Bush is getting desperate in his campaign.

[Ramo]

He missed so many votes that the National Journal ranking is practically meaningless. So I don't know what your point is. And you don't use a single primary year that's abnormally leftist since it's a primary year to characterize a career. That's dishonest.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No offense, Imran, but your quote is irrelevant, for two reasons:

1) The polls asked people if they "agreed with the president." They didn't asked if people knew and understood the policies, nor did they ask if they favored those policies over others. Especially post-9/11, asking people if they "agree with teh president" is going to elicit an artificially high number of "yes" responses.

2) Second, asking if people favor "regulation" will always (since Reagan, anyway) elicit al artificially high number of "no" responses. But ask them about specific regulations, and people tend to be in favor of them.

In these polls, The People always come off like Joseph II in Amadeus complaining that a Mozart composition has "too many notes." When pressed on the question of which notes to get rid of, they're stumped. It's the same with regulation.

You keep saying this but provide no contrary polls. And the question on partial privatization and health care seemed not to ask if they 'agreed with the President'. In fact of the quoted questions only ONE (taxes) asked if there was agreement with the President.

Don't try to turn this into a victory. Buchanan was right and you commited a gross but ironic mistake when you assumed that the alleged 'perversion' was impossible because it was about foreign policy.

Buchanan's point is that there are no true conservatives anymore because neocons are campaigning on foreign issues.

I'm turning it into a victory because I was right. You and ZKribbler said neo-cons were the ones spending all the money on domestic programs (ie, enlarging the federal government). Now that you have lost the battle, you try to bring spin what Buchanan may have said. There is no evidence to suggest that Buchanan said the neo-cons are campaigning on foriegn issues so they aren't true conservatives, unless you claim you've read the book. It seems out of character with what ZKrib said which is Buchanan said that neo-cons were spending too much money domestically .

Maybe you two should sort it out?

[DinoDoc]

It's also good politics that has a grain of truth behind it. However your cries of dishonesty would have a little more credibility if you applied that sword to all side rather than your idealogical opponents.

PS for Oerdin: Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry

[Imran Siddiqui]

Quoted Gallup poll questions:

"Do you think the tax cuts recently signed into law by George W. Bush were -- a good idea (or) a bad idea -- at this time?"

"Which of the following approaches for providing health care in the United States would you prefer -- replacing the current health care system with a new government-run health care system, or maintaining the current system based mostly on private health insurance?"

"A proposal has been made that would allow people to put a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts that would be invested in private stocks and bonds. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?"

"In general, do you think there is too much, too little or about the right amount of government regulation of business and industry?,"

Sorry Rufus, but it wasn't a referendum on the President, but specific questions about policy.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
PS for Oerdin: Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry

About as surprising as "Mormons in Utah back Bush 4-1 over Kerry"

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sorry but Senators are responsible for thier votes and have to defend them. The excuse "I was in a primary!" doesn't really cut the mustard.

But to ignore nearly every vote from 1976 to 2003 then only count those in 2003 then ignore those from 2003-2004 seems disingenious. In fact I'd call it a lie.

[Whoha]

quiet you liberals

[Fake Boris]

I've not read the book, I'm just assuming something that is obvious.

Neo-cons are doing stuff outside of the country, which pleases a certain traditionaly conservative crowd.

It also happens that they're doing stuff in America that doesn't seem to be in touch with traditional conservatism.

Still, they get the traditionally conservative vote. My spin on this is that terrorism has become a major issue for Americans, and thus foreign policy is overshadowing domestic mistakes.

Buchanan's stance seems to be that 'conservatism' has been perverted, which is just useless whining without substance.

Somewhere in between, is that the American people is not truly 'conservative' when it comes to domestic issue, but rather a bunch of ********* who will agree on spending money that they don't have.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
PS for Oerdin: Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry

Ask the troops who have been subject to stop lose and/or who have been to Iraq as I have. I can assure you the numbers won't look so rosie.

[Ramo]

It's also good politics that has a grain of truth behind it. However your cries of dishonesty would have a little more credibility if you applied that sword to all side rather than your idealogical opponents.

Err.. yes, Kerry my ideological compatriot. In fact, he's my Manchurian candidate.

As for credibility, I'm not the one shamelessly bringing up inane talking points.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Quoted Gallup poll questions:

"Do you think the tax cuts recently signed into law by George W. Bush were -- a good idea (or) a bad idea -- at this time?"

"Which of the following approaches for providing health care in the United States would you prefer -- replacing the current health care system with a new government-run health care system, or maintaining the current system based mostly on private health insurance?"

"A proposal has been made that would allow people to put a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts that would be invested in private stocks and bonds. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?"

"In general, do you think there is too much, too little or about the right amount of government regulation of business and industry?,"

Sorry Rufus, but it wasn't a referendum on the President, but specific questions about policy.

No, it's about what they were asked. The first question, for example, is still a basic "do you support the President" question. But imagine if the first question were asked this way:

"Do you think the President's decision to cut taxes without cutting federal spending -- indeed, while increasing Federal spending -- was a good idea or a bad idea at this time?"

or this way...

"After the recent balanced budgets submitted to congress by President Clinton, do you think President Bush's idea of returning to unbalanced budgets and running a deficit is a good idea or a bad idea at this time?"

Do you really think you'd get the same level of support for the prez with such questions?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
In fact I'd call it a lie.

I'd call voting to send troops to war, voting against funding said troops, and then complaining about the troops not getting things in the bill he voted against (body armor, etc.) far worse than a lie. Anyway see my response to Ramo re honesty in Presidential campaigns.

[Ramo]

He disagreed with the way that the way Iraqi reconstruction would be funded, so he voted against the bill. He would've voted for makign it a loan. I disagreed with him, but in retrospect it didn't make much of a difference seeing as how we appropriated their oil revenues and used that instead anyways. Point is, calling this dishonest somehow, is dishonest itself.

What is it with you and RNC talking points?

[DinoDoc]

He voted against funding troops in the field and then complained they weren't getting the things he voted against giving them. How is it dishonest to get a chuckle out of that?

[DinoDoc]

Stop DanSing me!

Originally posted by Ramo
What is it with you and RNC talking points?

It's what this thread is about is it not? I figured we might as well have a discussion about it. My turn: What is it with you and your hypocritical cries for honesty in the midst of a Presidential campaign?