Main Menu

Most would vote for Obama

Fascinating

In a Fox News poll taken April 3-5, a majority of registered voters (52%) said if the election were held today, they would vote for Barack Obama over, for example, Donald Trump, which is about the same percentage in the poll that consider those who doubt that Obama was born in the US to be “nutty conspiracy theorists.”

On the dark side, 24% think Obama was not born in the US and 40% think there is “cause to wonder.”

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FoxNews_Poll_ObamaBirth.pdf

 

75 Responses to Most would vote for Obama

  1. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 6:44 pm #

    I would love to see a poll that asked the ‘two citizen parents’ question – I think that the results would be heartbreaking for the Vattellites…

  2. avatar
    bjphysics April 20, 2011 at 7:17 pm #

    Why They Hated Clinton Then, Why They Hate Obama Now

    “The Clintons were reviled by conservatives for many of the same reasons Obama now is. In fact, the attacks they endured during Bill Clinton’s presidency are startlingly similar—in source, psychology, and tone—to the ones Obama now faces. Bill Clinton, too, committed the sin of being a Democrat identified with “un-American” elements (Vietnam protesters, draft dodgers and pot smokers in the ’60s, and Hollywood celebrities in the ’90s) and—worse—of knowing how to win elections.”

    http://www.observer.com/4597/why-they-hated-clinton-then-why-they-hate-obama-now

    Yes, the ultimate sin of a Democrat: “knowing how to win elections”; thus usurping what every Republican knows is a quasi-hereditary position passed down from Republican to Republican since Saint Ronny handed the torch to Voodoo George.

  3. avatar
    Black Lion April 20, 2011 at 7:41 pm #

    Farah is Standing By His Reporter’s False And Misleading Claims
    Topic: WorldNetDaily

    Lost in the pissing match between WorldNetDaily and Salon over the claim that President Obama has spent millions of dollars to fight birther lawsuits is exactly what claims were made. WND editor Joseph Farah said “we stand by [reporter Chelsea] Schilling’s three reports – every word of them.” But what exactly is Farah standing by?

    At issue are three articles by Schilling. The first, on April 22, 2009, asserts that “President Obama may be using campaign funds to stomp out eligibility lawsuits brought by Americans, as his campaign has paid more than $1 million to his top lawyer since the election.” The only evidence Schilling offers is that Obama’s campaign paid that amount to a law firm between October 2008 and March 2009, and that one lawyer in the firm represented Obama in some birther lawsuits. At no point does Schilling prove what she strongly suggested in her lead paragraph — that all of that million-plus was spent on “eligibility” lawsuits.

    The second article, from Aug. 10, 2009, carried a similar lead but a bigger number: “President Obama may be using his political action committee funds to stomp out eligibility lawsuits brought by Americans, as he has paid more than $1.35 million to his top lawyer since the election.” But Schilling falsely portrays all of the money as going to a single lawyer; in fact, Schilling offers the exact same evidence as before — that the Obama campaign paid money to a law firm. Again, Schilling offers no evidence that all of the money went to a single lawyer or that it was all spent on birther lawsuits.

    The third article, from Oct. 27, 2009, repeated the false claim with a new number: “President Obama has paid nearly $1.7 million to his top eligibility lawyer since the election.” Again, Schilling offers only that the money was paid to a law firm, not to Obama’s “top eligibility lawyer,” and again, there’s no evidence that all of the money went to a single lawyer or that it was all spent on birther lawsuits.

    Farah is standing by something the evidence doesn’t support. He has nothing to back up the claim that every single penny Obama’s campaign paid to a law firm went toward defending birther lawsuits, yet he won’t clarify or renounce the claim. Instead, he smeared a Salon writer who challenged what his website reported as a “sissified, left-wing blogger,” while he defended the reporter who made misleading and unsupported claims as “one of the most remarkable young women I have ever met” and “like a daughter to me.”

    That sums up the kind of petty, thin-skinned, misguided person Farah is.

  4. avatar
    Black Lion April 20, 2011 at 7:46 pm #

    Fox News Goes Full Birther

    Following Donald Trump’s lead, Fox News figures have recently embraced or promoted aspects of the birther conspiracy theory by falsely claiming that President Obama has not produced his birth certificate, or by hosting birthers to hype their discredited theories unchallenged.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201104200008

  5. avatar
    misha April 20, 2011 at 7:50 pm #

    Black Lion: That sums up the kind of petty, thin-skinned, misguided person Farah is.

    I know, Farah is thin-skinned about the ‘net rumor that barnyard animals become skittish when he is near.

  6. avatar
    Scientist April 20, 2011 at 9:07 pm #

    As wonderful as Donald Trump’s sideshow has been for been for the President, the one who has really given his re-election the best imaginable boost is Paul Ryan, who, as far as I know is not a birther at all. About 80% of the population (and even 75% of Republicans) do not support replacing Medicare with a voucher that will likely be insufficient to buy decent insurance.

    The choice is simply between Obama who will promise to veto that and a Republican who won’t . I don’t think they make birth certificates long enough for the Republican to win that fight.

  7. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 20, 2011 at 9:25 pm #

    I’m sure that if you could do some sort of correlation, you would find that 24% to be the same people who are hard-core, right wing Obama-haters who would never vote for him in any case — and the 40% to roughly correlate with the people who lean to the right and are highly unlikely to vote for him.

    In any voter canvassing operation I’ve ever been involved with, we rank people based on their stated preference – so in the last election:

    strong Obama = 1
    leaning Obama = 2
    undecided = 3
    leaning GOP/other = 4
    strong GOP/other = 5

    Once voter have been ranked through initial outreach (phone calls, door-to-door canvassing), the GOTV vote is focused primarily on 1’s and 2’s.

    In the last election, we started calling 3’s during the last few weeks of the campaign after all the 1’s & 2’s had already been called and already voted. (I was on the west coast, calling western states, which all have early voting – Obama’s vote in NM,Colorado, & Nevada was already banked 2 weeks ahead of the election – -so that’s when the effort shifted to undecided voters).

    That’s why the birther shit doesn’t matter to Obama. Every birther is a #5 and from a canvassing perspective, the only goal is to identify them and avoid them. (Easy to identify because typically they are very rude to canvassers – you wouldn’t believe some of the overt racist stuff that was said to canvassers during the last election).

    Unfortunately for the GOP, they can’t count on the birther vote for whoever they nominate, given that the birthers consider anyone who disagrees with them to be a traitor to the cause. The birthers will probably unite behind Trump or another birther candidate, and when that person fails to get the nomination — end up either sitting out the election or shifting to a third party.

  8. avatar
    Fred April 20, 2011 at 9:31 pm #

    Nothing “dark” about birthers. They are unknowingly destroying the GOP like a cancer. Eating away from the inside out. I am enjoying every minute.

  9. avatar
    misha April 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm #

    Fred: They are unknowingly destroying the GOP like a cancer. Eating away from the inside out. I am enjoying every minute.

    My exact feelings. Obama should not release one more scrap of paper.

  10. avatar
    G April 20, 2011 at 9:53 pm #

    Black Lion: Fox News Goes Full BirtherFollowing Donald Trump’s lead, Fox News figures have recently embraced or promoted aspects of the birther conspiracy theory by falsely claiming that President Obama has not produced his birth certificate, or by hosting birthers to hype their discredited theories unchallenged.http://mediamatters.org/research/201104200008

    Of course they are. Fox News is nothing but a GOP & RW propoganda outlet.

    They played a big role in propping up, promoting and supporting the Tea Parties. Their whole schtick is to dog-whistle that “GOP good” and “Dems bad”. They are the ones who ginned up the whole nonsense ACORN and “Black Panther” non-stories, etc, etc, etc. As Obama is the head of the Democratic Party, he’s their target #1.

    Hannity avoided the Birther issue for 2 years but now that he sees it rising in the polls amongst his target demographic, he’s shamelessly Concern Trolling the issue. That has always been his M.O. He’s probably the most transparent and obvious hack GOP shill they’ve had on their network. His game was transparently obvious years before the rest of the FNC hosts started becoming more open with their agenda. Fox & Friends is just having mulitple Hannitys in the morning.

    Fox News exists to brainwash their gullible audience. Yes, having a major media outlet falsely claim to be “Fair and Balanced” and a “news organization” while really being nothing but a 24×7 propoganda machine drumming manufactured fears and memes into their viewers is completely Orwellian and wrong.

    There is a fatal flaw in their tactics however. As they’ve become bolder and increasingly blatent, their schtick has become more and more apparent to all but their most devoted followers… of which there are quite a few – but those devotees are pretty much a receptive audience. They are after all the GOP base that cheerfully and willfully only watches FNC because it spoon feeds them exactly what they want to hear.

    The eventual problem with such and approach and result is you end up doing nothing but preaching to the quior. They are their own echo chamber. These people can only each vote once. They most likely already voted GOP in 2008, so FOX getting them to vote GOP in 2012 doesn’t really change any dynamics.

    The only problem is that so much of the rest of the mainstream media seems to live in fear of FNC and often carries their water…so in a way, FNC has been able to sway a broader media narrative. However, I’ve noticed that too has started to fade over the past two years as FNC has become so over-the-top blatent in their agenda and caught on the carpet enough times that other stations and reporters have become less slavish to perpetuating FNC’s planted story lines and even more willing to openly call them out or challenge them for what their doing.

    In summary, beyond the FNC devotees, the curtain has been pulled back enough that FNC’s credibility is close to permanently tarnished with everyone else. Once you lack credibility with a segment of the audience, you’re message no longer gets through to them and you are often tuned out. Therefore, FNC may have succeeded in deeply brainwashing their already receptive and devoted audience, but in doing so, they innoculate more and more of everyone else from being susceptible to their tactics and message.

  11. avatar
    G April 20, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    In a Fox News poll taken April 3-5, a majority of registered voters (52%) said if the election were held today, they would vote for Barack Obama, which is about the same percentage in the poll that consider those who doubt that Obama was born in the US to be “nutty conspiracy theorists.”

    Considering that Obama won decisively in 2008 with 53% of the vote, statistically that indicates that he’s pretty much retained those votes.

    It also shows that birtherism nonsense has no affect on his voting base and cannot gain traction in any meaningful way.

    Such a weak GOP field for competition only provides Obama an opening to peel away even more votes to his side for 2012…

  12. avatar
    Ron Paul April 20, 2011 at 10:23 pm #

    Remember when the GOP stood for balanced budgets, individual freedom and isolationism.
    The Republican Party has run up these deficits, we want the federal government to be in our bedrooms and between our women and their doctors, we started two wars instead of ending them like the Korean War and were supposed to stop the Vietnam War the Democrats started. We have lost our way!

    So why waste our time with these fools who use their racist rhetoric, like this Marilyn Davenport and Donald Trump with his birther unproven myth, why do we allow our Fox news people to keep talking down our country. Don’t they know we can win the next election with optimism and hope instead of the current rhetoric, that the sky is falling, if we are not careful we will end up like chicken little where no one will listen to us.

  13. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 20, 2011 at 10:27 pm #

    Remember when the GOP stood for truth, justice, and the American way?

    Yeah, me neither.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 20, 2011 at 11:11 pm #

    Ron Paul: Remember when the GOP stood for balanced budgets, individual freedom and isolationism.

    Sure, I do. Now it’s all about power.

    Throughout our history, political parties come and go. I think it’s the Republican Party’s time to go. Wouldn’t it be ironic if it was the birthers that made that happen?

  15. avatar
    misha April 20, 2011 at 11:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think it’s the Republican Party’s time to go. Wouldn’t it be ironic if it was the birthers that made that happen?

    Yeah, and replaced by the Whig party.

  16. avatar
    Sean April 20, 2011 at 11:46 pm #

    A little off topic, but does anyone have the link for the article about Obama Sr taking a summer semester that ended on Obama’s birthday?

  17. avatar
    gorefan April 20, 2011 at 11:47 pm #

    misha: Yeah, and replaced by the Whig party.

    The GOP could always rename as the “Know Nothing” Party.

  18. avatar
    gorefan April 20, 2011 at 11:48 pm #

    Sean: A little off topic, but does anyone have the link for the article about Obama Sr taking a summer semester that ended on Obama’s birthday?

    NBC just did a piece on it.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/interesting-did-obama-spend-the-summer-of-1961-in-hawaii/comment-page-1/#comment-25277

  19. avatar
    G April 20, 2011 at 11:51 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Sure, I do. Now it’s all about power.Throughout our history, political parties come and go. I think it’s the Republican Party’s time to go. Wouldn’t it be ironic if it was the birthers that made that happen?

    Agreed. Time to go the way of the Whigs and be (hopefully) replaced by something more sane. Honestly, that is the best long-term outcome they could hope for.

    I’m sure many loyal and sane GOP voters are hoping for a simpler and easier solution – a “cleansing moment” to occur, like decades ago when the Bircher’s were finally denounced and cast out.

    However, the dynamics today (both in terms of the excessive proportion of crazy in the base and lack of a strong, sane GOP leadership figure) make such a straightforward reclamation increasingly improbable.

    Therefore, I think we’re looking at a more inevitable spectacular self-immolation and collapse, and a new party replacing the GOP rising from the ashes. I think it will have to have a new name too…as the GOP brand is probably too stained at this point. Yes, it will take courage and time to rebuild and replace a party, but it can happen and be worth it in the long run.

    Heck, such a collapse will probably lead to several different prominent 3rd parties emerging for awhile, vying for support and providing new combinations and options to help shape the 21st century…this will likely change the dynamic of the Democratic Party in the process. Eventually, the dust will settle. I see this as not only likely, but also a really healthy outcome for everyone in the long term.

    Over the past 7 years, I’ve had this talk on a number of occasions with some of my perpetually “loyal yet unhappy” GOP voting friends and associates who can’t stand the craziness, but don’t want to vote Democrat and who simply justify their holding their nose to vote loyal GOP anymore, because they think that if they only remain “loyal” that somehow the crazy will just be a “phase” and “pass”…

    Their reasons are often fairly similar and basically come down to some general themes. I’ve gotten quite a few of them to admit that they are more afraid of what will happen if they don’t stay loyal and their party collapses or shrinks to small – because they are afraid that their viewpoints won’t have any voice anymore and that they’d be in the “wilderness for decades” if they had to rebuild or form a new, more rational coalition. They privately hate the crazy (and are often ashamed of it) but don’t want to upset those folks, because they know they need their numbers in order to win (plus, I’ve found out they are sometimes afraid of them too).

    I try to point out that the Republican party was formed in 1854 as the result of a party schism and in only 6 years, we got President Lincoln as a result. That usually goes over pretty well…

    Beyond that, I just wanted to point out that change happens over time in parties and is somewhat inevitable. Anyone who studies history can see that even long-standing political parties change their composition and platforms significantly over the decades.

  20. avatar
    G April 20, 2011 at 11:52 pm #

    gorefan: The GOP could always rename as the “Know Nothing” Party.

    For all intents and purposes, sadly that is what they are today… in more ways than one.

  21. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 12:02 am #

    misha: Yeah, and replaced by the Whig party.

    Actually, that is a real possibility.

    Disaffection with the current political polarization and crazy, ineffective politics has led to certain new 3rd parties emerging in recent years.

    One of the fastest growing happens to be the Modern Whig Party…

    http://www.modernwhig.info/

    In similar fashion is a serious attempt to create a center/moderate party, the current “No Labels” movement:

    http://hq.nolabels.org/page/share/At_the_Table

    Finally, for an interesting read, here is Time Magazine’s report of what they view as the Top Ten Alternative Movements. Its quite an interesting read:

    http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1975807,00.html

  22. avatar
    misha April 21, 2011 at 12:40 am #

    G: Finally, for an interesting read, here is Time Magazine’s report of what they view as the Top Ten Alternative Movements. Its quite an interesting read:

    Here is my Top Ten:

    http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1975807,00.html?user=04327394167014046307&network=fc

  23. avatar
    Greg April 21, 2011 at 12:44 am #

    To pick a nit, the poll doesn’t say that 52% would vote for Obama. It says they would vote for him in a race against Trump. He doesn’ t do as well against Romney. Or Huckabee.

  24. avatar
    Keith April 21, 2011 at 12:46 am #

    Black Lion: Fox News Goes Full Birther

    Is that why they dumped Beck? He just wasn’t insane enough for them?

  25. avatar
    richCares April 21, 2011 at 12:50 am #

    Sean
    here’s a link for you
    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/15892/

    as side note, I attended UH summer of 61, I met an African exchange student whose white wife just gave birth, I don’t remember his name, but my wife insists it was Obama Sr.

  26. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 12:50 am #

    misha: Here is my Top Ten:http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1975807,00.html?user=04327394167014046307&network=fc

    Thanks for sharing Misha! I got a kick out of your list.

    Personally, the Polish Beer Party would be my #1 ! 😉

  27. avatar
    Keith April 21, 2011 at 12:52 am #

    G: I’m sure many loyal and sane GOP voters are hoping for a simpler and easier solution – a “cleansing moment” to occur, like decades ago when the Bircher’s were finally denounced and cast out.

    Is there someone like Edward R. Murrow with a boss like William Paley around?

    No. I didn’t think so.

  28. avatar
    misha April 21, 2011 at 12:54 am #

    Keith: Is that why they dumped Beck? He just wasn’t insane enough for them?

    It was revelations about that rape and murder in 1990. It caught up with him 21 years later. Roger Ailes finally got worried about Beck’s sordid past.

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/11/glenn-beck-accidentally-not-put-down.html

  29. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 4:05 am #

    I could be wrong — by all means, jump in to correct me — but I always felt they was a racial component in the hatred towards Bill Clinton. I think he was considered a “race traitor” by the proto-birthers for being too chummy with blacks. I’ll be curious to read your opinions on this.

  30. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 4:11 am #

    G: I’m sure many loyal and sane GOP voters are hoping for a simpler and easier solution – a “cleansing moment” to occur, like decades ago when the Bircher’s were finally denounced and cast out.

    However, the dynamics today (both in terms of the excessive proportion of crazy in the base and lack of a strong, sane GOP leadership figure) make such a straightforward reclamation increasingly improbable.

    Therefore, I think we’re looking at a more inevitable spectacular self-immolation and collapse, and a new party replacing the GOP rising from the ashes. I think it will have to have a new name too…as the GOP brand is probably too stained at this point. Yes, it will take courage and time to rebuild and replace a party, but it can happen and be worth it in the long run.

    I agree with your diagnostic but I do not share your optimism re a possible cure.

    My own take is that, like in proto-fascist Italy, Germany, Spain, Chile, Argentina, etc., the oligarchs have found it easier to control and manipulate the “beast” rather than (re)create a bona fide Eisenhower-type GOP/New GOP. Plus at this juncture, they also find it easy too get (most of) what they want from the Democrats.

    So while I would dearly love to see a new, sane “right” emerge in your country, I don’t think it’s going to happen. I don’t see the situation evolve into the bloody nightmare of a full fascist coup, at least as long as the Democrats remain pliantly docile and relatively not too much trouble.

  31. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 8:27 am #

    Lupin: I agree with your diagnostic but I do not share your optimism re a possible cure.My own take is that, like in proto-fascist Italy, Germany, Spain, Chile, Argentina, etc., the oligarchs have found it easier to control and manipulate the “beast” rather than (re)create a bona fide Eisenhower-type GOP/New GOP. Plus at this juncture, they also find it easy too get (most of) what they want from the Democrats.So while I would dearly love to see a new, sane “right” emerge in your country, I don’t think it’s going to happen. I don’t see the situation evolve into the bloody nightmare of a full fascist coup, at least as long as the Democrats remain pliantly docile and relatively not too much trouble.

    All I can do is try to be optimistic for the future. Change are occuring in the parties…that is inevitable and will continue. Some change needs to happen and will end up happening one way or another, as various long standing issues cannot be pushed off forever. Other global issues and new challenges of the 21st century and results of continuing technological advances will emerge, also forcing various reassessment.

    Crazy can only go on being tolerated for so long until it reaches a tipping point, which I think it has in the GOP. Cynical manipulators can rile up the gullible masses only as far as they still retain control. At some point, the cancerous mob is too large and rabid for that and will turn on both its handlers and itself (and unfortunately, cause lots of collateral damage to everyone else in the process). That’s how I view what has been going on in recent years. It is simply not sustainable.

    Don’t get my optimism wrong – I’m optimistic in the long term that eventually something better can emerge. I really don’t see that happening in as short a time scale as the Lincoln example – but it is effective for me to use that example to encourage that it is possible. Change is often messy and I actually expect that things will continue to get worse before they get better and that there will definitely be some issues and problems with the chaos of transition, but remain hopeful that over the long term, new stability will emerge.

    The crazies won’t go away. Sadly, they were always there amongst us…. The difference is that for most of the time, they were not being pandered too and were properly left to be fairly powerless, shunned and ignored on the fringes. Currently, the inmates are runing the asylum more and more. I think it is beyond the point where they can be simply kicked to the curb.

    However, I totally feel that such crazy is completely self-destructive and that they will bring about their own downfall eventually. The hope is that the collateral damage can be minimized as much as possible. At this point, I fell the GOP is both too dependent and too entertwined with this crazy to come out of such immolation without being critically injured in the process. All I can hope for is that they don’t do too much more damage to everyone else and the rest of the system in the process…

  32. avatar
    katahdin April 21, 2011 at 8:36 am #

    Lupin:
    I could be wrong — by all means, jump in to correct me — but I always felt they was a racial component in the hatred towards Bill Clinton. I think he was considered a “race traitor” by the proto-birthers for being too chummy with blacks. I’ll be curious to read your opinions on this.

    Clinton was accused of fathering a child with a black woman; the classic smear directed against Southern politicians who were too chummy with black voters.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2011 at 8:54 am #

    Greg: To pick a nit, the poll doesn’t say that 52% would vote for Obama. It says they would vote for him in a race against Trump. He doesn’ t do as well against Romney. Or Huckabee.

    Nit well picked. Article updated.

  34. avatar
    Thrifty April 21, 2011 at 11:53 am #

    Fred: Nothing “dark” about birthers. They are unknowingly destroying the GOP like a cancer. Eating away from the inside out. I am enjoying every minute.

    I sorta agree, but I think that maybe people are being overly optimistic. Birthers have been around since before the 2008 election, yet the GOP still made substantial gains in 2010 (they lost some easy races in Nevada and Delaware by putting up horrible candidates too).

    It’s still fully possible, in my estimate, that some Republican presidential contender will consider the birthers not worth it and tell them to take a hike, in pursuit of the independent votes.

  35. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    G: Don’t get my optimism wrong – I’m optimistic in the long term that eventually something better can emerge. I really don’t see that happening in as short a time scale as the Lincoln example – but it is effective for me to use that example to encourage that it is possible. Change is often messy and I actually expect that things will continue to get worse before they get better and that there will definitely be some issues and problems with the chaos of transition, but remain hopeful that over the long term, new stability will emerge.

    Indeed. Actually I agree with virtually everything you wrote (unsurprisingly).

    I fear however — without stretching the analogy too far — that Obama might be not unlike the Gorbachev period, ie: the beginning of the transformation of the old system — and perhaps Yeltsin represents the “crazy years” but then the new stability that emerges is Putin, better in some respects than the leaders of the old USSR, but not so good in many other respects.

    Well, time will tell, I suppose.

  36. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 12:00 pm #

    Thrifty: I sorta agree, but I think that maybe people are being overly optimistic.Birthers have been around since before the 2008 election, yet the GOP still made substantial gains in 2010 (they lost some easy races in Nevada and Delaware by putting up horrible candidates too).

    It’s still fully possible, in my estimate, that some Republican presidential contender will consider the birthers not worth it and tell them to take a hike, in pursuit of the independent votes.

    The question is, can a Republican piss off the birthers and still win the Republican nomination?

  37. avatar
    Thrifty April 21, 2011 at 12:02 pm #

    G: There is a fatal flaw in their tactics however. As they’ve become bolder and increasingly blatent, their schtick has become more and more apparent to all but their most devoted followers… of which there are quite a few – but those devotees are pretty much a receptive audience.

    I’ll second that motion. For years I was reluctant to buy into the notion that Fox News is right wing biased. It always sounded to me like a lazy attempt to discredit a news source without criticizing the content they delivered. Sort of like when the Right says that “the liberal media” can’t be trusted on whatever story you provide from CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, the Associated Press, the New York Times, Newsweek etc.,

    But lately they have like you said been getting so bold and out there that I can’t deny it. I gotta admit that Jon Stewart plays a big role in pushing that in my view. I don’t watch The Daily Show a lot, on account of frequent exposure to politics makes me grumpy.

    People (Jon Stewart included), like to poo-poo the idea that The Daily Show is a viable news source. I disagree. It’s specialized news, and the topic is reporting on Fox News. Just like Sports Illustrated is news that reports on sports or Entertainment Weekly is news that reports on the entertainment industry.

  38. avatar
    Thrifty April 21, 2011 at 12:06 pm #

    misha: My exact feelings. Obama should not release one more scrap of paper.

    Indeed. He shouldn’t release anything in addition to what he has already released. He’s still going to need to reiterate the COLB he released in 2008. All the lies about president Obama are floating out there like a virus. Benign and easily treatable, but if left alone could do real harm to his campaign. I think there are still loads of intellectually honest people out there who just don’t pay close attention to these matters, but if they keep hearing “President Obama never released his birth certificate”, they’ll start to believe it. They’ll stop believing it if corrected, but they won’t if it is left alone. And these are the sort of “birthers-lite” that could cost Obama some votes.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    Thrifty: For years I was reluctant to buy into the notion that Fox News is right wing biased.

    One evening during the 2008 campaign, I turned on Fox News for an hour and a half, and in a notebook wrote down each time something positive or negative was said about Barack Obama and when something was said about John McCain. Basically everything said about Obama/Biden was negative or spun negative, and everything about McCain (or Palin) was positive or spun positive. The bias across multiple programs was total.

  40. avatar
    Suranis April 21, 2011 at 2:09 pm #

    Slartibartfast: The question is, can a Republican piss off the birthers and still win the Republican nomination?

    I’ve been wrong before, but I cannot see it. Their fanatical folowers, the ones that will come out and vote R no matter what, are bitthers.

    To get a sane republican past the primary they have to reverse course on their entire 20 years strategy of demonizing the Democrats no matter what. Their base are hard wired into hatred at this stage. They would have to completely be as one saying “Yeah the guy is legitimately the president, fuck that BC nonsense. Hes a good American family man, here’s what we disagree with about his policies.”

    And they all know that the one that breaks that positive narrative and goes for the crazy will win.

    Yeah I don’t see them even trying. The only ones that might are Romney and Ron Paul.

  41. avatar
    nemocapn April 21, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: One evening during the 2008 campaign, I turned on Fox News for an hour and a half, and in a notebook wrote down each time something positive or negative was said about Barack Obama and when something was said about John McCain. Basically everything said about Obama/Biden was negative or spun negative, and everything about McCain (or Palin) was positive or spun positive.

    Did you notice that immediately after the election the negativity stopped for a while? It was as if they weren’t expecting Obama to win, and when he did, they thought better of offending the millions who voted for him. They started saying nice things about Obama. I thought I was in the twilight zone. It didn’t last long, though.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm #

    nemocapn: Did you notice that immediately after the election the negativity stopped for a while?

    No, I don’t watch Fox News.

  43. avatar
    nemocapn April 21, 2011 at 5:17 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: No, I don’t watch Fox News.

    The niceness was more disturbing than the negativity. They had people like Karl Rove, saying things like, “an African-American candidate who was aspirational and inspirational, who appealed to the better angels of our nature, is very powerful. It’s a night for our country to celebrate, and for the world to celebrate.” Only days before they were railing against the “Marxist.” I don’t know how Fox viewers handled the cognitive dissonance.

  44. avatar
    Robert Clark April 21, 2011 at 5:30 pm #

    Greg: To pick a nit, the poll doesn’t say that 52% would vote for Obama. It says they would vote for him in a race against Trump. He doesn’ t do as well against Romney. Or Huckabee.

    Correct. According to this poll Obama is statistically even with Romney:

    Poll: Obama at 46 percent to Romney’s 45
    By Michael O’Brien – 04/20/11 10:39 AM ET
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/156985-poll-obama-46-percent-romney-45-percent

    What must be worrying to the Obama camp is that his support among independents, who were a big part of his winning the White House, has dropped significantly.
    From the article:

    Importantly, both Romney and Huckabee enjoy advantages in the poll over Obama among independent voters. Independents break for Romney 45-42 percent, and for Huckabee 44-41 percent, according to Marist.

    The poll contains other warning signs for Obama.

    Forty-four percent of registered voters in the poll said they would definitely vote against Obama in 2012, compared to 37 percent who definitely intend to vote for Obama’s reelection. That margin widens with independents, 47 percent of whom said they would definitely vote against Obama, and 32 percent of whom favor his reelection effort.

    Bob

  45. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    What must be worrying to the GOP camp is how they can keep President Obama out of the White House when Palin runs for president as an independent in 2012.

  46. avatar
    gorefan April 21, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

    Robert Clark: What must be worrying to the Obama camp is that his support among independents, who were a big part of his winning the White House, has dropped significantly.

    Do you think it worried President Clinton?

    “According to the poll, done by the Pew Research Center, 48 percent of Americans would like to see President Obama reelected to a second term. Just 35 percent of respondents would like a Republican to win in 2012. “

    By comparison, a similar poll conducted in March of 1995 by the Pew Research Center showed that only 29 percent of Americans wanted to see Bill Clinton reelected, while 33 percent favored a Republican. “

  47. avatar
    gorefan April 21, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

    Robert Clark: What must be worrying to the Obama camp

    I guess we will never know if the President Reagan was worried.

    “According to Gallup polling, Reagan’s approval rating stood at 42% in August 1982 and bottomed out at 35% in the beginning of 1983.”

  48. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 5:53 pm #

    What the heck are they smoking that makes them think they can impeach someone like Biden just because they didn’t vote for the Democrats in 2008?

  49. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 7:47 pm #

    Lupin: I fear however — without stretching the analogy too far — that Obama might be not unlike the Gorbachev period, ie: the beginning of the transformation of the old system — and perhaps Yeltsin represents the “crazy years” but then the new stability that emerges is Putin, better in some respects than the leaders of the old USSR, but not so good in many other respects.
    Well, time will tell, I suppose.

    Lupin,

    Although I hope for a better result, I share your concern and defintely agree that the outcome you just described is also quite possible…

    We can definitely hope that something better will arise out of chaos and change, but as you pointed out, such events can also lead to more autocratic or near totalitarian outcomes as well…

    if that result happened, I suppose the US equivalent of this scenario playing out would actually become some sort of (even more) heavy-handed (and iron fisted) big-money corporate control and total destruction of the middle class… in other words, the path we are currently on taken to the point of near totalitarian corporatocracy.

    (Not quite an unforseen trend either – something that seemed to be a popular theme in dystopian futures shown in various 70s & 80’s sci-fi movies (RoboCop, Escape From New York, Blade Runner, Demolition Man, etc.) combined with the earlier literary propoganda control tactics restricting freedom as seen in such classics as Brave New World and 1984)…

    I don’t expect anything that extreme, of course…but such examples illustrate the dangers in the outcome of such direction in general.
    .

  50. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    Thrifty: I sorta agree, but I think that maybe people are being overly optimistic. Birthers have been around since before the 2008 election, yet the GOP still made substantial gains in 2010 (they lost some easy races in Nevada and Delaware by putting up horrible candidates too).
    It’s still fully possible, in my estimate, that some Republican presidential contender will consider the birthers not worth it and tell them to take a hike, in pursuit of the independent votes.

    Overall, good points. Although I disagree that there is any correlation between Birtherism and the Nov 2010 election results at all. More to do with Tea Party momentum, general dissatisfaction with Congress and the economy as well as the GOP controlling the spin of how it portrayed “Obamacare” resulting in a very fired up GOP voting block and too many on the other side not showing up to the polls.

    In terms of the next election:

    Over optimism needs to be avoided. To comment further on what you & others have said here & several other later posts, polls should be taken with both a grain of salt (especially these many months out before an election and any serious clue of who the opposition will be is known) yet at the same time…as a warning sign for areas of weakness that need to be addressed and shorn up with the campaign gets into full swing.

    I agree on your points of reiterating and being more clear that the COLB is legit and was released in 2008 for those that are simply misinformed due to the constant drum of repeated birther lies and birther-lite concern trolling.

    However, I think now is not the time to do it. It doesn’t make sense to give the issue any attention until sometime next year, when the campaign is truly in swing. For one, people have short attention spans, so better to wait until the people you are trying to reach (obviously the crowd that doesn’t pay close attention in the first place…or they wouldn’t be confused) are more likely to be paying attention. Second, from a political standpoint, it is more in his interest to continue to stay out of it (other than jokes) at this point and allow the issue to cause internal strife within the GOP. I’m pretty sure the issue will be addressed during the heat of the actual campaign.

    I also agree that the “birther problem” as well as the “Tea Party problem” and the general “GOP base problem” are going to have more of an impact on both who the GOP nominee is and how damaged they are going into a general campaign than in the past. I don’t see a “sane” candidate being able to win over the GOP primary base this time…and therefore, the general is not looking to promising for them. Further, the liklihood of a 3rd party “spoiler” is fairly possible…and if that happened, all indications so far is that person would probably emerge from the right – possibly taking the “independent” route to bypass not being able to win the GOP primary route. Such a thing happening would only be further bad news for the GOP and good news for Obama.

    In general,no person running for election or re-election should ever take it easy and take anything for granted. Nor should their supporters or voters. I just wanted to end with stressing that point.

  51. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 8:41 pm #

    Thrifty: People (Jon Stewart included), like to poo-poo the idea that The Daily Show is a viable news source. I disagree. It’s specialized news, and the topic is reporting on Fox News. Just like Sports Illustrated is news that reports on sports or Entertainment Weekly is news that reports on the entertainment industry.

    Sadly, the Daily Show *is* considered one of the more “reliable” news sources these days and many reports have shown that it is one of the primary outlets for some folks to get their news – especially amongst Gen X & Gen Y audiences. This is more of a reflection of how badly journalism has degraded amongst the rest of the American cable news spectrum than any intent by Stewart.

    The key reason it is viewed as “reliable” is because Stewart and his staff are very good at doing their homework on issues and pulling up previous clips and footage that calls out hypocricy or revisionism whenever it happens.

    Stewart has always viewed himself as a comedian. He’s aware of the “power” he’s attained but is very uncomfortable with it and very tepid about abusing it. The Rally in late Oct 2010 was the closest he’s come to doing something with his impact. If you actually watched his show (which has been on for years), it is designed as comedy about both political and current events and to call out and lampoon hypocricy wherever it happens – whatever is more absurd in real world news is what gets the coverage. Lately, it happens to be heavily politics…but that is more a reflection of all the absurdity and hypocricy in that arena. Similar to why Fox News gets lampooned – because they do so many things to earn and deserve it….not because he’s out to target them.

    Stewart may be liberal in his personal views, but he will target ANY party or person who makes themselves a target for their behavior or statements, whether Democrat, Republican or otherwise. His show & Colbert’s are “specialized news” in terms that they do cover and focus on these types of issues, using comedy to do so, but also with a dedication to really doing their homework on the issues they lampoon.

  52. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

    nemocapn: The niceness was more disturbing than the negativity. They had people like Karl Rove, saying things like, “an African-American candidate who was aspirational and inspirational, who appealed to the better angels of our nature, is very powerful. It’s a night for our country to celebrate, and for the world to celebrate.” Only days before they were railing against the “Marxist.” I don’t know how Fox viewers handled the cognitive dissonance.

    Fox News is all about propoganda. Obama’s win was very decisive in its results. Add to that the simple fact that a new president, fresh off of an election win is typically granted a “honeymoon period” of good will and you end up with the simple political truth that it was “unwise” for Fox to go on the attack at that early moment – too much chance that such negativity in light of a positive moment in history would blow up in their face. They had to lay low for awhile and slowly build towards when they felt they could safely find an issue to use against him and sway public opinion.

    Within a few short months, they had the perfect foil and beard in the nascent Tea Party…something that they were very, very involved in promoting and growing. The unhappiness of the sheer scale of the economic recession turned out to be a perfect “beard” for them to hide behind to gin up their campaign against Obama.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2011 at 9:33 pm #

    G: Stewart has always viewed himself as a comedian.

    I’ve always viewed Rush as a comedian too. Al Franken looks like he’s turning out to be a statesman — with jokes.

  54. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 10:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’ve always viewed Rush as a comedian too. Al Franken looks like he’s turning out to be a statesman — with jokes.

    I absolutely don’t think the comparison between Rush and John Stewart is fair at all, nor in any way equivalent to what they do. One willfully deals in hypocricy to make money, they other makes money off of calling out the hypocrits. One is simply a clown and the other clowns around.

    Rush is closer to Glenn Beck (minus the insanity) or Michael Savage – they are simply RW propoganda radio hosts, whose success and ego have led them to think they can steer a conservative agenda. Their intention is to use fears and smears to rile up their audience.

    When is the last time (or ever) that Rush did a stand up comedy tour? That is what real comedians do and what Jon Stewart still does in his spare time. These other folks are merely former DJs that traded up to having their own talk radio platform. Big difference.

    Al Franken is a former comedian who had considerable success in doing so, who became more and more interested in politics and became a statesman as a result.

  55. avatar
    MichaelN April 24, 2011 at 4:58 am #

    Look like people are starting to see through Mr. Transparency.

    More and more people are waking-up to the fraud, as each day passes.

    Presidential Approval Index 4/23/2011

    Strongly Approve 24%

    Strongly Disapprove 39%

    Total Approve 48%

    Total Disapprove 51%

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

  56. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 24, 2011 at 5:46 am #

    MichaelN: More and more people are waking-up to the fraud, as each day passes.

    Which is why his numbers have been more or less constant for months? We already knew that you had a problem with reading comprehension, I guess now we know you can’t read a table or a graph, either…

  57. avatar
    The Magic M April 24, 2011 at 10:49 am #

    > More and more people are waking-up to the fraud, as each day passes.

    Well, between 2008, Dr Kate’s “usurpathon” in 20xx (?) and Theresa Cao’s “Day of Action” in 2011, “more and more” translates to “a constant number of 3”.

    Does it never occur to you that your birfer rallies can’t even attract the actual number of people who said “I don’t believe he was born in the US” on the polls you cite?

    Does it ever occur to your that at your current pace, you will have your “million man march” about, let’s see, … NEVER?

  58. avatar
    The Magic M April 24, 2011 at 10:53 am #

    And, I forgot, does it ever occur to you that even your most die-hard birfers can’t get off their lazy a**es to go to a protest march? I read one of them say at the Pest And E-Fail something along the lines of “I couldn’t afford a hotel in DC”.
    Well, young people going to a rock concert can take the effort of sleeping in their damn car! And you so-called “fighters for the Constitution” can’t even do the same for something that is allegedly soooo important to you and the world? You are nothing but pathetic keyboard artists. You are as much a patriot as Vanilla Ice is a gangsta rapper.

  59. avatar
    MichaelN April 24, 2011 at 5:21 pm #

    In the blogarsphere over the past month, I notice a huge increase in participation from folk who have joined the chorus of questioning Obama’s ‘transparency’ and expressing their desire to see him prove his eligibility.

    It shouldn’t be too long now and with the growing number of people becoming aware of the Obama fraud it will reach critical mass.

  60. avatar
    MichaelN April 24, 2011 at 5:26 pm #

    8% and rising.

    “Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81213-52-say-obama-doesnt-deserve-reelection-

  61. avatar
    MichaelN April 24, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

    4/24/2011

    Presidential Approval Index -16 (that’s a MINUS)

    Strongly Approve 23%

    Strongly Disapprove 39%

    Total Approve 48%

    Total Disapprove 52%

  62. avatar
    Joey April 24, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

    from politico.com
    “Birtherism: Where it all began”
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53563.html

  63. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 24, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    MichaelN:
    In the blogarsphere over the past month, I notice a huge increase in participation from folk who have joined the chorus of questioning Obama’s transparency’ and expressing their desire to see him prove his eligibility.

    It shouldn’t be too long now and with the growing number of people becoming aware of the Obama fraud it will reach critical mass.

    Mikey,

    A lot of light is being focused on the birthers right now – and I don’t think that you and your birther buddies are going to like the results (remember the saying about sunlight and disinfectant – birthers are going to find out that they’re the infection that all that attention will kill [or at least marginalize…]). There might be more birther activity on sites like this, but, if anything, the quality of your arguments (and their presentation) has declined as has the debunking turnaround time – I think you will find that this is a losing strategy from a point of view of persuading the uniformed to become birthers (and you don’t have a chance to convince anyone who’s been inoculated by the facts to become a birther…). In other words, I think that Hurricane ‘The Donald’ will turn out to have been the worst disaster to hit birtherstan ever (bigger than Orly’s sanctions, Lakin’s conviction, and the Ankeny decision combined…). Have fun circling the drain Mikey – it’s what happens to filth like you…

  64. avatar
    Sef April 24, 2011 at 5:38 pm #

    MichaelN: In the blogarsphere over the past month, I notice a huge increase in participation from folk who have joined the chorus

    In the trade, those are known as “sock puppets”.

  65. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 24, 2011 at 5:54 pm #

    Mikey,

    You’re clearly not intelligent enough to understand that polls are not an argument against eligibility – the only poll that matters happened 2 1/2 years ago (and another one is coming up next year), but President Obama was judged to be eligible by the people, the Electoral College, the 111th Congress, Dick the war criminal, and Chief Justice Roberts and the outcome of the next election wont change that fact. Face it – your arguments stunk, you told a bunch of lies and tried a bunch of dishonest tricks to sell them and the posters here rubbed your nose in your own $hit (because if we don’t you’ll never learn). Now your just trying to make an off-topic distraction for a bit until you go back to cutting and pasting the same inept legal theories and bigoted lies one more time…

  66. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 24, 2011 at 6:01 pm #

    Sef: In the trade, those are known as “sock puppets”.

    My (anecdotal) view is that there’s been a lot more activity from hard-core birthers lately and a more modest increase in new handles (some of which are undoubtably socks…). I have not, however, seen any evidence that they’ve learned not to get their hopes up from their many failures…

  67. avatar
    Joey April 24, 2011 at 6:02 pm #

    Obama’s fortunate that he has a year and a half before the next election and that his personal favorabilty ratings are higher than his job approval ratings. Lots of Americans like him personally but still want him to do a better job as president.
    http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_fav.htm

    Obama also benefits from the fact that most Americans have a much lower opinion of Congress than they do of the president.
    Congressional Job Approval from Rasmussen Reports.
    Folks rating Congress as “Excellent or Good” at 9%
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance

    The latest polls also show that the birther issue has only minor resonance with political independents, who Obama needs for reelection.
    http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_ad.htm

  68. avatar
    Joey April 24, 2011 at 6:08 pm #

    MichaelN:
    4/24/2011

    Presidential Approval Index-16 (that’s a MINUS)

    Strongly Approve23%

    Strongly Disapprove39%

    Total Approve48%

    Total Disapprove52%

    President Obama has a ways to go on the Rasmussen Presidential Job Approval Index (which only measures those who STRONGLY approve or STRONGLY disapprove, leaving out about more than a third of registered voters) before he gets to the MINUS 30 registered by his predecessor George W. Bush:
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval

  69. avatar
    Sef April 24, 2011 at 6:17 pm #

    Slartibartfast: My (anecdotal) view is that there’s been a lot more activity from hard-core birthers lately and a more modest increase in new handles (some of which are undoubtably socks…).I have not, however, seen any evidence that they’ve learned not to get their hopes up from their many failures…

    Yeah, I know. I was just pulling his chain.

  70. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 24, 2011 at 6:42 pm #

    Sef: Yeah, I know.I was just pulling his chain.

    Unfortunately Mikey (or whoever has their hand up his butt) isn’t smart enough to get the joke… In any case, I think we’ll soon be watching birthers dropping into the depths of ignorance with kicking and screaming and gnashing of teeth – got popcorn?

  71. avatar
    Rickey April 24, 2011 at 7:27 pm #

    Joey: President Obama has a ways to go on the Rasmussen Presidential Job Approval Index (which only measures those who STRONGLY approve or STRONGLY disapprove, leaving out about more than a third of registered voters) before he gets to the MINUS 30 registered by his predecessor George W. Bush:

    And other pollsters haven’t copied Rasmussen’s approach because they consider it a gimmick which has no predictive value.

  72. avatar
    Joey April 24, 2011 at 9:03 pm #

    Rickey: And other pollsters haven’t copied Rasmussen’s approach because they consider it a gimmick which has no predictive value.

    Yep, you are exactly right. But that doesn’t change the fact the George W. Bush sunk to a low of minus 33 in December of 2008 using the Rasmussen Presidential Approval Index gimmick.

  73. avatar
    Keith April 24, 2011 at 10:43 pm #

    Joey: Yep, you are exactly right. But that doesn’t change the fact the George W. Bush sunk to a low of minus 33 in December of 2008 using the Rasmussen Presidential Approval Index gimmick.

    It also doesn’t change the fact that in Australia, it often determines party policy and even causes leadership changes. After the Kevin Rudd led Labor won the 2007 election, the Liberal party (that is actually the conservative party in Australia) burned through three leaders before they settled on the guy who was doggedly undermining everyone who wasn’t him (Tony Abbot) – all based on the head-to-head preference polls.

    Then six months or so out from the election, the Labor party did the same thing and booted out Kevin Rudd – completely unheard of – he didn’t even get to defend his government at the polls after having scored an historic landslide.

    The result, of course, was a hung Parliament, with the government dependent on a couple of basically conservative independents who agreed to back the Labor party for government simply because they can’t stand Tony Abbot and his slime ball politics.

    To the independents extreme credit, they turned down outrageous bribes from Abbot to go his way. He had offered something like 4 billion dollars for a badly needed new hospital in Tasmania, but couldn’t explain where the money was going to come from when he was already on the back foot about a 4 billion dollar ‘black hole’ in his policy promises costings, The independents just laughed in his face.

  74. avatar
    Northland10 April 25, 2011 at 7:58 pm #

    MichaelN: 4/24/2011

    Presidential Approval Index -16 (that’s a MINUS)

    Strongly Approve 23%

    Strongly Disapprove 39%

    Total Approve 48%

    Total Disapprove 52%

    That is all well and good but approval numbers are not the best indicator of an eventual election. A majority may disapprove of a current President, but if the opposition cannot field a stronger candidate, he will be elected again. You may not believe it, but elections and the government are not all about President Obama.