All things being equal, based on the following descriptions for whom are you more likely to vote for U.S. Congress? If you will decide your vote on other issues just say so. A Democratic candidate who is pro-abortion and is supported by Nancy Pelosi, who supports gay marriage. A liberal Republican who is pro abortion and pro gay marriage, OR, A Conservative Republican who is running on the Conservative Party line, who is pro-life and pro traditional marriage.
This is no doubt a push question intended to produce favorable results for the candidate. It also illustrates the extent of the Hoffman campaign, which will be based solely on two social issues.
16 comments:
This article should be mandatory reading and then ask a poll question "Why are you a Republican or a Democrat today?"
Status of the GOP
I know, I know, the article is from that nasty leftist Boston Globe and that means Mass. - the bluest of the blue states, but it's darn good anyway.
~ dmf
Q: Who sponsored, conducted, and calculated the poll?
A: Doug Hoffman's folks.
Okee, dokee, then.
Approximately 300 people were surveyed for an election district that ranges from Oswego to Plattsburgh.
The 23rd Congressional District is a large sampling frame to have only 300 responses as a representation of all demographic categories.
Scozzafava on the President's health care speech to joint session of congress - her press release in part:
"Two weeks ago, I laid out ideas that I believe need to be part of the discussion taking place on health care reform in America. Tonight, the President laid out ideas on reforms he believes are necessary -- and many are ideas that I have described in my campaign."
NOW, she's COMPARING HER PLAN TO MR. OBAMA's plan?
What hoot ... pandering for votes, eh?
Dan, lay off the tiresome "nasty, bluest" baloney. We didn't say that, you did.
The problem with a source like this is that it reflects the same kind of view that we get in most all mainstream media. A complete, one-sided bias against Reps and for Dems. But you would be fine with that, wouldn't you? Ya see Dan, it's hard for me to take stuff like that seriously. I don't resort to the middle school name calling, as you do with FOX News, but reading it is a waste of time. You know what you are going to get well beforehand.
1:36... wow...
Caution, readers: Genius at work.
As I have said a thousand times here, "I will defend myself."
So, for 1:36 and anyone else who drinks here from this trough of enlightenment:
If anyone of you think FOX is okay, then okay. But, that says plenty about your brain housing unit functioning.
If you think they help with decent and rational discourse on any issue, or offer any rationality of any sort about anything, or offer the remotest fair and balance on any topic, then my friend, it is you and not me who is unblanced and unfair and in need of serious, serious repair work.
The Weasel says so
— dmf
No Dan, it's YOU that resorts to the name calling and labeling, right out of the box. Then you suggest we read this drivel as it's a "darn good article".
If you are going to dismiss certain sources, we are going to do the same. Too bad you need so much defending. And the "genius" thing I guess I'll just have to take, coming from a "war hero" and all.
5:44 - I won't even bother to give any credibility to your post by responding - Anonymous - in fact it's more and more like responding to a door knob.
The article is biased and far from the truth. It would be like comparing the democrats (the whole party) to the kooks in the Micheal Moore camp who claim Bush caused 9 / 11 to bolster the party. A large percentage belief that and more fringe conspiracy theories.
What will save the republican party is to get back to the basics. Individual freedoms, less government, lower taxes etc. I refuse to believe because you support "big business" you oppose the little guy. There is an honest believe that when business does well workers do well, the economy prospers and America grows.
Likewise, the democrats believe that to achieve success the gov't must regulate and to a certain extent control business.
I believe that they are mistaken. But I don't believe they want big government so they can control the masses.
THey just aren't that enlightened.
Some day they will get it
Keep government out of business' way, they can take care of things and be held accountable just fine; we don't need no stinkin' Feds or Regs:
1. Lehman Bros started it all - oops ... then along came AIG, Merrill Lynch, the auto industry and host of others, plus a flock of banks, of which some 90 have closed to (triple oops).
2. Bernie Madoff and Stanford - oops.
Big business hates government anywhere and at anytime - and so does the GOP pratically en masse, and BTW: so do I when it is overburdensome, that is until - they need a cash flow to bail out their raggedy asses, right? Then "happy days are here again..."
Tell me I'm wrong!
Just too damn many "asshats " in politics today . We the people who PAY the freight need to VOTE ANY and EVERY incumbent out of office if there is any hope for real change . Weare hopelessly adrift in a sea of people in office that only seek to be re-elected not create a better situation for we their employers -- THROW teh RASCALS out and let them get REAL jobs
5:02, nice cherry picking of dede's statement.
You failed to mention het statement includes this:
"What the President failed to mention is that we need to make certain we don't crowd-out private sector insurance providers; that we allow Americans to purchase coverage across state lines, enhancing competition and access; and that we don't short-change our seniors by cutting Medicare and mistakenly calling it for 'progress.'"
3:18, I hope you see the disingenuousness of your quote of her, as if there is any real competition for health coverage. She should know better, since she's over 18 and has been out of the county at least once.
It's the cost of health insurance thats the problem, not the cost of care.
Re: The late FEC filing and requests for extensions on the late filing tend to make me think that Owens and Hoffman, both, have something to side...
1. Owens is a lawyer and he can't figure out how to file on time?
2. Hoffman is a CPA and he can't, either?
I have filed several times with the FEC, and yes, it's time consuming, but it's also the law and a serious requirement.
What are they hiding, I ponder?
~ dmf
Cherry picking Dede? How about this from her official NYS assembly member home page under her bio?
Scozzafava Bio-
In part it reads:
Dede is the Chief Operating Officer for Seaway Capital Partners. NOTE: is does not say WAS, or at ONE TIME in the PAST, it clearly say IS...
The WDT and others try to paint her as a "inactive, or worse, a mere passive, innocent bystander" but her NYS official assembly page speaks differently - who is lying?
We need to know the truth and hear her say it; not the media PR or her campaign lackies. And, then she needs to stop these lies like that NCR radio interview that the WDT published today under Jude Seymour's label (take a look) here
North Country Public Radio Interview
Just to be honest, if that's possible?
~ dmf
In all fairness, if that's possible here - Owens has some problems and the DEMS should yank him now - the latest:
Owens has some shady stock deals to contend with?
Post a Comment