Friday, 10 July 2009

THE PHILADELPHIA SWIM CLUB INCIDENT

Ken Berwitz

Did a Philadelphia area swim club accept money from a camp for the use of its pool one day a week, and then hand back the money and renege on the agreement because the campers were Black?

Well, here is the story from nbcphiladelphia.com -- it's a little lengthy but I don't want to leave anything out.  You decide. (The bold print is mine):

Swim Club Members: "Nothing to Do With Race"Campers left sad and confused by the whole situation

By  VINCE LATTANZIO

Updated 10:43 AM EDT, Fri, Jul 10, 2009

NBC Philadelphia

Swim Club member Jim Flynn defended the club to reporters saying the pool was simply overcrowded.

The waters were still and the gates locked at the Valley Swim Club Thursday. Board members decided to close the private Huntington Valley, Pa., club for the day as it combats accusations of racism for booting 65 mostly minority day campers from its grounds without explanation late last month.

Kids who are in the center of a firestorm over whether they were asked not to come back to a swim club because of the color of their skin wonder why people...

Creative Steps Day Camp paid The Valley Swim Club more than $1900 for one day of swimming a week, but after the first day, the money was quickly refunded and the campers were told not to return. Several campers said they heard pool members making racial remarks during their time inside the club.

Tempers further flared after the club's president John Duesler issued a statement Tuesday saying "There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion & and the atmosphere of the club."

Club members, who were at the 10-acre suburban complex on the day of the incident, came forward Thursday to defend the organization.

"This has nothing to do with race," member Lori Slowinski said. "I paid my money for a private swim club& if they're gonna have it out to camps, then I want my money back."

Jim Flynn went right to the club president after the kids took the plunge into the 110,000 gallon pool. "I was the first person to talk to the president, because the pool was overcrowded," said Flynn. "As members we have nothing to hide. There's good people here."

He believes the club's closure for fear of protests is wrong. "I do not condone the club being closed today and I will not condone it."

Members are angry the club, which is advertising open enrollment, inked deals with three camps to have campers come in and swim. They say members were not notified about allowing the camps to attend the club.

The club issued this statement late Thursday, responding to the allegations of racism:

The Valley Club is deeply troubled by the recent allegations of racism, which are completely untrue.

We had originally agreed to invite the camps to use our facility, knowing full well that the children from the camps were from multi-ethnic backgrounds. Unfortunately, we quickly learned that we underestimated the capacity of our facilities and realized that we could not accommodate the number of children from these camps. All funds were returned to the camps and we will re-evaluate the issue at a later date to determine whether it can be feasible in the future.

Our Valley Club deplores discrimination in any form, as is evidenced by our multi-ethnic and diverse membership. Whatever comments may or may not have been made by an individual member is an opinion not shared by The Valley Club Board.

Daniel Veres, a 16-year old Hispanic teen who is also a member, says the entire situation is just a misunderstanding. "We're not judgmental, we're just friendly," Veres said of the mostly white club.

For the children involved, the entire situation has left them simply sad and confused.

"I heard one lady saying 'Why's there so many black kids here' cause she said she was afraid that we might do something to her child," recalled camper Dymire Baylor. "How could they say that?"

If given the chance, the campers say they wouldn't step foot in the swim club, but they will be able to swim once again this summer. Girard College, a private Philadelphia boarding school for children who live in low-income and single parent homes, stepped in and offered their pool to Creative Steps.

"We had to help," said Girard College director of Admissions Tamara Leclair. "Every child deserves an incredible summer camp experience."

The school already serves 500 campers of its own, but felt they could squeeze in 65 more -- especially since the pool is vacant on the day the Creative Steps had originally planned to swim at Valley Swim Club.

The situation has become the center of national and international attention -- from bloggers to people on the street to the Anti-Defamation League, many are angry over the move to ban the kids. Even U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) plans to launch an investigation into the discrimination claim.

"The allegations against the swim club as they are reported are extremely disturbing," Specter said in a statement. "I am reaching out to the parties involved to ascertain the facts. Racial discrimination has no place in America today."

He sent a letter to Duesler and the club's board Thursday denouncing their actions. 

Dozens of protesters were also denouncing the club's decision. Chanting "Jim Crow swims here," they held signs high while parading by the entrance to the club Thursday night. The signs read, "'Privately' excluding some stains everyone's complexion," "Drown racism" and "Good enough for the White House, but not the swim club."

"It feels like I stepped into a weird time warp," said protester Spenser Lewis. He says its a time that "should be gone."

At first blush this looks like a no-brainer.  The swim club takes a camp's money and everything is ok -- until 65 Black campers show up.  The members make gratuitous racial comments (lovely, just lovely), the swim club has a collective apoplexy, it quickly hands back the money and tells the camp it was all a big misunderstanding.   Then its (unbelievably imbecilic) president says that the campers would "change the complexion & atmosphere of the club".  The COMPLEXION??????  Holy excrement.  This is either the most overtly racist or overtly obtuse swim club President in the universe.  Maybe both.

In fairness, there is another side.  The club claims to have a diverse membership (although the article says most members are White, it is possible that a significant percentage is not.  I wish the story was more explicit in this regard).  And the club also claims it knew full well that - how did they say it? - "the campers were from multi-ethnic backgrounds".  

These factors bring me from a solid 100% certainty that this was racial in nature to......maybe 90%.  I admit there is a possibility, albeit a small one, that it was nothing other than the overcrowding issue. 

But I don't believe it.  I don't believe that 65 White children in that pool would have caused them to spontaneously cancel the agreement, hand back the money and tell the kids to take a hike.  I think that overcrowding with White children would probably have caused grumbles and complaints too.  But I suspect that the club and its members would have been more receptive to finding a way to accommodate the campers.  And there certainly wouldn't have been any racial comments about them.

Do I know any of this for a fact?  No I do not.  But the smell of racism is far too thick to ignore.  

To the campers, let me apologize for my language as I say the hell with this swim club.  They're not good enough for you to be in their pool.  Enjoy the alternative accommodations and please try not to let these people scar you.  There are many, many Whites of good will too.

I'd swim with you anytime.

LorrieAnn Lori Slowinski is more concerned about the money she paid for a private club than the fact that her private club has hurt more than 60 kids! Are you kidding me! Hurting 60 kids and talking about your money? Lori, you have no empathy, no sympathy, no compassion and consequently NO CLASS. I only hope for two things Lori. 1) That your kids are treated better than that as they go through life and 2) that your kids grow up into adults with more class than you (07/13/09)


MICHELLE MALKIN ON "PORKULUS"

Ken Berwitz

I call it the "stealfromus" package.  Michelle Malkin calls it "porkulus".  I think we just may be on the same page.

Here is Ms. Malkin's latest column, and it should be must-reading for anyone who want a brutally honest appraisal of what it being done to our economy by this administration:

The bankrupt party of porkulus
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

 

Let there be no doubt: Democrats are the party with two ideas: borrow and spend. The only vigorous internal debate on the Left revolves around two questions: How much and how much more? Even as the first trillion-dollar stimulus craters, the debt-o-crats are floating yet another grand act of generational theft to create the illusion of jump-starting the economy.

 

Call it Spawn of Spendulus. Return of the Porkulus Beast. Crap Sandwich Redux. White House economic adviser Laura DAndrea Tyson told an international economic conference: We should be planning on a contingency basis for a second round of stimulus. Team Obama flack Robert Gibbs says the president isnt ruling anything out, but at the same time hes not ruling anything in. Despite the inconvenient fact that less than 10 percent of the initial stimulus has been spent (or misspent), congressional Democrats remain open to the idea of digging a deeper fiscal hole for your children and grandchildren.

 

Porkulus One was a massive payoff to special interests and political constituencies (and dead people!) disguised as a job generator. A General Accounting Office analysis this week revealed that stimulus dollars allocated to states and localities are not being spent on what theyre supposed to be spent on. States are making up their own criteria for spending. The most economically distressed parts of the country are getting shortchanged.

 

School and transportation bureaucrats are using the money to preserve their own jobs instead of stimulating others. And assessments of the stimulative effect of the package are a joke. As House Republicans noted: The Administration has essentially rigged the game of reporting the tangible effects of its stimulus program by creating an immeasurable metric jobs created or saved that no one can disprove.

 

Irked by the mounting evidence of stimulus failure, Vice President Joe Biden griped at a spending event on Thursday: This aint about swimming pools and frisbee parks and polar bear exhibits. This is about stuff that not only passed the test of jobs, but passed the smell test. All the talk about how were gonna waste all this money, thats a dog that aint barked yet. And its not gonna bark on my watch. Yet last month, Sen. Tom Coburn exposed 100 smelly stimulus projects worth $5.5 billion, including $3.4 million for a wildlife eco-passage in Florida to take animals safely under a busy roadway; nearly $10 million to renovate an unused train station; and a $2 million weatherization contract awarded to a Nevada non-profit recently fired for doing the same type of work.

 

After failing to recognize the inevitable and inexorable political forces that turned the stimulus into the Mother of All Beltway Boondoggles, media outlets are now playing catch up:

 

USA Today reported this week that counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administrations $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain.

 

ABC News reported this week that the failed stimulus tracking website run by the White House, Recovery.gov, will get an additional $18 million, taxpayer-funded injection to support a redesign. The Washington Examiners David Freddoso points out that the contract was awarded to a Maryland firm whose donors have contributed $19,000 to Marylands House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

 

The Washington Times reported this week that as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay area habitat of, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse in House Speaker Nancy Pelosis backyard.

 

And despite all the initial focus on basic infrastructure needs, Land Line magazine reported this week that even with federal stimulus spending that put shovels in the ground on new infrastructure projects, analysts predict an overall decline of 4.3 percent on infrastructure in 2009.

 

The same under-handed, transparency-defying, earmark-stuffing process that marked the porkulus beast is dominating every other pricey piece of legislation hurtling through the Democrat-led Congress. The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill that passed the House two weeks ago contained bribes galore including a $50 million hurricane research center for Florida Democrat Alan Grayson and a $3.5 billion economic development sweetener package for Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur. The current health care takeover proposals feature a crucial payoff to Big Labor a golden exemption from any tax on union members generous health care benefits.

 

The friends and patrons of Obama may be making out like bandits. But for everyone else, the Democrats ideological bankruptcy comes at a nauseatingly steep price.

And, other than Malkin and a relatively few others (belatedly), where are our wonderful "neutral" media on this debacle?

Unbelievable.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


BARACK OBAMA SAT ON A WALL.......

Ken Berwitz

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

All the king's horses,

And all the king's men,

Couldn't put Humpty together again

Remember that rhyme about Humpty Dumpty?  Remember what happened to him? 

With that in mind, please take a look at this fascinating analysis by Rasmussen Research, on how its polling data have moved over the past several months:

Trust on Issues

Voters Trust GOP More than Democrats on Eight of 10 Key Issues

Thursday, July 09, 2009

 

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues, including, for the second straight month, the top issue of the economy. They've also narrowed the gap on the remaining two issues, the traditionally Democratic strong suits of health care and education.

 

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that voters trust the GOP more on economic issues 46% to 41%, showing little change from the six-point lead the party held last month.

 

Surveys of 1,000 Likely Voters

July 5-7, 2009

 

Issue                   Democrats                Republicans

 

Health Care             46%                       42%

Economy                 41%                       46%

Education                41%                       38%

Iraq                             41%                       45%

Natl Security           40%                       49%

Abortion                  39%                       46%

Social Security         37%                       42%

Taxes                     36%                       52%

Immigration             34%                       40%

Govt Ethics             33%                       34%

 

This is just the second time in over two years of polling the GOP has held the advantage on economic issues. The parties were close on the issue in May, with the Democrats holding a one-point lead.

Voters not affiliated with either party trust Republicans more to handle the economy by a 46% to 32% margin.

 

Last weeks report of 9.5 percent unemployment, the highest since 1983, raised doubts about the economy and the president's handling of it. Consumer and investor confidence is now down to the lowest levels in three months. Just 39% now say President Obama is doing a good or an excellent job on the economy while 43% rate his performance as poor. Those are by far the weakest numbers yet for the president.

 

The president's approval ratings also have fallen to new lows in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

I can't prove it, but I strongly believe that it is the economy which is superseding all other considerations and bringing Mr. Obama down.  As it should:

-President Obama and his party literally shut Republicans out of the "stimulus package".  Every word of that legislation was written by Democrats; 

-And when the 100% Democratic "stimulus package" was voted on, every Republican in the house and 39 of the 41 Republicans in the senate** voted against it. 

Normally, I would not blame the economy on a President in office for just about a half year.  I would blame the last guy.  But a) Mr. Obama proposed the "stimulus package" b) his Democrat-majority congress rammed it through with absolutely no Republican input, and c) they promised it would improve things in a matter of weeks or a few months.  This gave Mr. Obama ownership of the economy - lock, stock and barrel.  And the people know it.

Barack Obama promised to create 3,500,000 - 4,000,000 jobs this year, and that his "stimulus package" would cap unemployment at 8% instead of the 9% he warned us about if President Bush's economy were left as-is:

-Well, that promise of job creation quickly morphed into creating or saving 3,500,000 - 4,000,000 jobs (a completely unquantifiable pipe dream - how do you measure how many jobs were saved?).  But in reality, over 2,000,000 jobs have been lost since the "stimulus package" was put in place.

-And the unemployment rate?  Now it is at 9.6%, and virtually everyone on both sides of the aisle acknowledges it will hit double digits. 

Predictably, President Obama and Vice President Biden have tried to pin this on the previous administration, by claiming they just didn't know how bad the economy really was (translation: we are ignoramuses.  Damn that George Bush).  But it appears evident that fewer and fewer people are buying into this BS. 

Hallelujah, there's still hope for us.

My guess is that as the unemployment rate continues to rise along with the economic malaise, people will become increasingly resentful of the "stimulus package" and the people who inflicted it on the country.  They will look at the crushing deficit and note the untold billions of dollars being handed on a silver platter to the same money-pits (like ACORN for example) that do nothing to stimulate anything but Democratic votes.

And if I'm right, all Mr. Obama's horses and all of his men.........I think you get the idea. 

But the big question is, will voters hold Mr. Obama and his party to account on election day - this year and (much more importantly) next year? 

We'll see.......

---------------------------

** Arlen Specter, the third Republican who voted for it, has changed parties and is now a Democrat.


CEMETERY: CLOTHING OPTIONAL

Ken Berwitz

This definitely comes under the "you can't make this stuff up" heading:

Nude sunbathers discovered in Appling church cemetery

By Donnie Fetter | Columbia County Bureau Chief

Friday, July 10, 2009 12:20 p.m.

 

While searching Thursday afternoon for a stray dog in an Appling graveyard, a Columbia County Animal Care and Control officer came across an unexpected sight a man and woman sunbathing in the nude

I was a little shocked, Animal Control officer Russell Swann said. I was expecting to see a dog out there.

Animal Control had received a call from a member of Solid Rock Baptist Church on Scotts Ferry Road stating that someone had abandoned a dog on the churchs property.

Mr. Swann said he responded to the call and first searched in the front side of the property. As he rounded a corner to the back side of the church he encountered the naked back sides of the couple stretched out at the edge of the church graveyard.

When I walked back there, there was two naked people and the dog sitting right beside them, he said. As soon as they saw me, they started throwing clothes on.

Mr. Swann said he called his dispatcher, who in turn called police.

I was a little freaked out, he said. I pulled my vehicle behind theres so they couldnt get out and waited for a sheriffs deputy.

A deputy gave the couple a warning and them let them go, Columbia County sheriffs Capt. Steve Morris said.

During his three years working with Animal Control, Mr. Swann said he has never come across anything similar to what he experienced Thursday.

That was definitely a first for me, he said.

On a (briefly) serious note, did this guy really have to sic the cops on the couple?  They obviously were embarrassed at being caught.  Let them throw their clothes on and go.

I love that comment "I was expecting to see a dog out there".  Depending on the condition of the nudists, it's more than a little possible that he did.

This reminds me of a classic Buddy Hackett joke:

This guy and girl are walking by a cemetery at night.  The guy turns to her and says "hey, let's do it in the cemetery".  She says "No, I don't want to.  It's scary in there.  And, besides, I'll get grass stains all over me".   He says "Nah, we won't do it on the grass, we'll do it on one of those flat tombstones and you'll be fine".  He somehow convinces her and they do it.

The next day she wakes up with a terrible backache. So he takes her to a doctor.  The doctor examines her, and asks "Young lady, how old are you?"  she says "I'm 23.  Why do you ask?".  He says "Because it says on your ass that you died in 1847"


THAT PICTURE OF OBAMA 'LOOKING' AT THE YOUNG LADY'S BEHIND

Ken Berwitz

I'm sure you've seen it:  a still picture of Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy apparently ogling the (very attractive) back portion of a shapely young lady walking by.

Two points to be made here:

1. The video clip of this incident suggests Mr. Obama may not have been looking at her at all (still pictures can be very deceiving);

2.  In any event, why wouldn't he look?  I would have looked.  So what?

The world is in turmoil.  The G8 meetings are supposed to address that turmoil.  Can we please get serious and (for lack of a better expresssion) look the other way when it comes to silly stuff like this?

Thanks.

steve schneider i think the video is clear he was not looking....however, i agree it seemed like a nice ass. what would have bill clinton done? steve (07/10/09)

Ken Berwitz Steve If it were Bill Clinton you'd have an earlier picture of him looking at the front. (07/10/09)


SARAH PALIN'S EXECUTION, JOE BIDEN'S FREE PASS

Ken Berwitz

Tim Graham of www.newsbusters.org has written an excellent piece on how different (how biased) media coverage of Sarah Palin was compared to that of Joe Biden.  In it, he quotes Carl Cannon, who is a veteran media professional and long-time White House reporter.  I urge you to use the link I've provided and read Mr. Graham's account in its entirety.

My favorite part is where Graham enumerates all the things that Joe Biden misstated during his debate with Ms. Palin - either through carelessness, ignorance or dishonesty.  The fact that (unless you're a political junkie like me) you probably don't know just how many there were and how egregious they were?  Who do you blame except our wonderful "neutral" media?

Here it is:

the most eye-opening part of Cannons piece looks at the vice-presidential debate. He chronicled some of Palins mistakes on that night, but then made a list of Bidens egregious errors that were overlooked by a supportive media elite:

Sen. Biden, however, was in a place by himself when it came to bogus claims, absurd contentions, and flights of rhetorical fancy. He threw out several assertions that were so preposterous that had Palin made them they would have prompted immediate calls for McCain to dump her from the ticket.

The good senator from Delaware warmed up slowly, erroneously claiming that McCain voted with Obama on a budget resolution, and asserting wrongly that Obama wanted to return to the Reagan-era marginal income tax rates. He also embarked on an appallingly wrongheaded monologue about the constitutional history of the vice presidency. But when the talk turned to national security, presumably Biden's purported area of expertise, he went completely off the grid.

"John McCain voted against a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that every Republican has supported," Biden stated. (Actually, in a 1999 vote in Congress, McCain sided with 50 other Republicans to kill the treaty. Only four joined the Democrats.)

"Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons," Biden said. "Pakistan's weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean." (Pakistan has no known intercontinental missiles. The range of its weapons is thought to be 1,000 miles halfway to Israel.)

"When we kicked -- along with France -- we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't...Hezbollah will control it.'" Biden recalled. "Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel." (Except that the U.S. never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon or anywhere else. They've been entrenched in Lebanon since 1982. Actually, Hezbollah, insofar as it was responsible for the 1983 suicide bombing at the Marine barracks that killed 241 U.S. servicemen, kicked America out of Lebanon, not the other way around.)

"The president...insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, 'Big mistake. Hamas will win. You'll legitimize them.' What happened? Hamas won," Biden said. (Only the last two words of Biden's strange soliloquy are true. The rest are false. For one thing, Fatah controls the West Bank. Biden was thinking of Gaza. Secondly, neither Biden nor Obama predicted the 2006 victory for Hamas in Gaza's legislative elections. Third, McCain and Obama but not Biden -- signed a letter urging the president to pressure Palestinians to require that candidates adhere to democratic principles before being allowed to run for office. Fourth, Biden served as an election observer and later wrote an article expressing high praise for Bush's actions. To sum up: One factual error and three fibs in only 31 words. Pretty impressive, in its way.)

"With Afghanistan, facts matter...we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spend on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan. Let me say that again..." (He did say it again, but that didn't make it true. It's wildly and weirdly off the mark. Yes, facts matter. The facts here were that at the time Biden was speaking, the U.S. had spent $172 billion in Afghanistan. The Iraq War consumes between $7 billion and $8 billion every three weeks. Biden's math was off by 2,000 percent.)

"Can I clarify this? This is simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say (he'd) sit down with Ahmadinejad." (He most certainly did. And among those who criticized him at the time for it was Joe Biden, who told Byron York of National Review that the idea of a president meeting with the likes of the Iranian president or Hugo Chavez was "naive.")

 Those were alarming mistakes. To me Biden's most discordant claims concerned his Animal House-like history lecture about the office of the vice president. It came while Biden was dressing down Dick Cheney, who was not present, for supposedly being unfamiliar with the Constitution. "The idea (that) he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States that's the executive branch he works in the executive branch," Biden said. "He should understand that. Everyone should understand that. And the primary role of the vice president of the United States is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and, as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit....He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the legislative branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us."

Lord, would Tina Fey have had fun with this jumble of misinformation if only Palin had said it! Article I defines the legislative, not executive, branch. The vice president is, indeed, mentioned there. What Biden finds "explicit," hasn't been so to previous vice presidents or to most constitutional scholars. Prior to the 20th century, vice presidents didn't even have offices at the White House compound they were housed in the Capitol. The notion that a veep's constitutional authority is to provide advice to a president springs from Biden's brow; it certainly isn't mentioned, or even contemplated, in the Constitution, which doesn't even say whether the vice president should receive a salary.

Should Joe Biden have known this stuff? Since he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, you'd hope so. But even if he didn't, you'd think it would be news when he unleashed a veritable fount of misinformation to impugn Palin's knowledge of the federal system while attacking a sitting vice president. It barely rated a mention in the collective mainstream media.

Facts matter, the man said. But they didn't in 2008, not when it came to Joe Biden (our guy) against Sarah Palin (odd outsider). The ladies and gentlemen of the press were more interested in her hair, her glasses, her wardrobe, he accent, her sex life, her kids' sex lives, and her hunting habits than in whether her opponent knew anything about foreign policy, the Constitution of the United States, or the job he was running for. They still are. The relentlessly negative coverage of Palin goes on unabated -- she's the subject of a much-ballyhooed hatchet job in Vanity Fair this month -- even as Biden makes minor news from time to time by continuing his penchant for gaffes, this time while serving as the second most powerful person in the federal government.

This is the guy media gave a free pass to, while attacking Sarah Palin and everything about her unmercifully throughout the campaign -- and ever since, right to the present.

Then they wonder why people call them biased.


MSNBC'S FOLLY (SPEAKING OF SARAH PALIN......)

Ken Berwitz
 
MSNBC, ever on the lookout for a way to boom up viewership by taking cheap shots at Republicans and/or the right, has made a point of Palin-Bashing this week. 
 
Did it work?  www.hotairpundit.com doesn't think so -- and has the numbers to back it up:

Friday, July 10, 2009

Cable News Ratings: Sarah Palin Bashing Doesn't Help MSNBC

This the Total Viewers for Wednesday July 8th
Lawrence O'Donnell in for Chris Matthews doesn't help the numbers, The Ed Show which has been all over Sarah Palin, still is a ratings disaster...

 

Total Viewers: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 1304 | CNN: 868 | MSNBC: 389 | HLN: 333

Prime: FNC: 2613 | CNN: 1533 | MSNBC: 915 | HLN: 640

 

5p:

6p:

7p:

8p:

9p:

10p:

11p:

FNC

Beck:

Baier:

Shep:

O'Reilly:

Hannity:

Greta:

O'Reilly:

 

1912

1833

1786

3188

2451

2186

1692

CNN

Blitzer:

Blitzer:

Dobbs:

Brown:

King:

Cooper:

Cooper:

 

1019

919

819

970

1963

1666

1039

MSNBC

Matthews:

EdShow:

Matthews:

Olbermann:

Maddow:

Olbermann:

Maddow:

 

454

410

415

1095

863

788

565

HLN

Prime:

Prime:

Issues:

Grace:

Issues:

Grace:

Showbiz:

 

292

330

394

807

455

701

525



Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.

 

 

Foxnews leading in every timeslot, and again Greta in 3rd place overall, right behind O'Reilly and Hannity

The key 25-54 Demo is even worse for MSNBC

 

25-54 demographic: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 349 | CNN: 286 | MSNBC: 129 | HLN: 160

Prime: FNC: 687 | CNN: 440 | MSNBC: 297 | HLN: 266

 

5p:

6p:

7p:

8p:

9p:

10p:

11p:

FNC

Beck:

Baier:

Shep:

O'Reilly:

Hannity:

Greta:

O'Reilly:

 

440

420

507

798

660

602

596

CNN

Blitzer:

Blitzer:

Dobbs:

Brown:

King:

Cooper:

Cooper:

 

236

282

233

267

507

546

414

MSNBC

Matthews:

EdShow:

Matthews:

Olbermann:

Maddow:

Olbermann:

Maddow:

 

88

127

135

325

266

298

221

HLN

Prime:

Prime:

Issues:

Grace:

Issues:

Grace:

Showbiz:

 

90

117

183

307

173

333

254


Way to go, guys. 


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!