Redstate

Dean - Pelosi - Reid Democrat's are misunderestimating President Bush again.

to learn that there is misunderestimating going on here.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

------------------

the President.  This time, they're misunderestimating the American people.

There's a much bigger potential price for that.

This just seems to show what fickle people the American voters are.

are good to see. The next polling point he needs to now focus on is to make sure 50%+ of the country understand that filibustering the Patriot Act greatly aids Al Qaeda- its fairly intuitive, so it shouldn't be too hard. Also, Mr. Rove did a nice job when they were blocking Homeland Security creation over Union slots. Time for a little deja vu.

This just seems to show what fickle people the American voters are.

Or perhaps American poll-responders :-)

....would be "and why do you think that?"

Polls would then be alot more insightful.

My point here needs to be clear. I don't like the nature of the poll...the outcome of the poll is irrelevant.

There are 2 kinds of opinion polls in my mind:

The first kind tests how well informed the public is on a matter in which the truth is either not simple to explain or can and should be known from a more knowledgeable source.

The second kind of poll is one which shows where the public stands on a choice that doesn't have a factual right or wrong answer. examples: Do you want national health care? Do you think we should abolish abortion? the death penalty? These kind of polls are useful for gauging the public's will on an issue.

This poll is the former and not the latter. Unfortunately it tends to get treated like it means something different than it really does by the media and public alike. All it really shows is whose message is resonating more at the moment or what how recent events are influencing public perception. A few negative events could sway the poll back the other way even though the core matter hasn't changed.

These polls are not the best gauge of public opinion.  I may not be happy with the President on the border situation or with federal spending, but that does NOT mean that I will vote for the Democrat.

I think these recent polls are very relevant. I think they say quite a bit about the public's response to the continual bombardment of the President by the liberal media establishment. To have numbers like he does in the face of constant sniping by the media, and in spite of the lack of positive stories by that same media, is quite an achievement.

The President's approval rating is moving up because he's finally back on offense, taking his message directly to the American people and hammering the donkeys, rather than trying to win the press and the rest of the Democrats over.  He needs to stay on offense in the press every day.  

The reality is the President is dealing with a political insurgency in this country that spends every waking political moment at war against the war.  He can get back to 60% with this roaring economy but it's going to require exposing the donkeys for who they are in front of the "independents".  That's the group he's making ground up with by going on offense and getting the truth out.  Every day, hammer the Democrats for who they are, opportunists more interested in regaining power than the security of this country... hammer home the positive news on the economy and hammer Congress to grow up and take care of the business of the American people; control spending, expand energy sources and pass the improved Patriot Act (I'd like to see Congress's poll numbers during this same period?  I guarantee if they've moved in any direction, it's further down if they could possibly go any lower).

It's time to pitch the failed "new tone" once and for all.  There's no need to go "red meat", but this "play nice, turn the other cheek and it will backfire on the Dems while people figure it out for themselves" strategy was always a loser.

Offense, every day, it's the only way the independents who live in the MSM culture can be reached.

the reason bush has gone up is  he is getting much better support from the gop but he still has very little movement with independents and dems.without some additional support from the opposition he will probably stay under 50%.

Elections are, on the other hand, a big deal.  If the election was held today, Bush would likely mop the floor with any D.

I'm actually looking forward to next year.  There is a stark contrast between "do you like the incumbant" and "are you going to vote for the opponent", especially when the D's have absolutely no plan for Iraq.  Or the economy.  Or a national health care plan.  Or homeland security.  Or the BCS.  Well, they might have one there...

Firstly, watch the media long enough and with an open mind and you'll see that it isn't really liberal. The media has and will always feed off of negative news, scandal, drama, trauma and controversey because, as a whole, it's too lazy to do real journalism and would rather instigate problems than investigate them. Labeling the news as liberal or conservative is the result of filtering out the news that pleases you and focusing and dwelling on what goes against your bias. In the end, however, neither side is ever happy with the scope the of news because it misses or under-reports what they want to hear and over-reports what they don't want to hear.

RSers and Kossack types will always gripe that the media doesn't frame or report news to their liking, ie the way it's presented on their favorite blogs.

Remember: "No news is good news." and I'll add that good news is not news when it comes to the media.

The second thing is that this positive poll jump for Bush, to me, is simply the lack of really bad news from Iraq recently along with the fact that elections went off relatively problem free.

Had several huge bombings happened at some key crowded voting stations around Iraq resulting in hundreds of Iraqi deaths and maybe 20-30 U.S. soldiers, you can bet that that would have been the big news and the media would feed off of it for ratings. And Bush's Iraq poll numbers wouldn't have had as big of a jump.

Again, the biggest news-grabbers are always bad.

Call me crazy, but I think perhaps the approval bump stems from quite the opposite.  He gently suggested he may have been wrong on one or three minor points. Personally I think this polls higher ATM than the Rovian 'never give in' strategy.

I didn't get a chance to see his Sunday speech, but I was quite impressed by his subsequent (and all too seldom in the past) news conference.  He came across as if the answers derived from his core feelings rather than rehearsal by group-think.

I hope this continues.

That has precluded your ability to grasp the conclusion of every unbiased media review about this subject that has been done. "Firstly, watch the media long enough and with an open mind and you'll see that it isn't really liberal."

"Dems have no plan for bla or bla" has become kind of a talking point IMO. They actually do have alternatives if you pay attention. The "they have no plan" rant is gonna start getting a little stale the same way "Bush lied" rant did.

I think there waiting a little longer to see how some events play out before they really go on the offensive for the elections. The GOP would and has done the same thing when firing back in mid-terms. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Hey, this is politics and it's usually not pretty.

I just don't nor have I ever bought into an ideological bias in the media. First, it's too big and varied to stamp with a bias. The networks, cable news, radio, Reuters and the AP (which in turn always release several versions of story depending on the target audience) and the major papers and publications all make up the MSM. I see talking heads, punditry and editorials from both sides parroting stories or giving their own opinions as news. I see pretty much the same stories reported from a variety of angles depending on the paper. I hear talk-radio dwelling on whatever story will anger and re-entrench their listeners the most. I news major magazines summing up the biggest stories of the week and cutting both ways or neither way. I see think tanks cited for their "studies" and strategists spinning the headlines. And whatever is the day's biggest scandal or controversey is usually the major topic of punditry shows.

I don't care about anecdotal studies that use this or that correlary to prove bias. You can believe what your told, what you want to see or what you actually come to notice. And if you come to notice that "the Media is Liberal" then fine. From point of view, it can be both and neither depending on the source and the issue.

But one common trait of them all is a penchant for controversey, negative headlines, drama and scandal. These stories are gold for them and they will report them regardless of party. You can pretend not to see it but it cuts both ways. I have this same agruement with both sides too many times now. The hard-liners will never get it.

They have a plan for Iraq.  It works out to one of two.  It's either cut and run - and establishing a timetable for withdrawal IS cut and run, or it's Bushes plan.

They have a plan for the economy.  Raise taxes.  Increase regulation.

They have a plan for national health care.  They just have to have it pulled out of Hillary.

The Democrats are not waiting for anything.  They can't pull together a plan that they're willing to stand behind because they know any plan they put forth will be rejected by the American people.  Please see 1994, 2000, 2002, 2004.  Note that 1996 and 1998 are missing because the R's had no plan.

Look at placement of stories.  The NSA story gets page A1 in the NYT.  Coverage of Clinton and Carter doing the same thing shows up on A18.  This stuff goes on constantly.

Jay Rockefeller got A1 coverage with his "letter".  When will the Times get around to mentioning Pat Roberts comments about the letter?

The issue goes way beyond "negative" headline stories.  It's all about placement and tone.  

tell Tim Russert less than a month ago to "stay tuned" on the plan. It was clear it doesn't exist yet.

The problem with the Democrats vis-a-vis having a plan is that most of the biggest progressive ideas (with the glaring exception of universal national health care) have been tried, and have either failed or succeeded. A reality like that invariably causes the pendulum to swing the other way. It's probably going to stay that way at a macro level until all of the major conservative ideas have been tried and have succeeded or failed.

The Democrats have simply failed to acknowledge this shift. That's why what was to them an obvious failed presidency survived an all-out assault last Fall.

The shot their wad (is that vulgar by the rules here?) last Fall. The Republicans are far more likely to further consolidate power over the next 20 years than they are to lose it back to the Democrats.

This continued reference has been troubling me. But I think now I'm starting to get a handle on it.

and, to go a step further, you're generalizing because the placements that bother you are the ones that stick out in your mind. In order to prove your point you'd have to show how this is commonplace and you can't really. They complain about Times at Dkos as well in different ways. I read the NYT, which I'll admit has an editorial page which leans left(although they do have conservatives as well). The generalization about Clinton and Carter won't hold up close scrutiny. They only work for this kind of broad-brushed complaining they doesn't need to back it up.

Now, does the Times' tone and editorial page tend to be more left-friendly than the Washington Times, the WSJ and the Chicago Tribune among others? Yes, I'll give you that.

This still doesn't prove a "media bias". I'll tell you another thing, I see the NYT cited more by the Right than the Left and it's just for these kinds of critiques. I follow the partisan media and I see the NYT used more as an overinflated pinyada or boogeyman by the Right than as a source by the Left. Yes, the Left holds the NYT in higher regard than the Right as a reputable source and expacts more from it but they criticize often for getting "getting stories wrong" or not having the guts to put "bigger stories" on A1.

The NYT is the 3rd largest daily paper in the country behind #1 and #2 (by almost 2 to 1) the WSJ and the USA Today...neither of which is liberal.

Again, though, there is so much more to the media than that. The networks are on for a half hour (19-20 minutes not counting commericals) and hardly have much time to sum up much of anything.

Talk Radio is preaching to the choir for the most part and can be a quite a strong source of partisan misinformation and hysteria...though I find it enteraining but a few are quite annoying.

And then cable news is the worst inclinations and penchants of the media on 24/7 as they beat and polarize and pulverize just about every petty and important story until without every getting to the bottom of anything as they cater to lowest denominator of human thought in ridiculous spin, shouting and over simplified talking points.

What a world. Watch it enough and watch for these tendencies and treat every equally and you'll see that silly anecdotal studies that "prove bias" are just that: ancedotal and prove nothing.

William F. Buckley once chuckled that the joke's over admitting that the media isn't really liberaal.

WSJ news section is overwhelmingly liberal, their OpEd page is another story.

See here for more, including a study.

I've come to realize that hard-line partisans from both sides have for having the other side's point of view down to a T. Ofcourse, the irony is that "the other side" would never agree with the characterization.

Aside from "Talking Points", another term I've been using more often lately with my hysterical partisan friends is "Straw Man Argument". "The Truth", I've found, is a much more interesting discussion and requires a larger comfort zone and greater dicipline. The world looks much clearer though.

From Wikipedia:

In logic and rhetoric

A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is also a logical fallacy, since the argument actually presented by your opponent has not been refuted, only a weaker argument.

see rest and the "How to" techniques here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

In part I do, I agree that there is a pendulum swinging. But I think the pendulum has to do with political power. It never really stays in the same hands for very long.

Regardless of good intentions, I think the GOP has failed to really impress Independents lately and have angered much of their base with un-republican behavior. I liked the GOP more before 2002 more than I do now. Likewise, I'm more open to the Dems now than I was before. The GOP gained power by promising to NOT be what the Dems had become after years of drunken congressional power.

I've seen this one. It's the one I was mainly referring to. I think this is the one I saw that based it's finding on source citing...hardly an indicator of what was discussed or how it was discussed.

For example, any of those shows, lets take Hume, could have had a report on Hillary or the Democratic Party rhetorically positioning themselves to the center on an issue to get ready for a Presidental Run or "get back in touch with the American People" repsectively. This entire frame leans Right is clearly something that conservatives would want to discuss more than liberals as it has a suspicious tone of trying to decipher political tactics and

Yet during the report he cites a liberal and a conservative source. So that report is a wash and doesn't push his score to the right even though the story is conservative in tone.

Drudge's position and score is the manifestation of this flaw.

the political leaning of every reporter in the country or a study like this one doesn't prove bias.

In order to prove an ideological bias, you'd have to go through and scrutinize tons of reporting from many sources during different periods in time under different administrations and consider countless pieces and reports and check the aim and positionning of tons of articles and topics on TV and THEN somehow get check it against other sources to see what the general consensus of that story was. It would take years.

However, flip thru a few print and radio sources and TV channels over the next few days and you'll see my characterization as stated come thru quite clearly.

Of course we are winning the war on terror: we've got Saddam in chains and Osama on the run.  Freedom is on the march.  It is better that we are fighting them in the streets of Baghdad than in our own streets.  We will prevail and we will accept nothing less than TOTAL VICTORY.

of how dumb the Republicans may act, their secret weapon, the leadership of the Democrats, is still intact and just as potent as ever.

This is my last comment on on the subject because technically this is a threadjack and I respect my kind and tolerant hosts.

My point is simply this: throwing about pejoratives like 'Strawman' and 'Talking Points' and claiming one never does likewise amounts to intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

Having said that, I would also like to point out RS has probably the highest level of reasoned discourse of all the popular blogs.

Thanks guys.

I somehow sense that, in your view, I said something wrong.

Not to capitulate at all, but the one thing that came to mind after this post was not mentioning his frankness, which I agree is part of the rebound.  To me, polls are a barometer so I don't get too wrapped up in them, but they are a data point.  The one thing that floored me a few weeks ago was the "integrity... trust the President" poll that showed less than half finding the President honest.  That is a disconnect.  Love him or hate him, he's an honest man.

I don't want to see Bush go cheesy like "victim Clinton", but if he made the point that he has been wronged through lies with his this humble honesty, the fence sitters... a.k.a. independents...  would break his way in droves.  

Your mind is made up, along with Dan Rather, that there is just no perceptible liberal bias in the presentation of the news.

Pull the covers over your head and make sure your tin foil hat is tied to some body part so you don't lose it.

Your characterization is flat out wrong based on the facts.  But don't let them get in your way.

you have said something wrong, the fact is that while you complain about prevailing opinions and attitudes all the while you continually push your own.

And one does not need Wikipedia to know the definition of "Strawman" - it is simple; it means "I don't want to see, listen to or understand your point".

ZTN, you claim as a fact that there is no overall MSM bias to the left or right. You also say that "In order to prove an ideological bias, you'd have to go through and scrutinize tons of reporting from many sources during different periods in time under different administrations and consider countless pieces and reports and check the aim and positionning of tons of articles and topics on TV and THEN somehow get check it against other sources to see what the general consensus of that story was. It would take years"

So tell me -- how can you you be so sure when you  say "Firstly, watch the media long enough and with an open mind and you'll see that it isn't really liberal."

Care to reconcile those two statements?

A: I think it was legal for Bush to approve warrantless wiretaps."

B: Are you crazy! There's no way it's legal for Bush to break into your house and strip search your children!"

Mental difficiency.

Please tell me what they would do right now about Iraq.  Please include the risks and rewards of the plan.  And provide a source from the Democratic leadership for your opinion.

When you get that one out of the way, you can start on tax policy.  Same caveats.

If you go back and read what I've said, I acknowledge that there are biases in the media...left and right depending on the source. HOWEVER, the idea that there is really some overall bias to the left, IMO, isn't accurate. One can always point to certain key sources to make his or her argument of bias. So what. The whole of the news media is too varied to back up that statement.

Like I've said, I believe the real bias the plagues the majority of the MSM is one toward controversey, scandal and negative headlines. Those stories and stories presented in this "he said/she said", negative and instigative methodology are what draw in readers, viewers and listeners. Trouble is the media's best friend.

you can nitpick at my statements all you want. Both were said in a certain context. My point on the first one is rather inductive as most of anyone says here. It was merely to show how immense of a project it would be to really quantitatively and substantively show evidence of a liberal bias. I simply don't think it can be done and I'll add that it still may not be the definitive proof that so many on the right seem determined to find.

My second statement is quite simple and more to the point of my argument:

Spend some time sifting through the major papers (all of them, not just the times) read the headlines, and skim thru the main articles and editorials. Then watch the cable news on TV, maybe sit thru the evening news, go into a book store and look at the major news magazines.

You'll see some liberal leanings and some conservative leanings...sometimes more of one than the other from day to day depending on what juicy "OMIGOD!" stories are dominating the news machine.

Then honestly ask yourself which bias is more consistent:

1. some sort of ideological bias

or

2. A bias toward negative headlines, scandal, tragedy and controversey as I've described

There have been times in my life that really believed the liberal media claims and then others that started to buy into the shallow, status quo conservative corporate media claims. Both have some merit and both have gaping holes. Then I started to consider other explanations when both would seem proved wrong depending on circumstances. The only one that has stood the test for me is the lazy, trouble-loving, scandal-bent claim.

Be it Whitewater, Watergate, Monica-Gate, sharks, death, Schiavo, celebrity trials, Katrina, Katrina failures, bombings, crashes, celebrity excecutions, political bicking and power struggles, bad polls leading to "omigod, what if the polls mean...?", impropriety, sex, lies and videotape or what have you, people love bad news and controversey. That, sadly, will never change.

question hallowed conservative orthodoxy and you get insulted.

Sometimes I think many RSers and Kossacks alike are just 2 sides of the same coin:

walk the line or feel the wrath. If you don't like, go to the "other site".

Whatever.

What I meant to ask in a much clearer fashion than I did, is that it's a contradiction to say that "there is no press bias" and then later to say "Press bias cannot be proven". You apparently are very confident that ther is no press bias. What methodology do you use and why can't this be done rigorously to prove your point? If you can't prove it, it's opnion, not fact.

It IS my OPINION after really considering the two main points of view. I never claimed it to be a fact. Subjective matters seldom have a definitive iron-clad factual bottom line.

By the same token, claims of an ideological bias are opinions as well. I read several pieces that have a eureka! factual claim to the answer in this matter. That doesn't make them absolute facts. Liberal and conserative sources have a habit of producing contradicting "facts".

ALL these opinions hav truth...but all also have aspects that undermine their absolute truth.

I simply think my argument is the most consistent and holds more truth than the other two.

I've not seen anyone banned at RedState by not "following the line". This is not at all the case at the Daily Kos. Your statement doesn't pass the laugh test.