So I get this thing in the mail yesterday. It's the Bush Administration Performance Evaluation, and it's being run by a most credible and unbiased institution...
...yes, that's right. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
This is perhaps the most asinine thing I have ever read. It is attempting to conduct a poll based on Bush's performance, likely so that they can use the acquired numbers in televised commercials or somesuch.
The first question?
"All things considered, how well do you rate President Bush and his ability to serve the interests and well being of all Americans?"
Sure, pretty tame.
The next?
"How do you feel about America's future if we cannot restore a Democratic Senate majority to provide balance against the Bush Administration right-wing legistlation?"
Okay, forget the grammatical issue involving possession. The options for this are as follows:
"It is very Alarming... Please accept my $200 donation
It is very Important... I'm sending $150 to the DSCC today.
It is very Serious... Here is my $100 contribution to the DSCC.
It is very Urgent... Here is what I can contribute to the DSCC today" (there are other monetary options)
Then it goes on with a list of other poll questions.
...
Does anyone else think this is awful? They are making the pretense of conducting a poll of all Americans, but are really just polling those that agree with them and are willing to send them money. This is the most blatantly, obviously biased poll I have ever seen. It's disgusting.
I can just see in the near future... "In a national anonymous poll, 95% of those polled rated the Bush Administration as poor". Sure, since the only ones who responded where those that agreed with you... and those few who sent the form back with no donation out of spite.
If anything, this drives me away from the Democratic Party... if they would so blatantly stoop to this level, why would I want them representing me?
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
Oh, FlyingCow, how you've made this Republicans day so much brighter.
That was very easily the funniest thing I'd heard all day! Isn't it funny how our political parties will put spins on things?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
"Push-polling", which try to force answers out of people rather than solicit honest opinion, is hardly the monopoly of the Democrats. Both major parties, individual campaigns and many special interest groups do push-polls. That's one reason why only polls commisioned through academic, journalistic or other (at least nominally) independant sources (Zogby, Gallup) should carry any weight. I take even those polls with a grain of salt, as sometimes subtle bias can creep in even when the poller is trying to be objective.
But that DSCC poll is laughably biased, to the point that I question the source--not you, Flying Cow, I just wonder if whoever mailed it is really connected to the DSCC.
Belladonna, you're a Republican Wiccan? Do they ever let you give the prayer before meetings?
(I know you're not a Satan-worshipper, just making a joke )
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:"How do you feel about America's future if we cannot restore a Democratic Senate majority to provide balance against the Bush Administration right-wing legistlation?"
I thought the Democrats already had a majority in the U.S. Senate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"They are making the pretense of conducting a poll of all Americans, but are really just polling those that agree with them and are willing to send them money."
Yep. It's called a push-poll -- and the type you've received is rather mild. If you live in a major metropolitan area, you'll probably get a number of these in any election year, most of which will be on the phone.
My personal favorite push-poll question, in a Senatorial race, was "How would you vote if Senator X openly admitted that he was a homosexual?" Note that it's not saying that Senator X IS a homosexual; it's asking how you would vote if he did. This distinction, however, is generally lost on the electorate.
Astonishingly, this is legal.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The only cite I find for it is Michael Ackley's column from WorldNetDaily, which is headed by the following disclaimer:
quote:Note: Michael Ackley's columns are satire and parody based on current events and often mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which.
[ November 16, 2003, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Maybe I just do a good job of avoiding these, Tom. I live 20 minutes from NYC and ten from Newark, NJ. I'm about as major metropolitan area as you can get.
The phone calls I just don't answer, or I hang up on. This is the first time I actually received something in the mail that was this ridiculous - and my parents didn't, interestingly enough. I must be on some sort of mailing list. There needs to be a National Do-Not-Poll Registry.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
On that question, maybe you could answer "Nothing to worry about -- we're in great shape. Please send me $100."
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
My favorite poll question (no kidding) was:
Which of these terms would make you most likely to vote against Bill Clinton:
Slick Tax and Spend Liberal (I forget the 4th term)
Just to show that this poll wasn't biased, it also included the following:
Which of these terms would make you most likely to vote against George Bush:
Combat Veteran Conservative Businessman Vice-president
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
ron -- democrats have 48 seats, plus one independent caucuses with them. Republicans have had a majority for several years, now.
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
::thwaks Morbo:: Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Actually the Dems had a majority for Bush's first two years because it was split 50/50 and then that Vermont guy became an independent.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Wow, I guess it really has only been (nearly) a year since Republicans took back the Senate leadership. Felt like longer for some reason.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm so sick of you people and your whining about partisanship. Just shut up and send me $200. Wait, I mean, send the DSCC $200.
Yeah, that's right...the DSCC. *whistles like the exact opposite of a guy who's trying to commit massive fraud*
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I peronally evaluate Bush's presidency as a failure in every area but foreign policy. His socialist proposal for an Rx drug benefit is a terrible idea. He has caved on almost all important issues. His tax cuts have been small and slow. Anyone claiming that Bush is right-wing fanatic is not looking at his domestic policy.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:I peronally evaluate Bush's presidency as a failure in every area but foreign policy.
Anyone claiming that Bush is right-wing fanatic is not looking at his domestic policy.
::giggle::
Does that mean that his foreign policy is the foreign policy of a right-wing fanatic? Or that you are a right-wing fanatic?
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
As a republican I have to say, thank you god for Flying Cow, I think that is hilarious, I will have toget a copy of that and send it into O'reilly or Rush or Hannity, or possibly all.
*Giggles*
-Rhaegar The Fool
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
No Kayla, it means that Bush is being a Lefty with is domestic policy in order to placate the left, but it is clearly not working. I am a wide open capitalist when it comes to domestic policy, if that makes me a right winger, than a right winger I am. Don't make the mistake of labeling me a conservative though. I have much dislike for conservatives and their religion and lack of freedom, another area the Bush Admin. has performed miserably in.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: it means that Bush is being a Lefty with is domestic policy in order to placate the left,
Robespierre. Bush a Lefty!! BWHAHAHAhahahahahahaha
Find a single liberal, leftist or democrat who agrees with that and you win a cigar.
The Medicare Rx proposal is not Bush's, although I think he campaigned promising it in 2000. One of the few promises it looks like he'll keep. The Rx proposals seem to be a consensus between both parties over the last few years to me.
Bush broke many important campaign promises concerning the environment in his first year in office--how does that demonstrate any lefty leanings??? Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Bush broke many important campaign promises concerning the environment in his first year in office--how does that demonstrate any lefty leanings???
Of course, it does not. His education bill, which just throws mountains of money at the problem without a thought in the world about actually fixing it is a typical leftist solution. Also, the RX drug benefit, which amounts to another massive expansion of the welfare wing of the US government is as left as you can get. You are right in saying that both parties wanted it, because both parties are two faces of the same coin. All they care about is getting votes, not about doing whats right. Since the elderly vote with the most regularity, they are the ones that get money thrown at them.
I am saying that Bush is not right-wing, he is an opportunist. He will pass anything that makes him look good to voters. And so far, most of domestic policy can be described as left-leaning. Taking money from those who earn it, and giving it to those who didn't, is a pillar of left-wing politics in this country.
And Bush has not been perfect with his foreign affairs. He needs to drop the idea that anything we do is for the interests of the oppressed in other countries. The US needs to act only in self interest, as should any and all countries. This is the only way to insure peace and prosperity for the world. Furthermore, I find the idea of sending american troops to some country to die, without the US having a direct interest there is a horrible thing to do. This is why we should not have a single person in Liberia, and why Bush should drop the pretense about helping the Iraqi people. The Iraq war was fought to make america a safer place, so we would not have to keep looking over our shoulder at Saddam, not to liberate the people. Just as the Afgani operation was all about protecting the US, not helping the afgani's.
Of course it is in our interest now to help Iraq become a viable state, in order to prevent it from becoming a terrorist outpost.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: And so far, most of [Bush's] domestic policy can be described as left-leaning.
Sorry, I remain unconvinced. Almost all of Bush's domestic policies are pro-Big Business, giving Labor, the environment, and the middle and poor classes short shrift. The Rx thing is the exception, not the rule.
You are literally the only person I have seen describing Bush as lefist. Just because he's to the left of you does not mean he's leftist.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I'm not saying he's a leftist.
quote:I am saying that Bush is not right-wing, he is an opportunist. He will pass anything that makes him look good to voters. And so far, most of domestic policy can be described as left-leaning.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Point taken. He's an opportunist, then. And you described Clinton similarly. Indeed, most politicians could accurately be described as opportunists.
You are still the first person I have seen describe Bush's domestic policy as left-leaning.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: You are still the first person I have seen describe Bush's domestic policy as left-leaning.
I am honored to be the first you have heard, although I know that I am not the first to put forward this opinion.
I agree that Bush is similar to Clinton in the way that he operates. I really hope that this opportunism is not a trend for all modern american presidents. Of course politicians must pander to voters in order to get a job, but it seems to be getting out of hand.
Anyways, I am not a big fan of Bush, but truly he was the lesser of the evils in 2000. I really don't want to vote for him again in '04, but if he is running against someone like Dean or Gephardt, I will have to.
Posted by butterfly (Member # 5898) on :
Reading that doesn't change my political views at all, I'm still hardcore Democratic. Besides, what makes you think Republicans are above doing that someday if they lose the House or Senate?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Oh, I see Bill Frist (R-TN) is senate majority leader, now. Here I thought Daschle still was. Guess I wasn't paying attention. Or else trying to block it out. Not that I am averse to Republicans--I just don't think it is safe for the country to have all three branches of government controlled by one party. (Yes, the Judiciary too.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I really don't want to vote for him again in '04, but if he is running against someone like Dean or Gephardt, I will have to."
Which Democratic candidate WOULD you vote for, out of interest?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Which Democratic candidate WOULD you vote for, out of interest?
Right now all 9 of them seem pretty backwards to me. Dean is the one I like the most, even though I disagree with him on a fundamental level about almost all of his policies.
That basically means that I like him as a friend, not a president.
Ron Lambert said:
quote: I just don't think it is safe for the country to have all three branches of government controlled by one party. (Yes, the Judiciary too.)
I understand this sentiment. It cannot be denied that having too much power for too long a time will corrupt. I would ask though, do you see any way around this without voting for candidates who you oppose on ideological grounds? Would you have been willing to vote for a Republican presidential candidate during the 40 year reign of democrats in congress?
I have sympathy for the argument, but it would seem that modifying the rules of the system itself may be the only way to prevent such long term power. Such systems might en-act more term limits, reduce the amount of private money involved in the system, etc. I am all for reform of the current system.
The way it works right now, the system has a positive feedback effect that allows successful senators and reps to get more power. As they control more aspects of government, they can also get more goodies for their home states. And of course these goodies bring more power. However, if we make the rules so that no one can get these goodies unfairly, but only through the competitive nature of one's state, then such activity provides a positive reinforcement, where true skill and ingenuity is rewarded. However, such a pristine system is not likely to be possible any time soon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't think the private money in the political system is the problem. I think Alexis de Tocqueville summarized it best: “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” If government couldn’t bestow billions of dollars on someone’s pet project, the private money would have a much less corrupting effect.
The problem being, of course, that someone always benefits when the government spends money, even on essential government activities. The line between legitimate government enterprise and bribing people with their own money is very gray.
On most individual budget line items, there will be lots of people who care a lot (those getting the money) and lots of people who only care a little (those not getting the money). Voters are much more likely to punish someone who votes against programs they like than who votes against something they don't like. Invariably, programs with very little actual public support get enacted.
This allows incumbents to brag to their home districts that they bring more federal money to the district than the district pays in federal taxes. This means either a small portion of districts get royally screwed, or we have deficit spending. There’s no other way to support the pork system.
Dagonee P.S., The survey form was utterly ridiculous.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
It would be interesting to see what would happen if anyone who gives money to a political party would then be disqualified from benefitting from then, as in being awarded a contract, or having a Senator/Representitive be able to vote on legislation that would affect the industry/special interest group.
Wow, that was a long awkward sentence.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: ... My personal favorite push-poll question, in a Senatorial race, was "How would you vote if Senator X openly admitted that he was a homosexual?" Note that it's not saying that Senator X IS a homosexual; it's asking how you would vote if he did. This distinction, however, is generally lost on the electorate.
Interestingly enough, that one was authored by none other than Karl Rove, the evil mastermind behind the Bush Administration.
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Bush a Lefty!!![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)