Poll Vaulting

Here we go again. CBS (the network that tried to pass phony documents about Bush in the TANG story last September) is at it again with a new poll. An "all-time low" proclaims the headline! As usual, the methodology is bogus. It's respondents are "adults" not "likely voters" meaning they could be any dope who picks up the phone but never votes and it undersamples Republicans.

I always get a kick out of the excitement this kind of thing generates among the Democrats because it always reinforces in their minds that their goofy moonbat rantings and ravings are paying dividends for their political hopes. Forget the fact that they're focusing their efforts against a guy that is running for anything anymore. Keep it up, guys!

John Hawkins at Right-Wing News puts the poll in perspective:

Of course, you could make the argument that the CBS poll is just a poll of adults and it's not meant to give people an accurate picture of how people will vote. But, if it's just a garbage poll that doesn't have any bearing on election results, why bother doing it in the first place? For political purposes, any poll that doesn't use likely voters and doesn't have a breakdown of party affiliation that's at least roughly similar to the numbers from the last election isn't very important or useful.

I guess you need something to sustain you when you're out in the political wilderness, even if it's built on a foundation of sand. This is the political equivalent of a bunch of homely girls getting together to declare that, in reality, most of the boys really don't like the prom queen. It makes them feel better about themselves but it doesn't change the fact that nobody is going to ask them to dance.

And here's the best part - they can gin up any poll they want and even make the case that the President's approval ratings are in negative numbers. It doesn't change the fact that he's going to be in the White House (along with his evil henchmen) for the next THREE YEARS.

And he's going to lead however he sees fit because - unlike the last President - Bush wipes his butt with these polls and then laughs about it. Heh.

Posted by: Gary at 07:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 2 kb.

Who's Liberal And Who's Conservative?

National Journal has come out with their rankings of political ideology of the 2005 Congress, based on their votes.

Among the rankings, the three Congressional Representatives of the Republican CT delegation came out as follows:

- 2nd District, Rob Simmons (R):
Conservative score: 49.2
Liberal score: 50.8

- 5th District, Nancy Johnson (R):
Conservative score: 48.2
Liberal score: 51.8

- 4th District, Chris Shays (R):
Conservative score: 46
Liberal score: 54

So you see what I have to deal with. Johnson is my Congresswoman. But all three rate higher as Liberals than Conservatives. So essentially, I have no representation in Congress when it comes to advocating my point of view. Well hey, that's the deal. If I want to continue to live in CT, I have to face the fact that I'm in the minority. Many like-minded folks choose not to and move to States that are more Conservative in their overall philosophy. I can't say that it's not tempting.

But Liberals tend to overlook the fact that - nationally - they are in the minority. And rather than live with it and urge their elected officials to try and work with the majority to achieve something that they can support, most of them chose to descend into moonbattery and attack rather than propose. Rather than be part of the process, they choose to be part of the problem.

And in my own State, a serious and well-respected Democrat Senator is being chased out of his own party for not kow-towing to the extremists who are calling the shots these days. Rather than respectfully disagree with Joe Lieberman on some issues, they've decided to challenge his seat this year from within the party.

For the Left-wing loony-toons of the CT Democrat party, Lieberman isn't Liberal enough, notwithstanding his own 65.7 "Liberal" rating by National Journal. Diversity of opinion is not tolerated among Democrats. The idea of being the "Big Tent" party disappeared from their ranks over a generation ago.

I can personally attest that is sucks to be in the minority. But if Democrats are going to keep this up, they'd better get used to it.

Posted by: Gary at 02:18 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

Happy Conservatives, Miserable Liberals

George Will has a column today that looks at a recent poll about "happiness". The Pew Research Center poll reveals that its Conservative respondents are happier than their Liberal counterparts and significantly so. A student of the Social Sciences can spend a lot of energy sifting through the various factors that might explain this but Will makes the observation that a primary difference has to do with the philosophies themselves.

For example, Conservatives tend to be more pessimistic which in and of itself is a paradox (and I think the word "realistic" is much more apt). But looked at another way:

Conservatives think the book of Job got it right (``Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward''), as did Adam Smith (``There is a great deal of ruin in a nation''). Conservatives understand that society in its complexity resembles a giant Calder mobile -- touch it here and things jiggle there, and there, and way over there. Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones.

Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

But for Liberals, the idea of the happiness is framed as an entitlement that harkens back to the "New Deal" of the Roosevelt era. And of course, for Liberals, the entity responsible for ensuring this "right" is the Federal Government, regardless of any unintended consequences that result. This idea has driven every failed Liberal program that Democrats have pushed since the 1940's.

But these days, a major factor in the unhappiness of Liberals is an underlying rage that overrides any possibility of happiness. Will explains:

Normal conservatives -- never mind the gladiators of talk radio; they are professionally angry -- are less angry than liberals. Liberals have made this the era of surly automobile bumpers, millions of them, still defiantly adorned with Kerry-Edwards and even Gore-Lieberman bumper stickers, faded and frayed like flags preserved as relics of failed crusades. To preserve these mementos of dashed dreams, many liberals may be forgoing the pleasures of buying new cars -- another delight sacrificed on the altar of liberalism.

But, then, conscientious liberals cannot enjoy automobiles because there is global warming to worry about, and the perils of corporate-driven consumerism which is the handmaiden of bourgeoisie materialism. And high-powered cars (how many liberals drive Corvettes?) are metaphors (for America's reckless foreign policy, for machismo rampant, etc.). And then there is -- was -- all that rustic beauty paved over for highways. (And for those giant parking lots at exurban mega-churches. The less said about them, the better). And automobiles discourage the egalitarian enjoyment of mass transit. And automobiles, by facilitating suburban sprawl, deny sprawl's victims -- that word must make an appearance in liberal laments; and lament is what liberals do -- the uplifting communitarian experience of high-density living. And automobiles ...

You see? Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim and scolding, creed. And not one conducive to happiness.

Conservatives are often criticized for having a "don't worry, be happy" mentality. But a more accurate one, borrowed from the classic Bill Murray comedy, "Stripes" (and Liberals should pay attention to this one), would be "Lighten up, Francis".

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 4 kb.

"Rock"ed By Crisis

The LA Times has an article this morning about the current financial troubles of "Rock The Vote".

The organization, founded in 1990, operates under the stated goal of registering millions of new voters and is aimed at the 18-25 year old demographic - the "MTV" generation. However, with most of its funding coming from the entertainment industry and promoted by celebrities who are pretty clear about their dislike of President Bush and Republicans in general, a more accurate stated goal would be to register millions of new Democrat voters. In more recent years, its activities have been more focused on the development of millions of young Left-wing activists.

Now in its 16th year, the first wave of the youths that it targeted are now well into their thirties. But "Rock The Vote" has found itself in dire financial straits:

Saddled with about $700,000 in debt, the group has cut its staff from more than 20 people in 2004 to just two today. Its president, who left last summer amid disagreement about the organization's direction, has yet to be replaced. And last month, Rock the Vote was sued for the second time in just eight months.

While RTV's tone was more subtle in the early nineties when it energized supporters to help put Bill Clinton in the White House, it's become increasingly more partisan as its successes become fewer and farther between. Beginning in 1994, Democrats lost both the House and the Senate and, in 2000, the White House. During President Bush's term, the GOP increased its representation in Congress with each election cycle.

In 2004, in association with MTV's "Vote Or Die" campaign, RTV waged an aggressive campaign against the President prouncing a second Bush term as the beginning of the end for today's youth. Bush won reelection anyway. In 2005, it joined with the AARP to fight Social Security reform on the premise that Republicans wanted to take away this generation's guaranteed retirement benefits - "guaranteed" if you believe the Federal Government's false promises that the money is actually going to be there if we don't fix the system, that is. Dan Lips looks at RTV's activities in a column he wrote for National Review last March:

Rock the Vote, while reliably backing leftist causes, has at least masqueraded as non-partisan in its decade-long campaign to urge younger Americans to register to vote. Last year, such champions of democracy as Leonardo DiCaprio and Justin Timberlake took to the airwaves to stress the importance of voting. The message: If the younger generation doesn't vote, the environment would be destroyed, America would soon have a draft, and government funding for higher education would be eliminated.

But with its preemptive strike against President Bush's proposal, Rock the Vote has finally chosen to wear its partisan stripes with pride. The group plans to launch a seven-figure campaign, including public-service announcements, billboards, and online advertising opposing reform. "We are opening the door to be the defender of young people's policy interests," explained Hans Reimer, Rock the Vote's political director, "This is a great issue to do it."

Reimer feels the "young people's policy interests" equate to big-government Liberalism and preserving the status quo. But, in reality, RTV's effort to kill Social Security reform goes against the interests of today's young people who will bear the financial brunt of a system that will be broken if nothing is done to change it.

Despite their efforts, most of today's young people are smart enough (and perhaps cynical enough) to see "Rock The Vote" for what it is - Liberal propaganda packaged and sold by the "cool" heroes of pop culture. And it hasn't been translating to meaningful results on election day. And the further Left it goes, the more irrelevant it becomes. The LA Times poses the question: Will "Rock The Vote" survive?

[RTV Founders] Ayeroff, Goldring and others say yes, as long as they can jump-start fundraising. Board members are meeting with donors, and the group has brought in a successful television executive, Lawrence Lyttle, to fix what's broken for a salary of $1 a year.

But Lyttle says he has no fundraising experience. And the group's political director has announced he may take time off in the coming year. Unless more staff members are hired, Rock the Vote will be left with only one full-time employee: its webmaster.

It's looking increasingly likely that an organization formed to light a political fire in a new generation might not even last a generation.

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 746 words, total size 5 kb.