Trump’s speech has climbed another 4 million from earlier numbers today,
putting him within 5 million of Obama’s address to Congress in 2009:
VARIETY – According to Nielsen’s final
official tally, Trump’s speech drew 47.74 million viewers from
approximately 9 to 10:15 p.m. across 11 networks. Those 11 networks counted by
Nielsen were ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, Univision, PBS, CNN, Fox Business Network, Fox
News Channel, MSNBC, and NBC Universo.
President Obama’s first address pulled in an audience of 52.37 million
people across the four broadcast networks, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC,
Telemundo, and Univision — a difference of about 9%. The audience for President
George W. Bush’s first address, at 39.79 million, was overshadowed by the State
of the Union Address he delivered in 2003, which brought in 62.06 million
viewers.
Disgraceful: Top Dems Ellison and Wasserman
Schultz Couldn't Put Politics Aside, Remained Seated When Navy SEAL's Widow Was
Honored
Published March 1, 2017
By Matt Vespa, Townhall.com
Congressional Democrats, still sour over Hillary
Clinton’s loss to President Donald J. Trump, remained mostly seated and still
throughout the president’s first address to Congress. Guy offered his analysis
on this, and the consensus is that this was his best speech yet. More
importantly, it showed that Trump had become presidential. The tone was softer,
though it did not shy away from the promises he made on the campaign trail.
Yet, as Trump discussed support for law and order, law
enforcement, and other subjects that usually garner bipartisan gold claps, Rep.
Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) were seen
debating with whether to stand or remain seated during some of Trump’s biggest
applause lines. Independent Journal Review’s Benny Johnson tweeted that the two
were whispering, “Should we stand?”
The most powerful moment came when President Trump
introduced the widow of Navy SEAL Ryan Owens, who was killed in action in Yemen. Carryn
Owens, breaking down in tears, received the longest ovation of the night—and
rightfully so. But Schultz and Ellison remained seated, like cold stones.
Sobbing widow of slain
Navy Seal receives 2 minute standing ovation.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz & Keith Ellison stay firmly seated, no claps
The poll found that 82
percent of total speech watchers said Trump’s address was “presidential” while
71 percent called it “unifying.”
When broken down, thepollfound 97 percent of Republicans, 54 percent of Democrats and
88 percent of Independents say Trump came across as “presidential” in his
speech.
Half of Democrats did find the speech “divisive” but about
one-third of them also said Trump was “specific” and “knowledgeable,” according
to thepoll.
Eighty-seven percent of
Republicans, 19 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of Independents found the
president’s tone to be “very positive” while 18 percent of Democrats and 87
percent of Republicans “strongly approved” of the president’s message.
The president also saw
double digit gains in approval of his views on terrorism, Obamacare, crime, the
economy and immigration, the poll found.
Wednesday morning, Senate MinorityLeaderChuck Schumer appeared less than impressed with what he
called dissonance between the president’s words and actions.
“This is another one of
his speeches,” he said. “He talks like a populist but he is governing from the
far right.”
But VicePresidentMike Pence said the country saw the president’s true colors.
“President Trump is someone
who leads by collaboration,” Pence said. “He brings people together and last
night he really challenged the Congress to come together to solve these
intractable problems that frankly, we’ve ignored for decades.”
Meanwhile, Twitter says
some 3 million tweets were sent about Trump’s speech Tuesday night. The numbers
make it the most tweeted speech by a president to Congress in the relatively
short history of the platform.
Google says the top
trending question users asked during the night was “who wrote Donald Trump’s
speech?” People also wanted to know how tall the president is and whether he’s
a Democrat or a Republican.
The CBS News poll was conducted immediately after the conclusion
of the President’s Address to Congress by re-contacting a scientifically
sampled panel of Americans who had first been interviewed in the days leading
up to the speech, and had stated that they planned to watch. A total of 857
speech watchers were interviewed. The margin of error for the total sample is
4.2 points.
ByJennifer Harper- The Washington Times -
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
The “i word” — impeachment — has
already surfaced in the Democratic dialogue as the party rails againstPresidentTrump,
its noisy message amplified by the mainstream media. In the words of Democratic
National Committee ChairmanTom Perez, everybody is “fired
up.”
Perhaps they are under the
impression that the nation will stand back in awe and admiration of their
combative tone and vigorous outreach. That may not be the case, however. Many
voters are weary of political gridlock and discord.
“Most voters agree that it’s bad
for America
and bad for the Democratic Party if Democrats continue to flat out oppose
everything PresidentTrumpdoes. Even Democrats are conflicted
about their party’s scorched earth policy,” says a new Rasmussen Reports poll.
According to the poll, 63 percent
of all likely voters say it’s better for the country if Democrats try to work
with the president instead, while 29 percent think it’s better for the country
if Democrats “oppose the president in every way possible.”
Naturally, 90 percent of voters
who supportMr.
Trumpsay the
Democrats should be more cooperative. But a surprising 46 percent of the
Democrats themselves agree with this, a sentiment that is on the rise. A
similar poll conducted shortly after the November election found that 32
percent of Democrats favored cooperation.
Perhaps the party itself could
use a little quiet time. The survey also found that 63 percent of all voters
say the Democratic Party will be “better off” if they cooperate with the
opposition; a surprising 45 percent of Democrats also agree.
Fox News
I'm a Democrat and It's Time for Our Party to
Apologize to America
Published March 1, 2017
By Bryan Dean Wright
Published March 1, 2017 FoxNews.com
Now that President Trump has delivered his State of the
Union-style address, my fellow Democrats are settling in for a long fight. Our
new DNC Chairman Tom Perez is leading the charge, promising to be a “nightmare”
for the president and his fellow Republicans.
The reason is clear: Mr. Perez tastes political blood in
the water. Trump’s approval rating is at historic lows, hammered by allegations
of Russian collusion, a contentious immigration ban, and emotional Twitter
outbursts.
Yet smart Democrats know that our position with the
American people is just as weak. We hold the fewest number of state
legislatures, governorships, and federal offices than at any point since the
1920s. And it’s a trend that started well before the 2016 election.
In short, America isn’t buying what Democrats
are selling.
The reasons for this are numerous, and they include
efforts by Republicans to suppress voters in North
Carolina and gerrymander Congressional districts in Wisconsin.
But finger pointing at GOP operatives hides a much more
painful truth.
Six weeks ago, the U.S. Senate considered an amendment
that would have allowed Americans to import cheap prescription drugs from Canada. This
common sense solution would have saved families thousands of dollars – and
lives. Not surprisingly, 72 percent of voters supported the proposal.
Yet the amendment failed, with 14 Democratic Senators
rejecting it.
What could explain their vote? Cynics highlight the fact
that many of these officials collect large sums of campaign cash from
pharmaceutical giants. Top collectors of drug money include Senators Cory
Booker (D-NJ), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), all of
whom voted against the bill.
Since facts, truth, and honesty all seem to be absent in the news media of today the question becomes who can you trust? The answer was already provided by real Americans in polls undertaken by the news media.
With a variety of polls this past year showing trust in the news media has fallen to 7%, the lowest ratings ever, one must conclude you do not go to the media for truth.
First their is the obvious political bias with The New York Times leading the anti-Trump media establishment along with fellow progressive advocates NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Washington Post, Politico, and on and on.
So why would you want to rely on any of these blatantly biased Trump haters? Take The New York Times for example.
On February 13, 2017 they ran the following story based on a column by 2 psychiatry professionals.
Charles M. Blow (column,nytimes.com,
Feb. 9) describes Donald Trump’s constant need “to grind the opposition
underfoot.” As mental health professionals, we share Mr. Blow’s concern.
Silence from the country’s mental health organizations
has been due to a self-imposed dictum about evaluating public figures (the
American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 Goldwater Rule). But this silence has
resulted in a failure to lend our expertise to worried journalists and members
of Congress at this critical time. We fear that too much is at stake to be
silent any longer.
Mr. Trump’s speech and actions demonstrate an
inability to tolerate views different from his own, leading to rage reactions.
His words and behavior suggest a profound inability to empathize. Individuals
with these traits distort reality to suit their psychological state, attacking
facts and those who convey them (journalists, scientists).
In a powerful leader, these attacks are likely to
increase, as his personal myth of greatness appears to be confirmed. We believe
that the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trump’s speech and
actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president.
An earlier version of
this letter misstated the number of co-signers in addition to the two lead
signers. There were 33, not 35.
-------------------------------------
Hard core progressives seem to forget the credibility issues of our news media when they agree with the story. Even the article shown ends with an acknowledgement the facts are inaccurate, note the correction at the end.
But they fail to tell the truth when they imply the opinion of two people means there is a national consensus among professionals, a conclusion nothing short of journalistic hypocrisy. At last count there were 50,000 psychiatrists, 170,200 psychologists, and 642,000 social workers in America. This story represents the opinions of just two of the 862,200 professionals in the fields.
Follow the folly of fools and become a fool yourself.
Here are recent headlines about the integrity of The New York Times.
Hillary
Clinton campaign blasts 'egregious' errors by The New York Times
Alessandra Stanley has fallen back into old habits. This week, the New York Times television critic was responsible for a long,
embarrassing correction:
CNBC
Moderator Harwood Admits Premise of His Question on Rubio's Tax Plan is
Erroneous
Earlier
tonight moderator John Harwood, of CNBC and the New York Times, attacked Senator Marco
Rubio's tax plan on the grounds that it disproportionately benefited the top
one percent of earners. Rubio insisted the premise of his question was wrong,
but Harwood stuck to his guns. Here's the exchange:
Earlier tonight
moderator John Harwood, of CNBC and the New York Times,
attacked Senator Marco Rubio's tax plan on the grounds that it
disproportionately benefited the top one percent of earners.
Erroneous Study Of Advanced Prostate Cancer Criticized By Experts
This week, bad news for adult men has
plagued the internet in the United
States. Experts found that a study from NorthwesternUniversity was based on false
information reporting that the cases of advanced, aggressive prostate cancer
had risen sharply from 2004- 2013.
A report from The New York Times claimed that there are several
organizations that covered the study including Newsweek, NBC, CBS, Fox News and
United Press Internationals. Their reports revealed that recent medical advice
against routine screening may be the one to blame for the supposed rise in
advanced cases because it causes diagnosis to be delayed until the cancer is
already too late to be treated. Another factor that was pointed was the
possibility that prostate cancer were more aggressive than it originally was.
However, on Wednesday, the American Cancer Society disputed the
validity of the Northwestern researchers' findings. According to Dr. Otis
Brawley, the society's chief medical officer, said the methodology used by the
researchers was defective, leading to the study's false conclusions, upi.com reported.
Dear President Trump - here is a way to strengthen the Border with Mexico!
Why not relocate US Troops to new US Bases along the Mexican border? We could help stop the senseless killing, over 200,000 Mexican citizens while Obama was president, caught in the middle of a drug war. At the same time, a series of a dozen or more bases stretched out along the border would move thousands of trained military into the vicinity of the human trafficking of illegal immigrants along with the drug dealers. Right now the US pays the highest costs possible to foreign governments to post our troops overseas for the purpose of defending their foreign lands.
If we had a series of military bases along the border, we would reduce foreign costs for defense, provide thousands of trained soldiers to help with immigration and drug trafficking, and be able to use the bases to monitor high-tech electronic monitoring of the border rather than build a giant wall. It would also help stimulate the local economies where the bases would be built and soldiers and families housed.
Redeployment of overseas forces
Here is what I wrote in an article June 3, 2010:
We have over 2.5 million defense soldiers and civilian employees but only 1.1 million are in the USA. Since a few thousand remain in both Iraq and Afghanistan that leaves 1.2 million DOD employees all over the rest of the world. There are over 735 American military bases outside the USA including 38 large and medium size facilities.
At the height of the British Empire in 1898 they had 36 bases spread out around the world and at the height of the Roman Empire in 117 AD they had 37 major bases. Of course they were both trying to conquer the world. We aren't supposed to be conquering the world so get rid of the excess bases.
Maybe the president should stop playing world policeman and close the majority of the overseas bases, leaving only those absolutely needed for national security, and set up a network of domestic bases along the border with Mexico. We already have the troops and are paying to keep them outside the country. Why not set up border bases in Arizona, New Mexico, a couple in Texas and maybe one more in Southern California?
Perhaps the presence of thousands of American troops might help stop the flow of illegal drugs and the human trafficking of illegal immigrants? It might even help Mexico reduce the massive death rate from the drug war along the border that has cost nearly 200,000 Mexican lives, men, women, and children, since 2007.
This is one of the darkest elements of the border traffic and is a plague to Arizona and the other states. Here is a solution that saves money and lives while reducing costly foreign expenditures that can no longer be justified. .
