CNN's Situation Room continues to equate conservatives with "values voters"
On the July 19 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, during a segment discussing reports that Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) lobbied in the early 1990s on behalf of a group trying to ease restrictions on federal funding to groups that engage in abortion counseling, CNN correspondent Tom Foreman asserted: "Fred Thompson certainly sounds like a conservative opposed to abortion rights," adding: "And, when he officially jumps into the race for the White House, he's counting on the support of values voters." As Media Matters for America has documented, CNN reporters, generally on The Situation Room, have repeatedly linked "values" and religious faith with conservatives or those opposing abortion rights:
- On the May 15 edition of The Situation Room, CNN chief national correspondent John King said that the state of South Carolina "has a history of mixing God and politics" and, therefore, would be a "critical testing ground" to gauge whether "a former big city mayor who supports abortion rights" can win the Republican presidential nomination, suggesting that belief in God and opposition to abortion rights go hand-in-hand.
- On the October 19, 2006, edition of The Situation Room, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley asserted without evidence that Democrats have been "on the losing side of the values debate, the defense debate and, oh yes, the guns debate," even though multiple public opinion polls indicated that the majority of the public prefers Democrats to handle the issues of "moral values," the "war on terror," and Iraq.
- On the October 3, 2006, edition of The Situation Room, King twice equated "pro-family voters" with "conservatives." During the previous day's Situation Room, King had prefaced a question to Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), by stating that "pro-family voters" looked to the conservative FRC "for guidance and advice" during political controversies.
- On the September 5, 2006, edition of The Situation Room, CNN Internet reporter Abbi Tatton said that "polling shows that faithful and Democrat did not go hand-in-hand in recent elections. In 2004, white evangelicals made up nearly a quarter of the electorate and voted overwhelmingly for President Bush." Tatton's statement rested on the assumption that the demographic of the "faithful" was composed entirely of white evangelicals.
- On the June 28, 2006, edition of The Situation Room, CNN senior national correspondent (now anchor) John Roberts asserted that "[f]or years, Democrats, unlike Republicans, have been afraid to wear religion on their sleeve." Roberts then added that it is now "to the point" that Democrats are "perceived as a party of secular snobs," which has "turned off a large slice of America."
Additionally, on the June 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, previewing the Presidential Forum on Faith, Values, and Poverty that aired later that day on CNN, congressional correspondent Dana Bash said to host Wolf Blitzer: "[W]e are going to hear from Democratic presidential candidates talking about something, as you said, we usually hear about -- at least in the last couple of elections -- from Republicans, and that is, they are going to talk about their faith, their religion, and their values," suggesting that Democrats have talked little about values.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the July 19 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
KING: New developments today involving another presidential prospect, Fred Thompson. His past work could put him in a bind with crucial conservative voters he's been trying to court. Our Tom Foreman is following that story. Tom, what are we learning?
FOREMAN: Well, John, it comes down to the question: How much does abortion really matter to these folks? And, depending on the answer, it looks like an old job could spell new trouble for the probable presidential hopeful.
[begin video clip]
THOMPSON: Belief in the sanctity of human life, these things that have been -- [applause]
FOREMAN (voice-over): Fred Thompson certainly sounds like a conservative opposed to abortion rights. And, when he officially jumps into the race for the White House, he's counting on the support of values voters.
But billing records show that, in 1991 and '92, Thompson spent some 20 hours lobbying for a group that was trying to ease federal laws that restricted abortion counseling. The records detailing his work for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association were first reported Thursday by The New York Times and also obtained by CNN.
Earlier this month, in response to a Los Angeles Times story, Thompson said he had no recollection of doing anything to aid the abortion rights group. But, last week, the former senator from Tennessee and longtime Washington lobbyist backtracked from that statement.

















Which one? Vitter values, or Gingrich gropes? Maybe Foley's fearless feelings. Delay's doctrine, perhaps?
'Zactly... it's too easy.
Not to forget Bush's war crimes? Scotter Libbys lies?
more red state values: grease, sugar and bleached white flour, beer, pickup trucks, confederate battle flags, pot guts, bad teeth, incest, spouse abuse, divorce, infedelity, baseball caps, piosness, superstitiousness, ignorance of science, the desire to kill any living thing with a gun or bow and arrow, incomprehensable accent, dirty fingernails, poor hygene, the inability to use multi sylabic words and being dumb is cool. Did I leave anything out and is every body offended yet?
You forgot "voting in American Idol".
It's disgusting how "pro-family" is used by the media to describe a set of political viewpoints that except for one issue, abortion, is directly anti-family.
FAWLTY:
Are you suggesting it is "PRO-FAMILY" for the government to force every pregnant woman in America to carry to term at the muzzle of state guns? That making abortion illegal even for incest is somehow "pro family"?
Somehow, there needs to be a reconciliation between being "pro-family" and supporting Rightwing POLICY ... which is exclusively pro-corporation and ANTI-human beings ... and supporting a government dictating reproduction rights in every woman's bedroom.
There is NOTHING "pro family" about Rightwing Republican policy, actions, or ideology. And that includes their attempts at tyranny over abortiion.
I never said it was pro-family, I said it's the only issue (IMO) that is not directly anti-family.
You left out the heartwarming treatment our soldiers get when they return home. Or how their pay was reduced because we're not at war anymore. Or how their deployments were extended because... uh... we're not at war anymore? Or how our President begged insurgents and terrorists to attack our troops. Or our the executive branch failed to prepare for the occupation, leaving our troops indefinitely in harm's way. Or not providing out troops with the equipment they needed to fight a war.
THOSE kind of values. The values of not giving a crap.
I think this kind of MMFA piece is reasonable... What values are we talking about here exactly? There are currently a long list of 'values' attached to the Republican party that are quite unsavory...The use of these vague terms, wink and a nod... it's nonsense.
According to the main stream media only Cons love families and have values. The rest of us are misfits and freaks. How insulting CNN is with this piece.
Are these the same values voters who want to outlaw abortion, gay marriage and gun control as they watch their jobs get exported overseas, their health care costs skyrocket and their friends and relatives come home in flag-draped coffins?
But they can again freely force you to listen to them tell you you are going to h-e-double toothpicks and then make you listen to them pray for your soul. All is good...
I think it's very legitimate that right-wing republicans vote with their personal ideals rather than with, say, reason or respect for huge public support or lack thereof.
I also think that you guys would want to shy away from being seen as a "value voter"...I think that implies that you're a single-issue voter or someone who wears their heart on a sleeve and votes with it.
The vast majority of Americans, left and right, vote for candidates that reflect their own personal values. The left just hasn't been in the habit of making explicit those values they implicitly embody.
That's because if they did, they might have to face not being able to live up to them.
Oops, that could probably use clarification:
I was referring to the left making a list of absolutes similar to the way the right does; a doctrine etched in stone, unwavering and uninfluenced by new truths. A life roadmap that leaves the traveller stranded with no detour when he encounters routes made impassible by reality.
That's the true essence of the values that they're talking about.
Yeah, you're right. George Lakoff describes the differences in much of the left/right models of morality as the differences between nurturant parenting and strict father parenting metaphors.
[link to www.rockridgeinstitute.org]
It's interesting.
I think it's very legitimate that right-wing republicans vote with their personal ideals rather than with, say, reason or respect for huge public support or lack thereof.- dexteritas0071418
I'm not sure what you mean by "legitimate". but if you think it's a synonym for "untrue", then I agree with you 100%
I also think that you guys would want to shy away from being seen as a "value voter"...I think that implies that you're a single-issue voter or someone who wears their heart on a sleeve and votes with it. - dexteritas0071418
That may be what it actually means, but it implies that one has values, as opposed to being immoral.
And are you saying we wouldn't want to be seen as voting with our hearts, or our sleeves?
Maybe by "values voters" they're talking about people who don't want their 5 year old kid taught sex ed in public schools.
Then we're all values voters.
Maybe the kind of values you're talking about involve forcing one type of religion down the throats of all students, regardless of background, and the dispensing of science in favor of myth.
Yep, so long as my candidate keeps sex ed out of schools, I'll gladly give my living-wage job to someone in India and pay more for healthcare insurance. While you're at it, give my son a rifle and send him to a bloody battleground to settle someone else's civil war. Don't forget to burden my great grandchildren with the cost, too. Hey, whatever it takes to stop sex ed before it spells the end of American civilization as we know it.
</sarcasm>
I know that you're being sarcastic, but the Democrats' extreme views on some of these social issues have indeed hurt them. Most people are with them on the economic issues, but they get turned off by their extreme views on these cultural issues. Most people are culturally conservative and economically liberal, and the Democrats simply do the Republicans a favor by taking such extreme views on these cultural issues.
Extreme views such as:
Decent wages; Progressive taxation; Health care; Education; Reduced crime/increased safety; Affordable housing; JOBS; Ending this war.
Damn those Liberal Democrat extremists.
Perhaps you didn't read my post. This is what I said: "
"but the Democrats' extreme views on some of these social issues"
Maybe you didn't notice that I said SOCIAL ISSUES. None of the issues you cited were social issues. I agree with you that people tend to be more liberal on economic issues.
Healthcare, housing, crime reduction and increased safety, and living wages aren't social issues?
Social issues go beyond teachers leading children from all backgrounds in state mandated Christian prayer, ya know.
Health care and housing are economic issues. Republicans have always been known to be much tougher on fighting crime then Democrats, so you have no point there.
No, I don't think so.
Healthcare and housing are issues of morality just as poverty, education, security and the environment are moral issues. These are moral issues because they profoundly affect the dignity and well being of people.
To hell with money first thinking, we have marred the very essence of the common good by thinking of cost before human benefit.
What is the Republican answer to every proposal to feed the hungry, house the poor and clothe the naked? The answer is always a question; what does it cost?
It's absolutely critical to the health and security of our human community that we find the solutions that best mitigate poverty, hunger and homelessness. We can defray the cost by pooling our resources and sharing the burden. That's the liberal way. That's the American way
The answers will not lie in handing sole control to the private sector and letting the market sort it out. The market answers to profits not people.
"What is the Republican answer to every proposal to feed the hungry, house the poor and clothe the naked"
I haven't seen any Republicans come out in favor of abolishing all welfare. Most Republicans in Congress these days support the same big government policies as the Democrats do. The Republicans in Congress have been spending all kinds of money on failed government programs.
Abolish?
No, that would be too honest and the public would be outraged. Instead, Republicans would rather mismanage every drop of effectiveness from and defund into oblivion essential family aid programs.
But do you hear what I hear, Rino? That sound in the distance, the sound drawing slowly near? That is the death knells of Republican ideology my friend. The Party of 'me first' is grumpily lying down for the dirt nap and they have only their arrogant profit over people elitism to blame.
You Republicans just can't talk or think about anything that affects the lives of everyday people without obsessing over money. And the worst part is, as with any miserly snob, you don't even realize your doing it.
I really feel sorry for Republicans.
I haven't seen any Republicans come out in favor of abolishing all welfare.
Regressives have no need to make politically unpopular statements anymore. Instead, they ran us so deep in debt and deep into a foreign civil war that any attempt at a balanced budget in the forseeable future will require cutting all sorts of plans. Regressives gave up trying to use the legislative approach to accomplish their goals. Instead, they just decided to bankrupt the country.
Yeah, as long as you don't include perjury or obstruction of justice.
Health care and housing are economic issues.
That you believe that tells us everything we need to know about conservative so-called values voters.
And "living wages" is obviously an economic issue.
I disagree, RH. To me, the social issues involve how people are able to live. Therefore, to me, wages, healthcare, marriage, crime are all social issues because they deal with how people are able to live.
These may be social issues to you, but I think that most "values voters" are voting more on issues like abortion and gay marriage. But everyone is probably different in what they think is a social issue and what they think isn't one. Everybody has their own values. They're just different for different people. But it's just that these "values voters" that the media is talking about are people who vote based on social issues that have nothing to do with their economic well being.
Thank you. You explained quite nicely why it is that labelling conservative voters as "values voters" is conservative misinformation.
the Democrats' extreme views on some of these social issues have indeed hurt them. - RINO Hunter
If you have the time, RH, an example of a specific Dem and their corresponding extreme view??
There's lots of examples, but I'll go with an easy one. Hillary Clinton supports abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy and also tax payer funded abortion. That's a position shared by only about 15-20% of the American people.
Bow many american people live in the United States ? 15-20% of what ?
Does anybody understand this question?
Pull your head out of your bottom and read your post followed by mine. Let the world know your refuse to answer a challenge to your post.
Can you please translate the gibberish that you wrote earlier?
RH, I believe he was making a distinction between America and the United States of America.
Probably doesn't register if you think living wage is strictly an economic issue with no social implications.
The only social implications that a living wage would have is the loss of thousands or perhaps millions of jobs and putting small businesses out of business. But if you think that a "social value" is punishing businesses and making them close down, then go for it.
"The only social implications that a living wage would have is the loss of thousands or perhaps millions of jobs"
How?
Because if employers were forced to pay their employees $10 or $11 an hour, they would simply try to get by with less employees. Many small businesses wouldn't be able to pay that high of a wage and would simply go out of business. The costs would also be passed on to the consumers in the form of higher prices on products. A "living wage" would hurt both employees and consumers.
Really? So then you know lot of small businesses that have surplus employees? They keep more employees than they need to do the job out of the goodness of their hearts? They carry them even though they arent necessary? You guys just make this arguments as a matter of religious dogma but I dont KNOW of any small businesses that keep employees around they dont NEED.
"Because if employers were forced to pay their employees $10 or $11 an hour, they would simply try to get by with less employees."
No. Employers hire the necessary amount of labor needed to run a business.
"Many small businesses wouldn't be able to pay that high of a wage and would simply go out of business."
I don't think that would happen. If everyone is making a living wage then the purchasing power of the general public is increased which would be good for small businesses.
"The costs would also be passed on to the consumers in the form of higher prices on products."
The price rise would be minimal compared to wage increase.
Seantor Clinton supported allowing late-term abortions when the health of the mother is in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated. She does not support "on demand" abortions for the entire pregnancy. Not that you care about facts, but maybe someone else cares.
And why shouldn't abortions be allowed to be paid for by tax money? I'm against the war in Iraq, I still have to pay for it. Should the army not be supported by tax payers either?
Pay attention, Fawltylogic. If a mother dies during childbirth, that's God's will, and man should not intervene with God's will.
Unless it's a brain dead woman who the Theo-cons can use as a prop, then it's outta the way, God!
There was an exception made for the life of the mother. Your suggestion is flat out false.
Where was it?
Congress included an exception for the life of the mother in the federal ban on partial birth abortion.
I read the decision and saw the exception for the life of mother but no other health concerns which is what I think Clinton objected to. There may be instances where a physician, out of health concerns for the woman, would want to perform the prohibited procedure instead of an alternate procedure. The Court did not give any deference to this.
The health exception is simply a huge loophole that the pro aborts use to make the ban un-enforceable. Health can mean anything. A woman could simply say that she's depressed or that she has a headache and that would qualify as a "health exception."
Do you think there should be no exceptions?
I think there should be an exception for the life of the mother.
That's good to know. What about any other health exceptions for the mother?
No, because I think that the health exceptions lead to too big of loopholes. It's hard to tell what a "health exception" really is. I think that abortion is such a terrible thing that it should only be done if the woman's life is in danger.
I agree its not my first choice, but if not having an abortion would lead to a lifetime of ills for the mother, I would have to agree to a health exception and give the mother the benefit of the doubt. I think we have to. No one else has to live with the health ramifications other than that mother.
A woman could simply say that she's depressed or that she has a headache and that would qualify as a "health exception." Rino
Rino you have a very "low" opinion of women.
It has nothing to do with women. If men were able to give birth I would still be against abortion. It's not a gender issue for me. It's a life issue.
I believe you. I think you are quite consistant in your far right views. I also believe if it were men that got pregnant there would not only be 24hr abortion clinics on every third streetcorner they would be government subsidized
And Rino I know the new Republican "talking points" memo said to call us "pro-abortion" but the reality is we are "PRO-CHOICE"!
I would call you "pro choice" if you were actually pro choice on other issues like guns, school vouchers, tax cuts, personal accounts for social security, etc.
Rino I don't need you to call me pro-choice, I'm already pro-choice but thanks for the offer.
This would be like saying to you, RH, I only think you are "Pro-Life" if you are anti-war (all of it) and anti-death penalty and anti any kind of violence that would result in a loss of life.
“Hillary Clinton supports abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy and also tax payer funded abortion.”
She doesn’t support this nor did the Supreme Court when they decided in favor of Roe. The Roe decision said that abortion during the first trimester should be unrestricted; the states can regulate abortion during the second trimester; and states have a vested interest in protecting the fetus during the third trimester. And almost all, if not all (it’s hard to determine this) of the abortions performed during the third trimester were done out of serious health concerns for the woman, not that bullsh*t argument about headaches you put forth.
So YOU say. And yet
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/06/b847725.html
According to the Pew poll, at this point more of the public believes the Republicans are too conservative on social issues (38 percent), than believe the Democrats are too liberal on these issues (35 issues). (Roughly the same pattern, incidentally, obtains in the public's views on the parties and economic issues.)
Independents are particularly likely to believe Republicans are too conservative on social issues (38 percent), rather than that the Democrats are too liberal (29 percent). More generally, on a six point ideological scale (1=very conservative; 6=very liberal), independents place themselves (3.6) twice as far away from Republicans (2.8) as from Democrats (4.0).
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:coSB1-hJnsQJ:www.csgv.org/atf/cf/%257B23E96A35-4C75-41EE-BDDD-4BD3A3B59010%257D/Why%2520a%2520Conservative%2520America%2520is%2520a%2520Myth%25206-13-07.pdf+Poll+Pew+social+issues+USA+Americans+more+liberal&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=30&gl=us
Read the social issues section it says straight out that majority opinion most often lines up with progressive values. When asked if the government should have intervened in the Terri Shiavo case only 20 % said yes and 76% no. On Stem cells 61% support research only 31% oppose them Even abortion when asked straight out do they want Roe V Wade overturned only 29 % say yes while 62% say no. You just keep repeating the mantra that the right has convinced itself is true but on these hot button social issues at their most basic the public is behind the progressive position two to one.
The only conservative who works for Pew is the janitor in the basement who watches Fox News. They're only respected by the left. I could come up with all kinds of polls which show that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, support creationism taught in schools, support prayer in schools, believe that abortion should either be banned or should be less available than it is now, and that most people don't have a problem with religious symbols in public places. But just go ahead and keep pretending that the Democrats don't have a problem on the social issues, because you're only doing the Republicans a huge favor. You know as well as I do that there are many people who vote Republican based on their social values and would otherwise vote for Democrats if elections were based only on economic issues.
Sure slam Pew because you dont like FACTS. We know that the right wins polls when THEY frame the question but notice how broad those questions are how basic. Feel free to continue to believe your fantasies. The bottom line is America is a lot more liberal than you wingnuts have convinced yourself. Poll after Poll shows our opinions to be in line with Finnland and Norway. YOU talk about Gay marriage which I support but is NOT the basic democratic position rather gay unions are and a majority of Americans support them. And FLAT OUT every poll I have ever seen that asks if they support the womans right to an abortion a majority says they do. YOU guys only get a majority by slanting the question toward more or less available or talking about late term abortions. There isnt any question mainstream America isnt as far left as I am nor as far right as you are OR as you WISH they were.
"And FLAT OUT every poll I have ever seen that asks if they support the womans right to an abortion a majority says they do"
I saw one from CBS a few years ago which said that a majority of Americans want abortion to be completely banned with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, and incest. Most people aren't as conservative on the abortion issue as the Republicans, but they aren't as liberal as the Democrats either. And I never claimed that most Americans are as conservative as I am. I openly admitted that Americans are generally more liberal on economic issues. Democrats generally take the populist position on economic issues, and Republicans take the populist position on cultural issues. Even the ultra liberal Jim Hightower admits in his books that most people are culturally conservative.
I'm sure you can come up with a link to those results.
The numbers were a little different than I thought. The numbers are 47% who want a ban on abortion with those three exceptions and 47% who don't want the ban. It's the 8th poll down.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
I dont know where you got that I didnt see ANYWHERE that the majority opinion was not pro choice. For instance should abortions be generally available vs not permitted Generally available outpolled not permitted everytime, always legal outpolled always illegal everytime, pro choice outpolled pro life,not overturn Roe V Wade was a majority opinion, usually legal outpolled usually illegal everytime should be left up to the woman and doctor was a majority opinion EVERYTIME and in DIRECT refutation of your point that the public is turned off by the extreme position Dems have "Regardless of how you usually vote which party comes closer to sharing your view on abortion Democrats or Republicans Democrats outpoll Republicans by TEN POINTS 45% to 35%
You must have missed the CBS poll that showed that half of the American people believe that abortion should be banned except in the most extreme circumstances.
Rino, you said that the only poll service that YOU believed in was Rasmussen cause they were right about the 2006 election. Have you changed your mind?
I simply said that they've been the most accurate over the past four years. I didn't say that they were the only polling organization I believed in. I just said that they were the best.
Yes I missed it. I went to the site you posted and didnt see it all the above stats came from YOUR site as did this
"Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?"
.
WouldWould NotUnsure%
%
%
1/19-21/07
29
62
9
Also the stat I showed that completly and directly refutes your contention that the people are turned off by Democratic stands on social issues where it shows the people prefer the dem to the GOP stand on this issue by a full ten percentage points. Where ever this stat is I cant find after looking twice on the site it is clear the vast majority of the stats ON that site show YOUR side is in the minority on this issue NOT the majority and your assertion that people are turned off by the dem stance on this issue is completely without meritWow. I dont know how THAT happened
Are you saying that Pew either lies or unfairly biases their surveys?
I'm saying that Pew polls generally over sample Democrats and under sample Republicans. The same is true for the Associated Press polls. Both of these polls usually have results that are much more favorable to Democrats than most other polls.
And also, you should realize that the voting public is more conservative than simply the registered voters. Republicans are much more likely to vote than Democrats, and if these polling organizations sampled likely voters rather than simply registered voters, the results would be much more favorable to Republicans.
Do you have any evidence of the things you posted?
Take a look at this:
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/313.pdf
This survey has 36% Democrats, 25% Republicans, and 33% independents. In the 2006 midterm elections, the turnout was 38% Democratic and 38% Republican. It's not hard to figure out how they biased the survey.
But you obviously have no idea about how poll results are calculated. If you did, you would know that your "conclusion" is absolutely bogus.
So your evidence that the voting public is a lot more conservative than the registered voters is that even though there are more registered democrats an equal amount of republicans showed up in an election where NOT A SINGLE DEM INCUMBENT LOST HIS SEAT, and both houses of Congess changed from GOP to Democratic control? Even were that true the argument here is about the PUBLICS take on social policies. Therefore polling based on their REGISTRATION is more indicitive of the the PUBLICS feelings than based on what the percentage of how they are GOING to vote which is impossible to tell. You have no point.
Even among REGISTERED voters it's 36% Democratic to 32% Republican. The Pew Poll was wildly off. It wasn't even close. You can't over sample Democrats in such an obvious way and expect to have any credibility at all. It would be like if Fox News had a poll surveying 37% Republicans and 32% Democrats.
And also, Republicans lost the 2006 election because independents voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats. But turnout for the Republicans and Democrats was about exactly the same.
Which does nothing to bolster your opinion that he voting public is soooo much more conservative than the registered voters. And THAT is irrlevant to your overall point about how conservative the public overall is on social issues.
The voting public is more conservative because Republicans are more likely to vote than Democrats. Republicans are more committed and energized.
Again, any backup on this?
Here's one example from a while back:
http://www.slate.com/id/2104727/
From the article: "A Gallup poll released yesterday indicates that the Kerry-Edwards ticket hasn't enjoyed much of a post-convention bounce. Though the Democratic duo leads President Bush and Vice President Cheney by three percentage points among registered voters, it trails by three points among likely voters. And when the independent Nader-Camejo ticket is thrown into the mix, Kerry and Edwards trail by four points among likely voters."
What about those who are improperly denied the right to vote? What about the widespread caging efforts done? Would that even out the voting numbers?
Sure the voting public is more conservative and your evidence is a poll taken during an election where Dems picked up 26 seats in the house and six in the Senate and not one single democratic encumbent lost. You really do live in your own little world dont you? Factual reality just has no meaning for you does it?
And if every registered voter would've voted in the last election the Democrats probably would've picked up 60 seats. Like I said before, the Democrats won big because the independents voted for them overwhelmingly. Turnout for Republicans and Democrats was the same.
In the 2006 midterm elections, the turnout was 38% Democratic and 38% Republican.
Where did you get these numbers from?
Do you think they kept the results as skewed as you think the survey is? My guess is that they factored in who they were surveying.
You pull a whole lot of basless assertions directly out of your ass. I understand that your screechmonkey heros argue that way but please, the methodology of the polling is RIGHT THERE on the link I gave and it in NO WAY supports your assertion in other words you might SAY it, you say a lot of things that are compeltely unrepresentative of factual reality. You just dont like Pew because you dont like FACTS. You so much prefer the delusional fantasies that you have made up in your head and have been fed by the bloviators you adore.
Just a few days ago a rightie was using a Pew research poll to claim most Americans don't want evolution taught in public schools. He was wrong, but still...
I cited polls to show that most people want creationism taught along side evolution in public schools. And if even a Pew Research Center poll is favorable to Republicans on that issue, you know that public opinion has to be pretty overwhelming in favor of teaching creationism.
No I dont. As far as I know the Pew polling is well respected and accurate just because you hate factual reality doesnt mean PEW is suspect
I already showed how their results are suspect. You can't over sample Democrats by 11% points when the country is almost perfectly evenly divided.
You gave YOUR numbers Pew had theirs. I dont trust you more than them you are wrong far too often with what you THINK are facts for me to take your word for it.
RINO:
A compilation of polling information is available at PollingReport.com.
http://www.pollingreport.com/
On their home page, they list ISSUES:
Abortion, Energy, Environment, Evolution, Gun laws, Health policy, Immigration, Minimum wage, Same-sex marriage, Stem cell research, Problems and Priorities, budget and TaxesCrime, Disaster Preparedness and Relief, Education, Foreign Affairs and Defense Issues,Government and Politics, Illegal Drugs, Law and Civil Rights, Race and Ethnicity, Social Security.
Could you review these national polls, by a myriad of polling firms, and tell us on which issues the Republican Platform/major candidates' stance is the one POPULAR with the American people?
See, when you say Democrat positions on issues are "EXTREME", you must mean that they are way out of step with the American People. But the FACTS do not support your claim. On almost EVERY issue, from Iraq to Social Security, from TAXES to immigration, it is the REPUBLICAN position that is in the minority, that is out of step, that is the "EXTREME" position.
Somehow, the Rightwingers like yourself, RINO, wish to depict the Rightwing policy as both POPULAR and in the mainstream. But, like IRAQ, this is a damn lie. The American People OPPOSE Bush seven to three on his "stay the course" policy. It is BUSH and his few supporters who advocate the "EXTREME" position. Republicans govern AGAINST THE WILL of the American people, and that makes THEM the "extremists".
But I could be wrong. I've posted the most comprehensive polling site I could find, and we can discuss each issue on the MERITS of what position each party takes.
For example, on ABORTION, the very first poll shows the Rightwing position (ANTI-abortion, PRO-life, repeal Roe v Wade) enjoys only a 21% support, while those wishing to keep abortion LEGAL is at 76% (with less than half of those willing to accept some additional "restrictions"). This is 3-1 support for the Dems, while the GOP position only appeals to one in FOUR of Americans. Which is the "EXTREME" position? Hmmmm?
It's much the same right down the line.
On the abortion issue, the public on the whole is more conservative than current law with 56% of the people supporting either a complete ban or more restrictions than are currently in place. Check your link and you will see that I'm right about that.
I only said that Democrats are extreme on SOCIAL ISSUES. As Bruce said, the abortion polls on www.pollingreport.com show that the vast majority of people at least want there to be MORE restrictions on abortion than there are right now. That's not a position shared by the Democratic Party.
RH,
Are you against telling little kids what "bad touches" are?
If a teacher sees a little kid touching another kid in a bad area, the teacher should obviously tell the kid to quit doing that. There's no need to explain why. Parents should teach their children about these kinds of things at that age, if they wish to. Kids shouldn't have to grow up that fast.
Conservatives never grow up.
They may never grow up, but they can be trained;
"[begin video clip]THOMPSON: Belief in the sanctity of human life, these things that have been -- [applause]"
Didn't even have to finish the sentence, and they're clapping like seals! Pavlov was a piker.
RH,
Let me rephrase, what is wrong with a teacher telling kids that if an adult touches you in a certain place, you should tell your mom or dad?
I don't have a problem with a teacher spending a small amount of time on a certain day informing the kids about that, but that's different from an actual sex ed program. I think Obama made it clear that he wanted to do more than that.
Obama said. 'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards."
Why do you mischaracterise what Obama said ?
or their 22 year old college student taught science.
Damn. That was a witty retort to something about 20 posts back.
Obama made a huge mistake with that comment. It will haunt him the rest of the campaign.
then please take this space and tell us what you heard him say ?
Only if heard through the filter of Sean Hannity would that comment be considered outrageous.
His comment should be considered outrageous to Republicans and Democrats alike. It's only the far left that approves of such extremism.
RH,
What do you make of Romney checking a box for the same type of education on his tax returns a few years back?
For clarification:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0707/Romney_also_once_backed_ageappropriate_sex_ed.html
His legislation in Illinois provided exactly what you wanted with an opt-out for parents and for it to be decided by local school boards:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html
I guess what I can't understand is how Romney can be your guy (it may have changed) because of all this inconsistency.
He's a political opportunist. I'm becoming more and more suspicious of him all the time. I think I might have to withdraw my support for him in the primaries. It just seems like he flip flops on everything.
I appreciate your candor on Romney, RH. Who would get your support? Rudy is a flip-flopper and an opportunist. McCain seems dead in the water, Thompson is another opportunist trying to figure out whether he is an insider or an outsider. Tancredo and Brownback are on the fringes, who is left?
I don't think that Rudy is really a flip flopper. He's been pretty consistent for the most part. Despite the fact that he's pro choice, I'd be willing to vote for him if he makes it clear that he'll appoint justices to the Supreme Court like Scalia and Thomas.
Yes, we need more justices who quote Fox Television shows in their opinions ("24").
Here are a few questions since you seem be a strict Constitutionalist:
What do you think of the President's wiretapping program? If its not a violation of the search and seizure provision of the 4th amendment, what would be?
What do you think of Cheney's assertion that his office is not a part of the executive branch of government?
Was Loving v. Virginia correctly decided?
Were Jim Crow laws permissible since they were decided on by the states?
Why do you think Bush can claim executive privilege (a right not found in the Constitution)? If Bush can use it to not have any members of his staff testify, was Clinton just bending unnecessarily when many of his aides testified?
You dont mind if we dont consider an extremist like YOU to be the expert on what ought to outrage people do you?
Blessed are the peacemakers. how's that for a moral value?
Peace through Power ! None of that wussy thinkin' !
The aftermath of a good bomb strike is pretty peaceful, after all. I think that's what Jesus was getting at.
Who would Jesus bomb? Liberals! Just ask any right winger.
Values are certainly distilled
To the right wing base they must be shilled
As abortion and gays
For it certainly pays
For these wedge issues to be instilled