Why I vote the way I do...

[Henry Hawk]

This is not intended as anything derogatory towards anyone here.  I'm simply posting an article that I just so happen to 100% agree with, and leans to as why I harbor feelings towards this political enviroment.  If you have a few minutes, read it.   



The following text is from a speech delivered by Democratic pollster and  Fox News contributor Patrick Caddell on September 21. It was delivered at  Accuracy in Media's Conference: Obamanation: A Day of Truth. The title of the  speech was "The Audacity of  Corruption." For more on Accuracy in Media, click here.


I think we're at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of  the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we  maintain a free democracy or not.  You know, when I first started in  politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides, Democrats  and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they were SOBs to  everybody.  Which is exactly what they should be.  They were  unrelenting.  Whatever the biases were, they were essentially  equal-opportunity people.

That changed in 1980.

There are a lot of reasons for it. It changed—an important point in the  Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis  elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who  was running on the platform of "He will do for America what he did for  Massachusetts"—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Also the change from evening news emphasis to morning news by the networks is  another factor that's been pointed out to me.

Most recently, what I call the nepotism that exists, where people get  jobs—they're married to people who are in the administration, or in politics,  whatever.

But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very dangerous. We have a  First Amendment for one reason. We have a First Amendment not because the  Founding Fathers liked the press—they hated the press—but they believed, as  [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order to have a free country, in order to be a  free people, we needed a free press.  That was the job—so there was an  implicit bargain in the First Amendment, the press being the only institution,  at that time, which was in our process of which there was no checks and  balances.

We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances.  The  one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an  implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from  the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to have the  truth.  That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some  time.  It is now creating the danger that I spoke to.

This morning, just this morning, Gallup released their latest poll  on the trust, how much trust [the American people have in the press] —when it  comes to reporting the news accurately, fairly, and fully, and [the level of  their distrust] it's the highest in history.  For the first time, 60  percent of the people said they had "Not very much" or "None at all."  Of  course there was a partisan break: There were 40 percent who believed it did,  Democrats, 58 percent believed that it was fair and accurate, Republicans were  26 percent, independents were 31 percent.

So there is this contempt for the media – or this belief—and there are many  other polls that show it as well.

I want to just use a few examples, because I think we crossed the line the  last few weeks that is terrifying.

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece which was called "The Audacity of Cronyism" in Breitbart, and my talk today is "The Audacity of Corruption."  What I  pointed out was, that it was appalling that Valerie Jarrett had a Secret Service  detail.  A staff member in the White House who is a senior aide and has a  full Secret Service detail, even while on vacation, and nobody in the press had  asked why.  That has become more poignant, as I said, last week, when we  discovered that we had an American ambassador, on the anniversary of 9/11, who  was without adequate security—while she still has a Secret Service detail  assigned to her full-time, at a massive cost, and no one in the media has gone  to ask why.

The same thing: I raised the question of David Plouffe.  David Plouffe,  who is the White House's Senior Adviser—and was Obama's campaign manager last  time, he and [David] Axelrod sort of switched out, Axelrod going back to Chicago  for the campaign—and just after it was announced that he was coming, an Iranian  front group in Nigeria gave him $100,000 to give two speeches in  Nigeria.

Now, let me tell you: There's nobody that hands—no stranger gives you  $100,000 and doesn't expect something in return, unless you live in a world that  I don't.  And no one has raised this in the mainstream media.

He was on with George Stephanopoulos, on ABC, a couple of weeks ago, and they  were going through all these questions.  No one asked him whatsoever about  that.  He was not inquired.  George Stephanopoulos, a former adviser  to Bill Clinton—who every morning, while Rahm Emmanuel was Chief of Staff, had  his call with Rahm Emmanuel and James Carville, and the three of them have been  doing it for years—and he is held out as a journalist. He has two  platforms.  I mean, he's a political hack masquerading as a  journalist. But when you don't ask the questions you need to ask of someone  like David Plouffe, who's going in the White House—when we're talking about  Iran.

I just finishedsurveys,  some of you may have seen, with John McLaughlin this week, with Secure America Now,  and found out just how strongly Americans are concerned with Iran, the Muslim  Brotherhood, what's happening in the Middle East, and cuts in defense  spending.

This is not the place for that, but it strikes me as the American people  identify, in the polling we've done over the last year, Iran as the single  greatest danger to the United States. And here's a man who's being paid by  an already named front group for that—for a terrorist regime, and is not asked  about it, or queried about it!

The third thing I would say is that—then there's of course [National Security  Adviser] Tom Donilon, who I know very well from years back, who I caused a  little bit of a stir over a few months ago when I said he was the "leaker-in-chief."

I mean this ridiculous running around—"How did these secrets get out?"—when  it is clear he has no credentials for foreign policy; who has been in the White  House; who was a political operative for Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, and  others; who was known to have, in my opinion, to be just the most amoral person  I know in politics; and who is using and orchestrating national security.   In Mr. [David] Sanger's book [Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and  Surprising Use of American Power], as a reviewer at [The New York Times] said, "The  hero of this book, and the clear source of it, is Tom Donilon"—but let me just  make a point.  Neither does—and I would say this to the Congressman—"You  know, all the Republicans have to do"—you know, I talk often about the "Corrupt  Party" and the "Stupid Party," but the Stupid Party couldn't be stupider when it  comes to things like this.  They could have called Tom Donilon and other  people down to the Congress, put them under oath, and asked them if they had  leaked.

Instead you have Eric Holder, who runs the most political Justice Department  since John Mitchell—only in John Mitchell's administration did we have Justice  Departments that were so politicized and so corrupted by politics—and he  appoints someone who gave two people to do a study on the leaks, sometime in the  next century will come out, and one of them is a, was a contributor to Barack  Obama when he was a state Senator.  That's a really unbiased source!   And the press, of course, won't look into this.

It will not ask the question. But the Republicans could have  called them down.  Yes, the president could have extended Executive  Privilege, but let him say "I will not answer that question, sir" on the  question of "Did you leak these secrets that Dianne Feinstein, the Chairman, the  Democratic Chairman, of the Senate Intelligence Committee said were endangering  national security and American lives?"  As she said  when she read Sanger's book, "My God, every page I turn I learn something that I don't know!"  I mean, these are serious matters but in  Washington they're playful, and the press does not pursue any of them.

Peter Schweizer has done a study talking about corruption.  Sixty  percent or 80  percent—it's closer to 80 percent  I think, now—of the money given under  the stimulus to green energy projects—the president and this administration's  great project—has gone to people who are either bundlers or major contributors  to Barack Obama.

But nobody says a word.

Of course Republicans don't raise it because in Washington, they simply want  to do it when they get back in power.  And, of course, the press doesn't  because they basically have taken themselves out of doing their job.

When we see what happened this week in Libya—and when I said I was more  frightened than I've ever been, this is true, because I think it's one thing  that, as they did in 2008, when the mainstream press, the mainstream media and  all the press, jumped on the Obama bandwagon and made it a moral commitment on  their part to help him get elected in a way that has never happened, whatever  the biases in the past.

To give you an example of the difference, I'll just shortly tell you this: In  1980, when [Jimmy] Carter was running for reelection, the press—even though 80  percent of them, after the election, reporters said they voted for Carter over  [Ronald] Reagan, or 70 percent of them, a very high percentage—they believed, so  much, that the Carter campaign and the Carter White House had abused the Rose  Garden against [Ted] Kennedy that they made a commitment, as they discussed,  that they would not serve as the attack dogs on Reagan for the Carter White  House because they thought it was unfair and they weren't to be  manipulated.

I totally disagree with their analysis, but that was when you actually had a  press corps.  Whatever their own personal feelings, they made judgments  that were, "We're not going to be manipulated."

This press corps serves at the pleasure of this White House and president,  led by people like Ezra Klein and JournoList, where they plot the stories  together.  The problem here is that no one will name names.

But I want to talk about this Libyan thing, because we crossed some lines  here. It's not about politics. First of all, we've had nine days of lies over  what happened because they can't dare say it's a terrorist attack, and the press  won't push this. Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York  Times over the question of Libya.

Twenty American embassies, yesterday, were under attack.  None of that  is on the national news.  None of it is being pressed in the  papers.

If a president of either party—I don't care whether it was Jimmy Carter or  Bill Clinton or George Bush or Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush—had a  terrorist incident, and got on an airplane after saying something, and flown off  to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified!  It would  have been—it should have been the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush's "flying over Katrina" moment.  But nothing was said at all, and nothing  will be said.

It is one thing to bias the news, or have a biased view.  It is another  thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people  information they have a right to know, and I choose right now, openly, and this  is—if I had more time I'd do all the names for it—but The New York  Times, The Washington Post, or the most important  papers that influence the networks, ABC, NBC, and, to a lesser extent—because  CBS has actually been on this story, partly because the president of Libya  appeared on [Bob Schieffer's "Face the Nation"] and said, on Sunday,  while [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] Susan Rice was out—the U.N. ambassador has  no portfolio on this matter—lying, said of the secretary—you know why, notice  the Secretary of State wasn't out there doing this—was on national television,  lying and promoting the White House line while the Libyan president, the very  same moment, is saying "This is a premeditated attack."

Nobody has asked that question.  This morning—take a look at The New  York Times this morning, it's a minor reference.  Oh, now  we've decided that it was a terrorist incident.  But this is—that would  have changed, that should change the politics.

This is not without accomplices, because the incompetence of the [Mitt]  Romney campaign, which I said a week ago is the—my God!—the worst campaign in my  lifetime, and the Republican establishment in general's inability to fight, has  allowed these things to happen in part because they don't do it.  But I  want to go through two other quick points.

[Mohamed] Morsi and Egypt: The President of Egypt, we find out now, that his  whole agenda has been getting the "Blind Sheikh" [Omar Abdel-Rahman], who's  responsible for the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, out of  jail.  Prison.  I've been told specifically, by a member of the  intelligence community that the White House and State Department are negotiating  that now.

They have now come out and denied it, but [Morsi] comes out, that they  ordered—he's the head of the Muslim Brotherhood!  The American people know  what they think of the Muslim Brotherhood: They are against them 11 to 1, all  right? And he's the president of the Muslim Brotherhood, giving $2 billion to  the United States.

He tells them—we had advance warning because they had said they were gonna do  this, attack our embassy.  The president—after the incident, after 48  hours, Mr. Morsi does nothing and says nothing—picks up the phone, calls him,  and demands that they call it off.

On Friday—last Friday, a week ago today—there was supposed to be a big  demonstration.  We thought that would be the big day—no, it disappeared,  because Morsi called it off.  But no press person has investigated this,  just as no press person will go and ask the most obvious questions, when there  are really good stories here, good media stories, and good news stories.   They are in the tank and this is a frightening thing.

Another example has been the polling, which everyone wants to talk to me  about.  Look: There is no doubt that Romney is blowing an election he could  not lose, and has done everything he can to lose it.

But the bias, the polling, it's very complicated.  Some of it is error,  some of it is miscalculation, but some of it is deliberate, in my opinion—to  pump up the numbers using the 2008 base to give a sense of momentum to the Obama  campaign.

When I have polls that have the preference of Democrats over Republicans  higher than it was in 2008, which was a peak Democratic year, I know I am  dealing with a poll that shouldn't be reported.  And yet they are being  done, and they are being done with that knowledge and with that basis for some  people, and the answer, as I said, some of it is incompetence, some of it is  they just don't know, really know, how to handle it, and some of it is on  purpose, and it's purposeful.

But all of it is just to serve a basic point, just as JournoList was—Mr.  Klein's JournoList—but as I said there is no pushback.

We have a political campaign where, to put the best metaphor I can on it,  where the referees on the field are sacking the quarterback of one team,  tripping up their runners, throwing their bodies in front of blockers, and  nobody says anything. The Republicans don't.

The reason you will lose this battle is for one reason.  Despite  organizations like Accuracy In Media and others who are pointing this out, and  the fact that 60 percent of the American people are in on the secret here—I  mean, they're no idiots—Republicans and those candidates who are not the  candidates of the press refuse to call them out.

If I were the Romney campaign I would've been doing this for months!   I'd have been looking at individual reporters!  I would be telling  the American people, "They're not trying to stop me; they're trying to stop  you!  And they are here to do this!"  And I would have made the press  themselves an issue because, until you do, what happens is, they are given the  basic concession of authenticity and accuracy, or that they are credible, by not  doing that.

Now too many reporters, too many political people in the Republican Party in  this town, want to maintain their relationships with the press.  This is  how Sarah Palin got handed over to Katie Couric and to ABC before she was  ready—because Steve Schmidt and others want to preserve their view, their  relationships with the press.

You know, people have their own agendas, and often it's not winning. But  this not-pushing-back is a problem, and they don't do it.  And, you know  what this is a different era: The old argument of "You don't attack someone in  the press"—or "You don't get in a pissing match with someone who buys ink by the  barrel"—doesn't apply anymore.  There are too many outlets, too many ways  to do it, and the country doesn't have the confidence in the press that they  once had.

But all I want to conclude to this is that we face a fundamental danger  here. The fundamental danger is this: I talked about the defense of the  First Amendment. The press's job is to stand in the ramparts and protect  the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized  governmental power.  When they desert those ramparts and decide that they  will now become active participants, that their job is not simply to tell you  who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of  the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth  you are not allowed to know,  they have, then, made themselves a  fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the  enemy of the American people.

And it is a threat to the very future of this country if we allow this stuff  to go on. We have crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery  slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/29/mainstream-media-threatening-our-country-future/#ixzz2848t9lTT

[Exterminator]

When they desert those ramparts and decide that they  will now become active participants, that their job is not simply to tell you  who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of  the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth  you are not allowed to know,  they have, then, made themselves a  fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the  enemy of the American people.

Guy sure did use a lot of words doing exactly that which he concludes is wrong in this paragraph.  What a hypocrite...is that what you meant by why you vote the way you do?

[Henry Hawk]

Guy sure did use a lot of words doing exactly that which he concludes is wrong in this paragraph.  What a hypocrite...is that what you meant by why you vote the way you do?

He is not a journalist or the news.......just a guy with a very well written opinion.

[Bo D]

He is not a journalist or the news.......just a guy with a very well written opinion.

A shill for Faux News

[Henry Hawk]

A shill for Faux News

Call what you will, I'm saying that I think his opinion is spot on....we are facing some serious dangers with our current media.

[Locutus]

Call what you will, I'm saying that I think his opinion is spot on....we are facing some serious dangers with our current media.

The organization who paid him for that piece is the most serious offender.   Too bad you can't see that. 

[The Troll]

  OOOOOH, I get it.  Romney is not a Republican, but really a Democrat and he want Obama win the 2012 election.  I got to say he has put up a good show of being stupid.   

[Henry Hawk]

The organization who paid him for that piece is the most serious offender.   Too bad you can't see that. 

I'm not saying FoxNews is perfect...by no means.

[Henry Hawk]

Here is another article I thought I would share........hey, it's my thread, right?   



What the media isn't telling you about our economy



Judging from the media coverage, you might think that our economy was  improving. You'd be wrong.

The truth is that the slowest recovery on record appears destined to set even  more records for slow growth. That's not good news for President Obama. And more  bad economic news hit him this past week. Here's a short list of indicators:

-- Slow GDP growth: GDP rose at an annual rate of just 1.25% during April through  June,  barely keeping up with the growth in population. The economy has been getting  slower and slower since the end of last year.

-- Durable goods orders plunged 13.2 percent in  August.

-- Median household income has actually fallen. Income has dropped  from $53,718 to $50,678 since the "recovery" started in June 2009.

Despite all this, the news media has been uncharacteristically cheerful the  last couple of months. Take some of the newspaper headlines from August, when  the unemployment rate had gone up again for the second time in  three months, rising from 8.2 to 8.3 percent. The Wall Street Journal headline  read: "Job Gains Spark Stock Rally." The New  York Times reported: "Hiring Picks Up in July, but Data  Gives No Clear Signal."

These headlines can't truly be labeled "dishonest," but they are misleading.  Initial job growth was reported to be 163,000 (later revised downward to  141,000),  but the working age population had grown by 198,000.

The media decided to emphasize the small grain of positive news that they  could find in the report which was the slight uptick in jobs.

But the press isn't always so consistent. You won't be surprised to learn  that when there is a Democratic president in the White House, the media tend to  view things in a positive light. When Republicans are at the helm, they are more  negative.

Kevin Hassett at the American Enterprise Institute and I recently studied newspaper headlines from 1985  to 2004.  We looked at the percentage of newspaper headlines that were positive when new  economic numbers were released. For example, after accounting for the  unemployment rate and new jobs and whether those numbers were increasing or  decreasing, we looked at the percentage of newspaper headlines for those stories  that could be classified as positive, negative, neutral or mixed.

Here's what we found: For the top 10 largest newspaper, for the same types of  unemployment news, the headlines were 15 to 16 percent more positive when a  Democrat was president.

Today, it appears that the mainstream press is particularly eager to support  President Obama. They are bending over backwards to spin the economic numbers in  a positive way.

In September and August the Wall Street Journal and New York Times for gave  Mr. Obama slightly more positive headlines than Bill Clinton would have received  with the same economic news.

President Obama also got over 20 percent more positive headlines than our  data indicated that similarly situated Republicans would have gotten. This more  positive coverage has a real impact on people's perceptions of the economy. More  positive headlines raised people's perceptions that the economy was getting  better. The average difference in positive headlines between Democrats and  Republicans produced about a four-percentage point increase in respondents  viewing the economy as getting better.

In a close election, that difference can mean a lot.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/01/what-media-isnt-telling-about-our-economy/#ixzz285xI33E8

[Sandy Eggo]

http://newshounds.prohost.mobi/207678/show/bdf9626bd1f2e5a65f3a03d0a551f24c&t=86jlogkea79boe8ftom50abkq4

[The Troll]

Here is another article I thought I would share........hey, it's my thread, right?   



What the media isn't telling you about our economy



Judging from the media coverage, you might think that our economy was  improving. You'd be wrong.

The truth is that the slowest recovery on record appears destined to set even  more records for slow growth. That's not good news for President Obama. And more  bad economic news hit him this past week. Here's a short list of indicators:

-- Slow GDP growth: GDP rose at an annual rate of just 1.25% during April through  June,  barely keeping up with the growth in population. The economy has been getting  slower and slower since the end of last year.

-- Durable goods orders plunged 13.2 percent in  August.

-- Median household income has actually fallen. Income has dropped  from $53,718 to $50,678 since the "recovery" started in June 2009.

Despite all this, the news media has been uncharacteristically cheerful the  last couple of months. Take some of the newspaper headlines from August, when  the unemployment rate had gone up again for the second time in  three months, rising from 8.2 to 8.3 percent. The Wall Street Journal headline  read: "Job Gains Spark Stock Rally." The New  York Times reported: "Hiring Picks Up in July, but Data  Gives No Clear Signal."

These headlines can't truly be labeled "dishonest," but they are misleading.  Initial job growth was reported to be 163,000 (later revised downward to  141,000),  but the working age population had grown by 198,000.

The media decided to emphasize the small grain of positive news that they  could find in the report which was the slight uptick in jobs.

But the press isn't always so consistent. You won't be surprised to learn  that when there is a Democratic president in the White House, the media tend to  view things in a positive light. When Republicans are at the helm, they are more  negative.

Kevin Hassett at the American Enterprise Institute and I recently studied newspaper headlines from 1985  to 2004.  We looked at the percentage of newspaper headlines that were positive when new  economic numbers were released. For example, after accounting for the  unemployment rate and new jobs and whether those numbers were increasing or  decreasing, we looked at the percentage of newspaper headlines for those stories  that could be classified as positive, negative, neutral or mixed.

Here's what we found: For the top 10 largest newspaper, for the same types of  unemployment news, the headlines were 15 to 16 percent more positive when a  Democrat was president.

Today, it appears that the mainstream press is particularly eager to support  President Obama. They are bending over backwards to spin the economic numbers in  a positive way.

In September and August the Wall Street Journal and New York Times for gave  Mr. Obama slightly more positive headlines than Bill Clinton would have received  with the same economic news.

President Obama also got over 20 percent more positive headlines than our  data indicated that similarly situated Republicans would have gotten. This more  positive coverage has a real impact on people's perceptions of the economy. More  positive headlines raised people's perceptions that the economy was getting  better. The average difference in positive headlines between Democrats and  Republicans produced about a four-percentage point increase in respondents  viewing the economy as getting better.

In a close election, that difference can mean a lot.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/01/what-media-isnt-telling-about-our-economy/#ixzz285xI33E8

  You show a picture of a foreclosure sign.  What has cause all of the foreclosures?  Why is was George W. and the Republican bankers and the stock marketeers.  That's who.   

[Henry Hawk]

  You show a picture of a foreclosure sign.  What has cause all of the foreclosures?  Why is was George W. and the Republican bankers and the stock marketeers.  That's who.   

Nope! wrong again!  the dems are the one's who made it possible for people to buy homes they really can't afford...........Bush warned everybody, but Barney said all was good.

The democrats SUCK!

[Henry Hawk]

Survey: Doctors choose Romney over Obama

A new survey shows Mitt  Romney with a commanding lead over President Barack  Obama among doctors, with Obamacare helping to sway their votes.

If the election were held today, 55 percent of physicians reported they would  vote for Romney while just 36 percent support Obama, according to a survey  released by Jackson & Coker, a division of Jackson Healthcare, the third  largest health care staffing company in the United States

Fifteen percent of respondents said they were switching their vote from Obama  in 2008 to Romney in 2012. The top reasons cited for this change was the Affordable Care Act and  the failure to address tort reform.

Leadership style, failure to follow through on campaign promises, unemployment and the  general state of the economy were also factors.

"Doctors are highly motivated this year to have their voice heard,  particularly after passage of the Affordable Care Act," said Sandy Garrett, president of Jackson & Coker. "No doubt, the  health care law has stirred many passions in the medical community."

Fifty-five percent of physicians said that they favored "repeal and replace" Obamacare, while 40 percent said "implement and improve".

A Gallup poll from July found that 46 percent of Americans feel  Obamacare is more harmful than helpful to the economy; 36 percent responded the  opposite.

[The Troll]

Survey: Doctors choose Romney over Obama

A new survey shows Mitt  Romney with a commanding lead over President Barack  Obama among doctors, with Obamacare helping to sway their votes.

If the election were held today, 55 percent of physicians reported they would  vote for Romney while just 36 percent support Obama, according to a survey  released by Jackson & Coker, a division of Jackson Healthcare, the third  largest health care staffing company in the United States

Fifteen percent of respondents said they were switching their vote from Obama  in 2008 to Romney in 2012. The top reasons cited for this change was the Affordable Care Act and  the failure to address tort reform.

Leadership style, failure to follow through on campaign promises, unemployment and the  general state of the economy were also factors.

"Doctors are highly motivated this year to have their voice heard,  particularly after passage of the Affordable Care Act," said Sandy Garrett, president of Jackson & Coker. "No doubt, the  health care law has stirred many passions in the medical community."

Fifty-five percent of physicians said that they favored "repeal and replace" Obamacare, while 40 percent said "implement and improve".

A Gallup poll from July found that 46 percent of Americans feel  Obamacare is more harmful than helpful to the economy; 36 percent responded the  opposite.

  Just how many doctors do we have compared to the 47% of the people that Romney doesn't give a damn about.  You know the moochers, the dead beats, the old people, the retired military men and women and the Troll.  You're in the 47% too Henry.   

  But why wouldn't doctors be Republicans.  They are some to the richest people in the country.  I would say that doctors are not in the 47% that Romney doesn't care for.   

  One of my doctors said that he liked Medicare.  He said that he wished that they paid more, but he would rather deal with Medicare than an insurance company.  Every month he got his check from Medicare, but a insurance company wants to screw him over over on everything.  Yes, that is what he said.