View Full Version : Obama’s 43% Is Too Much for Media Matters to Bear

11-20-2009, 09:12 PM
"Down To Forty Three Percent In One Year .Way To go Obama Boy !"

On Tuesday, Media Matters, a self-proclaimed watchdog group that prides itself on “correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media” reacted as it typically does when faced with hard news it doesn’t like: Distort, smear and insult.

This is unbefitting of any true “watchdog,” of course, but then again, Media Matters isn’t fooling anyone.

What got Media Matters’ leash in a tangle were the stunning results, noted by The Examiner, from a recent poll that my newsletter, The O’Leary Report, commissioned with Zogby International.

For the record, I choose to do polling with Zogby because they’ve been among the most accurate pollsters for the past two decades.


Thus, there was nothing spectacular about the wording of the poll question that sent Media Matters into a tizzy.

The question simply asked: “If the presidential election were held next month, would you vote to re-elect President Obama or would it be time for someone new in the White House?” (The poll surveyed 2,879 Americans on November 10-12, all of whom voted in the 2008 presidential election, and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 1.9 percentage points.)

Only 43 percent of Americans who voted in the 2008 presidential election said they would vote to re-elect Obama, and 45 percent said it is time for someone new to be president.

Eleven percent said that their vote for-or-against President Obama would depend on who is running against him, and one percent are not sure.

Even more troubling for the president, just 37 percent of independent voters say they would vote to re-elect Obama, 46 percent say it is time for someone new, and 17 percent of Independents say it would depend on who is running against Obama.

This isn’t good news for the president, who just one year ago rode into office with 53 percent of the national vote.

Media Matters to the rescue!

Rather than address the merit the of the poll question, the sampling method, or the results, Media Matters pointed to a poll question that I ran with Zogby last month and blasted it as “racially charged.” That poll question was worded:

“Federal Communications Commission Chief Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd wants the FCC to force good white people in positions of power in the broadcast industry to step down to make room for more African-Americans and gays to fill those positions. Do you agree or disagree that this presents a threat to free speech?”


A majority of American voters (51 percent) also agree that Lloyd’s desire to force white people out of radio jobs to make room for African-Americans and gays presents a threat to free speech, and only 31 percent disagree.

A strong majority of independents (61 percent) also agree that Lloyd’s ideology is a threat, as do majorities of young voters age 18-29 (54 percent) and small business owners (59 percent).

However, Media Matters has fingered the wrong culprit for the “racially charged” language. The “watchdogs” at Media Matters should have done their homework first.

The author of this “racially charged” language is none other than Obama’s Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd himself. Here is what he said at the 2005 Conference on Media Reform: Racial Justice:

“This – there’s nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions.

“And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.”

I find it equal parts troubling and incredible that in 21st Century America there could be anyone, much less a high-level federal appointee, who thinks the government should be forcing hirings-and-firings at private companies based solely on race and sexual preference.

Media Matters, evidently, is only outraged that someone would dare report the matter or ask America’s opinion about it.

Or maybe Media Matters thinks it is unfair to hold a presidential appointee responsible for something he said just four years ago.

But then again, it was Media Matters that went out of its way to defend The Washington Post this year, when the Post tried to save the floundering gubernatorial campaign of Virginia Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds by attempting to make Republican candidate Bob McDonnell’s two-decades-old college thesis the central issue in the race.

11-20-2009, 11:37 PM
A LINK to the story since moo can never seem to be bothered to post them when he plays copy and paste. :rolleyes: