Brad O’Leary’s “Is Obama a Muslim?” Poll

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Right-wing talk show host and WorldNet Daily columnist Brad O’Leary has a fondness for Zogby polls, especially the ones he commissions himself. He used several of them in his 2008 anti-Obama book, The Audacity of Deceit, to make misleading claims about the president. And he frequently cites polls he’s commissioned in his WND columns. (Just to give you the flavor of his polling inquiries, one O’Leary commissioned last year asked, “The stimulus bill would allow undocumented workers, who are also referred to as illegal aliens, who are working and paying taxes to collect a tax rebate check of $500 per person. Do you agree or disagree with this provision?”)

This weekend, he presented a new poll to attendees of the Values Voter Summit in DC which could have been dubbed the “Is Obama a Muslim?” poll. The summit, sponsored by the Family Research Council, is a high-profile gathering of religious right activists who come to DC to hear from potential GOP presidential candidates and other conservative luminaries. But on Saturday afternoon, after the ballroom lights had dimmed and activists headed to smaller break-out sessions around the Omni Shoreham hotel, O’Leary headlined a presentation of new polling data that had been billed with the bait-and-switch title, “Who are the tea party and Christian voters and what do they believe?”

If the values voters on hand thought they might be getting some new insights into what makes the tea party tick, or on whether the tea party movement is really compatible with social conservative set, they may have been sorely disappointed. O’Leary gave a PowerPoint presentation that first examined a burning issue at the top of every tea partier’s agenda these days: spanking. Most of the data he presented looked at whether tea partiers were more or less likely than Democrats or Republicans to believe parents have a legal right to dole out a “modest spanking” to their children. More than 80 percent of tea party respondents believed that they do, compared with 47 percent of Democrats. (The poll was connected to a later presentation by Home School Legal Defense Association head Michael Farris, who is trying to rally the faithful to oppose Senate ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which he believes will make spanking illegal.)

But even more revealing about O’Leary’s data was the section he presented on the 2012 presidential hopefuls and their Christian values. While O’Leary said at the session that Zogby couldn’t in good conscience ask people outright whether they thought Obama was a Muslim because the question itself was too biased, they could ask people whether they thought Obama had “strong Christian values or not.” So that’s what they did. And shockingly, only 37 percent of the respondents thought Obama wasn’t a Muslim—er, was a good Christian, a number that actually went up the less likely someone was to go to church. (Of those who never attend church, 45 percent thought Obama was a good Christian.)

The breakdown was even more interesting when viewed by political loyalties as opposed to church attendance. O’Leary pointed out that a mere 2 percent of tea partiers think Obama has strong Christian values, compared with 5 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Democrats. Oddly enough, Obama seems to score better among NRA members, 37 percent of whom thought he was a good Christian, suggesting his avoiding of gun control issues might be paying dividends in at least one regard. (Either that or NRA members lean more libertarian than either Republicans or tea partiers and are overrepresented in the “never go to church” category.)

NRA members, though, did not think so highly of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; only 4 percent thought she had strong Christian values, while 6 percent of tea partiers did. O’Leary also had Zogby ask the question about Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin. Romney scored better on the “Christian values” scale than Obama—about 60 percent of tea partiers, Republicans and NRA members thought he had good Christian values—but he was roundly trounced by Palin, who is apparently the most righteous of the bunch, even if Democrats don’t see her that way. While 86 percent of tea partiers and 78 percent of NRA members believe Palin’s Christian values are strong, only 28 percent of Democrats do. Christian values are apparently in the eye of the beholder.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate