Basically what Alex said today and has been saying is that a great wave of anti-incumbent sentiment has been sweeping the nation as this primary election season has progressed, and that -- with only a handful of exceptions -- the incumbent bums have been being tossed out.
That does seem to be the conventional wisdom these days. A Fox News poll from a few months ago found that 68% of those surveyed would vote to oust ALL incumbents. The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, out this week finds:
- less than half the country approves of President Obama's job;
- 60 percent say that this year's Congress is either below average or one of the worst in history;
- a whopping 72 percent disapprove of the job Congress is doing;
- the number viewing the Republican Party favorably is at an all-time low;
- the Democratic Party doesn’t fare much better;
- nearly six in 10 respondents still say the country is headed in the wrong direction.
Every incumbent except for in a few cases like Rick Perry [is] losing in the Republican and Democratic primaries. I mean this has got the system scared! So, they want to demonize Rand Paul -- who's seen as the personified true patriot libertarian tea party -- as a kidnapper!
Unfortunately, neither the conventional wisdom or the pronouncement of Alex Jones is true.
So far this year, 282 federal-level incumbents have been up for re-election. Of those, only 6 have lost their seats -- 4 in the House and 2 in the Senate. That's 2 percent of all incumbents.
Of course a lucky few did not have opposition in their party's primary. If you count only the 119 incumbents who have faced primary challengers, the proportion who were defeated goes up to 5 percent. Which means that at least 95 percent of incumbents so far were winners.
By simple arithmetic it is hard to see this as an "anti-incumbent" year. History shows that the average rate of re-election for members of the House since 1964 has been 93.3 percent. In the Senate, the average since 1964 has been 81.6 percent. The current trend surely could change for the General Election in November, but at the moment, incumbents are doing better than average.
The actual facts are essentially the opposite of "every incumbent except for ... a few ... losing in the Republican and Democratic primaries." Come on, Alex. You represent yourself as the weilder of The Sword of Truthiness™ but what you are telling us on this often-mentioned issue is some distance from the truth. It is not hard to check the numbers. I did it in about an hour this afternoon, and I don't have a staff.
Oh, and this as a final note: Alex lately has been stating that the approval rating for Obama [Soetoro] is the lowest in modern history for any president at this point in his term. I am not a fan of the current occupant of the White House by any stretch of the imagination, but I do accept facts even when they are different from the world as I wish it to be. Both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had lower approval numbers at this point in their first terms than what we are seeing currently.
12 comments:
There are different ratings on Obamas approval out with the announced being streched and Jones' probably right. At no time in history that many people knew about their murderous masters so it's quite obvious that Obama is more hated that every President before just because the times are getting worse. But at the end his intention of waking up people is right even if the numbers are not sure.
don't get me wrong i know its right to get you own point of view and question the statements whoever made them and at the end i don't know if you're maybe right with this point.
but it appears that you kinda lost your trust in Jones. And hes the most 4real radio host in the world. no lies no disinformation for once.
so i'd be interested in your opinion on him, how reliable he is and stuff. (i found some stuff linked from this blog bashing Alex Jones as a pro-Isreal charackter wich he really isnt)
it's just that i love his radio show more than any data on the web and id find it kinda odd from you to upload his shows when you woudnt trust in what he stands for so it would be great if you could take position on that sometime.
Anonymous, I sympathise with your comment, I really do. I started listening to AJ in Sept 2007 and also watching the films. I have even downloaded archives back to 2003 and listened to about 1000 shows.
It is difficult (time consuming) to check everything AJ says (or the guests, or other talk show hosts). Occasionally I have paused listening and immediately looked up what was talked about, and the results varied: confirmed, wrong, or couldn't find it. In the cases where something said was wrong, it could be attributed to exaggeration, extrapolation, genuine error, quoting someone else who got it wrong, or intentionally lying. So much goes flying by, that there is simply no time to track down everything. And if the conclusion is that 1 in 1000 statements is an intentional lie, well, then what do we do. It's probably WAY better than anyone on CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC.
However, one thing that stands out for me, is that the alternative/truth news area should hold itself to a higher standard. There should be NO exaggerating or lying, or it is no better than what we're trying to get away from. Surely there is enough genuine truth news that no one has to cross the line and make up something that we "want" to be the case.
We make a big deal of any lie that Al Gore (for example) makes. If that is a lie, we say, then how can we trust anything he says. Well we have to hold the truth movement to the same standard.
I have heard Bill Cooper call AJ a liar, I have read about the Jeff Rense split (through a link on the sebaygo1 pages), and I have heard Jack Blood's 2-hour show in February about working behind the scenes at the AJ operation. And read a couple more sets of pages about AJ.
I'm at the point that I thought I would never be at, where I don't know what I can trust from AJ. Even if 99.9% of it is correct, I don't know which of his statements fall into the 0.1% area.
The major "truth network" radio jocks are there to make money. It is not so much what they mention as what they do not mention. I listen to Mike,Jack,Alex,Rense,Webster and more on a regular basis.
These people are providing information that is vital to our understanding of the truth and I am very thankful for that. Although, we should never "trust" the person. I know it makes it easier but it makes you just another "sheeple" for a different master.
If someone supports global warming or denies the involvement of the Zionists in the NWO then I consider them a shill, but I still listen if they have some good info which most do.
Jones defended Israel's attack on the Aid flotilla and has admitted to being a Zionist. Have you seen the video of him at the gun rally?
Keep up the good work Sebaygo1 you are a good citizen.
You are right sebaygo1, but you seem to be missing something. Jones has said himself that he uses the same tactics as the mainstream media. I'm paraphrasing there for the sake of general meaning. He as alluded to this on a number of occasions. I feel it's towing the line of morality, but I can empathize with his motivation: Fight them with their own weapons.
Sometimes that means spinning things a little because you have a large audience, the majority of which will believe you and parrot it. It's a lot closer to the real truth about things than O'Reilly's, Beck's and Olberman's use of such tactics.
The repetitiveness and the use of buzz words lead to parroting and it has worked on me even. We are all susceptable to psychological tricks.
It appears he is using these psychological tricks to get his listeners to parrot these ideas, so, like the mainstream media has done for a century, it becomes a societal belief.
In my opinion, this is morally risky to the integrity of the liberty/restoration movement. Does history not show that towing the line of morality usually leads to crossing that line? I wish I had some definitive evidence for that last question, I just have the synthesis of all the history I've read about.
Stress and lack of sleep tends to lead to one's sanity coming apart, which is sure to lead to poor decision making.
i think we can all agree that jones 'cherry picks' some of the facts that he throws out on the show. what i mean is that, like other said, you can find several polls on the same general topic, and depending on the demographic and wording of the questions, the result will vary widely.
as for jones, i think he gives a lot of great info on his show. im greatful that he's around to at least get people to think a little bit. on the other hand, i think i speak for many when i say that the "sensationalism" of the show can be a bit over the top, and actually turn listeners away.
my biggest concern, however, is jones' support of israel. IMO, anyone who looks at the fact of the matter without predisposition will see that israel is, and pretty much always has been, the most aggressive country in the middle east. i dont 'hate the jews' or anything (hell, i have some jew blood in me), but i call it like i see it. i dont see how any "free thinker", especially jones, could not see that.
again, im calling like i see it. im not one of the 'jones works for the zionist' people, but it does make ME wonder if there is any truth to those claims.
something else that got me thinking... on a show this past week i hear alex say something in a rant to the effect of (not verbatim), "did god tell israel to go and be peaceful with everyone? no! he told them to go out and slay the infidels!" (or something to that effect... im no bible scholar)
so i got to thinking, "if -IF- jones were working for the zionist, perhaps this is his rational for doing so. if he's a very hardcore christian that believes the bible verbatim, then is it a stretch for someone like that to support a group of people which his holy book says is 'gods race' and 'destined to inherit the earth, even if its not in the best interest of all of mankind?'
...i ponder
ive also seen the texas gun rally footage by the R.U.R. people. its definitely something else to consider. IMO though, i dont see him doing that all the time, or even very often, so i kind of doubt he's working for cointelpro. if this becomes more commonplace, or is already and im not aware, then i may have to rethink it. plus, why would he rally people to march on NY for 9/11, but then pull some cointelpro crap on a relatively small rally? that doesnt make much sense to me.
(I'm Anonymous from comment #1)
I listen to the Alex Jones Show for a few years now and rarely miss a show. And how would he work for isreal if all hes saying is isreal is gonna attack iran (with us support of course) and hes just not getting further personally against isreal because it would make him a target. people would say hes some kind of nazi if hed go more against them as needed. ALL the countries are bad. thats what hes saying. and when isreal itself plays such a big role as right now he also comes straight out with that.
he doesnt claim to be 100% accurate every time and of course hes giving it spin on it. the spin of the rebellion. so i think hes a great guy. and im no sheeple when i trust him because i looked it up often enough and nobody gave me that good information in my life.
Jones has gone so far downhill that I will never listen to him again. Rievero on the other hand, his shows last week were great!
Thanks for all the time maintaining the blog -
Hi Sebaygo1
Very nice post. Thanks for bringing a higher level of intellect to the discussion. Alex is such a hot-head whenever anyone criticizes him. The only reason he has not lost all credibility in my eyes for his behavior is that his info stands as an important counter-weight to the disinfo of the corporate controlled media.
But I think the level of discourse in your post is something sorely lacking and just as sorely needed. There is nothing wrong with having intelligent conversations and questioning things. I am by profession a scientist and a university professor so I make my living is such a critical intellectual environment. And it is a good thing when such discussions can be carried on with civility and mutual respect.
Unfortunately, the level of Alex and his audience falls far below this mark. Alex clearly over generalizes and nuances often are missed altogether. As, for example, you would find with Webster Tarpley. On the other hand, Alex is very well read. His understanding of history is very good. What he lacks however, is the disciplined intellect that comes from having to intellectually spar with people who are your intellectual equals.
The result of this is his ability to distinguish useful info from garbage is much less than it could be if he had a more disciplined mind.
So knowing this, one must, as you have done, research what he says and not just believe him.
Another problem is that Alex teeters on the edge of surrounding himself with "yes men", and his fawning audience, while appropriate in some respects, does nothing to hone Alex's intellectual precision.
Whenever I hear him talk about modern biology, which includes all his GMO and vaccine stuff, I wince. I have a PhD in molecular biology and get million dollar grants from the NIH, so I know a thing or two about science. Again, the only reason I can justify his very sloppy thinking in these areas is because they serve as a counter-weight to the equally sloppy disinfo of the corporate media.
And for those of you in the other comments that are continuing that disinfo about Alex somehow being pro-Jewish, just stop it. You pollute the nice environment Sebaygo1 has created here.
Anyway, I guess to wrap this up. For all his faults, Alex and all that has stemmed from his work, such as We Are Change, is really, really important, at bare minimum, for, as I said, being an important counter-weight to the strangle hold of the corporate media.
Also, his straight talk, while sometimes completely full of BS, sets a nice example. One of the problems with more intellectual environments such as the University in which I work is that sophistry often passes for knowledge. The beauty of Alex going bonkers sometimes is that it's actually the appropriate response. Sometimes mutual respect and civility transforms into PC crap and sophistry. Then, its basically the right thing to do is cut the Gordian knot, which Alex is great at!
Ok, again, sorry for the long post, but the bottom line is that I want to reinforce your post and encourage you and everyone else to use Alex's ideas as ways to exercise your own minds.
Thanks again, Sebaygo1
Best wishes.
Don
Hi Sebaygo1
Just wanted to let you know I appreciated this post very much. I had written a much longer comment, but it got lost when I tried to post it.
Anyway, the short of it is that I think your critical assessment of Alex is very good and that we need more of this. While Alex has a lot of strengths, sometimes being accurate is not one of them.
So, kudos for you! Thanks again!
Don
Hi Sebaygo1
Just wanted to let you know I appreciated this post very much. I had written a much longer comment, but it got lost when I tried to post it.
Anyway, the short of it is that I think your critical assessment of Alex is very good and that we need more of this. While Alex has a lot of strengths, sometimes being accurate is not one of them.
So, kudos for you! Thanks again!
Don
(Anonymous from the Gun Rally Comment)
To Don, sometimes the truth is not nice.
Sebaygo1: same from me, your entry was very much appreciated. I encourage all of us to do this sort of thing when we can, and report results, good or bad.
Post a Comment