Accuracy in Media

President Obama has doubled down on his latest lie—that last week’s elections were not a repudiation of his policies and governance. The pollsters and the media missed the mark as well, by a long shot. The election was a clear repudiation of an out-of-control, dishonest, incompetent, and corrupt administration. While the voters may not love Republicans, a majority of them recognized that they are the only hope of stopping the Obama agenda, which is disastrous for this country on many levels.

Even when Obama said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” last Sunday that “The buck stops here,” meaning he accepted some responsibility, he added that it was really about his messaging and skills of persuasion, not his policies, his incompetence, or his radical agenda. He also said that the meaning of the election was that the American people just want Washington to work, and that he is committed to that.

His loyalists in the media took a bit of a different position. The view of MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski and Chuck Todd, along with numerous other analysts, was that the real problem was the Democrats’ rejection of President Obama in the period leading up to the election. Very few incumbent Democrats wanted anything to do with Obama, but the belief of those journalists and analysts—taking their cue from the White House spin machine—was that if the candidates would have only embraced the President and his great “success” with the economy, they would have done much better. But those who did embrace him, for the most part, lost anyway. Some were shockers, such as the governors’ races in the very blue states of Maryland, Illinois and Massachusetts.

Remember, Obama said that while he wasn’t “on the ballot this fall…make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.” And the voters clearly agreed, either by the way they voted, or their decision to stay home.

The big question following the 2014 November elections is, what will both sides do now? For the GOP, the dilemma is said to be that they need to show that they can govern, and not just obstruct and say no. Without women, blacks and Latinos, we are told, the GOP can’t win another presidential election. So they must move to the left. However, a Gallup poll taken after the election shows that by a 53% to 36% margin, Americans “want GOP legislators in Congress to have more influence over the country’s direction than Obama during the next year.” The voters are saying to the GOP, show us what you’ve got.

At the state level, the Republican wave was even more dominant. According to the website, Vox, “Republicans now control state government outright in at least 24 states, one more than they did before the election. They control at least 66 of 99 state legislative chambers nationwide. And they cut the number of states with total Democratic control from 14 to seven—the lowest number since the Civil War.”

The dilemma for Obama is that he either has to drop the hand grenade of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants in this country—which by all indications he plans to do—or risk, as Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) said, a “civil war” in the Democrat Party. And if Obama does take that action, he will, in essence, be telling Republicans, “Forget what I said, I have no interest in working with you to pass even compromise versions of your legislation. That is why I worked with Harry Reid (D-NV) to bury some 360 bills you passed in this session of Congress.” The real do-nothing part of Congress was the Reid-led Senate acting on behalf of the Obama White House. And when the results of the election were becoming apparent, leading Democrats blasted President Obama, including Harry Reid’s chief of staff, who did so on the record to The Washington Post.

Obama’s and the Democrats’ problems were the collective weight from the administration’s continued lies about how well the economy is doing; about how well Obamacare is doing; about the handling of the Ebola situation; about Obama’s phony war and phony coalition to defeat and degrade ISIS; about the politics of race; about his desperation to make a deal with Iran; about scandals such as Benghazi, the IRS and the Veterans Administration; and about his shoddy treatment of Israel. It has been compounded even further by the blunt remarks that came to light this week that showed how an MIT economics professor, Jonathan Gruber, who was one of the architects of Obamacare—and paid $400,000 for that purpose—unambiguously revealed how the administration counted on what it viewed as “the stupidity of the American voter” to dishonestly push their health care legislation through Congress. Buckle up. We’re in for a hell of a ride.



Comments

  • Poptoy1949

    He knows better but too Damned Proud. Most arrogant Man I have witnessed in my life.

  • bob570

    Denying reality, requires some serious coach time. I wonder if the 25th Amendment comes into play here.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    What about the 14th Amendment section 4b? If one remains an unrepentant student of Saul Alinksy and Karl Marx, does not the amendment apply?

    If the Republicans are afraid of the tactics of the MSM, then the MSM is still effectively in control.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Obama did not seek the office of the presidency to serve the American people. He sought the office to fundamentally transform the United States of America. To Obama, the election of 2014 simply means that the leftist conditioning of public opinion has encountered some strong resistance. It’s not a big deal in his mind. After all, our bankers are now in China. And Vladimir Lenin initially had to deal with a counter resistance as well.

  • Douglas Mayfield

    Whether the Republican wins in this election turn out to mean anything at all depends on whether the GOP becomes real opposition or continues to be made up of cowardly ‘me too’ semi-socialist Republicans who divide their time between ‘compromising’ with, that is, snuggling with, the dealers in socialist poison, the Democrats, and doing everything possible to destroy the Tea Parties.
    As long as the hierarchy of the Republican party values clinging to elective office more than it values presenting real intellectual and moral opposition to the Democrats, the Republican party will continue to be useless.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    RESIST, verb transitive rezist’. [Latin resisto; re and sisto, to stand.]

    1. Literally, to stand against; to withstand; hence, to act in opposition, or to oppose. a dam or mound resists a current of water passively, by standing unmoved and interrupting its progress. An army resists the progress of an enemy actively, by encountering and defeating it. We resist measures by argument or remonstrance.

    Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will? Romans 9:19.

    2. To strive against; to endeavor to counteract, defeat or frustrate.

    Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit. Acts 7:51.

    3. To baffle; to disappoint.

    God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble. James 4:7.

    RESIST’, verb intransitive to make opposition.

    – excerpt from Webster’s Dictionary 1828

    (back when a dictionary wasn’t afraid to use scripture!)

  • disqus_XK9gIx2U7h

    You are on the money !!!

  • Erudite Mavin

    The Republican Party is the opposition to Obama and the Democrats.
    The Republican bashers, aka libertarian types spend their time giving a free ticket to the Democrats while they attempt to divide Republicans.
    Look to your Rand Paul, Koch bros, tea party express et al who are pushing amnesty. Right on board with Obama

  • Douglas Mayfield

    I don’t know RP’s or the K Bros. positions on amnesty but I do know a number of Tea Party supporters who are flatly opposed as I am.
    (In fact, almost no matter what the issue, if Obama is for it, the odds are very high that I’m opposed.)

  • junkbuster

    The man is a raging socialist. In voting for him, We the People have effectively voted our democracy out of existence.

  • Bruce Budy

    It would help us if you would post the facts that prove these are “lies”. …………………………………………………………………………………………..”Obama’s and the Democrats’ problems were the collective weight from the administration’s continued lies about how well the economy is doing; about how well Obamacare is doing; about the handling of the Ebola situation; about Obama’s phony war and phony coalition to defeat and degrade ISIS; about the politics of race; about his desperation to make a deal with Iran; about scandals such as Benghazi, the IRS and the Veterans Administration; and about his shoddy treatment of Israel.”……………………. Without proof that they are intentional “lies”, aren’t we just dealing with “differences of opinion”. This should be easy. For example, could you quote the “lies” about how well the economy is doing? I cannot find any claims to the contrary which have not been acknowledged by the White House. After all, the DOW and the S&P are at record levels. Unemployment has dropped from 9% to 5.9%. These are not “lies” are they? And the President does point out that too many workers are not sharing in the improved economy, does he not? So, where is the lying? What are the lies about “The Ebola Situation”? After all, we come to this seeking “Accuracy in the Media”, and find no supporting documentation. If Obama is indeed lying, and you can prove it, rather than just claim it, that would indeed be a step toward accuracy in the media, for those of us who seek it, rather than just having our fires stoked..

  • Bruce Budy

    And you are a raging lunatic, junkbuster. Are you not aware that Socialists participate in democracies around the world? http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-between-socialism-and-democracy/
    Can you suggest any feasible way that Obama could keep the nation from voting again in 2016? If he cannot, democracy in the USA is alive and well. The proof in this is that even idiots like you can vote. …and will be able to for the foreseeable future.
    http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-between-socialism-and-democracy/

  • junkbuster

    If socialists implement policies based on socialistic political theories, the government in which such socialists participate are no longer democracies. Furthermore, there are no pure democracies anywhere in the world. Be that as it may, the focus is on the government of the United States, which was never a democracy, but a republic. Now the great republic is becoming corrupted into something it was never meant to be. Socialism was one of the twentieth-century’s greatest abysmal failures. People leave all these wonderful socialistic to come here. Only now socialists are creating the same mess here as they have everywhere else.

  • Bruce Budy

    This response indicates you did not read the difference between socialism and a democracy. The difference between a Republic and a Democracy makes little difference in this regard. Yes, there may be no “pure ” democracies, but if that is true, why are you concerned about ours? Your claim that a government in which socialists participate is no longer a democracy might surprise the numerous nations with socialist parties which vote in their democratically run elections. Democracies may in fact have Communist parties, Fascist or Nazi, as well as Liberal or Conservative or Libertarian…why not? The point of a democracy is that the people get to choose their government leaders, as we have chosen Obama, twice. If he, or anyone, were to move towards any extreme, we voters would have the option to vote for a new leader, so what is your problem with that? I believe there are not sufficient voters supporting any of the more extreme parties to cause us concern. But if voters do elect a party which is not the one of your choice, that is proof of democracy at work, and your resistance to it indicates you are not willing to accept living in a democracy. “The “Mess” we have here is because too many do not know what the hell they are talking about, not because our democracy is threatened. The greatest threat to a democracy is an uneducated electorate, for they can be led by those who seek power by deception, not by the value of their ideas.

  • Bruce Budy

    Does this settle the Benghazi “lie”? It should….http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/politics/benghazi-attack-report/index.html

  • junkbuster

    No offense, but there seems to be a confusion in terminology. A big difference between a democracy and a republic, which is the form of government we now still have, is that in a democracy, everyone makes the rules. In a republic, we the elect other people to make laws and run the government for us, trusting that they will act in the best interest of the public.

    Under an international socialistic agenda, which is what we now have, superimposed on our republic, the government directs laws and policies, often in contradiction to the will of the people. As long as they get their way, it does not matter how people are hurt by the process. History marches on in step with a socialistic world view.

    Yes, as a matter of fact, this write does not care for the politicians running this government. Many times they have proven not to be acting in the best interests of the American people. It didn’t matter to members of our executive branch that an Ambassador of the United States was beaten to a pulp. They also lied through their teeth regarding the health insurance, causing many people in need to lose their physicians and insurance policies that had worked for them for years of treatment.

    I am concerned about our republic, because the United States is the republic in which I live. Members of political parties are free to espouse a platform, and citizens are still free to vote. But if the elected party does not work in the public interest, one is still free to call it out on its corruption and define its Alinskyite policies as detrimental to the very foundation of the United States. I do believe, Bruce, that Barack Hussein Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, as well all of their crony enablers in congress do not have the best interests of the United States at heart.

  • Bruce Budy

    Can you really insist that the government elected, either in a Republic, or a Democracy, would fully represent “the will of the people”? Stop a moment and consider why we need elections at all. If “The Will of The People” were unanimous, why bother with elections and representation of common views? It may be that your view of “The People” is colored by your limited exposure to the world outside of The Right Wing Media. If you note the election results, “The People” were by no means together in their “best interests”. (“Alinskyite policies??” Such references reveal you have been locked in a bubble created by your favored media. Most of the rest of “The People” got over that revelation years ago. You should get over it as well.) If you wish to be helpful, I suggest you compose a list of those things upon which you believe all of the people agree, and what you feel is “in their best interests”. I will help you to circulate this list, and we shall discover together whether you are that Wise Person we have sought for centuries, or not. Until you receive this endorsement, I wonder if you might restrain yourself from assuming to speak for us all, and spend more time trying to learn what opposing voices have to say, and what they believe their best interests to be. Start with this thought. We have elections in order for opposing voice to be heard. Unless the result is 100% for anything, anyone, “The Will of the People” is in fact only “The Will of the Majority”. and “the best interests” of any fraction will not be met…and the majority’s only obligation is to respect the minority, not to carry out their “best interests” in lieu of their own. That is why the notion of “compromise” is raised from time to time. Now, get on with that list. The world is waiting…