Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Politics again

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Politics again

    "They are the same people who live in the new Obama world. Profit is a four letter word."

    Above from girls high soccer thread....

    This is such a ridiculous distortion. Obama isn't against people making money. He's against people losing money and getting taken to the woodshed on health care. News out today from analyst at Goldman conference indicating health care companies are going to keep jacking up premium costs by astronomical amounts because of lack of price competition. Republicans continue their massive disinformation campaigns while millions suffer and millions of regular and upper-middle class folks are going to get shafted and dropped from coverage by their employers who cannot keep up with the costs. Fox News touts "fair and balanced" and runs clips where gullible subjects spout out what Fox wants for sound-bites and then fails to interview a single subject who is for health care reform.

    #2
    The first step in reducing health care costs is to reduce the costs...Doctors are practicing defensive medicine. Control of malapractice greedy lawyers like the ethical and moral , former democratic presidental canditate, John "Having my baby" Edwards would be a good starting point.

    No competition? There are at least a half dozen health insurance companys in Mass to pick from.

    If it makes you happy to spout out againest Fox News fantastic, hope you feel better. Hasn't Obama declined to come on and discuss his health care bill, they have open invites for him for 6 months.

    Does anyone know what is in the New Bill, not the outline, but the specifics. It may be a great bill who knows. Any bets on Tort Reform, Here is a great idea, why not have the government provide low cost Malpractice Insurance to all doctors and take that cost right off the top. Obama is providing gaureentees (sp) on Nuclear Power Plants, why not stand behind doctors.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      "They are the same people who live in the new Obama world. Profit is a four letter word."

      Above from girls high soccer thread....

      This is such a ridiculous distortion. Obama isn't against people making money. He's against people losing money and getting taken to the woodshed on health care. News out today from analyst at Goldman conference indicating health care companies are going to keep jacking up premium costs by astronomical amounts because of lack of price competition. Republicans continue their massive disinformation campaigns while millions suffer and millions of regular and upper-middle class folks are going to get shafted and dropped from coverage by their employers who cannot keep up with the costs. Fox News touts "fair and balanced" and runs clips where gullible subjects spout out what Fox wants for sound-bites and then fails to interview a single subject who is for health care reform.

      Isn't competition one of the key points the Republicans have been making since day 1? They want Americans able to buy insurance across state lines. This would mean that Americans can decide for themselves exactly the type of insurance that best fits their individual needs rather than having government or even their employer make those decisions. While the Democrats plan that everyone should have insurance sounds good on the surface and we all want to see people have adequate health care, do you want to pay for those who make bad life choices like those who smoke or spend too much time supersizing at McDonald's? Do you still want to pay for the health care of illegal aliens, because they will not be required to pay for health care or be penalized for not having it, but they will still be getting medical care through our ERs?

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        The first step in reducing health care costs is to reduce the costs...Doctors are practicing defensive medicine. Control of malapractice greedy lawyers like the ethical and moral , former democratic presidental canditate, John "Having my baby" Edwards would be a good starting point.

        No competition? There are at least a half dozen health insurance companys in Mass to pick from.

        If it makes you happy to spout out againest Fox News fantastic, hope you feel better. Hasn't Obama declined to come on and discuss his health care bill, they have open invites for him for 6 months.

        Does anyone know what is in the New Bill, not the outline, but the specifics. It may be a great bill who knows. Any bets on Tort Reform, Here is a great idea, why not have the government provide low cost Malpractice Insurance to all doctors and take that cost right off the top. Obama is providing gaureentees (sp) on Nuclear Power Plants, why not stand behind doctors.
        Fine with you for the government to subsidize doctors' malpractice insurance but you have a problem with subsidizing health care insurance for low income people.

        That's like crying about unemployment and other social programs but being a-ok with huge bank bailouts.

        You are ok with welfare for the rich and better compensated among us but don't like a program designed to provide health insurance for tens of millions of people. Maybe you are a fat cat or a fat cat fanboy/wannabe. One thing we know. You are a moron.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          Isn't competition one of the key points the Republicans have been making since day 1? They want Americans able to buy insurance across state lines. This would mean that Americans can decide for themselves exactly the type of insurance that best fits their individual needs rather than having government or even their employer make those decisions. While the Democrats plan that everyone should have insurance sounds good on the surface and we all want to see people have adequate health care, do you want to pay for those who make bad life choices like those who smoke or spend too much time supersizing at McDonald's? Do you still want to pay for the health care of illegal aliens, because they will not be required to pay for health care or be penalized for not having it, but they will still be getting medical care through our ERs?
          That's the point Republicans have been making since day 1 of the Democrat's proposal. Funny they didn't advance it when they held majorities in both houses and held the Presidency. This demonstrates Republican faux sincerity on the issue.

          Bills have already passed the house and the Senate. There is no "New bill" just the standard legislative practice of reconciling the two bills that have ALREADY PASSED, either by conference committee and resubmission of the merged bills to both houses, or by one house passing in whole the bill passed by the other house which looks like the way it is going to go. A promised sidecar reconciliation to provide a few fixes to the Senate bill is a normal part of the legislative process.

          In the long run the voters will decide whether they like it or not but recent Republican hysteria suggests that they are afraid that the voters will like it plenty once it becomes established.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            Fine with you for the government to subsidize doctors' malpractice insurance but you have a problem with subsidizing health care insurance for low income people.

            That's like crying about unemployment and other social programs but being a-ok with huge bank bailouts.

            You are ok with welfare for the rich and better compensated among us but don't like a program designed to provide health insurance for tens of millions of people. Maybe you are a fat cat or a fat cat fanboy/wannabe. One thing we know. You are a moron.
            Probably one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read. We already provide health care to the poorest in our emergency rooms people don't get turned away. Go to Childrens on weekend to see how many uninsured drop in. We have 30 Million uninsured, 1/2 if those are young, who are not purchasing health insurance because they feel they don't need it. I did the same thing until I had a family.

            You made assumption about bail outs that are not in line with my thinking. I would have let Chrysler die and done what they did at GM. I would have looked harder ant Fannie Mae and not forced banks to take Tarp if they didn't want it.

            Why are you opposed to tort reform?

            Comment


              #7
              A little story.

              Rahm Emanuel leaves the Clinton White House and he gets two jobs. He gets put on the board of Freddie Mac, the second of the big giant mortgage companies that is responsible for the mess this country is in. He was there when they're cooking the books. The other job he has is with Wasserstein Perella, a major Wall Street deal company, in their Chicago office. He then made $16 million in less than two years. That's on top of the quarter million taxpayers gave him for Freddie Mac.

              How did he make the $16 million? Basically on one large deal. The big deal was advising Southwestern Bell Corporation which later grew into the new AT&T. The chairman of the board was a man named Edward Whitacre.

              What's interesting about the SBC deal is the guy who helped make this deal, Whitacre, took a loss. He had to sell Ameritech because he bought another phone company. He also had to get rid of a security company called SecurityLink. It was a $1.5 billion investment and he sold it to a group headed by an investment group being led by Emanuel for about $500 million. Six months later the investment bank that bought it sold it for $1 billion.

              In June, 2006, Whitacre and the CEO of BellSouth were brought in under the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee following the AT&T-BellSouth merger. Most questions to Whitacre were regarding possible customer information leaks. Whitacre's compensation for 2006 totaled $61 million, $17 million in 2005, and about $14 million in 2004. Whitacre retired from AT&T in 2007. In June, 2009 Whitacre was named chairman of General Motors following the government takeover of GM, a government policy that many free-market economists regard as just short of socialism. In December, 2009 Whitacre became interim CEO.

              Getting back to SBC, who was the company president prior to the merger with AT&T? William Daley, the brother of current Chicago mayor, Richard M. Daley and son of Richard J. Daley, the undisputed Democratic boss of Chicago. Bill Daley is considered a powerful force pulling the strings in the Obama campaign and one of his closest friends is Jim Johnson, former chairman of Fannie Mae. A 2004 Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight report found that during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998. A 2006 OFHEO report found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson's compensation, originally reported as $6–7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.

              Johnson is a board member at Goldman Sachs, whose story we are all recently familiar, and a former director of United Health Group, a company that the SEC and IRS began investigating in 2006 for backdating of hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of stock options by UHC management with the approval of directors. In 2006 the American Chiropractic Association filed a national class action lawsuit against the American Chiropractic Network (ACN), owned by United Health Group and administers chiropractic benefits, and against UnitedHealth Group itself, for alleged practices in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. In 2008, NY State Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced an industry-wide investigation into a scheme by health insurers to defraud consumers by manipulating reasonable and customary rates. The announcement included a statement that Cuomo intended "to file suit against Ingenix, Inc., and its parent United Health Group. On January 15, 2009, United Health Group announced a $350 million settlement of three class action lawsuits filed in Federal court by the American Medical Association, United Health Group members, healthcare providers, and state medical societies for not paying out-of-network benefits. This settlement came two days after a similar settlement with Cuomo.

              In May, 2008, Obama asked Johnson "to lead the process" for selecting Obama's running mate; however, Johnson soon became a source of controversy not because of the issues mentioned above, but because he had received loans directly from Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of Countrywide Financial, a company implicated in the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis.

              These are the people contributing to the decisions being made by the White House.






              .

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                Why are you opposed to tort reform?
                Here's why:

                "Annual jury awards and legal settlements involving doctors amounts to “a drop in the bucket” in a country that spends $2.3 trillion annually on health care, Amitabh Chandra, another Harvard University economist, recently told Bloomberg News. Chandra estimated the cost of jury awards at about $12 per person in the U.S., or about $3.6 billion. Insurer WellPoint Inc. has also said that liability awards are not what’s driving premiums.

                And a 2004 report by the Congressional Budget Office said medical malpractice makes up only 2 percent of U.S. health spending. Even “significant reductions” would do little to curb health-care expenses, it concluded.

                A study by Bloomberg also found that the proportion of medical malpractice verdicts among the top jury awards in the U.S. declined over the last 20 years. “Of the top 25 awards so far this year, only one was a malpractice case.” Moreover, at least 30 states now cap damages in medical lawsuits.

                The experience of Texas in capping damage awards is a good example. Contrary to Perry’s claims, a recent analysis by Atul Gawande in the New Yorker found that while Texas tort reforms led to a cap on pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which led to a dramatic decline in lawsuits, McAllen, Texas is one of the most expensive health care markets in the country. In 2006, “Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per person enrolled in McAllen, he finds, which is almost twice the national average — although the average town resident earns only $12,000 a year. “Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns.”

                Ignornace is defined as a lack of knowledge or education. I try to pay attention to reality and facts. When a major health care insurer (Wellpoint) admits that liability awards are not driving premiums, then you have a tough road to go in convincing anyone this is a key issue rather than another conservative smokescreen to torpedo reform.

                What you try to do is advance reasons that you believe in without regard to fact or reality. That's called wishful thinking.

                Let me repeat. Medical malpractice makes up 2% of US healkth spending.

                One more thing. If medical malpractice premiums would be reduced by a subsidy, what makes you think, or how would you guarantee, that the savings would be passed along to consumers by providers? What happened in Texas after tort reform was that the providers pocketed the savings and medical costs continued to rise.

                Calling someone that is informed ignorant doesn't make it so.

                Again, costs of jury awards $12 per person. My families insurance plan cost over $15,000 last year. I'm really going to feel the difference if the cost of jury awards goes down to $3 per person.

                You know what though...maybe the medical malpractice INSURANCE industry is ripping off providers just like health insurers are ripping off the public. Maybe rather than tort reform, their premiums should be regulated just like health insurance premiums should be regulated.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  A little story.

                  ...

                  These are the people contributing to the decisions being made by the White House.






                  .

                  You should at least enclose your story in quotes to show that it was extracted essentially word for word from an interview between Glenn Beck and Pat Caddell on Fox News.

                  By enclosing in quotes, you avoid the intellectual dishonesty of presenting this like it is the product of your own thought and research. Proper attribution is covered in high school if not junior high school nowadays but I suppose you missed those lessons whenever your time was.

                  I'll leave others to reflect on the intellectual honesty of Glenn Beck and Fox News for themselves.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    You should at least enclose your story in quotes to show that it was extracted essentially word for word from an interview between Glenn Beck and Pat Caddell on Fox News.

                    By enclosing in quotes, you avoid the intellectual dishonesty of presenting this like it is the product of your own thought and research. Proper attribution is covered in high school if not junior high school nowadays but I suppose you missed those lessons whenever your time was.

                    I'll leave others to reflect on the intellectual honesty of Glenn Beck and Fox News for themselves.
                    I investigated the long piece you posted an actually found that in addition to the Beck/Cadell interview, you also presented information from Wikipedia without quotes or attribution as well.

                    No credibility for the intellectually dishonest. Sorry.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      You should at least enclose your story in quotes to show that it was extracted essentially word for word from an interview between Glenn Beck and Pat Caddell on Fox News.

                      By enclosing in quotes, you avoid the intellectual dishonesty of presenting this like it is the product of your own thought and research. Proper attribution is covered in high school if not junior high school nowadays but I suppose you missed those lessons whenever your time was.

                      I'll leave others to reflect on the intellectual honesty of Glenn Beck and Fox News for themselves.

                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      I investigated the long piece you posted an actually found that in addition to the Beck/Cadell interview, you also presented information from Wikipedia without quotes or attribution as well.

                      No credibility for the intellectually dishonest. Sorry.
                      No credibility??? Now THAT is a really poor attempt to distract from the accuracy of the information given. Except for Beck who contributed nothing to what was posted, you've pointed out how easy it is to obtain the sources of the information. Whether I attrubted those sources in my post or not, is absolutely meaningless to the accuracy of the information, much of which can be verified through court documents. So nice try in attempting to make the post an issue of Beck and Fox News, but unfortunately that won't work to dissuade anyone how incestuous the Obama administration is. And if you'd like to take a shot a Caddell, go right ahead. You won't be the first progressive who has recently tried to discredit the man. They are desperate to shut this guy up - a Democratic Party whistle blower.

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

                      "He (Caddell) has worked for Democratic presidential candidates George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gary Hart in 1984, Joe Biden in 1988, and Jerry Brown in 1992."

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Caddell recognized the issues long before Scott Brown's elections brought things to a head


                        Friday, August 28, 2009

                        The Caddell Calculus [Robert Costa]

                        Erstwhile Democratic pollster Pat Caddell, a former senior adviser to Pres. Jimmy Carter, tells NRO that “the whole health-care debate has suffered” with the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy missing from negotiations. “It probably would have been a done deal if he was around. He would have worked with Republicans and compromised,” says Caddell. “There’s no one to replace this vacuum of leadership.” Kennedy “knew how to get things done,” Caddell adds. “He worked across aisles, like when he worked with President Bush and produced No Child Left Behind.”

                        Caddell is also discouraged with both President Obama and Republicans for their lack of leadership on health care. “The president? I don’t know where the president is on health care,” he says. “The great problem here is that the president has never had his own bill. We keep saying ‘Obamacare,’ but we don’t know what it is. He’s not exerting leadership, just giving speeches. His people make deals with drug companies, then attack drug companies. Does anyone know what the president is for? It’s very frustrating. His chief of staff wants a bill regardless of what you have to sell out to do it. The Democrats don’t seem to understand that buying off interest groups — which killed Hillarycare in 1993 — gets you nowhere.”

                        Caddell sees the Democrats’ wavering on the public option as part of the party’s “chicken mentality.” Democrats, he says, “see a deal as a victory. It’s not. The American people will not be carrying a scorecard into the election booth.”

                        With health-care legislation now on “life support,” says Caddell, Democrats face the added problem of staggering deficit numbers. “The numbers on the deficit are devastating,” he says. “The American people want the spending to stop. The argument I’ve heard from the White House is Orwellian — that the way to solve the deficit is to spend another trillion on health care and saying ‘we know how to do it.’ President Obama said he would veto anything that wasn’t deficit-neutral. Does anyone believe that? He’s in great danger on that question. It’s something he should worry about.”

                        Though critical of Obama and Democrats, Caddell sees the GOP as a party just as bereft of leadership. “Tom DeLay led Republicans to the slaughterhouse, him and George Bush. Now the Democrats are driving their own base away, deserting their principles.”

                        Caddell does see a glimmer of hope in the town-hall response to Obamacare. “The American people rose up,” he says, admiringly. “The fact of the matter is that the American people see the political class as in business for themselves. That’s what’s going on here. A tide is coming. The political process has tried to squeeze out any new, fresh blood, so it’s a revolt. People being called mobs by the DNC, Republicans pretending to be conservative — everyone’s saying, ‘Enough with this.’ The best thing the president could do is call a halt to this and have a Ronald Reagan moment.”

                        With Obama slipping, should the GOP reap any award? No way, says Caddell. “The Republicans are responding to the health-care debate in their normal, brain-dead way. When I say brain-dead, I really mean brain-dead. Why? Now, with the drug companies giving the majority of their money to Democrats — who cut a deal that violated everything Obama stood for in his campaign — the GOP still can’t show any political guts. The Republicans should go after the health-insurance companies and fight for competition. Yet they sold out to the same interest groups. It reminds me of Casey Stengel’s quote during the 1962 Mets season: ‘Can’t anybody here play this game?’ The Republicans are truly useless in this debate. Senator Jim DeMint said he would help destroy the president. Really, the Republicans don’t have any principles to stand on.”

                        What does this former Carter White House wunderkind think should be done? Take the debate out of the hands of politicians: “Doctors are doing amazing and innovative things at the primary-care level for low cost,” says Caddell. “Yet there are no new ideas in this debate. This is all the old stuff. The American people’s attitude is that we wouldn’t trust government for anything and we’re not willing to give up more money.”

                        Besides, he adds, “Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats with their earmarks. President Obama had the chance to stand for principle and threaten to veto the appropriations bill — only to let both sides take care of themselves.”

                        A final verdict? “The American people are disgusted with them all,” says Caddell.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          No credibility??? Now THAT is a really poor attempt to distract from the accuracy of the information given. Except for Beck who contributed nothing to what was posted, you've pointed out how easy it is to obtain the sources of the information. Whether I attrubted those sources in my post or not, is absolutely meaningless to the accuracy of the information, much of which can be verified through court documents. So nice try in attempting to make the post an issue of Beck and Fox News, but unfortunately that won't work to dissuade anyone how incestuous the Obama administration is. And if you'd like to take a shot a Caddell, go right ahead. You won't be the first progressive who has recently tried to discredit the man. They are desperate to shut this guy up - a Democratic Party whistle blower.

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

                          "He (Caddell) has worked for Democratic presidential candidates George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gary Hart in 1984, Joe Biden in 1988, and Jerry Brown in 1992."
                          No, the post makes an issue of your honesty and integrity. Do you know what plagiarism is? Anyone who uses another's words and presents them as his own is is acting dishonestly.

                          Now that we have established that you are dishonest, any other information you present has to be looked at with a jaundiced eye. I'm not talking about details from your post here so much. After all, its Cadell and Wikipedia presenting the information. What I am talking about is much of the garbage you spew in your other posts since you have shown that you are an inherently dishonest person.

                          I am also a little concerned about your mental health, vis-a-vis the paranoia that seems to run through your posts. Like "They are desperate to shut this guy up." You use that "they" thing in a lot of your posts. Pad Cadell hasn't been a Democratic party insider for approaching two decades. I really don't think anyone is "desperate" to shut him up other than the people who inhabit your paranoid fantasies.

                          Your post was nothing more than a poor attempt to distract from your inherent dishonesty.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            No, the post makes an issue of your honesty and integrity. Do you know what plagiarism is? Anyone who uses another's words and presents them as his own is is acting dishonestly.

                            Now that we have established that you are dishonest, any other information you present has to be looked at with a jaundiced eye. I'm not talking about details from your post here so much. After all, its Cadell and Wikipedia presenting the information. What I am talking about is much of the garbage you spew in your other posts since you have shown that you are an inherently dishonest person.

                            I am also a little concerned about your mental health, vis-a-vis the paranoia that seems to run through your posts. Like "They are desperate to shut this guy up." You use that "they" thing in a lot of your posts. Pad Cadell hasn't been a Democratic party insider for approaching two decades. I really don't think anyone is "desperate" to shut him up other than the people who inhabit your paranoid fantasies.

                            Your post was nothing more than a poor attempt to distract from your inherent dishonesty.
                            You are a hoot! You can keep trying to discredit me all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the information I have provided is quite accurate.

                            As far as Caldwell is concerned, just do a Google on him and you'll find plenty, like his recent firing from the Romanoff campaign because he said some not so nice things about the SEIU. Of course the Huffington Post leaves out exactly what was said and how the union told Romanoff to get rid of him or he'd lose union support. Or head over to Media Matters. Not only do they go after Caddell, but Bill Clinton's pollster, Douglas Schoen for a joint article they wrote in the Wall Street Journal. And here's that article.

                            JANUARY 14, 2010, 10:27 P.M. ET Don't Shoot the Pollster
                            Attacks on Scott Rasmussen and Fox News show a disturbing attitude toward dissent.Article

                            By PATRICK CADDELL AND DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN
                            Polling is both an art and a science, but recently it's also become a subject of political intimidation.

                            One shot was fired by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Dec. 8, when he dismissed Gallup's daily tracking of President Obama's job approval. It had hit a record low of 47%, and Mr. Gibbs called the results meaningless:

                            "If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG I'd visit my doctor. If you look back I think five days ago. . . there was an 11 point spread, now there's a one point spread. . . I'm sure a six-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that. I don't put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is the daily Gallup trend. I don't pay a lot of attention to meaninglessness."

                            Polling is a science because it requires a range of sampling techniques to be used to select a sample. It is an art because constructing a sample and asking questions is something that requires skill, experience and intellectual integrity. The possibility of manipulation—or, indeed, intimidation—is great.

                            A recent case in point is what has happened to Scott Rasmussen, an independent pollster we both work with, who has an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy. Mr. Rasmussen correctly predicted the 2004 and 2008 presidential races within a percent, and accurately called the vast majority of contested Senate races in 2004 and 2006. His work has sometimes been of concern for Republicans, particularly when they were losing congressional seats in 2004 and 2006.

                            Most recently, Mr. Rasmussen has been the leader in chronicling the decline in the public's support for President Obama. And so he has been the target of increasingly virulent attacks from left-wing bloggers seeking to undermine his credibility, and thus muffle his findings. A Politico piece, "Low Favorables: Democrats Rip Rasmussen," reported on the attacks from blogs like the Daily Kos, Swing State Project, and Media Matters.


                            "Rasmussen Caught With Their Thumb on the Scale," cried the Daily Kos last summer. "Rasmussen Reports, You Decide," the blog Swing State Project headlined not long ago in a play on the Fox News motto.

                            "I don't think there are Republican polling firms that get as good a result as Rasmussen does," Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow with the progressive research outfit Media Matters, said in a Jan. 2 Politico article. "His data looks like it all comes out of the RNC."

                            Liberals have also noted that Rasmussen's daily presidential tracking polls have consistently placed Mr. Obama's approval numbers around five percentage points lower than other polling outfits throughout the year. This is because Rasmussen surveys likely voters, who are now more Republican in orientation than the overall electorate. (Gallup and other pollsters survey the entire adult population.) On other key issues like health care, Rasmussen's numbers have been echoed by everyone else.

                            Mr. Rasmussen, who is avowedly not part of the Beltway crowd in Washington, has been willing to take on issues like ethics and corruption in ways no other pollsters have been able to do. He was also one of the first pollsters to stress people's real fear of the growing size of government, the size of the deficit, and the concern about spending at a time when these issues were not really on Washington's radar screen.

                            The reaction against him has been strident and harsh. He's been called an adjunct of the Republican Party when in fact he has never worked for any political party. Nor has he consulted with any candidates seeking elective office.

                            The attacks on Rasmussen and Gallup follow an effort by the White House to wage war on Fox News and to brand it, as former White House Director of Communications Anita Dunn did, as "not a real news organization." The move backfired; in time, other news organizations rallied around Fox News. But the message was clear: criticize the White House at your peril.

                            As pollsters for two Democratic presidents who served before Barack Obama, we view this unprecedented attempt to silence the media and to attack the credibility of unpopular polling as chilling to the free exercise of democracy.


                            This is more than just inside baseball. As practicing political consultants, both of us have seen that the established parties try to stifle dissent among their political advisers and consultants. The parties go out of their way to try to determine in advance what questions will be asked and what answers will be obtained to reinforce existing party messages. The thing most feared is independence, which is what Mr. Rasmussen brings.

                            Mr. Gibbs's comments and the recent attempts by the Democratic left to muzzle Scott Rasmussen reflect a disturbing trend in our politics: a tendency to try to stifle legitimate feedback about political concerns—particularly if the feedback is negative to the incumbent administration.

                            Mr. Caddell served as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "The Political Fix" just out from Henry Holt.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              You are a hoot.....
                              Oh, Ok. Cadell defends FOX and Rasmussen. Note that he appears on FOX. Of course, he is protecting his meal ticket.

                              Cadell has been a pariah in mainstream politics for two decades. Keep in mind that the Romanoff campaign that fired him is challenging the incumbent Dem in Colorado. Big time politics indeed. How far to have sunk, from national campaigns to a state also-ran. The only place lower for Cadell to go in electoral politics is probably working for a candidate for dog catcher. That's why he's happy to get gigs at FOX and NRO since they are the only people who give a darn.

                              Here is Cadell's history:

                              McGovern 1972
                              Carter 1976 won
                              Carter 1980 lost
                              Hart 1984 lost
                              Biden 1988 lost
                              Brown 1992 lost

                              After which he pretty much dropped from the national scene. As would anyone who didn't have a winner in 35 years. That guy really has his finger on the pulse of where the electorate is at, so cite him all you want. Keep in mind his only big winner in the last 40 years turned out to be the most failed presidency of the modern era.

                              What an athoritiative voice.

                              he is an anti-environmentalist and anti-union, so I understand why you love him, but please... no one cares what Pat Cadell has to say other than the right wingnuts from FOX and the NRO.

                              Pretty weak stuff. I love the smell of wingnut desperation in the air.....

                              Comment

                              Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                              Auto-Saved
                              x
                              Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                              x
                              Working...
                              X