• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. 2012 Election

On Nov 6 Who Will Win President Obama or Mitt Romney ?

  • President Obama

    Votes: 39 61.9%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 24 38.1%

  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .
Redeye:
Let's recall that no less than seven separate studies found Fox News viewers to be more misinformed than viewers of CNN or MSNBC - or even that people who don't even report watching news regularly.

Please list them. I only heard of one which you previously quoted without reference. I know where the author of that "study" stands.

Please write slowly as I do watch FOX News regularly.
 
The Presidential campaign:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamas-reelection-strategy-bypass-congress/?print=1

Obama’s Reelection Strategy: Bypass Congress

Posted By Phil Kerpen On January 5, 2012 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 78 Comments

In a recent interview, President Obama reiterated his intention to bypass Congress to pursue his extreme policy agenda.  That’s not in itself news; it’s been going on in every area of federal policy (as I discuss in detail in Democracy Denied [1]) and the president has been boasting about it for months in his country-wide “we can’t wait” campaign.  The notable thing this time around is that Obama offered his plan to bypass our elected representatives in Congress as an explicit re-election strategy.

The interviewer, Rob Quirk of KOAA-TV, asked Obama what it would take to win reelection. Obama’s reponse [2]: “Well, what we’re going to have to do is continue to make progress on the economy over the next several months. And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves.”

In other words, the Obama election strategy for election 2012 is to act as if election 2010 never happened, disregard the Republicans in Congress, and put the full force of the federal executive apparatus to work towards his reelection.

For months Obama has been out on the stump campaigning on the taxpayer dime [3], a trend that is almost certain to accelerate.  He hits the ground running in 2012 with a statewide tele-townhall in Iowa and a major campaign-style event in Ohio.  Ironically, these events are presented as pushing a legislative agenda in Congress, the very same Congress the president has already declared irrelevant.  Their real purpose is entirely political.

Obama is also abusing the appointments process to install ideologically radical nominees to advance his bypass-Congress reelection strategy.  Although Congress has remained in pro forma session to prevent recess appointments since the 2010 election, Obama recently announced that he would dispense with over a hundred years of precedent and declare Congress to be in recess; that’s right, the president now believes he can rewrite Senate rules.  On January 4, Obama unilaterally rewrote Senate rules and installed Richard Cordray as the head of the vast new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  The bureau can now begin regulating every aspect of our financial lives without any congressional oversight (unless courts invalidate the “recess appointment.”)

Obama may also use his newly created power to “recess appoint” when Congress is not in recess to install radical union lawyers in a court-packing scheme at the National Labor Relations Board, allowing it to continue rewarding the unions with a bureaucratic rewrite of the nation’s labor laws.  Shortly before the end of last year the Board – before the term expired for Obama’s previous recess appointee, union lawyer Craig Becker – voted to allow unions to ambush employers with organizing elections with as little as seven days notice.

Obama may make dozens of other controversial appointments in this manner, making a mockery of the Constitution’s advice and consent requirement to fill the federal courts and agencies with radicals who could never withstand Senate scrutiny, even with his own party controlling the Senate.

Regardless of how many more radicals Obama can slip into key positions, Obama knows that to win reelection he needs to recapture the sense of historical excitement that surrounded the 2008 campaign.  So he will put the full weight of the federal executive branch into advancing the key policy objectives of the constituencies that will provide him boots on the ground: unions, environmentalists, social justice street organizers, identity politics groups, and class warriors.

Key rewards and inducements for the environmental groups include a head-spinning array of expensive regulations from EPA, an all-out government-wide assault on hydraulic fracturing, and continued slowdowns in permitting and leasing from the EPA and the Interior Department.  Also worth watching is a proposed Endangered Species Act listing of the so-called Dunes Sagebrush Lizard, which until recently was just an ordinary lizard, but may now become a “unique subspecies” whose listing would devastate oil production in West Texas.

Obama’s executive decisions will continue to display his choice of  a rigid far-left ideology over practical considerations.  He will again block the Keystone XL pipeline, a decision he is required to re-issue within 60 days under the terms of the payroll tax holiday extension bill that passed before the end of the year.  That privileges a radical anti-development ideology above job creation, in the hopes of inspiring the green groups and the campus protest crowd to come out and volunteer again for Obama with some of the passion they brought in 2008.  The Energy Department will continue funding green jobs boondoggles like Solyndra.

Similarly, the administration successfully torpedoed the AT&T merger with T-Mobile, which had major concessions to the unions with respect to job creation that earned their support and promised to unleash tens of billions of dollars in private investment.  That was a sop to the extreme left so-called media reform movement, which was also rewarded with the FCC’s so-called net neutrality order to begin – unlawfully, courts will likely find – to regulate broadband Internet access.  The FCC is now considering a proposal that amounts to the DISCLOSE Act via backdoor means, requiring all political ad buys to disclose their donors to stations who would in turn make the information public.

The Justice Department will continue attempts to demonize and hamper state-level voter ID requirements to inspire and facilitate the ACORN-successor entities that are carrying the Obama campaign’s voter registration and turnout efforts.

ObamaCare implementation will move forward in the same arbitrary and politicized fashion that abuses regulations and guidance documents from the IRS and HHS to punish political enemies with expensive interpretations that have no statutory basis and reward political allies with waivers.

And the costs associated with all the expensive, politically-motivated executive action will be used as a pretext to attack affected companies for raising prices, further stoking the president’s class warfare campaign theme that inspires the fringe elements of the Occupy Wall Street movement to fold their efforts into the campaign.

In brief, the entire multi-trillion dollar bureaucratic apparatus of the federal government will be directed towards Obama’s reelection.  Unfortunately, these executive actions will have serious negative economic consequences in terms of compliance costs and the broad uncertainty and anxiety that comes from not knowing what arbitrary decisions will come next.  That’s terrible news for our economic recovery, and it may also mean that the Obama strategy will backfire politically with an electorate that’s desperate for job creation and economic growth.

Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamas-reelection-strategy-bypass-congress/

URLs in this post:

[1] Democracy Denied: http://amzn.to/kx0shO

[2] Obama’s reponse: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/14/obama_where_congress_is_not_willing_to_act_were_going_to_go_ahead_and_do_it_ourselves.html

[3] stump campaigning on the taxpayer dime: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/195667-carney-defends-obama-against-allegations-of-campaigning-on-taxpayer-dime
 
Rifleman62 said:
Redeye:

Please list them. I only heard of one which you previously quoted without reference. I know where the author of that "study" stands.

Please write slowly as I do watch FOX News regularly.

Summarized here - with links to all the relevant studies. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/22/374434/fox-news-viewers-misinformed-study-jon-stewart/?mobile=nc

Have a nice day.
 
Redeye said:
Summarized here - with links to all the relevant studies. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/22/374434/fox-news-viewers-misinformed-study-jon-stewart/?mobile=nc

Have a nice day.

Most of what is there, including the links, seems hardly unbiased or independent. Simply, produced by one side to prove their point of the other. Hardly scientific or even balanced.

"Don't believe in Global Warming? You must be a Fox watching idiot."

"Don't believe in Obamacare? You must be a Fox watching idiot."

and on, and on, and on.

These 'studies' prove nothing.

They simply espouse the same attitude that is shown by one or two perpetual posters here for the rest of us. "If you don't agree with me, you're an idiot."
 
recceguy said:
Most of what is there, including the links, seems hardly unbiased or independent. Simply, produced by one side to prove their point of the other. Hardly scientific or even balanced.

"Don't believe in Global Warming? You must be a Fox watching idiot."

"Don't believe in Obamacare? You must be a Fox watching idiot."

and on, and on, and on.

These 'studies' prove nothing.

They simply espouse the same attitude that is shown by one or two perpetual posters here for the rest of us. "If you don't agree with me, you're an idiot."

I'm glad you read them in detail (including the ones which are journal-published studies which explain, in detail, their methodolgy) and are qualified to pronounce their findings wrong. Wait, hang on a second... Again, I'm sorry that reality seems to be too liberal for you. That's not my fault, it's the way things are.

The problem that the studies identify isn't opinions, it's that those opinions are not rooted in facts. The opinions of the viewers are formed based on misinformation, not the actual valid information. The pervasive problem is that media has shifted the debate from reality to invented "interpretations". People I've met who are "vehemently opposed" to Obamacare don't actually know much about what the law says. We saw the same thing with the hysteria over the "Ground Zero Mosque" which is neither a mosque, nor at Ground Zero. When people are debating over what are very carefully crafted narratives entirely divorced from reality, there's a problem. Fox, in particular, is one significant source of that problem. Studies show it. Can you actually refute the studies? If so, go ahead. If not, well...
 
Redeye said:
Again, I'm sorry that reality seems to be too liberal for you. That's not my fault, it's the way things are...
I'm sorry, but I have to interject.  Reality is neither liberal nor communist nor republican nor anything. 

The one study I found on my own sampled some 600 or so natives of New Jersey.  It also found that Fox News viewers more correctly identified who the "occupy wall street" protesters were than viewers of MSNBC. 

How about an objective study of the broadcasts themselves?  You know, how much time on each story, which order they appeared, the use of subjective language, and so forth.

But the implication that your opinion is "reality" suffers not only from hubris, but also from elitism.

 
I know if I wanted to pretend I was intellectually unbiased/superior, I'd cite a blog by Chris Mooney -- "author of the bestselling book The Republican War on Science" -- when discussing "objective" reports on US politics and/or science...

    ::)

 
Technoviking said:
I'm sorry, but I have to interject.  Reality is neither liberal nor communist nor republican nor anything. 

The one study I found on my own sampled some 600 or so natives of New Jersey.  It also found that Fox News viewers more correctly identified who the "occupy wall street" protesters were than viewers of MSNBC. 

How about an objective study of the broadcasts themselves?  You know, how much time on each story, which order they appeared, the use of subjective language, and so forth.

But the implication that your opinion is "reality" suffers not only from hubris, but also from elitism.

There's a lot of fairly objective reporting out there. Sites like factcheck.org and politifact.com do that. They'll flesh out, in great detail, the story behind something and assess its accuracy. It's notable that last time I spent some time comparing, there seemed to be a lot more half-truths (which is, incidentally, a full lie), false ratings, and what Politifact classes as "pants on fire lies" coming from major right wing pundits - the Fox News types. That doesn't mean that more liberal pundits are immune to it. However, many of them appeared to be of less magnitude, and more random. Fox engages heavily in shaping the debate to favour a particular opinion and is documented for doing so. There are fringe left outlets who surely do, but they're not the mainstream media. They're are non-credible as HotAir.com, Pajamas Media, World Net Daily, and so on. The "liberal media" canard is basically nonsense, but it gets parroted because it fits that narrative that is shaped by the right. Yes, that is a subjective comment, and there's no way around that, but I find that there simply isn't the sort of fanned flames of hysteria in the centre and the reasonable left.

The key to it all, I've learned, is to remember something I learned long ago from someone in the music business: "Remember, commercially produced music is the filler between advertisements on radio." News media is the same - it's all filler between ads, unless it isn't required to sell ads. Which is why public media is pretty important, and why it's great that technology can fill the gaps. It's a double edged sword though. Just as bloggers can add a whole lot of value and analysis to a debate (and often do so for little or no pay, just because they're interested and engaged), they can also add a lot of noise, and it's easy to touch off mass hysteria over nothing by carefully shaping a message, creative editing, and so on. That's why it's so important to look at as many sources as possible and eventually you can synthesize an understanding of what is really going on.
 
Journeyman said:
I know if I wanted to pretend I was intellectually unbiased/superior, I'd cite a blog by Chris Mooney -- "author of the bestselling book The Republican War on Science" -- when discussing "objective" reports on US politics and/or science...

    ::)

I chose that link as it had the link to all the studies in one place. Unfortunately, someone has to produce all content. It doesn't come from thin air.
 
Great stuff redeye. Thanks for the enlightenment.

There's a lot of fairly objective reporting out there. Sites like factcheck.org and politifact.com do that


We saw the same thing with the hysteria over the "Ground Zero Mosque" which is neither a mosque, nor at Ground Zero

While we're considering the term "Ground Zero Mosque,” we also wondered whether it was proper to call the project a mosque. A mosque is, in fact, planned there, but it's part of a plan for a much larger, $100 million cultural center that includes a swimming pool, gym and basketball court, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant and culinary school, a library and art studios.
Source: politifact.com - one of your recommended sources

there seemed to be a lot more half-truths (which is, incidentally, a full lie),

So did you tell a half-truth (full lie, per you) when you said this?  "which is neither a mosque" understanding of course, that technically there will be a mosque within the cultural centre, per your sources.



 
muskrat89 said:
Great stuff redeye. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Source: politifact.com - one of your recommended sources

So did you tell a half-truth (full lie, per you) when you said this?  "which is neither a mosque" understanding of course, that technically there will be a mosque within the cultural centre, per your sources.

For those interested, here's the link to the entire piece: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/19/rick-lazio/ground-zero-mosque-ground-zero/ - it includes discussion on how to characterize the project which is something much more broad. We could could argue that but there's no reason to - the point I think remains made.
 
We could could argue that but there's no reason to - the point I think remains made.


Yes - when someone right of center tells a half truth, it is essentially a lie, gullability or a flawed source.

When you do it, using your own recommended source, it is technical minutia, a misunderstanding or something else.
 
Redeye said:
Hey, you don't have to agree with reality, it doesn't really care what you think.

Reality, from other sources, seems to disagree with you

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/are-fox-news-viewers-least-informed/

 
No less than seven separate studies found Redeye to be more misinformed than viewers of CNN or MSNBC - or even that people who don't even read his posts regularly.



 
muskrat89 said:
Yes - when someone right of center tells a half truth, it is essentially a lie, gullability or a flawed source.

When you do it, using your own recommended source, it is technical minutia, a misunderstanding or something else.

Or it is minutiae, and I hey, I was wrong. I didn't know they included in the planned to include anything that specifically would be considered a mosque - more a cultural centre. In any case, it was spun relentlessly - and it's far more than a mosque. More to the point (and this actually demonstrates the point about reframing issues - that we're discussing something relatively minor), it shifted the discussion from anything reasonable to nonsense.
 
American partisan politics has already sunk to depths that even Joseph McCarthy might find hard to imagine, and both Democrats and Republicans, aided by a generally uncritical media and a highly partisan blogosphere, are to blame for the smears, mud slinging and downright lies that are, now, the rule rather than the exception. We do not need to import those low standards into Army.ca.

My signature line, by John Stuart Mill, sums up what I think is the only acceptable level of discourse. Those who cannot admit that the other fellow might have a legitimate point of view and those who cannot accept that their point of view might be less than perfect are not debating or discussing, they are propagandizing.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
American partisan politics has already sunk to depths that even Joseph McCarthy might find hard to imagine, and both Democrats and Republicans, aided by a generally uncritical media and a highly partisan blogosphere, are to blame for the smears, mud slinging and downright lies that are, now, the rule rather than the exception. We do not need to import those low standards into Army.ca.

Or Canada in general - the contrast is stark and honestly, it's disturbing.

E.R. Campbell said:
My signature line, by John Stuart Mill, sums up what I think is the only acceptable level of discourse. Those who cannot admit that the other fellow might have a legitimate point of view and those who cannot accept that their point of view might be less than perfect are not debating or discussing, they are propagandizing.

I'd further that to say that the best way to defeat a fringe opinion isn't to silence or ignore it, but to shine the light on them. Generally, such things don't hold up to scrutiny, after all. The problem is that too many people aren't willing to look deeper and see the reality.
 
Redeye said:
The problem is that too many people aren't willing to look deeper and see the reality.

You're the only one here, right ?

::)
 
CDN Aviator said:
You're the only one here, right ?

::)

Nope. But I'm quite happy saying that some people clearly don't.
 
Back
Top