The MSM are winning

Instapunk ^ | May 16, 2006

[Roscoe Karns]

It's called Chinese Water Torture. It works.

NOSTALGIA. The princelings of the blogosphere are proud, perhaps justifiably, of the impact their new form of media has had in recent years. They brought down Dan Rather, they helped reelect George W. Bush in 2004, and they have played a part in the steady erosion of the credibility and circulation totals of major newspapers like the  New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Boston Globe. They see themselves as a potent new political force climbing atop the crumbling ruins of the Mainstream Media.

The only problem with this view of media matters is that it's wrong. Think back to September 12, 2001. Imagine that an omniscient seer had told you then that four-and-a-half years later, the U.K. and Spain would have experienced al Qaeda attacks in their own countries; France's appeasement-oriented government would have been rocked by Islamic riots in Paris and other cities, Denmark would have had its citizens and embassies targeted for Islamic terror attacks on account of political cartoons portraying Muhammed; Russia would have endured a deadly hostage siege by Islamic terrorists at a school full of children; and in all that time, the United States would not have experienced a single additional terror attack on its own soil. Imagine the seer had told you further that the United States would, in the same period of time, wage and win two wars in the middle east, overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan and midwifing the formation of a parliamentary democracy there, then driving Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and bringing that destitute country to the verge of its first parliamentary government, elected by nation-wide vote and backed by a western-trained police force and a non-Baathist army, while Saddam himself sat in the dock awaiting the verdict of his trial for crimes against humanity. Imagine he had told you that American combat deaths in these two wars over three years time would not have exceeded 5,000. Imagine that he also told you the American economy would have fully recovered from the 9/11 attack in this timeframe, returning to employment, interest, inflation, and growth rates rivalling if not exceeding those of the Clinton years, despite wartime budget deficits and huge increases in gasoline prices caused by the inevitable uncertainties in the middle east, while the socialist economies of Europe stagnated or shrank. Then imagine that he told you George W. Bush's approval rating just six months after his reelection would stand at 29 percent.

Would you have believed him? Would you have believed that the predicted accomplishments could be achieved so speedily, if at all, in the post-9/11 world? And would you have believed that a man who led such bold endeavors would be the least popular president in modern history save for Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter?

Yet that is the case. And here, courtesy of CNN, is the unkindest cut of all:

The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.

Wouldn't we all like to go back to the paradise of pre-9/11 America?

How could this have happened? Bungles, scandals, corruption, and bad luck? Well, in case anyone has forgotten this elementary fact, every presidential administration has its share of bungles, scandals, corruption, and bad luck. These are the whales, sharks, and other monsters that swim ceaselessly in the political ocean. But the ocean itself -- the medium in which the monsters swim -- is the MSM. In this context, the blogosphere is no more than the foam on the whitecaps stirred up by the vast currents and movements in the ocean below. And while the bloggers were fighting their various and diverse battles in the name of truth, justice, and common sense, the MSM ocean was harnessing its entire immensity on just one story, told an infinite number of times, in every possible inflection, from every direction, and with the deadly persistent accuracy of a dripping tap: George W. Bush is no good.

It doesn't have to be true, it doesn't have to be fair, it doesn't have to be consistent in its terms. All that matters is that it is repeated with uniform constancy: drip, drip, drip. George W. Bush is no good. George W. Bush is no good. George W. Bush is no good. Change the headlines, seem to change the subject. Abu Ghraib. European disdain. Tom Delay. Katrina. Deficits. Valerie Plame. Gas prices. Karl Rove. Death in Iraq. Angry mothers. NSA wiretaps. Drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, the lede is always the same. George W. Bush is no good. George W. Bush is no good. George W. Bush is no good. George W. Bush is no good. George W. Bush is no good. George W. Bush is no good. Forget the good news, bury the accomplishments or ignore them altogether. Drip, drip, George W. Bush is no good, George W. Bush is no good, George W. Bush is no good.

It took the MSM three years to bring George W. Bush's approval ratings down from their post 9/11 high to 52 percent on election day 2004. It's taken them just six months to bring him down another 20 to 25 points. They never forgot their mission. While the princeling bloggers pissed and moaned about Harriet Miers, and immigration, and federal spending, the MSM kept on dripping out its one story, and now they are within reach of their goal -- Democrats restored to the majority in both houses of Congress and the stage set for the vengeful impeachment and dismissal from office of the most courageous president in modern times.

We're just one bubble among the tens of thousands in a single patch of foam on the MSM ocean. Who are we to stand in the way of the American tidal wave of nostalgia for the great Bill Clinton presidency? We can only submit. Here are a few of the moments we're sure everyone wants to savor again and again, like fine wine, from the days when the President single-handedly created a booming economy, took care of everyone's needs, minded the national security faultlessly, and was so thoroughly honest in all his dealings with the American people.

[Tokra]

It takes a really careless voting public to hand a whole country to stark raving lunatics like Howard Dean.

You obviously haven't been reading many of the posts here - there are many "conservatives" who are going to sit this election out and hand victory to the raving lunatics.

I hope and pray that you are right and I am wrong.

[hershey]

Nostalgia for Bill translates into votes for Hill. Kerry and AlGore won't be happy.

[Tokra]

the dems will sweep November

That's what they said in 2000, and 2002, and 2004, also.....pickin' up a pattern

I don't recall thousands of Republicans threatening to "teach the GOP a lesson" in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

This time there is a chorus of "don't go the polls in November - that'll teach 'em". That changes everything.

You left out the first part of my comment: "If things don't change...."

[GOPJ]

Tony Snow is a good start. The long thread on his first presser was very enthusiastic. A more combative tone from now til November is devoutly to be wished. All of us here should do our part, however small it may seem.

You're right. Tony's a good start.

[hershey]

If Bush had come out a few years ago, defined the border problem honestly and taken steps to secure same, his poll numbers would be through the roof. 'but for a nail...'is true. Now we have to deal with reality -- a thugocracy that dumps its unwanted over the border while attempting to extort a complete makeover of their country by the US a la Oprah. Ta da! Fox has already suggested it, and how long before Bush decides it's preferable to troops facing off over the border and worse. Besides, some Mexicans will go home to help rebuild their country -- with much waving of Mexican flags and up yours, US, nonsense. They won't stay, however, because once the US fixes the last highway and builds the last hospital, school, etc. and packs up and leaves, it'll be back to business as usual. Drugs, gangs, violence, killings, corruption.

The sad truth is that if you get something for nothing, you don't appreciate it. Ask any parent who's given a car to a 16 year-old. What's the first thing the kid does? Wrecks it. So if we rebuild Mexico's infrastructure, they'll wreck it and simply expect more next time. And there'll be a next time. (They need a change of culture, mores, attitude, but if that happened, they'd fix their own country.)`

[Jameison]

"You obviously haven't been reading many of the posts here - there are many "conservatives" who are going to sit this election out and hand victory to the raving lunatics."

I have.
And sure, there are plenty of things I am not happy about with the Republican Party, especially as it pertains to Immigration (we gotta build a very strong , high tech, impenetrable wall across our southern border).

But sit home and let Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold take over, so they can send people to the border to show Mexicans criminals and drug dealers how to get into this country even easier and faster?

I don't think so.

If these "conservatives" think Bush is bad on immigration, they should try listening to uncle Ted some time.

[Jameison]

"If Bush had come out a few years ago, defined the border problem honestly and taken steps to secure same, his poll numbers would be through the roof."

Naaaah.
The MSM would still be attacking relentlessly..and the loony left and the "leaders" of the RATS like Howard Dean would still be spewing out "I hate Republicans" speeches.

Is it possible President Bush's "numbers" could be a bit higher today? Sure.
But remember President Bush has had some of the highest poll ratings ever for an American President during his presidency .

I am not too bothered about these "low poll numbers".
For the most part they are a fraud.
I simply think of how CNN presents the news (with their "X" over the VP face and their rabid Bush attacks), and think of how totally biased John Zogby was during the 2004 elections, and I ask myself, can these be trusted to present honest polls, when they almost always present biased news?
The answer is always "No".

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

What will they say in September when Bush stomps the Iranian ayatollahs and their nuke program flat, nabs "Kill the Jews" Ahmadinejad and occupies their oil fields in one week?

[stockstrader]

The fact remains that, although any poll by itself is distorted by inherent bias of the organization taking it, if you aggregate all the polls--you DO get a fairly accurate picture.

I use www.realclearpolitics.com to get an accurate picture of what the American people think. During the last election--if you took the AGGREGATION of ALL the polls listed on that site--you got the EXACT percentage margin by which President Bush won!!

So when people cite any particular one poll, I always take that with a grain of salt. However, if the average of ALL polls agree with that poll--then you cannot ignore it. Hence, the incredibly low approval rating of the President are not to be dismissed--as all polls taken together DO show that he (and the entire Republican Party in the next election) have a major problem.

[Eighth Square]

Yep, you have it right! He has to fight back, his staff and spokesfolks have to fight back, he can't just leave it up to the the talkshow hosts - although, God bless 'em they are doing a hell of a job! But, if we are to survive in any meaningful way, we cannot let the 'liberal democrat' filth get control of this country. If you have to hold your nose, so be it, vote Republican. The alternative is just too horrorfying!

[traditional1]

troll away; but Democrats have lost 3 consecutive times by using "Bush-Bash Only" and "stolen-election-syndrome" excuses...with NO plan, NO ideas, and NO clue, Democrats will be losing as usual in 2006

[sinclair]

The MSM is Americas enemies spy agencies.

[Tokra]

troll away

I'm not the troll - I'm not the one who keeps advocating "stay home in November and teach the GOP a lesson". THOSE posters are the trolls

I'm just worried that people actually will sit out the election and hand it to the democrats.

Read my posts - I say do whatever it takes to keep the dems from winning. Does that sound like a troll? Or does "the GOP needs to lose so they will straighten up" sound more like the trolls?

[Steve Van Doorn]

"Imagine the seer ‘forgetting’ to mention the immigration issue."

this article is a waist of time.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"The reason they are ahead is that Bush is not fighting back - he's been taking the blows without comment."

This is true regarding the MSM. Notice though he did fight back on the illegal immigration issue (his conservative base)

[Jameison]

"The fact remains that, although any poll by itself is distorted by inherent bias of the organization taking it, if you aggregate all the polls--you DO get a fairly accurate picture."

Aggregating lots of over 90% anti-Bush biased polls, turns round and gives you an accurate poll?

Ooookey.



"I use www.realclearpolitics.com to get an accurate picture of what the American people think. During the last election--if you took the AGGREGATION of ALL the polls listed on that site--you got the EXACT percentage margin by which President Bush won!!"

I use realclearpolitics too
In fact used it all the time during the 2004 presidential election campaign.

One thing I noticed; Hanoi John Kerry was ahead (by quite significant margins too, in some cases) for most of 2004
In fact by this time in 2004 old Hanoi John was ahead on realclearpolitics.
He ended up losing.

[stockstrader]

So 90% of the polls on realclearpolitics are anti-Bush biased? Yarite. That's why the aggregation was RIGHT ON THE MARK on election day.

[Jameison]

"So 90% of the polls on realclearpolitics are anti-Bush biased? "

Realclearpolitics takes most of their polls from CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, WaPo, NYT, LA Times and the rest of the liberal media, and then average it out.
Realclearpolitics never actually conduct any polls themselves.

Is the liberal media 90% anti-Bush? Yes.
Is the liberal media 90% biased in practically every single report they publish on President Bush? Yes.

If they are totally biased and regularly lie in their news reporting, are they likely to be fair and balanced in their polls? Not a chnace.

[Jameison]

"That's why the aggregation was RIGHT ON THE MARK on election day"

RCP aggregation had Hanoi John winning for MOST of 2004, including at this time in 2004.
Does that matter? Oh yes.
It gets people like you and the liberal media to use those same figures to drive down the morale of Republicans and try to convince Republicans that the fight is hopeless and that Republicans are going to lose anyway.

When that still failed in 2004, the so-called "exit pols" were compromised as well, and then cleverly leaked onto the Internet, in order to make Republicans that hadn't voted yet to stay at home, on the grounds that the RATS had already won.
Same trick was used in 2000 as well, when the liberal media declared Algore the winer in Florida, before a huge number of Floridans had even voted, and caused most of the Republican heavy Florida panhandle that hadn't voted yet, not to turn up at all, with the result that Algore nearly managed to steal Florida.

We know how the game is played.

[stockstrader]

I noticed you did not you address the fact, yes fact, the rcp was RIGHT ON THE MARK on election day--just like they were probably correct in the months leading up to the election. The electorate is fickle--and Kerry probably had a slight lead at times--until the CBS forgery fiasco,,, "I was for it before I was against it",,,and the debates where the Pres did ok. People firmed up on the Pres a couple of days before the election--just like the polls showed. In fact, the polls were INCREDIBLY ACCURATE as a whole.

The poll aggregation was PRECISELY on target--just like the polls now are more than likely RIGHT ON TARGET.

My own self-admitted unscientific polls of family, neighbors, friends, relatives and coworkers show the current polls to be accurate--as the Pres has LOST a lot of support from all those OTHER than his solid base. There has been a great deal of movement AWAY from supporting him--while I find almost NO movement increasing support of him. Unscientific? YOU BET--but in line with what the polls are showing.

Again, good luck corroborating YOUR view that aggregating the polls is not an accurate way to gauge, yes gauge (there is no 100% accurate poll anywhere--but rcp is as close as I have EVER SEEN in my life), his current support levels.