Posted on 05/11/2006 12:31:45 AM PDT by FairOpinion
The Republicans talk about cutting spending, but they increase it--a lot. They stand for making government smaller, but they keep making it bigger. They say they're concerned about our borders, but they're not securing them. And they seem to think we're slobs for worrying. Republicans used to be sober and tough about foreign policy, but now they're sort of romantic and full of emotionalism. They talk about cutting taxes, and they have, but the cuts are provisional, temporary. Beyond that, there's something creepy about increasing spending so much and not paying the price right away but instead rolling it over and on to our kids, and their kids.
So, the normal voter might think, maybe the Democrats. But Democrats are big spenders, Democrats are big government, Democrats will roll the cost onto our kids, and on foreign affairs they're--what? Cynical? Confused? In a constant daily cringe about how their own base will portray them? All of the above.
Where does such a voter go, and what does such a voter do? It is odd to live in the age of options, when everyone's exhausted by choice, and feel your options for securing political progress are so limited. One party has beliefs it doesn't act on. The other doesn't seem to have beliefs, only impulses.
What's a voter to do? Maybe stay home, have the neighbors over for some barbecue, and then answer the phone when a pollster calls asking for a few minutes to answer some questions. When they get to the part about whether America is on the right track or the wrong track, boy, the voter knows the answer.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Nobody's questioning her character or loyalty. Some of her severest critics on this thread are also her biggest fans -- who acknowledge that some of the greatest works in political commentary has been composed by her -- but not lately and not often enough.
Maybe she's writing too frequently, or has other projects and preoccupations. Much is made of the higher quality of writing (discourse) on the Internet but it's less frequently pointed out that the level of reading comprehension has evolved even higher and faster -- because even the most prolific writers read 100 times more than they write -- which is the condensation of all that material into a few efficient words and phrases.
Because of that, there is also the expectation that every word has that necessity -- rather than just being filler. If people have nothing to say, they should simply not say it -- rather than creating the needless and endless problems that are the entertainment for the bored.
Marking.
Really? It didn't work for the Democrats!
Precisely.
"One gets the impression party leaders, deep in their hearts, believe the base is . . . base. Unsophisticated. Primitive. Obsessed with its little issues. They're trying to educate the base. But if history is a guide, the base is about to teach them a lesson instead."
Peggy is making an accurate prediction. If the GOP doens't act to seal the borders they can kiss their power good bye and her prediction will come true. Too many in the base will stay home at election time. They've said it and mean it.
Amen Bedford!
Are we Men or Bot?
I respectfully disagree. I get a lot out of Noonan's writing. She's probably not as conservative as I, but then I try not to hold that against the other 98% of the population. :)
I think she makes some good points in this article. The GOP is headed for the barrier reef, and maybe there is no way to stop it.
The President has to serve the 98%, and not just go where the 2% demands that he goes -- or else...whether conservative, liberal or the elitists of all stripes thinks he must serve them exclusively over all the others.
If the President is current serving the "98%", why is it that his approval rating is in the low 30's?
Because the people who run and report the polls are the 2%.
So you think the polls are wrong? In what way? How much support does the President really have?
The polls are fraudulent in so many different ways that they ought to just stop them. They're trying to use poll numbers in lieu of effective arguments and writing. That way their writers don't have to produce a convincing case or logic -- just point to some opinion number as though it is fact.
Most of those polling agencies sell their results to these avowedly liberal/leftist organizations who want the results they want to see. If they don't get them, they're not going to pay for any more polls. The Zogbys, Reuters, Associated Presses are not there to create rocket science or any other kind of science/truth but to sell whatever sells -- and that is bad news or scandalous news, to people of those perverted tastes.
Polls are very easy to manipulate -- as are studies; and experts know they aren't going to be quoted unless they say what the newspapers want them to say. So these experts, celebrities, politicians, are going to tell them what they want to hear to get on the program. But beyond that, the reporters and editors are going to shape the story to their angle to get whatever results they want.
That's why, those of us really searching for the truth, are aware of all the manipulations and deceptions of the mainstream mass media and look for the rare pieces of integrity and authenticity that lies beyond. The mainstream media is useful and amusing for what they want us to think.
The President has a lot more support than they want us to think -- and that is why they're spreading the legend of his low ratings.
Nicetioes like constitutions are meaningless to barbarians with no manners like you.
Well-said!
Strange New Respect--can I use that one? :-)
Dov:
"Hello. I'm a libertarian who voted for Bush. From everything I've heard from liberals, libertarians and moderates I know and have read on the web, there are three main problems with Bush: Iraq, Iraq and Iraq. Noonan does not even discuss Iraq."
LexBaird:
"That is because she is not addressing the votes of liberals, libertarians and moderates. She is talking about why Bush is losing the base Republican conservatives. Bush is not at 31% approval because liberals don't like his Iraq policy; they never did and were never on his ledger in the first place. He still won in '04. He's at 31% because he has stopped listening to 50% of his base.
"Iraq, for good or ill, has reached a place of equilibrium in voter perception. Minds are made up and nothing short of a spectacular win or loss will move the needle on the balance."
I've no doubt that a significant part of the conservative base is very unhappy with Iraq as well, and that this counts for some of the erosion of the base.
Some minds are made up; others can still change; others are changing as we speak.
I live in a CD that has never been represented by a Democrat. I live next to the most Republican town in my state, both by % registration and by election results.
If you don't think the President's party is in big trouble, then you must not get out much.
I agree that polls are easily manipulated, but I haven't seen anyone break down the methodology of Bush's job approval numbers to show me where they are being manipulated.
In fact I suspect the polls to be accurate, at least concerning job approval. Bush has suffered a slow but steady decline since early 2005. What we must all keep in mind is that job approval does not equal votes in an election. If another election were held today Bush would get a lot more than 30% of the vote. Plenty of people (like me) are upset with him right now, but I would vote for him again.
That's just it -- compared to what? When it is reported that Bush's approval rating is at a "record low," was that a record for his own ratings, or the record for all presidents -- or a record vis-a-vis John Kerry or Al Gore? Do you think this information is not being manipulated or misreported?
Is George Bush being compared to Geroge Bush -- and coming out second in record numbers? Or is Geroge Bush more approved than the disgraced Dan Rather -- or the disgraceful Al Gore/Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton/etc?
Who has a higher approval rating? -- Zogby, Reuters, Associated Press, Dan Rather, Helen Thomas? Your local newspaper? What is the standard? Your local newspaper editor? Dan "Do you know who I AM? Do you know how farking important I AM?" Rather?
Zogby -- as though he was the most unbiased man in America. It's like the presumptuous people who design the intelligence tests -- with themselves at the ultimate ranking that enables them to judge all the others. What's the approval rating of Reuters, Associated Press -- for comparison, as a standard.
Despite the fact that people have a higher standard of living than ever before (based on actual goods), their perception is that they are falling further behind than ever before because Bill Gates has so much more. Is this perception fact or a flaw that can be manipulated by the countless demagogues flocking to your local news sources.
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.