Thursday, January 7, 2010

Even Gallup Proves Liberals Are Just A Fringe Group. What Say You Our Fringe Subculture?

Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group

Uptick owing largely to more independents calling themselves conservative

by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- The increased conservatism that Gallup first identified among Americans last June persisted throughout the year, so that the final year-end political ideology figures confirm Gallup's initial reporting: conservatives (40%) outnumbered both moderates (36%) and liberals (21%) across the nation in 2009.
More broadly, the percentage of Americans calling themselves either conservative or liberal has increased over the last decade, while the percentage of moderates has declined.
Political Ideology -- Annual Trends From 1992-2009
Since 1992, there have been only two other years -- 2003 and 2004 -- in which the average percentage of conservatives nationwide outnumbered moderates, and in both cases, it was by two percentage points (in contrast to the current four points).
"The proportion of independents calling themselves "moderate" held relatively steady in the mid-40s over the last decade, while the proportion of Republican and Democratic moderates dwindled."
The rather abrupt three-point increase between 2008 and 2009 in the percentage of Americans calling themselves conservative is largely owing to an increase -- from 30% to 35% -- in the percentage of political independents adopting the label. Over the same period, there was only a slight increase in professed conservatism among Republicans (from 70% to 71%) and no change among Democrats (at 21%).
Recent Trend in Percentage Identifying as Conservative -- by Party ID
The 2009 findings come from an aggregate of 21 separate Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys, including nearly 22,000 interviews. The 1992 to 2008 trends also represent thousands of interviews compiled for each year. Thus, the margins of sampling error around the individual estimates are less than one percentage point.
Trends of the Past Decade
Just looking at the decade that ended in 2009, Gallup's annual political ideology trends document a slight dip in the percentage of Americans calling themselves moderate (from 40% in 2000 to 36% in 2009), while, at the same time, the ranks of both liberals and conservatives expanded slightly.
Gallup measures political ideology by asking Americans to indicate whether their political views are very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, or very liberal. The detailed responses show a slight increase between 2000 and 2009 in the percentage of Americans calling themselves "very conservative" (from 6% to 9%) and less change in the percentage calling themselves "very liberal" (from 4% to 5%). Most conservatives continue to call themselves "conservative" rather than "very conservative," and the same pattern is seen for liberals.
Detailed Political Ideology Findings: 2000 vs. 2009
Republicans Become More Solidly "Conservative"
In addition to the very recent increase in conservatism among independents, a growing percentage of Republicans identified themselves as such starting in 2003. Across the same period, the percentage of Democrats calling themselves conservative dipped slightly, somewhat offsetting the increase among Republicans.
Recent Trend in Percentage Conservative -- by Party ID
Partisans Shy Away From "Moderate" Label
The proportion of independents calling themselves "moderate" held relatively steady in the mid-40s over the last decade, while the proportion of Republican and Democratic moderates dwindled. Between 2000 and 2009, the percentage of moderates fell five percentage points among Democrats (from 44% to 39%) and seven points among Republicans (from 31% to 24%).
Recent Trend in Percentage Moderate -- by Party ID
Democrats Grow Increasingly "Liberal"
Similar to the increased conservatism among Republicans, there was a gradual increase in the last decade in "liberal" identification among Democrats, from 29% in 2002 to 38% in 2007, and it has since remained at about that level.
Recent Trend in Percentage Liberal -- by Party ID
The effect of this shift among Democrats is most apparent when one reviews the trend in their ideological profile over the past decade. Whereas moderates constituted the largest bloc of Democrats in 2000, today they are about tied with liberals as twin leaders, and the proportion of conservatives has declined.
Recent Political Ideology Trend -- Among Democrats
By contrast, the expanded number of conservatives making up the Republican Party has merely strengthened the conservatives' already strong hold on that party.
Recent Political Ideology Trend -- Among Republicans
And despite the recent uptick in conservatism among independents, the largest segment continues to be moderate (although by a smaller margin than previously).
Recent Political Ideology Trend -- Among Independents
Bottom Line
Political independents showed increased attachment to the "conservative" label in 2009, boosting the overall ranks of that group so that it now clearly outnumbers moderates in Gallup's annual averages for the first time since 2004. Longer term, the proportions of Americans calling themselves conservative as well as liberal expanded slightly this past decade, largely because of increased partisan attachment to each label. At the same time, the percentage of "moderates" has dwindled, underscoring the heightened polarization of American politics as the nation heads into a new decade.
Sign up for Gallup e-mail alerts or RSS feeds

Get Gallup news on Facebook and Twitter
Survey Methods
Results are based on aggregated data from Gallup polls conducted in 2009, each based on telephone interviews with 1,000 or more national adults, aged 18 and older. For results based on the total sample of 21,905 national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point.
Other results are based on aggregated Gallup surveys of approximately 1,000 national adults 18 and older each. Sample sizes for the annual compilations range from approximately 10,000 to approximately 40,000. For these results, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Good Job President Obama!

I'm happy I can say that for a change. It is very easy getting wraped up in all the bad things Obama has done. But for once he's done something that is good for the country at large. He has orders changes in the anti terror foul up case.
The White House was to make public a declassified account of how a suspected terrorist slipped through post-Sept. 11 security to board the plane with an explosive. Obama was to address the nation about the findings Thursday afternoon. A government official said the president will order U.S. agencies to move faster and more accurately in adding suspects to a watch list designed to stop terrorists before they strike.
This would mean that individuals, like the Christmas Day bombing suspect, with potential ties to terrorist organizations or violent extremists would be included in the watch list more rapidly. The government's much smaller "no-fly" list is drawn from the most worrisome names on the watch list.
It was expected that building up the lists would require additional resources.
The official, who is familiar with the president's strategy, was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Obama's remarks Thursday follow a promise earlier in the week to reveal new steps to thwart future terror plots.
No firings over the December security debacle are expected — for now, at least.
In an interview published Thursday by USA Today, national security adviser Gen. James Jones said people who read the report will feel "a certain shock."
Elaborating, Jones said, "The man on the street ... will be surprised that these correlations weren't made" between clues pointing toward a threat from Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Even though the 23-year-old Nigerian man was in a database of possible terrorists, he allegedly managed to fly from Nigeria through Amsterdam to Detroit with an explosive concealed on his body.
Homeland Security officials say they had flagged Abdulmutallab as someone who should go through additional security screening upon landing. In a statement early Thursday, the department said the alleged bomber's potential ties to extremists came up in a routine check of passengers en route to the U.S. from overseas.                                                                                                                                                  So in short President Obama has earned some of my respect.

Beck Is Putting All The Lies On The Table

Politicians Addicted to Addiction



Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel


If our politicians are good at one thing, it's addictions. They've got a lot of them: Hookers; mistresses; interns, congressional pages, Argentine women, meetings at highway rest stops and airport bathroom stalls; coke; bribes, etc.
But their biggest addiction doesn't involve hookers or blow: It's spending.
Americans seem to understand that hookers and the bribes aren't acceptable and so we run the Spitzers and the Blagojevichs out of town. My question is: When do we run those who are bankrupting our country and stealing our children's future out of town?
Our debt is mind boggling:
• $12 trillion in national debt
• $8 trillion in bailouts
• $106 trillion in unfunded liabilities: the liability per citizen is over $346,000 per person
It doesn't take a Harvard education to understand that at some point we have to pay this money back and we don't have the money.
Let's start with the accounting practices in Washington. How do you do it in your house? You have a business you have one set of books and a package of receipts. When the IRS comes knocking, if they don't match you go to jail. If you have a second set of books in the drawer, you definitely go to jail, right?
Well here's how it works in the federal government: Because they don't want the deficit to look so bad, they have in essence a second set of books. Could you imagine if I said to the IRS, "Oh, you wanted to see what I'm paying my employees for their pensions? Uhh ... I've got it in my head, don't worry."
I'd go to jail!
But these people just continue to play the game because they know no one will say anything.
Let me go off the budget for a second; here's an example: Barack Obama says health care will be debated out in the open on C-SPAN. Nancy Pelosi comes out and says this:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
What she's saying here is: We lie when we are trying to get elected. She says she didn't know the president had said that. Really?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA, JAN. 20, 2008: These negotiations will be on C-SPAN ...
OBAMA, JAN. 31, 2008: Broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN ...
OBAMA, NOV. 14, 2008: It'll be on C-SPAN ...
OBAMA, AUG. 21, 2008: We'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN ...
OBAMA, APRIL 25, 2008: All this will be done on C-SPAN ...
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
How does Pelosi respond?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PELOSI: There has never been a more open process ...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
How do these people sleep at night? Could you get away with those lies in your personal life? Would you get away with two sets of books? Collapsing the economy? Whether it's through nefarious desires or just flat-out stupidity, could you do it? The answer is no. Then why do we not demand that they go to jail for what they are doing to our country?
Let me go back to the back to budget deficit: Each one of us owes $346,000. How do we pay that off? And the media only gives you part of the story. You have to put it all together.
Seventy percent of our economy is based on personal consumption. Only 30 percent is based on actually creating of things. They need you to spend. But look what's happened to your spending: The actual household borrowing has taken a nosedive, so you aren't spending. That's why the stimulus package is so important. But where is that government money coming from? Apparently America is content not to think it out that far:
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
KEN ROGULSKI, WJR RADIO DETROIT: Where's the money coming from?
UNIDENITIFED WOMAN: I believe it's coming from the City of Detroit or the state.
ROGULSKI: Where did they get it from?
UNIDENITIFED WOMAN: Some funds that was given by Obama.
ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get the funds?
UNIDENITIFED WOMAN: Obama getting the funds from ... umm, I have no idea, to tell you the truth. He's the president.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
It's not Obama money. His face isn't on any currency notes — yet. It's coming from you. It's tax revenue.
The way to really fix this problem is to flip these numbers around. No longer can we base our economy on consumption; we have to create something. But the problem is there really isn't anything we can hang our hats on. The lie being told to you right now is that "green jobs" are the answer. Evidence? Prince of the Republican Progressives, Sen. Lindsey Graham:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those countries who lead in creating a new green economy for the world will make money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Really? It is? Well, that's great. Let's start cranking out the solar panels!
I'm sure our prices in the global market will be competitive, what with our cost-cutting union workers and unobtrusive politicians. Just think of the birthing process of a solar panel in America as opposed to China. In America you need:
• Financing
• Workers
• Union contracts
• Permits
• OSHA
• EPA
• Lawyers
Here's what China needs: Children. Parts. Done.
Which panel do you think will be cheaper? I'm betting on China, how about you?
Of course we won't be able to do it cheaper. It's the same thing with "green cars." Really? Our union factories will out-price India or China? It's the reason why Andy Stern wants the workers of the world to unite:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDY STERN, PRESIDENT OF SEIU: Workers of the world unite? It's not just a slogan anymore, it's the way we’re going to have to do our work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Stern's got to pay the bills and grow somewhere. The unions are becoming globalists. They know they can't compete and they know growth market is not America. So they globalize and lower the standard of the American worker. They get theirs because they are a global institution, but where does that leave you and me?
So what in the world will we build that will flip these numbers? I have no idea. Chia Pets? Ben and Jerry's? ShamWows? Mark my words: We'll all be making these little umbrellas for Chinese drinks.
Whatever it is, it better be huge because we have to pay off all of this debt. A debt that up until recently was considered healthy and now it's called unsustainable. Even the president admits that. Why now? Why can't we sustain this debt now?
Imagine three people: A 25-year-old, a 45-year-old and a 55-year-old.
When you are 25 years old, you probably an entry-level salary. It's not unreasonable to spend a little more than you earn because you are at the highest potential. A medium amount of debt can be healthy to build credit and because of that potential. That was America in the 1930s.
When you are 45 years old, you are at your peak earning time. You are making a good salary so you can carry more debt. That was America in the 1970s.
When you are 55-65, you start to scale back. At 65, your income goes away and you are left with Social Security and whatever you saved. It's not wise here to buy a huge house or incur huge debts because you don't have any potential left. That is America today.
America doesn't have the income potential. In the '30s we had steel. We had TV. We had radios. The world had to get it from U.S. In the '70s we were off the gold standard and still had some potential ahead of us. What is it now? Lindsey Graham thinks it's the solar panels and the Prius. That's not the answer.

Obama and the Vampire Congress

 
Michelle Malkin

Michelle MalkinMeet the Beltway bloodsuckers. They convene in the dead of night, when most ordinary mortals have left work and let their guard down or are lying asleep in bed. Pale-faced and insatiable, the nocturnal thieves do their nefarious business in backrooms and secret chambers. Their primary victims? Taxpayers, the free market, and deliberative democracy.



Democratic leaders have been promising the most ethical, transparent, open, and engaged administration for years. Instead, they have delivered a bleak and creepy legislative environment that could double as a Twilight movie set.

Skulking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rammed the government healthcare takeover package through under the cover of darkness before Thanksgiving and Christmas. House Democratic leaders forbade debate on all but one amendment not authored by themselves. The Senate Finance Committee killed a GOP amendment that would have required Demcare to be available online for 72 hours before the committee voted. Reid and his Volterra-style henchmen cut last-minute cash-for-cloture deals behind closed doors.

And now House and Senate Democratic leaders are reportedly preparing to cut dissenters out of the reconciliation process by bypassing the formal conference committee.

In Hill parlance, this legislative shortcut is called "ping-ponging." A better game analogy: dodgeball. With mounting opposition from both conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats, President Obama's water-carriers must use every trick in the book to speed the final merging and passage of the bill before the end of the month.

The hypocrisy reeks stronger than rotting garlic. In 2006, House Democrats asserted that "House-Senate conferences are a critical part of the deliberative process because they produce the final legislative product that will become the law of the land." That same year, Reid railed on the Senate floor against informal deal-making that circumvented the conference committee process -- and he attacked the use of manager's amendments to avoid public scrutiny:
"Of course, nobody can see the manager's amendment. It is composed of over 40 amendments. How could anyone vote for a piece of legislation such as that -- a manager's amendment with 42 separate amendments? Now, these amendments were not put in a conference committee. People complain about that. But at least in a conference committee, you have people working together, sticking things in....Here, you have one person making a decision as to what is going to be in the manager's amendment. There is no way to know what is in it."
But four years later, it was Reid who snuck his 383-page manager's amendment -- stuffed with payoffs, special breaks, and concessions on healthcare -- into the Senate hopper on the Saturday before Christmas break. Four years later, it is Reid stifling the open, collaborative conference committee process he so fiercely championed.

Where's Barack Obama? As a candidate, he promised repeatedly to broadcast legislative negotiations on C-SPAN "so that the American people can see what the choices are" and "so that the public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices that are being made." But the most transparent presidential administration ever is shrugging its shoulders. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs pooh-poohed C-SPAN's request to allow electronic media coverage of the Demcare negotiations.

Instead, Gibbs thinks Americans should be grateful for what they got last month: "The Senate did a lot of their voting at 1:00 and 2:00 in the morning on C-SPAN....And I think if you watched that debate -- I don't know -- I wasn't up at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning for a lot of those votes, but I think if the American public had watched...you'd have seen quite a bit of public hearing and public airing." And if you missed the middle-of-the-night broadcasts, tough noogies.

Team Obama's contempt for meaningful transparency has been on display from Day One. A year ago this month, Obama broke his vaunted open government pledge with the very first bill he signed into law. On Jan. 29, 2009, the White House boasted that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act had been posted online for review. Except: Obama had already signed it -- in violation of his "sunlight before signing" pledge to post legislation for public comment on the White House website five days before he sealed any deal.

From the stimulus to the healthcare takeover to holiday bailouts for bankrupt financial behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it's been all backrooms and blackouts ever since. The Prince of Darkness at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is perfectly happy with his Vampire Congress. Wraiths of a sunshine-evading feather flock together.