Barack's in the basement

From The Washington Times
(emphasis added)

Barack's in the basement
Obama is less popular than Nixon and Carter

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. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton, who got off to a notoriously bad start after trying to force homosexuals on the military and a federal raid in Waco, Texas, that killed 86. 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.

As the attached chart shows, five presidents rated higher than Mr. Obama after 100 days in office. Ronald Reagan topped the charts in April 1981 with 67 percent approval. Following the Gipper, in order of popularity, were: Jimmy Carter with 63 percent in 1977; George W. Bush with 62 percent in 2001; Richard Nixon with 61 percent in 1969; and George H.W. Bush with 58 percent in 1989.

It's no surprise the liberal media aren't anxious to point out that their darling is less popular than George W. Bush. But given the Gallup numbers, their hurrahs could be more subdued. USA Today's front page touted the April poll results as positive, with the headline: "Public thinks highly of Obama." The current cover of Newsweek magazine ponders "The Secret of His [Mr. Obama's] Success." The comparison with previous presidents is useful because they are usually popular during their first few months in office - and most presidents have been more popular than Mr. Obama.

The explanation for Mr. Obama's low approval is that he ran as a moderate but has governed from the far left. The fawning and self-deceiving press won't go there. On Sunday's "Meet the Press," host David Gregory asked a panel about critics who "would say one of the things that he's done in 100 days already is expand the role of government, the size of government." Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin claimed, "That's what he ran for the presidency in the first place for."

Perplexed about complaints over Mr. Obama's expansion of government, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham asked: "does no one listen during campaigns?"

It was these pundits who weren't paying attention during last year's campaign. In all three presidential debates, Mr. Obama promised to cut government spending and reduce the size of the deficit. He blamed the economic crisis on excessive deficits. At no time did candidate Barack Obama say that more deficit-spending was the solution.

Mr. Obama's popularity after 100 days is the second-lowest for a simple reason: He is more partisan and divisive than his predecessors - including Richard Nixon.

Liberals must be proud. He's less popular than George W. Bush who liberals like to say was the "Worst president. Ever."

What does that make Obama? "Worst president. Ever. REALLY!"

Were they paying attention?

I sit here attempting to figure out if the editors at the MJS are just not paying attention or they are so stuck on there own liberal agenda, that they are willing to financially damage the city they live in.

Newspapers used to be the reflection of city or town they print in. With today's editorial you have to wonder where the editor's heads are located.

Once again, they are pushing for a sales tax increase and are doing it under the ruse of "Let the voters decide".

Perhaps the MJS did not notice that the voters have decided. Over and over the voters in Milwaukee have rejected the notion of more tax increases.

Barely more than three months ago the voters outright decided once again that they wanted Scott Walker as their county executive. The election was not even close.

The editorial board needs to get this though their heads:

The voters have elected Scott Walker to Milwaukee County Executive for three straight elections based on his "no tax increases" policy.

For over six years, the MJS has been ramming their tax increase agenda down the throats of their readers to support more transit and more money for parks.

For six years, the MJS has impaled Scott Walker on his "no tax increase" pledge. They have attempted to embarrass, humiliate, conjole and insult Scott Walker into bending to there will to increase taxes.

Scott Walker has just ignored the MJS' editors and so have the voters in Milwaukee County.

No campaign was more difficult to overcome than this last one run against Scott Walker.

State Senator Lena Taylor has a high profile job and name recognition, the full backing and financial resources of the governor, the full backing and resources of the Wisconsin Democrat Party, the full backing and the financial resources of liberal 527 groups and the full backing of the media.

All Lena Taylor had to do was convince the voters to allow her to raise taxes, just a little to support better transit and better parks.

The very same issue the editors are pushing were the very same issues Lena Taylor was running on just three months ago:

MJS

The race heated up a bit in recent weeks, with more than 20 debates and joint appearances in which Walker and Taylor took opposing views on nearly every issue. Taylor portrayed Walker as underfunding parks, social programs and bus service. Taylor argued that she had superior credentials, including a law degree.

So what has changed in the last three months that would convince the MJS editors to once again begin an all out assault on Scott Walker and the taxpayers to raise taxes?

Some of the new county board supervisors can be intimidated into over-riding Scott Walker's veto of the new sales tax.

It is doubtful that the taxpayers of Milwaukee County have changed their tune on tax increases.
But hey, MJS and County Supervisors, keep on ignoring the will of the people. We will see have far that gets you.

It got Lena Taylor crushed in the last election, we will wait and see if the taxpayers have changed their minds in the last three months.

This is news?

Is this what Madison considers to be newsworthy?

The degradation, the insults, being the butt of jokes is what these guys consider to be newsworthy?

This is not a real newspaper, is it?

What is next? Do they plan on reporting on what is written about Republicans on the bathroom walls?

I just posted about media bias...

The very first article I read after posting about media bias being in the Obama camp, is the following one.

This is from Newsweek, a supposedly non-biased reputable news organization. The author, Evan Thomas, with his open letter to Barack Obama.

This is not a Op-Ed piece, this is a cover story!

This photo with the following caption was posted:

In Hand: The president's official seal is set




Why vote in November, the new President has already been decided by the media.

Careful media- your bias is showing

I guess the only way to finally rid ourselves of the horrible media bias is to turn off our TV's, cancel our newspaper and magazine subscriptions. That is the only way these goofs in the media will finally get it. If they do not stop, America should cancel them out and just get their information from

I did not think the media could get worse than it did in 2004 with their backing of John Kerry.

However, this year, the media bias in favor of Barack Obama, even if it meant destroying a fellow Democrat is repulsive and disgusting.

Poll results-

Voters have little doubt as to who is benefitting from the media coverage this year—Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far. Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage while 14% say that Hillary got the best treatment.

It is time to start calling these reporters what they are- They are bald faced liars. Omitting the truth and covering up the truth is no different than bald faced lying.

H/T Charlie Sykes

Clinton maybe concedes, maybe not

Oh yeah- these headlines are as clear as mud:

Clinton set to concede delegate race to Obama

Clinton campaign says she not conceding Tuesday

Seriously, these two opposite news stories were posted within three minutes of each other.

.

The New Republic's deceptions- the truth comes out!

The New Republic and their false stories have once again been outed. This is information that we already knew, but their are a lot of new and interesting facts to read.

Bob Owens reveals the real truth at Pajamas Media-

- Private Scott Beauchamp did not reveal that he was “Scott Thomas,” author of “Shock Troops,” until he was asked to sign a second sworn statement. It was after he signed this statement that his identity was revealed in The New Republic.

- Major Cross has seen no evidence of any sort of fact checking by The New Republic’s editors prior to publication, a sentiment shared by Army Public Affairs Officers in both Iraq and Kuwait. It is also worth noting that TNR editors have refused to publish PAO statements that contradict their claims.

- Major Cross was unable to find anyone in Beauchamp’s squad, platoon, or company that would corroborate the stories he told in “Shock Troops.”

- Beauchamp was the subject of a second investigation, which found him guilty of violating his unit’s operational security for which he could have been thrown out of the Army.

Read the whole thing.

I also found it quite interesting that after the New Republic insisted that the tall tales told by this soldier had been fact checked and corroborated over and over again, the truth came out about that also.

Turns out the fact checker for New Republic was the wife of the soldier telling the tall tales.

How many times does the New Republic get caught doing these types of stories before their credibility as a media source is completely shot?