By Dave Andrusko
This is the last story for Monday’s edition of National Right to Life News Today, a hodgepodge of items around one topic: pro-abortion President Barack Obama. Here we go:
· In the latest Rasmussen poll, Obama trails pro-life Republican businessman Herman Cain 43% to 41% among likely voters. Cain is essentially tied with pro-life former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Rasmussen shows Obama with a two point lead over Romney, 43% to 41%. Cain was on Meet the Press yesterday and told moderator “I believe in life from conception, and I do not agree with abortion under any circumstances.” What about life of mother, Gregory asked. “That family is going to have to make that [decision].” Cain was also asked “Who’s your model of the ideal Supreme Court justice who you would appoint?” and he cited Justice Clarence Thomas. “ believe that Justice Clarence Thomas, despite all of the attacks that he gets from the left, he basically rules and makes his decisions, in my opinion, based upon the Constitution and solid legal thinking. Justice Clarence Thomas is one of my models.”
· Today is the 1,000th day of the Obama administration. Talk about buyer’s remorse. The President’s approval ratings are barely in the 40s.
· In what no doubt is a protective gesture, the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism released a study today that “used computer software and with human judgment to assess the tone of news and opinion coverage of the 2012,” according to the New York Times. The lead is “Presidential candidate debates have a significant impact not just on voter sentiments but on media sentiments.” With respect to our interest here, we are told that the media honeymoon with Obama (which many reporters still insist was never more than an infatuation, at best) has ended.
“During no week in the five months studied was coverage of Mr. Obama more than 10 percent positive,” writes the Times’ Brian Stelter. “On average, it was judged to be about 57 percent neutral and about 34 percent negative. ‘These numbers are very stark for Obama,’ said Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the project. Even the week in early May that Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, was killed, the positive sentiments were far outnumbered by negative ones. ‘That was striking, he said.” My guess is that if this “human[’s] judgment” were used to evaluate the coverage, it would come out far less negative. More important—far more important—is what we KNOW will be the coverage once the pro-life GOP nominee is chosen: an unstinting unrelenting, unhinged attack on him or her.
· Finally there is a review of the new book by Ron Suskind on the first two years of the Obama administration, written by John Judis that appears in The New Republic. That’s lots in the review that you can agree with, and lots more to find fault with. But what was fascinating was Judis’s analysis of what came through in an interview that Obama gave Suskind in the winter of 2011. (Suskind had asked the President to talk about what he had learned thus far.)
What explained his failures? Communication. They hadn’t a “clean story” or “good story.” According to Judis, Obama was obsessed (my word) with President Reagan and his mastery of “symbols and gestures.” According to Judis, “Obama remarked that ‘going forward as president, the symbols and gestures—what people are seeing coming out of this office—are at least as important as the policies we put forward.’”
To which Judis added, “What can one say about the sheer silliness of this?” No matter how “artful the prose,” if the politician (Obama also mentioned Franklin Roosevelt) falls flat on his face, he can’t be saved by catchwords.
Have a great night. Talk to you tomorrow.
Your feedback is so very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to email@example.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha