Tag Archives: president-obama

Megan Fox Hopes She’s ‘Lucky Enough’ To Have A Long Career

‘I haven’t done the same thing twice, and I want to keep moving in that direction,’ ‘Jonah Hex’ actress tells MTV News. By Josh Wigler, with reporting by Josh Horowitz Megan Fox Photo: Bill Sloyer/ MTV News Sometimes, it’s hard to fathom that Megan Fox ‘s prominent place in the pop-culture conversation only dates back to her 2007 breakout role as Mikaela Banes in director Michael Bay’s “Transformers.” Since then, she’s appeared in four films and has two more completed projects on the way, including this weekend’s “Jonah Hex.” And if Fox has her way, she’ll be kicking around on the big screen for several more years to come. “If I’m lucky enough,” Fox told MTV News about her hopes to make her acting career a longtime commitment. “I mean, I would love the opportunity to do that. But that’s not really up to me; that’s up to the world.” Surely, the world would throw its support behind Fox’s desires to stay on the big screen, if only because of her incredibly entertaining offscreen antics (see: her notorious Michael Bay feud ). But Fox doesn’t believe she’s a provocative personality , so much as a misinterpreted one. “I don’t feel like I’ve ever necessarily said anything that was provocative,” she said. “I think that people take relatively innocent statements and turn them into provocative things. … People have no idea how to react. It’s not that the statement itself is outrageous.” As for what the future holds for Fox aside from “Jonah Hex,” the actress will be seen opposite Mickey Rourke in “Passion Play,” a film in which she plays a winged circus performer. Additionally, she remains attached to “Fathom,” an action film based on the comic book created by the late Michael Turner. Beyond those commitments, Fox has only one concrete plan: mixing it up. “I don’t have anything specific, like, a specific genre film that I want to do,” she said. “I just want to keep doing things that are completely different, because so far, I haven’t done the same thing twice, and I want to keep moving in that direction.” Check out everything we’ve got on “Jonah Hex.” For breaking news and previews of the latest comic book movies — updated around the clock — visit SplashPage.MTV.com . Related Videos MTV Rough Cut: Megan Fox In ‘Jonah Hex’ Exclusive ‘Jonah Hex’ Clip Related Photos The Evolution Of: Megan Fox

Read the original here:
Megan Fox Hopes She’s ‘Lucky Enough’ To Have A Long Career

MSNBC’s Brewer Annoyed at Barton’s ‘Shakedown’ Reference, But Colleague Ed Schultz Used It With Pride

In a satellite interview with Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) held shortly before 1 p.m. EDT today, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer criticized Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) for denouncing the president pushing BP to agree to a $20-billion escrow account for oil spill damages as a “shakedown”: So, there’s Joe Barton calling the $20 billion in escrow a shakedown, and as you point out, there are people in your district who have lost their livelihoods! They wonder how they can feed their families! But yesterday, Brewer’s MSNBC colleague Ed Schultz used similar language to voice his giddy approval of President Obama’s maneuvering : President Obama! You are the dude! The president takes the heads of BP behind closed doors, shakes them down for $20 billion, and gets an apology.  President Obama went behind closed doors today with Tony Hayward and the other suits from BP and informed them it’s time to pay.  If you go by today’s results, you’d have to say the President of the United States hit it out of the park. In his own way the President of the United States took on a multinational [corporation] shook ’em down for $20 billion for the American people. President Obama got more out of BP than the Congress ever has. The day before that, just two hours before President Obama’s Oval Office address, Schultz told viewers he hoped the president would sound “like a dictator” and would rhetorically speaking, press his “boot on the neck of BP tonight.”

See original here:
MSNBC’s Brewer Annoyed at Barton’s ‘Shakedown’ Reference, But Colleague Ed Schultz Used It With Pride

ABC Touts Entrepreneur Seeking Backing of Government ‘Lawyers and Lobbyists’

The day after President Obama’s oil spill speech — in which the President pivoted from the ongoing mess in the Gulf of Mexico to his call for ending our “addiction” to fossil fuels — ABC’s World News obliged the White House’s agenda with a profile of solar cell manufacturer Natcore , whose president, Chuck Provini, says he can cut the costs of solar cells (which are right now too expensive to be economically viable without government subsidies). But the problem, as ABC correspondent Dan Harris helped frame it, is that this entrepreneur was getting nothing but “blank stares” from the “congressional staffers, lawyers and lobbyists” he met with in Washington, D.C. — as if a venture capitalists and other private investors wouldn’t be tripping over themselves to get in on the ground floor of a process that could actually make solar power viable. And the hero of the story, as ABC told it, is China’s dictatorship, which has made a deal with the company and will now gain the “hundreds of jobs” that U.S. officials have supposedly squandered by not bankrolling Provini: DAN HARRIS: There was, however, one place offering help: China. The government flew him over there and made him a very generous offer. (to Provini) Would you say that the Chinese officials made your life easy in this process? CHUCK PROVINI, via Skype: It’s been a pleasure. They’ve been gracious. They’ve cut through red tape. HARRIS: He is about to cut a deal to open a factory that will create hundreds of jobs – jobs that could have been created here….Critics say the federal government needs a big, bold plan to dramatically ramp up our use of clean energy. Until then, they say, we’re going to see a lot more American companies like Natcore exporting their promising ideas to places like China. Does ABC really think that good business ideas require the support of lobbyists, lawyers and congressional staffers? That the free market cannot innovate and economize with at “big, bold” government “plan?” MRC’s Brad Wilmouth caught the story from the June 16 World News with Diane Sawyer: DIANE SAWYER: And, in his speech last night, President Obama used the moment to call for less dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels and making sure that China doesn’t get all the new jobs in wind and solar power. But Dan Harris heard a story today of one company, one big idea, but in America, no one to say give it a try. DAN HARRIS: Natcore is a small company based in New Jersey that says it’s come up with an innovative new approach to make solar technology better and cheaper, one that its scientists are very excited about. The president of the company – this guy, Chuck Provini – says he was determined to set up shop here in America. CHUCK PROVINI, NATCORE SOLAR: I live here in New Jersey. I’m a former Marine. I consider myself a good American and a patriot. We wanted to do business in the States. HARRIS: He went to Washington, D.C., and met with congressional staffers, lawyers and lobbyists, but says he couldn’t get the help raising the money that he needed. [to Provini] Were you met with blank stares? PROVINI: They were very polite. We got polite letters, polite conversations, but it was obvious that there was a major disconnect. HARRIS: There was, however, one place offering help: China. The government flew him over there and made him a very generous offer. Would you say that the Chinese officials made your life easy in this process? PROVINI: It’s been a pleasure. They’ve been gracious. They’ve cut through red tape. HARRIS: He is about to cut a deal to open a factory that will create hundreds of jobs – jobs that could have been created here. (to Provini, via Skype) You’re now in China, as we speak, in the middle of the night, and you’re not far away from inking a final deal.                                  PROVINI: Well, I’m really curious as to how you found me at 2:00 in the morning in Jujo City. HARRIS: To be fair, it is hard for the U.S. to compete with China’s dictatorial government, which essentially runs the entire economy. But still, critics say the federal government needs a big, bold plan to dramatically ramp up our use of clean energy. Until then, they say, we’re going to see a lot more American companies like Natcore exporting their promising ideas to places like China. Diane? SAWYER: A real cautionary tale about the need for a fast track here in America. Dan Harris reporting.

Excerpt from:
ABC Touts Entrepreneur Seeking Backing of Government ‘Lawyers and Lobbyists’

Behar Panel Sees ‘Bush-Like’ and ‘Corporatist’ Obama, Garofalo Slams ‘Anti-Intellectual’ Prayer

On Wednesday’s Joy Behar Show, HLN host Behar led a discussion of President Obama’s Address to the Nation with left-wing actress Janeane Garofalo and liberal commentator Ron Reagan, all of whom had some criticisms for President Obama regarding the BP oil spill and his speech on the subject. Garofalo started off complaining that “the prayer thing he did was pandering and anti-intellectual and just sort of a waste of time.” After Behar pointed out that Obama had blamed Mineral Management Service members who were still in place from the Bush administration, Garofalo did not give Obama a pass: “Right, so why did he not take care of that when he got into office?” Reagan complained that his speech was “too little too late,” and that “he`s a corporatist like all our other Presidents have been for a long, long time. That`s what`s being revealed here. Barack Obama is just as much a corporatist as George H.W. – or George W. Bush was.” While Behar was generally more inclined to defend Obama, at one point even she asserted that President Obama’s failure to meet with the head of BP was “so Bush, Bush-like. It`s shocking that he`s behaving this way,” prompting Garofalo to lament: “I don`t know who’s giving him the worst advice in the world. I don`t know, I don`t know why this presidency has been as disappointing as it has been. I really feel like he`s being advised terribly.” After Behar fretted that “some Sarah Palin clone” who would be “even worse” might replace Obama, Reagan pessimistically concluded that “you get somebody worse if it’s not Barack Obama”: BEHAR: And who`s going to take the place? Who are we going to get instead of him? Some Sarah Palin clone, or she herself? It`ll be even worse. REAGAN: That`s the dilemma. BEHAR: Isn`t that`s a scary thought? REAGAN: That`s the dilemma for liberals. That`s the dilemma for progressives and liberals is you get somebody worse if it’s not Barack Obama, even though Barack Obama isn’t doing what we want him to do. Below is a complete transcript of the segment from the Wednesday, June 16, Joy Behar Show on HLN: JOY BEHAR: President Obama appears to be doing everything he can to make sure Americans know that stopping the oil spill is his main priority. He met with BP executives today, and last night he delivered a speech on the disaster from the Oval Office. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: But make no mistake. We will fight this spill with everything we`ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused, and we will do whatever is necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. BEHAR: Well, let`s just hope the next time Malia says, “Daddy, did you plug the hole?” she isn`t 47 years old. So was this speech enough to please his critics or did it just give them more material? Here with me to discuss this are Ron Reagan, liberal commentator, and actress and comedian Janeane Garofalo. … Janeane, start with you, did you like the speech? JANEANE GAROFALO: No, I didn`t feel that it was a strong speech, and I felt that the prayer thing he did was pandering and anti-intellectual and just sort of a waste of time. BEHAR: Anti-intellectual? He’s considered, like, overly intellectual? GAROFALO: He himself is. BEHAR: Yeah. GAROFALO: When politicians use that prayer stuff, it is anti-intellectual. It has nothing do with what has happened, it has nothing to do with any real way to solve a problem. You know, I felt this speech was not very effective. You know, fighting, fighting it with all that they`ve got, what would have been good is to undo the Bush policies that brought this. You know, Ken Salazar should not have been the Interior Secretary. That people from Mineral Management Services should not still have been able to work. BP has a terrible track record. It`s amazing that the Bush policies were allowed to still flourish, that the “drill, baby, drill” policy was still going. That any of these disasters could had been avoided because it wasn`t, it wasn`t unknown what could have gone wrong. BEHAR: Okay, well, he did blame a lot on the agency that was still in place. He did say that it was ineffective. GAROFALO: Right, so why did he not take care of that when he got into office? BEHAR: A good question. Ron, what do you think? RON REAGAN: Well, too little too late I agree with Janeane, he did bring up the Mineral Management Services, of course, and that really is the crux of this, to me. You know, BP was doing what BP could be expected to do – cut corners, act recklessly, all in the name of profits. But Mineral Management Service, which was supposed to be regulating them and overseeing this, had fallen asleep on the job. Actually, that`s not even the right way to put it. Fallen asleep on the job suggests they actually wanted to do the job somehow in the first place, but they didn`t, of course because they`re all former or, you know, prospective oil company employees there. That`s the criminality here, it`s not just BP, it`s the MMS. BEHAR: Do you think it would have been any different if a Republican was in office now? Be the same thing or worse? GAROFALO: Oh, no, the exact same because these are these type of conservative anti-regulation policies and also all this kind of oil culture of oil cronyism. I’m not going to say that Democrats don`t partake in that. Obviously they do. But it might be worse if Bush was in office in maybe more hiding scientific facts or maybe they would do that thing they always say about no fingerprinting, now`s not the time for the blame. Yeah, they always say that. BEHAR: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whenever they’re to blame. GAROFALO: But the policies are still the same unfortunately. BEHAR: Yes. GAROFALO: The same Bush policies that we`ve been laboring under have been continued. There is no reason why MMS has been allowed to thrive the way they have. There`s no reason Ken Salazar should be at the Department of the Interior, and there`s no reason that BP should still be doing what they`re doing right now as we speak with other rigs. BEHAR: The left is very hard on him, though, I think. The left is going very hard. Part of the frustration, I think, with, on the left and the right, probably is that he can`t fix it. He can`t do it. People say he should do it. What do they want him do? GAROFALO: Well, there’s many, many things a President could and should do to make sure these types of things- BEHAR: Isn`t he doing some of it? GAROFALO: I would hope so, but there should had been regulation. You know, I mean, there should had been regulatory reform as he came into office. BEHAR: When he came into office. GAROFALO: Yes. BEHAR: Yeah. Why didn’t, Ron, why didn`t he do that? REAGAN: Well, because he`s a corporatist like all our other Presidents have been for a long, long time. That`s what`s being revealed here. Barack Obama is just as much a corporatist as George H.W. – or George W. Bush was. He`s a little less obvious about it. I think maybe his heart isn’t quite as in it. He`s not an actual oil man himself, but listen, he`s between a rock and a hard place here. He just proposed that we open up a lot of our coastline to deepwater drilling here, to offshore drilling. Completely ignoring the fact that any dependence on oil by America is dependence on foreign oil. That`s the thing that I think a lot of people don`t understand here. You can drill all- BEHAR: It`s kind of shocking in a way. It`s kind of shocking to me. REAGAN: Well, of course, but you can drill all that you want for oil on American territory, it goes into a global market. We`re going to sell it to China just as much as we`re going to sell it to, you know, American drivers here. There`s no such thing as American oil. It`s all fungible. It`s all global, so any dependence on oil is dependence on foreign oil. BEHAR: Well, he used the opportunity to bring up energy policy. Do you think that he was effective at all? Because I was a little disappointed in that. You know, we need alternative energy and there`s no question about it, and the American people are so lackadaisical about it that even now no one seems to see the urgency of the situation. GAROFALO: I think there’s many people who do see the urgency. They just aren’t given a forum to speak about it. There’s many people who are very concerned about this. There should have been clean energy reform made years and years ago. There`s many people who have tried to do this and because oil runs everything it keeps getting thwarted. There`s no reason why we shouldn`t have more clean energy and more reform in that area, too. It`s just, it`s one of those things it just keeps business as usual, it just keeps going and going and going. BEHAR: I know. Well, he met with BP men today. Ron, do you think that he kicked their butts today at all? REAGAN: No, I don`t think it`s about kicking their butts. No, of course not. It`s nice that there’s going to be a $20 billion fund to pay people off- BEHAR: Right. REAGAN: -but who says when the people actually get the money? There are people that are still waiting for a payoff from the Exxon Valdez, you know, I mean, you know, just because there`s money in a fund doesn`t mean it`s actually going to be going to people. I will imagine that BP will litigate every claim. BEHAR: He said, originally he didn`t want to meet with them because he didn`t want to hear their talking points. That is so Bush, Bush-like. It`s shocking that he`s behaving this way certainly.

See the rest here:
Behar Panel Sees ‘Bush-Like’ and ‘Corporatist’ Obama, Garofalo Slams ‘Anti-Intellectual’ Prayer

USA Today Frets Obama Unable to ‘Infuse Courts with Women and Minorities’ – i.e. Liberals

The “deeply polarized confirmation process in the Senate” has “undercut Obama’s effort to significantly infuse the federal courts with more women and minorities,” USA Today’s Joan Biskupic fretted in a Wednesday front page article in which she refused to identify Obama’s nominees as liberals as she attached the positive “diversity” patina to Obama’s agenda without any regard for the irony such “diversity” is ideologically uniform. She led her June 16 story, “ Push for court diversity hits snag: Partisan rancor ties up action on Obama nominees ,” however, by noting the ideology supposedly pushed by President George W. Bush: “President Obama came into office determined to stop the rightward shift of the federal courts — after eight years of appointments by President Bush — and to add more diversity to the bench.” She then outlined Obama’s achievement: So far he is setting records for the number of women and minorities nominated to lifetime appointments. Nearly half of the 73 candidates he has tapped for the bench have been women. In all, 25% have been African Americans, 10% Hispanics and 11% Asian Americans. But, his noble quest has been thwarted: Yet as Obama tries to make gains in diversity among judges, he faces a deeply polarized confirmation process in the Senate. During his first 18 months in office, his administration has been thwarted by unprecedented delays. The situation, which has received little notice against the backdrop of a pending Supreme Court nomination and the administration’s complex legislative agenda, could undercut Obama’s effort to significantly infuse the federal courts with more women and minorities. Deep in her article, Biskupic at least acknowledged how Democrats had blocked a “diverse” nominee who happened to be conservative: This is a long-building situation. Senators on both sides recall old grievances and try to settle scores. The senior Judiciary Committee Republican, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, often invokes President George W. Bush’s nominee Miguel Estrada, whose nomination to the influential Washington, D.C.-based appeals court was filibustered by Democrats. Estrada, who would have been the first Hispanic on that court, withdrew in 2003, after two years of delays. From April: “ USA Today’s Biskupic Sees SCOTUS of ‘Ideological…Conservatives’ and ‘Pragmatic Liberals ‘”

Go here to see the original:
USA Today Frets Obama Unable to ‘Infuse Courts with Women and Minorities’ – i.e. Liberals

Joe Scarborough Defends Obama’s Speech, Gives Soft Interview to Axelrod

MSNBC “Hardball” host Chris Matthews felt a “thrill” up his leg when Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2008. Keith Olbermann’s leftist bias was great enough to merit a Saturday Night Live parody of his show “Countdown With Keith Olbermann.” And yet both trashed President Obama’s Oval Office speech on Tuesday. “Maybe I missed something. I thought it was a great speech if you’ve been on another planet for the last 57 days,” Olbermann remarked. Matthews said that he didn’t “sense executive command.” But Joe Scarborough, who has repeatedly thrown his support behind President Obama’s handling of the crisis, thought the speech “struck all the right notes,” and was in disbelief on his morning show over the media’s general distaste for the speech. Scarborough then hosted David Axelrod for an interview that can only be described as a barrage of softballs. “I just wonder if this is a season, that, no matter what the President’s doing, he is going to get hit by both sides right now?” Scarborough asked Axelrod, senior advisor to President Obama. “He gives a speech that you guys thought struck all the right notes, as did we,” he said to Axelrod. “Gets hammered. What’s the next step? What is the knitting process? What do you do now?” Donny Deutsch, advertising executive and chairman of Deutsch, Inc., chimed in later to pledge his affection for Obama’s speech. “I thought it was a great speech, by the way,” he assured Axelrod. “I don’t know what I would have done different.” He then decided to give the administration some advice, in the form of a question. “If I was in your inner circle, I would say the 20 minutes today with BP is the opportunity,” he told Axelrod. “There is a clear bad guy here. With everything that goes wrong in the world, we need the perp-walk. I would say he can’t spank them hard enough.” Axelrod delivered his answer. But Deutsch wasn’t satisfied. “David, even your answer to me was very methodical. I want to see anger in your eyes. That’s what the American public wants.” The overall interview lasted eight minutes. The segments including Joe Scarborough and Donny Deutsch are included below. The transcripts of the segments, which aired June 16 at 7:21a.m. and 7:26a.m., EDT, are as follows: JOE SCARBOROUGH: David, I just wondered–you’ve been in politics a long time. This happens to every politician. I just wonder if this is a season, that, no matter what the President’s doing, he is going to get hit by both sides right now. DAVID AXELROD: Yeah, I think that that’s probably true, Joe. And you know, one of the things that we’ve learned over a long period of time through a very long campaign and in this building, is that you just got to stick to your knitting. You got to keep doing your work, you got to keep moving forward. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Keep your head down, yeah, keep your head down. So what does the president do? He follows up on a speech. He follows up, as I was saying last bloc, on the very successful Gulf Coast tour where a lot of conservatives were very pleased with the President, liked what he was doing. He gives a speech that you guys thought struck all the right notes, as did we. Gets hammered. What’s the next step? What is the knitting process? What do you do now? DAVID AXELROD: Well, first of all, I think as to the speech, I think he imparted the information that needed to be imparted to the American people about where we are, what we are going to do to make the people in the Gulf whole and hold BP accountable, how we are going to clean this thing up and how we are going to deal with the problems that led to it. And he made a strong pitch for a new energy policy. It was an important presentation. In terms of what we’re–I mean, we have a meeting with BP today to deal with the issue of claims and putting money in an escrow account so that–independently administered–so that people have some confidence that they can–down there who have been hurt by this–that they can get some recompense for the money that they’ve lost. We’re going to  talk to them about some of the containment strategies, and what we need to do to make that–to accelerate that process. Obviously, he’s going to follow up with members of the senate on the Energy–on the Energy bill. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Okay. DAVID AXELROD: So we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us. And then there’s the day-to-day work of trying to intercept this oil and protect the coast and protect the people as best that we can. (…) (7:26 a.m. EDT) DONNY DEUTSCH, chairman of Deutsch, Inc.: David, you know, I’m one of the–I thought it was a great speech, by the way. I don’t know what I would have done different. If I was whispering in your ear, and tell me if you’d say ‘Donny, I agree with you’– DAVID AXELROD: You are whispering in my ear! DONNY DEUTSCH: If I was in your inner circle, I would say the 20 minutes today with BP is the opportunity. There is a clear bad guy here. With everything that goes wrong in the world, we need the perp-walk. I would say he can’t spank them enough. Wherever you’re going to kick them–he’s going to kick ass–kick harder. I’d say, “David, tell them to do that.” What would your response be to that? DAVID AXELROD: Well my response is we have one mission, and one mission–and that mission is to make sure that the people of the Gulf are made whole, that BP pays every dime they owe, that this–that there’s an independent administrator to make sure that that happens, that they do everything they need to to collect as much oil as they can. And it’ll be clear, I think, to them and to the country that that is–that that is not a negotiable–those are not negotiable issues. DONNY DEUTSCH: David, even your answer to me was very methodical. I want to see anger in your eyes. That’s what the American public wants. (Crosstalk) DONNY DEUTSCH: Everything you said is right. It’s like, “There’s a bad guy out there. There’s a bad–there’s somebody with a black hat out there. This oil company– (Crosstalk) DAVID AXELROD: You’re a–I know you’re not just a creative genius but you’re a great businessman. And you understand that the best way to express yourself is to take from the company what they owe and put it away, and make sure that people are taken care of. That is–you know, that is much more important, I think, to the people of the Gulf than sort of contrived expressions. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Kicking ass. DAVID AXELROD: I think that everybody down there–everybody down there who met with the President understood his sense of connection, his sense of advocacy. But they weren’t asking him to get angry, they were asking him to get results. They were asking him to get the money from BP that they are owed, and to restore the Gulf.

Follow this link:
Joe Scarborough Defends Obama’s Speech, Gives Soft Interview to Axelrod

5 Fictional Presidents Who Would Have Outdone Barack Obama Last Night

If one was so inclined to compare Barack Obama’s Tuesday night Oval Office speech on the BP oil spill to a current summer movie, Sex and the City 2 would probably suffice. Goodness what a disaster . As MSNBC host Keith Olbermann said — presumably with the glee of Rex Reed trashing SATC 2 — “I thought it was a great speech if you’ve been on another planet for 57 days.” OK, then! With this oil-and-watershed moment for President Obama now sinking in the rear view mirror, Movieline wonders which fictional president’s could have done a better job last night. Answers ahead!

Read more:
5 Fictional Presidents Who Would Have Outdone Barack Obama Last Night

Gallup Poll for June 16, 2010: Many Americans Say Gulf Beaches, Wildlife Will Never Recover

___ To see the various graphs, try clicking on this link. However, if it doesn't work, go to: gallup.com , and look for Poll Number 140762 _______________ June 16, 2010 Many Americans Say Gulf Beaches, Wildlife Will Never Recover Nearly all agree that full recovery will take 10 years or more by Lydia Saad PRINCETON, NJ — From what they have seen of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill rolling onto America's shores, nearly half of Americans (49%) believe that at least some of the affected beaches will never recover. Even more, 59%, believe normal levels for some animal species will never be restored. Predicted Timeline for Full Recovery of Gulf Shore Beaches, Wildlife (Including Fish and Birds) More generally, Americans foresee a very long road to recovery for both the U.S. beaches and wildlife affected by the BP oil spill. The vast majority believe it will be a decade or more, if at all, before either aspect of the Gulf environment is back to normal; few think a full recovery will happen within four years. Separately, Americans broadly agree that the oil spill will negatively affect the U.S. economy and the U.S. consumer. Roughly four in five believe the overall U.S. economy will be hurt, that gas prices will go up, and that food prices will increase. Possible Economic Effects of Gulf Oil Spill Women More Pessimistic Than Men About Undoing Oil Damage The most striking subgroup differences in views about the oil spill's impact are by gender, with women much more pessimistic than men. (Gallup has previously found women to be more concerned than men about environmental matters.) Sixty percent of women, compared with 37% of men, believe some Gulf beaches will never recover — a 23 percentage-point gap. Additionally, there is a 13-point gap between men's and women's perceptions of whether the affected wildlife will fully recover. Predicted Timeline for Recovery of Beaches Predicted Timeline for Recovery of Wildlife Women are also more likely than men to believe that gas prices will increase (83% vs. 74%), and that the U.S. economy in general will be hurt (88% vs. 78%). Bottom Line In his remarks when visiting the Gulf shoreline this week, as well as in his Oval Office address Tuesday night, President Obama has stressed the need for a long-term commitment to the oil spill cleanup. Americans may be getting impatient with BP and the federal government for not doing enough to cap the gushing oil rig and contain the leaked oil, but it appears they are resigned to a lengthy process to restore the beaches and wildlife, with perhaps limited success. Survey Methods Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted June 11-13, 2010, with a random sample of 1,014 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is

Rasmussen Finds Most ‘Angry’ with Liberal, Pro-Obama Media

A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds most Americans (51%) say the average reporter is more liberal than they are, and nearly as many (48%) think the media are “are trying to help”  President Obama pass his left-wing agenda. Perhaps as a result, the poll finds an astonishing two-thirds of the public (66%) say they are angry with the media, “including 33% who are very angry” with the press. Most Americans seem to have a low view of journalists’ integrity and professionalism. Rasmussen discovered that “68% say most reporters when covering a political campaign try to help the candidate they want to win,” vs. 23% who think most reporters “try to offer unbiased coverage.” At the same time, “54% of voters think most reporters would hide any information they uncovered that might hurt a candidate they wanted to win, up seven points from November 2008.” Rasmussen also discovered that Republicans and independents are most offended by the media, with a plurality of Democrats (43%) who “say their coverage is unbiased.” This new poll is consistent with many others from the past decade showing rising discontent with the press and a growing awareness of the media’s liberal bias. The Media Research Center has posted a collection of relevant polls — along with polls of journalists showing how their views differ from the general public — on our “ Media Bias 101 ” page. Here’s an excerpt from the June 15 report by Rasmussen, based on their poll of 1,000 likely voters conducted on Sunday and Monday (June 13-14). Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters describe themselves as at least somewhat angry at the media, including 33% who are very angry…. Now 48% of voters think most reporters when they write or talk about President Obama are trying to help the president pass his agenda. Only 18% think most reporters are trying to block the president from passing his agenda. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say they are simply interested in reporting the news in an unbiased manner…. Fifty-one percent (51%) say the average reporter is more liberal than they are, consistent with earlier findings on the question. Fifteen percent (15%) say the average reporter is more conservative than they are, while 27% say the average reporter shares roughly the same ideological views that they have…. Seventy-six percent (76%) of GOP voters and 56% of unaffiliateds think most reporters are trying to help Obama pass his agenda. Among Democrats, 33% say they are trying to block the president’s agenda, while 43% say their coverage is unbiased. Just 15% of Democrats say most reporters are trying to help the president. You can read the entire report here .

Go here to read the rest:
Rasmussen Finds Most ‘Angry’ with Liberal, Pro-Obama Media

Networks Democratic Congressman’s Street Scuffle, But ABC Pounced on Catty Crack About Boxer’s Hair

None of the three broadcast evening newscasts had even a few seconds last night for video of Democratic Congressman Bob Etheridge physically grabbing and yelling at an unidentified student attempting to ask him whether he supports President Obama’s agenda. But last Thursday, after Republican senate candidate Carly Fiorina was caught making a flip remark about Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer’s hair, ABC’s World News ran a full report on that “caught on tape political moment.” Worth noting: Back on June 10, George Stephanopoulos was sitting in for Diane Sawyer. But last night, Sawyer was back in the anchor chair. In introducing last week’s report from correspondent Jonathan Karl, Stephanopoulos touted the Fiorina flap as “ the latest caught off guard, caught on tape, all too candid political moment.” The Etheridge scuffle would surely fit that same standard, but ABC’s World News had no time on Monday to mention that embarrassment for the Democrats. Fiorina’s campaign had previously been mentioned by World News in round-up pieces about this year’s elections, but Thursday’s item about her gaffe was the first report focused exclusively on her candidacy, a Nexis search reveals: FILL-IN ANCHOR GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And now, to the latest caught off guard, caught on tape, all too candid political moment. Just hours after she became California’s Republican nominee for the Senate, Carly Fiorina forgot that for candidates, the camera is always hot. Here’s Jon Karl on an old lesson, learned again. CORRESPONDENT JONATHAN KARL: Year of the woman, maybe. MEG WHITMAN, GOP NOMINEE for CA GOVERNOR: What a great night. KARL: Year of the political outsider, undoubtedly. CARLY FIORINA, GOP NOMINEE for U.S. SENATE: Yeah, anyway, that’s what they said. KARL: But even if your name is Carly Fiorina and you’ve never run for office before, there’s one old rule that still applies: Beware of the open mike. FIORINA, SEARCHING FOR SOMETHING ON HER BLACKBERRY: I can’t find this thing. KARL: Still basking in her primary victory, Fiorina was waiting for an interview on KXTV in Sacramento when she started musing about her opponent’s hair style. FIORINA: Lauda (sp?) saw Barbara Boxer briefly on television this morning and said what everyone says, “God, what is that hair?” So, yesterday. KARL: But it happens. Even to political pros. Jesse Jackson, talking about cutting off a part of Barack Obama’s anatomy. [on screen: “I wanna cut his n_ts off.”] George W. Bush calling a reporter a CLIP OF GEORGE W. BUSH, 2000: (bleep). CLIP OF DICK CHENEY, 2000: Oh, yeah. Big time. KARL: Judging from Fiorina’s reaction when she realized the mic was on, that won’t be happening again. Jonathan Karl, ABC News, Washington. STEPHANOPOULOS: That lesson is burned in.

See the original post:
Networks Democratic Congressman’s Street Scuffle, But ABC Pounced on Catty Crack About Boxer’s Hair