[paudio]

Fully 84% of voters say they have heard a lot or a little about Kerry's remarks with 60% saying they have heard a lot. By comparison, just 26% say they have heard a lot about President Bush's statement that he will keep Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense until he leaves office in 2009.

What is the basis for comparison here? That they're both saying a wrong thing?

[Pikachu_Dad]

Everybody at my workplace has heard about what JoKe said! They loved the picture from the troops!!!

I don't listen to closely to what the President says anymore either. I pretty much know and trust what he is going to say. Keep up doing a fantastic job Mr. President ... and Mr. Rove too.

[GraniteStateConservative]

No, that they are looking at who has heard statements that could affect election outcomes in some way.

[CheyennePress]

Those were my sentiments exactly. I see no relation whatsoever to Kerry's comments and keeping Donald Rumsfeld. They're not at all comparable.

[Dave S]

What is the basis for comparison here?

That both statements had the potentilal to change the vote of some voters. Kerry for obvious reasons and the statement about Rumsfeld could impact some Republican leaning independents in a negative way by highlighting the existing perception that Bush is unwillingness to try anything different in Iraq.

[Question Liberal Authority]

Fully 84% of voters say they have heard a lot or a little about Kerry's remarks with 60% saying they have heard a lot. By comparison, just 26% say they have heard a lot about President Bush's statement that he will keep Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense until he leaves office in 2009.

What is the basis for comparison here? That they're both saying a wrong thing?

It's a complete non-sequitur, based, I think, on Bush Derangement Syndrome on the part of the "analyst". It helps them to defend the idea that the media isn't tilted toward the left, and, in fact, that's it's tilted toward the right.

The example that most readily comes to mind is John McCain losing the South Carolina primary in 2000. This is commonly chalked up to a "whisper campaign" among right wing kooks, while ALL EVIDENCE points to the fact that NOBODY CARED about John McCain's pet ISSUE of Campaign Finance Reform, while EVERYONE cared about Bush's pet issue of tax cuts.

The media's logic here is that, since they were having orgasms over McCain, that anyone who didn't vote for him must have been a racist or some sort of religious nut. Frankly, even if McCain-Feingold made sense, it wouldn't have been a sexy issue, any more than NBA Salary Cap Reform would be a sexier issue to NBA fans than, say, reducing the price of NBA tickets.

Anyway, I THINK the point of the original statement is that "Rumsfeld must be fired is a MUCH MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE than Kerry's botched joke, therefore the electorate was swayed by the right wing spin and attack machine."

Another example of this is the Dean Scream. It's alleged in moonbat circles that the REPORTING of the Dean Scream was overplayed and therefore biased. But the Dean Scream was universally funny. Even hard left people like Jay Leno and Jon Stewart milked it for all it was worth.

If the Pew Center was honest here, they'd be comparing the John Kerry "botched joke" to coverage of Rush Limbaugh's argument with Michael J Fox, and Mark Foley's naughty emails. Bush saying he won't fire Rumsfeld is like Bush saying he won't fire the Postmaster General.