Democrats Against Success?
This is something we’ve long suspected, but didn’t want to believe. – far too many Democrats do not want President Bush to succeed and by implication, the country to succeed. Frankly, it's hard to understand why any American would not want their President or our country to be successful. As with all polls, perhaps we should take these results with a large grain of salt.
The poll was conducted by telephone August 8-9, 2006, in the evenings. The total sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of ±3 percentage points.
Poll Question:Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?
Scale: 1. Yes, want him to succeed 2. No, do not want him to succeed.
The poll was conducted by telephone August 8-9, 2006, in the evenings. The total sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of ±3 percentage points.
Poll Question:Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?
Scale: 1. Yes, want him to succeed 2. No, do not want him to succeed.
Posted by Enlighten-NewJersey @ 3:44 PM
|
10 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wow, I guess the truth REALLY hurt that guy!
Come on -- drop the outlandish rhetoric about Democrats not wanting the country to succeed. It's a disgusting tactic that treats voters like idiots.
Democratic voters do not want the Administration to succeed, because they believe the damage that would be inflicted by the succesful implementation of his political agenda would take years to repair. If he were to succeed:
1) Social Security would be privatized
2) a woman's right to choose would be overturned
3) stem cell research would remain restricted
4) state laws guaranteeing Americans' rights to mammograms and cancer screening would be overturned by federal law
5+) i'm sure people who are more politically active than myself can come up with 5 and upward
You get the point. You may not like the point, but I know you smart enough to understand it.
Anonymous,
"Outlandish rhetoric" - that's a hot one after all we've witnessed from Democrats concerning President Bush, members of his administration and Republicans in general. What rhetoric of ours did you find “outlandish”?
This isn’t the only poll we read about last week making us wonder where some Democrats were coming from. Here’s a quote (available on line here) from an article we read last Thursday:
“In 2004, pollster Scott Rasmussen asked two questions relating to American exceptionalism: Is this country generally fair and decent? Would the world be better off if more countries were more like America? About two-thirds of voters answered yes to both questions. About 80% of George W. Bush voters answered yes. John Kerry voters were split down the middle.”
We’d be curious what you believe the Kerry voters were thinking when they replied in the negative on those two poll questions?
You say: “Democratic voters do not want the Administration to succeed, because they believe the damage that would be inflicted by the successful implementation of his political agenda would take years to repair.”
The key word in the poll question is “succeed” which to most people doesn’t mean causing damage that would take years to repair. However, let’s go though the agenda you ascribe to Bush:
1. “Social Security would be privatized”- The idea Bush had was for a voluntary program that would allow younger workers to invest a portion of their social security taxes in personally owned accounts. Older workers and those currently on Social Security would not have been impacted one bit.
The “worst case scenario” would be for Congress to pass this Social Security option. If the private account option was such a rotten deal, why would anyone sign up for it? The problem Democrats have is that it wouldn’t be a bad idea, but it would end the Social Security scare tactic they trot out each election. This tactic works especially well on old people and so far Democrats have succeeded in blocking any progress long after the next President is elected.
Frankly, we wish Social Security had allowed for private accounts from day one, with the original recipients being paid from general funds until the program became self-funding. Imagine how much better the benefits would be today. Instead, we’re trapped with a broken system and younger workers are going to get stuck with the tab.
2. “A woman's right to choose would be overturned “– How could Bush possibly overturn “a woman’s right to choose”? Abortion has been legal for over thirty-three years and has survived 5 Republican President’s, including Bush, along with Republican controlled congresses. Bush may be pro-life, but can you provide us with a quote from him declaring overturning Roe or banning abortion is on his agenda?
Abortion would still be legal in the very unlikely event Roe is ever overturned by the Supreme Court. States of course would then have the right to make abortion laws in keeping with the desires of their citizens, but why are Democrats afraid of this “worst case scenario’? Can there be any doubt that New Jersey, for example, would continue on with pro choice laws?
So what’s the fear, a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion? Bush has not called for or backed a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. In the extremely unlikely event congress ever passed such an amendment (needs a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to pass), the proposal would then need the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures to be ratified. This is never going to happen in our lifetime, if ever.
Abortion is another issue Democrats trot out for every election and distort to scare certain groups and have used this tactic to great advantage. You’d think voters would eventually realize the Democrats’ dire predictions never materialized with the election of each Republican President and Congress.
3. “Stem cell research would remain restricted” - Of course you know stem cell research is not restricted. The policy on federal funding may not suit your spending preferences, but that’s another matter entirely. Speaking of funding, you know Bush was the first President to provide federal funds for embryonic stem cell research?
Not enough federal funding? Perhaps the people powered groups could raise money for embryonic stem cell research grants. This is a great issue for Democrats to demagogue, so we won’t look for people to put their money where there mouth is on this one.
4. “State laws guaranteeing Americans' rights to mammograms and cancer screening would be overturned by federal law.” What in the heck are you talking about? We’ve never heard anyone talk about this issue and we admit we were not aware there was a “right” to either procedure.
However, we’re skeptical that anyone is proposing a federal bill that would outlaw mammograms and cancer screening. That’s the beauty of not living under a totally socialized health insurance system – the government doesn’t get to decide issues of this sort for individuals. And as far as we know, if a state wanted to provide mammograms and cancer screenings to every man, woman and child, federal law couldn’t stop a state from providing these services.
Talk about disgusting tactics that treat voters like idiots, you’ve just listed four of them.
Enlighten,
Your main defense of the president is that he's not politically powerful enough to do all of the things that the anonymous commenter worries about. The person was saying that if Bush was politically successful on every issue, most Democrats aa well as many independents and even a few Republicans would be unhappy with the results.
Of course, he was wrong on one point. If Bush didn't have to worry about political repercussions, he wouldn't have vetoed the stem cell bill.
Not even a fool would suggest that America is the best place to live for the poor, and that's who many Democrats are concerned about.
- BlueWaveNJ
Anonymous:
1. Bush's Social Security privatization was panned by Americans, and members of his own party are running from it. Your inside-the-Beltway rhetoric aside, it's something Americans by-and-large did not (and do not) want him to succeed in doing. That's what we're talking about, right?
2. You said: "Abortion is another issue Democrats trot out for every election and distort to scare certain groups and have used this tactic to great advantage." Is this seriously your argument? Everyone has heard the GOP lore that the Evangelical vote pushed Bush over the top in 2000. Everyone has seen GOP representatives tripping over themselves to talk about the "culture of life." I can assure you that it's not Bush's position on softwood lumber that secures the Evangelical voters for the GOP...
And, yes, if/when Roe is overturned, it will return the decision to the states. A woman's right to choose, hopefully, will never be threatened in New Jersey. But such an event will threaten a woman's right to choose in other states. The survey cited was a national survey, thus it's a valid explanation for the survey's findings.
3. There are certainly restrictions on the lines available for stem cell research, and even members of the Republican party are coming around to support the elimination of those restrictions. "While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases." -Sen Bill Frist (R-TN), emphasis added.
4. The reference is to Association Health Plan legislation. 41 State Attorney Generals agreed that this legislation would override state laws that guarantee access to cancer screenings, maternity stays, and so on. AGs letter: http://www.wyominghealthcarecommission.org/_pdfs/Wallin.pdf Mandates that would be undermined: http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/MandatePub2006.pdf I've taken the liberty of citing the pro-AHP literature for a list of the mandates that will be overturned. Feel free to just cut and paste talking points from their document for your predictable rebuttal.
Jack,
The “worries” of anonymous are baseless even when taking each of his faux Bush agenda items to the “worst case” scenario - that was our point. Our “defense of the president” had nothing to do with whether or not he has sufficient poetical power.
You wrote: “Not even a fool would suggest that America is the best place to live for the poor, and that's who many Democrats are concerned about.”
Is that the best you’ve got Jack, name calling and empty rhetoric?
Name the country in South American that’s a better place to live than the U.S. if you’re poor? How about one in Central America? Name the country in Africa or Asia that’s a better place to live than the United States if you’re poor? How about Europe, what’s a better country for the poor? And when you give your list, have some facts to back up your opinion.
You also might want to reflect on a story Bob Menendez often tells of a poor immigrant couple coming to the U.S who managed to see their son go to college, then law school and finally to sit in the U.S. Senate. People used to say, “only in America”. What does the left say now? What country has supplanted the U.S. in offering a better opportunity, a better life?
You’re heavy with opinion on any number or issues, but light on facts.
Let’s just take just one of the faux agenda items cited by anonymous and deal with reality on the issue of abortion.
Abortion has not been overturned in the five plus years Bush has been in office. Bush has not introduced an agenda, legislation etc. to overturn Roe, to ban abortions or to call for a constitutional amendment to ban abortions. His position on the issue has been consistent – he’s pro-life, but has never said he would, wanted to or thought it was possible to overturn Roe or ban abortions.
“Bush said he would not use abortion as a litmus test for appointments to the Supreme Court and that he would not overturn Roe v. Wade.” - LA Times, March 2001
Bush said: "I don't think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions," – USA Today, October 2003
President Bush has repeatedly said “he does not feel the country is ready to overturn Roe vs. Wade.” - Star-Ledger, 2005.
Of course, reality and the record haven’t stopped the hysterical rhetoric from certain groups claiming Bush wants to or is going to overturn a woman’s right to choose. It doesn’t matter what he actually says or does, the threat of what “might” happen is always kept alive for political purposes.
The same abortion arguments have been trotted out for over thirty years for every election and every Supreme Court Justice nomination - elect or confirm so and so and it’s back to back alley abortions. We gave you a whole slew of examples in response to your comments to our postings on the SC nomination hearings.
A recent article in USA Today may give the pro-abortion worry warts some hope to cling to - “both sides concede that (overturning Roe v.Wade) may never happen”.
Under what possible scenario(s) will women lose the right to choose under President Bush or any president for that matter? Once you’ve gone through the exercise perhaps you’ll recognize it’s never going to happen in our lifetime, if ever.
Let's make one thing perfectly clear, Jack. The poor of Central and South America and Carribean Countries like Cuba and D.R. are coming HERE. If this doesn't show the stark contrast as to how much better the poor live in the United States as opposed to how they live elsewhere, what does?
They come here to support their families because they make far more money here, even working for minimum wage, than they would in their homeland or anywhere else the world.
Can't say you're making a whole lot of sense with that arguement.
Anonymous poster from the Democratic National Headquarters,
We have no idea what was going through people’s minds when they answered the question “would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?” and neither do you. But, if you look at the questions preceding the one highlighted in this post, you might understand why we remain skeptical that the four issues cited by Anonymous sprang into the minds of Democrats answering the question.
To your points on the faux Bush agenda:
Social Security – We’ve said Democrats have successfully demagogued this issue and have distorted Bush’s idea for a private account option. We agree that Democrats have blocked reform and have made Republicans lawmakers afraid to touch the “third rail”. Bravo!
So what plan(s) have Democrats put forward to mitigate the coming Social Security problems the country faces? You’ve ruled out allowing people the option of investing a portion of their SS taxes in private accounts to improve their return. What’s left, raising taxes and/or cutting benefits? Or is there some secret plan Democrats are keeping to themselves?
Abortion – You said: “Abortion is another issue Democrats trot out for every election and distort to scare certain groups and have used this tactic to great advantage." Is this seriously your argument?” No, it was one aspect of our argument as a reading of this page should make obvious.
The Evangelical vote and Republicans “tripping over themselves to talk about a culture of life”, seriously is that your argument for “if President Bush where successful he’d overturn Roe v. Wade”? The current status of Roe v. Wade (not overturned), along with actual statements and actions by President prove otherwise.
Stem cell research – There are not any federal restrictions on somatic (adult and umbilical cord) or embryonic stem cell research. There are no federal funding restrictions on somatic stem cell research. However, federal funding for embryonic stem cells is restricted to lines created prior to Bush’s authorization of the first ever funding of embryonic stem cell research.
There is nothing stopping anyone from creating and researching new embryonic stem cell lines. There is nothing stopping businesses from this research and they are, right here in New Jersey, for example. There’s nothing stopping private groups from organizing fund raising drives for research grants. And or course states can fund the research. New Jersey offers a perfect example of the Democrats’ hypocrisy on this issue.
Mammogram and cancer screening – The links you provided have nothing to do with “rights”, or as you put it, “guaranteeing access” to mammograms, cancer screening, etc. What you are referring to is state mandated insurance coverage for a whole list of medical services and procedures and a law that would allow people to form groups to purchase health insurance at lower rates than available to an individual.
The law you cite would permit people to buy health insurance coverage to fit their needs and pocketbooks, rather than the coverage forced on people by state government. Choice would be expanded, not reduced. Just because the law may no longer require mammogram coverage, for example, doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be available or even included in every policy. Under Association Health Plan legislation no one would be forced to purchase policies that lacked coverage they wanted or to buy coverage they didn’t want. Why is that so horrible?
Why is it necessary for everyone to purchase expensive drug abuse treatment coverage, for example, as mandated by some states? State mandated coverage for things people don’t want drives up the cost of health insurance to the point people go without. Please explain how laws of this sort further the “rights” or “access” to those folks? It should be obvious state mandated coverage restricts choice and takes away individual freedom.
We have some have experience with state mandated insurance coverage here in New Jersey and it has driven health insurance costs through the roof. Employers pay more for health insurance in New Jersey than they do in any other state in the nation. We cited a study last year that showed a reasonably regulated state like Missouri had insurers that could offer a typical health insurance policy for a family of four for as little in as $172 per month. While a policy with the same deductible and co-pay but, larded up with all of New Jersey’s mandated coverage would cost an individual family $1,200-plus a month.
How many people do you suppose feared more choice and availability for health insurance at a lower cost when answering the poll question?
This won't truly have success, I think this way.
Florist Charlotte NC | san antonio high schools | wedding catering columbus ohio
Post a Comment
<< Home