I was watching MSNBC the other day and I saw Chuck Todd looking a bit annoyed when he talked about this new poll that said Americans didn't believe the Beltway elite media after they repeatedly slammed the president for going on TV too much. So I looked for the poll and here it is. Sorry, I don't have the video of Todd.

There's a new NBC/WSJ poll out and it has some interesting information. For weeks now the Beltway gasbags have been singing in concert that President Obama is doing way too much media: he's overexposed, he's on TV too damn much, blah blah blah. Well, they are yet wrong again.

Here's the question:

When it comes to doing his job as president, do you feel that you see and hear President Obama too much, about the right amount, or too little?

Too much..........................................34
About the right amount .....................54
Too little ............................................9
Not sure ..........................................3

After all the hubbub made by the pundit class, Americans feel that the President is doing the right amount of media exposure. What a shock.
I do enjoy watching the overwrought Peggy Noonan say that Obama was just sooo boorish, darling.

Noonan: This is his way. Because everybody will say yes. I don't think it's about the media environment but I do think the media environment allows a modern leader to be something subtly damaging and that is boorish. They get their face in your face every day all the time. It's boorish and it makes people not lean towards you, but lean away from you, no matter what the merits of the issue and the merits of this issue are not such great merits.

She's proven wrong, like the huckster she is. Why Noonan is taken seriously is beyond me anyway. She was already caught off camera talking to Chuck Todd and Mike Murphy and just bashing Sarah Palin and the Republican Party, but she would never say that on TV, live that is. She exposed herself as a hypocrite and a liar. Why is she considered a trusted source of conservative opinion?

Howard Kurtz wrote a pretty good article on this:

I raised the question a few months back whether Obama was diluting his impact by constantly popping up on the tube. He'd already done ESPN, Leno, the network anchors, "60 Minutes" and a slew of other programs. Then there was NBC's day in the life, ABC's town hall forum, the four prime-time news conferences, the comedy bits for Conan and Colbert, and on and on.
--
"Is this a good idea? Should he just but a 24-hour webcam in the White House and be done with it?

"I kid, but I am on record as saying that those who knock the President for 'overexposure' miss an important fact about the media today. Overexposure is the point. The audience is fragmented. The way to get through is to reach this audience here and that one there, and that one there...read on

Kurtz believes Obama should have gone on FOX too, but I don't. Obama was wise not to reward foul and destructive behavior by the anti-Obama network and grant an appearance to Chris Wallace on FOX so that he coould ask Obama about FOX' phony breaking story about Death Panel books.

Anyway, every time you hear a pundit complain about Obama doing too much media, just tell them America isn't listening to them.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (849)

PLAYS: (2487)

Bill O'Reilly, last night on his Fox News show, discussing Sarah Palin:

O'Reilly: The perception that the governor is dumb comes almost exclusively from the left, does it not?

Well, no doubt there are a lot of people on the left who consider Sarah Palin dumb. But they're hardly alone.

Peggy Noonan:

In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity. She experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because she could see no truth in any of it. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence. "I'm not wired that way," "I'm not a quitter," "I'm standing up for our values." I'm, I'm, I'm.

Kathleen Parker:

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

... If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

Parker again:

Of course, there’s a difference between a lack of polish and a lack of coherence. Some of Palin’s interview responses can’t even be critiqued on their merits because they’re so nonsensical. “Let Sarah be Sarah” has become the latest rallying cry among my colleagues on the right. She’ll be fine if we just leave her alone, they say. Between prayers, I might add.

David Frum:

I think Sarah Palin was a huge mistake...Americans can be pretty jokey about their government when times are good, but when times are bad, they want to know do -- can you do the job? And when you have a candidate who so obviously has never thought about any of the issues that are going to be important to the next administration and whose knowledge is so shallow, it makes people -- it doesn't just make people offended, it makes them afraid.

David Brooks:

[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn't think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.

You don't have to be a liberal to conclude that Sarah Palin is not what they call "the sharpest tool in the shed" back in Alaska. You just have to be someone not consuming the Republican Clap Louder Kool Aid.

Ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease....

From her own PAC:
Palin Hints At Independent Conservative Movement

Excerpts from TammyBruce.com

Enter now Sarah Palin with very encouraging comments that lead one to believe that she is indeed planning to do what she must: build an independent conservative movement and take this nation back from the liberals which now control both parties.Thanks liberals, for provoking Sarah into the national scene while vetting that family at the same time.

One thing I will say, the Washington Times with their headline for this exclusive interview reveal an anti-Palin stance. She is, don’t doubt, a threat to every existing political status quo.

Oh holy FSM, there is so much funny to be had with this perfect example of Republican syllogism, I don't know where to begin.

Palin is planning to do what she must???? Apparently, she mustn't finish the job she was elected to do. Nor must she actually read up and learn about the issues as many mainstream Republicans have begged her to do.

And when did we become controlled by liberals in both parties? What in the hell is Bruce on about? Does she really suggest that Boehner, Cantor, Coburn, Kyl, Inhofe, etc are liberals???? When you start with that ridiculous a premise, then you're just asking to be laughed out of the room.

And then, after blaming liberals for vetting Palin's family (erm...huh?), she then launches into an attack against the Washington Times--hardly a bastion of liberal thought--for being anti-Palin and then holds it as a banner of pride of somehow being proof of her bona fides.

The mind reels.

South Florida Lawyers: Did you know that if you graduated summa from Princeton and were EIC of the Yale Law Review, that makes you "intellectually mediocre"?  On race, SCOTUSblog examines the record and says it's "absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking."

Liberal Values: Top "no sh*t" story:  Cheney lied about torture saving lives

The Agonist: Pakistani Ambassador Haqqani is telling the BBC that The Pakistani government is going all in against the Taliban

rubber hose: That Obama isn't backing down on the Israeli settlement issue is surprising, but what's really surprising is that key pro-Israel allies in Congress have been largely reinforcing the Obama team's message to Netanyahu.

onegoodmove: Some great links...

Booman and Papamoka could both use a little help...

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2121)

PLAYS: (9402)

Heh. Sam Donaldson really smacks down the ever-unctuous (and historically inaccurate) George Will on This Week's roundtable discussion about the teabaggers:

WILL: What this was about, as was the original Boston Tea Party - which was barely about taxes but about Parliament's role in their lives, was a view that we're now in something called the "third wave" of government. You had the expansion of the New Deal, you had the expansion of the Great Society to complete the New Deal, what those people who rallied there were saying this is something different, this third wave is to erase the distinction between the public and private sectors, and that frightens them.

DONALDSON: Oh, they weren't saying that, George. What they were saying is, we don't like Obama. And this is a proxy way to say that. Because it's true, he's going to lower taxes on 95% of the American public, and the rest are going to have higher taxes. You were quite correct, it's not about the level of taxes. Those rallies were mainly, it seems to me, organized to say, "We don't like Obama" across the board.

Peggy Noonan, believe it or not, is the one who more accurately nails the mood as anti-ruling class. Unfortunately, Fox News- and talk-radio voters are invariably under-informed as to the root causes of our economic woes.

Notice that when it comes to conservatives, they always consistently attack the legitimacy of any Democrat who wins the White House. So no Democrat is ever really the President, and should be challenged at every turn! There, wasn't that easy?