NBC/WSJ Poll: Americans feel that President Obama is not overexposed
I was watching MSNBC the other day and I saw Chuck Todd looking a bit annoyed when he talked about this new poll that said Americans didn't believe the Beltway elite media after they repeatedly slammed the president for going on TV too much. So I looked for the poll and here it is. Sorry, I don't have the video of Todd.
There's a new NBC/WSJ poll out and it has some interesting information. For weeks now the Beltway gasbags have been singing in concert that President Obama is doing way too much media: he's overexposed, he's on TV too damn much, blah blah blah. Well, they are yet wrong again.
Here's the question:
When it comes to doing his job as president, do you feel that you see and hear President Obama too much, about the right amount, or too little?
Too much..........................................34
About the right amount .....................54
Too little ............................................9
Not sure ..........................................3
After all the hubbub made by the pundit class, Americans feel that the President is doing the right amount of media exposure. What a shock.
I do enjoy watching the overwrought Peggy Noonan say that Obama was just sooo boorish, darling.
Noonan: This is his way. Because everybody will say yes. I don't think it's about the media environment but I do think the media environment allows a modern leader to be something subtly damaging and that is boorish. They get their face in your face every day all the time. It's boorish and it makes people not lean towards you, but lean away from you, no matter what the merits of the issue and the merits of this issue are not such great merits.
She's proven wrong, like the huckster she is. Why Noonan is taken seriously is beyond me anyway. She was already caught off camera talking to Chuck Todd and Mike Murphy and just bashing Sarah Palin and the Republican Party, but she would never say that on TV, live that is. She exposed herself as a hypocrite and a liar. Why is she considered a trusted source of conservative opinion?
Howard Kurtz wrote a pretty good article on this:
I raised the question a few months back whether Obama was diluting his impact by constantly popping up on the tube. He'd already done ESPN, Leno, the network anchors, "60 Minutes" and a slew of other programs. Then there was NBC's day in the life, ABC's town hall forum, the four prime-time news conferences, the comedy bits for Conan and Colbert, and on and on.
--
"Is this a good idea? Should he just but a 24-hour webcam in the White House and be done with it?
"I kid, but I am on record as saying that those who knock the President for 'overexposure' miss an important fact about the media today. Overexposure is the point. The audience is fragmented. The way to get through is to reach this audience here and that one there, and that one there...read on
Kurtz believes Obama should have gone on FOX too, but I don't. Obama was wise not to reward foul and destructive behavior by the anti-Obama network and grant an appearance to Chris Wallace on FOX so that he coould ask Obama about FOX' phony breaking story about Death Panel books.
Anyway, every time you hear a pundit complain about Obama doing too much media, just tell them America isn't listening to them.
we can believe in. Media appearances isn't change we can believe in.
If you do not think that things have not changed in this country since Obama took over then I do not know where you have been living for the past 8 months.
The entire way that government is being thought of has changed, the entire approach to working with the rest of the planet has changed, etc. etc.
First time in years the U.S. government is looking at reforming healthcare, environmental policy, tax policy, foreign policy, financial regulation, etc. etc. These are very big things.
What do you think all the protests are about? All these idiots scared to death of all the change that has happened and will happen.
In fact, there are those worried that Obama is moving too fast and trying to tackle and change too many things.
Coverup illegal surveillance by Telecoms with FISA update - check.
Bailout Banksters - check.
Protect and fail to investigate too big to fail Oligarchs - check
It is the same CIA - only a limited investigation of low levels participants in torture - check.
Proposed preventative detention - check.
Proposed renewal Patriot Act - check.
Maintained obscenely bloated
DefenseOffense Budget - check.Increase the war in Afghanistan - check.
Proposed Corporate friendly health care sham sold as reform - check.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
So you want the prez to increase his exposure?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
See below here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Realists are not too popular. I have always thought O-bought-ma just another corporatist/FASCIST, a black-faced Bush who's a better speaker than the IdiotKing.
A prettier-face on the same old horror, and the "first black president" hoopla smoke-screening what the man is really here for. What he's really here for is easy to see, it's in the news every day, all sources, online and off. It's going down right in front of us, like the run-up to Iraq and everything since.
Can't believe what happened to Van Jones. Or any of it.
∆∆∆,
No doubt there are things that have not changed yet, but you cannot deny the big picture.
By the way a great deal of that was not easy to change in just a few months. There is a great debate whether some of that (particulary issues related to security) was just put into holding patterns until the Adminstration can get around to it or sort through these complex issues.
Bailout banksters was Bush. Hard to cancel that without driving economy and financial markets down.
Too big to fail... still being worked on. Too early to judge.
CIA investigations. Too early to judge. Very likely that any initially limited justice department or Special Council investigation could blow up into something much bigger, as these things tend to do. Once they get started they are hard to stop.
Afghanistan, too early to tell direction, but Obama did campaign on making it a bigger focus.
Healthcare, too early to tell. We do not even have a bill yet.
Etc. etc.
You are definately a very harsh critic with no patience. Obama was handed a complete economic crisis and a very tough hand. It is amazing that he is even thinking about healthcare, cap and trade, and other big issues at this point.
I will respond to one point here.
The Big Bailout was proposed by Henry Paulson on a three page memo six weeks before the election. There were numerous other bailouts in the previous year.
Both candidates McGoo and Obama voted for it.
That was Obamas big chance to blow the thing out of the water. Instead, he blew his chance.
That is why I call it the BOMB. The Bush-Obama-McCain-Bailout.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
..if nothing was done??
Yes, they threw 3 pages together quickly and it was under w's watch but now that the TARP funds are being repaid, I heard the American taxpayer is getting a 17% ROI. I'd walk naked down 5th Avenue for 17% ROI. I hope I got that percentage right; maybe someone will confirm or call me on it. Me walking naked down 5th avenue would cause a considerable panic!
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
He had six months to prepare those three pages. It was a hoax to pay off his cronies.
Congress fell for it.
The credit markets already seized in August of '07.
Where would the economy be? That is good question.
Where do you think the economy is going in the medium run anyway, I think it will be going over a cliff with the increase in deficits.
With peak energy, peak ecology, there is no long run.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
One of a number of reasons that I didn't vote for him.
He is another in a long line of PERPETUAL WAR candidates.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Cap and Trade is a disaster.
A carbon tax is the way to go.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
My original point was that there has been lots of change. You are just arguing that you do not believe in the policy. You are now not arguing that there has been no change. So not sure what your point is. So you have a different take on the policy, so what?
You brought up Cap and Trade, I disagree with the policy, do you want change for change's sake only?
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I actually think cap & trade, as a market solution, makes a lot of sense. It will for the first time put a market value on pollution, ensuring that business models fator in the cost of pollution for the first time. It is a big step in the right direction.
You continue the topic.
As far as a market solution the speculators will love it. Another bubble.
The proposal deals with carbon capture which encourages the continued use of fossil fuels.
It invests massive amounts of money into an unproven and potentially very dangerous technology.
Proposals include burying the CO2 at the bottom of the oceans.
It does not solve the problems which are two fold and interrelated :
1 - Climate change from the use of fossil fuels.
2 - Fossil fuel depletion.
Nowhere that I can find is the primary requisite of conservation dealt with.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
"Protect America's interests" by staying the course, check.
... "thinking" about government differently but we're also "looking" at reforming things.
Perhaps soon we can start "thinking" about "looking" at actually doing something. Eight months and that's the most we can come up with?
ACORN was stripped of it's funding in what? Two days? How many hours did it take to get the banksters the rest of their TARP money? The Dems have done plenty - just not anything resembling progressive change.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
How about stabilizing the economy after it was in a tail spin? Government action across the board has done that. You may not like the TARP, but it did stabilize financial markets, you many not have like the stimulus, but it is helping, and the multitude of actions by the Fed has had an enormous impact.
There are signs all over the place that the U.S. economy is improving. Look at the leading indicators not the lagging ones.
With just 8 months under the belt I think just stabilizing the U.S. economy in itself is a huge achievement for the Adminstration. Very few other presidents where handed such a shit hand that distracted them from their original agenda and made it next to impossible to get anything but the economy done.
The insiders are all selling so the stabilization is matter of propaganda.
The banks should have been allowed to fail.
The multitude of actions by the Fed will impoverish us for years to come.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I would hate to think where we would be if the Fed did not take all the action that was required.
I guess I would put you in the Ron Paul camp.
Not the Ron Paul camp, I have very little use for him.
I am In the socialists camp, a world apart.
Repeal Capitalism.
If you are going to spend vast amounts of money then do it in direct-hire work projects for the people involved.
A la WPA.
Not WELFARE for the Banksters.
The Fed in a completely non transparent manner has bought the so called Toxic Assets from the Banks.
CDOs that were the product of LIAR LOANS.
They say they are Capitalists, let them behave like Capitalists.
Capitalists having going bust for hundreds of years.
Until Reagan bailed out Continental Illinois and the new regime of Crony Capitalism captured Washington.
Being a socialist, I follow the Capitalists with great anticipation of their self inflicted demise.
What I want is to avoid is going down with them.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I heard that Obama is going on all three networks, CSpan, and CNBC tonight to discuss the results of this poll...
Jon Stewart addresses this very topic. Funny. Link to HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/stew...
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
that with Rupert's Times involvement in the poll the true number is probably 5 -10 points higher.
I think I'm turning Japanese, I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so.....
like Bushes soaring 90% approval rating on Sept 12, 2001 for example
He only need make one speech here going forward. It could be very short:
That would be change I could BELIEVE IN.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
yesterday.
We can't even fix ourselves and get our own house in order.
Get ready for Paul Vocker's appearance before Congress tomorrow.
He may be one of the last honest people in Washington.
Zero master here
HuffPo here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Alleged criminal activities
Otherwise he could be exposed to a lawsuit.
And your phraseology essentially has him confessing to being bribed, opening himself up for prosecution.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
:-)
Silly rabbit.
The President need not worry about lawsuits. The concern would be for creating prejudice in prosecutions.
There is ample literature out talking about the massive corporate crime wave.
As far as prosecution for bribery. Take a number.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
The Paula Jones case set the precedent, although she scored bupkiss.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Non of the Oligarchs are going to sue anyone with power.
The discovery would sink their canoes.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
But also sink the politicos
That's what the Oligarchs count on for out of court settlements
And they then can declare vindication.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The Paula Jones case was regarding a matter previous to Clinton's election.
You are barking up the wrong tree entirely.
The rating agencies are being sued, they claim 1st amendment which would be interesting except for all of the incriminating emails that the SEC has dug up.
The Wall Street Mafia would have loads to be worried about.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
The MSM is so myopic they don't realize that they're couching their narrative of the President in show biz terms. Only the MSM is concerned about 'over exposure' while the rest of us just want to be an informed electorate. The President is doing just fine.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
You have some examples of goals that have been reached this first seven months that's putting money back into Americans pockets?
I mean, what kind of swill will the MSM be serving when the next real crisis comes along. It's almost all noise now.
The more the President talks the more the electorate knows and that's all we want.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
What does "overexposed" mean anyway?
How the hell does a president get overexposed and why is that a negative? I guess people are just use to the "underexposed" George W. Bush. Was it true that George Bush did not give a single press conference during his whole first year?
People will complain about anything with regard to Obama.
I am sure they are trying to find a way to blame Obama for Gadhafi's speech at the U.N. and tent pitching.
The MSM is confusing show business with government.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Concern Troll. Who knew?
I think that Good old Peggy knows that Obama can dispel any myths that the Repubs can spread about Health care reform and this helps Obama's desire to get healthcare through the Congress. Peggy dearly wants Health care to fail, and if Obama goes away, then it probably will fail.
Only when the last tree has died
and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught
will we realize we cannot eat money.
It would be interesting to get further demographics of those minority people who said "too much" since I'd expect they're all hate filled racist white right wing extremist Christians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYlDbv7MqE8
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
...he tried to give a massage to Angela Merkel.
...he tried to open doors that were locked.
...he almost choked to death on a pretzel.
...he said "Bring 'em on!"
...he said "I'm the decider!"
...he laughed about a woman being executed.
...etc.
If Peggy wasn’t bitching about overexposure, she’d be bitching about underexposure, which makes her simply a bitch. Either that or someone needs to buy her a dictionary, because I don’t think that word means what she thinks it does. Also too like boorish.
And one more thing, if anyone is ‘overexposed’ it’s Tom Delay. I’ve definitely seen too much already. He has been deleted and sent to the recycle bin in my little world.
Who the hell is Chuck E. Todd, or Blahblah Noonan, or Whatshisface Kurtz, or Asspimple Limbaugh, or any other media bonehead to complain about the 'overexposure' of a fucking president?
What flaming, delusional hypocrisy. These people are on the airwaves, or writing their columns EVERY DAY. Yeah, yeah - that's their job - obviously - but it's a hell of a big part of a president's job, too, especially when he's trying to enact health reform.
What's their fucking beef? I think they're PISSED that they're being crowded out - that a president is actually out talking directly to the People, instead of allowing himself to be spun, filtered, framed, second-guessed and condescended to by the Highly Esteemed Opinionated Mavens of the Media.
Fuck 'em. Does a single one of these whores have a material worry of any kind, or even remember when they did? When was the last time Princess Peggy the Pious had to shop for medical insurance?
totally.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
The DC commentators get so involved talking to each other that they forget we're out here and we think for ourselves. We do not sit and wait for them to tell us what we should think about anything. We don't give a shit what Peggy thinks or what Todd thinks or what any of them think. We do think we would like to hear Todd report the facts of the news and then he can share his personal thoughts with the guys at the bar or wherever he hangs out after work.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Good reason to use the off switch.
Sooner or later everybody has to conclude they are being deceived and manipulated.
It is political marketing and we empower it by watching this kind of BS.
MSNBC, CNN, and the others are no better than Faux. They are all corporate shills so the news is not news at all. It isn't even entertainment.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
They should all just cook stuff and lay off the politics. They just confuse the issues. really!
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
President Franklin Roosevelt "had nearly 1,000 press conferences," according to Time Magazine in April of 1945. That averages more than one press conference a week.
Bush had 19 press conferences in his first term. That is one every 2 1/2 months.
A poll of one (me) says that 100% of those surveyed believe that Peggy Noonan is overexposed. Here's the survey:
1. Do you think dopey Peggy Noonan and her goofy weird Botoxed face is overexposed?
Yes: 100% (1)
No: 0% (0)
Well, that settles it. I guess I'm the new Chuck Todd.
Peggy looks and sounds like she's overexposing herself to a bottle of vodka.
I would be happy to see more of him - but he probably does enough.
Noonan makes me want to vomit. I can't stand the waiting-5-seconds-between-every-word bit that she does. And then all that waiting? For nothing. Noting insightful or intelligent ever comes out of her mouth.
*
And why should the righty-tightys care? Are they afraid he might bleach out on them like Michael Jackson and turn white enough to cost them their main attack point?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
this is one of the more inane and pointless polling questions i have seen in awhile--right up there with the 'who would u rather have a beer with'
That's a common misspelling
Shoulda been bier.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
that sounds great right now
has repeatedly shown himself to be a repub sycophant and an incompetent reporter at best. He has no journalistic skills or instinct other than pandering to his own bias.
No matter what we think of Obama, I think we have to get him reelected in 2012.
I've been saying since the primaries, it's only when we have a Democratic president who doesn't have to run for reelection, that we might see a restoration of our civil rights.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
"restoration of our civil rights"
Where? Where??
I think the operative word here is "might" at best.
Let's get somebody ELSE in 2012. Hey, yeah!
Elizabeth Edwards.
The only reasons that I voted for Obama was
A Keep McCain out...check
protect SCOTUS...check, so far. Sotomayor said some promising statements about curbing corporate power.
We'll see.
I find her insultingly moderate, maybe even conservative, and cannot understand the way so much of the "Left" devoted talk show after talk show and non-stop blog posts to blindly sticking up for her and protecting that nomination as if she'd been our very own Antonin Scalia. Worse, there was no news about anything else during that whole strange broo-ha-ha. It was a "Michael Jackson's death coverage" era for real news, that whole boring trumped-up thing. But you're right, there's nothing to say about that appointment now except "We'll see."
Jon & Kate, today's latest "celebrities" are overexposed. Who give a sh*t about them? Why are their lives considered "news"???
I am happy to say I have no freakin' idea who Jon & Kate are. I keep seeing references to them but have never clicked into them, but now I'm sorta curious. If you'll indulge my curiousity, I finally must know - just who tf are Jon & Kate?
Let me preface this by saying I never watched their show on A & E "John & Kate Plus 8". Somehow, this made them tabloid celebs.
Another chapter in the further dumbing down of 'murka as started by St. Ronnie.
Aha, now I know. Many thanks.
I think. ;)
Boorish is rude, uncouth, insensitive, loutish, ill-mannered. I haven't seen any of that. Maybe she means boring. When Ms. Noonan says someone is boring, the only response is, "It takes one to know one."
I think its beck and limpbaugh and that other guy, what's his name, oh yeah, bor who are the ones who are over-exposed! Ugh, what an unsightly thought, eeww!
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
Like Othello. She's just showing off her Liberal Arts Education.
Rhymes with "hoorish". Which is appropriate, somehow.
The most slappable public face that ever lived on all the earth in all of the millenia past and present. How can she talk like she does, all stilted like, in that YUCKKKY choke-on-corn syrup voice, and not want to slap herself in the face?
Go ahead, remove me, I deserve it. Wish pegalicious hadn't been part of the story, *barf* .
Did you see Jon Stewart give his little commentation on her? "The young man is a...a rapscalion! Ooooo!"
Yeah, I too thought, "Doesn't she know she's saying BOORISH? Does she think she's saying BORING?"
I think Noonan is overexposed. Yuck!
Regarding Peggy Noonan, all one has to do is reverse these two sentences:
She exposed herself as a hypocrite and a liar. Why is she considered a trusted source of conservative opinion?
Hypocrites and liars ARE the most trusted sources of conservative opinion. See Rush, Newt, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter...
I knew women like her growing up. They ran the church dinners, and the Junior League and were known to take young women (teenagers, at their most vulnerable about their appearance) and tell them that they should watch what they ate, because men did not like a girl who was 'fleshy'.
Yeah, it was me and I wanted to clock the old hag. And I wasn't fat, but I had really big boobs - which is probably what set her off in the 1st place, except you don't realize that @ 15.
Ooh - serious flashback, there. Sorry
I'm right there with you on that one, wow. Amazing. With me, it was a French teacher. Mrs. Shirley Taylor, you dead yet? LOL. I'm not as nice as other people.
When I was a university student, I made the mistake of going out for a while with a younger version of Peggy Noonan. Nice girl, pious Catholic, judgmental and prudish. All wrapped up in her own virtue and puzzled why others didn't think just like her.
A couple of years ago, she found me via Google after almost 30 years. We emailed a few times, then spoke on the phone. Took me about 5 minutes to get what a total douchebag she was, then and now.
Wish I'd gone out with a nice, frisky, fleshy, large-breasted non-catholic instead.
I enjoyed reading all of your personal stories.
Noonan is such a flake, a dipshit. Everyttime I see her I just wanna smack her across the face and say "Snap out of it." Earth to Peggy, Earth to Peggy, come in please.
I feel sorry for you having had exposure to Noonan-types!!!
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
What a friggin' snob. "Boorish"?!!! Jeeze, who is she? the queen of England. She reminds me something Robin Williams said. He said when the queen of England is speaking it looks like someone is holding a turd under her nose.
He should have gone and called them out in their house. It wouldn't be rewarding their bad behavior because he could have spent the entire time bashing their lies to their faces. Slap their peepees and make them out to be the bitches that they are. He's the President. What are they going to do? Make up more lies about him?
It wouldn't make any difference with the typical Fox News viewer. But he'd let us that support him know that he's not scared to throw the gauntlet down on any man's front lawn.
Careful Pegy, I think your partisanship is showing.
I guess Peggy has a weak spot for the dumb and born ito wealth kind of guys. Watch out laura Bush you have competition.
Noonan will be taken seriously for quite some time by the Washington courtier class--she has the absolute pitch-perfect tone for it: expensively (but unoriginally) dressed, beautifully groomed (but unlikely to make anyone rethink their idea of what an attractive woman should look like), well-educated (but with no practical skills beyond the prettier social ones), clueless as to what goes on outside her circle of chums, and hasn't had an original thought since she was 14 and found out she was growing boobs.
She exposed herself as a hypocrite and a liar. Why is she considered a trusted source of conservative opinion?
---
Great question but you already answered it: she's a hypocrite and a liar.
With such credentials she could fill in for Glenn Beck any day of the week. Her values are the epitome of the modern Republican party. No sarcasm intended here; this is well known to all as the the official Rovian Republican political strategy, right in line with fear mongering and race baiting.
They are evil people, C&L. The only answer for the rest of society is to start calling them exactly what they are and shame those who follow them. Then move on.
I'ts a known fact that Reslugs always talk out both sides of their asshole.
I'ts a known fact that Reslugs always talk out both sides of their asshole.
----------------------
You just described any polititian.
Comments are closed on this entry