Not Letting Sleeping Dogs Lie

This is a year late, but I only just came across it the other day, and it was SO egregious that I felt I had to write something or my head would explode.  I choose the former.  Besides which, you don't get to hide or claim Sanctuary under the cover of time, most especially when it serves as a spot-on example of the far rights ongoing 8-year effort to try and demean and lie about President Barack Obama and shape his legacy..

It was an article written on the InvestmentWatch website, "Spreading the truth, Empowering the people."  If this is where you get your investment advice, I'd suggest trying elsewhere before you go bankrupt.

The article was headlined in big, bold letters, "Obama Rated Worst President of All Time -- Amongst Political Scientists and Scholars."

I'm not going to go into all the ways the article is a lie, but a few things will suffice.

First, if you look at the list they present from a Quinnipiac Poll (actually, they don't even mention that it's Quinnipiac, I found that out by following a link they provide) -- the description they themselves provide says, quite clearly:  "Worst president since World War II"  Well, gee, so much for "All Time."

Secondly, following that link they provide, it goes to a Wikipedia page.  And when addressing that particular poll, it turns out not to be taken from political scientists and scholars at all (shocking, I know...), but rather it says, quite clearly:  "registered voters."  Well...gee, that's pretty different.  And given how much hatred current Republicans have for the president, it's not even remotely surprising that Barack Obama is going to have scorned heaped on him more than any other president, since WWII -- who many of the voters may not even know much about.

And third, on that very Wikipedia page here that InvestmentWatch links to -- it does provide results of polls taken by actual presidential historians, and the chart shows Barack Obama listed as the fifth BEST of "All Time."

That's all I'll get into. I don't have the stomach for spending any more time shredding the despicable article.  I also don't have any interest (at least at the moment) is tracking down much about "InvestmentWatch."  I suspect it's a shoddy boiler room activity with a good-sounding name. But the point in mentioning all this is not to slam or reveal something this scuzzy from a year ago, but to address the kind of thing that goes out in the ozone and gets picked up by others and repeated and repeated and repeated.  "Did you hear what InvestmentWatch said about...??!"  

And at a certain point, you just have to say enough and shut-up, you're deserving of a place in Hell.