Posted on 12/13/2005 9:17:00 PM PST by smoothsailing
Sliding Down the Polls
By Lisa Fabrizio
Published 12/14/2005 12:06:18 AM
Armed with their latest polling statistics, liberal Democrats frequently take to the talk shows and editorial pages to proclaim this or that anti-Bushism with steely confidence. In an effort to discredit them, many on the right then try to point out the questionable methodology used in producing such polls.
But rather than list the various ways pollsters frame their questions and over-sample Democrats to produce the results desired by those who hire them, the surest proof of the charge that mainstream media polls are phony is to watch the actions of Democrats, who often run away from their conclusions.
A case in point is the allegation that the American people are turning against the war in Iraq. Countless polls have been produced to support this claim, yet why did House Democrats vote overwhelmingly against last month's resolution to immediately withdraw our troops, as per the pleadings of John Murtha?
If the polling data is accurate, why are most Democratic candidates for the presidency in support of the war? Can it be that they know that their precious polls aren't really representative of the people who really count -- that is, those who vote?
Even some left-wing pundits agree. Try this from liberal doyenne Helen Thomas, wringing her hands over Hillary Clinton and other top Democrats who distance themselves from the Murtha mantra:
Clinton is a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, which might explain why she's busy pandering to conservatives instead of staking out a leadership role on more important issues.
The Democrats' lack of political courage has left voters with the choice of Republicans who call themselves that -- and Republicans who call themselves Democrats. The result: The GOP gets a free ride.
Can Helen read between her own lines to discover why Clinton and others are "pandering to conservatives"? If we are to believe the media polling propaganda that the majority of Americans are in lockstep with liberals in disdaining the president, why then the need for pandering to the enemy?
Because they know deep down that the majority of Americans do not agree with them. And they also know that their current strategy isn't working so it's time to cut and run; from themselves. Howl against the president as they might -- and they do so mightily -- Democrats are having a hard time running away from their own votes and words, especially on Iraq.
The notion that the president dragged them hogtied and blindfolded into war is laughable. But even if we ignore the fact that Democrats warned of Iraq WMDs while George W. Bush was still the governor of Texas, why should the American people trust a party of witless dupes?
Add to that the recent defeatist comments by the party's national chairman, shake in a smoldering accusation of U.S. military terrorism by its 2004 presidential nominee, and you have the perfect recipe for permanent minority status, courtesy of the white flag wing of the Democratic Party.
That is why their latest Fitzmas wish is a two-fer: the hope that liberal bogeyman Donald Rumsfeld steps down in favor of the irksome Joe Lieberman who, post-Al Gore, has returned to his senses and is therefore of no further use to Democrats.
But Democrats say they have a new plan for the nation. Former VP candidate, John Edwards told delegates at a weekend convention of the Florida faithful that Americans would come together behind a leader who asks people to sacrifice for the common good: "There is a hunger in America, a hunger for a sense of national community, a hunger for something big and important and inspirational that they all can be involved in."
This statement illustrates a classic Democratic disconnect. In case Edwards hasn't noticed, there's already "something big and important and inspirational" going on; it's called the War on Terror and it's not only protecting Americans at home. The sacrifices of our troops and those who support them are helping to create a new paradigm of freedom for millions of people across the Middle East and around the world.
The Democrats' tin ear in matters of war and national defense notwithstanding, other issues loom on the horizon; issues they also misunderstand. For all their outward talk of reaching out to "values" voters in red states, their actual agenda betrays them. So watch the polls closely, but watch their actions closer.
"And you know something, some day they're going to have a scoop and be right by accident."
--Donald Rumsfeld
I'm curious about these polls. The only time Gallup polled me, they wanted to ask questions about my phonebook use. Is anyone here ever polled? Do FReepers seek out online polls or maybe just when someone posts a poll to be FReeped? It is my contention that conservative views rarely show up in polls. I'd really like to know what the rest of you think. Do you participate in polls? If so, which ones? How often?
Good post! Conservatives will sooner tap-dance barefoot on broken glass than vote for Hitlery in '08...
The hunger is the democrat hunger for a JFK knock-off--not the anti-communist JFK, but the liberal rewrite of JFK. All this phony "sense of national community" stuff would be possible if not for the democrats' feeding on the very divisiveness that makes that near impossible now.
He said that in the Lehrer interview in response to a question about rumors of him stepping down.
This is a major deal IMHO, the political solution in Iraq is now becoming the method of choice for the Sunni's. This is how Democracy takes root and succeeds, once the insurgents understand that voting is the answer, the violence will end
Good read.
I see it the same way. Another aspect of this that much of the media is missing(I think deliberately), is the "insurgent" group that told Zarqawi to chill out or else, because they wanted people to vote.
That's a step toward isolating Zarqawi, which is a really big deal.
That's a pole I could get behind.
OK. So maybe they could try nationalized health care. Or electric cars. Or veganism. Or adopt-a-tree. Or gay marriage. Or human extinction. Yes, yes, yes, that's it! They should get behind the Human Extinction Project!
I'd like her to get in front of my... oh never mind
I've gotten phone calls attempting to poll my opinion.
Each time, I've either totally refused to waste my time right from the beginning, or I've given answers that are fully bogus (something like 'oh, yeah - Dean is the best thing for the Demodogs since FDR' and I fully support the Demodogs and everything they're doing,,,)
It really depends on how malicious I am feeling that day toward the Old Mediots and FRAUDcasters, as well as whether I have time that day to participate in their foolishness. I've even accepted bribes for participation ('free gifts') but that doesn't mean I'll give honest answers.
One thing is certain: they don't get a straight answer from me, and that really hurts because I'm a right-down-the-middle American, demographically - the type of person who's opinion they really crave to discern and report.
I'm always amused by the Kerryesque "we were duped" line used by all the current Dems who backed Clinton in 1998 and echoed his claims of Hussein and wmds. Miss Fabrizio cogently points out that if Bush is the moron they've been claiming he is since 2000, then how smart are they? How could they have been outsmarted by a complete idiot? They might as well have announced "We've been outsmarted by a complete dunce". No chance of that happening unfortunately.
FRAUDcasters is a great term. I'm immediately going to start taking credit for coining it. Just kidding. But fraudcasters is a term I will use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.