by David Grossman, Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 09:23:05 AM EDT
I thought I had made my home (landline) phone number unlisted, but I just got a robo-call from SurveyUSA. They are doing polling for the local (DC-area) CBS affiliate WUSA 9. The poll was centered around the '08 presidential election, and some of the pairings were interesting (including Al Franken versus Sean Hannity).
by David Grossman, Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 01:42:21 PM EDT
Just got my latest e-mail from Mr. Tony Perkins over at the Family Research Council, and the headline of the e-mail is "Homosexual Agenda or Bust!", and the picture included with the e-mail is as follows:
Tony's usually one of the more ugly homophobes of the GOP, but this seems a little over the top, even for him.
by David Grossman, Sat Jul 29, 2006 at 01:00:15 AM EDT
So the Republicans in the U.S. House stayed up until almost 2am tonight to give Paris Hilton some extra money (there's something funny about millions of dollars being showered on Paris Hilton in the dead of night, but I'll leave that joke for someone else to finish).
How much extra money? Try a cool $91,089,200.
by David Grossman, Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:01:05 AM EDT
(Cross posted from Daily Kos. We just launched the PoliticsTV blog last week.)
The crew at PoliticsTV has spent the past week focusing on issues related to the federal marriage amendment [FYI: Bush's big Federal Marriage Amendment press conference is coming up at 1:45pm ET / 10:45am PT today]. Gay bloggers John Aravosis of AmericaBLOG.com, Addie Stan of AddieStan.com and Terrance Heath of Republic of T all came by PoliticsTV's DC studios over the past few days to share thoughts and rants.
Check out highlights from PoliticsTV.com below the fold.
by David Grossman, Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 12:46:18 PM EST
(Cross-posted on the Connecticut blog My Left Nutmeg)
Watch a short video of highlights from Ned Lamont's announcement that he will be challanging Joe Lieberman for the U.S. Senate.
Visit PoliticsTV.com and the video will begin playing automatically right in your web browser. If you would like to see the video in Quicktime, click here.
See below the fold for more.
by David Grossman, Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 03:37:23 PM EST
(Cross posted at Daily Kos. If you see these myths and falsehoods being repeated in the media, please let us know by contacting us at firstname.lastname@example.org.)
Hearings for Samuel Alito will begin this coming Monday. In anticipation, we just issued a report de-bunking the top six myths and falsehoods that have been advanced by right-wing supporters of Alito.
Top Alito myths and falsehoods
#1: Alito's opinion in Farmer case is evidence that he would vote to uphold Roe
#2: Alito's recusal pledge covered only a limited time frame
#3: Alito is a "strict constructionist"
#4: Alito's 1985 criticism of Roe mirrors legal scholars' opinion that the decision was right but incorrectly reasoned
#5: Alito's 1985 job application does not represent his "personal views"
#6: The "Ginsburg precedent" should apply to the Democrats' handling of Alito
by David Grossman, Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 10:31:33 AM EST
(Cross posted at Daily Kos)
We have documented an upcoming Newsweek article that casts the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program was "predictably partisan". It's not -- not even close. We have compiled a comprehensive run-through of the numerous influential Republicans and conservatives who have voiced criticisms of the program. Without, further ado, here's why claims that Bush's warrantless spying on Americans is a "partisan" issue are plain, flat out, wrong.
Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME): "We ... express our profound concern about recent revelations that the United States Government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority."
Read below the fold for more.
by David Grossman, Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:25:19 PM EST
Anyone who follows politics knows that the world is full of different polls. Sometimes, polls all say the same thing, so one can make a blanket statement like "Bush's approval ratings fell in 2005", which, according to every poll I've seen, is true. Even when reviewing each poll's margin of error, one can still conclude the statement that "Bush's approval ratings fell in 2005" is accurate. What was the cause of Bush's fall in approval ratings? That's open for debate (and plenty of folks here and everyone else in the world have weighed in with their two cents)
The latest spin from the right-wing is that Bush has "turned a corner", "hitting back successfully", or whatever else sounds nice and butch. Last week, we caught CNN's Bill Schneider claiming that all recent national polls show President Bush's approval ratings increasing. Not true. A Zogby poll showed Bush's approval ratings going down -- that particular poll showed a decline. Now, if Schneider said (for example) "some polls show Bush's approval rising slightly, while others don't show a change or show his approval rating dropping further" that would have been accurate. Maybe not music to those who wish Bush's approval ratings would maintain their complete free-fall towards zero, but accurate. However, when Schneider says "all polls", and "all polls" aren't saying it, Schneider is wrong (and CNN cites Zogby polls all the time along with tons of other media outlets, so saying "we didn't see Zogby" doesn't pass anyone's laugh test).
by David Grossman, Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 02:12:23 PM EST
(Cross-posted over at Booman Tribune -- something a little lighter for a Friday night)
I remember the first glorious time I saw the South Park movie when it came out in '99 -- I laughed for a good 3 hours after the movie was over (totally sober too). Anyway, for those who don't remember, one of the signature songs was called "Blame Canada", and it went a little somethin' like this:
Time's have changed -- Our kids are kids are getting worse -- They wont obey their parents -- They just want to fart and curse! -- Should we blame the government? -- Or blame society? -- Or should we blame the images on TV?
No, blame Canada! Blame Canada -- With all their beady little eyes and flappin heads so full of lies -- Blame Canada, Blame Canada -- We need to form a full assault -- It's Canadas fault!
by David Grossman, Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 10:53:40 AM EST
While this research isn't as interesting as say, the "War on Christmas", it's really shocking that so many across the media have been misreporting that President Bush had taken "responsibility" for flawed prewar intelligence (as you may have noticed, we're seeing a lot more of Bush on television these days, and it may be taking the media by surprise to be talking about "Bush says" versus "the White House is telling us"). Here's from an item we just issued:
While the media largely described Bush as accepting responsibility for the decision to go to war on the basis of faulty intelligence -- an accurate characterization -- several media figures misconstrued Bush's statement as an acceptance of blame for the bad intelligence itself. These included Fox News host Brit Hume, CNN hosts Wolf Blitzer and Soledad O'Brien, MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing, ABC host Robin Roberts, and National Public Radio (NPR) national political correspondent Mara Liasson.
Among those who misrepresented Bush's statement, Hume stands out. On the December 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, he asserted that Bush "said he takes full responsibility for the decision to invade and for any intelligence failures." Later in the show, Hume aired portions of his interview with President Bush -- conducted after the final speech -- in which the issue of prewar intelligence was discussed. As noted above, it is clear from the text of the speech that Bush did not accept "full responsibility" for the flawed intelligence. But if Hume had been confused about this point, his discussion with the president should have clarified it. During the interview, Bush defended himself against accusations that his administration misused the prewar intelligence by twice repeating the misleading claim that he and Congress "looked at the same intelligence" on the Iraqi threat -- a claim that would carry no weight if, in fact, he had earlier in the day accepted blame for "any intelligence failures"