Link
Sorry to ruin the day for all you haters out there!
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Well sometimes,the sun even shines on a dogs butt.
thanks david, i was looking at this earlier! 
and now for a word from the "bill grey" of politics.......19....18......17.....
and now for a word from the "bill grey" of politics.......19....18......17.....
I wonder why?
Link
How the President Fared In the Press vs. Clinton and Bush
As he marks his 100th day in office, President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George Bush during their first months in the White House, according to a new study of press coverage.
Overall, roughly four out of ten stories, editorials and op ed columns about Obama have been clearly positive in tone, compared with 22% for Bush and 27% for Clinton in the same mix of seven national media outlets during the same first two months in office, according to a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.
The study found positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed.
When a broader universe of media—one that includes 49 outlets and reflects the more modern media culture of 2009, is examined, the numbers for Obama’s coverage are similar, though somewhat less positive and somewhat more negative. In this expanded universe of media—which includes news websites, additional regional and local newspapers, plus cable news, network morning news, and National Public Radio, 37% of Obama’s coverage has been positive, 40% neutral and 23% negative.
Several factors may be at play in the favorable tone Obama has received during these first months. One element is the pace and sweep of Obama’s activities. Bush and Clinton both started their presidencies pursuing policy agendas much more of their own making than Obama has. But the data suggest the current president has managed the media narrative anyway by responding to the economic crisis with so many new proposals and doing so many events that it has been hard for both his critics and the media to keep up.
Another factor may be the media reflecting, and in turn, influencing public opinion. President Obama at this point in his presidency is more popular than were either Bush or Clinton. [1] Past studies have shown a recurring pattern of press coverage tending to follow favorability ratings.
Obama also entered office with a stronger popular mandate than either of his two predecessors. He is the first President since George H.W. Bush in 1988 to be elected to his first term with more than 50% of the popular vote. He also succeeded a president leaving office with historically low favorability ratings.
Finally, those who see the press as ideologically motivated toward liberals will likely see that phenomenon as a factor here as well.
Among other differences, the tone of Obama’s coverage has also proven to be more consistent over time than his predecessors’. Sixteen years ago, Bill Clinton stumbled badly his first month in office and then began to recover; George Bush started well in the press and then began to see his coverage become more skeptical as his policy agenda rolled out, often to substantial controversy. Obama, by contrast, while he has had good weeks and bad in the media, has shown a capacity to recover from the rough ones by changing tactics and redirecting the narrative.
These are a few of the findings of the new study, which compared coverage of the first 60 days of the Obama Administration to coverage in the same outlets during the same time period in the first days of the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration. The comparative component of the study includes an examination of 1,261 stories in two national newspapers, the three commercial network evening newscasts, a prominent newsweekly and the NewsHour on PBS.
The new study also looked at an expanded universe of media outlets that more fully reflects the new media culture. That larger universe also includes the three cable news channels, the three commercial network morning news programs, National Public Radio, 12 news websites, and 11 additional newspapers.
Link
How the President Fared In the Press vs. Clinton and Bush
As he marks his 100th day in office, President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George Bush during their first months in the White House, according to a new study of press coverage.
Overall, roughly four out of ten stories, editorials and op ed columns about Obama have been clearly positive in tone, compared with 22% for Bush and 27% for Clinton in the same mix of seven national media outlets during the same first two months in office, according to a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.
The study found positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed.
When a broader universe of media—one that includes 49 outlets and reflects the more modern media culture of 2009, is examined, the numbers for Obama’s coverage are similar, though somewhat less positive and somewhat more negative. In this expanded universe of media—which includes news websites, additional regional and local newspapers, plus cable news, network morning news, and National Public Radio, 37% of Obama’s coverage has been positive, 40% neutral and 23% negative.
Several factors may be at play in the favorable tone Obama has received during these first months. One element is the pace and sweep of Obama’s activities. Bush and Clinton both started their presidencies pursuing policy agendas much more of their own making than Obama has. But the data suggest the current president has managed the media narrative anyway by responding to the economic crisis with so many new proposals and doing so many events that it has been hard for both his critics and the media to keep up.
Another factor may be the media reflecting, and in turn, influencing public opinion. President Obama at this point in his presidency is more popular than were either Bush or Clinton. [1] Past studies have shown a recurring pattern of press coverage tending to follow favorability ratings.
Obama also entered office with a stronger popular mandate than either of his two predecessors. He is the first President since George H.W. Bush in 1988 to be elected to his first term with more than 50% of the popular vote. He also succeeded a president leaving office with historically low favorability ratings.
Finally, those who see the press as ideologically motivated toward liberals will likely see that phenomenon as a factor here as well.
Among other differences, the tone of Obama’s coverage has also proven to be more consistent over time than his predecessors’. Sixteen years ago, Bill Clinton stumbled badly his first month in office and then began to recover; George Bush started well in the press and then began to see his coverage become more skeptical as his policy agenda rolled out, often to substantial controversy. Obama, by contrast, while he has had good weeks and bad in the media, has shown a capacity to recover from the rough ones by changing tactics and redirecting the narrative.
These are a few of the findings of the new study, which compared coverage of the first 60 days of the Obama Administration to coverage in the same outlets during the same time period in the first days of the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration. The comparative component of the study includes an examination of 1,261 stories in two national newspapers, the three commercial network evening newscasts, a prominent newsweekly and the NewsHour on PBS.
The new study also looked at an expanded universe of media outlets that more fully reflects the new media culture. That larger universe also includes the three cable news channels, the three commercial network morning news programs, National Public Radio, 12 news websites, and 11 additional newspapers.
Let us also remember that in 1939 Hitler had quite a large following, by 1946 it almost became a crime to mention his name. The farther you put them up on that pole, the more it hurts when they fall off of it....
They must have been looking at CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and any other Democrat news channels. Really sad.
I would hope that he is given the bias and fact you can make a statistic say anything.
On the Lee Davis radio show yesterday, someone from here in AL call in who is on the list to take a Gallup Poll monthly. During the Bush Presidency, the first question was do you approve or disapprove of President Bush. The gentlemen answered them honestly with some months approve and some disapprove. At the end of January, he got the same question about Obama to which he stated he disapproved. Since that comment, the question about approval or disapproval has been removed from his survey. Gallup is reporting an approval of 63%, which is probably extremely high based on this caller's information.
On the Lee Davis radio show yesterday, someone from here in AL call in who is on the list to take a Gallup Poll monthly. During the Bush Presidency, the first question was do you approve or disapprove of President Bush. The gentlemen answered them honestly with some months approve and some disapprove. At the end of January, he got the same question about Obama to which he stated he disapproved. Since that comment, the question about approval or disapproval has been removed from his survey. Gallup is reporting an approval of 63%, which is probably extremely high based on this caller's information.
I'm sure his approval rating is lower in Alabama than the national average. 
Maybe his approval rating is a sign of the end of times!
Did you hear that Obama caught the Swine Flu?
You neglected to mention, Obama is lower than Carter or Nixon. Convenient - naturellement!
quote:Originally posted by ngt2293:
Did you hear that Obama caught the Swine Flu?
I heard it was the Pork Flu...every time he coughs or sneezes, it costs the US taxpayer another trillion dollars or so...
Just curious why do people even care about his approval rating. It really does not matter as long as he tries his best. I felt the same way about President Bush, and President Clinton. Personally he has not been in office long enough to approve or disapprove how he is doing. None of his policies have gotten to function very long enough to see a difference. Hopefully he will be a strong leader and stir our country in the right direction because we are far from it right now. He has strengthen our economy mainly because we have to establish our dollar as the best in the world. In the last 4 years our dollar has bottomed out. Second we have to work on the middle east situation or this is how I see it.
Presidential approval ratings flucuate like the wind. This month its up and this month its down. Not worth putting any stock in them. The approval rating that matters most is when the presidents term is up and he or she is judged on their full body of work.
President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969.
Link
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969.
Link
Who would that be skymaster I just saw where he was above President Bush at 100 days for what that is worth.
quote:Originally posted by intheknow13:
Who would that be skymaster I just saw where he was above President Bush at 100 days for what that is worth.
According to the article, Bill Clinton.
The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton.... Mr. Obama's current approval rating of 56 percent is only one tick higher than the 55-percent approval Mr. Clinton had during those crises.
Link
Link
I guess every different paper news network or whoever has a different perspective. The one I saw had President Obama at 63% and President Bush at 62% so they all are different. But I guess if his is just above Clinton's and when Clinton left office he left over a 200 Billion dollar surplus I guess if history repeats itself we could find a way out of the mess we are in right now.
quote:Originally posted by intheknow13:
I guess every different paper news network or whoever has a different perspective. The one I saw had President Obama at 63% and President Bush at 62% so they all are different. But I guess if his is just above Clinton's and when Clinton left office he left over a 200 Billion dollar surplus I guess if history repeats itself we could find a way out of the mess we are in right now.
Clintons half ass policy on defense and terrorism was partly responsible for 9/11.
Ask the right questions to the right people and you can get any answer you want.
Anybody that puts any faith in polls should really look into reading tea leaves or chicken bones.
Anybody that puts any faith in polls should really look into reading tea leaves or chicken bones.
quote:
I didn't click on the link, but I'll bet I can tell what it says.
Younger, low income, minority, Democrats approve. Older, higher income, Republicans...not so much.
It would be a shock if it said anything else.
Was I close ?
quote:Originally posted by N-the-Sticks:quote:Originally posted by intheknow13:
I guess every different paper news network or whoever has a different perspective. The one I saw had President Obama at 63% and President Bush at 62% so they all are different. But I guess if his is just above Clinton's and when Clinton left office he left over a 200 Billion dollar surplus I guess if history repeats itself we could find a way out of the mess we are in right now.
Clintons half ass policy on defense and terrorism was partly responsible for 9/11.
WRONG! It was COMPLETELY responsible for 9/11! If he had taken obama bin laden when he was offered by the Sudan back in 1996, this current state of affairs may have been completely avoided. Of course, NOW the defacrats are glad clodton was soft on terrorism because it forced Bush to have to fight a war that could have been avoided and we all know what THAT led to.
Wow so now we are going to blame Clinton for 9/11. I guess when Bush got told it was possible and he ignored it he was not at any fault. Get real no one could prevent 9/11 Blaming Clinton is crazy. If you can blame Clinton for that, then we must blame Bush for the crisis we are in currently with money. I mean he did ruin the value of the American Dollar. He was given over a 200 billion dollar surplus when he came into office and blew that, but oh yeah I forgot Democrats are the ones that blow money. Well I find it funny for Bush's first 6 years he threw money out left and right spent trillions of dollars on a war we should have never been involved in, but according to people on here that is ok. I think Bush did right by going after Osama Bin Ladin, but I question why he went to Iraq till this day. But blaming Clinton come on people, sounds to me like you need to run for political office since you love to blame people. Wow over half this Forum is like watching Fox News it makes me want to puke about as much as I do if I have it on MSNBC.
And this is why I watch Fox News...
quote:Originally posted by intheknow13:
Wow so now we are going to blame Clinton for 9/11. I guess when Bush got told it was possible and he ignored it he was not at any fault. Get real no one could prevent 9/11 Blaming Clinton is crazy. If you can blame Clinton for that, then we must blame Bush for the crisis we are in currently with money. I mean he did ruin the value of the American Dollar. He was given over a 200 billion dollar surplus when he came into office and blew that, but oh yeah I forgot Democrats are the ones that blow money. Well I find it funny for Bush's first 6 years he threw money out left and right spent trillions of dollars on a war we should have never been involved in, but according to people on here that is ok. I think Bush did right by going after Osama Bin Ladin, but I question why he went to Iraq till this day. But blaming Clinton come on people, sounds to me like you need to run for political office since you love to blame people. Wow over half this Forum is like watching Fox News it makes me want to puke about as much as I do if I have it on MSNBC.
Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
* Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.
Times Headlines
By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.
Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.
The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.
But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.
Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.
The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.
Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.
But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.
Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.
And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.
The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.
*
Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.
As for Bush,
He got a report of a possible attack in the making. No date, no time, no mode, no target.
What would you have him do?
He got a report of a possible attack in the making. No date, no time, no mode, no target.
What would you have him do?
quote:Originally posted by intheknow13:
Wow so now we are going to blame Clinton for 9/11. I guess when Bush got told it was possible and he ignored it he was not at any fault. Get real no one could prevent 9/11 Blaming Clinton is crazy. If you can blame Clinton for that, then we must blame Bush for the crisis we are in currently with money. I mean he did ruin the value of the American Dollar. He was given over a 200 billion dollar surplus when he came into office and blew that, but oh yeah I forgot Democrats are the ones that blow money. Well I find it funny for Bush's first 6 years he threw money out left and right spent trillions of dollars on a war we should have never been involved in, but according to people on here that is ok. I think Bush did right by going after Osama Bin Ladin, but I question why he went to Iraq till this day. But blaming Clinton come on people, sounds to me like you need to run for political office since you love to blame people. Wow over half this Forum is like watching Fox News it makes me want to puke about as much as I do if I have it on MSNBC.
Of course. Were you not alive back then, junior? You don't remember the FIRST TIME obama blew up the WTC and clodton did nothing about it! You don't remember when the Sudan offered to hand over obama and clodton declined the offer. If THAT didn't lead to 9/11, then it was just an act of random violence.
quote:the FIRST TIME obama [osama bin laden] blew up the WTC
No one knew anything about AQ in '93. The Bush administration repeatedly ignored AQ as a threat because they didn't believe any terrorist organization could rise to their level without a state sponsor.
kperk all you do is search, play the blame game and yes i do remember the first 9/11 attack. I also remember the first gulf war and why didn't Bush Sr. take out Saddam when he had the chance and he had plenty of chances. One word, MONEY. That may be the case for Clinton as well, but like I said 9/11 can not be a blame game to many people lost their lives, but as a country that is what we want to do is blame others. No one takes responsibility for their actions.
Bush I did not take out Saddam because our allies were against it -- from the Saudis to the Brits to the French. The Brits and French were making too much money from Saddam's regime. Also, the UN mandate did not permit it. Now, please make up a new excuse. That one just went DOA.
"but as a country that is what we want to do is blame others"
What does that even mean?
"but as a country that is what we want to do is blame others"
What does that even mean?
The UN did not permit it so why did Bush Jr. do it. I am not making excuses I just was giving examples that we blame others. Our problem is we blame others in our country. People around the globe laugh at us all the time, we were at once what everyone wanted now we are just in the middle, but it all comes back to the economy and money we need to make ours top notch again.
People around the globe laugh at us all the time,
I thought you did not believe the liberal news reports?
I believe it was, people hated Bush the cowboy, now they laugh at Obama the teleprompter.
China is crying over Obama's spending. Seems we have a run of emotions.
If no one wants us, why do we have 11 million illegals and counting?
I thought you did not believe the liberal news reports?
I believe it was, people hated Bush the cowboy, now they laugh at Obama the teleprompter.
China is crying over Obama's spending. Seems we have a run of emotions.
If no one wants us, why do we have 11 million illegals and counting?
It was permitted by the time W became president, because Saddam had violated UN resolutions repeatedly. Saddam violated the armistice agreement and Congress authorized the President to act. No more authority was needed.
"we were at once what everyone wanted now we are just in the middle"
Prove that statement!
"we were at once what everyone wanted now we are just in the middle"
Prove that statement!
A little "back page" on this polling thing, two questions were dropped from the polling because they would likely pose problematic responses. In "Liberal Speak" that means we riggedd the results. You can prove anything with statistics (polling) or as some say, "there are liars, dammed liars and then there are statisticians... 
quote:Originally posted by dolemitejb:quote:the FIRST TIME obama [osama bin laden] blew up the WTC
No one knew anything about AQ in '93. The Bush administration repeatedly ignored AQ as a threat because they didn't believe any terrorist organization could rise to their level without a state sponsor.
So you are saying that between 1993 and 2000, we knew nothing about AQ? You are really reaching, dude.
Repeatedly ignored threats? He was only in office for less than 9 months when we were attacked! What was your role model doing for the previous 7?quote:Originally posted by intheknow13:
kperk all you do is search, play the blame game and yes i do remember the first 9/11 attack. I also remember the first gulf war and why didn't Bush Sr. take out Saddam when he had the chance and he had plenty of chances. One word, MONEY. That may be the case for Clinton as well, but like I said 9/11 can not be a blame game to many people lost their lives, but as a country that is what we want to do is blame others. No one takes responsibility for their actions.
I only blame people when they deserve it junior.
