Obama Thugs Rough Up Gallup For Polls They Don’t Like
The Obama Administration’s Justice Department announced, on August 22nd, that it was joining a lawsuit by a former Gallup employee and whistleblower against the Gallup Corporation for allegedly overcharging the government on polling work. [But look at the sequence of events…]
The announcement comes on the heels of a confrontation between Gallup staffers and Obama strategist David Axelrod in which he accused the company of using out of date sampling methods which, he said, generated polling data negative to the president. [So, the Obama campaign doesn’t like the results of a Gallup poll. There is a confrontation. Suddenly Obama’s Justice Dept. joins a lawsuit against Gallup. But wait! There’s more…]
The whistleblower’s lawsuit has been kicking around since 2009, [!] but the Justice Department joined the suit only after the run-in between Axelrod and Gallup in April of this year.
In a scene right out of a typical authoritarian regime, Fox News reports that “employees at the venerable Gallup polling firm suggested they felt threatened by Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod [A key component of Obama’s Chicago machine…] when he questioned the methodology of a mid-April poll showing Mitt Romney leading the president – according to internal emails published Thursday.”
That poll that sent Axelrod ballistic showed Romney leading Obama 48-43 percent.
The Daily Caller published e mails that started when Axelrod sent a tweet to Gallup saying the tracking poll was “saddled with some methodological problems” and directing followers to a National Journal story in which a professor suggested outdated sampling.
According to the email chain titled “Axelrod vs. Gallup,” the White House in addition asked that a Gallup staffer “come over and explain our methodology,” which was apparently perceived as a subtle threat.
Fox News reported that “a Gallup official said in an email he thought Axelrod’s pressure ‘sounds a little like a Godfather situation.’” [“Iu sàcciu unni tu stài!”]
Gallup refused to change its methodology to suit the White House. [And now they are being sued by Obama’s Justice department.]
And the Justice Department intervention in the whistleblower suit came three months later. The whistleblower, Michael Lindley, claims that Gallup violated the False Claims Act by overcharging the federal government for its services to the U.S. Mint, the State Department and other federal agencies. The Justice Department plans to add Gallup’s work with FEMA to the list of alleged overcharges covered in the lawsuit.
Lindley charged that Gallup overestimated the number of hours of field work that the government surveys would require and that it billed the feds based on the inflated estimates.
According to the Washington Times, Lindley worked for the Obama campaign in 2008 as an Iowa field organizer based out of Council Bluffs, Iowa.
As the election progresses, this blatant effort to influence Gallup’s data and its poll numbers is an example of Chicago political thugs at their worst.
I’ve been completely heart sick since Obama was elected and the thought that he might get in there again devastates me. The effect will be felt, not just in this country, but around the world. I’m praying so hard that he will be defeated. I think what’s going on with the polls are two things:
1). They are either trying to create in the public mind that this race is a tossup or that, in fact, Obama is in the lead so they have cover for the vote fraud to kick in. If there are any obvious voting irregularities, all they have to do accuse the opposition of racism, bigotry, etc, etc…..
2). They want to make it look like he’s winning, so on election day when Romney wins, because in reality, he was in the lead all along, they can say that Romney stole the election, refuse to step down and set off riots across the country – scorched earth. He and this evil cabal, and the powers behind him, will NOT relinquish power without a fight.
Either way, this will not end well. Lord Jesus, have mercy on us. Our Lady of America, pray for us.
Alinksy, Chomsky and Gramsci are laughing, somewhere…their pupils have learned well. Why am I not surprised?
Having seen David Axelrod on Fox News Sunday – twice, I’m absolutely convinced that he thinks he can bully people into thinking his way, which is often filled with untruths. I think this was his most recent interview. Notice how he never answers the question and keeps repeating Democrat talking points like a robot.
I’ve also noticed that no matter what station I watch, when they have a Democrat and a Republican on – supporters that is – the Democrats will often filibuster. Axelrod attempts to do so here as Wallace tries to get him to answer the original question.
While lit looks fishy on the surface, even hard core conservative commentators have noted that this is just attempting to connect dots that don’t really connect. The investigation was already ongoing long before the offending poll was even conducted and Obama may be a bad president, but he’s not enough of a dummy when campaigning to pull something so blatantly Nixonesque this close to the election.
The problem I see here is accepting accounts from Fox”News” and Dick “Toes” Morris at face value. I would be more concerned with this story if it came from a valid source. [You perhaps place greater trust in Chris Matthews and Rachael Maddow.]
[You perhaps place greater trust in Chris Matthews and Rachael Maddow.
I’ve said before I think Chris and Rachael are180 degrees out of phase and equidistant from center.
Just driving back here I heard an extremely civil discussion with Anderson Cooper including a rabid conservative, Bay Buchanan, with whom Anderson was very polite. No shouting, no craziness, no meanness or cynicism.
No, I really don’t cling with baited breath to every word uttered by Rachael or Chris. You are right that I probably swing more in their direction that I would toward Fox “News,” but I certainly see through their bias.
Jacob, above, has also pointed out that this story from Morris has not been adequately substantiated.
Whether the Democrat or Republican machinists, it’s all the same in the end. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”. It’s all about choosing a side and keeping America divided so they can continue to play in the mud.
Are there any real gentlemen or ladies left in politics?
VexillaRegis, I heard Paul Ryan in person a few years ago. I was very impressed with him. He was very gentlemanly. People also state that Condi Rice is lady-like. We would not agree with all her views on life, however. I think at the state level (except for some parts of Illinois), there is more old-fashioned gentlemanly behaviour. Washington has become the Chicago-land of the East and I am afraid the rough and tumble of that Midwest city regarding politics has spread and taken over the capitol, which is too bad.
We’ve been on the road of division for quite some time now. It’s really nothing new.
Recently a local FOX station reporter, Ben Swann, reported on the RNC teleprompter scandal, exactly the same as the DNC scandal, and of party bosses disqualifying the Maine delegation amidst other state delegations’ outcry. We’ve entered the time of coronations.
Jean Marie, I suspect there may be a third reason for fudging the pool numbers, that they just want to create the illusion that Obama’s re-election is inevitable and discourage conservatives from bothering to vote, especially since many are not that comfortable with Romney, e.g. Ron Paul supporters, Evangelicals to are not comfortable with Mormons, and so on.
As far as gentlemanly behavior in politics is concerned, I agree about Paul Ryan. However before one tsk-tsk’s about the current state of affairs, go back and look at the political campaigns of the 19th century. “Rough and tumble” doesn’t even begin to describe it.
“We’ve entered the time of coronations.”
Explore the history of our legislature, and you will find that the overwhelming majority of those in it have been lawyers. We have raised us up a ruling class. I am not going to say that lawyers are all bad, any more than I would say that it is healthy for us to be represented in government by almost no one who is not a lawyer. Many have noted the complete lack of commercial experience in our president. I fear that on close inspection, we would find that most in Congress are no better, their only experience with payroll having been in a law practice. I know of no other industry in which a client can routinely be charged dollars per page for simple xerox copies, nor where the service provider routinely takes 1/3 of whatever profit his employer receives, as well as expenses. Real life? Not as most of us know it.
Ugly, ugly, ugly.
@STM & Jon P: Yes, of course, Condoleezza Rice is a lady, and a piano playing one too! It seems to me, that politicians who have deep cultural or musical interests are less prone to to be too much in love with their power and social status.
Good to hear that you have high thoughts about Paul Ryan aswell, I’ve mostly seen short news about him on TV, and have not been able to make a fuller picture of his character.
Oh, we europeans know all about dirty politics, from the Roman Empire, over Henry VIII, to Berlusconi and other dictators whom I won’t name here.
Today 60% of the Senate are lawyers, and 37.2 percent of the House are lawyers.
From 1780-1930 (CRS provided), 2/3rds of the Senate were lawyers and half the House were lawyers.
In the 101st Congress 63% of the Senate were lawyers and 42% of the House.
Today, in the 112th Congress, 60% of the Senate are lawyers and 37 percent of the House are lawyers.
The trend is downward, though gradual.
One question (not the question, because truth matters, but still an important one) is whether this story is believable.
I think most in this country would believe that the administration would use its power to punish those in opposition to it. And I believe many in this country find that perfectly acceptable. The winner takes it all.
I’ve often noted in discussions about nations with other traditions that the population may support a dictator because what they respect and feel they need is strength — even underhanded, dirty-fighting strength. I’m afraid we may have reached a point in America where what people want from their leader is a guy who can win, no matter how many knees he has to baseball-bat out. In a time of uncertainty, people will gather behind bullies, either because they think it brings stability or because they want to be on the winning side once it all shakes down.
If President Obama wins this election, I fully expect to see the lists begin. There will be no scruples about public image when it comes to abuse of power, because the term will no longer disturb people. They will have elected him because he can be a good tyrant, they certainly won’t have a problem with him exercising his prerogatives as such — as long as he does so against those other people, the ones who weren’t smart enough to get on the right side.
Yes, American politics has often been dirty and mean, but the difference today is that millions — millions — of Americans approve of dirty and mean. I once brought up the tactics used against Santorum with the false definition on Google with a mixed group. You should have seen the glee. Once upon a time people would express regret at the tactics and support of the “point” in public, then maybe titter while they drove home. Now they openly celebrate ignobility, dishonesty, slander, propaganda, unfairness, all that.
A think a big part of the problem with lawyers running the show is that the culture of law can be a substitute for religious tradition. It has its own rituals, its own structure, its own initiations, its own system of ethics and system of punishment for those who “sin”. I realize much of this can be linked with Judeo-Christian systems, but I think at this point it’s pretty disconnected and can serve as a substitute, people get their feeling of being moral, being a “good person”, feeling of meaning from law instead of from God.
LisaP, I agree with you about the culture of law taking over. This is compounded by the modern development that law schools now explicitly teach that there is no such thing as natural law. Natural law is regarded as an outmoded legal concept that has been debunked as myth. When lawyers trained exclusively in positive law take over our legislatures (as has happened), there is trouble ahead. People with this attitude towards the natural law do not believe that there are any “inalienable” rights.
I think a huge part of the problem in Washington is that the elected senators and representatives are not writing–and lately, not even reading–the legislation they pass. It is instead composed by unelected people: lobbyists, clerks, and other office staff. So we are not getting the government we deserve, contrary to the old saw, as the majority of the writers are not people for whom we were able to vote. And many of them are likely to possess even less experience of life and real world issues than the elected people for whom they nominally work.
Sissy, I had no idea, but why am I not surprised? They also seem to believe that right and wrong are merely abstract concepts.
wmeyer said: “They also seem to believe that right and wrong are merely abstract concepts.”
It’s all relative. ;-)
“It’s all relative. ;-)”
LOL! An answer which will serve them well, I’m sure, at their final accounting.
frjim4321 said: “The problem I see here is accepting accounts from Fox”News” and Dick “Toes” Morris at face value. I would be more concerned with this story if it came from a valid source”
The actual source was Gallup. Gallup gave reporters a series of emails from last April between the polling company and David Axelrod which they claimed they took to be threatening. The whistleblower lawsuit against Gallup had been filed in 2009, but the DOJ joined it 3 months after Gallup refused Axelrod’s “request”. This action by the DOJ was not started under the Bush administration (as was claimed somewhere above) as far as I can tell.
I wonder, are the outdated polling methods calling home phones, when young people mostly only have cell phones? It isn’t so easy to get lists of cell phone numbers the way you can get lists of landlines. But land lines are becoming obsolete. (I have one but none of my adult children do any more.) If so, it would be reasonable to object to a polling method based on calling landlines.
I could be all wet here, but I was just wondering. One of my sons used this as an explanation for why the Nielson poll people are always trying to get us to fill out their little book, no matter how many times we tell them we don’t have a TV.
eulogos, I think the cell phone/land line situation might have been a issue in the 2008 polls, but I’ve read that they are starting to include a significant proportion of cell phone calls.