From Politico -- MONDAY, MAR 8, 2010
Newsmax: Americans strongly prefer Obama -- to Bush
The Right-Wing Site's Online Poll May Cheer the White House
BY JOE CONASON
AP/Charles Dharapak
Online polls taken by partisan Web sites tend to be discounted -- and some observers would question a Zogby online poll in particular -- but when the results cut against the ideology of the sponsor, they may still be worth noting. Today's morning lead on the ultra-conservative Newsmax site touts a Zogby online survey on presidents past and present, with findings that bolster the White House’s current occupant, who is usually the target of extremely harsh criticism from Newsmax and its columnists (one of whom seemingly advocated a military coup last year).
The headline on the Newsmax poll story -- "Bill Clinton Bests Former Presidents to Handle Crisis Today" -- concerns the unsurprising discovery that the American public considers the last Democratic president best qualified of all his peers (by far) to cope with the issues that America confronts today. Comissioned by Newsmax, which is run by Christopher Ruddy and owned by him and Richard Mellon Scaife, among others, the poll queried 4,000 people who participate in Zogby's online surveys.
Among respondents asked the following question -- "Of the current living former presidents, which do you think is best equipped to deal with the problems the country faces today?" -- 41 percent chose Bill Clinton, trailed by George W. Bush with 15 percent, George H.W. Bush with 7 percent, and Jimmy Carter with only 5 percent, while 26 percent chose "none," and 5 percent were "not sure." Those choices may be partly a function of the age of the former presidents, since the elder Bush and Carter are considerably older than the younger Bush and Clinton. But Clinton finished first among all age groups, all races, all religions, and both sexes, with a significantly better showing among women (46 percent) than men (36 percent).
The most salient question -- given Barack Obama’s dipping numbers and the right-wing ripple of nostalgia for George Bush -- tested them against each other. By a margin of 48 to 38, respondents said they would elect Obama over Bush if they faced that choice. Twelve percent said "other" and 2 percent said "not sure." Newsmax didn’t publish the cross tabs but its story noted that, according to the poll, "Obama still nabs a large proportion of self-described independents, pulling 42 percent of these voters. Only 33 percent said they would opt for Bush."
While those aren't wonderful numbers for Obama, they aren't terrible either -- especially at a moment when the mainstream media depict him as weakened and imperiled.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-james-martin-sj/glenn-beck-to-catholics-l_b_490669.html
Glenn Beck to Jesus: Drop Dead
Excerpts:
"Glenn Beck said last week on his eponymous show that Christians should leave churches that preach "social justice." Mr. Beck equated the desire for a just society with--wait for it--Nazism and Communism.
I'm begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them . . . are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes."
"Get it? Social justice is an essential part of Catholic teaching. It's part of being a Catholic. So Glenn Beck is, in essence, saying "Leave the Catholic church."
But Glenn Beck is saying something else: "Leave Christianity." Again and again in the Gospels, Jesus mentions our responsibility to care for the poor, to work on their behalf, to stand with them. In fact, when asked how his followers would be judged he doesn't say that it will be based on where you worship, or how you pray, or how often you go to church, or even what political party you believe in. He says something quite different: It depends on how you treat the poor.
In the Gospel of Matthew (25) he tells his surprised disciples, that when you are meeting the poor, you are meeting him. They protest. "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."
But our responsibility to care for "the least of these" does not end with simple charity. Giving someone a handout is an important part of the Christian message. But so is advocating for them. It is not enough simply to help the poor, one must address the structures that keep them that way. Standing up for the rights of the poor is not being a Nazi, it's being Christian. And Communist, as Mr. Beck suggests? It's hard not to think of the retort of the great apostle of social justice, Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife, "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
Much more at the above link
""Glenn Beck said last week on his eponymous show that Christians should leave churches that preach "social justice." Mr. Beck equated the desire for a just society with--wait for it--Nazism and Communism."
-Anon2
Isnt that similar to what Hitler preached during his rise to power?
Dear Anon 2, thank you so much for sending in that lovely piece by Glenn Beck. I've been meaning to get around to dealing with it, and you have handed it to me on a silver platter. Thank you so much. It's now the latest post on this site.
Brandon:
I think "Social Justice" is something that Jesus preached, not Hitler.
Now we see why Conservatives hate Barack Obama. It's not because Obama is a Socialist or a Communist or a Fascist. It's because Obama is a Christian.
Conservatives are anti-Christian. Thank you, Glenn Beck, for making that crystal clear.
I think that "social justice" has been used as a "buzz word" by far left and, yes, SOCIALIST organizations thoughout history. Let me give some examples:
"Social justice is a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, **income redistribution, or even **property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity and equality of outcome than are available to some classes in a given society--Wikepedia
~OR~
"Here, it (social justice) is typically associated with left wing or socialist analyses, policies and prescriptions. For example, poverty is caused by unbridled capitalism; the solution is to heavily regulate markets, or ban them outright." ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block37.html)
~OR~
A new publication by The Socialist Project and The Centre for Social Justice ---Name says it all
~OR~
In that meaning it can be defined most illuminatingly as referring to the achievement by extensive statist means of whatever would for socialists be **an ideal distribution of goods of all kinds. Following the suggestion made by Hayek in his Preface to the Second Edition of The Road to Serfdom — a work dedicated to “The Socialists of All Parties” —
It was in fact used by Hitler, The Fabian Society in England, and used by Marxist during the early 20th century.
Social justice encompasses economic justice.
It has been used by many.
Christianity does not require or suggest---anywhere---that governments should provide this, on the contrary, Christianity stesses the necessity of giving as being a voluntary act of goodness and virture.
CJP said...
"Dear Anon 2, thank you so much for sending in that lovely piece by Glenn Beck."
You're so very welcome CJP. Anytime.
Yes, it's a glorious piece by Beck. His true character shines through it.
"Get it? Social justice is an essential part of Catholic teaching. It's part of being a Catholic. So Glenn Beck is, in essence, saying "Leave the Catholic church."
Glenn Beck is saying to his flock: leave the Catholic church and come to me; the church of the born-again Stalin.
Caseyboy said...
"Christianity does not require or suggest---anywhere---that governments should provide this, on the contrary, Christianity stesses the necessity of giving as being a voluntary act of goodness and virture."
If the (people) world had to depend on the goodness and virtue of CONS, it would have ceased to exist eons ago. Few cons have the ability to love their neighbors as God and the bible teaches everyone.
The article was written by a Jesuit catholic priest=the cream of the crop, the theologists of the church.
You've got no clue caseyboy!
Before you say once again - I hit and run - I say: I just made a home run (baseball) LOL
And eh.... watch your spelling my dear. lol
"I think "Social Justice" is something that Jesus preached, not Hitler.
-CJP
Social justic is the crap that Hitler ran on! I believe its also the same crap that helped develop communism in the Soviet Union.
"Get it? Social justice is an essential part of Catholic teaching. It's part of being a Catholic. So Glenn Beck is, in essence, saying "Leave the Catholic church."
-Anon2
Where is social justice, as it relates to government, a part of Catholic teachings?
Right, Brandon. Social Justice is not taught in The Church to be an act of the government. Charity and giving to the less fortunate is to be an individual act of goodness and virtue.
I have already given examples of how this term has been, and is being used by all kinds of groups and organizations, to include Socialism.
**And Anon2---there are lots of priests that do not speak for the Vatican. Go with Father Jonathan Morris, who is a representative of the Vatican (the REAL cream of the crop) and has spoken of this very subject. He has clarified this to be an individual act---not a government act.
I find it ironic that you all practically spit on the Catholic Church and Christianity until you need it to try to support your lame points. Be consistant.
"Get it? Social justice is an essential part of Catholic teaching. It's part of being a Catholic."
WRONG. "Social Justice" is not. Giving and charity is. Are you a Catholic, Anon2? You certainly don't sound like one when you are spewing your hate for your fellow man---conservatives. Jesus also taught to love your neighbor---even your enemies. Or are you just speaking for Christianity when it serves you?
Oops! I meant to say "giving and charity ARE". I usually think much faster than I type---sorry.
That's for Anon2 as I know that she tries to find every opportunity to call me on whatever she can.
"If the (people) world had to depend on the goodness and virtue of CONS, it would have ceased to exist eons ago. Few cons have the ability to love their neighbors as God and the bible teaches everyone."---Who else? Anon2
That is simply an ignorant statement and hateful opinion. What do you even BASE that on?
It is difficult to even take you seriously when you make this kind of statement.
Here is the offical Church teaching of Social Justice:
Paul VI articulated a threefold obligation of the richer nations: the duty of human solidarity, the duty of social justice and the duty of universal charity (Populorum Progressio, #44). The first duty pointed out the need for generous and wisely planned aid to poorer nations (#45-55). ***The second duty of social justice required nations to address in a systematic manner the necessary reform of the economic framework governing international trade (#56-65). Finally, Paul wrote of the duty of charity that called for sensitivity to cultural differences and respect for local customs, as well as hospitality toward immigrants and a spirit of mutual collaboration between rich and poor (#66-75).
Now, allow me to show you how the term "Social Justice" has been used and preverted:
In 1939 Fritz Kuhn, the leader of the German American Gund (or Nazi) Party called for a "Socially just white gentile United States."
Feb. 20, 1939
Father Coglin 1939; speech in the Bronx, NY:
"When we get through with the Jews in America, they will think that the treatment that they received in Germany was nothing"
Father Coglin was the leader of the Nationalist Socialist Movement, and his weekly publication was titled: "Social Justice"
(yes, he was a Catholic Priest, who was also, anti-semite, and believed in redistrubution of wealth and power in the US.)
Try going to the CPUSA website(Communist Party of USA) and you will find references to "Social Justice"
I have previously given you:
"A new publication by The Socialist Project and ***The Centre for Social Justice"--obviously a Socialist organization.
So this is not as simple as you make it out to be. The term "social justice" has in fact been used by many extremists as well as Christians, however the difference being that Christians do not advocate redistribution of wealth or power, and many that use the term, do.
Without a doubt you will ignore all of this because you would rather believe otherwise...
"Socially just white gentile United States."
Casey: When Fritz Kuhn used that phrase in 1939, he included two dirty words -- "white" and "gentile". That made his phrase racist and anti-Semitic.
The difference is that Glenn Beck is turning the other two words -- "Social Justice" -- into dirty words.
Beck is advocating that people leave churches which are not racist or anti-Semitic simply because they preach "Social Justice."
Beck is attacking Christianity -- and every other organized religion -- because they all preach Social Justice.
No, I believe that Mr. Beck is pointing out that the term Social Justice is used by many for many causes---and not all are what you might think.
Did you get the transcript of the show CJP? Maybe someone should.
I just pointed out several that use the term, and they aren't all good, so in that sense, he is correct.
Why don't we see how he REALLY said it, and see if it was taken out of context or not. If not, then I will agree with you.
Post a Comment