The 26 Percent Solution
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
The 26 Percent Solution
Today's magic number must be 26 -- as in 26 percent.
Because as if you ever needed proof that 26 percent of America -- that would be one out of every four people you see walking down the street, plus someone else's right ankle -- is totally bat-guano out-of-their-freakin'-minds crazy, check out this new poll just out:
The poll asked this question: "Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?" The overall top-line is legitimately won 62%, ACORN stole it 26%.
Interestingly, it pairs nicely with this:
Respondents were asked: "When the president of the United States is traveling overseas, do you think it is appropriate for him to bow to a foreign leader if that is the country's custom or is it never appropriate for the president to bow to another leader?"
The numbers: Appropriate 67%, Never appropriate 26%. Even a majority of Republican respondents were okay with the bow, by a 53%-40% margin. Democrats weigh in at 84%-9%, and independents 62%-30%.
Now, how much do you wanna bet that those 26 percent in those two polls are EXACTLY THE SAME PEOPLE!!! These are people who might as well walk the earth in a bubble made of plastic and little speakers blaring Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh 24 hours a day. People who will buy into any two-bit conspiracy theory that gets repeated enough -- remember that a) Obama won the 2008 election by 9.8 million popular votes and b) the known number of actual known fraudulent votes cast because of the voter registration crimes by ACORN workers who got paid for name like Mickey Mouse is zero and c) it's a long way from 0 to 9.8 million. And people who are easily distracted by the shiny object -- like the alleged symbolism of a presidential bow -- that will always lead the Drudge Report over the real issues of the day.
Now, 26 percent of America is indeed a lot of people. There's a bit more than 200 million voting-age Americans right now, so we're talking about more than 52 million red-blooded adults, enough folks to fill 1,000 Citizen Bank Parks with roughly 6 or 7 million more people to spare. Enough to put on a fairly impressive rally on the Mall in Washington if just a tiny percentage of them turned out. But there's another way to express 26 percent, and that would be as "NOT 74 PERCENT," the too-silent majority group in this country that's a bit more inclined towards real commonsense solutions, to use a term that's been misappropriated by a former Alaska governor.
But what if that 26 percent has influence beyond the trivial world of ACORN and presidential bowing? Check out where else these 26 percenters turn up:
When asked what kind of health care bill Congress should pass, 51 percent of Americans said a bill that contains a government-run health insurance plan, or "public option." Sixteen percent said a bill without a public option, while only 26 percent said they want no bill at all. Seven percent did not know or had no answer.
Now that's actually important. By the way, look who else is at 26 percent:
Just 11 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents believe Palin could be an effective president. Overall, 26 percent of Americans say she could be effective in the job.
Of course, you could argue that the 26 Percenters have been around for a few years, going back to the Bush administration:
Six in 10 Americans say the United States should join the Kyoto treaty on global warming, rejecting President Bush's economic arguments against the accord....However, in an ABCNEWS.com poll conducted a week ahead of Earth Day, 61 percent said the United States should join the treaty, while just 26 percent opposed it.
Which may explain this:
President George W. Bush's approval rating dropped to a record low, making him the least popular president since Richard Nixon, according to a new Newsweek poll....Twenty-six percent of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing, while a record 65 percent disapprove, including almost a third of Republicans, Newsweek said.
Now, I happen to think that 52 million Americans are people who ought to be heard, who have a right to make their views known and to stage protests if they need to. But too often -- aided by a media that tends to give a lot of extra weight to the 26 Percenters, especially when they make for a good story -- we're allowing the tail to wag the dog in these United States of America. This week, for example, we may learn that a handful of senators thwarts the electorate's expressed desire for a healthcare bill, because of fear of this 26 percent.
It's true -- as more and more conservatives started pointing out around, oh, around 2006 or so -- that this nation is a republic and not a straight democracy. Legislators are elected to weigh what's most popular along with what is legal and also with what they think is morally right.
But when all is said and done, we need leaders who will fight like hell for the dreams of the 74 percent of America, not ones who kowtow to the sometimes paranoid fears of the 26 percent. That would be what I would call our 26 Percent Solution.
Comments (193)
It is no longer left vs. right it is US vs. THEM. I wonder if those 26% also realize that Obama has all but adopted all of the failed policies of the Bush administration including the support of the suspension of Habius Corpus, the end of posse comitatus, resigned the Patriot Act, continues to bankrupt the Federal Government which has long term liabilities coming due of $53 trillion dollars when baby boomers start retiring, we are still fighting two illegal wars(conflicts I know), pushes important legislation through without proper debate(the bailout) and he has broken just about every campaign promise. Also the Constitution has not granted the power to the Federal Government to pass any legislation dealing with health care therefore they are violating the 9th and 10th amendment. Vote out the incumbents next year. Lets start fresh. Return the power to the people, restore the Constitution and End the Federal Reserve.— dj41326
Comment removed.
TPS we all know from posts you make science is 'fact' if you beleive it and 'fake' if you dont . Scientists are world leaders if you beleive them and in the pay of big oil if you dont , same with evidence . Fact 'Global warming' has been hijacked by the far left , Fact the leader of greenpeace admited on BBC that his organization exagerates its claims . Fact Gores Film was found to be politicaly biased and the facts are either unsuported or unproven . Fact the co founder of Greenpeace says the global warming debate has been taken over by the far left , in his veiw because the fall of comunism left them with nothing to protest about . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s this is part of the film I mentioned very interesting— PAEnglish- Of course I've heard all of that, PAEnglish. It is standard material from the denier-set (as distinguished from the skeptic set). But to think that you can characterize the current scientific debate based on theorizing from decades ago only speaks to your willingness to allow your politics to color your perspective on the issue. As for the "lagging" or "leading" affect of CO2, try reading this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/ or this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ And PAEnglish, please, if you're going to raise an issue, deal with the whole issue. Here is what the British court said about Gore's film: They said that it was "broadly accurate" and that it was "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" but that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration." No one who is involved in the scientific debate uses Gore's film as the foundation of scientific arguments. Al Gore is a politician, and he's a liar and a bloviator. But aside from the bloviation, the science behind his film is "broadly accurate." Come to something of more sophistication to the table, PAEnglish, and we can have a real discussion. Bringing this garbage that you get from non-scientifically valid sources doesn't cut it. There are some scientifically valid skeptics out there, PAEnlish - so you really don't have to bring garbage to the table.— Talking point sleuth
- TPS , I'm curious did you know that the CO2 'link to man made global warming' was originaly made by a scientist who led the next ice age theory in the 70's ? . The guy was swedish , cant remember his name , and cant be arsed to google it but I'm sure you will . Anyway his theory was the earth is going into another ice age but his theory was if we generate enough CO2 we will offset the ice age , and thats how the CO2 link started , trouble is records show CO2 doesnt match temperature records instead it follows them at roughly 200 years behind . Graph after graph show low temperatures but high CO2. The other problem is the ocean anually realeases 360 gigatons of CO2, mans total release per year is 6 gigatons per year . However scientists are begining to see temperature increases linked to sun spot activity . This whole global warming argument may actually be resolved over the next few years anyway as sun spot activity is starting to wane , we may see once again temperatures like those during the little ice age , thats the forcast coming out of Britain if we do it totaly kills the man made global warming industry in its tracks . Also a British court found Al Gores 'An Inconvinient Truth' a pack of lies , all nine major claims in the film were ruled unsubstantiated , hmm I wonder why ? could it be the claims are exactly that ? lies ? .— PAEnglish
- Manny - I already responded to that link you posted. Indeed, it does contain some solid argumentation. On the other hand, it also promotes junk science - such as the claims it makes as proven science about the impact of increased CO2 on plant growth. I also posted link before that explains how much of what is in your link is based on faulty science. Click through to that other link and get back to me, Manny. We'll talk. As regards the emails - there actually is one troubling aspect of a couple of the emails. If you read some intelligent analysis of the stolen emails, then you'll be able to distinguish the validly troubling ones from the "trick" and "hiding" nonsense you just posted. But regardless, even the validly troubling emails come nowhere near close to validating your laughable belief that there is some vast, wide-spread conspiracy between devious scientists and powerful governmental entities. None. In all those thousands of stolen emails, not one shred of evidence of your conspiratorial fantasies. Not one email between a scientist and Al Gore, plotting the demise of the American economy so they can amass great fortunes at the expense of the unsuspecting public. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- TPS- if you can read this an acyually believe in man Made Global warming- you are dense............. -http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html— Manny Trillo
- Here. Try reading this. Since you didn't understand it from the first explanation, maybe this will clear up your confusion? LOL! --snip-- ...the trick referred to is how to resolve a question involving two sets of data. One set is the "real" actual temperature readings, the other is by proxy, tree-rings, corals, ice cores and the like. When reconstructing the temperature record going back a thousand years or more, proxies are all you get -- ... But as time rolls by, and proxy data become more plentiful, the error bars (i.e. the variable shading) shrink. Eventually, thanks to the invention of modern thermometers and ships to carry them, precise temperature readings from all over the world become more widely available and increasingly reliable, and there is a relatively short interval where both the proxy reconstruction (blue) and the instrumental record (red) are used. The proxy record ends (1980), but the instrumental record continues through 1999. That was the issue being discussed in the emails: why end the plot in 1980 when there's instrumental data through the 90s? In the original 1998 paper published in Nature, Mann et al showed the instrumental data through the 1990s to complete the plot. The emailer was following suit in his own work. That's "Mike's Nature trick". It really is that simple. Moreover, both instrumental and proxy records were clearly labeled and delineated in the original papers and many since, so there was no opportunity for any ambiguity as to what was being shown. It makes sense that "Mike" Mann would be mentioned, he has worked extensively with both kinds of data, actual and proxy, and was one of the original paleo-climatologist who developed the Hockey Stick using them. The email is just a tiny snippet of several colleagues in the midst of discussing these points and others. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- Seriously, boyz, if you want to discuss the emails further, I'm game. But instead of just re-posting "analysis" of the emails from far-right extremist website, why don't you try actually discussing the details of the emails? Now try reading this again, and responding on point. LOL! --snip-- the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear...As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- Right. "Hiding" the data, by publishing it in Nature. You boyz are hilarious.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Hmm watched an interesting film the other day , it was basically full of scientists proving that man made global warming is actually a myth . Records prove that high CO2 levels do not match high temperature levels . During the last ice age CO2 levels were higher than they are today . Also several scientists credited with helping the UNs report on global warming said they demanded the UN take their names of the report as it was 'deeply flawed' and in some cases 'complete fabrications' the UN ignored their requests , interesting .— PAEnglish
- You are joking right TPS?...............In one e-mail from 1999, the center's director, Phil Jones, alludes to one of Mann's articles in the journal Nature and writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." ..................— Manny Trillo
- Comment removed.
- .......In an exclusive interview in Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition, Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.— Manny Trillo
- Comment removed.
- Oh, and btw, Manny - In case you're interested in actually examining an issue rather than just re-posting partisan analysis you read on some right-wing extremist website: re: the "trick" to "hide the decline." --snip-- ‘The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate’ -Gavin Schmidt. Surely if your aim is to ‘hide’ something then publishing it in Nature is probably not a great move … --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- LOL? We have yet another "conservative" who has elaborate fantasies about me, and feels compelled to post them on a public forum.— Talking point sleuth
- ......Talking Point Sleuth- CONGRATS!!!............A man who calls himself THE TALKING POINT SLEUTH has married his virtual girlfriend with a public reception.................. The man reportedly fell in love with a virtual girl named Nene Anegasaki and plans to hold a public wedding reception in Germantown- a horrible section of Philadelphia.............. Since the girl doesn't really exist, TPS reportedly took his Nintendo DS to Guam for a legal ceremony and honeymoon, and will livecast the upcoming wedding reception online.............. TPS met his "bride" on the video game Love Plus, which requires players to take out the virtual girl on dates, buy her gifts and make their girlfriends happy like they would in real life.................. The player can increase their abilities by studying, working out and solving problems of their virtual girlfriend, but if they fail to make their girlfriend happy, the game will restart after 100 days.— Manny Trillo
- Liar- Liar- Liars...................."The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. ideas............... University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how many of the stolen items were authentic........................... "We are aware that information from a server in one area of the university has been made available on public websites," the statement says. "We are extremely concerned that personal information about individuals may have been compromised. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm what proportion of this material is genuine." ............... In one e-mail from 1999, the center's director, Phil Jones, alludes to one of Mann's articles in the journal Nature and writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." ..................Why lie?— Manny Trillo
- Comment removed.
- Steve MG>>> Those "boos" you heard were actually "oohs" each time Sarah crossed her legs! Try changing the batteries in your hearing aids.— lefty
- ---}}} Would this be the same 26% that work and actually would have to pay for the heath care bill? {{{--- Yet another "conservative" who thinks that some 74% of the American public are lazy bums. Thank goodness that "conservatives" aren't elitist. If they were, they would do some serious hatin' on their fellow citizens.— Talking point sleuth
- Poor Sarah is just too afraid to face questions. Did you catch that video of her getting booed the other day?— SteveMG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- BUSTED! Global warming scientist......................."Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to "hide the decline," apparently in temperatures.------------------------------------- The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the theft of 61MB of confidential data.------------------ Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA."---------------------------------- In an exclusive interview in Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition, Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.----------------- - TGIF Edition asked Jones about the controversial "hide the decline" comment from an e-mail he wrote in 1999. He told the magazine that there was no intention to mislead, but he had "no idea" what he meant by those words.--------------------RIGHT- "NO IDEA" GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX...— Manny Trillo
- WORST PRESIDENT EVER-----TOMMY TELEPROMPTER------THE GREAT COMMUNITY ORGANIZER------------------------------------------------"Gallup Daily tracking from Nov. 17-19 shows President Barack Obama’s job approval slipping to 49% for the first time in his presidency. Among post-World War II presidents, only Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan dropped below the symbolic majority approval level faster than Obama did."— Manny Trillo
- CABLE NEWS RACE--- --- NOV. 19, 2009--- --- FOXNEWS O'REILLY/PALIN 4,120,000---- ---- FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,871,000---- ---- FOXNEWS BECK 2,730,000---- ---- FOXNEWS BAIER 2,359,000----- ---- FOXNEWS GRETA 2,113,000----- ----- FOXNEWS SHEP 2,078,000----- ---- MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,188,000----- ----- CNNHN GRACE 1,018,000--- --- CNN KING 980,000---- ---- MSNBC MADDOW 877,000----- --- MSNBC HARDBALL 597,000----- --- CNN COOPER 585,000 -------Liberals too busy watching Cartoons I guess???— Manny Trillo
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Is this why Obama is trying to get the unemployment rate to 26%? Cap and trade...hahahhahahaha..good bye American industry— Joe Funk
- Comment removed.
- Wow- LIBERALS- your guy is going DOWN THE DRAIN!! Maybe he will drop to 26%.........."President Obama's job approval numbers will dip below 50% for the first time today in Gallup's daily tracking poll, according to a Gallup official. ............... "Gallup Daily tracking results just in. Obama will be below 50% for the first time when we update our numbers at 1:00 p.m.," wrote Gallup.com managing news editor Lymari Morales on Twitter.................. His approval numbers have bounced down to the 50% mark several times, driven by weaker support from independents and Republicans, but hadn't crossed it....................... The slide is worrying for the White House, but it's probably not yet panic time. Ronald Reagan's approval numbers dropped well below 40% during the depths of his first term recession. If Obama's bad stretch puts him in the high forties or low fifties, that's not a crippling political problem. If he languishes there or drops further, it may become one."— Manny Trillo
- But remember, this is just anecdotal evidence from pundits, who I'm desperate to find who agree with me.— RG
- Aha, the CBO posts some useful info. For anyone following the debate, this is about how the House split up the health care bill with the physicians reimbursement fix in order to get a deficit neutral score. In essense, they know that if they slashed reimbursement rates as they were shceduled, doctors would flee. Yet, if they don't cut rates, costs sky rocket. Here's the CBO's estimates on the costs of implementing the "fix" (ie not slashing rates by 21%! in 2010) and passing health care reform. Spoiler: it adds to the deficit in the 10 year scoring period and is expected to continue to do so afterwards. http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=427— RG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "Would be nice if your links proved your point, but they are only anecdotes" You admitted to ignoring the links, Steve. And its hardly anecdotal when the stimulus' own website states that it created or saved jobs in districts that didn't exist. I'm glad that you "think" and "expect" the admin to be fiscally responsible, but you don't even have anecdotal evidence to suggest they actually will.— RG
- "In other words, when challenged with documented facts about the failures of the stimulus, I'll discredit them as desperate since they don't adhere to my worldview. Nice." Would be nice if your links proved your point, but they are only anecdotes. RG, I've been busting people about the deficit all along. Even when George W Bush pushed for tax cuts and the Medicare Part D. But there are times when you have an emergency and you have to bite the big one and eat dirt. I think this is one of those times. Now I do expect to start to see some fiscal sanity from the admonistration, and I happen to think that this one will take it seriously, as opposed to the last administration, which threw away a surplus.— SteveMG
- "They are *public servants*. They don't command the people, they work for us (or they are supposed to)." This has been sadly forgotten. If this were true, then the Reid bill would not allow for fines for those who don't purchase insurance. If this were true, dissenters could have stopped us from going into a costly and wasteful war in Iraq, or for handing out billions in sweetheart contracts and/or bailouts to politically connected groups.— RG
- "but the Supremes just followed the law in 2000? Okay, I got it" so the Supremes were correctly interpreting the law in 1973, but were politically influenced in 2000? Ok, I got it.— legatus
- "I didn't know being fiscally responsible was a "paranoid fear", but if the shoe fits" Alot of people find Obama's policies to be fiscally irresponsible, yet they are called obstructionists or even worse, racists.— RG
- "Wall Street's wholly owned subsidiary. Right." Wall Street doesnt have law making power, government does. Wall Street does have money, which grants it influence to givernment when they write laws. The issue is power.— RG
"It's true -- as more and more conservatives started pointing out around, oh, around 2006 or so -- that this nation is a republic and not a straight democracy." . . . . . . Just to set the record straight, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. "Republic" describes a nation in which sovereignty is derived from the people, as opposed to the sovereignty of a monarch or divine authority. "Democracy" simply describes the means of selecting a government and deciding public policy. A monarchy could be democratic (UK), while a republic could be authoritarian (eg, Republic of China), or vice versa. If the US abolished Congress and made policy by direct public referendum, it would still be a Republic.- John Rogers beat you to this realization years ago: http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html— bonnette
So, 26%ers (sounds like a sad group of biker wannabes), ACORN stole the 2008 election but the Supremes just followed the law in 2000? Okay, I got it. Keep the shiny side up (morons)!— Hamlet- "But when all is said and done, we need leaders who..." Not to nitpick, Will, but I'm tired of representatives of the people considering themselves leaders. And everytime I hear one of them call themselves "leaders" (or worse "deciders") I want to grit my teeth. They are *public servants*. They don't command the people, they work for us (or they are supposed to).— Hamlet
- "Shockingly enough, 5% of those who believe he is the antichrist, still voted for him." . . . . Those pesky Satan worshippers. Nice company, eh 26 percenters?
- Comment removed.
- "Its not Wall St, its the government as a whole." . . . . . Wall Street's wholly owned subsidiary. Right.
- "By this logic, if 74% of us wanted free Porshces, we should ignore the negativism coming from that 26% who say we can't afford it." . . . . . I didn't know being fiscally responsible was a "paranoid fear", but if the shoe fits.... Besides, paranoid fears usually end up contributing to spending beyond our means. Take the cold war for example, or the war in Iraq. But if most people really wanted a free porsche from Washington, we could just invade Germany and occupy it until they produce enough to go around. We're America, dammit.
- TPS, are you so much of a toady that you missed the whole point behind my last post? That what people say to pollsters and what they actually believe aren't always the same? That people may answer a silly question with a goofy response? That people could have used the yes option as a protest vote? That people who write in Mickey on a ballot, really don't want a cartoon mouse as office holder?— RG
- "Liberals don't even respect the office of the presidency anymore, after calling their own president a murderer, liar, cheat, as well as making racist comparisons to apes. Liberals are poor representatives of the American citizen." ** Fixed **— IggleFan68
- Comment removed.
- Nice. --snip-- ACORN Sting Operatives Pose with White Supremacist White supremacist blogger Robert Stacy McCain continues to be welcomed in Republican circles; here he is posing at the American Spectator dinner with the two videographers who filmed the ACORN sting tapes: An O’Keefe/Giles Victory Lap. --snip-- http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/— Talking point sleuth
- Let's be HONEST here- If a republican president was this inept as Obama- we WOULD NOT BE TALKING ABOUT 26%. We would be talking about a clueless, over his head, bonehead president- or you could call him Tommy Teleprompter.......or the Great Community Organizer- who went to Havard.....so he is smart (apparently not true).....and a president who was NOT PREPARED TO BE PRESIDENT- Obama or Jimmy Carter Jr.— Manny Trillo
- ---}}} Shockingly enough, 5% of those who believe he is the antichrist, still voted for him. {{{--- So they're lunatics also - probably watched too much Glenn Beck and went over the edge. Again, RG - I never said there aren't lunatics among Dems or Obama voters. But keep trying to spin away the simple fact that 18% of the Republicans polled said Obama is the antichrist. Next, maybe you can explain away why 43% of Republicans polled are birthers? LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Most of that 26% must also read Bunch every day and come here to spew their hate. John doesn't even respect the office of the presidency anymore. Neocons are poor representatives of the American citizen.— HandNik
- "I said that people who say that Obama is the antichrist are lunatics" No, you said that anyone who selected that answer when queried by a pollster was a lunatic. This implies that there is absolutely no chance that the person being polled, when confrnted by such a silly question, was either joking or essentially lodging a protest vote. Indeed, 8% of the population truly believes, without a shadow of a doubt that the current president is the antichrist. Shockingly enough, 5% of those who believe he is the antichrist, still voted for him. Obviously, these numbers are beyond reproach and should be treated as absolute fact and a true representation of what these people believe, as we know polls never change.— RG
- ""we need leaders who will fight like hell for the dreams of the 74 percent of America, not ones who kowtow to the sometimes paranoid fears of the 26 percent." And yet whenever there is a large majority who are against a liberal position, all we hear about is how our country's default position is opposed to the "tyranny of the majority".— legatus
- Fair enough, point taken - I was working from this concept of arbitrary: --snip-- Arbitrariness is a term given to choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, --snip-- My assumption is that they did decide based on underlying principles and logic.— Talking point sleuth
- "PUBLIC POLICY POLLING(D): WHO DAT???— lefty
- "we need leaders who will fight like hell for the dreams of the 74 percent of America, not ones who kowtow to the sometimes paranoid fears of the 26 percent." By this logic, if 74% of us wanted free Porshces, we should ignore the negativism coming from that 26% who say we can't afford it.— RG
- This just needs to be posted again. ----}}} Actually, you are the one claiming expertise in determining psychological status (ie loons)based on how one answers a poll question with only three possible responses. {{{--- I said that people who say that Obama is the antichrist are lunatics, and you (1) question whether that's true and (2) say that because they weren't given more options, somehow, the implications of saying that Obama is the antichrist is diminshed? LOL! Jumped the shark, baby.— Talking point sleuth
- "First, I assume that the individuals involved used their own discretion, and that, by definition, isn't arbitrary." I'd suggest you learn the defintion of arbitrary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary— RG
- "What other options would you like for answers?" I'll assume that you've always answered every question 100% honestly. I'll also assume that people don't have a sense of humor, and that when write in votes for Mickey Mouse are on POTUS ballots, those who cast the ballot truly want a cartoon mouse as POTUS. Good grief.— RG
- Yeah, right, RG. 'Cause saying that Obama is the antichrist (because the number of choices was limited) doesn't categorically prove that someone is a lunatic. LOL! I mean, can't you see his horns? What other options would you like for answers? Whether he is Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and Saskwatch? Or perhaps all three at once? You're hilarious.— Talking point sleuth
- First, I assume that the individuals involved used their own discretion, and that, by definition, isn't arbitrary. I also assume that I would disagree with a certain amount of their criteria - as I assume that they were onnected to the fact that the "deciders" were long-time members of the financial elite. But I also assume that some of their criteria were simply based on the evaluation of experts about what would be the best course for the country economically. Again, I might disagree with their assessments there, but it was hardly arbitrary. But finally, they had a limited amount of time to make decisions on relatively short order. The process was inexcusably opaque, of that there is no doubt, but to say that the specific criteria they used or the lack of transparency, by definition, mean that the country would have been better off had they not acted, as you claim, is ridiculous. I believe that if banks of that size and if the big 3 had simply been allowed to fail, we would have been in far worse shape than we are after the bailout have taken place. But that is an opinion and I recognize other opinions are held by people far more knowledgeable than I. But once again, the claims that anyone knows, for sure, that the better decision would have been simply to let the banks that the big 3 fail, are ludicrous, and display a stunningly poor grasp of basic reasoning.— Talking point sleuth
- "I'm not the one defending lunatics, you are." Actually, you are the one claiming expertise in determining psychological status (ie loons)based on how one answers a poll question with only three possible responses. Now that is humorous.— RG
- "But the way you're arguing your case is ridiculous, and suggests that you're moved into the "Obama is the antichrist" end of the gene pool." Back to the Saul Alinsky school?— RG
- Where did I ever say that it isn't significant that sizable percentages of indies and Dems are also lunatics, RG? I'm not the one defending lunatics, you are. And the fact remains, the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party is demonstrably large, and growing larger by the day. And yet, you keep defending them. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- "What kind of logic leads you to conclude that not uniform = arbitrary?" Has the government or anyone else involved every stated the qualifications for bailout? if not, then either its arbitrary by definition (based on individual discretion), or they are hiding that information from the American people. What were their qualifications for handing out TARP money?— RG
- The for biggest banks hold some 40% of the American bank deposits. The auto manufacturing industry employs huge numbers of workers. Bailing out those entities is hardly arbitrary. If you don't agree with the logic, fine. But the way you're arguing your case is ridiculous, and suggests that you're moved into the "Obama is the antichrist" end of the gene pool. Is that why you're defending the antichristers so aggressively?— Talking point sleuth
- "The science of polling is that you extrapolate from smaller numbers to draw larger conclusions, RG." and by doing so, you'd find out that 42.5% of those who think the president is the AntiChrist are not Republicans. If 26% is a relevant number, why isn't 42.5%? To take it further, from that 26% who think Acorn stole the election, 33% of that subset is Democrat or Indy.— RG
- What kind of logic leads you to conclude that not uniform = arbitrary? If anything, it shows discretion. Apparently you think that anything other than your criteria = arbitrary?— Talking point sleuth
- "It was hardly "arbitrary."" Yes, the governtments reaction was uniform, letting BearStearns and Lehman fail, then panicking and giving Goldman, another investment house that doesn't do mortgage lending, cash.— RG
- Fair enough, RG - although I indicated it was an approximation, you're right. I don't have an exact number. But the point stands. It was hardly "arbitrary." You can't possibly be arguing that the bailout recipients weren't absolutely huge players in the American economy. First hit on first google search: --snip-- J.P. Morgan Chase, an amalgam of some of Wall Street's most storied institutions, now holds more than $1 of every $10 on deposit in this country. So does Bank of America, scarred by its acquisition of Merrill Lynch and partly government-owned as a result of the crisis, as does Wells Fargo, the biggest West Coast bank. Those three banks, plus government-rescued and -owned Citigroup, now issue one of every two mortgages and about two of every three credit cards, federal data show. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- The science of polling is that you extrapolate from smaller numbers to draw larger conclusions, RG. The smaller the sample size the lower the validity, and the larger the MOE. What was the margin of error in that poll? Interesting how you deny the poll's validity - when the truth of the matter is that the probabilities are greater that the poll is reflective of something important than that the poll reflects something inaccurate. So, your inclination is to simply reject the poll. Why? I'm sure that because it says that 18% of the Republicans polled are lunatics is completely irrelevant to your need to reject its findings. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- "The recipients of the bailouts were companies that controlled, probably on the order of, 80% of the American economy. The big 3, mega banks. Arbitrary?" My goodness, you pull a number out of nowhere and try to pass it off while criticizing my usage of the word arbitrary? If your claim were remotely true, then bailing them out should have left 80% of the economy fine. Thats hardly the case that we're seeing now with 10% unemployed. The banks arent lending, so what did the bipartisan bailout of Wall Street accomplish?— RG
- ---}}} arbitrarily determined to be too big too fail. {{{--- Look, I don't trust Obama's advisors any more than you, RG. And I think that accountability has definitely been sorely lacking. But to say that the determinations of who to bailout was "arbitrary" is just another example of how far over the shark you've jumped. The recipients of the bailouts were companies that controlled, probably on the order of, 80% of the American economy. The big 3, mega banks. Arbitrary? LOL! Questions about the bailouts are valid. Expert economists disagree over the merits - but to believe that no legitimate claim could be made that the bailouts were advisable, and that they prevented a worse crisis, which would have brought about worse unemployment, is ridiculous. No one knows for sure. To the extent that Obama administration said that they could assure certain outcomes, they can legitimately be called out. If you left your criticisms at that, fine. Disagree with the criteria for how the reciptients were chosen? Fine. But claims like that the selection criteria for the bailouts was arbitrary expose a bizarre logic, of the same type that causes you to apologize for the "Obama is the antichrist" lunatics.— Talking point sleuth
- "I've always said the left and right have a common enemy - Wall Street." Its not Wall St, its the government as a whole. Goldman has no power that their connectiosn to lawmakers don't give them. We aren't in a free market, its corporatism. Theres a big difference from being pro business and pro market.— RG
- "Another poll said 18% of NJ Republicans believe that Obama is the antichrist." Read the poll numbers, TPS. 500 people polled on the AntiChrist question. 195 Dem, 165, Repub, 140 Indy. That 18% of GOP represents a whopping 23 people. Meanwhile, 8% of Dems, or 12 people, and 4% of Indys, 5 people agreed. So in the end, 40 WHOLE people said he was, of them 42.5% were not Repubs. Great poll to use to demonize a whole party. Of course, don't look at the flip side, that 42.5% of Dems and Indys are bat guano crazy. There's the actual truth of the wonderous poll that you love to cite.— RG
- "Et tu, Brute?" (pronounced and occasionally spelled "Et tu, Bruté?") ("You too, Brutus?", or "And you, Brutus?" or "Even you, Brutus?— legatus
- "Can we at least be consistent about this? Shouldn't there be bailouts for all?" . . . . . RG, you and I at least share one thing in common on that score. Corporate capitalism and finance should be allowed to fail. Who wasn't heartened to see the bipartisan flogging of Geithner on capitol hill yesterday? I've always said the left and right have a common enemy - Wall Street.
- Somebody explain "Et tu" to legatus.— Talking point sleuth
- "I missed those links, because I'm not always going to grind over all 90 or so entries." In other words, when challenged with documented facts about the failures of the stimulus, I'll discredit them as desperate since they don't adhere to my worldview. Nice.— RG
- You've really "jumped the shartk," RG. You are comparing people feeling an injustice was done when one candidate won the popular vote, but lost the election due to a 5-4 SCOTUS decision that went along party lines, to people who feel that "ACORN stole the election." That's ridiculous. You can search the archives and you will never find an example of me saying that Bush "stole the election." Although there were, arguably, actual instances of voter fraud in Bush v. Gore - my belief is simply that the election was "decided" by the SC along partisan lines. But with ACORN - there simply are no examples of any documented voter fraud. And yet, 26% of Republicans polled said they believed that ACORN "stole the election." That is very specific. The question wasn't even whether they questioned the validity of Obama's election. The question was whether or not ACORN stole the election. And I love how you vacillate back and forth between saying that 26% really didn't believe what they said they believed, to saying that it just isn't important that 26% of Republicans said they believed something FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. The polls said 42% of the Republican party are birthers. Another poll said 18% of NJ Republicans believe that Obama is the antichrist. LOL! The gymnastics you're turning to convince yourself that the Republican Party isn't catering to extremists would qualify you for the American Olympic team.— Talking point sleuth
- Cool, we'll just keep shoveling money into the maws of companies that are arbitrarily determined to be too big too fail. Sounds like a swell idea. I'm sure the American people will be fine with handing over Wall St or Detroit more money when they burn through their first welfare checks. Especially when you tell the avg citizen you need to take their money to help a large, wildly inefficent business.— RG
- Real quick, RG. I missed those links, because I'm not always going to grind over all 90 or so entries. It doesn't surprise me that there are some lemons in the basket, but that doesn't discredit the stimulus as a whole. That's what I mean about finding a link to something you want to see. Later.— SteveMG
- "Et tu legatus?" Yep me too, I am definitely in the 26%ers camp...I feel certain that Obama will beat Hillary, despite what the majority believe.— legatus
- Baiouts for all? Not at all. (That sounds awfully left wing of you)There are plenty of times we don't intervene. It's better for businesses to survive and fail on their own terms, but there are circumstances where government may be forced to intervene to mitigate a greater disaster. It worked for Chrysler once upon a time. I remember Lee Iacocca became quite a hero for turning around Chrysler with govt help. (Where would we be without the minivan?) I guess in order to be consistent, if your companies collapse risks the loss of millions of jobs, I think you'll get bailed out. Of course, you'll lose control of your company (Like GM did). I think that's pretty consistent. Especially when the same principle applied to the TARP bailout. Definitely consistent. Anyway, I'm headed up to the roof for a while to fix a leak. See you around.— SteveMG
- Steve, the president was given multiple options from his expert advisors. Acourse of action has still not beeen chosen. That by definition is staying the course, once again not rocket science. Keep spinning, Maytag. But whatever you do, do not ask for accountability, otherwise you'll have to turn in your toady card.— RG
- So let's get our own 26%. Who here is rooting for the healthcare bill to pass? Not me.— IggleFan68
- If only the 26% were as critical of Bush andthe Republicans over the last 8 years, perhaps Obama would never have been elected. They still refuse to own their failure. If the economy is still in the tank come 2012, Obama will be out. It's really that simple. I don't get why people have to make sh*t up that in the end means nothing.— chasing history
- "Maybe those 26 percenters know something that we don't know?" . . . Et tu legatus?
- "But, that's what happens when your reality consists of despartely finding links to articles and pundits that will say anything you want them to say." Nitwittery at its finest. I post a link about worthless stimulus spending in LA, and you say its desperate. I guess pointing out that jobs were created in imaginary districts is also desperate. Remember, by their own claims, the adminsitration needed the stimulus to prevent unemployment from hitting 8%. 3 milliosn jobs will be created, no matter how fuzzy to math. Whose really desperate here, Steve?— RG
- Ok, RG, if there was an obvious solution for Afghanistan, one that you don't need to deliberate over, let's have it. Every option has consequences, most of them bad. "Staying the course" was discredited long ago. So if you want your C in C to rush issuing orders to thousands of sevicemen who have to bear the brunt of the decision, chances are you're in the minority. Like I said in a post tht doesn't look like it appeared, if your reality consists of desperately looking for links and commentators to tell you what you want to hear, knock yourself out.— SteveMG
- Shorter SteveMg, continue to subsidize inefficent companies that can't make a profit under the guise that its a demand crisis. Can we at least be consistent about this? Shouldn't there be bailouts for all?— RG
- Okay, RG. If the Big 3 fail, the parts network can't survive. That network also supplied the foreign factories assembling over here. That production would have shifted back overseas. So when the the cobined auto and parts sectors shut down together, it would have devastated all the feeder industries who comprise their vendors. That collapse would also have devastated other unrelated industries who happened to share the same vendors. Even at my own factory, I am hurt not just by slower sales, but when my vendors either shut down, lay off too many employees or can't buy the material to fabricate parts for me, it really causes a problem. SOmewhere in Florida there is a food machinery factory that had to lay off employees because the company that we bought custom screws for twenty years suddenly can't deliver to us, so that's work I can't do to sell parts to them, and that's machines they can't rebuild to ship out to their customers, etc. Now this is a blip that will be resolved in about two weeks. It's not unprovable to apply that scenario to an entire industry, with millions of wokers involved. But, that's what happens when your reality consists of despartely finding links to articles and pundits that will say anything you want them to say.— SteveMG
- "Evidence that showed if you let the Big 3 fail, the unemployment wave would become a tsunami." Ahh, yes ask me to prove the unprovable to justify the looting of the taxpayers. "I don't remember them saying there would be no hiccups, that's your fabrication." He promised it'd be done by January during and after the campaign, he meekly admitted recently that it aint happening. "Isn't the most important thing to get it right?" Wow, where's TPS to call you out on your toadyism. He rushs through the stimulus and tries to rush through expensive health care reform w/o any detailed studies on how its going in Massachsetts or Maine, yet when he delays making a decision on Afghanistan its a sign of wisdom. Gotcha. Hopefully you didnt type that with a straight face.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Call me when the approval rating hits 33% and they rejoice over a 2% bounce, like it was for your hero.— SteveMG
- "you're worried about the wrong polls. Obviously we need to focus on that dastardly 26%" "26% of U.S. adults are at least somewhat confident that U.S. policymakers know what they are doing when it comes to addressing the nation’s current economic problems, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey." "Forty-five percent (45%) of Americans believe that labor unions make our country weaker, while just 26% say unions make the nation stronger." earlier this year...."Twenty-six percent (26%) of American voters say the nation is moving in the right direction". If you go to a polling site and put "26%" in the search engine, you'll get a ton of hits. But Dems, I wouldn't be too disheartened about these polls, take a look at this one taken in January of 2008..."The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida finds Senator Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama 51% to 26%." Maybe those 26 percenters know something that we don't know?— legatus
- RG, at least the Obama administration has evidence on their side. Evidence that showed if you let the Big 3 fail, the unemployment wave would become a tsunami. That this was no garden variety business cycle recession, but that this was a demand dive. That's the kind of thing that causes a depression. They also have evidence that Gitmo is a great recruiting tool for the terrorists. I don't remember them saying there would be no hiccups, that's your fabrication. But that's typical, isn't it. And what's the "rush" to decide what to do in Afghanistan mean anyway? Isn't the most important thing to get it right? People who just "know" rush into decisions. Or didn't you learn anything from the last eight years?— SteveMG
- More polling fun. If you truly don't think that polls mostly reflect discontent with incumbents, then I'd suggest reading this. "CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Friday morning indicates that 38 percent of the public blames Republicans for the country's current economic problems. In May, 53 percent blamed the GOP. According to the poll, 27 percent now blame the Democrats for the recession, up 6 points from May, and 27 percent now say both parties are responsible." http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/20/poll.recession/index.html— RG
- "Popular vote doesnt determine POTUS. Not rocket science." . . . That's true, which means the election of 2000 was legal, but still a perversion of democracy. Thus it's understandable that some folks in the losing party would rhetorically claim the election was stolen, especially if ballot counting was stopped by the other party's majority in the Supreme Court. Heck, even Bush was claiming that Gore was trying to "steal" the election by contesting the Fla ballots, but again, in the heat of the moment, that's understandable. That Hoffman guy in upstate NY is also claiming that his election was stolen, but again it's a very close race. None of that is comparable to the theory that Acorn somehow managed to tamper with 9 million ballots nationwide, but that's what 52% of Republicans claim to believe.
- BTW< if you really want to put away the neocon fringe, everybody should join the Republican Party! Pat Toomey wouldn't sniff the Senate if he had to run in a primary if the Party wasn't such a smoking hulk of its former self. If 10 million Democratic voters suddenly switched parties, he wouldn't stand a chance. SOrt of a reverse Operation Chaos. Fact is, the Republican Party is pretty much controlled by the descendants of the Dixiecrats, and this does the two party sytem no good.— SteveMG
- Obama and his administration just knwo they can bend the cost curve while insuring more people. They just know the stimulus prevented unemployment from being worse. They just know the auto bailouts were the right thing the do. They just know that there's no rush to make a decision on afghanistan. They just know they can promise to close Gitmo with no hiccups. See, this game is fun to play.— RG
- RG, I'm still a Republican, and I believe the election was stolen, but not ny Bush personally. George W. Bush was the perfect figurehead. He was everything his father was not. He was there to be pushed around and told what to do by the likes of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove who just "knew" just what the country needed. Don't you just love how Cheney selected himself to be the VP nominee? Don't you just love how W made his tutor the National Security advisor? Don't you just love how he couldn't think of any mistakes? When he froze on 9/11, he wasn't panicking, he was just waiting for somebody to tell him what to do. Same for Katrina, he flew over a couple of days later waiting for somebody to think of something. His handlers just "knew" that the Clinton administration was wasting too much time on terrorism, when there was a whole new Cold War to fight with the new evil empire, China. They just "knew" that deficits didn't matter. They just "knew" that Iraq had WMD's. They just "knew" that Iraq was a democracy just yearning to blossom. They just knew that by keeping Americans divided by wedge issues, they could leverage their minority into a lasting majority. I was telling my freinds that he was going to be a disaster long before he was elected. If W W Wilson Goode had been ever been elected President, this is what would have happened. It's not a logical stretch to argue that the election was stolen. You will never hear me equate George W. Bush with Adolf Hitler because that was always a stupid thing to do by hysterical liberals. And it wasn't liberals that took away the Republicn majority in 2006. Conservatives and moderates who finally saw through the charade of the neocons and rejected the Republican Party. There aren't millions of new liberals that electe Barack Obama President, it was millions who saw through the sham of John McCain and Sarah Palin and for whon Obama appealed to. Remember they didn't just stay home, they turned out to vote.— SteveMG
- Manny, you're worried about the wrong polls. Obviously we need to focus on that dastardly 26%. Forget unemployment, stimulus hijinks, the two wars, Gitmo, TARP extensions, the debt, etc. and lets focus on improtant poll resuls like whether or not a slect group of people will say yes or no when asked if Acorn stole an election.— RG
- WOW- this Obama guy is really sinking low- who thought the "Messiah" did not have special powers?........"President Obama's approval rating has hit a new low of 46 percent, a poll was released Thursday. An equal number -- 46 percent -- disapprove of the job he's doing.................. Breaking down the numbers by political party shows how sharply split American voters are over the president's job performance. While 85 percent of Democrats approve of their party leader, 80 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of independents disapprove."-------------THOSE GENIUS DEMOCRATS APPROVE OF THE GREAT DEBACLE THAT IS OBAMA.....— Manny Trillo
- Popular vote doesnt determine POTUS. Not rocket science.— RG
- RG, if McCain had won the popular vote and was denied a recount in Fla by a liberal majority of SCOTUS, I'd take your comparison seriously.
- Comment removed.
- "Blind hatred can influence how someone answers a simple question." Or simple dislike/disagreement with policies.— RG
- TPS, I think RG makes a good point. Blind hatred can influence how someone answers a simple question.
- Meanwhile, as you nitwits worry about the dangers that the 26%ers pose, the stimulus is going swimmingly. Where's that transparency again? http://www.laweekly.com/2009-11-19/news/hollywood-s-catered-stimulus/— RG
- How many Dems TRULY beleived Bush stole 2000? Were they whack jobs or were they just upset about the outcome? C'mon TPS, you were one of that crowd, I'm sure. Were you a loon? Did you read the polling results, 9% of Dems and 18% of Indys said it as well. Do you think they actual beleive it? Are they tea partiers or birthers?— RG
- ---}}} This is not rocket science. {{{--- True, it's pseudo science.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} I think its well within reason that many participants will simply choose the answer that reflects their displeasure with the admin. {{{--- LOL! Your need to minimize the loons that the Republican Party is catering to - just because they agree with you that providing government health insurance will be the downfall of modern society - knows no bounds. People said "yes" they believe that ACORN stole the election, and you're trying to say that in reality, they didn't believe that?— Talking point sleuth
- Jimmy Carter on line #1..........."Please do not call me the weakest, worst, president ever- Obama now reigns."— Manny Trillo
- Sorry. I should have written: In reality, they are smart, logical people, who just happen to say that they believe in a wacked-out theory?— Talking point sleuth
- "Now you know how to interpret what people really think" nope, but when asked such a mind numblingly stupid question like TPM asks, I think its well within reason that many participants will simply choose the answer that reflects their displeasure with the admin. This is not rocket science. Meanwhile, Will's extrapolating the numbers to apply to the whole US to determine that 52 mil Aemrican people are nuts and should just go along with the program. What an idiotic post.— RG
- Obama- The Community Organizer- is breaking under Stress- will he weigh 100 LBS by 2012?????— Manny Trillo
- ---}}} Its luaghable that a) you beleive the polls are a true reflection of what people think/beleive and not simply a way for them to voice their displeasure with the admin, {{{--- Wow! RG, you're even smarter than I thought. Now you know how to interpret what people really think, even though it is in conflict with what they say they think. Nice. So, I guess that 42% of Republicans who are birthers aren't really birthers - in reality, they are smart, logical people, who just happen to believe in a wacked-out theory?— Talking point sleuth
- Hey, bryanc. Would you call a birther questioning TPM's credibility "ironic." LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Its luaghable that a) you beleive the polls are a true reflection of what people think/beleive and not simply a way for them to voice their displeasure with the admin, and b) that you think its the 26% that is holding up the magical cover everyone while reducing costs hc bill that defies economic reality.— RG
- PAEnglish, it's Will's version of "speaking truth to power."— pj katauskas
- Once again theres far more important stuff going on in this country and the rest of the world and once again Will cant tear himself away from attacking the right , you know that group that currently hold no power . Maybe somebody can explain this in a bipartizan concise way , the present Democratic government , looking more and more like the British Labour government every day .— PAEnglish
Ok Will, what is TPM? Let us know when Rasmussen or Pew Research conducts the study, then I'm more likely to believe it. Also, I really hate the birther theory that Barack Obama wasn't born in the US. I really wish BO would just show everyone the birth certificate. I mean his own grandmother was quoted as saying that "she was in the room in Kenya when he was born." Why would she say something like that? Birthers have a legitimate argument. There shouldn't be government run healthcare, but there should be a safety net for the uninsured.- This may be a permanent number that has nothing to do with anything other than the way people are. http://ajlpolitics.blogspot.com— andrewjlederer
- If the 26% is comprised of Americans who do not want our "leader" apologizing for being the greatest country in the world, I'm in! Rush commented the other day on the 'chickification' of the American male. Girly men are certainly making their voices heard. Thank you, Will, for leading the movement.— skips9
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Hey Will! Why post when half of the comments never get out there. Is this a system issue or is the moderator actually trying to limit the discussion?— Norton
- Hey, big deal. Seems like 100% of Ds believe everything BO says.— pj katauskas
- @msl: the point is that there is probably a vocal 26% that will believe anything, on either side of the political spectrum. and as a conservative it does seriously concern me that we are represented by some of the blowhards that are on fox, etc. that doesnt mean all conservatives think that way, its just the nature of media and politics today; get the loudest, most controversial person out there, they'll get people talking and get ratings. obviously since so many liberals care what these far right types have to say. i am a conservative and i tune them out, you drive their ratings more than i do.— Greg S
- Add "Chasing a Clue" to the list of people who hate religion, southerners, farmers, and Americans in general.— IggleFan68
- "what about the people who think bush engineered the sept 11th attacks?" . . . . . You'll let us know when they get a talk show on Fox, okay?
- "..and the far lefties are screaming about vast military industrial complex conspiracy." . . . . . Again, Ike's fault? You decide.
- Comment removed.
- will, you act like this 26% is only based on crazy conservatives. what about the people who think bush engineered the sept 11th attacks? there are whackos on both sides (and you occasionally seem to want to join the crazies on the left). youve always got the extremes on both ends, and now that the dems are in power and the crazies on the right are getting vocal you feel the need to point them out. please show the same degree of interest next time the gop is in control and the far lefties are screaming about vast military industrial complex conspiracy. i dont think it is a big travesty for the president to bow to another head of state, but i can see why some my be a little uncertain about seeing the leader of the free world bow before someone, a pecieved sign of weakness for people who dont really know whats going on.— Greg S
- "He is indulging in fantasy at the expense of reality, and therefore at the expense of US national interests" . . . . Hmmm. So I guess we can trace all our misery back to when Ike bowed to deGaulle. Sealed with a kiss on Prince Saud's lips.
- "Care to make any more disparaging remarks about your fellow countrymen and neighbors?" . . . . LOL, the lack of insight by the 26% is frightening.— chasing history
- bet these comments will show 26% aren't in living in reality. mogadishu really?— wendymae1
- BOHICA, unfortunately what I notice is that the Republicans have learned from the democrats how to benefit from bad news. We have learned that if we create a constant deluge of criticism on every possible issue that we can sink the President's approval rating and potentially paralyze our government. When Republicans want to shut down dissent we characterize people as unpatriotic and liberal weenies. Democrats have learned to scorn protest and free speech and characterize people as "wing nuts", "freaks", insult people's intelligence. And all so our "side" can win. It's fantastic. I heartily disagree with many of the things Obama is trying to do because I think it will cost way too much and that it is not the role of government to care for it's citizens. But I don't think he is an evil man for trying to do it. I want our country to succeed, and I think several of the things that he's trying to do may actually hurt our country rather then help it.— IggleFan68
- ---}}} There's always going to be a fringe. {{{--- --snip-- PPP communications director Tom Jensen says: "Belief in the ACORN conspiracy theory is even higher among GOP partisans than the birther one, which only 42% of Republicans expressed agreement with on our national survey in September." --snip-- 42% of the Republicans polled are BIRTHERS. Fringe? 42% Fringe? Did you say fringe? 42%?— Talking point sleuth
- "There's always going to be a fringe." . . . . Yeah, but 74% is a big fringe, you must admit.
- This 26% figure goes way back past Bush...when Nixon resigned, about 26% of the people polled either thought he should not have resigned, because he didn't do anything bad, or could not understand why he resigned. This is why people should have to pass a test to be allowed to vote.— Yersinia Pestis
Trolling more liberal cesspool websites for faux statistics Will? Don't the lessons ever sink in?— rudytbone- Comment removed.
ACORN couldn't steal the election for Obama. They were too busy getting their underage prostitution business off the ground.— jmc- "Care to make any more disparaging remarks about your fellow countrymen and neighbors?" . . . . Stop it Iggle, you're threatening my free speech.
- Comment removed.
- Welcome to the new "Hate Americans", didderbops, Gibba, and Will. 26% of 350 million people is 91 million people that you are ridiculing. Care to make any more disparaging remarks about your fellow countrymen and neighbors?— IggleFan68
- There's always going to be a fringe. Just look at how many people think that Bush was behind 9/11 or Mumia was set up and didn't kill Dan Faulkner. It's just noise, no meat behind it.— Norton
- Oh no, batty's free speech rights are being threatened by Bunch again? I'm sure batty explains it in detail, but for the jackboot censoring of his comment.
- ---}}} didderbops, how come Fox programming consistently beats MSNBC in the ratings? {{{--- See. Now this is what I love. Comments like this. And next we'll have comments about how when Fox flat-out lies, it isn't really important. And then we'll have another comment about how Fox is more popular than MSNBC. And then we'll have a comment about how "the media" is a left-wing conspiracy. And then we'll have a comment about how popular Fox, Limbaugh, Medved, Savage, Bennett, Ingraham, etc. art. And then we'll have a comment about how libz are elitists. And then we'll have a comment about how the only reason Obama won the election is because Americans are so gullible they fell into "the media's" trap. And then we'll have a comment about how libz are elitists, but our beloeved ARts are so much smarter than most Americans because they can see through the trap. Ah yes, logic and Attytood Republican toadies - like oil and water.— Talking point sleuth
- "If a bow isn't symbolic of anything, than why did he bother bowing in the first place?" . . . . . Translation: Why is it so shiny then? And where's my catnip?
- Comment removed.
- gphilly, give it a rest. Everybody posts here anonymously, so busting on whether a given poster served is pointless. Anybody could call themselves a decorated vet. Who can you believe, and what would it have to do with the opinions people post?— SteveMG
- didderbops, how come Fox programming consistently beats MSNBC in the ratings? You're right. All of us conservatives is dumm. And Gibba, why don't you look beyond the obvious polling data. A small percentage do identify themselves as "Republican". An even smaller number identify themselves as Liberal. Hmmm....weird. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the majority of people in this country are conservative and no longer identify with the butched up version of the Democratic Party that is the Republican Party. It's buyer's remorse time gang. America made an impulse buy in 2008. Good thing we kept the receipt. He will be a lame duck this time next year.— pjsz1261
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
26% must be the percentage of people who ignore the poll question and simply answer that you leftists are pathetic wastes of air and water. Doesn't matter what the question is, the only answer is that you fruity democrats eat fecum.— Mr. Smith- OK - admittedly the 26% number - given that there has been one (that would be 1 folks, as in one more than 0 and one less than 2) case of voter fraud ever connected with ACORN - is freakin' scary. But here's what's even scarier from that article, Will: --snip-- PPP communications director Tom Jensen says: "Belief in the ACORN conspiracy theory is even higher among GOP partisans than the birther one, which only 42% of Republicans expressed agreement with on our national survey in September." --snip-- Hello? 42% of Republicans are birthers? 42%? Whaaaaaaaaaaa? 42% of Republicans are birthers? Now that is some freakin' scary right there. I mean scary. As in really, really, really scary. It will be hilarious to read RG explain to us once again how the freak factor in the tea bag rebellion isn't significant. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- The 2004 IL Senate race was Obama 69.97%, Keyes 27.05%. So 27, not 26% in this race, but that may have been rounding error.— Cynicor
- Did Havard Law have a class on Decision Making? My 8 year old makes quicker decisions than Obama......— Manny Trillo
- "Look over there!!!!!!" Don't look at the WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY- make a fool of himself constantly.------"Look Sarah Palin!!!!!!!"-------------Don't watch Jimmy Carter Jr. go down in flames------------"Hey Ronald Reagan."--------Don't watch Tommy Teleprompter lose another 10 LBS because a ONE TERM SENATOR/ COMMUNITY ORGANIZER cannot handle the pressure........— Manny Trillo
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- As an admitted conservative this may sound typical - but I did find it uncomfortable to watch the President give an over the top bow to another head of state (figurative or otherwise). Not anything to preach or lecture about, just uncomfortable.— phillyjeffsr
- Comment removed.
- I wonder if 74% of Americans think that Bush stole the 2000 election— godard_7
- this is like glenn dreck numerology territory. i expect to see it up on his blackboard tomorrow.— mellowjohn
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
1
Popular Posts