No One Likes the Republicans

by Jonathan Singer, Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:18:54 AM EST

I just don't get it. No one likes the Republicans. They are working against the interests of the United States in the hopes that Barack Obama will fail and their own horrible political fortunes turn around. Yet the establishment media insists on giving Congressional Republicans cover?

The latest CBS News poll (.pdf) finds that Congressional Republicans lag far behind their Democratic counterparts and President Obama. Currently 60 percent of Americans view Congressional Republicans unfavorably, with just 32 percent viewing them favorably -- meaning that more than a quarter of the 42.5 percent of the country that voted for House Republicans on November 4 does not view their previous choice positively. These numbers compare unfavorably with those of Congressional Democrats, as a plurality of voters (48 percent) rate the party's caucus positively and just 43 percent rate it negatively. President Obama's numbers are significantly better than those, with 62 percent approving of the job he is doing and a remarkably small 15 percent voicing disapproval.

Yet despite the fact that the public is making clear that it is siding with the President over Congressional Republicans, and despite the fact that Congressional Republicans are dealing in bad faith -- angling for concessions from the White House and the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill while voting en masse against the agreements; seeking to obstruct a much-needed stimulus under the apparent theory that the failure of the President would lead to their own success even though the job numbers are the worst they have been in 35 years -- the establishment media is for some reason giving Congressional Republicans cover and lending them undeserved credibility.

Last week, ThinkProgress released a report showing that, in the debate over the House economic recovery bill on the five cable news networks, Republican members of Congress outnumbered their Democratic counterparts by a ratio of 2 to 1. The analysis tallied interview segments about the stimulus on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC during a three-day period, finding that the networks had hosted Republican lawmakers 51 times and Democratic lawmakers only 26 times.
[...]
In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that Republican lawmakers outnumbered Democratic lawmakers 75 to 41 on cable news interviews by members of Congress (from 6am on Monday 2/2 through 11pm on Thursday 2/5)[.]

Somewhere, there is an alternative universe where public sentiments and what is right matter. Unfortunately, we clearly don't live in that universe.

Tags: 111th Congress, Congressional Republicans (all tags)

Comments

17 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Because giving cover

to a group of people the majority of the country hates makes them feel like they're all unbiased and balanced! They don't want to seem like they have a "liberal bias"

Trust me on this, I know, I worked for CBS for six years and CBS isn't even as bad as the rest. That's what they talk about in their production meetings, how to kill the "conventional wisdom" that they have a liberal bias.

Of course what goes on up in the executive meetings could be a whole other story.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 10:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: No One Likes the Republicans

I really think the Reps will pay for stalling the stimulus bill. It must be clear to anyone that hte Dems including Obama have bent over backwards to accommodate them and that their intent is to spur the economy.

Obama is taking to the offensive personally starting tonight. I don't the House Reps will vote unanimously against it in the end. They wanted to scar the Prez early on, but they can't afford it. Neither do I think the Reps will filibuster the bill in its final form. There might e 40-45 against it, but not in favor of veto.

Unfortunately Obama's last media blitz was wasted b/c of Daschle's tax issues. This time, the leader who inspired hope and pride int he country will be framing the Reps actions as the counterproductive stonewalling it is. He'll also contrast his willingness to compromise for the greater good w/ their political games.

I think his early overtures are about to pay off.

by midwestdem1 2009-02-06 11:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Ever Since Reagan

Ever since the "Teflon President" (Reagan), the media has been covering for Republicans. No matter how vicious Reagan's actions (firing Air Traffic Controllers), how stupid his ideas ("Star Wars" missile defense), or how corrupt (Iran/Contra scandal), Reagan was portrayed as a great statesman (see the new book Tear Down This Myth: How The Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics And Haunts Our Future for details). As best I can tell, most of the real journalists have been purged out of the corporate media over the past 30 years and all that are left are stenographers who ask their Republican buddies for interviews.

I hope this current offensive by the media will finally put to rest the myth of the "liberal media".

by RandomNonviolence 2009-02-06 11:40AM | 0 recs

permalink

The Media also likes Joe the Plumber, Blago, Palin

Cheney's assine rant on Politico got lots of coverage...

They are in the controversy business. Period.

They have no cares about accuracy or truth, but only care about what will keep you from hitting "Scan" on the remote and seeing what's cooking on the Iron Chef re-runs...

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 11:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

What would it take?

What would it take for you to give congressional democrats or even Obama a negative rating in a poll.

Republicans have been upset with the GOP not because they have been to far to the "right", but because they can't seem to say no to new spending. It is understandable that republicans pushing fiscal responsibility would hit a majority of the public positively.

In the same poll you sited read these numbers:
BEST WAY TO END RECESSION?
More government spending 22%
Tax cuts for business 59%

It is not all sunshine in lollipops with Peloci receiving a 10% approval rating.

by Classical Liberal 2009-02-06 12:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

You cannot have fiscal responsibility

in a time like this. It would kill the economy by sinking demand.

by Kent 2009-02-06 12:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

I disagree

"It's time to put an end to the run-away spending and the record deficits, It's time to return to the fiscal responsibility and pay as you go, the kind budgeting that we had in the 1990s. You remember Bill Clinton left a surplus for George W. Bush."
Obama on the Campaign Trail 10/1/2008

The country is has moved to the fiscal conservative right. Everyone is tightening their belts. Until there is confidence in the market we will have problems and no amount of government giveaways will change that.

Please understand that there is only two places the government can get the money to spend frivolously as you think we need.

Option 1: It takes money out of the market in the form of taxes. This argument that the government can spend money more effectively than the free market has never been proven.

Option 2: Borrow and print money. Unfortunately the presses have been running since October and the the real effect has yet to be felt. We are in real danger of devaluing our currency.

Even if we accept what both the Bush and the Obama administration thought was best which was to spend a lot of money. I think economists agree the in order to "stimulate" the economy it has get money into the market rapidly. The majority of the bill in congress does not do that.

You can also argue that the bill is full of good things our country needs, but don't treat me the the rest of American's as idiots and use fear tactics to get what basically amounts to a 2nd annual budget passed as "stimulus".

by Classical Liberal 2009-02-06 02:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Obama said that well before

it looked like the economy was in serious trouble. When the economy is sinking, you have to get money to people so they will spend money. You have to run a deficit to create demand. When Herbert Hoover slashed spending and raised taxes in 1930 and 1931, the economy crashed further. The same thing happened to FDR in 1937 and 1938. The economy will not fix itself.

by Kent 2009-02-06 02:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama said that well before

Lets look at what Hoover did in 30 and 31.

First off Hoover was big into the Efficiency Movement. Basically that everything in the economy and government can be run better by experts. Obama is like that too.

Much like Bush, Hoover is sold as some sort of laissez-faire politician, but his actions speak louder than his words(just like Bush).

First he established price controls with the Agricultural Marketing Act

Then he renounces war with the Kellogg-Briand pact which later helped with the forming of International Laws.

Then he creates the Research Committee on Recent Social Trends.

Then the stock market Crashes

Then he creates the Conference for Continued Industrial Progress of business, government and labor unions and gets pledges to keep wages the same.

Then a wave of construction projects.

Then it was the creation of National Institute of Health and the affirmation of public funded medical research.

Then came the protectionism with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.

And on and on and on with the concept of centralized power, not free market ideas.

As far as taxes though he did lower them in 29 and raise them in 32. This is where I lose some of my Republican friends, when it comes to taxes and stimulating the economy. I am more concerned with taxes be charged equally than I am with them being low. When an economy is over stimulated though I am not sure stimulation is the best choice. Using the tax code to control the markets is no better.

Bottom line: The problem with our economy is the unpredictable scenario with the swaying nature of politics picking the winners and losers. This happens when we. as a nation, centralize power. It is happening. It happened in Hoover and FDR and a natural correction in the market turns into a 10+ year recession. It is not good for the economy and it is not good for individual freedoms.

As always I appreciate your back and forth. I know I am out there sometimes, but I think it is always important to try and listen and understand where the other side stands.

Check out the interactive time line tool here:
http://blogs.edb.utexas.edu/presidential _timeline/

by Classical Liberal 2009-02-06 04:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Maybe our Republican/Ayn Rand-er Classic Liberal

Should have posted the next part of the poll?

Where, when asked in right after the great Depression, people also though Tax Cuts were the best solution.

It's brainwashing then, brainwashing now.

Come on CL?

Only the dyed in the wool manics at Cato think we can tax cut our self out of this.

Even most Republican Economist think we need to spend, they are just arguing about WHERE to spend...

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 12:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Repeat the failures of the past.

Yes and they didn't cut taxes then either. Don't you think is FDR is a bad model considering how long we were in the depression?

by Classical Liberal 2009-02-06 02:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

The economy was turning

around in 1934 because of FDR's spending. The recovery stalled in 1937 because FDR tried to balance the budget.

by Kent 2009-02-06 02:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The economy was turning

Yup...

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 02:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The economy was turning

You could argue it wasn't until the 40's in WWII that the economy was turned around. Are you suggesting we need to be spending 35% of our GDP. Oh wait we are already over that threshold.

They use to call it a ponzi scheme. I don't know maybe I am wrong. I have two questions for you.

1. What should we be spending as a percentage of GDP during the stimulus?

2. What should we be spending during good times?

There comes a point where government spending serves to hurt the market. You can't keep borrowing from the future. At some point we have to pay the piper.

by Classical Liberal 2009-02-06 03:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

When the economy is good

Like in the 1990's, you use budget surpluses to pay down the national debt.

by Kent 2009-02-06 04:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

I think you have drinkin the Koolaid

We paid down national debt in the 1990's? National debt doubled in the 90's! So many people believe stupid things about the 90's.

In 1990 we had 3 trillion in national debt, by 2000 we were over 6 trillion. Now we are over 11 trillion. See a pattern?

by Classical Liberal 2009-02-07 03:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

Almost half the depression

occured before Roosevelt took office 1929-1933.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 04:44PM | 0 recs