Michael Medved: False Prophet

Here’s an e-book I didn’t know existed but I find very amusing. Michael Medved, bad movie reviewer turned bad right wing political pundit, wrote an e-book in August called The Odds Against Obama: Why History and Logic Make the President a Likely Loser. And here’s how the book is billed:

Most Americans instinctively assume the President will cruise to reelection in November. This notion has been bolstered by the Obama campaign’s relentless efforts to portray the president as unbeatable and to characterize Mitt Romney as a hapless loser.

THE ODDS AGAINST OBAMA provides the tools to shatter that impression, and to put the campaign in proper perspective based on the iron rules of history and logic.

Based on columns that appeared originally in The Daily Beast, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and on Townhall.com, with annotated new election tables that highlight the key differences between past presidential winners and losers, these essays show that the patterns of our politics strongly favor conservatives in the crucial election of 2012.

Yep, that’s how to shatter an impression using the “iron rules of history and logic.”

21 comments on this post.
  1. =8)-DX:

    “iron rules of history and logic.”

    Right. Irony means “things that have iron in them” doesn’t it?

  2. Gvlgeologist, FCD:

    OT, but what’s with the ads on FTB that scroll vertically across the computer screen with no way to close them? They blank out part of what I’m trying to read, and don’t disappear unless I click on them (which I refuse to do) or go to another post; they’re generally gone when I go back to the FTB home page.

    And ON topic: this is just part of conservatives’ refusal to face reality. It’s part of the reason that they were so shocked when they lost.

  3. Jon Harvey:

    Medved is one of those ex-liberals turned conservative who continued to devolve after turning conservative!! I thought he was an OK film critic (though no match for Roger Ebert) when he appeared on Sneak Previews, but over time he has just gotten stranger and stranger.

  4. slc1:

    Medved is also an evolution denier, not surprising, and proof that conservative Christians are not the only nutcases around.

  5. Larry:

    with annotated new election tables that highlight the key differences between past presidential winners and losers, these essays show that the patterns of our politics strongly favor conservatives in the crucial election of 2012.

    Tell your election tables to shut up (with apologies to Charles Schulz).

  6. dingojack:

    Awww – it’s too bad reality has a liberal bias, right Mr Medved?
    :) Dingo

  7. alanb:

    Most Americans instinctively assume the President will cruise to reelection in November. This notion has been bolstered by the Obama campaign’s relentless efforts to portray the president as unbeatable and to characterize Mitt Romney as a hapless loser.

    He certainly lived through a different campaign than I did. I definitely do not remember anybody using words like “certain” or “inevitable.” How is that the world’s supply of straw not reached critical shortages with all these right-wing straw man arguments?

  8. donalbain:

    It’s good. But it’s not THIS good: http://www.amazon.com/Condi-vs-Hillary-Great-Presidential/dp/B005Q823G0

  9. abb3w:

    Heh. One of the reviews called it “Very inciteful, as Mr. Medved’s work always tends to be.” I wonder if that anomalous spelling was deliberate.

  10. John Pieret:

    Medved already figured this out:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/12/obama-s-dirty-little-secret-to-winning-the-2012-presidential-election.html

    It seems that the iron rules of history and logic just couldn’t stand up to good ole fashioned negative campaigning (something conservatives would never engage in, of course). He even picks up on Karl Rove’s claim that Obama “suppressed” the vote by saying mean things about Romney. But here is one delicious part:

    Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan drew 1.3 million fewer votes than the allegedly hapless ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

    Mr. 47%-of-the-time-my-foot-is-in-my-mouth may just have been a bigger drag on the campaign than Sarah come-out-on-the-porch-and-look-at-Russia Palin.

  11. John Hinkle:

    I see a lot of rust crumbling from Medved’s iron rules.

  12. alanb:

    Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan drew 1.3 million fewer votes than the allegedly hapless ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

    That figure comes from the days immediately after the election when there were still several million votes left to count. In fact, Romney outpolled McCain by almost a million. It’s hard to take political “pundits” seriously who don’t know the basic facts of how elections work.

  13. marcus:

    Gvlgeologist, FCD @2 On my computer if you refresh (or go back and then forward) they go away . (I have firefox.)

  14. Thorne:

    @2 &13,

    I have the AdBlocker Plus plugin for Firefox and I don’t see ANY of the ads.

  15. d.c.wilson:

    It seems that the iron rules of history and logic just couldn’t stand up to good ole fashioned negative campaigning (something conservatives would never engage in, of course). He even picks up on Karl Rove’s claim that Obama “suppressed” the vote by saying mean things about Romney. But here is one delicious part:

    What frustrates conservatives was that Obama refused to follow the script. He was supposed to sit back meekly while they painted him as a pinko commie who hated America.

    You know, like John Kerry did.

  16. Midnight Rambler:

    Jon Harvey @3: no, Medved was always a shitty movie critic long before he was loudly conservative. Not sure he was ever really liberal either? I don’t think he was ever vocal if he was; he alway seemed to be a strict Tipper Gore “family values” type, which is part of why he was so bad at films.

  17. dsmccoy:

    “based on the iron rules of history”

    Sounds like Marxist talk to me.

  18. John Pieret:

    alanb @ 12:

    That figure comes from the days immediately after the election when there were still several million votes left to count. In fact, Romney outpolled McCain by almost a million.

    Yeah, I figured that all those figures Medved was flinging about were preliminary but the funny thing was that he thought Obama had somehow done a better job demonizing Romney/Ryan than he did while presumably doing the same to McCain/Palin. The iron laws of logic seemed to have abandoned him.

    It’s hard to take political “pundits” seriously who don’t know the basic facts of how elections work.

    But Medved is, as is so often the case, not a political pundit as much as a political Ron Popeil.

  19. Gvlgeologist, FCD:

    @#13 and 14:
    Thank you, I’ll try both.

  20. Dr. Strabismus:

    To his credit, Medved posted this yesterday on The Daily Beast. It almost verges on sanity. The fiscal cliff compromise, Medved says, should put to rest—forever—the toxic notion of the populist right that the president of the United States harbors the secret goal of destroying the country he’s been (twice) elected to lead. That idea often connects with idiotic claims about President Obama’s concealed Kenyan birth, hidden Muslim affiliation, radical Communist commitments, descent from Malcolm X or Frank Marshall Davis, control by demonic puppet-masters like George Soros, and so forth and so on ad infinitum (or insane-item).

    Of course, Medved still thinks that Obama is a bad president advocating bad policies, but that he’s not much different from, or worse than, Clinton, Carter, LBJ etc.. Obama’s intentions are good.

    Baby steps toward sanity, anyway.

  21. dingojack:

    You just knew I would double check Melved’s assertions about ‘negative campaigning = voter suppression’.

    The 2008 had the highest voter turn out since the sixties, so a drop off from this high gives a false sense of the trend.

    2008.
    Obama won 69,498,516 votes, McCain won 59,948,323 votes.
    Obama won 53.6888% of the votes cast for the major parties, as opposed to McCain’s 46.3112%.
    Obama won 52.9255% of all votes cast; McCain won 45.6527%
    Obama won the votes of 22.8332% of the population, McCain only 19.6955%.

    2012
    Obama won 65,899,660 votes (down by 3,598,856); Romney won 60,932,152 (983,829 more than McCain).
    Obama won 50.9087% of the vote cast for the major parties, Romney won 47.0712%. (Down by 5.1783% and up by 1.6411% respectively)
    Obama won 51.0325% of all votes cast (down by 3.5677%); Romney won 47.1857% (Up by 3.3579%)
    Obama won the votes of 20.9929% of the population (down by 8.0597%); Romney won 19.4105% (down by 1.4775%)

    Such good negative campaigning it cost Obama votes (as opposed to Romney)..
    Mr Melved, you are an idiot. (And I don’t mean the hoi poli)

    Dingo

    .

Leave a comment

You must be