»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Zogby Pins the Tail on the Donkey(s)
| The Alley |
|
Zogby Pins the Tail on the Donkey(s) |
|
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy 
|
Zogby Pins the Tail on the Donkey(s) Zogby International polled the Obama voters to find out how much they knew they knew about the candidates. The results really skewered the 512 Democrat voters, (made up of 97.1 high school grads and 55% of college grads). While the voters knew most of the Republican opposing party negatives, barely 16% could identify issues that Obama or Biden are supposedly ‘widely-known’ negatives. Zogby slammed the media for not educating the populace better. Talk-show radio have continually pointed out that the number of negative Republican stories are run 4-5 times longer than Democratic negative stories. It was pooh-poohed loudly by the Media, and continued with their tremendously one-sided coverage favoring Obama. Conservative pundits have long postulated that many or most Liberals vote with their heart, and not with information or common election knowledge. It would be hard to dispute this contention any longer. Let’s not underestimate that almost all pollees were high school grads and 55% were college grads. So you can’t say that Zogby dumbed down the poll results. If anything, he sought an intelligence that was above the national average. The poll was conducted at the bequest of a group filming a documentary titled: “Media Malpractice...How Obama Got Elected”. results: Ninety-four percent of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, 86% correctly identified Palin as the candidate associated with a $150,000 wardrobe purchased by her political party, and 81% chose McCain as the candidate who was unable to identify the number of houses he owned. When asked which candidate said they could "see Russia from their house," 87% chose Palin, although the quote actually is attributed to Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey during her portrayal of Palin during the campaign. An answer of "none" or "Palin" was counted as a correct answer on the test, given that the statement was associated with a characterization of Palin. Obama voters did not fare nearly as well overall when asked to answer questions about statements or stories associated with Obama or Biden -- 83% failed to correctly answer that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents removed from the ballot, and 88% did not correctly associate Obama with his statement that his energy policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry. Most (56%) were also not able to correctly answer that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground. Nearly three quarters (72%) of Obama voters did not correctly identify Biden as the candidate who had to quit a previous campaign for President because he was found to have plagiarized a speech, and nearly half (47%) did not know that Biden was the one who predicted Obama would be tested by a generated international crisis during his first six months as President. Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions 57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing) 71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing) 82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing) 88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing) 56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing). And yet..... Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!! Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct. Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disputing the argument that 52% of the Americans Voted for Obama, so Shut up about the whining: 67,687,000 DEMS 58,879,000 REPS 2,000,000 INDIE VOTER AGE POPULATION: 231,000,000 VOTER TURNOUT 122,000,000 53% So, only 29% of all eligible voters voted for Obama. 301,139,000 is population In other words, 22% of the National population voted for Obama. 20% of the national population voted for McClain. Obama only beat McCain by 9,000,000 votes- the margin 13% of all votes cast ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Jeff Feezle - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. It's nice to know they designed the poll with no obvious agenda. Judging by the questions, I'm guessing it was conducted in the National Enquirer? Was there anything in there about Brad and Angelina? quote: Who said that? I know for a fact my 2-year-old nephew didn't vote for Obama. He didn't vote for McCain, though, either. If 22 percent of the electorate voted for Obama and 20 percent for McCain, all that really says is that 58 percent of America didn't give a damn who leads them. In which case, I don't give a damn whether they like the results or not. quote: Is that enough?  |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
This group sponsoring the documentary has made the assertion that the media elected Obama, one that I have warned will happen several months ago. Never in my life have I seen such lovey-dovey for a candidate. This will probably be known as the election that was 'stolen by the media.' Actually, I think it is a 'beware' signal that I hope people recognize for what it is. AFter looking at the results of this poll, I have my doubts whether Democrats really know what they are talking about. It also explains much about why Republicans are always complaining that you can't talk specifics with a true Liberal- they don't know them. Letterman this week referred to Palin as the first VP who 'arouses me.' These folks don't even make apologies anymore for these disgraceful comments. What a snarky jerk. The bottom part of the post had to do with myriads of people, all types, who have said: 52% of the people elected Obama, so quit whining about the election. WRONG! only 29% of them voted for Obama. Hardly a majority. Yes, it was the majority that VOTED, I will grant that. That 52% statement is just a bugaboo of mine that I correct whenever I hear it. -------------------------------- The poll had to do with the 'fair and balanced' statement: do Democrats REALLY know both sides of their candidates? or do they only listen to the negatives of the other party? Well, that poll answered that question succinctly for me. Hardly any of them could identify Biden or Obama's chief negative issues. Why? Because the media understressed them while overstressing nearly 3or4 to 1 McCain/Palin negatives. Meanwhile, Obama taps Eric Holder, who approved the Gestapo round-up of Elian Gonzalez (remember him, the little Cuban refugee that under gun point was lead out of his house in the US- remember that famous picture of him hiding in the closet?), Holder, who actually pardoned a group of terrorists the FLAN who murdered a judge; Holder who pardoned Marc Rich for Clinton who was wanted in every country for fraud....this guy will be our drumroll....Attorney General. Yep...the guy in charge of marking good arrest and pardoning decisions for the government. He's bad news, but our 'good news Obama' networks won't even cover his credentials or history. Compared to the hoopla surrounding the current Attorney General Alberto Gonazalez, Holder has many more negatives than poor Alberto. But you won't hear them because nobody in the media wants to throw stones at Obama, no matter how objectionable the pick. So here we go again: a prime Obama pick with pro-terrorist leanings. Suprised? |
||
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"Eric Holder, who approved the Gestapo round-up of Elian Gonzalez" Nothing like using inflammatory language to crank up the hate mongering. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
I don't use Gestapo lightly: But when the government uses INS fully armed thugs to arrest a child, WITHOUT A WARRANT, the first time ever a warrant wasn't used in a high profile case, then knock down doors in the middle of the night and point guns at a child, what would YOU compare it to? The INS arrest of Elian Gonzalez was very much like the SS of Germany. It was feared that the INS would morph into this reality across the board, but thank God it didn't happen. This was the exception that caused such public outrage that the INS was defanged effectively for 10 years. The problem I have with this, is that Holder KNEW a warrant was needed, but didn't get one, even though every newspaper in the country was following the little Elian story. Chasing children in the dead of night, without a warrant, at gunpoint. I'm just calling it as I see it. http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/elian_gonzalez.jpg --------------------------------------- Voting for a Difference Department: A Vote For Obama is for change! (let's analyze the changes) 37 out of 40 appointees are Clinton staffers Eric Holder, see above Leaks, well EVERY key position has been leaked, including the Hillary SecOfState leak. So much for things being different. Tom Daschle (Sec appointee for Health & Human Services)- (Obama pledges that "no political appointees in an Obama administration will be permitted to work on regulations" I guess Obama didn't know that Daschle is currently a Lobbyist for....drumroll again....Mayo Clinic and Alston & Bird, a legal group for health care clients.) and Rham Emanuel, who on the night after the 1996 election , "Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! ... Dead! ... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name." The reality of Obama's Admin, is that we only have his current decisions to go on, and they all look tainted so far, and NOT the change everyone was expecting in politics. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So Holder pardoned the FALN terrorists, responsible for over 150 bombings. It doesn't surprise me he would be an Obama choice, not after Ayres. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Anyone who uses the word Gestapo outside its proper context is, imo, using it lightly and should be called out for doing so. You might want to do a little more research about the Gonzalez case. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Holder pardoned them? |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
"Holder pardoned them?" Are you being rhetorical or asking a real question? Yes, Eric Holder did, and even pushed for their release even though the 16 terrorists never asked for clemency themselves. At the time, it was said that he did this for Hillary's 2000 upcoming campaign. She was in desperate need of New York latino votes for her election, and Rahm E was paving the way for pro-Latino votes. The FALN is a Puerto-Rican terrorist group. They had 16 life sentences comuted to just 19 years. The actual case that they were convicted of didn't involve any injuries, so Clinton decided to commute their sentences http://pardonpower.com/2008/06/holder-and-faln-clemency.html ... A list of FALN documents withheld from Congress shows that many memos on the FALN clemency decision went directly to Holder,while Reno's role was minimal." (Brian Blomquist, "Ailing Reno Yielding Reins Of Justice," New York Post, 12/15/99) ... "Although The New York Times reported that the FBI, Bureau of Prisons and U.S. state attorneys opposed clemency, Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, the Justice Department official most involved with this issue,reportedly supported clemency. 'Eric Holder told me he was recommending that,' a high-ranking official said. Ruff also supported clemency, sources said. Holder declined to comment." (Edward Lewine, "How Bill Chose Clemency," [New York] Daily News, 9/5/99) ... "The committee's documents show that Mr. Adams and Eric Holder, the Deputy Attorney General, met on Nov. 5, 1997, with Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, Democrat of Illinois, and Representatives Jose E. Serrano of the Bronx and Nydia M. Velazquez of Brooklyn, both Democrats, to discuss the case of the Puerto Rican inmates. According to Mr. Adams's notes, Mr. Holder told the members of Congress that because the prisoners had not applied themselves for clemency this could be taken that they were not repentant, and he suggested that a statement expressing some remorse might help. In their testimony today, both Mr. Adams and Mr. Holder declined to answer several questions about how the clemency decision was reached, citing executive privilege. Both said, however, that the Justice Department had acted appropriately throughout the process." (Neil A. Lewis,"Records Show Puerto Ricans Got U.S. Help With Clemency," The New York Times, 10/21/99) |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
What I was asking was why you were saying Holder pardoned them when it was Clinton who commuted their sentences. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Clinton went through either Janet Reno or Eric Holder to assess the viability of some of the key clemencies. Unfortunately, Eric Holder was the person who championed this sentence in place of Reno. All told, there were 177 Presidential pardons by Clinton - one of the biggest travesties of justice ever done by a President. Whenever you get bored, take a look at WHO the 177 were. They weren't nice people. Clinton owed favors, and paid them back (or forward in some cases) by commuting murderers, terrorists and some of the biggest financial frauds in the world. The FALN, by the way, is one of only 3 terrorists group ever associated with a United States continental soil terrorist attack, so you should be aware of its historical significance (this attack happened in 1975 at the Fraunces Tavern in New York). |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
So Holder didn't actually pardon anyone? That was just a statement you threw out to crank up the rhetoric again? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
One final thing, did you ever find out the name of the federal magistrate in the Gonzalez case? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Speaking of cranking up rhetoric, anyone remember Alberto Gonzales and the full assault on him by the press and the Democrats simply because he was a republican nominee? It's interesting that Holder carries a ton of more baggage than Gonzales did and yet, since he's a democratic nominee everything is fine with them. So what's new? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
They didn't object to Gonzales because he was a Republican, they objected because he was another Bush lackey. [This message has been edited by JenniferMaxwell (11-21-2008 08:21 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you once again, Jennifer, for proving my point. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
And your favorite Bush lackey would be? Mine’s Heck of a Job Brownie with Can’t Remember 122 Times Gonzales as a close second. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Attorney General Gonzales had helped President Bush in Texas. For those of us who feel that not every death penalty imposed by a jury needs to be the correct decision, given information that turns up later and the reality that mistakes do happen and that sometimes these mistakes must be acknowledged, Gonzales seems to have played the improbable role of recommending no clemency during President Bush's years as Governor there. This was a politically popular position, and one that may even have reflected the actual reality of the situation. The actual likelihood of it reflecting reality seems, however, somewhat on the low side. Counselor Gonzales also seemed to have helped President Bush tuck away a DUI charge. No problem there. Lawyers are paid to do that sort of thing. It may not be anybody's favorite thing about lawyers until you get into trouble; but at that point, you're probably mighty glad to have them. As White House Counsel, however, Alberto Gonzales helped formulate the the U.S. policy about torture of prisoners http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/gonzales/index.asp and was instrumental in the formulation and later the implementation of laws and policies that I believe are not at all in line with the intentions of the framers of the constitutions in regards to civil liberties. I think that you do not do the Republican Party any service at all by linking them with Alberto Gonzales and his support of these policies. When you say that people opposed him — I suspect you mean "Democrats" here, since there weren't enough to defeat the nomination — because he was a Republican, I assume that you don't mean that all Republicans share Alberto Gonzales' views on torture, for that is what much of the opposition was based on. We already have border patrol people boarding buses and asking for papers inside the continental U.S. President Bush now has troops training on riot duty inside the continental U.S. because he's done a side-step around the Posse Comitatus laws. He has started writing signing statements as a way of attempting to over-ride congressional over-ridings of his vetoes, to pick and chose which laws he will enforce or even obey. To have such precedents continue and possibly expand during an administration from the opposition party is very frightening indeed. And I happen to think Obama is a decent guy. I'm actually happy to see him in office. Sincerely, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Ron (11-24-2008 08:00 AM).] |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
A good post, Bob: it shows a fairly even potrait of Gonzalez' negatives. I think you bring up a great point: Gonzalez was part of Bush's early team, and like it or not, EVERY President picks members of their own team for positions. I have to say, for all the 'change talk', Obama has NOT selected a single non-Dem for any of his 55 positions he has chosen. So much for the famed Lincoln comparison where Abe surrounded himself by both camps in order to make decisions that best suited a compromise situation. We are currently in state of government, by both parties, where strict partisanship is not only expected, but is DEMANDED of their own party. Even Lieberman and McClain, both who have mutual respect from opposing parties, have demonized by their own party for their independent views. Last time I looked, the Congressman's duties was to his people FIRST, not the party. That facit has to change for the government to change. If Obama does not recognize this, it will be the biggest faux pas of his early administration. McClain was the only candidate, in my opinion, that people could honestly say: will reach across the aisles (or be non-partisan). Obama has NEVER advocated support of any Republican sponsored bill that I have heard of, but McClain has probably the longest and most interestingly independent voting records of any Senator currently serving. It is also true that Gonzalez acted totally within the frame of his voter's wishes. To say that the voters of Texas are a little more 'Gun-Ho' (emphasis on gun) than other voters is an understatement. They firmly believe in capital punishment, but they also have a firm belief in not letting evil go unpunished. It would not be too much of a stretch to say that we don't understand Bush or Gonzalez as much as we should, simply because they are from Texas and their different way of thinking. Some states harbor similar middle of the road opinions, some far left, some far right. For us, as a general citizens, NOT to make some concessions in understanding the unique differences of the states is not be honest with ourselves. My apologies for not being more a part of these discussions lately: I've been on assignment, still am until after the holidays. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Threadbear, that should come as no surprise. In Obama's speech yesterday, he stressed the need for strong bi-partisanship. Obviously, his definition of bi-partisanship is to put Democrats in charge of all major posts and have the Republicans agree with whatever they do. I am learning Obamanese. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear and Balladeer, I believe that Obama asked Gates to stay. Whether he will or not, I don't know. There may be other more identifiably right wingish sort of fellers he'll be talking to as well. I probably need to be paying closer attention to the details. My contention remains that Obama is still basically nothing more than a Rockefeller Republican, and the country has swung so far to the right that what passes for Republicans these days think that a Rockefeller Republican is the same thing as Karl Marx. I haven't seen a lot of evidence to the contrary, what with all the Republican on Republican purges over the past couple of administrations. As I recall, there were several attempts to get rid of McCain as being too Liberal a few years ago, including a seriously vitriolic primary campaign in '04 and considerable grumblings since then. Obama is getting a fair amount of heat from the Left for not being Left enough, should that be any comfort to you. The early reactions seem somewhat the same as those that came from his election to the Presidency of the Harvard Law Review, when the Left felt that his election gave them a mandate to have everything their way, and when Obama insisted on making sure that he included the right in on the action. I think that will prove more difficult here, since both right and left can be pretty unforgiving, and both seem to forget any debts as soon as they might come due, especially if they're inconvenient. It looks like Biden's comments about being tested were simply good judgement on his part at this point. The notion of a smooth transition into office for the man seems a bit silly, given the economic data, and the current state of world affairs. Here's hoping I am wildly incorrect! Happy Thanksgiving to both of you, and anybody else out there. Sincerely, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Ron (11-27-2008 07:15 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
