Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Freedom's Watch To Run Radio Ads

Freedom's Watch, a conservative-aligned independent group, is sponsoring radio ads in 16 congressional districts -- bashing Democratic incumbents for their alleged culpability for sky-high gas prices.

"These Members, who claim to be leaders, have gone on vacation and failed to do anything to address the pain people are feeling at the pump and in their wallets," said Carl Forti, director of issue advocacy for the group. "They have done Nancy Pelosi's bidding and repeatedly stood in the way of increasing domestic oil production and exploration, when they should be listening to their constituents."

The ad campaign begins tomorrow and will run for a week. Freedom's Watch spokesman Ed Patru would not discuss the amount of money the group is spending on the effort. (A full list of Democratic incumbents being targeted by Freedom's Watch is after the jump.)

The ads follow a similar script.

"Since last year, gas prices are up 75 [percent]," says a narrator at the start. "Everything -- from bread and milk, to airline tickets, even diapers -- costs more."

The ad then details a series of energy votes by the targeted Democrats that have blocked attempts to lower costs.

"But, Nancy Boyda stands in the way," says the narrator. "While we cut back on gas and groceries, family outings, and summer vacations."

A handful of ads -- like the one running against Rep. Nick Lampson in Texas's 22nd District -- dip back seven years to target a votes the incumbent cast against "environmentally safe domestic energy production" and "energy independence."

Freedom's Watch joins the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on the airwaves over the July 4th congressional recess.

The DCCC launched radio ads against 13 Republican incumbents today in which an impersonator of President George W. Bush congratulates them for supporting his energy agenda.

Here's the script:

"'W' here, wanted to thank you for your support of the big oil energy agenda. 'Preciate you voting to keep giving billions in tax breaks to the big oil companies. Sure, gasoline is over four bucks a gallon and the oil companies are making record profits, but what's good for big oil is good for America, right? I guess that's why they call us the Grand Oil Party. Heh, heh, heh." (Love that transcription!)

That both Freedom's Watch and the DCCC are running ads directly targeted at the rising cost of gas speaks to the potency of the issue. In the four battleground surveys conducted by Quinnipiac University for washingtonpost.com and The Wall Street Journal last week, voters in Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado and Wisconsin all named the price of gas as a major concern. In each state, more than four-in-ten voters cited gas prices as the economic factor that most worried voters.

Gas prices are the latest political football in the positioning of the two parties in advance of the fall election. The simple truth is that neither congressional Democrats nor Republicans can do much of anything when it comes to lowering the price of gas. There is no good short term solution.

But with so many people concerned about the price of gas, incumbents must be careful to make clear to their constituents that they are doing everything they can, which, in truth, isn't much, to bring those prices down. You can bet targeted lawmakers haven't heard the last of Freedom's Watch or the DCCC on this issue.

Freedom's Watch Target List

LA-06 - Rep. Don Cazayoux
MS-01 - Rep. Travis Childers
TX-22 - Rep. Nick Lampson
KS-02 - Rep. Nancy Boyda
WI-08 - Rep. Steve Kagen
TX-23 - Rep. Ciro Rodriguez
OH-18 - Rep. Zack Space
NH-01 - Rep. Carol Shea-Porter
AZ-05 - Rep. Harry mitchell
CA-11 - Rep.Jerry McNerney
GA-08 - Rep. Jim Marshall
FL-16 - Rep. Tim Mahoney
NY-20 - Rep. Kirstin Gillibrand
AZ-08 - Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
PA-10 - Rep. Chris Carney
PA-11 - Rep. Paul Kanjorski

DCCC Target List

CA-50 - Rep. Brian Bilbray
PA-15 - Rep. Charlie Dent
VA-02 - Rep. Thelma Drake
WV-02 - Rep. Shelly Moore Capito
OH-01 - Rep. Steve Chabot
PA-03 - Rep. Phil English
NJ-05 - Rep. Scott Garrett
PA-06 - Rep. Jim Gerlach
VA-05 - Rep. Virgil Goode
NC-08 - Rep. Robin Hayes
NC-10 - Rep. Patrick McHenry
IL-06- Rep. Peter Roskam
OH-02 - Rep. Jean Schmidt

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 30, 2008; 11:16 AM ET
Categories:  House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam Week in Preview: July 4 Edition
Next: Clark's Comments Play to McCain's Strengths

Comments

Exactly BadgerOne, a human being without a sense of humor is like tortilla chips without salsa. They're still edible, but why not just eat pure flour? The reviews of the Times and Newsweek polls are all over the internet. A simple Google search shows article after article on the flaws in the pollls.

Intentional or incompetent are the only two conclusions and either situation is unacceptable for major, and minor, news media. Long, rambling lawyer speak trying to justify a poll that gives Obama a 15 point lead over McCain is ludicrous on its face. The Pew Research Center, Gallup, Rasmussen and others have shown how flawed the polls were.

What misquided partisanship keeps trying to justify those polls? They used flawed sampling that guaranteed results favorable to Obama. Get over it. They got caught with their pants down. Don't try to say they were just changing clothes when they were interrupted.

Although, a defense of such weak polls does make me chuckle. Maybe there is a sense of humor there, afterall. What else could explain what the defense of flawed polls is. Of course, Bill Clinton would say it all depends on your definition of what is is.

By the way, the Wolverines, Spartans, and Badgers all suck.

Posted by: JerseyBoy | July 2, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Bricker, but saying sports smack invalids my argument totally discredits you as, well, a human being with any sense of humor. Most people would agree that condition may be worse than the LA Times intentionally giving the Republicans only 22% of their poll. And what does "Morin as a skilled professional of polling and bias" mean? That's not even comprehensible. A skilled professional of bias? Well, leave it to a lawyer to try and win an argument using lawyer speak.

As a legislative researcher and editor for 20 years I believe I am qualified to say that polling using only 22% Republicans is either intentional or incompetent. So, you may be right. Maybe it was just incompetence. But that's not a comforting conclusion either is it?

A criminal fraud prosecutor for 20 years? Well, I'm not really happy about all the criminals that are on the street today because you believed everyone who said their acts were unintentional.

The Wolverines and Spartans still stink.

Posted by: BadgerOne | July 2, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Obama was LISTED BY A CATHOLIC SCHOOL AS BEING A MUSLIM


Obama's half brother has publicly stated that Obama is a Muslim.


Obama's own campaign has stated that Obama attended a madrassa, however it was not a "radical madrassa" just a regular madrassa in which they taught the Koran and the kids learned other Muslim things like there are 57 states of Islam.


We simply post the facts.

The case is pretty much closed on Obama's Muslim heritage, which is correct, real and true. If the Obama campaign says anything different, they are either being deceptive or outright lying to you.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | July 1, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

Badger One:

The CQ article you claim as your source was posted 2 hours and 17 minutes after the URL cited in my original post. The URL for that story is
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002907401
the two stories are identical except for the addition of this paragraph near the end:
"Andrew Romano writes in his Newsweek blog, 'Stumper:' "The problem here is that unlike race, age and gender, party ID is fluid--and even extreme swings might reflect actual changes in the mood of the electorate. 'This is a canard,' says NEWSWEEK polling maestro Larry Hugick when asked about the McCain memo [which charged that the party ratios were wrong]. 'Both parties do it. But ID isn't a fixed property. In fact, it's associated with the candidates. It's been proven that as a candidate goes up in the polls, so does his party. Same when a candidate goes down.'"

Likewise, your claim that "I did not leave out info but rather chose not to subject readers to an entire lengthy article." is not credible since you omitted approximately 15 lines from the story, while quoting without attribution the vast bulk of the story, 24 lines. It just happens that you omitted the conclusion of the Pew Research Center's analysis, which is directly contrary to your "contention, and opinion".

While you may have a different opinion than Morin, your original post implies that the Pew Research Center agrees with your conclusion. This is completely contrary to the conclusion of Morin, representing Pew.

Again, in your 4:23 post you cite to "Reports on the polls" without providing any specific method by which your statement might be verified.

You are of course entitled to "[Your] contention, and opinion, . . ." However, you have provided no verifiable evidence to back up your naked contention. Consequently, your contention and opinion is entitled to little weight.

Your final remark, about Wolverines and Spartans, merely confirms that your contentions and opinions are lightweight and suspect.

Likewise, you have provided no evidence that Morin is not qualified to judge whether or not the Newsweek and LA Times polls were intentionally skewed. You yourself have set up Morin as a skilled professional of polling and bias in polling by your reference in the initial paragraph of your post "as documented by the renown[sic] Pew Research Center."

While I have seen no evidence either way that there was intentional bias in those polls, your claim that the Pew Research Center has found intentional bias is in no way supported by the reference to Pew in your post. The most that Morin is willing to say is that it appears that an error was made.

As a criminal fraud prosecutor for over 20 years, intent is the heart of the matter. What was your intent when you omitted the directly contrary opinion of the Pew Research Center expert?

Posted by: Bricker in Michigan | June 30, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Bricker, appreciate you doing your homework, really. But my info was from CQ article The Wild Differences in Polls, Explained, by Andrew Satter. The two articles did for the most part use the same source materials. I did not leave out info but rather chose not to subject readers to an entire lengthy article.

Morin is eminently qualfied to review the facts. However, HE IS NOT QUALIFIED to make a blanket statement that Newsweek and the LA Times did not intentionally skew their polling sample. How could he know that? That's his opinion, not documented fact.

Reports on the polls show the LA Times, for instance, used a sample of 39 per cent Democrats and 22 per cent Republicans. This is a 17 per cent difference and over double what other polls like Gallup use. How do they justify this monumental difference?

My contention, and opinion, is it was intentional. Believe or not, I think the LA Times pollsters are too intelligent to make the mistake of "unintentionally" giving Republicans only 22 out of 100 voters used for a poll sampling.

By the way, the Wolverines and Spartans both stink.

Posted by: BadgerOne | June 30, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Juan McAmnsety seems to care much more about the invading Mexicans then he does American citizens! The people that obey the Laws, paid their taxes, fought the wars and built this country that are having their jobs downgraded, their communities destroyed, hospitals closed, education of their kids destroyed, thousands of them raped, robbed or killed each year & our social network used for the invading horde instead of American citizens.

Both Obama & Juan McAmnsety support policies that will turn this Nation into another Third World Cesspool of Crime, Corruption, Poverty & Misery the same type of society the invading horde has built in their home countries and are exporting to this Nation!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 30, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

BadgerOne:
Thank you for your reference to the Pew Research Report referenced in the Congressional Quarterly. It would have been helpful if you had provided the link to that report and put quotation marks around the quoted material.

After some searching, the URL was found at http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/polltracker/2008/06/why-the-polls-are-so-different.html#more
under the title "Why The Polls are So Different (with Video)"

You accurately quote that link, however you omitted the first and last three paragraphs of that report. Additionally, the first and last paragraphs of your post are not part of that report, as would be assumed from the internal markers of those paragraphs.

The last three paragraphs of the CQ report on the interview of the Pew researcher are:

"MORIN CAUTIONED THAT NEITHER ORGANIZATION OVERSAMPLED DEMOCRATS INTENTIONALLY. It's a tricky business, getting exactly the right mix that mirrors the entire population.
"'Embedded in the operations of polling are subtle differences that result in skews - and they can be either Republican skews or Democratic skews.'
"As the season wears on, there are likely to be plenty of differences among the slew of surveys. Pollsters commonly caution that each poll is 'just a snapshot in time.' And the focus has to be just right." [Capitalization of first sentence added.]

It is a pity that responders to your post apparently didn't check the original source of your post, e.g., JerseyBoy, Tarheel, before adding to your distortion.

The CQ interview in no manner supports the conclusion of the last paragraph of your report. Indeed, the video attached to the CQ report makes that manifestly clear. The CQ report is a neutral report that does not make any claim that the sampling problem was intentional. That is your conclusion based upon evidence that you have not presented.

Posted by: Bricker in Michigan | June 30, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh D,

I stand corrected and thanks for the link. Its appears somebody scaned in her thesis. Is there a direct link to her thesis?

Posted by: sltiowa | June 30, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil rose to a record above $143 a barrel, completing the biggest quarterly increase in nine years, on concern Israel may attack Iran over its nuclear program and disrupt supply from OPEC's second-largest producer.

Pressure on Iran to end uranium enrichment and the falling value of the U.S. dollar may drive prices to $170 a barrel, OPEC President Chakib Khelil said June 28. Kuwait, the fourth-largest OPEC producer, is taking precautionary steps to export oil if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, Kuwait News Agency reported.

Concerns about Iran ``continue to persist and be in the air, which has helped prices,'' said John Kilduff, vice president of risk management at MF Global Ltd. in New York. ``More and more people are taking it seriously and giving it greater potential. It still represents the mother-of-all supply disruption events.''

Posted by: war with iran coming | June 30, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh,
You only wish you could pull down 400 large for such writing talent as mine. Everything I got, I owe to Princeton, those ivy-league whiteys know a good black student wen dey see won.

Posted by: snObama babymomma | June 30, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Exactly the point, BadgerOne. If a Fox News poll was off by 15 points the negative buzz here and elsewhere would sound like a killer bee convention. When media like Newsweek and the LA Times can be so blatantly biased and are unaccountable the American people are the ones who are wronged.

Freedom of the press is not freedom to lie to support your chosen candidate. It was meant to protect the press from government intrusion. Who's in charge of protecting the American people from media like Newsweek and the LA Times abusing their privilege to report accurate news? Are they unaccountable to anyone? Notice how many news outlets reported the Newsweek and LA Times polls and ignored the Gallup polls. If you polled the American people about what one name they associate with fair political polls, they would say Gallup. Why weren't the Gallup polls newsworthy?

Posted by: JerseyBoy | June 30, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

sltiowa,

Here's a link to and article which contains links to all four parts of Michelle Obama's thesis, titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community", for those interested in a truly astounding view into the mind of a Princeton honors grad with a serious chip on her shoulder and a very poor grasp of the English language:


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html


After reading it, I can certainly see why they said she didn't have what it takes to go to Princeton. Just look at what affirmative action can do! Is this county great, or what?

Posted by: Dinesh D | June 30, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the kudos but I was just reporting what Congressional Quarterly had found out about the Newsweek and LA Times polls. Someone last week asked for proof that the polls were biased. Considering Gallup had the race tied on the same days was the first clue. Now with the Pew Research Center report we know the truth.

Funny, if this was a Fox News poll that intentionally polled far too many Republicans people would be asking for reporters to be fired, the media sued, and maybe for a Congressional investigation. But I challenge you to even find the Newsweek and LA Times poll scandal on any front pages. CQ costs a fortune to subscribe to so its report won't be seen by huge numbers of people. Hopefully a few media outlets pick it up and run with it. It is a very serious breach of journalistic integrity and should not go unanswered.

Posted by: BadgerOne | June 30, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Say Tarheel, speaking of polls, did you ever find anything to substantiate your claim that some poll showed Mondale with an eighteen point lead over Reagan after the Dem convention? Cause I've got some more citations that it never happened. Just curious if you're ready to concede the point - moral of the story is don't repeat unsourced "facts". Critical thinking and skepticism, and doing your own research are your friends.

Posted by: spike | June 30, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Tarheel, I'm with you all the way. Kudos to BadgerOne with his reporting of the Pew Research Center review of the Newsweek and LA Times polls. It's disturbing when the political leanings of reporters constantly show up in articles. But something like a poll should just be a straightforward exercise in math.

Who would have believed Newsweek and the LA Times would knowingly ask far too many Democrats who they would vote for president. Of course the poll gave Obama a 15 point lead. Sheesh! Newsweek and the LA Times might as well changes their names to Obamaweek and the Obama Times and get it over with. Thanks heavens for Gallup and Rassmussen or we'd have no idea where the election really stands.

Posted by: JerseyBoy | June 30, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh D,

Are you distance cousins with Worry-wart and Concerned? The vast conspiracy theories abound all around. Given Obama's wife age I doubt her senior thesis is on the web since that would require her department to have scanned in her original (I have not verified). I doubt her college who take the time with a senior thesis. As a scientist, its difficult to find journals who have available PDFs older than 1990s. The larger journals do supply most of their previous journals. However, what you are talking about is an undergraduate thesis (carries little weight). Why would they have retained her thesis? I wish you would add a link to this product so people on this blog can review. If not, keep your lies to yourself.

Posted by: sltiowa | June 30, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Note Dinesh D and "it's" typical Freedom Watch style of smear campaign. Very typical of these NeoLeninist-NeoCon fuzzy minded one worlder's. Note how, when they are called on their communist ideology, they change the subject to some rumor they have invented to begin with.Make no mistake about it, these are dangerous traitors who deserve to be watched carefully, and tried and convicted for treason.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 30, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Now that Barack Obama has pretty much wrapped up the nomination, it's time to raise a question that lots of people have been talking about privately but not publicly. Is it possible that Michelle Obama is the force behind Barack Obama's refusal to embrace traditional patriotic symbols? Could Obama's wife be largely responsible for the candidate's damaging associations with crackpot race-baiters like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the Reverend Michael Pfleger? In sum, could Obama's wife be a large part of his political problem?

Obama himself seems, at least on the surface, relatively free of the kind of corrosive racial resentment that is so common among African American activists of our day. This resentment is especially puzzling as it often comes from people who, far from being victims, have actually enjoyed benefits and privileges that they would probably never get if they happened to be white.

Consider the case of Michelle Obama. She was raised in a two-parent, middle-class family. She applied to one of America's top universities, Princeton, and was admitted. Of this experience, Michelle says on the stump, "All my life I have confronted people who had a certain expectation of me. Every step of the way, there has been people telling me what I couldn't do. When I applied to Princeton, they said: you can't go there, your test scores aren't high enough."

Which is all very moving, except that her test scores weren't high enough. Michelle Obama is part of the affirmative action generation of above-average but far-from-stellar performers who were granted preferential admission to America's most elite institutions.

Michelle notes that she graduated with honors in her major. Again, the problem is that her undergraduate thesis is on the web. You might expect that she wrote about Shakespeare's sonnets or the political evolution of W.E.B. Du Bois. Well, no. Essentially Michelle Obama wrote about the problems of being a black woman at an Ivy League university.

Here is a typical passage: "By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desparation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight."

Alas, the grammar is all wrong here. More than once, the tenses are garbled. People are ignorant "of" the plight of the lower class, not ignorant "to" their plight. And"desparation" should be spelled "desperation." To wreak so much havoc on the English language in one sentence, without conveying anything of substance, is perhaps deserving of a prize. Is this what her professors were thinking when they granted her honors? Whatever the Obamorons say, let's remember that that these are not mere typos; they reflect an estranged relationship to the English language. Moreover they appear not in an off-the-cuff transcript but in a thesis that is supposed to reflect the culmination of one's college career.

Subsequently Michelle went on to further appointments and even managed to cash in big time on her skin color and marriage to Barack Obama. She was hired by the University of Chicago hospitals to run "programs for community relations, neighborhood outrecah, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity, and minority contracting." Here her salary was $400,000 a year.

One might expect that the reaction of someone who gets so many privileges to be grateful to a society that makes them possible. But no. Michelle Obama thinks that her very success is an example of white oppression. By a bizarre twist of logic, she converts "you're not good enough, but we'll take you anyway" into a message of "they said I wasn't good enough, but I proved them wrong."

Ordinarily these psychological peculiarities may be of little interest, except perhaps to a therapist. But Michelle now stands next to a man that may be elected president of the United States. Barack Obama wants everyone to "lay off" his wife. He doesn't seem to realize that this is not a reasonable request concerning a woman who clearly influences him and who stands to have public influence in her own right. Moreover, for months the media has been laying off her precisely because she is his wife. Like Michelle, Obama seems to confuse preferential treatment with ill treatment.

Posted by: Dinesh D | June 30, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Chris calls Freedom Watch a conservative group, but they really aren't. They are a NeoCon organization with close ties to Cheney and the RNC, to various radical Israeli groups, and even to the governments of China and India becasue of their support for offshoring jobs, production capacity, and technology unfettered by any government interference. They are, in the most literal sense, traitors to this country. ABC News did an investigative report on them after the 2008 special Congresssional election in Louisiana and found, contrary to their claims otherwise, that that campaign involved a word-for-word series of ads gotten from the RNC. This group ran and *continues to run* articles, advertisements, and a campaign claiming that 9-11 was actually due to Iraq and Saddam Huseein and NOT Al Qaida! Moreover, to tie all of this in with yesterday's forum on internet smear campaigns, several of the "rumors" being spread all across the internet in forums and via emails with regards to Obama have been directly traced to this organization. In particular, rumors about Michelle Obama's "whitey" comments, Obama being a secret Muslim (and, then, a Muslim by birth), the video's of Rev. Wright and the visiting Cathlic priest and the entire smear campaign surrounding this, are all been directly tied to Free Watch.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | June 30, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

BadgerOne, thanks for the Congressional Quarterly and Pew Research Center (extremely respected sources) info on those Newsweek and LA Times polls. Wow, these sentences say it all about the 15 point lead they show for Obama.

In fact, Morin says, if the two polls that show Obama winning by a large margin were to modify their findings using the same percentage of Democrats and Republicans as other polls, Obama's lead would come down to somewhere between a toss-up and a small, single digit lead for Obama.

That's very revealing. Nowadays, I expect reporters and editorial writers to be biased in the major media, but I expected them to at least publish straightforward, unbiased voter polls. Journalism has reached a new low. Thanks again for the info. Most of the posters just resort to polical gutter talk and bash others, never citing facts or figures.

Posted by: Tarheel | June 30, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Worry-wart,

Please your logic escapes words. I doubt there are facts which will persuade you of your ignorance or stupidity. You failed to address my questions and your conspiracy theories are nothing new. It's amazing that a Supreme Court justice can be bought with a duck hunt (how much do we pay them anyway). While I disapprove of the current administration, I find these conspiracy theories proposed by the left revolting. These conspiracist (sp?) have actually just changed sides since Clinton was accused of just about everything during his tenure as well. You do your side no favors by conjuring up your theories and if anything I will support someone who has some history rather than a new face with stale ideas.

Posted by: sltiowa | June 30, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

'Poor John McCain. '

Oh, indeed. Whom pundits and reporters alike all admit they fawn on, they love him. They have a mancrush on him. They come right out and say it, 'Badger.'

Posted by: Anonymous | June 30, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

'State Department spokesman Tom Casey was more more explicit in his comments, saying that "the United States has had no involvement" in the deals, and thus couldn't be expected to "block the Iraqi government from contracting in the way it sees fit."

But, according to a follow-up Times article published today, the State Department actually "played an integral part" in the deals:

A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq, American officials say. [...]

In their role as advisers to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, American government lawyers and private-sector consultants provided template contracts and detailed suggestions on drafting the contracts, advisers and a senior State Department official said.'

Posted by: blood for oil | June 30, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

From the perspective of a middle-America small town, we aren't so concerned with blaming elected officials for prices at the pump. Corporations like Exxon-Mobil are generally viewed as the real enemy. In that light, this may be wasted ad money.

If the Obama campaign can continue to promote a comprehensive energy agenda and follow through with the second stimulus relief package, I think Dems will be seen as the ones who are taking the side of "regular people".

John McCain supports big tax breaks for big oil. I don't think he can run from that. And the top of the ticket has a serious effect on the bottom of the ticket.

http://ilfamilypolitics.blogspot.com
.

Posted by: Midwest Mom | June 30, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Freedom's Watch hasn't a chance when big boys like the LA Times and Newsweek are running biased polls as documented by the renown Pew Research Center. Congressional Quarterly just reported on a Pew Research Center review of their outrageous polls showing Obama up as much as 15 points. Here's the report.

Why the difference? Were the Newsweek and L.A. Times biased in favor of Obama? Do the Rasmussen and Gallup pollsters showing a virtual tie favor McCain? Or maybe the public is wildly changing its views, daily.

All unlikely, says Richard Morin, a senior editor at the Pew Research Center. In an interview with CQ Politics, he said the discrepancy is probably a result of the Newsweek and L.A. Times/Bloomberg polls over-representing Democrats.

"When I look at those results, I know something is going on," said Morin.

"The first place that I look when I see these discrepancies, I look for the percentage of Republicans, Democrats and Independents in the sample. We know that the best predictor of how someone is going to vote is their party ID.

"Both the L.A. Times/Bloomberg and the Newsweek polls have (too) large percentage of Democrats and a (too) small percentage of Republicans."

While there are indeed more people who identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans in the country, Morin says the other polls, including Gallup, are more in line with the actual disparity than the Bloomberg or Newsweek polls.

"Interestingly enough," Morin said, "if you do the math and apply the proper percentages to the L.A. Times/Bloomberg and the Newsweek findings, you find that their results change dramatically."

In fact, Morin says, if the two polls that show Obama winning by a large margin were to modify their findings using the same percentage of Democrats and Republicans as other polls, Obama's lead would come down to somewhere between a toss-up and a small, single digit lead for Obama.

Pew Research Center researchers discover Newsweek and the LA Times intentionally oversampled Democrats and published inaccurate polls that benefit Obama. Is anyone surprised? Poor John McCain. This time he's imprisoned by the open favoritism to Obama in polls conducted by the likes of Newsweek and the LA Times.

Posted by: BadgerOne | June 30, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

If the USSC had not provided cover for the Bush/Cheney conspiracy under the guise of 'executive privilege', we, the public, would be informed as to the true reason for today's oil, energy and everything else inflated prices.

As long as crooks like Scalia (who was bribed by Cheney with a 'duck hunt', remember)have the power to thwart justice, we can expect more smoke and mirrors.

And the commenter who cited today's Iraqi 'oil-concessions' deal surely pointed to the real reason for the Iraq debacle in April, 2003 and forward.

Posted by: Worry-wart | June 30, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

My mistake; I looked at the wrong year. Oil in January 2007 was $46.53. Still a 60% increase from when Bush took office.

Posted by: Blarg | June 30, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"The NYT's sources tell the paper that bureaucratic squabbling in Washington has severely hampered "Operation Cannonball," the code name for efforts to hunt al-Qaida in Pakistan, where the terrorist organization has re-established its base after being smashed in Afghanistan. Secret plans to make it easier for commandos to go after Osama Bin Laden and his top deputies have been held up over fears of alienating Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

And, according to the Times, the war in Iraq has diverted lots of resources, such as Predator drones, from the pursuit of al-Qaida in tribal areas. The NYT says that the upshot of all this is that the United States today faces a threat from al-Qaida comparable to the threat it faced before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "

Posted by: feel safer now? | June 30, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"Bush and cheney and R congress - 6 years of steady oil prices and expanding economy."

Bush took office in January 2001. Oil was $28.66 per barrel. The Democratic Congress took office in January 2007. Oil was $58.30 per barrel. You call that steady oil prices?

(Source: http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm)

Posted by: Blarg | June 30, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk -- still unemployed, still has nothing to do but type on this blog all day. what a wasted, pathetic life.

and still obssessed with nancy pelosi. some things never change, apparently.

somehow can manage to overlook that it is 8 years of a republican stranglehold on government power that has put us where we are -- at the mercy of george bush and dick cheney's good friends the oil companies and the saudi shieks.

what do bush and cheney care about the price of gas when they are making millions with their oil company and halliburtion stocks?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 30, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Concerned,

How are you different from the people who accuse Obama from being Muslim? Are you telling me that our Energy companies have that much control of world wide oil prices? What planet do you live on? Are you saying that Japan and Europe would allow such an allowance? Why hasn't this vast conspiracy been found out yet? Are you saying that Chavez is complicit in this world wide scheme? Why does he denounce the USA all the time or is he just talking tough and really winking the entire time he denounces capitalism? Please your logic is less than stellar. Are you an Obama supporter? If you are please keep to yourself because you will show the true ignorance of his supporters. I find the R who talk of Obama's Muslim connection troubling as well as the D who talk of a world wide conspiracy. If this is the best talking points of either side is there another party to vote for in the general election.

Posted by: sltiowa | June 30, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Bush and cheney and R congress - 6 years of steady oil prices and expanding economy.

Pelosi and Reid - 2 for 2 years of run away prices and depressed everything.

Want more - vote D

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 30, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Look whose talking, Republicans are spreading lies again this election year...No American will listen to these lies again. American people knows better who to believe. Since Bush and Cheney took over the White House, the price of gas goes up. Who got richer? His
Oil cronies!!!!Everything goes up, gas, groceries, tuition fees, insurance,etc...but your salary remains down! Vote wisely this year. American deserves better!

Posted by: Jimboys | June 30, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Grand Oil Party... I love it!
jj

Posted by: jersey john | June 30, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

When the Bush Regime took office in 2001 OIL WAS $25.00/BARREL. Doesn't that say it all. Of course after the Cheney secret meeting to set the Administration's Energy Policy it seems the price started rising.I wonder why. Now it comes out that Busy/Cheney have a voice in the distribution of oil rights in Iraq. Nooooo S _ _T.

Posted by: Concerened | June 30, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company