Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: National Survey (PPP 5/7-9)

Topics: poll

Public Policy Polling (D)
5/7-9/10; 707 registered voters, 3.7% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)

National

Obama Job Approval
50% Approve, 46% Disapprove (chart)
Dems: 83 / 13 (chart)
Reps: 14 / 84 (chart)
Inds: 46 / 47 (chart)

Do you support or oppose President Obama's health care plan, or do you not have an opinion?
43% Support, 49% Oppose (chart)

Do you support or oppose drilling for oil off the American coastline?
55% Support, 30% Oppose

Does the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico make you more or less likely to support further drilling for oil off the American coastline, or does it not make a difference to you?
21% More likely, 43% Less likely, 36% No difference

Party ID
41% Democrat, 35% Republican, 24% independent/other (chart)

 

Comments
iVote:

"40% of Republicans and 44% of conservatives either agree with the Internet conspiracy
theory that environmentalists perpetrated the oil spill to reduce support for oil drilling or
are unsure."

You've got to be kidding...

____________________

Field Marshal:

Most of those are obviously facetious responses. I remember a poll that asked if Bush was the anti-Christ and it received 40% of the democratic vote. You could ask if Obama (or Bush for that matter) is a robot sent to destroy the planet and you will get significant responses for it on both sides. Its dumb questioning made to elicit the response it wants to make the mainstream papers and media.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Health care isn't doing so badly in the polls.

I knew when this health bill was passed, I knew it's supporters will not benefit in this election cycle, however, I think the GOP will gradually focus less on anti-health reform in much of the country, and more on excessive spending in general. I predict they will attack TARP and will do that even if 80 percent of economists say it was a necessity to prevent a great depression, or simply end up the way Spanish, Greek and Irish economies are now. You are talking about 13 percent unemployment in Ireland and nearly 20 percent in Spain. They are probably a lot more socialized than the US is, yet bailouts in many ways in my opinion are more existent in a very Capitalistic society like ours.

I think that many of the things Obama is getting slammed with now, will probably be huge accomplishments by 2014 when people see a noticeable difference in insurance costs. Public option models of what VT and Hawaii have more of, will grow in other states as well. People will wonder why they ever spent such ridiculous ammounts of money on their hospital bills while the CEO's sucked them dry.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

WHen was the antichrist comment conducted about Bush? I personally wouldn't have answered yes until he talked about Iraq as Axis of Evil and there was a clear agenda to invade and take over a soverign state. Of course different people see it differently, so I can't tell anyone not to call Obama the anti Christ.

Personally I believe that in the long run, Bush's policies in Iraq, and Rove's war crimes, and the conspiracies with Blackwater would qualify him as more of an anti-christ to a majority of people.

I think the way progressives see it is that when people call Obama an antichrist for simply wanting to uphold Roe Vs wade or consider minor laws that would not allow AK 47's to get in the hands of gangs in Chicago who kill Children, or call him an anti-christ because of a believe in Sarah Palin's death panels, that is psycho talk.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"Personally I believe that in the long run, Bush's policies in Iraq, and Rove's war crimes, and the conspiracies with Blackwater would qualify him as more of an anti-christ to a majority of people. "

***SIGH****

No sane mind would think Bush was the anti-Christ nor would one think Obama was either.

And i won't even get into the gross misinformation in the rest of your post. You are moving out there with the likes of Obamalover and Lat. That is territory no person should want to tread.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Well thinking about it in retrospect I wouldn't call Bush the Anti-christ, but someone who made irrational decisions, and wagged the dog in order to win votes. I am sure most people now wouldn't call him an anti-christ, but back in 2005 the anger from the left was so apparent that people said things they wouldn't mean. It was consistent with Tyranny.

I would say in retrospect he is one of the worst American presidents, Cheney belongs in jail, and Rove at least deserves to spend a few years at a Country Club prison.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Again... ****SIGH*****

Don't know why i'm asking this but here goes...

What crime did Rove and Cheney commit? Not liking their policies is not grounds for criminal indictments.

If you want to see Tyranny, look no further than what Obama is currently taking this country towards. Heck, just look at ObamaCare!

Worst American president is Johnson followed closely by FDR.

____________________

GARY WAGNER:

"What crime did Rove and Cheney commit?"

They were republicans. That's enough for the hate-filled far left liberals. Just ask Keith Olbermann. He's their spokesman.

This is PPP - a democrat pollster. Look at how twisted the demographics are. 41% democrat? Even with that skew, they could only manipulate the approval for the healthcare monstrosity up to 43%. And, that is down from 45% in their poll a month ago.

____________________

Xenobion:

Violation of the Geneva Pact, War Crimes, Ect. Don't sign it if you aren't going to abide by it. Keith Olbermann lol...

____________________

Field Marshal:

"They were republicans. That's enough for the hate-filled far left liberals. Just ask Keith Olbermann. He's their spokesman. "

I'm sure that is exactly correct. Some on the left are just so full of rage and hate today that they will do anything to spread the hate; including calling anyone who disagrees with them racists, calling people NAZIs, bigots, etc. Its quite pathetic.

____________________

Stillow:

FM - You mean Obama is not an evil alien robot sent here to destory us???

____________________

Ned:

PPP is a dem pollster, but they are up there with Rasmussen in terms of accuracy. They're pretty fair.

____________________

Stillow:

I would wager that 30-35 percent of the Dem party still think Bush planned 9/11.

What is the latest on that civilian defense force Obama wanted...ya know the one that he wanted to be as strong as the military itself with equal resources? Hmmm??

____________________

nick283:

Who were the people that said this spill made them more likely to support offshore drilling? I support offshore drilling and this hasn't changed that, but i don't see why this spill would change anyone's mind in favor of it

____________________

Stillow:

Maybe they work for cleanup companies....

____________________

John Marek:

Wow...are y'all really trying to make the left look like the extremists these days?

GIVE ME A BREAK!!! With the right calling Obama a socialist Muslim bent on undermining our Constitution (and who supposedly wasn't born here), you really have very little room to make those accusations.

I felt that comparing that god awful AZ immigration bill to Nazi Germany was silly, and I also don't think any other similar accusation for the right or the left is called for.

Oh and as far as the illegal Iraq War goes, go read what your ultraconservative buddy Ron Paul has to say about it ;).

____________________

iVote:

@FieldMarshall

FDR one of the worst presidents, really? No wonder people on the right have such twisted views.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Ivote:

Wow, what a well thought out and reasoned argument against my opinion. Now i see your point. Thanks for enlightening me!

____________________

Stillow:

I love these libs like John Marek:. Calling Obama a socialist is radical, but calling Bush a fascist is cool. Claiming Bush planned 9/11 is cool, but asking Obama for a birth cert is evil. Comparing Bush to Hitler was cool, but comparing Obama to Hitler is racist.

Politics is dirty....the left always, ALWAYS forgets the stuff they say and dowhen they are not inpower, then condemn the same behavior when its used against them.

Writing books about assasinating Bush was cool, but opposing Obama's HCR was racist.


____________________

John Marek:

Yeah the same group of people who asked us not to question Bush over the Iraq War (and to blindly support and respect our President) are the same people who like to bash the President who led us through WWII.

____________________

Field Marshal:

John,

Welcome. The Iraq war was not illegal. A war resolution passed congress on October 16th, 2002.

And identifying one person on the right to make a point that the right is wrong on the subject is the old straw man argument. How about the liberal Lieberman who supported it? Does that make it okay now? LOL.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Stillow,

I was just going to post that. You beat me to it. His post was all over the place bemoaning the left and the right for the dumb lies and rhetoric over the AZ law. But then he goes on to state that the right calling Obama a socialist is "extremist". LOL.


____________________

iVote:

You can disagree with FDR's policies, deficit spending, etc. but to call him one of the worst presidents ever is illogical. He accomplished what he set out to do, ended the Great Depression, led us through WWII, and was re-elected time after time. How was he a worse president than, say, a Harding?

That's the problem with people like you. Your ideology has a funny way of making accomplishments seem irrelevant.

____________________

nick283:

John Marek - he also rounded up japanese-americans and sent them to camps in the middle of the country. I wouldnt say he was the worst president, but for anyone who claims to care about civil rights, its hard to say roosevelt was a good president. Not too many of our presidents have rounded people up and put them in camps because of their ethnicity.

____________________

Stillow:

WW2 ended the depression. FDR prolonged it. But as you say, its all debatable.

____________________

iVote:

Gary Wagner,

Approval for HCR is down 2 points, but disapproval is also down a point. Nothing real significant in that.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"You can disagree with FDR's policies, deficit spending, etc. but to call him one of the worst presidents ever is illogical. He accomplished what he set out to do, ended the Great Depression, led us through WWII, and was re-elected time after time. How was he a worse president than, say, a Harding?"

I disagree with everything FDR did. Hence, the reason why i think he is the worst president ever. In other words, i think he did the most damage to this country. Harding did not. Saying someones choice as worst president is illogical makes no sense. Its equivalent to saying pepperoni pizza is the worse kind of pizza. It's all OPINION!

But any president who subjects and rounds up their own citizens into concentration camps based solely on their race and ethnicity should be classified as worst president ever. I can say with great certainty that if he were a republican, the Dems would be crying and whining how racist he was. Lat and OL would be having a conniption about it.

Most economists would also agree that his domestic depression era policies were the exact opposite of what should have been done.


"That's the problem with people like you. Your ideology has a funny way of making accomplishments seem irrelevant."

And the problem with people like you is that you ignore people with the same ideology. Farleft made the argument that Bush II was the worst president ever but you conveniently ignored that because of YOUR ideology.

____________________

Wong:

"Most economists would also agree that his (FDR) domestic era depression policies were the exact opposite of what should have been done."

What BS.

What economists? Any polls of economists? Or just more made up GOP bull?

____________________

iVote:

If you're going to say "most economists" then please provide some sort of data to back that up.

And I'm fairly certain that Farleft's ideology and my own are not the same. Stop assuming.

____________________

tjampel:

"Most economists would also agree that his domestic depression era policies were the exact opposite of what should have been done. "

"Most economists" means what exactly? Can you show that most economists have adopted the revisionist view? Just reading an article about this in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which states that. One thing this article points out is that there were other players besides Roosevelt that had an influence on the economy, generally not a good one; for example:

"Economic progress in those years, many economists agree, also was inhibited by wrong-headed policies by a Federal Reserve board that saw the road to recovery paved by tight monetary policies and high interest rates."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09067/954035-28.stm

In fact, many economists fault FDR, not so much for trying to spend our way out of the depression but, rather, for for cutting back on spending and raising taxes, in 1937. This combo lead to disastrous results over the next few year, which were only reversed through the massive stimulus of the early 40s (AKA...WWII)

The article concludes that the new revisionist assessment of Roosevelt is still the minority view among economists, though it's certainly grown in status over the past 5 years or so.

There's no doubt it's the "UNANIMOUS" view among Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell of course, who stated recently:

"...we know for sure that the big spending programs of the New Deal did not work"
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09067/954035-28.stm

As we've learned over the years, just because Mitch McConnell says "for sure" doesn't mean it's even likely.

____________________

StatyPolly:

>>>When the Gallup poll in 1939 asked, 'Do you think the attitude of the Roosevelt administration toward business is delaying business recovery?' the American people responded 'yes' by a margin of more than two-to-one. The business community felt even more strongly so"[57] Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, angry at the Keynesian spenders, confided to his diary May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started.[58] And enormous debt to boot."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

Here is a quick and to the point read by George Will.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802370.html

____________________

Chris V.:

The little arguments between John Marek and GARY/FM/Stillow on this poll are bash-head-into-keyboard material.

Basic framework for these "your side is crazy" arguments:

Some guy on your side said something crazy!

Oh yeah, well so did someone on your side!

I'm going to ignore the crazy stuff that my side supposedly thinks and say some more crazy stuff that your side supposedly thinks!

Me too!


We can thank folks like Rush Limbaugh, DailyKos, etc. for bringing the political discourse in our country to this sort of enlightened banter. Everything my side thinks is right, everything your side thinks is crazy, evil, etc. It's so much easier than, you know, actually being objective and knowing what you're talking about. That's hard work!

____________________

Stillow:

Chris V.:

Its called context. If one side is striking political attacks on the toher side for certain actions, its imparative to draw comparisons for people to put into context. If not, then one side gains an advantage.

For example being labeled a racist for comparing Obama to Hitler....its important to point out that the left did the same thing. You use the comparison to debunk the attempted moral high ground by one side.

Being objective is a relative fantasy. Everyone has pre-disposed beleifs they are guided by. Hence the immediate support and opposition numbers to Kagen who no one knows anything about.

You may not like it, but context is important. One side cannot be permitted to gain advantage by slamming the other side for soemthing if they too are guilty. Its called keeping the playing feild level my freind.

____________________

Chris V.:

I understand what you are saying, but I think there's something to be said for taking the high ground instead of just saying stupid stuff to combat stupid stuff from the other side. Just my two cents.

____________________

lat:

Excuse me Chris, I understand your point, but you are flat out wrong this. There is no comparison to what a drug addicted, mean spirited, nazi sleazeball, like Rush Limbaugh does vs. anyone on the left. I have a different view then most on this because I can see through the bullshit code words that the right loves to use. Good ole Rush said the other day that he is pissed off there will no longer be any protestants on the supreme court which translates into "there are too many jews,other minorities, and hell we will throw catholics in to boot". It's the same crap when the nuts on the right talk about "real americans". What the hell does that mean? If you are white, live south of the mason dixon line, and go to the right church that makes you a "real american"as opposed to a fake one.

____________________

Chris V.:

The problem I have with what you are saying is that many on the left have their own set of lazy, false assumptions and, as you phrase it, "bullshit code words." I suppose I would agree that the venom from the left is typically less hostile and vitriolic than that which comes from the right, but not by a whole lot. The Dems might not have a singular prominent figure as unapologetically hateful and manipulatively divisive as Limbaugh, but go take a look at some of the comments on DailyKos and tell me that there aren't plenty of rabid reactionary hacks on the left as well. Or, for that matter, read obamalover's posts on this site and tell me there aren't liberals who are preoccupied with demonizing the other side.

I also object to your use of the term "Nazi" to describe Limbaugh. For all his faults, I'm pretty sure he doesn't advocate mass extermination of Jews, so using that phrase to describe him is in extraordinarily bad taste.

I agree that the "real American" talking point is a load of crap, and reeks of jingoism and subtle discrimination...but I'm not going to get to worked up about it. It's just another BS talking point that the GOP uses to fire people up and distract them so they aren't paying attention to the politicians in DC screwing them over. I can see through the GOP's "bullshit code words" too. The difference between us appears to be that I also see through the Democrats' "bullshit code words," and you apparently do not.
On both sides, it's all crowd control, just meaningless noise and manufactured controversies to serve as petty distractions from what's actually important to the well-being of our country.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Worst American president is Johnson followed closely by FDR"

Oh come on. I'll assume you meant Andrew Johnson and mixed up Franklin Roosevelt with Franklin Pierce ;)

FDR Led us through the Great Depression followed by WWII (pssst...we won that war) - that's why FDR is regularly considered the 3rd or 4th best president and probably will continue that way. WWII and the depression were the greatest crisis periods for the U.S. other than the Civil War, revolutionary period and the 1790s when we were almost bankrupt and went to war with Britain/France.

____________________

lat:

Ok Chris let's look at it this way. Yes there are some on the left that spew hateful nonsense, but there is a huge difference in my view in that they are typically clowns, isolated, and frankly not taken seriously. Since civil rights and the great society The GOP and the right has made it's living using divisive and de facto racist tactics. I have said many times that Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, etc. all used what I am talking about to strong effect. Nixon with his "southern stategy", Reagan with his "states rights campaign" which translates into "Hey all you white suburbanites aren't you sick of all those black and hispanic people collecting welfare on your dime, getting drunk, and smoking dope, etc?" And let's not forget Willie Horton which translates into "If we elect Dukakis evil black men will come into to your white cushy living rooms and eat your young"! The only reason this has dissipated somewhat is because this is a much tougher sell when minorities make up 25 percent of the electorate vs. less than 10. So again I argue that there is no comparison based on recent history.

____________________

Chris V.:

Well, you're entitled to that opinion. You do raise some good examples, but I think it's more just pandering to a base of votes that they want to receive rather than any inherent racism on their part. And the majority of Republicans are not racist. It's the broad-brush painting of an entire ideology as "racist" that bothers me more than anything.

I'm more or less a liberal, by the way.

____________________

GARY WAGNER:

"The GOP and the right has made it's living using divisive and de facto racist tactics."

And there you have it. If you can't defend something, call a republican a racist. End of story.

It is getting more and more pitiful for the liberals by the day. The more they use the word racist, the most desperate they are. It's kind of sad that they have to resort to that for someone that promised them "hope and change".

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"but I think there's something to be said for taking the high ground instead of just saying stupid stuff to combat stupid stuff from the other side."

I think you want a level of discourse that's simply not American tradition, except for a short period during & following WWII up to about the mid 60s. Even then you had McCarthyism & a lot of crazy things said about Truman & communism. People were fighting duels up to the civil war era over political differences.

During the Eisenhower and Kennedy years the moderates were the primary voice. For some reason people think that's how it always was. You want polite, high-minded discourse? Go to Britain. Ask Gordon Brown how "bigot" is a dirty word there.

You can find inflammatory rhetoric from every other time period in prominent press outlets or from politicians. The difference now is that extreme views are no longer extreme, but mainstream. Glenn Beck, for example, basically has the same conspiratorial ideas as the John Birch Society. You can literally find phrases in Robert Welch's 1958 "blue book" that are used on Glen Beck's show. Word for word. But Welch never tried to pretend he was "mainstream." Today, mainstream is whatever you think it is, so it's meaningless.

But I have to agree with lat, I hear more inflammatory rhetoric from the right simply because right-wing pundits & spokesmen get more airtime and we happen to be in a democratic administration. The left has no one equivalent to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck, but it also seems to me that left-wing people have less of a desire to hear their prejudices parroted back to them by media personalities.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Aaron,

I would disagree. Look at how stupid sayings be the left become almost "mainstream" and take on a truth value of their own when repeated ad nauseum. For instance, the whole Bush lied thing leading up to the Iraq war. Or how about the TEA party activists are racists? How many times have we heard that when there is zero truth to it.

The left seems to have almost obsession with Limbaugh and Beck and Palin. Their influence is minimal. To suggest that the right is all about Limbaugh would be similar to suggesting the left being all about Olbermann and other hate-spewers at NBC/MSNBC.

FDR did lead us through the depression as he was president during it. But "lead" is a relative term. If you seek a Masters of Econ degree, you will undoubtedly take Economic History or even a Great Depression class. In ours, we used several textbooks, most of which were fairly critical of the direction FDR took us. In addition, i don't who "regularly considers him the 3rd or 4th best president" but i would argue for what? I stand by my argument that if he were a Republican, he would be rated the worst BY FAR in our history.

His economics were atrocious, his handling of the war was terrible, and his sending American citizens into concentration camps is unconscionable. What do you like about him that isn't re-written history by some left-wing professor?

____________________

Stillow:

Those of us on the right have to constantly remind the left of things they do and have done. Liberals like lat and others on the left see racism in every argument. To them its impossible to disagree with Obama without being a racist. No matter what argument you use, the left will come up with so called code words that mean soemthing other than what they mean.

The left makes it very difficult to have a genuine debate. Not all, but safe to say most do. Most on the left enter all debates assuming conservatives are racist, sexist, etc, etc, etc.

So dumb old conservatives like me have to constantly remind the left of what they have done. Had Obama's car been egged during inaugeration it would have been portraryed as racism....but when it happened to Bush it was portrayed as legit anger being expressed in an acceptable way.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"In addition, i don't who "regularly considers him the 3rd or 4th best president" but i would argue for what?"

Well, here's CSPANs survey rankings:

http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx

Their participants are mostly scholars of the presidency/executive branch or individual presidents. I've read the works of at least 10-12 of them. Ie: Robert Dallek - JFK & LBJ; John Milton Cooper - Wilson; Lou Cannon - Reagan; Annette Gordon-Reed - Jefferson; Douglas Brinkley - TR. Since they've done the research, I would imagine they're the most qualified to evaluate them. There are some conservatives in the mix...Paul Kengor would be one, maybe others I'm not familiar with.

Usually historians and political scientists rate presidents based on their leadership during crises, then their competence in other areas given the context of the time. Whether or not they "agree" is irrelevant. So crisis presidents like Washington, Lincoln, FDR, will always do well, especially if the country came out of the crisis well. Those that responded badly to crises and/or created crises will be consistently be viewed poorly ie: Buchanan, Cleveland, Hoover. Others whose times didn't give them the opportunity to really shine will always be kind of in the middle, ie: McKinley, Clinton. Others did great things countered by very rash things, ie: Jackson, Nixon.

Some rise and fall based on new information or as cultural mores change and people either are nostalgic for a certain type or come to dislike certain attitudes. Great examples are Wilson and Truman. Grant is starting to rise as new information comes out about his reconstruction policies.

I'm not sure who would be your favorite presidents would be since you seem to want to rate them based on economic ideology. The most right wing ones I can think of would be Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Cleveland. Maybe Reagan and Jefferson, but they both had shadow legacies of liberal/big gov't that didn't always match their rhetoric. Reagan didn't reduce spending and really only cut a few entitlements.

The main thing that always bothers me about these "rankings" is that we've had 43 presidents since 1789 but 7 of the top 10 are from the 20th century.

____________________

lat:

Stillow,

As usual you are missing my point. Am I saying that there are not idiots and hate mongers on the left? No, not at all there are plenty of them. But since 1965 there has not been a national effort by the democrats to use de facto racisim as a way to win elections. As I stated in my earlier post there is a huge difference between some left wing clown spewing nonsense vs. an overall national strategy election after election. The only reason the gop can't get away with it anymore is the minority population is now too strong, but it's going to take a long time for The GOP to completely get away from this.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"o suggest that the right is all about Limbaugh would be similar to suggesting the left being all about Olbermann and other hate-spewers at NBC/MSNBC."

Like I said, there is no left-wing equivalent to those people. We don't have any more Huey Longs or Robert LaFollettes shouting left-wing populism. Olbermann is a joke. Who else have we got? Bill Maher? Those people do not get near the media attention that Limbaugh, Beck, etc... get. They don't have best-selling books, etc...

I think it's mainly that there's not a market for it, liberal people today are less interested in that confrontational style. It why Air America failed.

____________________

Coldfusion:

Stillow and Field Marshall know all!

I want to bow down and worship these guys immediately.

According to them, Obama is now going to a 15% approval rating, any day now!

____________________

Field Marshal:

I see we've added another left-wing Rhodes scholar to the board in Coldfusion.


"I think it's mainly that there's not a market for it, liberal people today are less interested in that confrontational style. It why Air America failed. "

I disagree. Maybe Olbermann just doesn't know or have time to write given his hate-filled tirades.

But i digress, i would argue liberal people today are more interested in confrontational style debates. Simply look at this board as one of MANY example.

The left simply has significantly more outlets than the right does which disperses the audience more thinly. In addition, conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1 which is another reason for the success of some of these people on the right.

While i would never read a book by Beck or Limbaugh (does he write books?), these books provide the same sort of reading as most of the left gets from the Daily Kos or even the NYT. To say there is no market is incorrect. I would also argue that the left create MORE attention to Limbaugh and Beck. When they attack them, it draws more people, on both sides of the aisle, to their shows wanting to hear what they are saying.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Listen to NPR then switch over to Limbaugh.

Or watch Jim Lehrer then switch to Hannity on Fox News.

What's the difference?

One one side, you have programs that are reflective and inquisitive, albeit with analysis or framing that tends to have a left wing perspective. Although usually there are attempts to give the right wing perspective a chance, ie: David Brooks on Lehrer, or people from Heritage or Cato on NPR.

On the other side, you have programs that are nothing but bloviating, mocking, and conspiracies, NO time given whatsoever to liberals unless to mock them (Hannity starts shaking his head before they even start to say something, or he cuts them off once they say something that he disagrees with), and generally very little information other than their own opinion.

I swear, the myth of the liberal elitist institutions is so strong. It pervades everything conservatives think.

"Limbaugh (does he write books?),"

Several bestsellers in the 90s. Don't think he does much now, but he's so successful he doesn't need to.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

If there was a market for a liberal Limbaugh, there would be one.

Another important difference is the time management. Hannity, etc... devote 85% or more of their time to politics, and most of that likely centers on Obama.

Things like NPR vary their coverage between national, international news, arts, environmental issues, finance, etc...

____________________

Stillow:

lat - Racism is relative. It would be my argument that the left embraces racism in its own way. Such as teach dependency, encouraging welfare expansion. Constantly pitting one race against another by trying to convince one side that the other side is the cause of all their problems. By constantly accusing peopel of racism. Liberals are often guilty of the worst kinds of stereotypes and do not even realize it.

You create code words which you then give definition to on whatever you want. Example after example I give on this site of left wing racism, yet the lefties like you dismiss it because you are convinced that I and others like me are evil whtie supremists.

The Democratic party as a whole enages in racism by purposely pitting blakcs agaisnt whites....the Dems need that division to exist so they have a villain. Dems cannot move there agenda forward without a villain to focus peoples anger on.

To many on the left give in to hate speech by people like olberman who convince people the right hates this group or that group....well its always liberals who break people up into those groupings. Its liberals who racially profile all the time with their support for things like racial quota's an affirmative action....or making tests less difficult so minority students can pass them. to have less expectations of someone based on skin color is in itself racism.

Its typically white conservatives who give more to hcarities which help all americans of all colors...where liberals spend most of their time yelling at others for not giving enough.

The left has severaly distorted the wor racism thru their irresponsible accusations. I cannot tell you hwen, but eventually there will be a backlash for that. People are people. i do not choose my freinds based on what color they are....one of my best freinds from college is black, I don't view him as my black freind, he is just my freind. A liberal though o nthe toher hand will be proud to announce to the world that he or she has this black freind.

Its very sad where Democrats have taken race relations in this country.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR