Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Disingenuous Campaign Ad? From Obama? No!

Disingenuous Campaign Ad? From Obama? No!

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Well, President Barack Hussein Obama has finally begun his disingenuous/dishonest/outright lying campaign of television advertisements that tell part of the truth; just enough to fool Kool-Aid drinkers. In a campaign ad that is currently running in Virginia, he claims that his policies have promoted clean energy jobs and reduced the nation’s dependence on foreign oil while enduring unfounded attacks from the energy industry. He even has the chutzpah to promote his ethics record. And all of this in only 30 seconds! The ad is also running in Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Here is a link if you have a strong stomach and want to see the ad for yourself.

So let’s examine what Obama claims in the ad. Then I will provide what the late, great Paul Harvey used to call “the rest of the story.”

 

  • Claim: Secretive oil billionaires attacking President Obama   The Rest of the Story: The oil & gas industry in general, and the Koch brothers in particular, have been anything but secretive in their attacks on President Obama.
  •  

  • Claim: Implication that President Obama has created 2.7 million “clean energy industry” jobs    The Rest of the Story: While the number 2.7 million may be true, the ad cites a report from the Brookings Institute (page 4). That report says, “The clean economy, which employs some 2.7 million workers, encompasses a significant number of jobs in establishments spread across a diverse group of industries… Most clean economy jobs reside in mature segments that cover a wide swath of activities, including manufacturing and the provision of public services such as wastewater and mass transit. A smaller portion of the clean economy encompasses newer segments that respond to energy-related challenges. These include the solar photovoltaic (PV), wind, fuel cell, smart grid, biofuel, and battery industries.”  The report says that the “clean economy establishments added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010.” Let’s see, Obama was inaugurated in January, 2009, so his claim to any job created before he was inaugurated is an outright lie! Further, the report refers to “clean economy” jobs, not “clean energy” jobs. The great majority of the clean economy jobs are not in the clean energy industry. But as we have seen, Obama is quite adept at comparing apples and oranges.
  • Bottom line: any job, regardless of its nature, is claimed to belong to the clean energy industry.
  •  

  • Claim: Implication that Obama played a role in the increase in US domestic oil production   The Rest of the Story: Most domestic oil production growth was worked up, leased, drilled and plumbed-up for production over the last decade or more, long before he was inaugurated. His policies have actually done just the opposite: they have reduced production. Increases in production have come from two sources: Fracking of shale in the Baaken field: despite the EPA’s efforts to  stop fracking, the Baaken field continues to produce Gulf of Mexico: deepwater discoveries in the gulf that have been brought on line over the last three years were discovered years before Obama was inaugurated.
  •  

  • Claim: The US dependence on foreign oil is now below 50 percent   The Rest of the Story: While his claim may be true, the ad fails to explain why it is true: oil consumption is down because we remain in an economic recession/depression, something he promised to end if elected.
  •  

    Ethics? The ad says, “Independent watchdogs call this president’s record on ethics unprecedented.” The “unprecedented” line comes from a statement by a coalition of government watchdogs in 2009, just three months after Obama took office. It referred specifically to Obama’s promise to increase transparency and to end the revolving door of former lobbyists becoming presidential appointees. He kept neither promise. So much for ethics.

    This ad, though filled with innuendos, assumptions, half truths, and out-and-out lies, will play well with the dim-witted who will take President Barack Hussein Obama’s claims at face value, not bothering to do any kind of research and/or fact checking.

    But that’s just my opinion.

    Powered by

    About

    • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

      So how is this better or worse than any other campaign ad by any other politician?

    • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

      But shouldn’t we expect better from the most transparent president in history?

    • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

      Dan, I think if Obama changed his name to George Washington and started behaving thusly it wouldn’t make any difference to Warren.

    • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

      Nevertheless, I think he should try, but only after mature consideration and only in the fullness of time; perhaps when he has the Democrat nomination locked up and his current name is on all ballots.

    • Glenn Hussein Contrarian

      (1) On the Koch brothers attacking, how long did it take for them to admit they were bankrolling the supposedly-grassroots Tea Party? Those really big, really nice looking new buses are like nothing I’d ever seen from any real grassroots campaign I’ve ever heard of!

      (2) Why is it that earthquakes with close-by epicenters started when the fracking started, and stopped when the fracking stopped? Care to address that, Warren?

      (3) Seeing as how we’re now a net oil exporter – in other words, we export more oil than we import – we should be able to say we’re free from foreign oil, right? And how are we supposed to get to what the Republicans claim is the best way to energy independence – “drill, baby, drill” – if we export more oil than we import? Would you care to address that one either, Warren? Didn’t think so.

      (4) ‘Ethics’? Hm. Where’s your outrage against outright treason by Dick Cheney, and covered by Dubya? Where’s your outrage against Bush firing attorneys general for refusing to prosecute politicians for various types of voting fraud even though the judges pointed out there was ZERO evidence to do so? Where’s your outrage against Iran-Contra? Obama hasn’t been perfect by any means, but anything he’s done wrong is truly small potatoes compared to those three fiascoes!

      (5) And where’s your outrage for thousands of our troops – and over a hundred thousand innocent Iraqi men, women, and children – being killed in an invasion that Bush was already planning ten days after he took the oath of office (and eight months before 9/11)…and carried out even though he was being told that the Iraqis didn’t have nukes?

      Warren, EVERY president all the way back to George Hussein Washington and Abraham Hussein Lincoln had dirty laundry…but when you focus only on the one you hate, it blinds you to what your own do that is sometimes much, much worse, and you lose all sense of perspective.

    • Glenn Hussein Contrarian

      Doc –

      Good idea, and please take my imitation as the flattery it is.

    • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

      The new handle suits you, Glenn. Interestingly enough, there is a (now retired) soccer player of that name who used to play for Liverpool.

      Of course, he’s Swedish and spells his name Hysen, but still.

    • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

      Re: comments # 1, 3, 5, and 6, Dr. Hussein Deadful and Glenn Hussein Contranian, In the “can’t refute the argument so try to change the subject” department, y’all are exposing prejudices!

      Dan Miller is correct.

    • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

      Dan Miller may be correct, but the bottom line is that Obama is a politician. Making empty promises is part of the job description.

      With that in mind, I look forward to your equally nitpicky articles during the next Republican administration.

    • Clavos

      I think if Obama changed his name to George Washington and started behaving thusly it wouldn’t make any difference to Warren.

      Nor should it. He’d still be the same liberal Democrat.

      And what was so great about Washington as president anyway? He had to be drafted into the job, and then he did nothing.

    • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

      I find the meme “my guy is no more dirty than your guy” rather depressing, having been told, repeatedly, that we would have “change” for the better. Now I hear that President Obama is a politician. Making empty promises is part of the job description.

      Dear me. How and when does the transition from politician to president to statesman occur? Soon after death or is there a waiting period?

    • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

      Re: comment #11, Dan, very good comment and observation. I anxiously await Doc’s and Glenn’s responses.

    • Glenn Contrarian

      Hm. Let me see here. One guy has a campaign ad that is at worst questionable, and the other guy invades a nation on false pretenses and leaves over 100,000 dead men, women, and children.

      No, I’m not saying “my politician is no worse than your politician”. I’m saying my politician is a damn sight BETTER than your politician who SHOULD be standing in front of the Hague on war crimes charges!

    • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

      Glen, you respond,

      One guy has a campaign ad that is at worst questionable, and the other guy invades a nation on false pretenses and leaves over 100,000 dead men, women, and children.

      I hadn’t been aware that former President Bush was again seeking office. As to your apparent view that invading a nation on false pretenses and leaves over 100,000 dead men, women, and children was duplicitous, that argument has been and will continue to be made and disputed. As I recall, he had substantial bipartisan support for the invasion. In any event, I fail to see how it supports this defense:

      the bottom line is that Obama is a politician. Making empty promises is part of the job description.

    • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

      Dan (and Warren): Obama is not “my guy”. I’m not American, remember.

      But I do know bullshit when I see it.

    • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

      Re: comment #15, Dr Hussein Dreadful, What is, as you say, bullshit? Is it Obama’s campaign ad, or Dan’s and my comments, and my article?

      BTW, adding “Hussein” to your comment name is quite humorous.

    • Deano

      Gosh, a political ad that spins and skews facts….I’ve never heard of such a thing!

      I must retire to my salon, I am having an attack of the vapours…..

    • Glenn Contrarian

      Dan –

      No, you cannot blame the Iraq invasion on anyone but Bush – remember that they fed knowingly false information even to Colin Powell that he presented to the U.N., and he was furious about it.

      And no, Bush isn’t running for office now…but the point is that y’all are SO insistent on focusing on what Obama may or may not be doing wrong, but where were y’all when Bush was doing stuff that was immeasurably worse? Where were y’all when Bush was allowing Cheney to literally get away with treason? Where were y’all?

      No, since Bush/Cheney was on YOUR side with that (R) behind their names, you might gripe about it a little bit, but did you rise up in righteous anger after finding out how greatly you’d been deceived? Of course not. But if Obama doesn’t wear a flag pin, well, THAT’s unforgivable.

      The hypocrisy of the Republican party is epic.

    • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

      Glen, you complain,

      y’all are SO insistent on focusing on what Obama may or may not be doing wrong, but where were y’all when Bush was doing stuff that was immeasurably worse? Where were y’all when Bush was allowing Cheney to literally get away with treason? Where were y’all?

      Unfortunately, we have to live in the present and thereby try to make the future better. It’s fine to look to President Bush as a bad example for the future should you want to do so, but to use what you consider as his malfeasance to excuse whatever President Obama may do makes little sense. President Obama is seeking reelection; former President Bush is not.

      As to where was I when President Bush was doing all those things you consider bad? The invasion of Iraq began in March of 2003. My wife and I were then in Panama, establishing our lives here. Back then, I had little interest in what was going on internationally. Now that I have the leisure to write, I am quite interested — more so in the present and the future than in the past.

    • Zingzing

      how convenient. and a mountain might be a molehill if you’ve never seen a mountain.

    • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

      Zingzing,

      Even a “molehill” obstructing our path forward can present more serious difficulties than does a “mountain” seen by looking over our shoulders in another direction.

      “Mountain” man, former President Bush, is behind us for better or worse. “Molehill” man, President and candidate Obama, is before us. Hopefully, he will soon be behind us as well.

    • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

      Since so many here on the right are concerned about politicians telling the complete truth, I can’t wait for the articles detailing the lies Republican candidates told during last night’s debate.

    • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

      Re #22 — Only those on the right? That’s probably correct but nevertheless unfortunate. In any event, you need only read what the omniscient major media have to say. Then, if it’s not too much trouble, you might consider whether the media are correct. Or, if that’s too much trouble, just look at what Gingrich and Romney have to say about each other.

    • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

      Nice job passing the buck. What a surprise your concern for the truth turned out to be one-sided and disingenuous. You should create campaign ads.

    • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

      Re # 24 — “Passing the Buck” — where do you imagine it is supposed to stop? Remember the sign briefly displayed on former President Truman’s desk? I rather liked it even though he (as distinguished from President Obama but like former President Bush) is not currently running for reelection.

      “Disingenuous.” That’s a good word. Do you know what it means? Is our President immune to that label? Perhaps he is. Perhaps you might enjoy explaining why he should be.

    • http://blogcritics.org/writers/joseph-cotto/ Joseph Cotto

      “….President Barack Hussein Obama….”

      Warren,

      If you honestly want to reach a wide audience, this sort of transparently bigoted brand of insult has no place. I assume that when you factually point out inaccuracies in the President’s campaign rhetoric, you do so because you want to persuade people unsure about voting for him this November to your side of the argument. Moderates, however, see this kind of nonsense and immediately discredit the following content, regardless of the validity had by it.

      Even though you are not, as you mentioned before, a registered Republican, this sort of inflammatory rhetoric collectively paints a strongly negative portrayal of everyone to Obama’s right. Unless you want to preach to the choir, in which case you would probably be posting over at RedState or Free Republic, it would not be a bad idea to tone it down a bit and make your message more palatable to the silent, but nonetheless sizable, majority.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Can’t help but agree with Dan. Obama never billed himself as just another politician but as an agent for change. The fact that he disappointed the true Left more so than the Right is only incidental and of no relevance to this discussion.

      In any case, that standard we set for the sitting president are always higher, they ought to be higher, than those we tend to apply to the would-be contenders. So if the campaign ads in question are indeed misleading, shame on Mr. O. And to be justifying the situation by saying it’s business as usual is a kind of cynicism that cuts its nose to spite its face. It amounts to saying that things are rotten in the state of Denmark and that they’re destined to remain rotten. In which case, one might simply ask: Why even bother trying to support or justify Mr. O, or anybody else for that matter, if they’re all irredeemable rascals?

      And no, I’m not going to fall for the relative good or evil argument here, that one rotten apple is better than another even more rotten apple. It’s the argument of a scoundrel.

    • Igor

      23- Dan(Miller)is out-of-date: the modern MSM is very biased to the right and dominated by conservatives.

      If it’s sunday it’s rightist talk

      January 25, 2012 2:50 PM
      If it’s Sunday…

      Media Matters has, on more than one occasion, documented the extent to which Sunday morning shows rely heavily on Republican guests. This week, Roll Call took a crack at it, referencing its own database of lawmakers’ television appearances.

      Not surprisingly, Roll Call found, “If you were watching the major Sunday morning talk shows last year, your odds of seeing a Republican Member of Congress in the guest chair were far greater than seeing a Democratic Member of Congress.”

      … in 2011, the GOP lawmakers captured 64 percent of the Congressional appearances on the five shows that Roll Call tracks, and every network featured more Republican lawmakers than Democrats. Of 330 Congressional appearances tallied by Roll Call last year, 210 went to Republicans and only 120 went to Democrats, fewer if you subtract the eight appearances made by Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Independent who caucuses with Democrats.

      A 210 to 120 margin isn’t exactly close.

      The answer, I suspect, has a lot to do with what Josh Marshall described many years ago as the way in which the political establishment is “wired’ for Republicans, major outlets routinely place more importance on GOP opinions and perspectives, so it stands to reason they’ll invite more GOP officials on to the Sunday shows.

      Something to keep in mind the next time someone complains about the “liberal” media.

      Media Matters

      Special Report: How the Right Continues to Dominate the Sunday Talk Shows

      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
      ..
      In order to assess the balance of voices on these programs, Media Matters for America classified every guest appearing on these programs during 2005 and 2006 (over 2,000 appearances in all) by their party affiliation and ideology …

      The results show that the right has a distinct advantage in determining the shape of the debate on Sunday morning. During the years of the 109th Congress, Republicans and conservatives far outnumbered their Democratic and progressive counterparts on the Sunday-morning talk shows.

      Meet the Press and Face the Nation have both performed poorly since the election, with both their overall guest list and the list of administration and elected officials featured on the shows skewing to the right.

      Face the Nation had the most balanced collection of journalists (because it brings on mostly neutral reporters) and the most balanced panels, but it leaned furthest to the right among the three major network programs in its solo interviews and its overall guest list.

      OTHER KEY FINDINGS

      Republicans and conservatives dramatically outnumbered Democrats and progressives on the Sunday shows in 2005 and 2006, by a margin of 44 percent to 27 percent

      Fox News Sunday’s journalist panels are the most lopsided, with a typical lineup consisting of two or even three conservatives, one neutral reporter, and one progressive. But even on ABC, NBC, and CBS, conservative journalists were nearly twice as likely as their progressive counterparts to appear on the Sunday shows.

      DO THE NETWORKS UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM?

      This study follows up one Media Matters released a year ago, titled, “If It’s Sunday, It’s Conservative.”

      Although their arguments about the Clinton years being the mirror image of the Bush years were simply mistaken (Republicans and conservatives actually had a small advantage during the second Clinton term, which turned into a yawning gap once Bush took office; see the prior report for
      shows. This question has absolutely nothing to do with which party controls either end of Pennsylvania Avenue. The imbalance existed on all the Sunday-morning shows when Bill Clinton was president, and has continued throughout the presidency of George W. Bush.

      PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
      INTRODUCTION

      On the weekend after the 2006 midterm elections, in which Democrats scored a resounding victory by taking both houses of Congress, viewers tuned in to Meet the Press, the most popular Sunday talk show, only to find that Tim Russert did not see fit to interview any Democrats. His guests that day were Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) — one of the most common Sunday-show interviewees — and Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who had left the Democratic Party after losing a primary.

      The consequences of the ideological imbalance on the Sunday shows are obvious. The shows occupy a singular place in the American media landscape. Their audience of a combined 12 million or so viewers includes virtually the entire journo-political establishment. The discussions held on the shows frequently determine the scope of official debate in Washington, legitimizing some views and — by nature of their absence — marginalizing others.

      In light of the clear advantage conservatives and Republicans have enjoyed on the Sunday shows, Media Matters asks whether the networks are serving the public well in providing such a lopsided representation of the national discourse.

      ALL FOUR SUNDAY SHOWS SKEWED RIGHT

      Throughout the years of the 109th Congress, the four Sunday shows displayed a troublesome pattern: Republicans and conservatives outnumbered Democrats and progressives in every category, on every program, across the board….

      GOP Rules Talk-Show Circuit

      By Paul Singer and Blake Whitney
      Roll Call Staff
      Jan. 24, 2012, Midnight

      Republicans appear to have owned the morning news cycle in 2011.

      If you were watching the major Sunday morning talk shows last year, your odds of seeing a Republican Member of Congress in the guest chair were far greater than seeing a Democratic Member of Congress.
      GOP lawmakers appeared on the Sunday shows nearly twice as often as Democratic lawmakers in 2011, a dominance far greater than the prior two years, according to a Roll Call database of Members’ television appearances.

      Roll Call’s “Face Time” feature has for many years tracked appearances of Members of Congress on five major Sunday talk shows: “Face the Nation” on CBS, NBC’s “Meet the Press,” ABC’s “This Week,” CNN’s “State of the Union” and “Fox News Sunday.”

      But in 2011, the GOP lawmakers captured 64 percent of the Congressional appearances on the five shows that Roll Call tracks, and every network featured more Republican lawmakers than Democrats. Of 330 Congressional appearances tallied by Roll Call last year, 210 went to Republicans and only 120 went to Democrats,

      Three Republican Senators and one Democrat have been among the top 10 talkers each of the past three years: Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
      Among them, McConnell, McCain and Graham made 251 appearances on the Sunday shows from the start of 2006 through last year. The top three Democratic talkers in the same period, Durbin, Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y) and then-Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.), made a total of 155 appearances, according to the Roll Call tally.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      For the life of me, I can’t seem to understand why the BC left is so adamant about coming to Mr. O’s defense in light of the thus far rather mediocre performance in office. To say that the Right had prevented Mr. O from accomplishing all he set himself to accomplish is a no-go argument; and it’s certainly not going to become any more convincing come 2012 than it is today, in the event Mr. O gets reelected. Not only he’s bound to remain lame duck for the remainder of the term; and given the composition of both Houses, which is unlikely to favor the Democrats, we’re looking to another four years of do-nothing Congress. It would appear the Left is mainly masochistic in its motive, more intent on preserving the target for its discontent in the hated Right than in trying to move this nation forward. (I’m not even addressing the Right, for that’s another story.)

    • Glenn Contrarian

      Obama’s “rather mediocre performance”? Gee, that wouldn’t have anything to do with the most obstructionist Congress since the beginning of the Civil War, now would it? NO president since Lincoln has had to work with such an obstructionist Congress, and NO president since FDR has had such a mess when he took oath. Put the two together, and Obama’s faced one of the worst situations of any new president in all of America’s history! Yet all you can do is say how bad he did!

      To you, Obama’s ‘mediocre performance’ wouldn’t have anything to do with the FAR higher number of filibusters since the first week Obama took office, would it? It wouldn’t have anything to do with a bunch of Tea Party congressmen refusing to even allow John Boehner to work with Obama on raising the debt limit, now would it?

      And then there are the accomplishments under this administration – General Motors saved and now once more the biggest car company in the world, never mind that the Right wanted to let it tank and die. Our economy isn’t exactly healthy, but it’s among the best – or at least ‘least bad’ – when compared to what’s going on in Europe…and most economists agree that the stimulus, if anything, was too SMALL..but we’re not in a depression which is exactly where we were headed on the day he took office and you know it. The Dow is almost twice what it was at its lowest point before the stimulus was passed.

      And then there’s Obamacare…which was a REPUBLICAN idea from the get-go, but they’re too chicken to own up to it, much less own it. Universal health care has been a Democratic goal for many decades, but it was Obama who got it passed. There’s also the consumer protection agency – which can only start working now that Obama was able to sneak through a recess appointment.

      We’re out of Iraq, bin Laden and a whole passel of other al Qaeda miscreants are dead, Qaddafi’s dead…

      …Roger, if a GOP president had a like number of accomplishments, the Republican party would be shouting for joy from the rooftops! But since he’s got a (D) after his name, well, we can’t give him credit for squat, can we?

      When you start giving him credit for his accomplishments as well as his failures (like Gitmo and the NDAA), then I’ll take you seriously. Until then, you’re just another dittohead who can only see the bad without seeing the very real good.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Glenn, get it through your head, I don’t post my comments here for your pleasure or displeasure. Whether you take me seriously or not is the least of my concerns.

    • Jordan Richardson

      Yeah, Obama’s such a lame duck.

      Glenn, I have to applaud you for hanging around these parts. You’ve taken more abuse than probably anyone and remain stalwart in your principles and ethics, even when people consistently misrepresent and degrade them. You’re a more patient man than I. Keep fighting the good fight, your heart is in the right place.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      There was not an iota of abuse, Jordan, in my response to Glenn, unless you think I ought to concern myself with his thoughts and gear my responses accordingly.

      Yes, he’s been a lame duck even during the first term. He could have aligned himself with the most progressive forces of the Left, Republican opposition or not, and that would have guaranteed him his base, win or lose. But as it stands, neither the radical Left, nor the middle class, nor the Right support him. All told, whatever his original strategy, it misfired. He got outclassed and outmaneuvered. Tried to be all things to all people – a basic character flow, IMO.

      Well, one just can’t do that.

    • Glenn Contrarian

      Jordan –

      Thanks – I appreciate that. It means a lot.

    • Jordan Richardson

      neither the radical Left, nor the middle class, nor the Right support him.

      Insanely untrue.

    • Jordan Richardson

      Also, Roger, my post to Glenn didn’t mention you – unless you think it should’ve.

    • Arch Conservative

      “No, you cannot blame the Iraq invasion on anyone but Bush”

      So Glenn, whenever Congress authorizes the use of our military, they’re not to be held responsible?

      Good to know.

      This website gets more worthless every day.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      @35

      Really. I have no idea, Jordan, what’s your conception of America’s middle class, but it’s surely different from mine — and I do count here all those who have been foreclosed on their homes in that number. Mr. O had done diddly squat for these people. As to the radical Left, I’m certainly not considering people like Glenn or Handy as representative of its views.

      And yes, you haven’t mentioned me, I agree. But since we’re on subject, it was Glenn who called me a dittohead, by way of bolstering his argument.

      Not exactly the most stalwart and principled behavior on the part of your comrade-in-arms.

    • Glenn Contrarian

      Arch –

      Do you remember that Colin Powell was given false info on Iraq by Bush, that Bush knew it was false info, and that Powell presented it to the U.N. to give them a reason why we should invade Iraq? Look it up sometime.

      And did you know that ten days after he took the Oath of Office (and more than eight months before 9/11) Bush was already discussing ‘regime change’ in Iraq, and how the oil fields would be divvied up among Big Oil? Look that one up, too.

      No, Arch, the blame for Iraq belongs squarely on Bush’s shoulders. He not only lied to the people, but he even lied to Congress about the (non-existent) threat…and thousands of American military and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children paid for his lies with their very lives.

      There is NO good reason why he isn’t in front of the Hague for war crimes – including TORTURE (which Congress had ZERO part in approving).

      So don’t give me your excuses for Bush. You’ll lose every time.

    • Glenn Contrarian

      Roger –

      I called you a ‘dittohead’ because you’re acting just like one of what Rush Limbaugh proudly calls his ‘dittoheads’ (Google “my dittoheads” if you don’t believe me) who agree with everything he says, that Obama has done everything wrong and nothing right and deserves zero credit for anything good and all blame for everything bad.

      So it’s only an insult if you disagree with what Limbaugh says about Obama…and so far, it seems to me you agree with Limbaugh straight down the line when it comes to Obama.

      Now if you want insults, all I really have to do is dig back into your comments in the past couple years, for in quite a few of them I can point out much more obvious insults you made towards me.

      And good morning to you, Roger!

    • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

      Glenn Hussein Contrarian, I ask again: are you for real? Or does BC include your comments for comic relief?

      Here is a typical, very funny, quite opiniated comment from you: “You’ll lose every time.”

    • Glenn Contrarian

      And Roger –

      When it comes to those who had their homes foreclosed, who was it that fought tooth-and-nail to PREVENT Obama from passing legislation to help homeowners, to prevent lenders from making predatory loans? Ah, but I forget! Thou shalt not hold the Republicans liable for not allowing any legislation to get to Obama’s desk for him to sign, huh?

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      I don’t care what you call me, Glenn, or why.

      In any case, the remark was directed at Jordan, to remind him of your stalwart behavior.

    • Igor

      Glenn presents the best researched articles with the best supporting argumentation that there is on BC.

      Most of his critics are just screaming hysterics.

    • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

      Igor, I ask the same question of you: are you for real?

    • zingzing

      et tu, beatty?

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Igor suffers from the same disease that Glenn does: rabid empiricism.

      While it may be admirable to be able to support one’s argument with factual documentation, the latter does nothing to bolster the argument if the premises are never questioned. Not to mention the truism that “facts” themselves, their significance and meaning, are interpreted in light of those premises.

      It’s like building on sand.

    • http://blogcritics.org/writers/joseph-cotto/ Joseph Cotto

      Warren,

      I am still awaiting your take on how the President can be defeated via usage of bombastic rhetoric and ethnic insults when these very things repel the moderate majority necessary for denying him a second term. Until you post a reasoned reply to my query, I will have to assume that you have no serious interest in seeing Obama lose this November and are, in effect, simply playing far-right reindeer games. If this is the case, why not take them over to RedState or Free Republic where you are sure to find a more receptive audience?

    • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

      Funny to read Warren Caricature Beatty asking if others are real considering what a cartoon character he comes off as.

      “The fact that he disappointed the true Left more so than the Right”

      That’s a fact? I question it because you state “all those who have been foreclosed on their homes in that number. Mr. O had done diddly squat for these people” which is demonstrably false as a simple Google search will reveal.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Really, El Bicho. Rather than referring me to a Google search, why don’t you try to disprove instead the rate of foreclosures for the past three years or so and counting?

      I would grant you your point then.

      In any case, see you in November.

    • Igor

      #47-Roger, is the strangest argument I’ve ever read on BC.

      And then it is countered by Roger himself in #50.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Why, Igor? Mustering facts in support of your convictions, especially when the latter remained unexamined, should be more than familiar to most everyone. It’s what passes nowadays for thinking.

      Rationalization is another term for it.

    • Jordan Richardson

      I have no idea, Jordan, what’s your conception of America’s middle class, but it’s surely different from mine — and I do count here all those who have been foreclosed on their homes in that number. Mr. O had done diddly squat for these people.

      Again, insanely untrue. I get tired of trotting out the link of what Obama’s done so far, especially in light of the fact that you aren’t going to look at it.

      It’s has nothing to with my conception of a particular “class” or even yours. It has to do with your inaccurate claims about Obama’s presidency.

      As to the radical Left, I’m certainly not considering people like Glenn or Handy as representative of its views.

      No, surely not. You’re the only real “radical” among us. We know.

      it was Glenn who called me a dittohead, by way of bolstering his argument.

      Awww, poor Roger.

      Not exactly the most stalwart and principled behavior on the part of your comrade-in-arms.

      I care because?

      And as a bonus:

      why don’t you try to disprove instead the rate of foreclosures for the past three years or so and counting?

      So the “rate of foreclosures” is your metric for Obama “doing diddly squat” for the middle class? I smell bullshit.

    • Jordan Richardson

      Roger, the art of putting your convictions before facts and reality is not as laudable a thing as you think it is. You’re bending the truth to suit your personal needs.

    • Jordan Richardson

      As far as what Obama has done about the foreclosure issue thus far: HARP and HAMP come to mind, although I’m sure we could argue about the efficacy of those programs.

      And there’s this, a plan to help “underwater” homeowners refinance at lower rates.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Of course I’m bending the truth, Jordan with #52, but it’s impossible to give the full account of the process in a one- or two-liner. If Igor’s got sense enough, he’s got to be able to read in between the lines and fill in the gaps.

      As to your sanctimonious tone in your preceding so-called comment,” you do know where you can take it.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      @55

      Right, three dollars short and three years too late. So I’ll simply retort with the all familiar by now slogan:

      Banks got bailed out, we got sold out!

      See ya in November.

    • Jordan Richardson

      The slogan’s nice and even accurate, but what does it have to do with what we’re talking about.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      It’s got to do with the very thrust of Mt. O’s administration from the get-go, or rather, absence of the right kind of thrust, I should say.

      Really should visit my latest article, Jordan, especially for the references to David Graeber’s book on the history of debt. It’s a fairly concise critique of the “good liberal works” on behalf of the people, Jordan. It makes for hell of a reading as well, for the historical, anthropological and conceptual perspectives.

      Not my article, of course, but Graeber’s book.

    • Jordan Richardson

      The Bush administration enacted TARP and it was up to the Obama administration to dish it out, if that’s what you’re talking about.

      I’m not going to visit your latest article.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Don’t care, Jordan, whether you do or you don’t, so long as we understand each other.

      And for how long now are we going to be blaming Bush for the absence of the right kind of public policy to rectify the mistakes of the past?

      Just askin’

    • Jordan Richardson

      As long as it’s applicable and factual, I figure.

      Is the “absence of the right kind of public policy” the fault of Obama’s? He didn’t enact or draw up TARP (the bank bailout). Bush gave out what was being termed as “opportunity capital,” essentially without instructions. Obama had to try to wield it and administer it. He tried to hold things in, like the $500,000 cap on executive pay that “dismayed” Wall Street, but how much can you really do when a giant clusterfuck is already out in the open? The stimulus included more attempts to reign in executive salaries, an unpopular move that rather sloppily tried to address the issue.

      So when you talk about things like foreclosures and bank bailouts, the picture is a lot more complicated than blaming one guy or another. The failure is systemic, going back far before TARP giveaways and to the very introduction of the sort of “lemon socialism” enacted in the United States and elsewhere.

      There’s no magic button, no super candidate that’s going to change that culture overnight. But there are measures, good ones, that can be taken (and have been taken) to begin to reign in the failures and protect the poor and working class impacted most by the corruption and inequity seemingly inherent in the American political system.

      I’m no Obama fan, really. I’ve been very critical of him in the past and will continue to be in the future, but I don’t think he’s been a lame duck president and I do think he’s tried to do more than “diddly squat” to help Americans.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Jordan, let me be plain.

      Of course the failure was and continues to be systemic, and here am I, pressing for radical solutions, damn me.

      Well, nationalizing the banks, if only temporarily, would be one option, and it could have been on the table. Do you really mean to say no one could devise a viable plan to forestall the foreclosures? But no, it simply didn’t occur to anyone that it might have been the right thing to do. Sorry, O had surrounded himself from the beginning with Wall Street guys, and Wall Street was deemed the first thing in need of saving. So no, I don’t buy Glenn’s theory that this administration has done all it could for the people. It flies in the face of facts. I wouldn’t care if Obama had failed had he only tried. I would have been supportive of him to this very day. But he didn’t try, and now that the political season is upon us, he goes through the motion of trying, plus all the usual rhetoric. That’s exactly what I meant when I said three dollars short and three years to late. Sorry, I don’t buy it.

      But then again, I don’t see why anyone should as there is virtually no difference who occupies the White House or is the party of power.Both represent the establishment; everything else is an illusion.

    • Jordan Richardson

      Do you really think that the United States power structures would have gone for nationalization of the banks, Roger? Seriously? In this political climate with these political entanglements? It’s a nice dream, but that’s really all it is.

      I’m sure there were plenty of things that occurred to Obama and Bush and all presidents that would be the “right things to do,” but there are myriad reasons these “right things” don’t seem to get done.

      Of course, you answer your own questions with your last two sentences. What boggles my mind is why you think Obama’s done nothing. HARP was in play in March of 2009, for instance. I think he tried to get on top of things as best he knew how, but being an establishment guy (like all politicians) his options were and will always be inherently limited by virtue of the position.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      And to top it off, if you say there is no magic button, then what’s the sense of praising or blaming anyone for their performance in office? And in light of that fact, anyone’s performance is bound to be mediocre, which is how I characterized it.

      Indeed, what better term is there given there is no opportunity, by your own admission, for any one individual to shine? What standards should I use then to speak of O’s performance? The standard that Glenn uses — the ole bad Republicans? But there’s nothing praiseworthy about that since it’s all- comparative, a matter of choosing between the lesser of the two evils.

      So no, thank you. I’ll stick to my mediocre term. It’s the best term under the circumstances, and that’s as generous I can possibly be.

    • Jordan Richardson

      then what’s the sense of praising or blaming anyone for their performance in office?

      So because there are existing parameters, there’s no reason to ascribe criticism or praise? Sounds silly to me. We judge leaders on their ability to lead under the circumstances, I think. Or we should.

      Even you, rascally radical that you are, would have trouble enacting your provisions in the current political system. Most of your ideas would never go through into policy and you would be a rather mediocre president.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      We judge leaders in how they respond to situations of crisis. Lincoln, FDR, LBJ — loved or hated, they’ve all been defined by the crisis they faced. Now, you’re telling me that Obama tried but that the odds were against him. Well, so he did.

      On your account, Jordan, human history should be uneventful, but this has not been the case, and you know it.

      I don’t know what else to say other than you seem to know more than most as to what is and what is not possible. Good for you, but don’t welcome me to your world.

    • Jordan Richardson

      We judge leaders in how they respond to situations of crisis.

      Yep, that’s another way of wording what I said.

      Most of the rest of your post makes no sense, though.

      What do you mean by “my world?” Do you think there’s a magic button? Do you think your policies would stand a ghost of a chance in the American political system? “Human history should be uneventful?” What does that even mean?

      I’m not telling you “the odds” were against Obama at all.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Jordan, since you seem to know more than I what’s possible or not possible in Washington, I don’t see that we’re going to get anywhere, especially in light of your disclaimer that the rest of my post makes no sense. I certainly don’t cherish to be repeating myself, and I don’t think you do either.

    • Jordan Richardson

      Roger, you’ve said countless times that you’re disillusioned with the process in Washington. You know what’s going on doesn’t work; almost the entire premise of your worldview is based on that matter, that’s why you’re a “radical.” You refuse to accept the status quo that fails to serve the people and rightly so. I thought we were in agreement on that point.

      Now, however, you seem to suggest it’s “my world” and that I “know more” than you do about what is and isn’t possible. That boggles the mind.

      Again, do you honestly think your policies would stand a ghost of a chance in the American political system? It’s not that difficult a question, is it?

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      I have no idea, Jordan, what might or might not work. You’re the one who’s saying things in the affirmative, not I, so it shouldn’t boggle the mind. All I know it, the three years of this administration didn’t convince the people. OWS is but one example that the leadership has failed.

      But to backtrack a couple of years, the old NY major, Spitzer, I believe, was the most hated man on Wall Street; and if Spitzer’s administration did rein in in some respect on those guys, I really fail to see why policies originating from the White House should not.

      So yes, it is a difficult question for me to answer because speaking truly, I don’t know. But apparently you already know the answer, fat chance, and so I will defer since it’s already 5AM my time and I’ve yet to see the movie I’m watching to its conclusion.

    • Jordan Richardson

      Nobody’s forcing you to respond, Roger.

      It must be nice to be so positive about the way things work in Washington, Roger. Call me a cynic, but I’m 99 percent certain that there’s no chance in hell that the policies you or I would like to see enacted would ever fly with the establishment crowd.

      Eliot Spitzer backed Occupy Wall Street (he was the governor of New York) and, as attorney general, certainly hounded white collar criminals. And yes, he pissed off some Wall Streeters (enough to get sued for $90 million for “libel”), but in terms of passing policy he hit a number of systemic roadblocks.

      When it came to filling executive appointments, for instance, he was defeated by the state legislature because his ideas went against the NYC constitution.

      And he increased state payroll, digging a deficit from his 2007 budget. In that year, New York led the US in lost jobs.

      His reputation as a “steamroller” was said to have “only added to political gridlock,” while his proposal to legalize same sex marriage got jammed up in the state senate and kicked back to the assembly.

      So yeah, maybe he was the “most hated man on Wall Street” for a time, but with a 33 percent approval rating on his way out the door and predictions that he would’ve even lost an election to Bloomberg (!!), I wouldn’t say that got him much. And the effects? Negligible. He didn’t “reign in” shit, least of all the nebulous concept of respect from “those guys,” because everything he tried to do got hung up in the usual shitty webbing of American politics.

      Policies originating from the White House, on the other hand, did try to crush down executive pay (as I pointed out in #62) and “dismayed” Wall Street. Obama’s been branded a socialist for these sorts of policies, Roger, but do you think he’s “reigned in respect” by slapping them around? Sure doesn’t look that way.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Jordan, if one’s gonna to branded a socialist, one would do best to live up to that name. One may as well gain populist support in return. The time was ripe.

      As it stands, how much has Obama received thus far from Goldman Sachs in campaign contributions? There goes the myth of Obama the populist.

      Still, you’re harping on executive pay. I say, the stimulus money should be used to bail out the faltering homeowners. Just as GM was put into receivership, so should Goldman Sachs, AIG, B of A, the Citybank, and all others. And all the while, not one instance of criminal charges brought up by DOJ against the fraudulent bastards.

      So you say none of it could be done; I say it wasn’t even tried.

      We’re not going to resolve this disagreement, Jordan. I’m done.

    • Jordan Richardson

      if one’s gonna to branded a socialist, one would do best to live up to that name.

      Misses the point entirely.

      I strongly doubt Obama would’ve won “populist support” by living up to being a “socialist.” Considering the caustic climate of the country, it was bad enough that he was even touched ever so lightly with the Muslim brush.

      There goes the myth of Obama the populist.

      Of course, nobody but the Right and the banking elite say that he actually is a populist or a socialist.

      I’m “harping on executive pay” as an example of what he’s done to somewhat muzzle Wall Street, Roger. This is in light of your comments that he’s done nothing.

      I agree as to what you think should be done, but we’re back at the start: what should be done and what can be done are two very different things in this political climate.

      Again, HARP and HAMP were put in play in 2009 – a year after TARP. Republicans went to town on every aspect of Obama’s homeowner relief plans (you even ignore their existence and still try to tag Obama for the bank bailout) from the start.

      So you’re wrong to suggest that it wasn’t even tried, Roger.

      You’re also wrong to suggest that the DOJ is doing nothing against the likes of Goldman Sachs. There are numerous investigations underway and the simplest of Internet searches would reveal those facts.

      The reason we’re not going to resolve this disagreement is because you won’t admit to the facts and you stunningly and for some strange reason (I suggest it’s merely to be argumentative) won’t admit to the fact that Washington is a labyrinth of idiotic policy, obstruction, stupidity, and corruption. In that environment, it’s a wonder anything gets done.

    • Clavos

      …Washington is a labyrinth of idiotic policy, obstruction, stupidity, and corruption.

      QFT

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Only partly true, Clavos, only partly true. It all starts at the core, at the center. Your local politics ain’t no better. What results in Washington is only magnified nth-fold from what transpires in every stinkin’ township and hamlet. Corruption is always (well, almost always) homegrown.

    • Igor

      Pursuant to my point in #27 above, the MSM is indeed very rightist in this day and age. I just turned on my TV (a rarity on sunday morning) and the FOX station has Gingrich all over, and Face The Nation is ALL republican. Now you might claim that the rep primaries justify all the rep talk, but the pres just gave the annual SOTU! And all I can find on sunday TV is rep primary and rep criticism of the SOTU.

      QED.

      As for you, Roger, you seem to have lost your moorings. In #27 I was NOT seeking to rationalize an opinion, but to find an opinion, which is why I consulted the neutral sources that I cited.

      Let me repeat, the modern MSM is very rightist. They have succeeded in a takeover.

      About a year ago I performed my own experiment: I listened to NPR for a day and recorded, second by second, how much time they gave to rightist vs. leftist opinions and it came out about 60% right and 40% left. It’s an easy experiment, you can do it yourself. Unless, of course, you’re too lazy, or so satisfied with your own prejudices that you fear doing it.

      In fact, anyone can do that experiment!

      Which among you is brave enough?

    • Igor

      Pursuant to my last post, I turned the TV and there’s “The McLaughlin Group” with FOUR (count ‘em four: Mort, John, Rick and Pat) rightists lined up against ONE leftist (Eleanor) with a weak voice they can easily drown out!

      Bah! I’m through with the All Republican Sunday morning TV! What a bunch of rightist propaganda.

      I’m going back what any person of taste and sensitivity is doing today: listening to great performances by Montserrat Figueras, the marvelous Catalan singer of ancient and Baroque songs who just died at 69. Here’s an obit: Montserrat Figueras

      What a great musical treasure she, along with her husband Jordi Savalle, has left!

      Anyone who saw the 1991 movie “Tous les Matins du Monde” and heard that gorgeous other-worldly music knows what I mean.

      And if you cannot respond to this great music, there is no hope for you.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      “The reason we’re not going to resolve this disagreement is because you won’t admit to the facts and you stunningly and for some strange reason (I suggest it’s merely to be argumentative) won’t admit to the fact that Washington is a labyrinth of idiotic policy, obstruction, stupidity, and corruption. In that environment, it’s a wonder anything gets done.” #74 Jordan Richardson

      Wrong, Jordan. More than you, I readily admit it (good coinage, btw), but impossible to get anything done, nah! This is where we disagree, nowhere else, in our interpretation of “your” facts: You say “No, you can’t!” I say, “Yes I can!”

      You say I’m being “argumentative.” If you say so. More than being argumentative, however, hangs on this for me.

      See, I’m long past being a liberal. I don’t have any recourse to the inbuilt mechanism for failure that comes part and parcel with the liberal ideology, with any ideology; no recourse to blame it on human corruption, the Washington, DC, climate, the human nature or the big bad Republicans. Not saying now that you do, only suggesting you might want to look at your constant plea for excuses, because that’s all that is in the final analysis. Consequently, I must affix the blame where it squarely belongs, on human agency. I don’t have the luxury of pleading for failure. Liberal democracy and liberal ideology are no kind of panacea for me; they’re merely obstacles to overcome.

      So you see, even though I may agree with you about the political climate or the near-bankruptcy of the present political-economic system, I can’t go your route. Change will come because the people are being fed up. And I don’t care whether it’ll come from within or without, sideways or crossways. The pressure from all points is mounting and I have no favorite strategy, but absolve humans from their responsibility to act, however “impossible” the circumstances, this I cannot do. It’s never going to be my default position.

      In any case, you are being inconsistent. If the situation in Washington, DC. is indeed as dire as you portray it, then you really have no business to speak of any White House occupant in superlatives, no business whatever. So your objection to my characterizing the present performance as mediocre –because on my view, human agency does count! — is really ill-taken; and if pursued to any great length, which is precisely what you have done, as nothing but a pretense.

      In any case, Jordan, it’s getting to be really tiresome having to explain myself to you. I’m doing my damndest to remain polite and answer all your queries, but there is no intellectual payoff in this for me, no challenge whatsoever, and consequently, a waste of time — not as long as you feel I’m treading on your liberal or whatever other sensibilities. Get over it and we might have a decent discussion some day. But until you do, I am checking out.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      I haven’t argued about the direction of bias on the part of MSM, Igor.

      Have no idea whatever from whence you pulled it out.

    • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

      Re: comment # 77, Igor, two comments:

      1: You say: “Let me repeat, the modern MSM is very rightist. They have succeeded in a takeover.” Really? Then this link that contradicts you won’t be of any interest to you, but others may find it interesting.

      2: You say: “…I listened to NPR for a day ….” How do you know the day you selected is typical, is representative of every day at NPR? A sample of size one yields totally worthless analysis. Any “analysis” you offer shows only YOUR bias. And I know about what I speak (rather than just an opinion) because my doctorate was in statistics.

    • Glenn Contrarian

      Warren –

      I’ve lived both sides of the political spectrum, and YES, the MSM is quite rightist these days. All a reporter has to do is report anything critical of the Right, and all of a sudden he and his network are proclaimed to be part of the Left.

    • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

      Re: comment #82, Glenn, you base your comment on what study? Citation?

    • Glenn Contrarian

      Fine. Here’s one.

      Warren, you’ve bought into the mass hypnosis, the neverending meme fed you by Rush and Fox that the Left controls the media. How the hell can the Left be considered as controlling the media when the Right controls over 95% of all talk radio? Hm? You’ve been taught that meme to the point that you can’t conceive otherwise.

    • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

      Re: comment #84, nice try, Glenn, but your citation is NOT a study. It is one instance that you managed to find. I refer you to comment #81, second observation.

    • Clavos

      OMG!! A source that calls itself Treehugger is supposed to be giving us an unbiased analysis of the Keystone XL pipeline controversy???

      Bwahahahahaha!

      Glenn, you’re funny.

    • Igor

      #81-Warren is so weak and easy to defeat that it is hardly worth the effort to refute. Nevertheless, lest some poor innocent be misled by Warrens ranting’s:

      1: …Really? Then this link that contradicts you…

      So I looked at that link which is just tautologies (like proving that FOX is leftist by assuming that FOX is leftist), contains NO facts, no numbers and no logical analysis. It isn’t even a contradiction, it’s a contrary, and if you don’t know the difference go back to school, you ignoramus!

      Your link is worthless. It is simply unsupported propaganda.

      2: You say: “…I listened to NPR for a day ….” How do you know the day you selected is typical, is representative of every day at NPR?

      I don’t. And neither do you. I didn’t say it was “representative of every day”, that’s something YOU said. It is one sample in an ensemble of samples. You, as a statistician should know that. It’s clear from what I stated as the experimental circumstance.

      A sample of size one yields totally worthless analysis.

      Not at all. It is merely one sample. A proper statistician doesn’t denounce one sample but collects more samples.

      If it were true that “A sample of size one yields totally worthless analysis.”, then the collection of many samples of size one would yield totally worthless analysis. But that flies in the face of statistical analysis!

      Any “analysis” you offer shows only YOUR bias.

      Nonsense! I put NO bias into my counts. I did NOT pick a particular day. I did NOT lie about the data.

      Furthermore, in the best scientific tradition, the experiment can be easily repeated by ANYONE, even YOU!

      And I know about what I speak (rather than just an opinion) because my doctorate was in statistics.

      Oh really! Did you think you could just swagger in with a false claim to authority and intimidate everyone? I bet I could beat you up with my Second Moment anyday. I bet you don’t even know what a second moment is!

      You must have slept thru some of your classes, because your rank ignorance of statistics is glaringly obvious. And it renders your bullying attempt at an Argument From Authority impotent!

      Go back to school!

      And don’t return until you can compose a cogent argument.

      And next time cite FACTUAL sources, not just another irrational propagandist that you agree with.

    • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

      Re: comment #87, Igor, I ask you the same question I asked Glenn: Are you for real? Or does BC include your comments for a good laugh? Your comment #87 is so full of holes that it is (a) obvious you have no knowledge of what you speak, and (b) rather embarassing to read!

    • http://www.RosesSpanishBoots.com Christopher Rose

      Warren, as the comments made by Glenn and Igor are apparently so full of holes I am sure you will have no problem picking them apart rather than attacking them personally…

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Has it ever occurred to anyone that this disagreement may be due to the ambiguity of meaning. I’d seem clear to me that Warren and his opponents hold quite different views of what is the voice of the Right (or the Left).

    • Costello

      Rather amusing that Warren is unaware his 88 applies to his work on the site

    • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

      Re: comment # 90, Roger, while you are correct, Igor’s “argument” (#87) is still specious at best.

      Re: comment # 91, Costello, huh? I challenge you to refute, via reputable source, ANYTHING that I have said.

    • Glenn Contrarian

      Warren –

      Scientific American is about as apolitical as it gets…and in this article they point out studies that showed liberal bias, and studies that showed conservative bias.

      For instance, one of the most often-quoted studies showing liberal bias comes from UCLA. BUT, as mediamatters points out here, the authors of the study had close ties to and had received significant funding from conservative think tanks and organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, and there were several other problems with the collection and interpretation of the data.

      The Scientific American article referenced above listed an article where the media gave better press to the liberals than to the conservatives over a period from 1997 to 2008 – but look at the context of the times! There’s the really nice economy we had in the later years under Clinton, then Bush throwing it all away with Medicare Part D, the tax cuts for the wealthy, and the wars…and the times would also include all the other outright stupidity of the Bush administration such as TREASON by Cheney (who was protected by Bush) and our war crimes such as TORTURE – also approved and protected by Bush.

      So is it any wonder at all that the conservatives got worse press? Is it? When there are two groups, and one behaves normally but the other goes completely off the rails, how can you possibly expect the media to treat both with 50-50 complimentary/critical coverage?

      The Scientific American article closes with this:

      Most media scholars do not think the issue of bias can be settled by a formula, though. For example, Groeling observes that the context of news making, including professional definitions of newsworthiness, cannot be ignored when looking at the disproportionate front-page coverage of Obama.

      “What more often occurs is this tendency for everybody to start seeing the story the same way,” says Elizabeth Skewes of the University of Colorado at Boulder, who analyzed journalists covering presidential races in her 2007 book Message Control: How News Is Made on the Presidential Campaign Trail. A former journalist herself, Skewes has a view similar to other scholars who have watched journalists work. She says the interplay of campaign logistics, journalistic norms and pressures from competitive editors “make it all but impossible” for different frames of issues and candidates to break into the evening news or the front pages. Journalists may have political biases, but that might not be why the news comes out the way it does.

      Okay? So how about getting off the ‘vast left-wing conspiracy’ train and having a reality check? Hm?

      But I forget – this is Warren that I’m talking to, and he’s so deep into Warren World that nothing, absolutely nothing I could ever show him – no matter how obvious, how non-partisan, how concrete it may be – can keep him from his determination to despise all liberals, especially the black guy who had the impertinence to move into the White House.

    • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

      Warren’s link in #81 gave me a good laugh, particularly the bit where a statistical analysis of media bias is claimed to be impartial when it uses parameters based on the author’s own biased opinions as to what constitutes “left” versus “right”.

      It’s funny that he’s so doe-eyed about Left Turn (if indeed he’s read it), when I very much doubt he’d give much credence to this study, or this one, or this one, all of which “prove” the exact opposite.

      Stating that The Drudge Report leans left because it links to supposedly liberal news sources is particularly priceless. It’s like claiming that Rachel Maddow is a conservative because she often has Republicans on her show.

    • Igor

      #92-Warren: OK, come out of your hiding place and actually SUPPORT your contention:

      Roger, while you are correct, Igor’s “argument” (#87) is still specious at best.

      Specious (Merriam-Webster)

      “having a false look of truth or genuineness”

      OK Big Shot: PROVE it!

      And hereafter don’t use Big Words that are beyond your vocabulary! “Specious” looks like a word you picked up from your Readers Digest Learn A Word A Day For A Batter Vocabulary.

      Either prove it or crawl back into your Warren hole and stay there.

    • Clavos

      “A Batter Vocabulary?”

      Looks like you should subscribe to RD, Igor.

    • Clavos
    • Costello

      Doesn’t appear anyone can use it. Does RD offer an html subscription?

    • Igor

      Watch out Clavos, or I’ll pull out my Big Bad Batter vocabulary and batter you senseless with it! And I don’t mean to cover you with a whipped mixture of eggs, bread crumbs and seasoning!

    • Jordan Richardson

      You say “No, you can’t!” I say, “Yes I can!”

      My view is supported by facts, Roger. Yours is purely idealistic.

      only suggesting you might want to look at your constant plea for excuses

      No, it’s reality. The political mechanism sucks. And blows. That’s not an “excuse.” Follow even the simplest political issue over the last several years and you’ll find it mired in partisan crap, legislative gamesmanship and bullshit beyond your wildest imagination.

      Change will come because the people are being fed up

      I agree. It will come from the people, not the government of the United States of America.

      The pressure from all points is mounting and I have no favorite strategy, but absolve humans from their responsibility to act, however “impossible” the circumstances, this I cannot do.

      That’s not at all what I’m doing. I’m saying that the political system in the United States is NOT a vehicle for real systemic change. I’m saying no matter how well-intentioned a leader is when he or she enters the office of president, his or her hands are tied when it comes to enacting real systemic and/or meaningful change. Incremental change is possible, certainly, but the type of change you or I would have wouldn’t come out of an elected official in today’s political climate. I don’t think that’s that controversial a position, is it?

      So your objection to my characterizing the present performance as mediocre

      What objection? My objection was to your suggestion that he’d done nothing, not that he was a mediocre president.

      What I said was: “I’m no Obama fan, really. I’ve been very critical of him in the past and will continue to be in the future, but I don’t think he’s been a lame duck president and I do think he’s tried to do more than ‘diddly squat’ to help Americans.”

      not as long as you feel I’m treading on your liberal or whatever other sensibilities. Get over it and we might have a decent discussion some day. But until you do, I am checking out.

      Huh? I don’t feel that way at all. The only way that I feel is that you’re a confused and confusing individual.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Good bye, Jordan. I’ve told you it’s getting tedious.

    • Clavos

      I’ll pull out my Big Bad Batter vocabulary and batter you senseless with it!

      Go ahead and try — Take your best shot…

    • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

      Re: comment #95, Igor, here are two links that will back me up and confirm that you have no idea about what you speak. (1) (PDF) and (2); I hope you can understand them.

      And here is a “pull quote” from the second source I cite:
      “Representative Sample
      A sample is representative of the population from which it is taken if the characteristics of the sample mimic those of the population.”

      So, Igor, I reiterate (another RD word), how do you know that your sample of size 1 is/was representative of all NPR days?

      Sorry, Igor, but “specious” is a word in my vocabulary.

    • Igor

      86-Clavos: Here’s an independent analysis of XL pipeline, Cornell University Cornell XL report. I hope you find it convincing, more so at least than the “Treehugger” site you disdain, and, hopefully more convincing than the paid-for opinion from Perryman group (exaggerated and then much publicized in the rightist MSM), which uses secret formulae and algorithms.

      For your convenience, here’s the Table Of Contents of the Cornell report:

      Table of contents
      1-Introduction
      2-Main Findings
      4-TransCanada Will Spend $3 to $4 Billion in the US, Not $7 Billion as Claimed
      7-KXL Will Generate 2,500-4,650 Construction Jobs
      8-Most Jobs Created Will Be Temporary and Non-Local
      11-KXL Steel Manufactured Outside the United States

      15-Construction Services: Engineering/Design/Technical/Support
      17-Perryman Study Deeply Flawed and Provides No Sound Basis for Jobs Claims
      22-Total (Direct, Indirect, and Induced) Jobs from Keystone XL
      27-KXL Will Have Minor Impact on Unemployment Levels
      28-Four Ways Keystone XL Could Be a Job Killer

      35-Conclusion: Employment Potential from KXL is Little to None; Decision should be based on other factors

      Here’s some interesting detail from the Cornell study:

      Based on jobs information provided by TransCanada for the FEIS, KXL US on-site construction and inspection creates only 5,060-9,250 person-years of employment (1 person-year = 1 person working full time for 1 year). This is equivalent to 2,500- 4,650 jobs per year over two years.

      On-site construction labor thus accounts for only a small share (about 5-10%) of overall KXL US project costs(11). Stated another way, KXL US on-site employment is only about 1-2 person-years per $1 million
      project cost(12).

      Each person-year of work requires $2million!

      Wouldn’t it just be cheaper to pay unemployed oil workers, say, $50,000 per year for NOT working?

    • Igor

      #103-Warren, I repeat what I said before in #87:

      2: You say: “…I listened to NPR for a day ….” How do you know the day you selected is typical, is representative of every day at NPR?

      I don’t. And neither do you. I didn’t say it was “representative of every day”, that’s something YOU said. It is one sample in an ensemble of samples. You, as a statistician should know that. It’s clear from what I stated as the experimental circumstance.

      I repeat (since you seem to have a hard time comprehending some things): I never said my sample was representative. It’s merely one sample out of many samples that can be taken.

      There is nothing specious about my argument.

    • Glenn Contrarian

      Now now, Igor, you know that since Cornell University had the temerity to publish something that was in any way contrary to what conservatives are Absolutely Sure is true (since they got it from the divinely infallible Gospel of Fox), Clavos will know that the Cornell University is simply a liberal hit job from the vast left-wing conspiracy and should be simply ignored.

      But for those of us who really do pay attention, great post!

    • Dan

      “I ask you the same question I asked Glenn: Are you for real?” —Warren Beatty

      A nest of Alinskybots is a plausable theory.

      To forgo acknowledgement of a historic, grinding, forever documented, leftist permeation of news bias, and instead, perversely insist that a dominant rightist slant exists, is… “not real”. It’s Alinsky!

      A starting point for sane discussion might be to get one of them to at least admit that in the real world there is a majority “perception” that there has been and is a leftward tilt in news dissemenation.

      On Fox news yesterday, I got to watch video of occutards brandishing shields, advancing on a steady line of about 50 riot police. the tards would run up, hurl a chunk of brick and retreat behind the shield. I wondered if the Liberal news media ran that footage. Doubt it.

      The next footage was of the aftermath of the tards ransacking some of the public buildings. Lots of broken glass, smashed display cases etc. Then they focused in on a collection of recycled paper mache animal art made by inner city school children that the angry, hate filled mob had gratuitously stomped out.

      I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t have showed up on MSNBC.

      I thought it would be a good thing to bring the –most likely underprivileged– school children in to see how the value they had created out of recyclable material was stupidly smashed by a sensless mob. It would be a good life lesson.

      ‘Course, for the Alinskyites, the occutards violent tendencies are cool. Since they’re not Tea Party. They still weep in outragous indignation at a peaceful tea partier bringing a legal gun to an event.

      One positive thing the occupiers have going over the tea partiers is that they do have racial diversity. At least among the flag burners.

    • Jordan Richardson

      If you guys really think your corporate-run mainstream news media is left-leaning, you would hate the news media here in Canada or in most of the rest of the world. And that makes me smile.

    • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

      A nest of Alinskybots is a plausable theory.

      Hands up everyone who hadn’t even heard of Alinsky until the right-wingers on BC started whining about him.

    • Clavos

      Hands up everyone who’s read Rules for Radicals.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      You mean Alinsky’s? No, but I read Hillary’s dissertation on it. She was about to join the classes in Chicago but changed her mind. The text is available in full as a pdf file, and it’s good reading.

      She’s a smart woman.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Sorry, didn’t read the comments above, so I thought your comment was a standalone.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Dan certainly doesn’t come across like a happy puppy. The prose is so thick with contempt it’s not even funny.

      Contempt isn’t funny, Dan. Try something else.

    • Clavos

      Hey, Igor don’t know where you got idea I’m for the Keystone pipeline, I’m not, but I WAS amused at Glenn’s citation of Treehugger.

      I think if the canadians have any smarts they’ll sell the pipeline and all their oil to the chinese, who actually have and make money and quit dealing with the US, which will shortly finish its slide down the crapper (right about when obama’s second term ends).

      Start learning mandarin, Igor; you’re gonna need it.

    • Dan

      “You mean Alinsky’s? No, but I read Hillary’s dissertation on it…”—Roger

      Right, I had forgotten that.

      Obamas hiring at Chicago ULS as a lecturer to teach Constitutional Law was more of an Alinsky power politics indoctrination as well.

      You should read Rules For Radicals Roger. I think you might see a new perspective. Your anarchist revolutionary desires may be materializing in ways you haven’t imagined.

      Clavos, wouldn’t a citation of “Treehugger” carry more weight than a “Media Matters” citation?

    • Glenn Contrarian

      Clavos –

      The ‘treehugger’ citation was why I went back and quoted Scientific American in comment #93, since they’re about as apolitical as it gets. You’re welcome to refute them if you can.

      And as for the Canadians selling the oil to the Chinese – don’t you get it yet? Why do you think we’re a net oil exporter today? If we were to keep all the oil we’re drilling, we’d be energy-independent TODAY. But that’s not the way the market works – it all goes out on the world market regardless, and the different nations fight for it. Think about it – how can we become energy independent with ‘drill-baby-drill’ if we’re a net oil exporter????

      In other words, the oil coming down the Keystone pipeline might have been refined in the U.S., but it was still destined for the world market. All the brouhaha about that oil going towards America’s energy independence was simply smoke-and-mirrors by Big Oil…and you and your fellow conservatives bought it, as you always do anything Big Oil tells you (e.g. anthropomorphic global warming).

      In summary, the ONLY way we will ever – EVER! – become independent of Mideast oil, independent of sending money to people who hate us, is to invest heavily in green energy…cause the way the oil markets are designed, for the foreseeable future we will never – never! – be independent of Mideast oil.

    • Clavos

      All the brouhaha about that oil going towards America’s energy independence was simply smoke-and-mirrors by Big Oil…and you and your fellow conservatives bought it…

      Glenn, your lack of reading comprehension is showing again; read my #114 — again.

      the ONLY way we will ever – EVER! – become independent of Mideast oil, independent of sending money to people who hate us, is to invest heavily in green energy.

      Glenn, if you insist on arguing with me, then at least pay attention to my positions on the issues. I have NEVER advocated freeing the US from buying Middle Eastern oil; I have an ongoing financial relationship with people at Saudi Aramco and would not want to see it lose its biggest customer. Hell, I even drive a small, two seater car that atypically gets only 17 MPG.

    • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

      Tongue in cheek again, Clav. Still, your recap of #114 above is as logical as it gets. Progressive too.

    • Igor

      Clavos, how’s YOUR Mandarin?

      I don’t speak it (although my granddaughter does, and we get along very well) but I do know a bit of Chinese calligraphy. More importantly, perhaps, I’m very familiar with classic Chinese literature.

    • Glenn Contrarian

      Igor –

      Then you might like the novel I’ll be posting online within a couple weeks – it has quite a bit to do with China.

    • Clavos

      Clavos, how’s YOUR Mandarin?

      I don’t speak it and am not studying it, Igor, because I’ll be long gone when they come; I’m making sure of that.