Shhh! Gallup Reports That Conservatives Outnumber Libs in All 50 States; Media Plays Dumb

Shhh! Gallup Reports That Conservatives Outnumber Libs in All 50 States; Media Plays Dumb

By Tom Blumer (Bio | Archive)
August 17, 2009 - 22:25 ET

You know this is important polling news, because the establishment media is pretending it doesn't exist.

You can't find a relevant reference to it in searches on "Gallup" at the New York Times, AP.org, the Washington Post, or the LA Times. A Google News search on "Gallup conservatives outnumber liberals" (not in quotes) comes up with all of eight results.

The news isn't just that self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals nationwide. That's old hat. The big news from Gallup is that conservatives outnumber liberals in every state in the union, including supposedly uberliberal Vermont and Massachusetts.

Note the Gallup story's clearly impertinent headline, accompanied by an absolutely wrong subheadline (HTs to LifeNews.com, CNS News [linked by Drudge], and an e-mailer):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Political Ideology: "Conservative" Label Prevails in the South
Conservatives outnumber liberals in nearly every state, but not in D.C.

The strength of "conservative" over "liberal" in the realm of political labels is vividly apparent in Gallup's state-level data, where a significantly higher percentage of Americans in most states -- even some solidly Democratic ones -- call themselves conservative rather than liberal.

.... Despite the Democratic Party's political strength -- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country -- more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal. While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level. Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.

The margins may not be "statistically significant," but the reported result still shows conservatives on top in HI (+5), VT (+1) and MA (+1). I also have to wonder how you can have a 5-point or more margin of error in a poll of 160,000 people. (Update: Oh, those are for the individual states, not the entire poll; I should have known that.)

As to how Gallup's online report was organized, the answer is "not well." Sorry guys, it's not exactly news that the conservative label prevails in the South, so why did you emphasize and lead with that obvious point? The news is that conservatism prevails at least slightly in each and every state; the District of Columbia, despite Democrats' fondest wishes, is not a state. It was also "clever" of Gallup to save its 50-state table for Page 2 of its three-page report.

It's hard not to wonder if someone at Gallup did what they did with the headline and subheadline to help ensure that establishment media outlets ignored this stunning news. I would suggest that they didn't have to work that hard; the media would have ignored it anyway.

A final bit of good news: The poll was taken over a spread-out period from January through June. I don't think anyone would want to bet against the percentage of self-identifying conservatives being higher at the end of the polling period than it was in the beginning.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters

Read comments Free email alerts Take action

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

ROFLMAO... This has made

August 17, 2009 - 22:32 ET by bigtimer

ROFLMAO...

This has made my night...heck week...ooops maybe YEAR!

I love how it says at the top... 'Every state but D.C.' ...talk about needing a Spew Alert!

No worries...the SRM will remain MUM about this wee bit of information.

Tom Blumer...you don't know how happy you made this gal tonight. ;-)

Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh

DID YA NOTICE? AND A WARNING...

August 18, 2009 - 07:25 ET by reelman46

G POLL: LIBERALS A MINORITY!

Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll

August 17, 2009, By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

CRAWFISH NOTE: Now how will the lib-media (aka secular socialist) spin this?
Notice when America gets a real A+ liberal and starts trying real A+
liberal policies that voters realize these are simply scary WRONG.
Notice the “campaign of platitudes” shatters when it meets reality,
when it meets economic laws, when it meets America’s Bill of Rights.
Its been said before, just go back to Jimmah Carter, then Klinton (who
was saved by 6 years of a Republican congress doing conservative
things). Does history ever teach those “35% moderate” voters anything?
Xerxes of America is here.

The ugly side here is the socialists are not finished with you by
any stretch. Their sincere principles will now be more toned, patiently
piecemeal and back door. Their goals of 50 years plus have not changed.
A monster growing all-controlling federal gov-meant fed by heavy
taxation and secular values promotion. Demons are created to avoid
blame as vote-power buying debt soars.
Brace yourself for more serious foreign policy blunders beyond “apology
tours”. You just thought huge expensive hidden unread bills was as bad
as it could get or maybe 36+ unelected czars. Their goal line has not
changed, just moved some. Did Carter get better after 8 months?

The national democrats cannot help what they are. Secular
socialists to the core pretending to be anything else but. Its in their
heart to stay. Words without respect are their tools. Remember the
saying each and every day, “Ignore what is said, watch what is done”.
(keep in mind most media still believes 90% of voters are liberals so they report daily as if that were the case)

http://conservablogs...

Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)

So, its not a 50-50 country?

August 17, 2009 - 22:44 ET by Red Jeep

So, its not a 50-50 country? America is not an evenly divided country. Another SRM myth bites the dust.

The 2000 elections

August 17, 2009 - 23:13 ET by shawn228

...sure seemed pretty 50-50 to me

"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalist" gun control advocates, labor unions and trial lawyers"~fitzfong

shawn -- it's just a fact

August 18, 2009 - 04:07 ET by Jack Bauer

shawn -- it's just a fact that most adults are "conservative".

Poll after poll confirms that. It has nothing to do with political party, or the voters perception of what a political party actually stands for.

The fact that the Republican party is still incapable of grasping and expoloiting that is what is interesting. And baffling for conservative activists.

Barack Obama voted for a single payer government bad healthcare system before he voted against it!

Jack, you're on top of

August 18, 2009 - 09:28 ET by mattm

Jack, you're on top of it.

People forget that there is a difference between conservative and Republican, and liberal and Democrat. It's easy to do, but...

Since I started paying attention to politics I have believed that most people are basically conservative, and I used to think the GOP was conservative, but they only "play" conservative when they think it will help.

They should have learned their lesson when Ford got clocked and then Reagan came in and blew the Dems away. But the GOP insiders (RINOs - the Nixonians) hated Reagan almost as much as the Lib-Dems did....

Could be time for a new Party.

Remocrat ! A 3 rd party, that is what gave us the Clintions

August 18, 2009 - 09:37 ET by upcountrywater

I almost voted for Perot twice...So close ...

Is this poll is trying to energize a 3rd party?

We shall get the King of the Czars again.

40% will always vote democrat.

I liked your typo there... mattm Remocrat ha ha

Reagan VS Liberalism

I shouldn't have corrected

August 18, 2009 - 09:45 ET by mattm

I shouldn't have corrected it....

I'm fully aware of the 3rd party problem - some liberals are pushing ranked choice voting to lessen its effect, but there are severe flaws and constitutional problems with it.

The solution is for the GOP to simply stick to its platform and stop nominating RINOS. Had they done that, the 40% that always votes Democrat would probably be down to about 25%.

Politics takes money, and the voting people want a deal.

August 18, 2009 - 10:23 ET by upcountrywater

Conservatives want smaller government....

I agree RINOS suck.

Bureaucrat A wanting more from government, gets more pork.

Bureaucrat B wanting less from government, gets no pork.

Who in this shopping world of ours gets more votes, and pats on the back?

Palin got reamed for her small part in making government just a tiny bit smaller..by taking a break.

Ain't no money in Tort reform, school vouchers, and personal responsibility.

Reagan VS Liberalism

Jack

August 18, 2009 - 22:58 ET by shawn228

Depends on what you consider conservatave, Kathleen Parker and Colin Powell consider themselves conservative, does not seem like they are welcome in the party any longer.

Ideology v. Party

August 18, 2009 - 08:10 ET by KC Mulville

The elections were about political parties, not ideology. The GOP has been consistently and notoriously weak at delivering on any conservative promises, so there was not much enthusiasm for them. That's why conservatism is strong, but Republican party hasn't really gained as much as they should.

What bothers me is that the Republican Party is still stocked to the brim with people who assure us that the only way to victory is to sideline conservatism. While the political ideology has been shown to be strong, the party is as bad as it ever was. The David Frums, Michael Gersons, and Colin Powells are still calling for more liberalism, as they did under Bush. They think they're appealing to independents, but everyone sees it as simply watering down the message instead of improving it.

What the Republican Party needs to do is forget about public relations and work on substance. Take the healthcare debate now. The people are rejecting the Democrat plan, but they still want reform of some kind. When the people turn to the Republicans, do the Republicans have any alternative? It's not enough for the Democrats and Obama to fail; we also need a legitimate alternative. And healthcare is a particular issue where just saying "tax cuts" won't suffice. Right now, I see nothing worthwhile from the GOP.

Shockingly even Kay Bailey

August 18, 2009 - 08:22 ET by dscott

Shockingly even Kay Bailey Hutchinson of TX has a similar message. Most distressing and disappointing. She's running for GOP nominee for Governor.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

The whole problem with this

August 18, 2009 - 08:37 ET by NL207

The whole problem with this debate is the phony notion that healthcare must be reformed. We need to reject the Left's basic thesis: Heathcare is both broken and inferior to healthcare in many other countries. The former is at best questionable and the latter is demonstrably false. The Media and its intellectually corrupt reporting are why people believe reform is needed. Tell the people the whole truth and this "issue" dissappears.

Why must heathcare be reformed?

This is what I love about

August 18, 2009 - 10:16 ET by gmaniac1

This is what I love about being a conservative. We have no ills about calling people out for not acting like a conservative, therefore being held to a higher standard. You will rarely see liberals having a discussion like this because most of the time they can't even admit to being liberal, like it's an embarrassment or something. Or they say nonsense like conservatives give liberals a bad name. No liberals give liberals a bad name, and call conservatives really bad names because they can't win a debate.

When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!

Media "plays" dumb?

August 17, 2009 - 22:46 ET by DJEddle

The media "plays" dumb? I'm not so sure about that.

Rational Liberty: Where Reason and Government Collide - The best website ever!

Playing dumb?

August 17, 2009 - 23:06 ET by blazermaniac

Who in the world says that the media is playing dumb? If you're talking about the State Run Media, forget the word "playing" They are just plain "DUMB."

Can't Wait

August 17, 2009 - 22:59 ET by Tuari

Can't wait to see all this bite the media in the rear big time.

Well Tom ifconservatives outnumber liberals in almost all states

August 17, 2009 - 23:10 ET by shawn228

.....then it goes to show the deep discontent the nation had with their leadership because the GOP lost by triple digit electoral votes. But wait shawn....that was McCain the RINO. Well the GOP also double digit house seats in the house and the Dems almost have a filibuster senate.

Nice sarcasm. Goes to

August 18, 2009 - 08:19 ET by dscott

Nice sarcasm. Goes to show we don't agree with the poll numbers until they agree with us. Never trust polls.

However, let's assume that the polls are correct, then why did the Dems win in 2006 and 2008? Conservatives stayed away from those elections in significant enough numbers in protest of the lack of choice being offered in candidates. I don't blame them but now it's time for all those self identified conservatives to take up their responsibility in 2010 to nominate good candidates and VOTE out the whole bunch of liberals currently in office.

It also goes to show that the real reason why Dems win is because they are well polished at the sales rhetoric in convincing moderates and independents that liberalism is centerist when it's not.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

"However, let's assume that

August 18, 2009 - 08:24 ET by shawn228

"However, let's assume that the polls are correct, then why did the Dems win in 2006 and 2008?"

Because all the polls showed the Dems were going to win and the Dems were going to win big. I am a believer of polls, but not just one or two, only if they done for a extended period of time, like Presidential approval or Congress approval.

The Dems won in 06 and 08 because the public did not like the job George Bush was doing, which might be the case for Obama as well.

Yes and No, Shawn.

August 18, 2009 - 09:10 ET by dscott

Yes and No, Shawn. Conservatives withheld their votes because of their disatisfaction with the GOP on the issues. Don't assume we like liberals personalize our contempt in the same manner, that would be a mistake on your part in understanding us. For Conservatives the issue wasn't personally focused upon W, it was issues where he and many in the GOP leadership failed to uphold the Contract with America and then disasterously pushed Amnesty for Illegals. W is a nice guy, BUT he made mistakes as far as we were concerned.

The GOP platform is entirely crafted by the base of the party, not the leadership (which is totally opposite of the Dem Party), when the leadership fails to follow the platform, the base refuses to follow the leadership. The basic sentiment was if the GOP was going to compromise and go soft (liberal) then it would be better to have an enemy we all clearly recognize than be continually dissappointed at the most inopportune time. The idea by many conservatives in NOT voting was let the Dems win, the GOP leadership gets chasened or replaced in the process, let the country have their fill of the Dems and then conservative GOP candidates would push aside the more liberal GOP ones to retake the country. This is why you hear the whining by RINOs that they are being purged from the party. Obama is merely replaying Carter, In 2010 you will see the first fruits of the plan.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

I would have to disagree Dscott

August 18, 2009 - 09:54 ET by shawn228

Almost 60 million people voted for McCAin, and that is a huge number of people. Sarah Palin ignited the base and conservatives came out in droves. The elections will never be decided by dems or conservatives, because they will almost always vote for the nominee.

The elections will always be decided by independents like me that do not vote along party lines and can make an informed decision without bias. BTW I voted for McCain.

Oh I agree that moderates

August 18, 2009 - 15:21 ET by dscott

Oh I agree that moderates and independents are the swing voters. However, you are missing the point of the polls you believe in, there are a lot more conservatives than generally acknowledged and if a significant portion of them decide as in 2006 and 2008 to stay home, they can and do determine the election as well. Don't confuse Obama's personal victory with the rest of the Dems running for Congress.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

dscott

August 19, 2009 - 08:18 ET by shawn228

I do not believe I am missing the point at all. I take the poll about there more conservatives than liberals with a grain of salt because it was not taken through a period of time.

"Don't confuse Obama's personal victory with the rest of the Dems running for Congress."

To me these go hand in hand, because the American people were showing they not happy with the leadership especially at the very top.

The Dem congress had a approval rating of around 20 percent, but yet they gained seats, are you really telling me that it had nothing to with the Bush admins approval rating?

To answer your question

August 19, 2009 - 08:55 ET by dscott

To answer your question consicely, NO, the Dems gains had nothing to do with Bush's approval #s since his individual #s were higher than theirs as a whole. Public opinion polls frequently rate Congress as a whole lower than individual members, so in my opinion you are mixing apples and oranges.

The Dems swept the GOP from Congress because conservatives refused to hold their noses any longer to vote for GOP candidates whom they considered RINOs, thus tipping the balance in the Dems favor. A lack of votes is equally effective as votes for the other candidate.

Of course it also helped Dems when they talked a good game without meaning anything they said... such as being against the war when in fact they aren't now against it as Cindy Sheehan has publicly acknowledged. Did they keep their 2006 campaign promise to lower the cost of gasoline? NOT! They made it worse by opposing domestic drilling of any kind and then covered themselves with the narrative that the war in Iraq kept up the price of oil never mind the spike in prices occured 5 years after the invasion. A salesman can get you to buy just about anything if they make enough outlandish promises like Joe Iszuzu.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

Sorry Dscott

August 19, 2009 - 09:25 ET by shawn228

The congressional elections in 06 had as much to do with Bush's performance as much as it had to do with the Delay, Frist and Foley scandals.

I'm not saying he was responsible for how bad it was, but if the price of gas, his public perception of Katrina, the price of oil and the two wars were going better, I am convinced that the GOP would have kept control of both chambers of congress

shawn228,

August 19, 2009 - 10:55 ET by Agnostic

I would say it had as much to do with the media displayed performance of President Bush as it did with the scandals.

If the price of gas, his public perception of Katrina, the price of oil and the two wars were going better the media and the Democrats would have found something else to focus on. As it is none of those perceptions were as bad as the media created images but they finally were able to focus on the scandals and win the elections. Scandals that really were dropped from the headlines as soon as the elections were over.

I will never forgive the liberals for making me constantly defend George Bush.

A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections

Agnostic

August 19, 2009 - 23:51 ET by MrShy

"I will never forgive the liberals for making me constantly defend George Bush."

Perfect! If I'm seething in this post-Bush era, that goes right to the heart of why.

shawn

August 19, 2009 - 23:53 ET by MrShy

"The elections will always be decided by independents like me that do not vote along party lines and can make an informed decision without bias."

Well, thanks for the nice compliment there of those that pick a left or right party vs. a center one, oh holy Independent. I could make the same arrogant claim (sorry shawn, but that's what you're being) about being totally without bias and in the middle, but I favor a good 80% of what the conservative platform is all about. That doesn't make me more "uninformed", it makes, well, me.

EDIT: I informed myself quite well, and chose a good number of what conservatives champion.

Regardless shy

August 20, 2009 - 00:01 ET by shawn228

You are bias with your "hero worship" of George Bush. I am not putting words in you mouth, you have admtted more than once how about your man crush

Like I said before, I was a Reagan fan, just like I was Clinton fan, if the people in charge did a good job, I respected that. Sorry Shy your mind if too clouded with you hatred of Democrats to make a unbiased decision. Perhaps you might want to re think that losing all your lib friends on Facebook and your liberal brothers might not be all their fault, perhaps you might have your fair share of blame as well.

in defense of shy

August 20, 2009 - 00:07 ET by candance

I've witnessed the anger and hostility from his liberal "friends" in NY, and they are not peaceloving moderates like you.

Candance

August 20, 2009 - 00:19 ET by shawn228

I agree that far left libs are the very angry and debate with emotion and not facts. However do you remember how he wanted to kick me out of chat that night because I did not agree with something he said? I also remember his petulant behavior right after the election. I take Shy's side over the liberals because they are angry childish people and also because even though we have disagreements, he is my friend, I am just saying I hardly believe he is innocent in those arguements.

shawn

August 20, 2009 - 00:30 ET by MrShy

"Hero worship" of George Bush??

Good grief, knock it off, shawn. And I just read the last part of your post and now I might just barf.

You just made blanket statements about the man (Bush) and when I took you to task on them you came back to me with practically empty bullets. Two measly, empty bullets at that. That's a lot of bias right there on your part, and you don't even see it.

I had to live -- like Can is pointing out above -- around people at parties all cheering when one guy proclaimed "I hope he's assassinated", or a co-worker saying the same thing giddily and without any fear. Relatives, friends, all foaming at the mouth over this good man and fine president, week in and week out, year after year.

Bush did a good job, shawn, and I respect THAT. You can now apologize to me for insulting my intelligence and belittling my capacity to be unclouded and unbiased in my view of things. I believe you are projecting. Not to mention, being full of yourself.

I might not get that apology, but well, I asked.

Which is why I, for one, am

August 18, 2009 - 12:17 ET by Snappy

Which is why I, for one, am actually glad Obama won this election. If McCain had won we would still be in the same boat except all the finger pointing would still be towards the Republican side of the ailse and the ineptness of the current legislators and administration would not be so boldly on display. Furthermore we would probably be getting ready to legalize all the illegals in the country to boot.

"Furthermore we would

August 18, 2009 - 13:48 ET by ckc1227

"Furthermore we would probably be getting ready to legalize all the illegals in the country to boot."

We still are. That's coming up in 2010 per Obama himself.

"The Dems won in 06 and 08

August 18, 2009 - 14:13 ET by ckc1227

"The Dems won in 06 and 08 because the public did not like the job
George Bush was doing, which might be the case for Obama as well."

They didn't like the job the media told them Bush was doing. The unemployment rate in October 2006 was 4.4%, jobs were being created, gas was $2.21 a gallon, and the economy was in decent shape. The Dow was up 10.4% for the year at that point, and 3.5% for the month, and ended the month at 13,795.

Yes, the war was going on, but had it been covered a little more objectively, there may not have been so much negativity towards it. Case in point: No one talks about the war now in the media, and as a result, no one in the public seems to care about it...not even on the left.

If Obama were getting the same type of coverage as Bush, his approval rating would be in the 30's by now. It may still get there, but not without the media fighting it every step of the way. On the other hand, if Obama eventually gets the same economic numbers as Bush, he will go down as the greatest president ever in the history of the United States, and possibly the greatest leader the world has ever known.

Well clk

August 18, 2009 - 22:17 ET by shawn228

The Republican did fine from 2000-2004 with the same media. With help from the "Boy Genius" Karl Rove they not only won the Presidency, but controlled both chambers of congress.

Seems many Republican politicians are too busy pointing fingers at Acorn and the people that ran the polls than figure out to win in 2010. The strategy seems to be to wait to see how badly Obama does. That strategy seems to working right now, but if the economy and jobs start to come back in early 2010, the GOP could be in for another world of hurt.

The mere fact that one

August 20, 2009 - 01:44 ET by Indiana Joe

The mere fact that one manages to beat someone who is "stacking the deck" does not in any way mitigate the fact that the deck was stacked. And it does not make continued deck-stacking any more excusable when one starts losing to that stacked deck.

It's a circular argument. "If the deck was stacked, how did you win? Therefore the deck wasn't stacked. But, if it was, you continued playing when you knew the deck was stacked, so you had full knowledge when you lost." I can walk out of a crooked card game. But a public figure can't "walk out" of the crooked media game.

ckc... You said it

August 18, 2009 - 22:29 ET by bigtimer

ckc...

You said it all...nail on head.

Shawn...there is a fight going on in the repub party as well...conservatives v RINOs...(that's how I look at it)...

..going to be a very interesting next two elections...

Now...ACORN needs to go, their control of the Census, let alone the WH Control is beneath contempt, plus them being tax-payer funded, along with their sister groups...and I won't even get into the BS Czar crap...that should be made a HUGE deal out of by the repubs...and hasn't been...what I fear is they feel they will use this too if they ever gain back power, the good ol' turnabout is fair play BS.

God help this country if I am right.

Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh

BT

August 18, 2009 - 22:41 ET by shawn228

I realize there is fight going on the republican party and it can't decide which direction it wants to go. CK is right, there is a double standard with the press and it will always be there.

I'm just saying there has to be a better strategy than waiting for Obama to screw up

Heck shawn...no strategy

August 18, 2009 - 22:47 ET by bigtimer

Heck shawn...no strategy could out do what O and his team are doing to themselves....all by themselves.

...the repub party couldn't have been together enough to do this...

No matter...it works for me just fine so far.

Go O Go!

...oh and puhleeze stay on the TV screens daily...nobody is sick of seeing you either 24/7..NO ONE!

Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh

Your right bt

August 18, 2009 - 22:56 ET by shawn228

Obama is doing a horrible job and doing himself in quite nicely, however like I said if jobs and the economy come back in early 2010, the msm will be very quick to give him credit, so I would hope there is some form of plan B

Come on shawn...WHEN AREN'T

August 18, 2009 - 23:02 ET by bigtimer

Come on shawn...WHEN AREN'T THE SRM GIVING HIM CREDIT?!

...along with excuse after excuse with their lying spin.

It's disgusting...the likes of which I have never seen...and I never thought the press couldn't get any worse when it came to the the defense of the Clintoon Duo...

Well, heck, we've all seen them thrown under the bus by the SRM as well...

They put this empty-suit messiah of theirs in there...they will circle his halo until the end.

Which at this rate, will be in '12.

Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh

Well bt ya gotta admit

August 18, 2009 - 23:05 ET by shawn228

Obama does make Clinton's Presidency look good ;-) Yes, the GOP has very good chance on taking back the House and Senate in 2010, but regardless I always remember the GOP on being very cohesive party and what they stood for, seems like the past few years, they cannot decide.

Yep...we're talking in

August 18, 2009 - 23:15 ET by bigtimer

Yep...we're talking in circles now...there is a fight going on inside the repub party as well...we shall see what happens on down the line...time will tell...

I hope the moderate RINOs get a clue, the so-called big-wigs behind the scenes better wake up fast and smell the coffee...that's my hope...or the repub party will still be dog-paddling themselves.

The TH Meetings, the Tea Parties should be enough of a call to the big-wigs, I fear they still do not get it in the long run of it all.

We shall see, and they will still hear from us...the Silent Majority has awakened, to the likes of which I have never seen in my lifetime...it would do well for these arrogant congress-critters to pay attention...then again, being at the hog trough too long takes some harsh measure to get rid of them....'10 & '12 work for me.

Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh

Well BT

August 18, 2009 - 23:22 ET by shawn228

as an independent voter it is very frustrating, was not a fan of Bush or the GOP congress. The Dems took control of congress, things got worse, The Dems took control of the Oval office things got even more worse......yes even worse than Bush in my eyes.

Politcal party does not matter to me, only how well our elected leaders do their jobs, but with this out of control spending, 2 wars, inflation, threat of terrorism....God help us.

Off to bed bt, have a good night.

You as well. Obama's a

August 18, 2009 - 23:24 ET by bigtimer

You as well.

Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh

Fascinating... When you

August 19, 2009 - 07:40 ET by dscott

Fascinating...

When you say things got worse when Dems took control could you be a little more specific? This mea culpa of yours interests me because of your liberal leanings. Ok, let's set aside party loyalty since you are saying you are an "independent" for a moment and tell us briefly what in your opinion got worse when the Dems took control of office and then of the oval office? We already got the point about the GOP and Bush so you don't need to belabor that.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

Not to go back to Bush...

August 19, 2009 - 08:16 ET by shawn228

.....but it is relevant to how to explain my thinking. My biggest issues with the Bush adminstration was

the national debt
the secrecy
the arrogance
the pandering to social conservatives

After the Dems took control of congress in 06 the national debt started climbing even at a higher rate, After Obama took over, he spent more than both wars combined on a ridiculous stimulus that our country cannot sustain.

There is even talk about another stimulus. Pelosi is very arrogant and secretive with her arrogance with her CIA thing and refuses to explain any further and Obama will never admit that he was wrong about the surge.

Obama might not pander to social conservatives, but he sure does seem to pander to far leftys especially the gays

I was a Reagan fan, just like I was a Clinton fan and neither of the the 2 Bush's or Obama have done close to the job they did

~Shawnee

August 19, 2009 - 08:30 ET by choselife3x

What did the Bush admin do that you refer to as the pandering to social conservatives?

Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today

Well Chose

August 19, 2009 - 22:56 ET by shawn228

.....I don't know if you will agree this is pandering, but I did not like his stance on his Veto's on Federal Funded Stem Cell Research, I did not like how he changed sex education to absintence only programs, and even though I do not agree with gay marriage, I feel threatening a constitutional ban on gay marriage was pandering.

~Okay

August 19, 2009 - 23:10 ET by choselife3x

I know you know this, but liberals always leave the important part out so I'll put it in here for the general edification of NB readers.

Bush banned federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. He didn't make it against the law for private enterprise to do it.

Sex ed: As far as I'm concerned, the government has no business meddling in education. Period. BUT, the fact is that abstinence is the ONLY sure-fire way of preventing STD's and unwanted pregnancies. If you're going to teach something, do you teach the sure-fire method or the "this may work if nothing goes wrong" method?

You of all people know that teenagers don't need to learn about 'safe sex' in school, they can find out whatever they want by looking at a computer, magazine, book at the library, talking to their friends, or *gasp* their parents. Do you think that Bristol Palin and her boyfriend didn't know what a condom was or how to put it on? If you're smart enough to know where to put it, you're smart enough to cover it first. (are you blushing yet?;-)

threatening a constitution of ban on gay marriage

They didn't do it. Didn't do anything about abortion, either. Didn't do anything about illegal immigration....

Looks like it's in the eye of the beholder...you're looking at him from the left and I'm looking at him from the right.

Anyway, I just asked because I was curious about what, specifically, pandering meant to you. I couldn't think of much that Bush did that social conservatives liked!

Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today

Social conservatives

August 19, 2009 - 23:17 ET by Unsane

Oh, I don't know, chose. Methinks social conservatives like the SCOTUS picks Bush left us. (Well, at least I think they do.)

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Chose

August 19, 2009 - 23:20 ET by shawn228

I'm not arguing with you on is what he did is right or not, but imo this is what I mean by pandering.

Social conservatives

August 20, 2009 - 00:03 ET by Unsane

I know you and many people think stem cell research is a sham, but the majority of congress wanted it to happen along with many republican votes and according to polls the majority of American people wanted it as well. Adult stem cells have been a gold mine. Embryonic stem cells less so. And apparently you didn't read choselife's response: federal funding was stopped. What, is there some rule someplace where no scientific or medical discovery can be made without the federal government?

People can do embryonic stem cell research all day and all night long ad infinitum with private funds. What's the problem?

Oh, and your obsessive devotion to polls continues, I see. Polls, polls, polls. Apparently politicians can't be permitted to make the all critical decision of whether the toilet paper is dispensed from the roll "under" or "over" without a damned poll.

I'm not saying the Government should involve themselves in sex ed, but if you are going to spend billions of dollars of tax payer money, there is nothing with teaching abstinence is the best method, but also teach about condoms as well. I think the government shouldn't teach this at all. Besides, there ARE some things we somehow figure out. Hell, how did humanity get here over millions of years without SEX EDUCATION???

You know why else government shouldn't be teaching sex ed, and why they should be leaving that to parents, and, oh, I don't know, maybe teaching READING, critical thinking, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, among many other amazing subjects? Well, talk to me again in early October when I once again get to deal with the consequences of our wonderful education system.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

August 20, 2009 - 00:22 ET by shawn228

snore......yawn.....Oh sorry did you say something? ;-)

unsane wins

August 20, 2009 - 04:03 ET by MrShy

unsane: 1

the person who fails to counter unsane's great points, laid out in great detail: 0

This message brought to you by Free Stinker (TM)

Wow Shy

August 20, 2009 - 05:58 ET by shawn228

I must have really hit a nerve tonight and your following me around and answering my post to other posters like a love sick puppy.

I have answered enough of Unsane's post to last two lifetimes, just don't feel like dealing with it tonight. I truly hope you feel better in the morning shy.....its really sad that you using a schtick from someone that I consider a buddy and respect against me, but if it makes you feel better about yourself...well by all means.

In re: stem cells

August 20, 2009 - 02:06 ET by Indiana Joe

Yeah, the left likes to talk about "stem cells," without delineating between "adult" and "fetal." Kind of like the lack of distinction between "legal" and "illegal" in the immigration debate.

As I've mentioned here before, I am myself the beneficiary of "adult" stem cell research. In fact, I'm (luckily) the beneficiary of my own stem cells. And as Unsane points out, that research has been a true "gold mine."

But, as my lead stem-cell transplant doctor has explained, while fetal stem cells hold much theoretical promise, not a single treatment or cure has resulted from that research. And, again, cutting off federal funding does not stop the research. It continues, with no real "successes" to date.

Excellent, we can agree on

August 19, 2009 - 08:57 ET by dscott

Excellent, we can agree on these points...

the national debt
the secrecy
the arrogance

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

Secrecy?

August 19, 2009 - 23:14 ET by Unsane

His Majesty The Shahinshah has a government that makes Bush's look like a wide open book!

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Secrecy?

August 19, 2009 - 23:14 ET by Unsane

His Majesty The Shahinshah has a government that makes Bush's look like a wide open book!

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

shawn

August 19, 2009 - 23:16 ET by MrShy

What did Bush do that was so arrogant?

Also, what did he do that was so secretive, besides the wire-tapping thing? He presided over a post-9/11 world, dealing with an unprecedented enemy, you're aware of that, right?

Shy

August 19, 2009 - 23:28 ET by shawn228

No matter what I say, your not going to agree and use your predictable tactic of .....Oh Obama said this or Obama said that and turn the subject to the evil democrats , so why bother?

edit

Just like the poster above is doing "twice"

shawn

August 19, 2009 - 23:29 ET by MrShy

You put it out there, so I'm asking.

What did Bush do that was so arrogant?

And what did he do that was so secretive?

When you answer, I could respond any number of ways. It's called debating.

I like debates

August 19, 2009 - 23:48 ET by shawn228

I like discussing the subject. I don't like finger pointing and going off topic.

Okay here is just one and if can keep Obama and fingerpointing out of it, hopefully we can continue.

Lets talk about the attorney firings. If Bush fired the attorneys and people asked him why and he said None of your damn business, I would not have liked it, but that would have been his right.

Instead the AG the deputy AG and many others lost their jobs, all because of a coverup for the President

edit

And one more. "Scooter Libby " To start off I do not believe he deserved what he got from a court of law, but why would he not parden or commune his sentence from day 1? Why would he let this long spectacle go on and on for months hoping the jury would not find him guilty and commune his sentence only after he found out he would serve jail time, to me if he pardened him right away, fine, but pardening him after all the time and effort that went into the case was arrogant

hey shawn

August 19, 2009 - 23:58 ET by candance

Just popping in here with a few thoughts:

- I somewhat agree about the attorney firings. Bush tried too hard and it opened a can of worms. IMO that was a tactical mistake more than a coverup.

- You think Bush should have pardoned Libby before the trial? How bad would that have been spun, Bush pardoning people and canceling trials so the evidence never gets out. Maybe Bush just wanted to see how much evidence there really was, to see if there was anything he didn't know about, and when it all came out that it wasn't that bad, he felt like a pardon was okay. You're sitting there saying Libby did not deserve his punishment. If the case was never made public you wouldn't know what he deserved.

Cx2

August 20, 2009 - 00:13 ET by MrShy

I guess my point was, going in with shawn, that yeah... Bush = not all that arrogant or secretive. I'm not going to compare him to any other president, but in my eyes, unless someone can really show me some MEAT, it's hogwash.

You even admit that Bush tried too hard and made a mistake in the whole attorney's firing thing. Again, nothing at all intentionally skeevy and secretive. And he gives me that one example, and that's it.

EDIT: "How bad would that have been spun?" .... which points to item #1 again, regarding the AG's. Again, the cards stacked against this man by the MSM and Bush-hating/disdaining culture that permeated during his whole tenure was insane, IMO. Like nothing before or after, I think.

well, shy

August 20, 2009 - 00:16 ET by candance

Abe Lincoln had it as bad as Bush.

Cx2

August 20, 2009 - 00:19 ET by MrShy

Sorry, I'm not that old. :p

And hey, all of my efforts, and I get two words and three exclamation points? (off-topic, shawn/others)

Hmmm..... :)

lol shy

August 20, 2009 - 00:25 ET by candance

Sorry. Laziness, I know. It really is coming along well.

Cx2

August 20, 2009 - 00:41 ET by MrShy

Thanks. Any enthusiasm you send my way goes a long way, keep in mind :)

Popping in myself

August 20, 2009 - 01:59 ET by Indiana Joe

Regarding the AGs, didn't Clinton fire ALL of them very early in his first term? Kind of a house-cleaning where he could install his own hand-picked guys? And it was seen as "Presidential Privilege?" I can't understand why this point wasn't raised more during the Bush AG "scandal." The phrase "tempest in a teapot" comes to mind in re that debacle!

shawn

August 20, 2009 - 00:04 ET by MrShy

So, your statements about Bush, who was in office for two terms, being secretive and arrogant during his 8 years as president, are backed up with:

Secretive -- The attorneys he fired, who were hired to serve him and he has every right to fire (as you said as much and are aware) led to some way that he handled it with the AG, etc., and you believe there was some coverup? What coverup?

Arrogant -- Him holding out on pardoning Scooter Libby, over the whole CIA/Valerie Plame mess -- which, in reality, was a witch hunt by the Dems and the MSM -- has you classifying his presidency as arrogant?

That's light stuff, shawn. It's why I asked.

Shy

August 20, 2009 - 00:28 ET by shawn228

Your making like the AG firings is light stuff, it could have been light stuff, but many people lost their jobs. I don't remember a AG having to resign mid-term in connection to a scandal.

Sorry I don't believe wasting peoples time with a long trial, then communing the sentence after everything was said and done light stuff, there are other examples, but I started out with just these two, for what it worth thank you for staying on topic.

shawn

August 20, 2009 - 00:35 ET by MrShy

You have very little to go on, sorry. For secrecy, you gave me one thing -- that Candance and myself reminded you was a sticky situation for Bush, no less. For arrogance, again, one thing, and that one has all sorts of holes in it.

Can you give me more, or is that all you have?

August 20, 2009 - 00:49 ET by shawn228

"Can you give me more, or is that all you have?"

Like I said shy no matter what I say you will disagree with it anyways. Regarding your post a few above, I will not apologize about saying you are bias, because I still believe it, but I will apologize for bringing up your facebook enemies and your liberal brothers, that was kind of a cheap shot on my part.

shawn

August 20, 2009 - 00:58 ET by MrShy

Yeah, that was a cheap shot, and unnecessary. No big deal, but really not cool.

And you are biased, my friend, if AG firings in the middle of a term is the ONLY THING you can give me regarding his secrecy. Again, it was a sticky thing, PR-wise, as even you admitted to.

You did not much care for Bush, so you're cherry-picking one thing. One thing. Over an 8 year double-term. Do you know how much scandalous stuff went on during Clinton's days, since you have professed to being such an admirer of his? Do you want that long list? Yes, I'm comparing, but showing you that there is no comparison.

But that's just you being biased. We all are a bit. Human nature. But I'm less than you.

shy

August 20, 2009 - 01:03 ET by shawn228

there is also the thing about him saying he would keep Donald Rumsfield and firing/accepting his resignation one day after the Dems took control on congress.

I have a few more examples, but I will agree to disagree with you on this, once again sorry for letting my liberal emotions getting the better of me, off to bed, have a good night.

shawn

August 20, 2009 - 01:11 ET by MrShy

I have split ends. Can you help me? Being as your so good at splitting hairs (your reach with Bush's firings), thought maybe you also know the cure for this.

I'm certainly open to seeing your further examples if you want to resume this tomorrow.

New to posting here, but

August 20, 2009 - 00:27 ET by RescuedByRush

New to posting here, but have seen you as a regular poster, so trust me, I'm not picking a fight. But didn't Bush fire something like 8 or 9 people? Clinton fired 90+ if I remember correctly. Since this is a site dedicated to illuminating media bias, it would appear that by picking this example you might be reflecting the impact of this bias. I guess I just find it curious that you'd pick this example when dubya's immediate predecessor makes him look like a pansy in this area.

RescuedbyRush

August 20, 2009 - 00:31 ET by shawn228

Welcome to NB. I hope you enjoy things here, there are some great posters on this site that offer great points and counterpoints.

Clinton fired all the attorneys, just like Reagan fired all the attorneys, quick question can you name me a President that fired this many attorneys mid-term?

shawn

August 20, 2009 - 00:39 ET by MrShy

You're letting your bias for Clinton and Reagan cloud your judgement. It's okay, though, it happens to the best of us.

ummmm shy

August 20, 2009 - 00:51 ET by shawn228

you think you can answer the question? Is there another President that fired attorneys mid-term?

No, I can't, (answer your

August 20, 2009 - 01:01 ET by RescuedByRush

No, I can't, (answer your quick question, that is). In fact, I don't even understand the question because I don't know whether it was dubya or Clinton that executed mid-term firings. Nor do I know what the significance is of when in one's term the firing occurs. ~9 vs ~90, (please forgive the lack of certainty on the exact numbers) says a lot. Unless there is some, unbeknownst to me, mitigating factor for when the firing occurs in an executive's term, I just don't like this example for slamming dubya.

RBR

August 20, 2009 - 01:05 ET by MrShy

First off, welcome.

Second off, shawn's just being biased. He's obsessively focusing on the mid-term issue when, yeah, the numbers clearly are no match with previous presidents. You see, he liked Clinton (and Reagan) more than Bush, so he's lobbying for them and against Bush with his clouded and biased take on things.

RBR

August 20, 2009 - 01:06 ET by shawn228

Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, he had a right to get rid of them for any reason, but he said it was not political.

Many people ended up losing their jobs because that statement was not true.

shawn

August 20, 2009 - 01:10 ET by MrShy

Yes, I'm following you around now because you have such a straw man, I don't know whether to laugh or cry:

"he had a right to get rid of them for any reason, but he said it was not political."

What a scandal and secrecy-bombshell we have on our hands!

Sheesh.

EDIT: and good night.

in fairness

August 20, 2009 - 03:40 ET by Agnostic

If you fire all the people who oppose your policies and put in place your own people it significantly reduces the necessity to fire someone at a later date. Once again Bush reached across the aisle and got slapped in the face for his effort.

I'll never forgive the liberals for making me constantly defend George Bush.

A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections

Uh...I guess that is why we

August 18, 2009 - 02:59 ET by usinkorea

Uh...I guess that is why we conservatives swept the last election across the board.....

Seriously, I don't think we can jump for joy at such a poll until after it is proven in the next election...

If this is true we need

August 18, 2009 - 04:23 ET by Rowane

If this is true we need these lazy arsed conservatives to the polls more to vote out the fools.

I don't care how much money you make voting is a civic duty. All people who voted for him should be ashamed for letting the pathetic poser Obambi usurp the powers of government.

He's not MY president, not fit to hold the office and I'll always look at him and see that racism (the REAL deal) is alive in America.

> Conservatives

August 18, 2009 - 04:42 ET by Agnostic

It is not about laziness it is about not having anything worth voting for because though most people lean conservative they will only vote for what they believe in. In the last election they would have been forced to vote for the lesser of two evils and that is not enough.

A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections

I Concur

August 18, 2009 - 08:44 ET by EdCoyne

I held my nose when I walked into the voting booth, last year.

Ed Coyne

www.PoliCalc.com

I put it this way...

August 18, 2009 - 23:05 ET by Unsane

I did NOT vote for John McCain.

I voted AGAINST His Majesty The Shahinshah.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Then why the hell are we

August 18, 2009 - 05:09 ET by RR GOP

Then why the hell are we sitting around typing stuff on sites like this?

I don't think most of them even know what "conservative" means.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

Great subject for a thread...

August 18, 2009 - 08:19 ET by beauxdog

What does the concept of "Conservatism" mean to you. I would love to hear from the trolls, too.

To me... A moral society of individuals with encouragement and support for the individual... regardless of their political beliefs. Individuals are rewarded and punished for both their successes and failures. Individuals take personal responsibility for both their successes and failures. Individuals help other individuals who are not as successful as they are. Society takes care of those who cannot take care of themselves... not the government. Those who are capable of taking care of themselves, but chose not to... should suffer the consequences.

Individualism has to be balanced by the societal group. Pure individualism would descend into chaos as it would be every man for himself. Pure groupism (liberalism/socialism/marxism) is just as wrong as it would have a very small minority (shepards) keeping the sheeple (everyone else) in line.

The societal group should decide what is moral. We, in general, agree that murder is wrong. We are divided on whether abortion is wrong. Each individual should have a say in what the societal opinion is, not what some judge thinks. Chrisitians should have every right to advocate for their beliefs of what is right and what is wrong, just as every Jew, Buddist, Hindu, Muslim, athiest, etc. should.

In the end, it should be majority rules with respect to the minority... but when push comes to shove... the majority rules. However, the majority can't make rules that prevent societal opinions from changing.

Whew.... I hope I made sense.

Beauxdog

To me conservatism means as

August 18, 2009 - 17:57 ET by RR GOP

To me conservatism means as little power for all levels of government than is absolutely necessary in order to promote the common welfare of the people, to be loyal to your country above all others and all ideologies, to support a system where hard work is rewarded and not to support those who choose to be lazy, and basically to be left alone to live and raise your family without others imposing their will upon you including taking an unfair percentage of your wealth as they see fit.

Actually, anyone who is familiar with John Wayne should therefore know what a conservative is without a lot of explanation.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

...and now to get them to vote...

August 18, 2009 - 08:43 ET by EdCoyne

It really would be great, if this were true. I think it's very probable. Now we just need them all to vote...often!

Ed Coyne

www.PoliCalc.com

I'm always curious; if the

August 18, 2009 - 09:19 ET by Sven

I'm always curious; if the Dems (Liberals) have such a great "mandate", and are truly speaking for the majority, why do they always have to lie about who they are?

A prime example of this is the Health Care bill. If this is such a great program, why are the libs hiding its provisions, and ramming it through the legislative process?

Huh? I can’t understand this.

August 18, 2009 - 10:14 ET by needle

Why, just a few months ago Newsweek, that paragon of unbiased objective reporting, announced to the nation with a cover article that “We Are All Socialists Now.”

This is hard to explain, unless you allow that liberals are congenital liars.

- Relying upon the State Run Media for your information is like relying upon an embezzler for your portfolio management.