Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Michael Medved :: Townhall.com Columnist
Confusion and Contradictions - But Not a Shift to the Left
by Michael Medved
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Conventional wisdom suggests that public opinion has moved decisively- perhaps irrevocably - to the left, but recent polls actually express confusion and contradictions in the national mood.

Far from the “sea change,” “tectonic shift” and “political revolution” that heavy-breathing pundits impute to the glorious dawn of the Age of Obama, major surveys show a glaring contrast between personal admiration for the President and widespread skepticism about the effectiveness of his policies. For instance, a CNN/Opinion Research survey showed that a huge majority of Americans (67%) don’t expect the increased spending in the stimulus package and the budget to improve their financial positions. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll indicated only 24% believed the “economic recovery plan” would help their personal situation, while 19% expected it would “hurt” them and the majority (54%) thought that the new government initiatives (costing at least $15,000 per tax filer) would make no difference at all.

Turning from their own situations to the nation, there is still no majority that believes that Obama’s programs will produce their promised impact; only 49% agreed that “the recovery plan would help the economy.” By a big margin, Americans believe that the recent recovery legislation is “better described as a spending bill, rather than a stimulus bill” (52% to 31%).

Nevertheless, the public overwhelmingly approves of the job Barack Obama is doing as president (60% to 26%) and views him in highly favorable terms (68% to 25%). Nonetheless, many of the same folks who like the president and appreciate his leadership so far wish for “more Republicans in Congress to provide a check on Obama’s power.” (46%)

Looking deeply into any major poll, such contradictions turn up again and again. Big majorities say it is “the responsibility of the federal government” to “make sure all Americans have food,” “make sure all Americans have health care” and “provide housing to those who cannot afford it,” but in the same survey (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics again) three fourths of all respondents worry that “Americans are starting to rely too much on the government and not enough on themselves.”

Amazingly, 76% of independents and a startling 63% of Democrats agree that Americans “rely too much on government” – at the very same time that more than two-thirds of these same Democrats want government to start providing food, housing and health care.

These wildly contradictory numbers suggest a classic head vs. heart dichotomy, rather than some coherent ideological perspective. At the same time that their emotions tell well-intentioned Democrats that a compassionate government should take care of the unfortunate, their minds inform them that it’s a bad thing to rely too much on Uncle Sam. Republicans in this regard possess the strength of much greater consistency: they look askance at the idea of the feds providing basic needs, so it makes perfect sense that 91% of them would agree that their fellow citizens are beginning to depend too much on government and not enough on themselves.

On other issues, Republicans also manage to avoid the awkward and illogical contradictions that plague their more liberal counterparts. Among self-identified GOP’ers, 67% say that “most elected officials in this country” are not “honest or ethical,” so it makes sense that by a huge margin they distrust the federal government.

On the other hand, the majority of Democrats do “generally trust the federal government” (54% to 43%) though their trust of “elected officials” is only marginally better than the trust level of Republicans (36% to 31%). When Democrats say they trust the government at the same time they certify (58% of them) that they distrust “elected officials,” it ought to be obvious that the current tendency to support big government programs is instinctive rather than ideological, situational rather than sweeping and reflecting confusion as much as conviction. No wonder that a bare majority (51%) support the economic recovery plan, while even fewer (49%) believe it will actually help the economy.

In other words, Obama gets credit for bold leadership and sincere efforts to stave off financial collapse, even when people aren’t at all sure that he’s taking the nation in the right direction. In the same way, his election victory a mere four months ago stemmed far more from his personal appeal than from some major ideological switch among voters. According to the definitive exit polls, the percentages of self-described liberals, moderates and conservatives among voters in 2008 remained virtually identical to the composition of the electorate in 2004 – with conservatives registering as exactly 34% in both years, moderates going down (from 45% to 44%), and liberals going up by the same tiny increment (from 21% to 22%).

Voters felt disillusioned with the Republican Party (as the GOP percentage in the electorate declined sharply from 37% to 32%) but they showed no decline whatever in “conservative” identification. In fact, the big majority of Obama’s voters called themselves “conservative” or “moderate” (a combined total of 62%) while only 38% of those who voted for the Democratic nominee actually shared his self-consciously liberal orientation.

This hardly suggests a militant mandate for a new political direction--- nor do numbers that show that Obama won at least in part because he swept constituencies that said they wanted tax cuts, as well as those who demanded a balanced federal budget. At some point in the future, these one-time supporters will notice that their guy has produced the most un-balanced budget in modern history, and will provide major tax increases for everyone (thanks to the radical designs of “cap and trade” as a means to curb global warming).

In fact, in their current spending binge, environmental obsessions, catering to interest groups, appetite for new governmental initiatives, love for political correctness and contempt for conservative values, the Democrats in Washington closely resemble the Democrats in California who’ve run that state’s legislature for some fifty years. The only difference between the Sacramento Dems and the DC Dems is that California law requires a balanced budget, so the day of reckoning has already come to the state capitol. Indeed, a new poll by the Public Policy Institute shows the approval of the state legislature (grappling with a ridiculous $42 billion deficit) hitting a record low of 21%. Meanwhile, the same poll shows 70% of Californians approving of Barack Obama. That means that some 50% of residents in the nation’s largest sate express their love for the President for doing some of the same things that caused them to hate the Democrats in Sacramento. Sooner or later, the confusion may begin to clear away and the divided, puzzling reactions to Obama-nomics could evolve and clarify.

Yes, the arch-liberal complexion of the Democratic majorities that control both houses of Congress means that President Obama may enjoy several more months of getting his way in Washington. But considering the contradictory initial reaction and core values of the nation’s ongoing moderate-conservative majority, it’s also possible that the president will overplay his hand and give the Republicans a chance to reconnect with America’s real majority.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Michael Medved's daily syndicated radio talk show reaches one of the largest national audiences every weekday between 3 and 6 PM, Eastern Time. Michael Medved is the author of eleven books, including the bestsellers What Really Happened to the Class of '65?, Hollywood vs. America, Right Turns and, most recently, The Ten Big Lies About America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Michael Medved's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
FLASH: STATES RIGHTS GAIN SOME GROUND
GOING TO POT MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY
This actually could end up being something good for states.

http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/03/states-going-to -pot-opportunity.html

Polls
I came to three conclusions on this column

A. pollsters are confused
B. those people polled are confused
C. these polls are a waste of time

Intellectual dishonesty?
Michael sounded like he was approaching the point I want to make, but he never really fleshed it out. I would like to point out that although the poll numbers give us some interesting insights, they don't cover the unspoken assumptions that many people have when they answer questions. I am not surprised that many people would answer that the government ought to provide basic necessities; what are they going to say - no? Let the married mother (and her children) who's newly homeless due to domestic violence (no family in the area) starve and freeze in the Alaskan winter lest she "depend too much on the government"?
In the book "Freakonomics," the authors aptly support that people respond to the incentives in their environment. Our current system of public assistance does not encourage someone to better themselves; if you accept government handouts and use them to feed your kids, pay for daycare, and pay your rent while you go to college and eventually become a tax-paying citizen, you did it because you have an ethical problem with taking government handouts for the rest of your life, not because you were given a deadline by which to better your circumstances and get off welfare.
It is also interesting that at least a handful of government assistance programs only kick in if you're working full time, but not if you work any less than 40 hours for ANY reason (even school). That is the biggest problem - if you are working full time and STILL do not make enough to provide for your family, you need to go to school and train yourself for a more lucrative profession, not accept government money the rest of your life.
My overall point to my digression above was that the seemingly "contradictory" poll results are, in all likelihood, not contradictory at all; they provide insights, but primarily reflect the limited explanatory power of polls.

How about the LATEST poll??
Medved writes this article based on polling that was done 1-2 weeks ago...Here's the latest from tonight's Wall Street Journal poll: Obama has a 67% favorability rating. It's at his highest point EVER recorded for Obama via this poll. The country is TWICE as confident in the Dems ability to lead the country out of the economic crisis, when compared to confidence in the Republicans...Finally, 49% of the country have a favorable rating toward Dems in Congress...The bottom line is: The nation, outside of Limbaughland, is behind the POTUS and wants him to succeed.

The Bottom Line:

TruthHurts?
Location: PA
Reply # 1
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 2:18 AM EST How about the LATEST poll??

"The bottom line is: The nation, outside of Limbaughland, is behind the POTUS and wants him to succeed."
________________________________________________

The bottom line is: Want in one hand, and $h!+ in the other...

See which one get's filled up the fastest.

Slightly stale, Medved
but still wise and insightful analysis.

Why wouldn't a "majority" hope that Obama succeeds? They aren't educated any higher than a flock of sheep.

I'm with Rush. If that makes US a permanent minority, it doesn't mean we aren't RIGHT!!!

Obama fail America succeeds
Your still not listening with both ear or the right head. Rush is NOT saying he wants America to FAIL he is saying he wants OBAMA to fail cause if he doesn't America is the loser all around.
We r being sold down the River. We will be taxed to death for YEARS to come. You can't BUY your way out of debt DUH!!!!!! You can't just print money with nothing to back it up.
Obama and who ever is behind him want control over the US and all that intails. MONEY is POWER Power is addtive and their are some who will do anything to have BOTH.
They r fast gaining control of all the major strustures they7 need to get the power theys eek. Banks and energy. control the money you control the masses. Keep holding your hand out waiting for Obama puts something in it mean time you and your familys will starve. Stand up Americans work for a living the worls is not hear to support you or give you anything for free. health care will NOT HeaR ME IT WILL NOT be FREE. It doesn't work IN canda or anywhere else.

In the end any HAND outs that MIGHT come your way will come with a higher price than you could ever imagine your VERY FREEDOM is at stake.

We have always stood up and been men and wome free to earn a living or starve. It matters litte what work you do if it is honest work. Not everybody will be milnaries. Not everybody can be the CEO. I dont care what type goverment you have NO ONE will ever be equal in money r statis it simply can't work thatway. Someone has to do the "dirty" work someone has to be the labor.
At least OUR way of democarcy works the best of any. Now we have elcted a PUPPET who is slowly slipping into taking over ALL> He will take all our freedoms away. You won't dare write things like this you won't dare to march in the streets. If you become ill you will wait week smonths and even YEARS to see a doctor

.


Obama does not mean succes for america
a docotor of their chocie not yours.

WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE ITS TO LATE
YOU CAN HATE PEOPLE like rusg OR gLEN BECK OR SHEAN HANDITY BUT YOU BETTER LISTEN TO THEM. tHEY HAVE THWEIR HANDS ON THE HEART BEAT OF WHATS HAPPENING

GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Breing back pray in schools teach our young respect for their elders and each other. Pull out the rod and stop spoiling them teach them right from wrong. Teach them that America will give back 10 X what you dream of if your willing to WORK for it. You can be anything you want to be if your willing to work for it.

BUT first we need to rid Washington of the crooks who have taken over

We do this by joining forces electing honest Americans in congrees and the head oFFICE .

NO we Do NOT want OBAMA to succed we want AMERICA to succed the two r NOT comaptable

fight for America
Obabma fails America succeeds you can't buy your way out of debt
the lastest polls wTH??? is the matter with people?? he is selling the country down the river yet they r still chanitng OBAMA OBAMA someboy SLAP them to wake them up before its to LATE!!!!!!!1
he has th highest rateing he has ever had ??????????? EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!
Is the average American just BRAIN dead or is it the people who run the polls?
Well since those brain dead elected him I guess they haven't woke up to see the writing on the wall
God Help US!

Misguided Medved
I respect your sincerity Mike, and even enjoy your radio show, but Come On, Stop relying on polls for your logic. If you cant come to grips with the fact that the Media is blanketly whitewashing the public at least go with your gut feelings.

Start?
>two-thirds of these same Democrats want government to start providing food, housing and health care.<

The government has been providing food, housing and health care for decades, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The problem, as MSK in AK eloquently points out in #3, is

> Our current system of public assistance does not encourage someone to better themselves<

We've created an entire class of Americans dependent on government from cradle to grave. The most comprehensive plan to turn that around occurred in the Clinton years with a Republican Congress. During Bush 43, when there could have been a real push to actually end the perpetual nanny state, there was backsliding.

Unless you're seriously disabled, any government assistance should be offset by some kind of work, if only to rebuild the country's work ethic and the principle that there's no free lunch.

You need food stamps?
Spend a few days a month collecting shopping carts from the supermarket parking lot.

You need housing assistance?
Spend a few days a month landscaping the local park.

You need day care assistance?
Spend a few days a month working at a day care facility.

If you're not willing to work, you shouldn't have children, you should resign yourself to poor health and a life of poverty. We simply can't afford you.


Pragmatism, not, ideology, rules
A major misconception here is that Americans are ideologically oriented. Many are, of course, but most are pragmatic folks who want to support politics that are in the best interest of the country and themselves. It shifts back and forth as the situation warrants. It's silly for either right or left to claim any ideological mandate.

The poll showing majority support for universal health care is one of the meaty nuggets in this column, and truly great news for those of us who appreciate America's evolutionary catch-up with the rest of the world. On this issue the
Dems are entirely mainstream and should be hugely rewarded by voters for years to come.


The unfortunate credibility problem
The frustrating reality is that if ‘Republicans get a chance to reconnect with America’s real majority’, as Michael wrote, what will they do when in power? I have no belief that the Republicans would repeal any of this administration’s socialism.


Obama is flamming out
The Obama stimulus plan will not save the Stock Market. The Market is a Leading indicator of the Financial health of the Economy and its tanking. Time for Team Obambi to go back to the drawing board and try again to reinvent the wheel again. Obama was a bad bet and we are seeing the results. Repeat after me "We are the ones we have been waiting for", yeah OK Obama...

A permanant shift Left?
I don't think so.

IMO Obama was elected because the nation had a belly-bush of Bush and the Reps. An unpopular (if not failed) and costly war, profligate spending and scandals by the Rep congress from '00-'06, a tanking economy, and an inarticulate president whose verbal gaffes and inability to articulate his message set a standard I hope is never repeated.

And although Obama ran a very vague campaign of Hope & Change...he WAS quite specific on tax cuts for 95% of americans (now we find out those cuts will be more than offset by increased energy prices due to Cap & Trade). Sounds awfully republican, doesn't it?

So, I don't think voters have shifted Left at all. The one area that has me worred is the under 30 demographic which have been exposed to socialist propaganda (in the MSM and universities) to an unprecedented degree, and who voted for Obama 2:1. But, I'm hoping this is just the typical trend where youngsters are idealistic and tend to vote Dem when young, and then morph into Reps once they have small mouths to feed and a mortgage to pay. Time will tell.

Medved is so right
Yes, Obama's increasing popularity is a bad thing for democrats and their policy proposals. Medved should keep telling himself that. At some point he might even believe it. Hee Hee.

Royinoslo
Both food and health care are necessary.

Picture the federal government taking over your grocery store and running it as best they can. Think they could do a better job than its management is doing now? Think they would keep the shelves well-stocked, the stores clean, the employees friendly, the prices low (without subsidies, as the grocery stores now have none)?

If not, why in the world would you want them to take over health care? To the extent that government is already involved in health care, costs and prices are distorted immensely. Once the government takes over completely, only a fool would train for years to become a physician. And having watched the Democrats angrily insisting that the Medicare drug supplement program should have included the government's ability to negotiate prices with drug companies, do you imagine that drug companies would continue their research and continue to develop life-saving and life-enhancing drugs?

Currently, the Canadians who REALLY NEED immediate and quality health care can travel to the U.S. and get it--without a 6-month wait for an emergency cat-scan. Unfortunately, Americans won't have anywhere to go when they REALLY want quality health care.



Georgann
Name me one socialist ("populist") country where the poor own microwaves and color televisions and I might agree that socialism is good--for ANYONE.

Self-interest (or as Obama would call it, "greed") makes for industriousness and REAL progress. Dependence makes for...dependence.

Lon
As 401Ks continue to die, a few conservatives and moderates (they're the ones who actually HAVE 401Ks) will begin to wonder, "What have we DONE???"

Obama compared the stock market's performance to polls taken during a campaign. He forgot to mention that if those polls are negative enough (like the stock market's performance is now), the wise politician re-thinks his campaign strategy.

Oh, that's right, I said "wise." Never mind. After all, as Obama says, "I won."

Americans do not understand how bad
socialized medicine will be. We just cannot believe it will be as bad as they say. It will, and it will be worse.

My sister in law is Turkish, and her father will die from cancer in the next few weeks. Turkish health care is govt run. It is free. Her dad is wealthy yet goes to the free clinic to save the money. Health care is rationed. He waits for weeks and months to get a doctor's appointment. Once at the doctor visit, he waits in line for treatment, often waiting all day to see the doctor. But Obama says, we will have OPTIONS. Right. The options, just like in Turkey, will be wait, wait, wait for treatment or wait and pay exhorbitant prices for simple treatments. She said that simple surgeries are $20,000 or more.

Herding Cows
Cattle are stupid. They are steak with legs, burgers WITHOUT brains and if they didn’t produce milk would be COMPLETELY useless. When herding them, if you can get a VERY FEW of a LARGE number of them moving in the direction you want the VERY FEW to go, ALL OF THEM will follow.

I give you Obama Voters!

Georgetwin - Herding Cows ..
I understand where you are heading with this. However, I do take exception to your insult to bovines. We own a small herd and they have redeeming qualities not present in the group you are hoping to insult.

v/r,

--- Bud

Neocons and War
The democrats are misinterpreting the election, but the neocons are simply deep in denial. Bush's warmongering ways gave Obama the presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress. Americans are no more in favor of big government, more gun control, etc, than they were in 2000. So Obama will likely overplay his hand and lose Congress like Clinton did--that is, IF the Republican Party drops the warmongering and listens to the non-interventionist, non-imperialist conservatives.

Otherwise, except for the Second Amendment, it's pretty much Tweedledum, Tweedledummer. Bush runs up massive debt, pushes through a big step toward socialized medicine, and plunges the country into costly wars. Obama is running up massive debt, pushing us farther toward socialized everything, and continuing the Bush militarism with bombing of Pakistan and sending more troops to occupy Afghanistan.

If neither party stands for common sense and the vision of the Founders, we are truly headed for ruin.

Bud
Cows do have redeeming qualities, but I WOULD NOT give them the vote! If a butcher gave them grain, hay and water, THEY WOULD VOTE FOR HIM?!?!?!

CHINA & HILLARY ON THE MOVE?
According to alleged info, we won't have any property or jobs if the following is true as stated, "Sources at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing China confirmed that the USA has tendered China a written agreement which grants to the People's Republic of China an option to exercise Eminent Domain with the USA as collateral for China's continued purchase of U.S. Treasury Notes as existing US currency reserves. This written agreement was brought to Beijing by Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton, and was formialized and agreed to during her recent tript to China." Is California and Hawaii high jacked with the blessings of your new president? Just sharing information you need to check out for truth - go to Pensees_of_a_Puzzled_Pilgrim.pdf, Chain Speaks, pdf.

Truthhurts here is something to think
about if you know how to do a little independent thinking. Something I know Modern American Facsist err liberals are unuse to.

Memorable quotes for
"Yes, Prime Minister" (1986)
[Sir Humphrey demonstrates how public surveys can reach opposite conclusions]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.
[survey two]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
[does a double-take]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.

Polls are crapola.
They supposedly measure the "collective" (people's) take on any subject. I am not a part of ANY collective or any group. And I quite frankly don't give a hoot about what others think on issues or people in office. My position is in no way somehow bettered by having a bunch of unknown persons in agreement with me. This is parental logic when dealing with a 4 year old---"just because little Johnny did it doesn't make it OK or right". So why is it so hard for EVERYONE in the media, including this author, to ignore this crud? Where are the new ideas and the different ways of solving problems? That is the question; certainly the answer cannot be far behind!

Merry
"They supposedly measure the "collective" (people's) take on any subject. I am not a part of ANY collective or any group."

Are you male/female? Old/young? Idiot?

"And I quite frankly don't give a hoot about what others think on issues or people in office."

Kind of a funny (stupid) thing to say after (presumably) reading an opinion piece, don't you think? Never mind, you clearly don't.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the GOP!



You and whose army
Thanks but I'll take the Marine Corps.

Duh, I guess ya' figured out by my name that I'm a female but you don't display any knowledge of that fact. Just like a lib---can't read and seeing anything but the obvious is beyond them. Am I young or old? Depends on who you ask---my mother or my sons.

What you just do not get is I have a CHOICE about whether I want to be a member of a group. And I don't as groups are guilty of "groupspeak". As an INDIVIDUAL I cannot be defined by any parameter someone may design. "Women's issues" are not necessarily mine. Nor are "parental issues" necessarily mine. I speak for ME and MY NEEDS, WANTS, and DESIRES are perfectly unique to me; kida like my name. Got it yet MR You and whose army?

Regardless, I won't bother to trade insults with you. I've said my peace---take it or leave it. I DO NOT NEED YOUR APPROVAL!

But Georgann
NO, Madoff, Stanford, BofA, Wellsfargo, Goldman, Merrill.... THOSE ARE OUR ENEMIES.
====
Who's job is it to watch these guys? The regulations are in place, but not enforced. You can blame everyone from the janitor to the ceos, but it was and is the job of congress to bird dog these folks.

By the way most of these guys supported obama.

NY Times Columnist Declares Class War!
I was glad to see that David Brooks has declared in his column that the class war promised by o has officially started. Brooks goes on to call to other conservatives (like himself?)to push back and try to thwart o's headlong rush to further bankrupt our Country. I wonder when some of the other "progressive" folks will wake up and learn that "Yes We Can" is shorthand for "Yes We Can, With YOUR MONEY"?

Copout

The basic argument here is a copout: wanting Obama to fail so America will succeed, as if that is an objective, logical, irrefutable conclusion when it is nothing of the sort. This is the problem with modern conservatives: you treat science (evolution, global warming) as matters of opinion, but politics, sociology and economics (the softest sciences of them all at best) as absolutes beyond question. Who do you think you're kidding? Each other apparently.

Fact is Obama's success might be America's success, and by not even considering that potentiality when you say you want Obama to fail, you reveal yourselves as intellectually lazy partisans, interested in the well-being, not of the country, but of your party.

The Explanation is Simple
These irrational poll results are easy to explain and they speak volumes to the successes achieved by 40 years of Liberal Policy in this country.

When you institute policies designed to create indoctrinated (rather than educated) citizens who have been made to become reliant on government handouts for their sustenance, what else would you expect to achieve than a population full of dumbasses who don't have a clue what cause and effect means, and will vote for president any demagoging huckster who promises to "pay their mortgage and fill up their gas tank."

Personally, I find these poll results to be VERY consistent with my evolved understanding of the intelligence level of a disturbingly large percentage of the American population. Which is to say, is fairly similar to the opinion I have of the people in Venezuela or Zimbabwe also. And given our present trajectory, won't be the only thing we have in common with those two countries.

Science Avenger is talking gibberish
You are just talking out your rectum, so-called Science Avenger. You are just spouting off ad hominem statements that are untethered to any ACTUAL statements made by anyone on this post.

I have seen and dealt with your kind all my adult life, as I am sure most of the posters on TH have. Spouting off words, if taken individually and out of context to any ACTUAL statements being made, seem to suggest some level of coherency of thought. but when analyzed for any underlying evidence of rationality, relevance or logic to any ongoing real-world debate, reveal their speaker for the fraud he is.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that while you MAY have been given a piece of paper with the words College Degree printed on it, you were probably given it for majoring in "Urban Studies," "History of Transgender Oppression in Western Society," "Feminist Studies" or some other faux field of academic "education."

Science Avenger what a misname
global warming isn't about science the science is all against global warming. Global warming is nothing but opinion unsupported by any facts. Of course if you go to any university you will find that in the science department conservatives out number liberals 100 to 1 which the phony science like pol sci, are 100% liberal.

science and liberals mix like oil and water liberals hate anything to do with science it gets in the way of the emotions.

Apologize-Monkeys
It is interesting to note how the GOP has become a party of apologize-monkeys: they all go crawling to Rush to beg His forgiveness.

It's pathetically cute, in a weird GOP way...

science avenger
This is the problem with modern conservatives: you treat science (evolution, global warming) as matters of opinion, but politics, sociology and economics (the softest sciences of them all at best) as absolutes beyond question. Who do you think you're kidding? Each other apparently.
==============
your hero al gore said "the debate is over, there is a consensus among scientist, that man made global warming..blah blah blah." That sir is an opinion, not an absolute!!
By the way evolution is a theory, not a fact!!!

Did you get your degree from Captain Kirk?

Goldwater helped--indubitably!
I can't post on Matt Lewis' blogs for some reason, so I am posting my response to his Goldwater vs. Frum article here. It is somewhat relevant to this column.

I am entirely in agreement with Apollo's analysis. The country club Republicans that an alternate Republican candidate may or may not have helped into office by his campaigning in '64 would not represent a substantial improvement over Democrats. The same welfare state programs would have been implemented as if they had never won the seats, only the conservative identity and credibility would have gone down the drain as well. If you doubt this, just look at McCain.

Frum is motivated to aggrandize historical irrelevancies to psych out conservatives so that they will believe that big government is the inevitable future. It is not.

A politician like Goldwater was a necessary precedent as a spokesman for a new movement. You have to take a historical perspective and remember that major cultural changes take time. Initial setbacks are to be expected. But because his philosophy is valid and that of the left is bankrupt, it eventually succeeded. Reagan was elected because he explicitly projected Goldwater's philosophy. Frum says that Jimmy Carter is what made Reagan possible. I would dispute that, but even if true, that just implies we should seek another Goldwater type now more than ever, for we have a Carter type in office now.

As far as Matt Lewis being pro-Goldwater, I am really glad to hear that. I was very suspicious. I intend to hold him to it!

The importance of a good leader
I would add also to this discussion a point about the "confusion and contradiction" that Michael Medved talks about.

Because of George W. Bush, conservatives generally, as a group, lost our ideological framework. We stagnated ideologically because Bush himself was not a leader in this regard. He was deeply anti-intellectual and emotion-based, and as a result, whenever anyone cried or moaned, he tossed classical principles out the window and began to shove a bunch of leftist crap down the country's throat, i.e., compassionate conservatism and neo-conservatism. In the ensuing chaos, we became distracted by our supposed obligation of personal loyalty to a President who is of our own Party. This caused us to lose our frame of reference.

As an example, when Bush started pushing the faith-based charity concept, I got into a minor argument with another conservative about it. He explained with great relish that the private sector is much more efficient at delegating those funds and overseeing programs than the hated government bureaucrat. He thought he was being a good loyal conservative for knowing this.

He was astonished when I suggested to him that government should not be providing funds to private entities to do charity work at all. It was like he had never contemplated such a concept.

The best way to deal with confusion...
Is to speak the truth in love. What the nation (& especially Republicans) need right now is some real tough love. It's high time we started putting the Democrats and the liberal media on the defensive and illustrated how absurd, hypocritical and prejudiced their positions are. By shining the light of truth we can expose and embarrass those liberals for what they are - posers who just want to feel good about themselves - but the irony is nearly everyone of their policies not only have failed every-time they've been tried they also destroy productivity and economic growth, not to mention the lives of countless people. It's time to call the Left out and turn the tables. This open letter to Michael Steel and Eric Cantor from a blogger at RedState.com describes how every conservative ought to boldly hold the other side accountable and put them on the defensive, please read and share:

http://www.redstate.com/neokong/2009/03/02/an-open-letter-t o-michael-steele-and-eric-cantor/

The California Puzzle
If you want to figure out the conflicting values of California voters. They hate the democratic legislature in the state, but love Obama - you only need to look backward a couple of years when they loved the democrats in our state legislature.. It is called the HOG TROUGH principal. You know where all barn animals and useless people feed. A couple years ago the CA trough was full and kept full by crooked Marxist Liberals by government theft from the private sector. Most of the private sector has left to set up business in more economic climes. The trough is now empty in CA. Oh, look, another Marxist Socialist has been elected to the FEDERAL money pot. Let's pledge our undying love for this fool and maybe he will fill up our trough for us. I am a private business owner in the process of relocating out of state. I hope Obama does fill up the trough in California. It will be just another nail in his coffin and will help his administration to drive this country into a deeper mess, the sooner the better. Then we can get back to some sanity in government with an administration of true, not Bushies, conservatives and rebuild our national economy back to where it once was.
al@bellaproducts.com

Responding to Sandman's Rectum Speak

"You are just talking out your rectum, so-called Science Avenger. You are just spouting off ad hominem statements that are untethered to any ACTUAL statements made by anyone on this post."

LOL, I was referring to roadmaster #6 and Cindy #7. Be careful with that rectum speak stuff if you aren't going to spout off about the contents of the post without bothering to read them.

"I have seen and dealt with your kind all my adult life, as I am sure most of the posters on TH have."

You've dealt with former Republicans who are ticked-off at how their party has become the party of ignorant people who can't be bothered to read threads they comment on your whole life?

[similar gibberish snipped]

"I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that while you MAY have been given a piece of paper with the words College Degree printed on it, you were probably given it for majoring in 'Urban Studies,' 'History of Transgender Oppression in Western Society,' 'Feminist Studies' or some other faux field of academic 'education.'"

Of course you do, because your ideology demands you assume that, and the facts be damned. I'm a math major for what it's worth, but why let reality intrude on your biases right? This is the point I've been making, thanks for providing such a shining example.


Thanks for another great example Richard

Here's Richard giving me another example of what I'm talking about:

"global warming isn't about science the science is all against global warming. Global warming is nothing but opinion unsupported by any facts."

Your are projecting. If you check here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49

you'll see a lengthy list of worldwide scientific organizations that support the manmade global warming hypothesis. You know what the number that denies it is? Zero.

Now you can go ahead and claim all those scientists are wrong, and that somehow you know something they don't. They might be a tough argument to support, but at least it'd be honest. Claiming there is no scientific consensus isn't.

"Of course if you go to any university you will find that in the science department conservatives out number liberals 100 to 1 which the phony science like pol sci, are 100% liberal."

This is what is known as making sh*t up, or MSU, and is a favorite hobby of Republicans these days. You are reciting GOP dogma, and laughable dogma at that, not reality. Look here:

http://scienceblogs.com/

and you'll find the D's outnumber the R's by a considerable margin. You of course had no support for your claim. Shocker.

This is the problem. MSU instead of facts for the GOP.

J-10 for example #3

List J-10 as the latest to prove my point while objecting to it:

"your hero al gore said..."

This is just an attempt to dismiss the science by demonizing its proponent, the same way evolution deniers try to dismiss it by attacking Charles Darwin. Science does not depend on any one person, and no matter what is true of them, the science will remain.

'..."the debate is over, there is a consensus among scientist, that man made global warming..blah blah blah." That sir is an opinion, not an absolute!!'

Uh, no, as I documented above, it is a fact that there is a consensus among scientists. Thanks for illustrating my point concerning GOP confusion over facts, opinions, and speculation so well.

"By the way evolution is a theory, not a fact!!!"

And now we get that tired old canard that shows many of you don't understand the differnce between a theory in science and a theory in everyday usage. In science, "theory" doesn't mean "guess", it refers to an explanation for a large body of facts whose predictions have been repeatedly experimentally verified. There is quantum theory, germ theory, the theory of relativity, evolutionary theory, atomic theory, and a whole host of others. None will ever graduate to be called "fact". They are already on a higher level than fact.

Again, thanks for proving my point so well.

Dems' inconsistencies; "Mark to Market"
No surprise that Democrats in general, liberals in particular, are inconsistent in their thinking. While they are right brain 'touchy-feely' superior, they are left brain morons.

For another cause of the recession besides the sub-prime mortgage fiasco check Steve Forbes' Wall Street Journal editorial for March 6, 2009. We must all write our Congress reps to get the government to do away with the "Mark to market" rules (requiring businesses to carry on their books, market values of commodities and securities at their current market values even when there be no plans for liquidation in the near future). This results in steep drops in corporations' net values at sensitive times, sending otherwise strong companies into downward spirals and self fulfilling predictions of doom in their stock prices

Science Avenger?
For a science avenger you contradict yourself a lot. You decry ad hominem attacks on global warming advocates and say that the science is unaffected. But then you cite supposed "majorities" of scientists in support of your position. Science is independent of who or how many support a theory.

Fact: There has been no global warming for 10 years despite the predictions of every single organization that you cite.

Fact: Your "consensus" attributes the increase in hurricane activity to global warming, which is quite strange because there has been no increase in hurricanes.

These "scientists" look only at the South Atlantic and see increased activity. However, it's not called "South Atlantic Warming" it's called "Global Warming" and the ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) for the entire planet has dramatically dropped over the last 30 years.

Fact: Saint James Hansen, Holy Prophet of Climatic Doom has been wrong in every prediction he ever made. NOAA's historical data is constantly being revised to bring it into alignment with AGW theory. Worse, the temperature stations are hopelessly compromised by improper placement.

Fact: The models don't work. They predict increases in tropical tropospheric temperatures that do not occur. This is not minor discrepancy, it completely invalidates the CO2 theory of global warming.

So stop citing majorities and consensuses, learn something about science and then come back and apologize for your unforgivable level of ignorance.

Shift to the Left?
There has been a shift in America, a shift towards dependence on government.

Americans want more and bigger government, poll after poll shows this. Oh, if you ask them they say they don't want it but in every case they vote (the only poll that counts) for the politician who promises them the most government goodies.

Go ask a farmer if he want's bigger government and he will almost always say no. Then ask him if he want his farm subsidy. Suddenly, there is a whole new attitude towards big government.

"Big government for me, but not for thee"

This is repeated in every industry. Companies want "free trade" for their suppliers but want tariff protection for their products.

It is repeated in every locality. They want smaller government except in the case of the new road through their town or a new school or immigration or gay marriage or steroid use or medical care.

Authoritarianism is on the rise and that is the real shift in America.

Apollo Merely Repeats Denialist Lies

Apollo said: "For a science avenger you contradict yourself a lot. You decry ad hominem attacks on global warming advocates and say that the science is unaffected. But then you cite supposed "majorities" of scientists in support of your position. Science is independent of who or how many support a theory.":

There is no contradiction. It is true that ad hominem attacks on Al Gore, James Hansen, or whoever the devil-of-the-week is from the denialist POV, has no bearing on the science. On the other hand, actual (not supposed as you claim)overwhelming consensus in the scientific literature, manifest in the near universal support of scientific organizations of the world, IS the science. This is the crucial distinction you guys just don't get. "Scientific consensus" doesn't mean "vote", it means "consistent confirmatory peer-reviewed experimental data", and there isn't a shred of it that contradicts the AGW hypothesis.

By contrast, the crank arguments you parrot can be easily refuted:

Apollo said: "There has been no global warming for 10 years despite the predictions of every single organization that you cite."

Wrong. 1998 was warmer than 2007, but that doesn't mean the trend upwad changed. It didn't. Not only is this demonstrably false, as I demonstrated in detail here:

http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/2008/04/kevin-mccullough -on-global-warming.html

But it shows you (as most of the denialists here) don't do your homework and simply repeat anything that fits your preconceived view. Your other assertions are equally worthless and not coincidentally, not supported by source data. In other words, you are making sh*t up, which is the opposite of science.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.