I am debating facts against facts...there is a difference. Mainly I do it to try to keep you honest, with Ian not participating anymore the political commentary on here tends to become too one-sided and less evidence based. Besides, you like it, can take it without taking it personally, and are a challenging debater...you are one of the very few I trust enough to debate some of the topics we get into on here!
As for your link to the Rasmussen poll, keep in mind that company is run by a former paid Bush consultant and has a known Republican bias. There is a reason is so popular with FoxNews and the Wall Street Journal.
I did not forget your field, but whether the public believes it went too far, not far enough, or is just right has nothing to do with your job description. And as a wise man once said:
Bill Glasheen wrote:
Moral of the story... treat "expert opinion" with the same level of confidence as a believable myth. If it's all you've got, well it's all you've got. But you may do just as well consulting Carnac.
Societies make decisions. There was been strong support for health care reform long before Obama became president and there continues to be strong support. If the conservatives do manage to kill this act, whether in the Supreme Court or when next they have the White House, they will not replace it with anything because they do not want any reform, yet they do not speak for the majority. The turnover in 2010 happened in areas where it could happen, and when it could happen due to the party entrenchment that has reached new heights after building for the past 30 years.
The devil is in the details in that senate primary here in Nebraska. Bruning and Steinberg underestimate Fischer and ignored her while brutalizing each other in successive attack ads, plus there were PAC attack ads against both of them. Fischer meanwhile vowed to run a clean campaign and did so. Kudos to her, and her strategy worked. Support for Bruning and Steinberg weakened and became very split in the last weeks of the campaign, allowing Fischer's supporters to combine with those becoming dissatified with the other two and sneak her in from behind. It was politics at its best, and I have not made up my mind yet whether I will vote for her or Kerry, I need to find out more about their positions first.
Voters are ticked. Incumbents are toast. It's not about party, it's about kicking the bums out. It happened to Congress in 2010. It's happening in Europe and in the U.S. in primaries today. November's going to be ugly.
And that is when it becomes dangerous. That is how the Nazis were voted into power in Germany. That is how 21 neo-Nazi's were elected to the Greek parliment last week and sworn in today. That is when governments become TOO conservative. Do we want that in the U.S.?
I am right and you know it, Glenn. I'm telling the truth about both parties, and you are being Obama's shill.
Issues, Glenn. Issues!
I know nothing of the sort, but I have no doubt you believe it. It is not being a shill when there are data and facts to support my statements, nor is it when the choice is for the better of two options available and let's face it Romney is not it...and you know I'm right! The only other option is to tune it out now and not vote in November, but that is not my idea of the right way deal with societal choices, even if many will do so (there was only 25% voter turnout for Tuesday's primaries here in Nebraska).
Two sides, Bill, two sides!
P.S. - Interesting spin on the pipeline, but... no. And I don't have a problem with oil going out on the world market. Flood the supply and the price goes down for everyone. Simple economics. Plus... it can be cheaper not to ship it, and you're ready to use domestic the first time OPEC cops an attitude (such as during Carter's period of stagflation). And - MOST IMPORTANTLY - we won't feel compelled to go to war over Middle East oil. No problem.
No spin, just public record, recognized by both Democrats and Republicans here in Nebraska. No Nebraska Republican is attacking Obama for his decision on the pipeline, and one Republican candidate ran ads during the primaries about how he 'led the fight to stop the pipeline going through the sandhills'. And price of oil was not the discussion, your comments were about energy independence, or lack thereof, and so where mine. The bottom line is that the pipeline will bring a few temporary construction jobs and no energy independence. That's a fact.
Your suggestion about using the oil domestically during a crisis, rather than continuing to export it, is a good idea, but did that happen in 1973/74?