Scott Rasmussen made a startling statement on The O'Reilly Factor last night, that there are now more conservatives than Republicans and more Democrats than liberals. Verrry interesting and verrry strange.
This was a side detail on a new poll Rasmussen reported, showing, "Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on 8 out of 10 key electoral issues."
These are: the economy, national security and war on terror, war in Iraq, immigration, government ethics and corruption, taxes, social security, and abortion (click to enlarge):
All of these simply are simply conservative solutions pitted against liberal solutions, and ours are slamming the competition's, encouraging news. (The losers? Health care and education.).....
On June 16 I reported on a Gallup poll that "conservatives are now the single-largest ideological group," with 40% of Americans calling themselves thus, and only 21% calling themselves liberal.
Gallup reported on a new poll July 6:
Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to 18%, with 42% saying they have not changed.
Click to enlarge:
In the article on its latest poll, Gallup rereported on an issue covered last month, putting results a different way:
Of 7 values issues measured in 2004 and again in 2008 or 2009, Gallup found significant movement on just 2, and only 1 on which Americans became more liberal (the government's role in promoting traditional values).
The lone issue showing "significant movement" to the right was, of course, abortion, where 51% of Americans now consider themselves pro-life, as opposed to 44% pro-abort, a 7% shift.
Germane to all this is a column Manny Miranda of the Third Branch Conference forwarded this morning, "Accentuate the positive," in the American Spectator. Manny introduced it by writing, "This piece by the legendary Quin Hillyer, famous for getting election results exactly right, is exactly right. Sometimes I feel it's not a Conservative Movement, but a Conservative Whining, and our elected leaders a Low Tide." The reminder in this piece for pro-lifers is to continue to focus on the positive implications for both mother and child by upholding the sanctity of life, plus, stop whining. Here 'tis:
Barack Obama is a disaster for the country because his economics are straight out of Mussolini's playbook, his foreign policy is that of Ramsey Clark, his Justice Department is that of Ramsey Clark as well, his ethics are pure Chicago thuggishness, his hostility to Christianity in the public square akin to that of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and his ego like Napoleon's.
Yeah, ... and trying to make those complaints will get conservatives exactly nowhere. Nor will complaints that the establishment media have put their journalistic ethical manhood in collective hock, trading in their watchdog roles for not just a lap dog role where Obama is concerned, but more like lap dancers for the president while asking him exactly what he wants them to show him.
Yes, Nancy Pelosi and Pat Leahy are hypocrites and cheaters; and yes, Barney Frank's economics are a threat to the republic; and yes, making "empathy" a criterion for choosing judges is about as relevant as making calculus skills a criterion for picking a hockey team.
To all those points, much of Middle America asks "so what?" Why should that make them pay attention to conservatives instead of paying attention to dead weirdo musicians and to their own credit card debts?
Oh, much of Middle America will indeed give a passing thought to conservatives when those conservatives are flaking out in Argentina, Alaska, or airport assignations. But otherwise, conservatives just don't seem relevant.
A huge part of the problem is that our elected leaders don't seem to have a clue about how to mobilize conservative grassroots, much less the general public, behind positive themes or principled conservative ideals. The number of Republican congressmen not seriously afflicted with Inside-Baseball-itis can probably be counted on a broken abacus on which the beads don't move. And the congressmen who actually understand that good principles are good politics, rather than an occasional tool for political ends, are as rare as the latest confirmed sighting of a hairy-nosed wombat.
But none of that excuses the rest of us for our failures to win political battles.
The conservative movement somehow lost its ability to elect enough of its own to office. The movement certainly lost its ability to stay connected with enough of the politicians it helped elect to office. And it -- we -- clearly failed to maintain the constructive hold that conservatives once enjoyed on state and national Republican Party apparatuses.
To understand how bad things are, one need only watch Republicans in the Senate fumble the chance to win a real public relations battle concerning the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. On every level, polls give conservatives the edge on issues related to judges. Yet AL's Sen. Jeff Sessions has been allowed to wage a mostly lonely battle -- a valiant and well-thought-out battle, but still a mostly lonely one -- while most of his colleagues act as if it's a foregone conclusion that Sotomayor will be confirmed.
You can't win by acting as if you can't win.
And that's a shame, because if the nomination battled is waged well, there actually is, or could be, a serious chance, even if decidedly difficult, to defeat Sotomayor.
But I digress. The point here is that conservatives need to relearn politics.
Now that's a tall order. Relearning politics from top to bottom involves all sorts of campaign technology, media savvy, personal skills, and myriad other challenges -- far too many challenges to be discussed in one column.
But one fairly simple lesson from past conservative successes can be emphasized concisely. The lesson is this: To capture the public's imagination, a movement needs to push a galvanizing, positive policy change.
In the late 1970s, a flailing Republican Party rallied around what became the Kemp-Roth tax-cut plan, along with calls for a strong defense. In 1994, conservatives rightly embraced the Contract with America. In 2002 especially, but also in 2004, conservatives effectively campaigned on the issue of judicial nominations. And in 2004, it is almost certain that various state initiatives to outlaw homosexual marriage helped carry President Bush to re-election while helping save or win seats for a number of Republicans, conservative or not, who benefitted from high social-conservative turnout.
In each case, conservatives clearly provided something to vote for. Yes, it also helps immensely to have something to vote against. Parties and candidates can win elections on the strength of being against something or someone bad. But principled movements can't elect enough principled politicians to office, and keep them in office, merely on a negative message. They need to offer something positive -- something either inspirational or at least deeply felt. Something for people to support.
Pundits, including ones whose names begin with "Q," need to learn this lesson too. We may have good reason to stress the negative, to sound warning bells against bad policies or people, to make provocative comparisons and points of logic. But if we pundits focus only on those criticisms of the left, we too fail to make a case that can keep the broader public engaged beyond the lifespan of any one particular grievance.
Sure, we occasionally write columns heavy on policy ideas and positive themes. But like so many other conservative activists, we don't focus enough attention on winning, positive, prescriptive solutions to current problems.
These solutions do not need to involve active government. They do need to involve a citizenry that becomes more active in public -- in politics or in very public private-sector leadership.
The Obamites right now are undermining our sovereignty, our values, our foreign policy stances, our longstanding alliances, our sanctity of contracts and of private property, our limits on governmental power, our energy independence, our dollar, and our long-term national solvency. We need to offer not just a check on those Obamite efforts but a concrete explanation of what we would do differently.
Let us therefore pledge ourselves to rallying around positive themes and proposals -- some of which I hope to broach in this space in weeks to come.
Right now we face a serious struggle for the basic symbols and practices of the American tradition. Let us demand of each other that we rise to the challenge.
Wait, wait, wait...people agree with the Republicans on immigration? I'm slightly confused: what stance does the Republican Party have on immigration? Are they for or against it?Posted by: Vannah at July 10, 2009 12:45 PM
Funny how people consider themselves "conservative" and "pro-life," yet in poll after poll, 70% still believe that Roe v. Wade should NOT be overturned. Apparently, abortion rights are conservative and pro-life.Posted by: reality at July 10, 2009 1:36 PM
reality @ 1:36,
Inflated figures may be due to the fact that a majority of Americans have been misled to believe that abortion is at times necessary to save the life of the mother. Until moremainstream pro-life doctors take on the challenge to educate our society about modern medicine, the pro-aborts will continue to have the upper hand in spreading misinformation. If a pro-life person advocates exceptions of life of the mother and rape/incest for abortion, they are "pro-choice", not really "pro-life". There are American doctors who have already taken a stand and they should be applauded. For an in-depth look, the American Life League Associates Letter, Dec. 26, 2007, addresses "How Many Abortions are Necessary?"
Posted by: Janet
at July 10, 2009 2:04 PM
Rasmussen is known as being Republican-leaning; are there any other polls that replicate the same results?Posted by: Phillymiss at July 10, 2009 2:48 PM
I think a lot of people have buyer's remorse for voting for O. Many people either did not believe or did not know how radical a leftist he is.
I think 2010 could easily be a repeat of 1994. In fact the Republicans could do ever better than that, if they get back to conservative principles and offer a real alternative to the left.Posted by: Joanne at July 10, 2009 5:12 PM
Thank you for your excellent post at 2:04 PM. Being truly Pro Life means there are no exceptions.
Other great sources of information refuting "exceptions" and "medical necessity":
aaplog.org (American Assoc. of Pro Life OB-Gyn) &
but I have a feeling you are already familiar with these sites.
Have you seen this petition?
Every Life MattersPosted by: j sable at July 11, 2009 1:29 AM
The poll showing that Americans feel they've gotten more conservative should not be confused with America getting more conservative.
After all, it's long been recognized that as an individual gets older, they tend to get more conservative. But after getting more conservative for many years, they get, well, dead... and the new generation that starts up may start from a more liberal position than the older generation started from, and may turn conservative at a slower rate. (It's much like how in a given country, the average age of the population may decrease even though, obviously, no individual is getting younger.)
Or to look at it another way: our conservatives get liberal. Many beliefs that a middle-of-the-pack conservative is likely to hold today would seem severely liberal 75 or 100 years back. (You want to put black kids and white kids in school together? You think people shouldn't be put in jail for sodomy? That there's nothing inherently wrong with a woman on the Supreme Court? Shocking!)
Nat G. makes some good points. Mark R. Levin documents in his great book "Libery and Tyranny", that the founders of America were conservative and religious, mostly Christian. Nat G. inspires all Americans to read Levin's book and get back to our founding, conservative values, before the liberals completely ruin America. It may have been true in the past that the statists (those like Obama who believe in the Power of the state and state bureaucrats over individuals and freedom)were able to fool more people and convince them against their better judgment to vote for statists (liberals). But the polls show more people are now coming around to the understanding that Obama and his statist, leftist ways will ruin America if he is left unchecked.
We had to suffer through a "Jimmy Carter" before we got the great Ronald Reagan who brought America back. Now we have to suffer through perhaps four years of Obama until we get another great conservative American to lead America back.
Nat G. also brings up the sad history of the Democrat party when they opposed putting black and white kids together in school. Then he goes off the deep end and starts promoting the sinful, illegal, disgusting and disease spreading practice of sodomy for some reason.
Then he states that he agrees with Ronald Reagan who put the first woman on the supreme court. Ronald Reagan one of the best presidents America ever had, and he looked at the content of people's character, not their gender or skin color.
Oh how Americans wish that Obama did not choose Sotomayor, who uses her position on the bench to push her activist leftist policies and rule for people based on skin color, not merit.Posted by: GodsImage at July 12, 2009 5:57 PM
jsable, I just read the petition, but I can't ENTIRELY agree with it. Don't get me wrong, I AM PRO-LIFE, but I have a problem with' no exceptions'. What nobody seems to address is...what about an ECTOPIC pregnancy? That HAS to be the ONE exception. If an ectopic pregnancy were to continue, it would kill child AND mother. A baby cannot continue to grow to full term INSIDE the fallopian tube, it would rupture. Until 'science' comes up with a way to transfer the tiny baby from the fallopian tube to the mother's uterus, that HAS to be 'the exception'.Posted by: Pamela at July 13, 2009 5:08 PM
The lone issue showing "significant movement" to the right was, of course, abortion, where 51% of Americans now consider themselves pro-life, as opposed to 44% pro-abort, a 7% shift.
Yes, but as Janet points out, people tend to describe themselves as pro-life even when they support access to abortion in some circumstances. Consider this; a 2003 survey by ABC found that Americans, when asked "Should Partial-Birth Abortion be Legal?", answered a strong no, 20-62. But when asked the same question, "when the woman's health is threatened", the response was strong support, 61-33.
Janet: If a pro-life person advocates exceptions of life of the mother and rape/incest for abortion, they are "pro-choice", not really "pro-life".
Okay. Four fifths of Americans are pro-choice. I'm unsure how well this mixes with Jill's assurance that Americans are, as a whole, pro-life, though.
GodsImage: Nat G. also brings up the sad history of the Democrat party when they opposed putting black and white kids together in school.
Why, yes, they did. The people who opposed putting black and white kids together in school were conservatives, and described themselves as such. The people who supported it were, politically speaking, on the left, and included Communists. Do you think that the name of the party that contained the conservatives in question is more relevant than their actual political affiliation?
Then he goes off the deep end and starts promoting the sinful, illegal, disgusting and disease spreading practice of sodomy for some reason.
He probably mentioned it because the same sorts of people--leftists--supported civil rights, feminism and gay liberation in the 1960s and 70s. Trying to peel off one movement and say that it wasn't supported by the left wing (because overt racism is currently unfashionable, while hating on gay folks isn't subject to the same sort of social sanction) is preposterously ahistorical.
Additionally, sodomy is not illegal in the United States, nor in any country in Europe or the Americas (well, except for Belize, Guyana and some Caribbean islands). But then, maybe you're posting from Saudi Arabia; I don't know.
Pamela: Until 'science' comes up with a way to transfer the tiny baby from the fallopian tube to the mother's uterus, [ectopic pregnancy] HAS to be 'the exception'.
But if your example depends on the impossibility of ever delivering a live birth, what about certain birth defects such as anencephaly, which are invariably fatal, and make it absolutely certain that, before dying, the afflicted will never experience consciousness or pain? Why is one situation where it's absolutely impossible that a viable human will result worth an exception, but not another?Posted by: grendelkhan at July 14, 2009 2:22 PM
I just noticed that my old post was added to this thread after a delay of a couple of days, so, sorry for the delayed response. Thank you for checking out the petition. Here is an article to consider which discusses ectopic pregnancy: http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm
Both Pro Life OB/Gyn web sites mentioned above agree that therapeutic abortion is never necessary.
Certainly a mother is allowed to defend her own life if necessary. Intent seems to be the key. Is the intent of the procedure to abort the pregnancy regardless of circumstances or is the intent to save mother and baby by whatever means possible, with the death of the baby being an undesired and unfortunate consequence?
I think the reasoning behind the petition is primarily to get people to become more firmly Pro Life by encouraging them to move away from the "I'm Pro Life except for . . ." mentality and urging them to reject some of the pro abortion jargon like "life and health of the mother" which has no real definition. The sponsor of the petition is intending to send the petition to various groups she has encountered who call themselves Pro Life but allow for abortion exceptions, which, she feels, nullifies their Pro Life label. The petition is a way of asking them to reconsider their philosophy of allowing abortion exceptions.Posted by: j sable at July 15, 2009 4:10 AM
j sable: Here is an article to consider which discusses ectopic pregnancy
That's interesting. They claim that not all ectopic pregnancies turn into life-threatening surgical emergencies, so it's wrong to treat them before they do.
Here's another article. In El Salvador, this system is in effect; an ectopic pregnancy "cannot be operated on until fetal death or a rupture of the fallopian tube". What was previously a serious but not life-threatening situation now becomes potentially deadly for the woman. And for what? Ectopic pregnancies are not viable; all this serves to do is demand that women who might undergo a life-threatening trauma be required to do so.Posted by: grendelkhan at July 15, 2009 3:24 PM
For every pregnancy aborted due to a diagnosed genetic defect, a different decision has been made in many others. Here is a story chronicling one of them.Posted by: j sable at July 18, 2009 12:47 AM
Nice try, grendelkhan, trying to obfuscate the truth about liberals and Democrats when it comes to their sad history of opposing blacks throughout history.
I (GodsImage) had said that Nat G. also brings up the sad history of the Democrat party when they opposed putting black and white kids together in school.
Then grendelkhan made the false statement: “Why, yes, they did. The people who opposed putting black and white kids together in school were conservatives, and described themselves as such. The people who supported it were, politically speaking, on the left, and included Communists. Do you think that the name of the party that contained the conservatives in question is more relevant than their actual political affiliation?”
Like I said, grendelkhan, nice try!
Conservatives and Republicans have always believed in Martin Luther King's vision (simple-sounding, perhaps, but hard to achieve) in which people would be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. In fact, the first Republican, Abraham Lincoln, freed the slaves and signed the emancipation proclamation.
Martin Luther King was supplanted by quintessential New Left figures like Stokley Carmichael, Rap Brown, and Huey Newton. In the councils of pandemonium of the radical left, these rejectionists proceeded to dismiss integration in favor of separatism, replace the patiently-sought and hard-won gain with the non-negotiable demand, and kiss off those who had struggled for racial justice for years by telling them that they had become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
The left insists on identity based on race instead of individuality, demands advancement by virtue of entitlement rather than merit, and seeks to create a system of preferences, double standards, and predictable statistical outcomes which can only manufacture rather than solve racism.
What happened to civil rights? How did the concept of equal opportunity get mugged by the leftist proponents of equality of outcome?
The Democrats/liberals/leftist history of racism goes way back in history. Little known is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.
The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan who is still in Congress. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.
Democrat President Bill Clinton, following in the footsteps of his mentor J. William Fulbright, a staunch segregationist, refused to enforce a court-ordered affirmative action plan while president and was himself sued for discriminating against his black employees while he was the Governor of Arkansas.
And the Democrats/liberals/leftists racism continues to this day, with Obama playing the race card in his campaign, to his lying about sitting in Rev. Wright’s racist and anti-American church for 20 years and never hearing his frequent rants on this subject. Also, Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan, as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment.”
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, and every civil rights law, beginning in the 1860s through the 1950s and 1960s, was fought against by Democrats. The KKK had links to the Democratic Party (the Ku Klux Klan was the Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party). Southern Democrats passed discriminatory Black Codes in 1865 to suppress, restrict, and deny blacks the same privileges as whites. The Codes forced blacks to serve as apprentices to their former slave masters.
Democrats also prevented blacks from getting their promised “40 acres and a mule”.
In 1866, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats to lynch and terrorize Republicans, black and white, and the Ku Klux Klan became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party. Details about the Democratic Party and the Ku Klux Klan can be found in the book “A Short History of Reconstruction” by Dr. Eric Foner.
I knew MLK’s family and there is no way they were Democrats in the 1960s. Not only did King vote for Eisenhower in 1956, but this was a time when racist southern Democrats such as Bull Connor used vicious dogs and fire hoses to break up protests; after all, segregation and discrimination were the law of the land in the South.
One who saw firsthand Bull Connor’s atrocities was our nation’s first female black secretary of state, Condi Rice. Not only did she witness the brutality inflicted on the peaceful protestors at the 1963 Children’s March in Birmingham, but Condi’s neighborhood experienced threats of violence. One of her childhood friends was killed in a church bombing by the Ku Klux Klan along with three other girls. Secretary Rice’s family repeatedly faced discrimination. A prime example of this was when John, her father, tried to register to vote with the Democratic Party. They told him that to register as Democrat he must first guess the number of beans in their jar. Not one to accept such insulting treatment, John Rice headed over to the Republican register and promptly became a Republican.
“Racism” is the trump card in the indictment of Republicans, but the cold fact is that the whole Jim Crow era in the South was dominated by Democrats.
Etched in history is the fact that the Democratic Party, through its racist agenda and "States' Rights" claim to own slaves, sought to protect and preserve the institution of slavery from 1792 to 1865, thus keeping enslaved millions of blacks. The Republican Party was started in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, fought to free blacks from slavery and championed civil rights for blacks.
The Democratic Party enacted fugitive slave laws to keep blacks from escaping from plantations; instigated the 1856 “Dred Scott v. Standford” decision which legally classified blacks as property; passed the Missouri Compromise to spread slavery into 50% of the new Northern states; and passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act designed to spread slavery into all of the new states.
Thomas Sowell’s book, “Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?” delves deeper into this subject and exposes the leftist civil rights establishment’s mistakes. Shelby Steele’s books, “The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race In America” and “A Dream Deferred: The Second Betrayal of Black Freedom in America” are also great reads on this topic.
Ward Connerly’s book, “Creating Equal: My Fight Against Race” is also good on this topic. Connerly is constantly fighting against leftist liberal Democrats who don’t believe Connerly’s basic premise: that Martin Luther King's dream of judging people by character and not by the color of their skin should be the public policy of the day instead of race-based affirmative action or demeaning quota systems of any kind.
Conservatives believe in looking at the content of one’s character, not the color of one’s skin as the multiculturalist liberals want us to do.
Why can’t liberals be more like President Bush, who had a very diverse cabinet that looked like America? Why can’t liberals see past race like President Bush, who had Colin Powell, Rod Paige, Condoleezza Rice, Elaine Chao, Norman Mineta, Alphonso Jackson...the list goes on and on.
The three most powerful black people in the history of this country are conservative: Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Colin Powell - Bush’s Secretary of State, Rod Paige - Bush’s Secretary of Education, Condoleezza Rice - Bush’s National Security Advisor, Elaine Chao - Bush’s Secretary of Labor, Norman Mineta - Bush’s Secretary of Transportation, Alphonso Jackson - Bush’s Secretary of HUD.....the list goes ON and ON!... Why can’t Liberals be more like President Bush, who had a very diverse cabinet that looks like America?
When I was a boy and then a teenager it was Democrats 'standing in the schoolhouse door' to prevent minority children from getting into the better schools.
Now that I'm old enough to qualify for AARP membership it is Democrats standing in the schoolhouse doors to prevent minority children from escaping the public schools.
Nothing has changed except the rhetoric. The Democrats were the pro-slavery party in the 1800s, the party of the Ku Klux Klan in the first half of the 20th Century and in the dawn of a new millennia are still the Party of keeping minorities in 'their place'.
They say that conservatives respect tradition but there are few American traditions older than the racism of the Democratic Party.
The other salient point that is well know is the racist history of the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. She was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?
Today, Democrats including Obama get their funding from Planned Parenthood and other radical anti-life groups, and the abortion industry is the one group the Democrats will not turn their back on.