Wall Street Journal employs fake Democratic pollster to discredit Occupy Wall Street

Rupert Murdoch obviously hates Occupy Wall Street. Otherwise, why would his Wall Street Journal be working overtime to trash the movement?

The examples pile up. For instance, a week ago, Murdoch op-ed columnist James Taranto whined about a protester he saw on This Week with Christiane Amanpour. This guy, he’s a propagandist, a fake, a liar, a loser, Taranto wrote. By far, Taranto proved more pathetic: calling Peggy Noonan authentic working class, mocking protests past and present and laying the responsibility for Occupy at the feet of . . Rupert Murdoch. Nice try, James, but few people are that stupid.

Today, the Journal are at it again. And they’re trying to use the same strategy as they did last week: painting the protesters as extremist and inauthentic. Fortunately, their new hitman man was no more up to the task than Taranto was. They employed Fox News contributor and thoroughly disgraced ‘Democratic’ pollster Douglas Schoen for the work:

That’ll get to me crack up pretty quickly. If ever there were a fix in on a survey, it’d be one where Murdoch asked Schoen to poll the folks at Occupy.

Doug, you may remember, was employed by the WaPo wingnuts last fall to pen a sober op-ed on Barack Obama. What was the heroic, humble ‘Democrat’ asking of his Commander in Chief? Only that he quit his job, nothing more. That way, Schoen opined, Barack Obama would be the greatest president ever.

If Doug’s logic escapes you, that’s because it escaped him long before you approached. He beat it out of his heart to make way for cash. Schoen’s profession is playing an angle to a moneyed, Conservative constituency: you wanna know about liberals and Democrats? I’m one of them. I’ll tell you about them, and you’ll love the results.

So here it is:

Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd
In interviews, protesters show that they are leftists out of step with most American voters. Yet Democrats are embracing them anyway.

President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election . .

Already, you can sense his concern. You can bet that Rupert’s worried about the Democrats’ chances in 2012, too.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York’s Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

With Schoen, we know the fix is in. So we’re wary from the beginning. When you poll a group of entrenched protesters, what do you really expect? When people are so angry that they’ve stopped sleeping at home and are now living in a park, what will their answers about issues tell you?

C’mon Doug — they’re pissed. To figure that, you don’t need polls. And thank god for the rage. If it weren’t for angry people, what good would ever come of democratic politics? The whole Murdoch idea behind the poll — Do you trust these people? Aren’t they different from you? — is a joke.

Rupert, buddy, we’re not asking these people to run the country. We’re asking them to change things. What a big difference that makes. All the difference. Just think of what Schoen’s useless polling of the Egyptian rebels would have told you: these people are dangerously out of step with the nation’s centrist values, like tolerance and non-violence. The WSJ would then have you believe that expelling Mubarak would be wrong. That would be wrong. But seeing as how you one-percenters paid Doug so handsomely for such a pretty poll, by all means, go on.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn’t represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

See? It’s laughable. While the Journal thinks it’s doing a great job of smashing your fear buttons — politics! violence! — it’s gotten me plenty encouraged. I’m sure I’m not the only one. I want these people to be civilly facile. I want them to be politically experienced. I’ll even take a few who have considered violence. A mix of those types can make for a pretty effective movement. They’ll certainly be willing to get things done.

And we want things done. Occupy Wall Street have proven they’re not trivial, and they’re dedicated to change. I’m glad that they’re there, and I enthusiastically hail their efforts. As for Schoen’s whatever, appointed with its numbers and percentages . .

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector . .

. . it’s meaningless.

Except for this: it was meant to scare Wall Street Journal readers. Good.

Share