By the Numbers
By Larry JohnsoncloseAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (926) on October 22, 2008 at 7:33 PM in ABC News, Advertising, Air America Radio, Barack Obama, Bush/Cheney, CNN, Current Affairs, Fox News, Joe The Plumber, MSM, Media, Media Bias, NBC, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin
The disaster of the Bush Administration and the tarnished legacy of the Republican Congress would normally spell doom for the Republicans in the November election. But then you learn that the Democratic Congress is held in lower esteem than even the Bush Administration. I agree that the trend lines for McCain do not look good, but we are not seeing a flood of support for Obama either.
I would like you to think about some numbers:
In the 2004 Presidential election there were more than 122,000,000 votes cast. In 2006 for the Congressional race, which put the Democrats in charge of both the House and the Senate, 80 plus million people voted. I was surprised that 42 million folks decided not to vote.
Now look at the media numbers. According to Drudge Report, the number of folks watching nightly network news is less than 22 million:
CBSNEWS w/ Couric shed a half a million viewers, falling from 6.4 million to 5.9 million;
ABCNEWS dropped from 8.1 million to 7.6 million;
NBCNEWS slumped from 8.2 million to 7.8 million.
The numbers for cable shows is even less. Fox News, with O’Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes, sits atop the heap with around 4.3 million viewers. CNN and MSNBC combined rarely exceed 4 million viewers. Let’s be generous and assume that no one watches more than one show and that the “viewers” are individual and unique. For the national news shows we are talking around 30 million people tops.
Radio, by contrast, reaches over 160 million people each day. And conservatives appear to continue to dominate in this market. Rush Limbaugh, for example, attracts around 14 million listeners. (Note–I have not located a comprehensive summary breaking down total numbers for conservative vice liberal radio stations. If you have it please post below or send me an email and I’ll update this piece)
So where are most of the people who are voting getting their information? It looks to me like radio, rather than network television, is the key medium. I’m also curious about the televised medias’ constant drumbeat against Sarah Palin while she continues to to draw record crowds to her events. Sarah’s authenticity, like that of Joe the Plumber, has struck a chord with average Americans that the media elites don’t comprehend.


First?
What do we have for Tampa, Don Pardo?
A deluxe case of Tabasco sauce, a Shamwow!, and our undying thanks for not being a first troll!
(I passed on a “First!” today cause I knew somebody’d get me…)
Most people do only hear or see stories about stories these days.
That’s just another story.
I agree Larry…Radio and the internet are key this year. thanks for the article.
Those Wacky geniuses at peoplescube have got a great video..needs to go viral…lol…made my evening
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?p=45569#45569
I love the People’s Cube.
My fav is the Brains of Conservatives and Liberals.
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/Greatest_Hits.php
Scroll down a little and you’ll see them.
I’ve seen them Vince…I’d love to have those on a t-shirt…Those wacky comrades have saved my funny bone this election season…Just like NQ has saved my sanity…thanks
Oh and the collection of Barkystyle posters s classic…Especially the McCain F**k it one…lol
I wish they would get a Pravda News network like the onion news network…They’d cause an epidemic of Pretentious Uberliberal fascist head explosions on par with scenes from MARS ATTACKS!…lol…
Yes Larry, I agree…the media elites, just like the far left intellectual elites, don’t get it.
Palin’s record crowds, the Joe and Jo Plumbers of the world, and millions and millions of true Americans will come out in DROVES to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin on Nov. 4th.
Listen, Larry. I can tell you that I hated Rush and for me to put Rush and Glenn Beck on my radio while I drive shows you that we as americans are fed up with the socialist liberal media! I never thought I could watch Fox and listen to Rush all in the same day! What Cnn and Msnbc has done to the american people is a crime!
me too. I’m a former tv radio newscaster who watched news 24-7. today the only msm anchor I can stand now is lou dobbs, but I refuse to watch him because he’s on cnn and I won’t give that network any ratings. before I never watched fox, but now that’s the only network i turn on.
I listen to Rush everyday… I don’t watch any TV, if I did it wouldn’t be NBC, ABC or CBS. I hope they all go broke…..
I’m sorry, I still can’t stand Rush. I guess its because me & dh were big Clinton fans (we are both moderates). I think he is a hypocrite. But I’ll occasionally listen, to get ideas and then research them elsewhere.
Now I listen only to Rush and Roger Hedgecock. And RedEye on Fox is hilarious!!
Yes! I NEVER thought I’d be listening to conservative talk radio shows like Neil Boortz, Michael Savage, Rush and the like. Lou Dobbs is the only person on CNN who I can stand. The networks are all out, except FOX once in awhile.
I get my news from a handful of conservative blogs as well.
I’m a lifelong Democrat who never voted Republican in my life. This year, I’ll be voting, with pleasure, a straight Republican ticket.
I’m on the same page…I would never listen to Rush or Hannity…now I do.
However, I do not swallow everything he says when he talks about certain issues and disses Democrats.
You have to keep your wits about you when you listen!!
Yes, I agree…I don’t buy everything they say either.
I never thought in a million years I would defend Hillary.. and then earlier this year I found myself doing so.. and also was surprisingly almost feeling reassured when I had thoughts that maybe she might win.
That’s how bizarre this election is.
She would have been running now if not for ACORN and Chicago style politics.
never thought i would be wishing it was hillary either, if it was a mccain vs. hillary most likely mccain, but i wouldn’t be scared about hillary as much as i am about obama!
I totally agree with you. Rush particularly has been a good source of information. I hope the radio heads have power with the voters.
You will see the fairness doctrine come back if oblahblahblahbama wins this election. those radio shows and blogs like this one will be the first to go.
You folks here at NQ have restored my faith in Americans. I only wish my fellow conservatives had some of your courage. We probably do not agree much on policy but we agree that oblahblahblahbama is NOT the man for this job.
Lets get McCain/Palin elected then we can battle it out on policy later.
Thanks,
Mr. Bitter
Onward satanic soldiers. Keep the kooks off NQ. Oh please kooks go away JUST GO AWAY. Ugh. Thank you.
places like NoQuarter, the Denver Group and many others…we are the media this year. Word of mouth, many have gathered reliable information here and were able to pass it onto others knowledgeably. I do know that it has been a well known fact for awhile about how bad the approval ratings were for Dem congress.
Hmmmm…Look who’s endorsing Barky now…sheeesh!
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/21/the-latest-person-to-endorse-barack-obama.php
Yes, I don’t watch NBC, MSNBC, CBS or ABC anymore. CNN only for Lou. If you had told me a year ago that this would happen, I’d have suggested you were from Pluto.
I listen to Hannity in the car from a station out of Fresno…no local station…only one talk station here and they are extreme left wing.
The other day another talk show host on the Fresno station reported that their competitor conservative station had been criticizing Obama and the Democrats. The Obama supporters filed a complaint about it and now they may be ordered to provide 3 hours for the left wing rebuttal.
Lou Dobbs had a poll today about the “Fairness Doctrine” and 60+% were opposed to it. I’m not sure how The Fairness Doctrine reads but it sounds like one of those laws that turn out to be “NOT”.
Anything Ronald Raygun had repealed must have been a good piece of legislation. When the Fairness Doctrine was in place, no one griped about media bias the way we do today because Gibson’s interviews would have never gotten out of the edit room– they would have been subject to instant on-air (read expensive to the network, free to the complainer) rebuttal by the GOP.
It really cuts both ways. I’m in favor of the Fairness Doctrine but I’m also an anti-Obama voter.
Congress has a 14% approval rating, which is lower than Bush’s. Why the Democrats are crowing as though they have some wave of support flooding in is truly beyond me. I suppose they think that Bush vetoed them, and blame him.
The truth was that they presented very bad bills.
People aren’t stupid. They know.
I think, personally, it might be dawning on some of them that this business of sending their tax dollars to those who don’t pay taxes in this economy means that they are about to see quite a few startling bills.
I think the AP poll might well be accurate. This is turning on Obama.
The AP poll is as accurate as you’d expect a poll with 44% of the respondents being born-again or evangelical Christians.
http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK_Poll_3_Topline_FINAL.pdf
Page 20, question DM14.
Ap has a poll today which is more reflective of the race,it has Obama at 44 and McCain at 43 with 25% undecided with movable voters. You would never know it listening to the msm.
They went too far…extremists usually do…in either party…
Palin is AUTHENTIC…McCain is too but folks are so Dazzled by the Pretender they can’t see what’s staring them in the face…sheeesh!
One of my favorite shows is Boston Legal because of the Denny Crane character…Being from Texas we are thick with the like of Denny Crane…lol…But of course I used to be a rarity…a liberal with a sense of humor who could laugh at Liberals and their pretensions…Must be Why I like Sarah Palin so much…Must be the wokingclass in me…
Check this out for a laugh…Scene of Denny Crane, guns and Obama
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?p=45564#45564
That’s hilarious!
The Denny Crane scene is priceless! Thanks!
I’m actually thinking about getting a gun.
Never thought I’d do it, but I am fearful of the government if Obama steals the election.
too friggin’ funny. LMAO
Guess I should start watching Boston Legal. Haha. Actually stopped because of Candace.
If you only read one thing today it should be Orson Scott Card’s open letter in the Rhino Times. It says it all.
http://ohmyvalve.blogspot.com/2008/10/must-read-from-orson-scott-card.html
excellent!!
This is going around everywhere…I put it up at RCP today.
Excellent! Must read for all Americans!
The media has been utterly derelict in their duty.
They have proven themselves as no longer necessary nor credible.
The old dinasaur media will die as the American people view them as no longer trustworthy or relevant.
Television news is the worst place to get informed, not be cause of the bias, but because of the lack of depth. A story can not be told in 30-60 seconds. It is best a place for headlines to familiarize oneself with for further research of in depth articles in the ink or digital print media. So count me as one outside that 30 million that watches network news, I am not less informed because of it.
I look elsewhere for my sources. The headlines i see on a web portal are just as informative as the 30 minute network evening news. Then I spend a couple of hours reading deeper into those issues that are of primary interest, trying to get a range of opinion.
I don’t think that a general statement can be made that other than those 30 million that do watch network news the rest of the voting public is uninformed. Yes, too many are, but the divide is not whether one watches network news or not. I feel that those that rely solely on network news are the second to least informed, s;light;ly better than those who do not seek out any information whatsoever.
I think the “spreading the wealth around” remark was a nail in Obama’s coffin. Alot of people are already pissed that 40% of people don’t pay income tax. Add a rebate check to their pocket for something they never paid for and that will not sit well. I used to know someone my brother dated. They had 3 kids together, never got married. They broke up. I used to do her taxes. She was rewarded every year through tax refunds and credits aka the taxpayer, w a tax refund double what she paid in income taxes. She got all kinds of tax breaks for those kids. Does she put it to good use at least? Nope, she blows it. Why? No accountability is expected. That’s just a fact.
I know the kind my self…they expect someone else to pay the bills and then they get extra…do they save it , hell no…blow it on crap and then whine because they don’t have money to pay the electric bill.
As a single mother I ran into this type……….I am not begrudging I chose my path……….BUT, I paid full price for my daughter’s daycare……..while I saw less fortunate who had multiple children be subsidized thru the govt.
Funny thing is I drove a 91 Buick (still have it) while they drove brand new SUV’S in 2004. Something wrong with that picture.
You Betcha!…I’m Po and I never catch a break…sheeesh!
I call it the “Piddle Class.”
We’re too poor to really get ahead, but not poor enough to get help from welfare.
And … we get “piddled” on!
But … many folks in the piddle class would rather not depend on welfare.
Can you say earned income credit? My sister used to get welfare (now gets disability) and would work and earn maybe $3000-6000 per year. She got a huge earned income credit. Did I? I was alos a single mom of 2, just like her, but I worked full time, etc. Got no credit for working. Her tax “refunds” (those refunds of what she never paid in) were often 4 times what I got on between $28,000-40,000. Plus, I had mortgage interest deductions, etc. But no. She got a big reward because she would work occasionally. It pissed me off big time.
I have been watching those numbers at drudge also. Fox always out numbers CNN and MSNBC in the debates. Here are some old numbers I just happen to have.
CABLE RACE, WED, SEPT 17
FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 4,921,000
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 3,839,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 3,561,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 2,184,000
FOXNEWS HUME 2,108,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,854,000
CNN COOPER 1,719,000
MSNBC RACHEL MADDOW 1,716,000
CNN KING 1,646,000
MSNBC HARBALL 1,145,000
CABLE NEWS RACE THU, SEPT. 18, 2008
FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 4,589,000
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 4,092,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 3,286,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1,986,000
MSNBC RACHEL MADDOW 1,971,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,947,000
FOXNEWS HUME 1,903,000
CNN KING 1,855,000
CNN COOPER 1,852,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,204,000
CNN DOBBS 1,121,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 944,000
SARAH SHOW: 69,989,000
TOTALS
ABC 13,130,000
NBC 12,820,000
CBS 11,100,000
FOXNEWS 11,098,000 (record)
CNN 10,685,000
FOX 4,500,000
Did you see the headline at Drudge now?
CONSTRUCTION BEGINS FOR OBAMA’S BIG ELECTION NIGHT BASH
MORE…
Obama talks transition, post-election plans…
‘I feel like we got a righteous wind at our backs’…
I hope the voters see his arrogance.
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Here is a good link for Cable News ratings
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/
Nielson news ratings
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/06/18/cable-news-ratings-for-tuesday-june-17/4176
SORRY wrong link
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/top-news/cable-news
Talkers Magaizine publishes some stats about the nationally syndicated Hosts
http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34
Some of the hosts dispute these numbers, so don t take them as gospel.. but good for trends.
1. Rush 14.25 Million (Min. Weekly Cume)
2. Hannity 13.25
3 Michael Savage 8.25
Dr Laura
4. Glenn Beck 6.75
5. Laura Ingraham 5.5
Mark Levin
6. Dave Ramsey 4.5
7. Neal Boortz 4.25
8. Mike Gallagher 4
Michael Medved
9. JIm Bohannon 3.5
Bill OReilly
Doug Stephan
10. Bill Bennett 3.25
Clark Howard
11. Jerry Doyle 3.0
George Noory
Ed Schultz
12. Rusty Humphries 2.25
Kim Komando
Lars Larson
Jim Rome
13. Bob Brinker 1.75
Don Imus
Tom Leykis
Mancow
14. Dr Joy Browne 1.5
Alan Colmes
Thom Hartmann
Hugh Hewitt
Lionel
G Gordon Liddy
Dennis Miller
Stephanie Miller
15. Dr Dean Edell 1.0
Bill Handel
Dennis Prager
Michael Reagan
Randi Rhodes
————–
I listen to Rush, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Hugh Hewitt.
Hmmm…no NPR stats….lol
These are personality-based ratings.. not channel or station.
Larry, I think you are absolutely right about Sarah’s authenticity being the real appeal to the American people. That’s what the media elites cannot comprehend–or maybe they do get it, and that’s what they cannot stand. Chris Matthews tonight started in bashing Palin’s wardrobe cost, comparing her to Eliza Doolittle. Between ridiculing Sarah Palin’s accent, her hair, her family, and now, her wardrobe - they distanced themselves from a large segment of the American population, i.e. Joe the Plumbers. (who they also attacked with rabid ferocity.)
The thing that has struck me as most revealing about today’s Democratic Party is that they are ridiculing the people they once courted - the Rosie the Riveters and Joe Six-Packs. I guess we were the “useful idiots” for their agendas. No more.
Yes, so true…wasn’t it that nut Donna B. who said that they didn’t need us to win in Nov.? We will see.
That was a gargantuan mistake on her part as we took her up on her offer.
that’s the problem with strong emotions…no matter hw hard ya try to conceal them they just leak out all over the place…Aaaand Commissar Donna Brazeal has a problem with CRACKERS…I don’t know if she’s allergic or what…But there it is…
Aaaaand now CRACKER as a colloquial term has left the confines of it’s southern closet and made it to PA…lol…where a columnist calls Mac’s supporters Crackers…Gotta love it
The extreme left via Obama is setting the tone.
I couldn’t agree more. I don’t relate to this Democratic party. The snide ageism remarks by Obama set off the wolf packs of youths posting remarks about older people that just show a complete lack of empathy. Look at the Letterman show. All ageist jokes.
The sexism was enough to make any smart young woman in America reconsider the thought of marriage. Why?
It’s just been a transformational year, all right, but not in the way the idiotic pundits think.
Even if McCain can’t pull this out, I can guarantee you that he and Palin have successfully transformed the Republican party into the party of the regular Joes.
And I firmly believe that in that oh so boring off-cycle election year, the Democrats will be quite shocked to learn their more solid-voting base has left.
I’m shaking my head. Just don’t know. This past Saturday, I was on a Long Island Rail Road train with a friend, going out to Montauk Point. This is a very intelligent person who has a very demanding job in one of the largest architectural firms in the U.S. She brought up the election and said she was “leaning” to Obama but hadn’t made up her mind. I told her I’d already cast an absentee ballot for McCain. A one-hour discussion ensued and I discovered she knew nothing about the roles played by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank vis a vis Fannie and Freddie. And, like me, she has an IRA that has taken a big hit. She knew nothing about ACORN’s role in voter registration fraud or that the recently passed bailout package was preceded by an earlier version (voted down in the House) that was supposed to include a financial reward for ACORN. She knew nothing about Obama’s associations in Chicago. She was shocked. I was shocked when she asked, “But isn’t his being the first black man to accomplish this something that cancels all this out?” After replying “No. that should have been the cherry on the cake, not the cake,” I asked her where she gets her news. She watches NY1, a local cable channel that does a great job with New York City news but no real depth on national stories She does not listen to radio news. She does not use the Internet to research news. She admitted to voting for Giuliani twice (2 elections) but this year, she may vote for Obama to be part of history. I know, I know … it’s one of those “New York City” votes, but I wonder if this is what’s happening in all the cities. People, if they’re working, are too busy in the cities to listen to talk radio or research news on the Internet. They don’t drive to work so there’s no “drive time” radio listening going on.
Mandelay, as you know sadly most people are misinformed and only get their information from editorialized and sanitized soundbites. Then as you found out they make irrational emotional decisions. No answer here, bud.
Larry-I think you have to look at word of mouth also. I work in a hospital where I can listen all day to people’s conversations in the waiting rooms and many times one person will say something about how Obama is so intelligent or a great speaker or that he’s for the poor people, etc and the next person will start listening. As far as people watching news on television I think those numbers are way down because hardly anybody really sits down at 6:30 anymore to watch network television. I will say this, my husband has a cousin in Massachusetts who does nothing but watch CNN all day and thinks Obama’s the greatest. But I definitely think the msm has been deliberately lying to the American people in order to get BO elected and try to discourage people like they did in the primaries.
People were mad about the press then and they are now. It didn’t work to well, Clinton won big time when people started noticing what was going on.
The pissed off electorate is hanging up the phone when the pollsters call. We will go to the only ‘polls’ that matter very soon!
That happened to me just today. I got a recorded call from a 203 area code saying “We would like you to participate in a 45-second political survery …” I hung up immediately.
According to Gallup, 80% of the people that they contact are doing the exact same thing. This is why I think that all the polls this year are suspect.
I’d like to know how msnbc is doing. That’s the looney tune of cable news. Anyone see McCain talk about msnbc at the Afred E. Smith dinner? He had it about right.
dinner 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90KbbB9CvsE
dinner 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhGBI2Y3HBQ&feature=related
It’s no secret I am not a big fan of numbers and polling. One thing we know for certain, it is a huge mistake to count Mac out. He has a way of surprising everyone!
I assume many visitors to this blog are activists. If we focus too much on how well Mac is polling that saps energy from things we could be doing for him. Having a soapbox is nice but I think a responsibility comes with it to remain positive and not lose sight of the goal: a win for Mac!
I understand we have become a data obsessed culture. But lets bring the fighting human spirit back into the ‘equation’!
Thanks for this great post, Larry. It’s encouraging.
I guess most Americans are not as dumb and blind as Obama is hoping they are.
Obama has a new tax savings calculator..it popped up in an ad on Drudge. It will compare what you save with him versus McCain. I find it hard to believe when McCain will double the child deduction and give a $5000 health care REFUNDABLE tax credit. But I am no economist. Uhbama doesn’t have a great track record for telling the truth.
I feel that for the past few years, we have been paying what I feel is a pretty fair share of taxes. We get a nice refund check from both the state and federal. So all this is no big deal to me. But with McCain, I trust that he will follow through on what he has promised. I sure don’t want people who pay no taxes, to be getting a check from the government…that just doesn’t seem right.
Anyone else hope that McCain and Sarah cough up a million to do their own television spot?