CNN Poll: Americans prefer Democratic policies

CNN:

Despite the bruising battle over their health care reform proposals, congressional Democrats have maintained an advantage over their Republican counterparts on one key measure, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday indicates that a bare majority of Americans, 51 percent, believe that the Democrats' policies are good for the country, with 46 percent saying that those policies would take the country in the wrong direction.

By contrast, 53 percent of people questioned in the poll say that the GOP's polices would move the nation in the wrong direction, with 42 percent saying Republican policies are good for the country.

"The numbers for both parties are virtually unchanged since late August, just before President Barack Obama's health care speech to Congress opened the latest round of debate on this divisive issue," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

So, after a summer and fall of full-tilt teabagging, we find the electorate pretty much where it was before on whether Democratic or Republican policies are better for the country.

This is hardly surprising. Democrats actually have policies. The Republicans have none. Tax cuts, deregulation, and tort reform are not policies. They are talking points.

Similarly, the GOP's lack of policy solutions is aggravated by its lack of a positive contribution to our country's political discourse.

You can't persuade people to see your point of view when all you have to say is, "NO," "HELL NO," and "WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE????"

So, ACORN didn't steal the election after all?

ThinkProgress: After conceding, then unconceding, then conceding, then unconceding, Hoffman now concedes.

Palin supporters try and fail to articulate a reason why they like her

They reject any and all evidence that conflicts with their view of their heroine.

They're a lot like Palin that way.

Polls show overwhelming support for Obama's speech to schoolchildren

Two new polls suggest that the much-covered conservative outrage over President Obama's planned speech to schoolchildren is a manufactured hissy fit representing the sentiments of a fringe minority.

The polls, one taken on the "Left Coast" of California, the other in "The Heartland" of Missouri, show massive support for the president's speech to American students about the importance of education.

A Survey USA poll taken in Fresno, CA asked respondents four questions about the speech. Overwhelming majorities expressed favorable opinions.

Q: President Obama plans to deliver a national address to school children on the importance of them taking responsibility for their own success in school. Do you think it is appropriate? Or not appropriate? For President Obama to deliver this address?
A: Appropriate 63% Not Appropriate 30%

Q: Do you think it would be appropriate? Or not appropriate? For ANY President to deliver this address?
A: Appropriate 64% Not Appropriate 30%

Q: If you had a child attending a school that was going to show the address, would you tell your child to pay attention? Would you tell you child to NOT pay attention? Or would you keep your child home?
A: To Pay Attention 78% To NOT Pay Attention 5% Would Keep Child Home 14%

Q: Who should decide whether to show President Obama's national address to school children? School districts? Or individual teachers?
A: School Districts 52% Individual Teachers 28%

SUSA asked the same questions of residents in Missouri with almost identical results.

Q: President Obama plans to deliver a national address to school children on the importance of them taking responsibility for their own success in school. Do you think it is appropriate? Or not appropriate? For President Obama to deliver this address?
A: Appropriate 63% Not Appropriate 33%

Q: Do you think it would be appropriate? Or not appropriate? For ANY President to deliver this address?
A: Appropriate 65% Not Appropriate 29%

Q: If you had a child attending a school that was going to show the address, would you tell your child to pay attention? Would you tell you child to NOT pay attention? Or would you keep your child home?
A: To Pay Attention 70% To NOT Pay Attention 4% Would Keep Child Home 21%

Q: Who should decide whether to show President Obama's national address to school children? School districts? Or individual teachers?
A: School Districts 57% Individual Teachers 23%

In each case, twice as many people say the speech is "appropriate" as those who say it is not. In Missouri, nearly three-quarters of respondents say they would want their children to "pay attention" to the president's message on the importance of education. In Fresno, nearly four out of five people say so.

In Missouri, only about one out of five people would take the extreme step of keeping their children out of school the day of the president's speech. In Fresno, fewer than 3 in 20 would do so.

Empirical data demonstrate that Americans support the idea of the President of the United States encouraging children to stay in school and get an education. This is, by an overwhelming majority, the mainstream view.

However, as with the health-reform debate, the media are amplifying the protestations of a fringe minority, lending them credence by virtue of nothing more than their volume.

GOP congressman says health reform bill is too long

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) says he has read every page of a House health-care reform bill and finds it unacceptable.

His main objection?  It is too long.

He described the package on health reform as a 1,017-page document. He said it was delivered near midnight and put up for debate at 9:30 a.m. the next morning, before many had the chance to read it. Poe said he has read all 1,017 pages.

It is longer than War and Peace and not near as funny, said Poe.

First things first.  Matt Yglesias points out that at 1,017 pages, the bill Poe is referring to is not, in fact, longer than War and Peace.

I have not read all 1,107 pages of the bill since that's not actually an enlightening way to understand legislation. I have, however, read War and Peace and it's longer than that. The Signet Classics edition is 1,456 pages. The Vintage Classics edition is 1,296 pages. The Penguin Classics edition is 1,424 pages. Even the relatively brief Norton Critical Edition rolls in at 1,200 pages.

But Poe's lack of familiarity with Tolstoy's tome aside, what does the GOP congressman's criticism even mean?

What does the length of a piece of legislation have to do with its merit?  Isn't the most important thing what a bill says, rather than the number of pages it contains? 

Would Poe be more disposed to support health reform if the Democrats could bring it in under 1,000 pages, regardless of what's in it?

But don't be surprised if this content-free critique actually gains some traction in the media.  The news biz seems to love arbitrary benchmarks, and the villagers might not be able to resist the temptation to challenge Democratic lawmakers to keep all bills at 999 pages or less. 

It wouldn't be any more random than the $1 trillion cap that some in congress have adopted as their only apparent guiding principle on health reform.

Cavuto tries to reason with RNC spokeswingnut and fails

When your spokesperson is so delusional that Neil Cavuto sounds reasonable by comparison, you have a problem.

This is exactly the situation in which the Republican National Committee finds itself as it can't even convince a Fox "News" host that it's a good idea to rename its opponents the Union of Democrat National Socialist Devil-worshipping Baby Eaters.



You have to give Cavuto credit where it's due. He really tries to reason with RNC committeewoman Cathie Adams, but she's just not having it. It's like trying to argue with a brick wall.

I particularly love the way she keeps repeating that stupid non-sequitur talking point: This isn't about personalities, this is about issues. Huh? Who said anything about personalities? I half-expected Cavuto to scream "What the f*** are you talking about?"

Do people like Ms. Adams really not see how ridiculous this is? Does the RNC really not appreciate what a self-defeating move it is to rename the Democratic Party the Democrat Socialist Party? Can they be so out of touch with reality that they don't realize they are turning their party into a punchline?

If this is the mind-set dominating the RNC right now, that party is in more trouble than even the most optimistic Democrats dare to dream.

They eat their own - Savage versus Beck

Michael "Savage" Weiner says Glenn "The Hemorrhoid with Eyes" Beck is ripping him off.

For the wingnut sociopath who has everything

Stay classy, conservatives.

Wingnuts already calling for President-elect Obama's impeachment

I mean, why wait until he actually becomes president? You gotta make hay while the sun shines, dontcha know?

On Facebook, an "Impeach Barack Obama" group has attracted more than 700 members and a lively debate about the Democrat's election victory on Tuesday over Republican John McCain.

Another Facebook group of the same name has 160 members and urges others to join because "we might as well get a head start on the impeachment of Obama."

"There are a lot of Americans out there that do not fully understand the concept of Socialism or Communism which is why they've elected Obama as president," it says.

Yet another Facebook group, "Impeach Barack Hussein Obama," has 160 members.

It decries that Obama "has voiced support for various unconstitutional programs such as the assault weapons ban, universal healthcare, and various schemes for wealth distribution."

"What are we going to do about it? IMPEACH HIM!" it says.

So, starting an illegal war, conducting warrantless surveillance on American citizens, and imposing a torture regime on the United States was not enough to warrant the impeachment of George W. Bush.

But "voicing support" for stuff wingnuts don't like is sufficient grounds for impeaching someone before he even takes the oath of office.

Seriously, guys, you might want to rethink that purge of smart, rational, reality-dwellers from the GOP that seems to be gaining so much momentum.

The country has turned the page on stupid.

OH, NOES!!! THE BLACK PANTHERS!!!!!

Heard Rush Limbaugh saying today that Black Panthers were intimidating voters at polling places in Philadelphia.

One of them reportedly said, as he brandished a night stick, "a black man's getting elected today, no matter what."

Well, that settles it! If Obama wins today, his election is completely illegitimate due to the threatening behavior of leather-clad black people in the important swing state of Pennsylvania.

Conservatives will have no choice but to spend the next four years opposing President Obama as though he seized power in a military coup.

I hope Rush has his "America Under Siege" show open dusted off, cued up, and ready to go.

Limbaugh: 'Schumer wants to outlaw home ownership'

I don't have a clip. I heard the blowhard's incoherent rant in the car on my way to lunch.

Limbaugh played a snippet of Chuck Schumer's bailout hearing opening remarks, in which the New York Senator lamented how "the lowly mortgage" has brought us to this point, and extrapolated that Schumer wants to outlaw home ownership. Seriously.

And you know what? As crazy as that makes Limbaugh sound, there are at this moment tens of thousands of dittoheads who think that Chuck Schumer wants to outlaw home ownership. It wouldn't occur to them to question something so ridiculous, despite the fact that it is coming from a proven liar, and an untreated drug addict to boot.

You want to talk about the flag? Okay, let's talk about the flag.

Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey is all worked up about the image on what he identifies as a DNCC mailer (but what looks like a hangtag of some sort).

Maybe the DNCC has kept track of the polling this summer and figures the Democratic nominee is officially in distress. That’s the only explanation for a silly gaffe by the convention committee for the graphics on their credentials for those allowed to see Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at Invesco Field. The holographic image uses an American flag motif with the blue field at the bottom, with Obama’s head emerging from it in one of the two alternating images (via the Weasel Zippers):

Okay, Ed. You want to talk about the flag? Let's talk about it.

I rest my case.

Anything you'd like to add?

'We are damn stupid'

Behold, the next host of his own prime time talk show on Headline News.

[h/t The General]



Seriously, I defy anyone to come up with one substantive difference between this nutcase and Glenn Beck.