage. Which explains, by the way, how Romney could be tied or leading among independents in these polls, and then losing the net poll to President Obama — it does not make sense.”
Sorry girlfriend, it makes perfect sense if you consider that Big Media is in the bag sniffing the Hopium for Obama. The problem is not just the skewed polls. The problem is Big Media and Mitt Romney’s campaign better stop whining about those of us who are alarmed at the lack of urgency in their tepid narrative which allows Big Media to write the narrative to Romney’s detriment.
Which polls are, or aren’t, legitimate? For those worried about the polls it is well to remember that the best polling of 2008 came from Rasmussen. You don’t need to “whine” about skewed polls, but just cite to Rasmussen and declare why: Rasmussen was the most consistent and reliable polling in 2008.
“One important “tell” in my opinion, is this president’s continued weak position with independent voters, who remain the true swing vote.
Obama’s average overall margin over Romney in these same polls is roughly 4 percent. Bottom line: You do not get a four-point lead overall with a tie among independents, unless you are squeezing substantially more votes out of your base than your opponent is. And more generally, you are not “winning” an election in any meaningful sense of the word when 3/5ths of unaffiliated voters are either undecided or against you.
So, I see two ways the polls are tilted in favor of the president.
First, many of the polls are guessing that Democrats are set to turn out at levels that match or sometimes exceed 2008. Take two examples – recent polls in Ohio and Florida. I’ve included the 2008 and 2004 exit polls as a baseline for consideration. [snip]
If it comes down to whether or not this will be a repeat of 2008 — which is basically what the latter camp of pollsters is suggesting — then my money is on no. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong. I have no crystal ball looking forward. All I can do is look back through history, where I see on average a nationwide Democratic identification edge of about 3 points, which is also roughly the midpoint between 2004 and 2008. That is my guess about 2012. It is an informed guess, but it is still a guess. If I’m right, then Rasmussen, Purple Poll, Mason-Dixon, and Survey USA are closer to the mark. But I could be wrong, in which case Fox, PPP andWashington Post are closer to the mark.
Importantly, the pollsters are guessing, too. They are guessing via the myriad of choices they make about when to poll, whom to poll, and how to poll. By Election Day, polling will be much more “scientific” than it is today; but now there is quite a bit of “art.” That’s how we wind up with two points of convergence, instead of just one. [snip]
Second major point: There is a subtler dimension to this Democratic polling advantage, one that nevertheless exercises a powerful effect on the margins between the two candidates. And it looks to apply to most of the polls, at least for the time being. It has to do with how tight of control the two sides have over their own coalitions. For instance, a recent Rasmussen poll had Romney winning 85 percent of Republicans, and Obama winning 11 percent. So, we might say that Romney is pulling a net of 74 percent from his own side. [snip]
As we can see, Obama has tighter control over his base at the moment. Now, the difference may seem insubstantial, but I assure you it is not. After all, this is a race that will see the two sides separated at most by 5 points, so this basically gives the president a one-point boost over Romney, simply by virtue of having a more unified base.
But is this historically accurate? Not really. In fact, over the last forty years, Republican candidatess [sic] have consistently had tighter control over their base than their Democratic counterparts. [snip]
In other words, the above national polls give Obama a 3.6 percent edge over Romney; if the two bases fall back into historical alignment, then that lead would be cut to about 1.5 percent. [snip]
Final thought: As I mentioned earlier, a big “tell” here is that Obama cannot build any kind of a lead among independent voters. That suggests to me that his advantage is built entirely on Democratic enthusiasm, which right now is above its historical trends and clearly on a post-DNC bump. Nobody in the postwar era has won the presidency by carrying less than 49 percent of independents, and Obama is quite a ways below that mark, even if some polls show him at or above 50 percent nationwide and in the key swing states.”
But enough on the polls. Some more alarming news: Today was the most sacred day on the Jewish Calendar, Yom Kippur. At the United Nations the featured speaker was Holocaust denier Mahmood Ahmadinejad. To this insulting outrage there there was silence, not a word of protest to change the schedule, from Barack Obama.
We’re not alone in being alarmed by recent events at the United Nations.
At the United Nations General Assembly it was stated by Obama: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”. Is English the native language of Barack Obama. Does Barack Obama understand the meaning of “slander”?
“Slander” is “defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander, a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.” Someone who does not believe Mohammad to be “The Prophet” and all that goes with that is conceivably “slandering” Mohammad. Is Obama saying that we all have to convert to Islam and that the “the future most not belong to those” who do not believe Mohammad to be what/who believers in Islam believe him to be?
Something that make us smile is Mitt Romney moving in the needed direction. On Libya Mitt Romney has to build the narrative of the disasters Obama has spawned. Mitt Romney is getting there although we want a lot more of this = Romney on Libya: Why doesn’t Obama want the American people to know what happened?
“He doesn’t use the phrase “cover up” — but Ryan does, in saying that it’s up to Americans to decide why The One is reluctant to use the word “terrorism” to describe what happened in Benghazi even though some of his underlings aren’t. And yes, this talking point is officially part of the Romney/Ryan message on the trail today. CNN asked the same question that Carl Cameron did and got a similar answer:
When pressed on whether he stood by the attack, Romney said, “I’m not sure which developments in the Middle East he would consider bumps in the road.”
He then suggested the Obama administration was trying to hide the truth behind what really happened in Benghazi.
“The White House’s failure to acknowledge that – that the assassination of our ambassador was a terrorist attack, a terrorist event – suggests that they are trying to paper over the seriousness of what’s happening in the Middle East,” Romney told CNN.
Cameron actually gives Mitt an opportunity to go for the throat at 3:15 by asking whether he thinks Obama’s “bumps in the road” comment is a case of him misunderstanding the Middle East or a knowing attempt to minimize what’s happened there this month to cover his own ass. Romney’s answer: It’s proof that Obama misunderstands. Not sure I’d have gone the same route but that fits, at least, with the thrust of Mitt’s message that O’s in over his head on all things presidential. More of this, please — while bearing in mind Ace’s point that the economy is still the silver bullet here.”
A long time ago we wrote that Obama was not qualified to be president. It’s gotten much worse now. The views he is acting on are dangerous and add up to appeasement if not outright collaboration. Barack Obama’s focus on the “video” as a source of agitation is absolutely incorrect. The problem is the hatred of “freedom” that Islamist terrorists espouse.
Freedom will not be curtailed by Islamist terrorists however. Daniel Pipes in a recent article advocated a purposeful printing of cartoons of Mohammad until Islamist feigned outrage will have to occupy 24 hours of every day of their lives. Daniel Pipes might get more than cartoons:
“Is Islam’s prophet Muhammad to have more screen time?
A prohibition on depicting him has long been sacrosanct, but then came ‘Innocence of the Muslims.’ And two ex-Muslim filmmakers are seeking to develop biopics.
Botros is closely associated with several of the individuals behind “Innocence of Muslims,” and the filmmaker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is a devout follower.
A second film in preproduction is the work of Ali Sina, an atheist raised Muslim in Iran. A prominent critic of Islam, he maintains websites that promote what he calls “the truth” about the religion.
To date he says he has raised $2 million from Southern California investors for the film, which does not yet have a title but will portray the prophet as a cult leader in the vein of David Koresh or Jim Jones. He hopes to raise a total of $10 million, he said, and begin filming next year.
Now a resident of Canada, Sina began contemplating a biopic about Muhammad a decade ago, but stepped up his effort in the last two years as technological advances made it feasible to circumvent government censors and wary exhibitors.
“We can bypass theaters completely and sell the movie online with a profit to a large number of people, especially Muslims,” Sina said. “They can download it and watch it even if they are living in Karachi or Mecca or Medina.”
The outrage is already outrageous over the very “idea” of these films:
“Reactions to the films, if they are ever finished, are likely to be severe.
“This is crossing a line,” said Akbar Ahmed, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United Kingdom and now professor of Islamic studies at American University. “If there is an actor physically portraying Muhammad, there will be a violent reaction.”
Why is Islam not mocked just like any religion? Violence. The movie 2012 did not depict the destruction of Mecca because of the fear of violence. The hypocrite and cowardly filmmakers of 2012 showed Christian sites and other sites sacred to other religions being destroyed in their disaster epic but Islam was protected. It’s not the first time:
“In 2006, Comedy Central refused to air an episode of “South Park” because it depicted Muhammad, and four years later New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art acknowledged that it had removed all paintings and sculptures with images of the prophet — some centuries old — from public display for fear of inciting protest.”
These images at the Metropolitan Museum of Art have existed for centuries but only now do Islamist terrorists get their way because of the cowards and hypocrites who love every nasty story directed against Catholics, Christians, and Jews.
Cowardice and appeasement are Obama hallmarks too and they all will get us all killed.
Enough ugliness. Let’s get some happy news. For a long time we have advised Republicans/conservatives to stay focused on Barack Obama and not go E/I on Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. We know that recently Bill Clinton especially has given Republicans/conservatives reason to get distracted from Barack Obama and instead indulge their hate of the Clintons. But smart Republicans/conservatives are staying focused on Barack Obama and using Hillary Clinton as the “secret weapon”.
Evidence of I/E Republicans using Hillary Clinton as a “secret weapon” against Barack Obama comes from a website owned by the Republican National Committee. The website states “How To View The Obama Presidency Hillary Clinton Meets With 8 World Leaders” and contrast that (in photographs) with Obama’s high level summit meeting with the ladies of The View.
Newt Gingrich, who forced through the impeachment of Bill Clinton and has no love for Hillary or Bill appeared yesterday on the Greta Van Susteren show. Gingrich stayed focused on Barack Obama and deployed the “secret weapon”.
Newt Gngrich had much to say:
“[Obama] really is like the substitute [National Football League] referees in the sense that he’s not a real president,” Gingrich told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Tuesday night. “He doesn’t do anything that presidents do, he doesn’t worry about any of the things the presidents do, but he has the White House, he has enormous power, and he’ll go down in history as the president, and I suspect that he’s pretty contemptuous of the rest of us.” [snip]
Gingrich called Obama a “false president,” saying he has a propensity to shirk his duties.
“This is a man who in an age of false celebrity-hood is sort of the perfect president, because he’s a false president,” he said. “He’s a guy that doesn’t do the president’s job.”
Gingrich questioned whether Obama has the stamina and desire to be president.
“You have to wonder what he’s doing,” Gingrich continued. “I’m assuming that there’s some rhythm to Barack Obama that the rest of us don’t understand. Whether he needs large amounts of rest, whether he needs to go play basketball for a while or watch ESPN, I mean, I don’t quite know what his rhythm is, but this is a guy that is a brilliant performer as an orator, who may very well get reelected at the present date, and who, frankly, he happens to be a partial, part-time president.”
Good to see Gingrich call Obama a “false president” – for a long time we have declared this “The Age of Fake.”
Newt Gingrich also had this to say about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, which is right on target:
“There’s a huge difference. Hillary Clinton is a serious person. Barack Obama is an ambitious person. They’re very different personalities. Hillary Clinton actually gets up every day thinking about public policy. Barack Obama gets up every day thinking about Barack Obama.”
Newt Gingrich understands narrative and the need to communicate urgency as well as the toxic role of Big Media in today’s politics. Listen to Newt, Mitt.
[The Gingrich video may be seen here and it is worth the full 15 minute watch: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html#/v/1861429922001/gingrichs-take-obama-at-un-snubs-bumps-and-more/?playlist_id=86925 ]