Confidence in Government at Lowest Level Since Carter

Certainly nobody is happier that Obama is president then Jimmy Carter, who was formerly the Worst President in American history. While ABC does it's best to spin this all as negative news for the Republicans, mostly through a series of comparisons based on the manner of sure, Obama is bad but the Republicans are still polling badly. Wherever possible they conveniently leave out just who was the party in power when things such as the rating of Congress went into the tank.

Congress overall, meanwhile, is laboring under just a 27 percent approval rating; it's received less than 30 percent approval continuously since July 2008, its longest run that low in polling data since 1974.

For their part the Republicans, as noted, are seen as having a stronger leadership role in Washington, at 46 percent to Obama's 39 percent.

C'mon, admit it: 27% is pretty damn good for a Congress that under Democrat control was polling in the teens. Things won't change overnight, but the Republicans have got to show leadership, not just talk about it. Once again, notice that those historic lows go back to when Carter was president. I don't recall articles saying the Democrat Congress was laboring under its 16% approval when Nancy was in charge.

I went to the supporting poll data for this report and (snicker, snicker) found out that the numbers on Congressional approval for the year 2009 were completely missing. It may surprise you to discover that apparently we had no Congress from July 13 2008 to March 26, 2010.

There are still substantial negatives for the president. In addition to his 55 percent disapproval on the economy and the deficit, just 28 percent of Americans say they think the economic stimulus package actually helped the economy, the fewest to say so since June 2009. It's a central and sharp criticism of a president elected above all to turn the economy around.

Really? They think Obama was elected to turn the economy around? He was and always will be the American Idol of politics. He was elected for giving good speeches and tapping into a vein of white guilt.

The link to the poll is contained in the article but in case you want to look, here you go.

ABC Already Carrying Water for Peter Orszag?

Good grief. On Friday it was announced that Peter Orszag's fiancee would be assuming a role as the co-host of Good Morning America on the weekends, but come on, guys. This is what showed up in my news reader this morning.

So Apple is evil, CEO's get insane perks, the recession is bad for your sex life, how to vacation on the cheap, and turn those little used skills in to cash.

It is almost like they are pushing a narrative or something. I fully expected the weekend edition to take on a more sunshine and lollipops attitude in regards to the economic news along with pushing whatever bailout, takeover or to continue the attack against any private sector enemy deemed so by this administration. I also figured the hiring of Brianna to host on the weekends would be used to blunt some of the bad news that always come out from this administration on Fridays around 4 PM EST every week, but guys, can we give it a break during the week?

Ever notice these stories never seem to shed any light on the obscene perks and salaries of union leaders or indeed their own executives?

ABC Set to Hire America-Hating CNN Anchor

I guess the American Broadcasting Company is so hard up for talent they have to go and hire a hard-left, America-bashing British citizen from the low-rated cable outfit?

CNN's Christiane Amanpour could be jumping to ABC News.

Amanpour, arguably CNN's biggest star, has reportedly been offered the hosting gig on "This Week" -- and is considering taking the job, according to a report on mediabistro.com.

The job's been open since former host George Stephanopoulos replaced Diane Sawyer on "Good Morning America."

Amanpour, known for her reporting as a foreign correspondent, has told CNN colleagues it's a "50/50" chance she'll take the ABC job, according to the report.

She's expected to make a decision within a few days.

Insiders say that if she does take the job, Amanpour will leave CNN for good -- unlike colleague Anderson Cooper, who appears on CBS' "60 Minutes" and often co-hosts the syndicated "Live with Regis & Kelly."

Amanpour's departure would leave a gaping hole in CNN's lineup, with the network already struggling for prime-time viewers behind Fox News Channel and MSNBC.

If someone with no ratings leaves a gaping hole, will anyone notice?

Unprecedented Access

You just never know which story will peak your interest or where the story will lead. Such is the case when I saw this simple wedding announcement between Peter Orszag, the president's budget director, and ABC financial reporter, Bianna Golodryga. So of course I wanted to find out a little bit about the couple. What I was most interested in was the angle that we finally had some proof of the administration literally being in bed with the media.

What I found was a little more eye opening then that. Not many people pay attention to folks who crunch numbers for a living and speak on financial and economic matters. In fact most of us turn it to the business channel when we are suffering insomnia to help put us to sleep.

Well, I am awake now.

Mr Orszag worked for former President Clinton and is now Barry O's budget director, but he is also a socialist leaning economist.

Witness this exchange from 2001, when Orszag was working at the Hoover Institute. Peter Robinson is the host of the show this interview was on.

Peter Robinson: Why don't you just soak the rich? If you're concerned that these rich are getting richer too quickly…

Peter Orszag: There is a tradeoff that one has to find a balance between…

Peter Robinson: Ahh, okay, all right.

Peter Orszag: …in--in, uh, equality versus incentives. And at some point, one--one leans too hard and the disincentive effects are too large. The question is finding a balance between the--the incentives provided to produce, supply labor, take risks, and fairness.

Peter Robinson: So this would be difficult statistically, but the rule of thumb would be, we engage in redistribution, we cream off the top quintile and put it one the bottom qui--quintile, to the extent that we can without killing the economic engine--without smothering growth. Would that be about the rule of thumb that'd you go for?

Peter Orszag: I think that's about the rule of thumb, yes.

Peter Robinson: So…

Peter Orszag: It's all a matter of degree. How much reduction in--in economic activity are you willing to…

Peter Robinson: Right, and it could be difficult to find that balance…

Peter Orszag: Right.

Peter Robinson: …but that would be the aim.

Peter Orszag: That should be the aim, yes.

Peter apparently is a big hit with the folks over at HuffNPuff.

Bianna Golodryga bio

She also is believer in redistributing the wealth, evidenced by the tone of the interviews she does with the wealthy people whose social circles she inhabits.

Well, Jim Cramer was certainly right on target with his analysis...not!

And Bianna, what do you think of the unemployment rate now that it is above 10%?

All of these wealth redistribution believers in our current administration are certainly getting very troubling.

Networks Balk at Another Primetime Obama Egofest

You would think the most overexposed president in history would be satisfied with the nonstop slobbering media coverage and magazine covers. Although in the case of Barack Obama, his vanity knows no limits. Now for the fourth time in his brief presidency he asking the networks to shelve primetime programming during sweeps month so his TelePrompter can congratulate him on how wonderful his first 100 days were.

We interrupt this regularly scheduled broadcast to bring you a special address from President Barack Obama. Again.

For the fourth time since he took office, Obama's camp is asking the major TV networks to set aside their schedules for another of his primetime press conferences, costing them ad dollars.

With rare exceptions, the networks -- ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC -- accommodate such presidential requests, partly out of a sense of duty and partly to avoid getting on the wrong side of the Oval Office.

Getting on the wrong side of the White House wasn't a concern during Bush's presidency. Some of the networks refused to air his primetime pressers for one simple reason: they hated his guts.

Obama's supposed to be such a swell guy, so he wouldn't hold it against network executives trying to make some money if they skip this, right?

But programmers are starting to act peeved at Obama's primetime interruptions -- one a month since January -- because every speech and press conference results in a loss of ad revenue and scheduling problems.

Assuming a 30-second primetime spot runs an average of $150,000, media buyers estimate it costs the broadcast networks a combined $10 million per hour. The economy has already crimped TV ad revenue.

"It's really cutting into them, especially with what's going on with the advertising market," said Brad Adgate, head of research for Horizon Media, a media-buying firm. "I don't think their revenue models anticipated these monthly State of the Unions."

So the networks created this monster and are now concerned about it? Should have thought about that when they built this guy into some god-like figure.

CBS and ABC have lined up new episodes of their comedies, while Fox planned to air a new episode of "Lie to Me."

Quite the quandary for Fox. Either show "Lie to Me" or have Obama lie to us.

In the end, you know they'll all cave and give in to Obama. Fear is a powerful motivator.

Democrat Censorship Kills 9/11 DVD

The media and the Democrats have been trying to float the canard that Sarah Palin tried to ban certain books while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Yet flying well below the radar is the Democrats and their sycophant at ABC, Robert Iger, killing any chance of the re-airing of The Path to 9/11 as well as releasing it on DVD.

Why? Because it makes Bill Clinton look bad.

THE suits at Disney-owned ABC are too chicken to re-air or release on DVD their $40 million docudrama that accused Bill Clinton of squandering many chances to capture Osama bin Laden before the Twin Towers attacks.

That's the charge of John Ziegler, director of a new ABC-bashing documentary titled "Blocking 'The Path to 9/11.' " It focuses on why ABC delayed airing and severely re-edited its ambitious miniseries "The Path to 9/11" in 2006 after a furious Clinton and his cronies strong-armed the network.

Ziegler alleges that ABC's grand plan was to re-air the show, which starred Harvey Keitel and Donnie Wahlberg, every year around 9/11 but dumped the idea in 2007, fearing that it would hurt Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations - and will now never air it again. He charges that Disney chief Robert Iger told shareholders that it was "simply a business decision" not to issue a DVD - an "odd declaration" because a home video would help recoup the company's $40 million investment.

"Disney caved and committed perhaps the most blatant, underreported and significant act of censorship in modern American history," says Ziegler. "What Disney actually did here was to take a dive on their own movie . . . They preferred the scenario of unilateral disarmament, not to mention throwing away $40 million, to rebutting and embarrassing the Clintons.

For shame.