Well, I don’t think the average American (aA) is visiting sites like this. The aA gets their news from the MSM–the local newspaper, network news, etc…… In their defense, being bombarded by propaganda from all angles can tend to wear down one’s mental ability to see truth.

RedCrow on March 28, 2007 at 3:24 AM

This sounds a little elitist don’t you think? I submit that anyone who feels that they can get the “truth” by limiting their exposure to a couple of websites that offer a synopsis is asking someone else to define their world view. Before the internet people who cared scoured different articles, read diverse viewpoints from columnists, and basically made up their mind based on their interpretation.

These sites offer very useful service if used in the context of noting a story or issue and then researching/reading other sources. But, To rely on one or two sites for one’s information is somewhat narrow minded and is kind of like subscribing to the fast food version of political awareness.

Well, I don’t think the average American (aA) is visiting sites like this. The aA gets their news from the MSM–the local newspaper, network news, etc.

In your etc., I’d add their friends and family. The peers of the aA are very influential and the more shrill and loud, the more convincing. This is especially true of young adults. My kids had frustrating experiences in their US History and Gov classes because I educated them and their peers were not. But I guarantee you there were many kids exposed to ideals they never heard articulated in their lives.

I do what I can to explain rational conservatism to youth whenever I can. I have a myspace page and don’t have a single adult “friend”. I post bulletins and blogs and link them to these friends for their consumption. I know I am making a difference. It’s a great way to network ideas and I get the peer issue working for conservative ideas.

We have had 4 years of non stop leftist propaganda flung at us from Holliweird and the nutroots. They claim to have all the answers.
Its only a short matter of time before the American people will see that they have been duped by the left and the democrats and lied to repeatedly

William Amos on March 27, 2007 at 2:26 PM

And…

keep in mind that once they’ve won the white house and congress…
jummy on March 27, 2007 at 3:03 PM

Jummy’s right. When you use the phrase, “American people,” I assume that you mean the average American.

Well, I don’t think the average American (aA) is visiting sites like this. The aA gets their news from the MSM–the local newspaper, network news, etc.

Add to that ‘fact’ the outrageous decline of the public school system…the aA is not going to know (or maybe even care) that they’ve been duped.

In their defense, being bombarded by propaganda from all angles can tend to wear down one’s mental ability to see truth.

None of my friends or family that I’ve asked ever answer polls.

…

That is one of many flaws in depending on polls for anything.

And this is Pew anyway, which is not anything like independent from political concerns. They have a consistent agenda.

The wording is everything.

Someone mentioned “getting even”. The actual question should have been “preventing another attack”.

The results would have been much different.

If a poll revealed the following about the beliefs of the American public, what would you say?-62% reject the idea that “Success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control.” -69% say that the poor have become……

I do not claim that such was the case in this PEW poll, but given the underlying philosophy, and given the importance of political domination to liberals, I simply believe that this poll ought not to be taken that seriously.

Actually, I think the data and metheodology seems pretty sound – much, much better than a poll taken by the media. Good sample size, good timeframe and good random sampling.

The problem is not the data, but Pew’s analysis of it – which seems like a bit of wishful thinking. I’ve had time to read most of the full report and the data is not at all bad news for Republicans or conservatives.

the voters will cut short the dreams of hegomony and total control of the Democrats.

My 2 cents.

georgej on March 27, 2007 at 4:59 PM

I think this is how the Democrats viewed things prior to the 2006 election in regards to Republicans.

Centrist is not a dirty word. Just as the far left is finding out now, majority party in the house and senate does not mean they drive the train. The Republican right would do well to remember this.Reagan didn’t always have republican majority in the senate and never had majority of the house – yet he was successful because he stuck to principles but understood the need for compromise on some issues.

Let us take a trip back into time before we allow our opponents to bury it in the memory hole of revisionism.

The media smear started in late 1999 with the media’s attack on Republicans over Clenis and the ascendence of George W. Bush among Republicans. In spite of a year of concentrated bile aimed at Bush, and in spite of the media orchestrated claims of a “successful Clinton Presidency,” and why Al Gore would continue it, Gore was clobbered by the electorate. By rights Gore should have won election by more than a 2 to 1 majority in both popular and electoral votes.

As we all know, Gore’s popular vote advantage was razor slim and the electoral college tabulations were a dead heat.

Further, as we all know, BDS began on 13 December 2000 when the US Supreme Court tossed out Gore’s attempt to steal the Florida election by selective recounting, and has continued unabated right up until 9/10/2001.

It slacked after 9/11, for a brief period of a “patriotism” display from the Democrats and the media.

After that “grace period,” the anti-Repuublican, anti-Bush, anti-war media and official Democratic Party rancor has been continously rachetted upward.

The PEW survey we are discussing here is the end result of a biased and hostile media and duplictious behavior of the Democratic Party whose open sabotage of the war effort was aimed at restoring them into power and for no other reason.

Like 1974, there will be a rebound period where the Democrats are ascendant. Like the media’s hatred of Nixon, their hatred of Bush will continue long after Bush retires from office in 2009.

However, this is NOT 1974, and things are very much different today, not the least of which the fact that America if fighting a hot war and that the underlying technology of news distribution is completely different.

I predict that the rebound cycle this time will be much shorter than the 6+ years after Watergate. I think that it mmight even be over by the 2008 elections. I think, irrespective of Bush’s apparent inability to fight back on most issues, there is a sense among Republicans and conservatives OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY that it is long past time to start pushing back, and I expect this to happen. I see this, BTW, with Republican relatives and friends and even among a number of Democrats in the “blue state” where I live, who see their party crashing on the anti-war reefs and fear its breaking up because of the leftwing brownshirts that they have, defacto, put in charge of their party.

Here is the good news.

Despite this poll, other polls have shown that the majority of Americans (2/3rds, including Democrats) do not want to see America lose in Iraq or Afghanistan, and likewise do not want to see the troops undercut in any way.

This is a consistent result from immediately after the election and is unchanged 5 months later. Why voters gave control of Congress to the Democrats is NOT because America wants to immediately run from Iraq, but because of the apparent indifferent leadership and lackof PR skills of the Bush White House and some other issues including “pork” and an media-orchestrated sense of Republican corruption.

I point to the nearly 10 point bounce in “approval” of the surge since early February, that the major media is NOT reporting on, due to the early success of the surge. Despite a media blackout and continued attempts to undermine support of the war, most Americans want to see the surge succeed.

Unlike 1974, when the overwhelming liberal/Democratic Party oriented media was unopposed in its message, today is a very, very different environment. The blogs and alternate media (including talk radio) will shorten this “wilderness” time that the Pew organization is attempting to convince us is going to come about.

Those of us who either support Bush or support victory in Iraq need not begin slitting our wrists quite yet.

Now about the PEW surveys.

I will point out that Pew is NOT ideologically neutral. They are NOT “non-partisan,” or “ideologically neutral” folks just “reporting the facts, maam.” The research organization is FUNDED AND CONTROLLED by the PEW Charitible Trusts whose explicit agenda includes:

The Trusts is an advocate for policy solutions on important issues facing the American people when the case for change is compelling and where the facts are clear. At both the national and state levels, we engage the foremost leaders, thinkers, researchers and technical experts to identify pragmatic resolutions to pressing societal concerns. From this base of rigorous, nonpartisan research, study and policy analysis, we support a range of focused interventions that include highly targeted public education initiatives, advocacy efforts and issue campaigns. The goal is to inform decision makers about options and help them form consensus on policies that will drive positive change for Americans.

Our work in the policy arena falls into three major categories — the environment; health and human services; and state policy and education — with selected investments in other areas of significant and timely opportunity.

Our current top policy priorities include:

Environment: Global warming, Protecting ocean life, Wilderness protection
Health and Human Services: Foster care reform, Alcohol marketing & youth, Alcohol treatment policy, Genetics & Public Policy, Food & Ag Biotechnology, Retirement security, Nanotechnologies
State Policy Initiatives: Pew Center on the States, Government Performance Project, Pre-K Education, Improving Elections, State Sentencing and Corrections, Death penalty reform.

PEW is a leftwing funding machine. Period. The PEW survey has all the earmarks of a leftwing PR operation.

As such, their methodology and their data collection cannot simply be taken at face value. We have all seen how DEMOCRATS are oversampled in almost every media sponsored poll. We have all see cherry picked data and carefully formulated poll questions that appear to provide for a predetermined result in some of these polls.

I do not claim that such was the case in this PEW poll, but given the underlying philosophy, and given the importance of political domination to liberals, I simply believe that this poll ought not to be taken that seriously.

I believe that we are being “had” by PEW and the media.

In other words, Honora’s chortling at the beginning of the comments is another simple act of disinformation and/or sabotaging of our morale.

In conclusion, we should not simply dismiss this poll as partisan garbage, but should understand its limitations while heeding its message.

In 2008, the Republicans are going to have to field candidates that will not pander to the media, that have a clear sense of values common to the party membership, and who are not afraid to openly root for success in the war on terrorism. If Republicans cease pandering for media approval (which will NEVER come, BTW), and stay on message, the voters will cut short the dreams of hegomony and total control of the Democrats.

My 2 cents.

Heart-ache.

Despite revelations of widespread abuses at a U.S.-run prison in Iraq, most Americans do not rule out the use of torture as a way of gaining important information from suspected terrorists. About four-in-ten (43%) feel that torture in such circumstances can be often (12%) or sometimes justified (31%).

Slublog

The Jack Bauer dividend.

“get even with any country…”

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Go to war with them? Do the exact same thing they did to us to them? Kill their leader? How ambiguous can you get?

In my experience, no. That’s not what Hispanic voters look for at all.

Whoops. Just re-read my comment. What it should have said is : “That’s not what all Hispanic voters look for.”

If the country is becoming more secular, why won’t anyone elect an atheist?

They smell like cabbage.

Small hands.

How about adding paranoid to that list?

honora on March 27, 2007 at 4:12 PM

This from someone whose political brothers-in-arms regularly panic about Bush declaring martial law, cancelling elections and herding liberals into Halliburton built and run camps and think 9/11 was an inside job…

keep in mind that once they’ve won the white house and congress, they’ll keep coming at us. suddendly, evey blog, radio show, think tank and townhall meetup will be portrayed as a klan rally financed by unseen global corporate puppetmasters. not just by the nutroots, but also by elected officials who will face absolutely no scrutiny in the mainstream media when they paint their grassroots, civilian opponents as traitorous and corrosive enough to merit official action. it’s already begun with the reintroduction of the fairness doctrine.

jummy on March 27, 2007 at 3:03 PM

How about adding paranoid to that list?

honora is once again licking the back window of the short bus.

quax1 on March 27, 2007 at 2:22 PM

Well I can’t compare to your intellect obviously…..as so obvious from this brilliant comment. Short bus to denote lack of brains–where do you come up with these witty metaphors…

The right person will be in the mold of a Latin American conservative. A Latin American conservative is one who has no interest in personal responsibility, self-reliance, or smaller government. They merely promise to make government work more efficiently.

In my experience, no. That’s not what Hispanic voters look for at all.