Zogby Poll: Revealing About Obama Voters/Media

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by tstew

Personally, I would not be surprised if more knew about the Wright/ Ayers/ birth certificate allegations and all the hype surrounding Obama than legitimate policy matters as well...but I could be wrong.

I think the point of the poll was to find out what those voting for Obama knew about Obama.

These people could tell you all the dirt on Palin but nothing negative about their own guy. The point here is that their news source gave a biased one sided view.

What I want to know is does that hold true for those voting for the republican?

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I think the point of the poll was to find out what those voting for Obama knew about Obama.

These people could tell you all the dirt on Palin but nothing negative about their own guy. The point here is that their news source gave a biased one sided view.

What I want to know is does that hold true for those voting for the republican?

How could it? The libs control 95% of the media sources. We all heard about SP's earth shaking news. Its just many of us also have other news sources: talk radio, internet, Fox.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

How could it? The libs control 95% of the media sources. We all heard about SP's earth shaking news. Its just many of us also have other news sources: talk radio, internet, Fox.

deac, i believe you are correct however, i would rather be able to toss facts in the face of the liberals who want to shout me down. its much more fun.

I have always said that context is king. there is no doubt that this polling data shows something very alarming about liberalism and its media ally but I want complete information.

[tstew]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I think the point of the poll was to find out what those voting for Obama knew about Obama.

These people could tell you all the dirt on Palin but nothing negative about their own guy. The point here is that their news source gave a biased one sided view.

What I want to know is does that hold true for those voting for the republican?

My point was that just as people on the left were focused on dirt on Palin at the end and not policy issues, people on the right were focused on dirt on Obama and not policy issues. Almost every speech I heard at the end from McCain/Palin was about BO and not about their specific policies and how they were going to deliver those things that most of their supporters would say were of the utmost importance. It's the same song and dance on either side.

I have talked to people who vote primarily based on homosexuality and abortion and were not even aware of what McCain/Palin had said on record about how they would deal with those issues. They were unable to give me one direct, concise policy position that was going to affect these issues. It's the game of politics. Personally, I'm about burned out with all of it for a while.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by tstew

My point was that just as people on the left were focused on dirt on Palin at the end and not policy issues, people on the right were focused on dirt on Obama and not policy issues. Almost every speech I heard at the end from McCain/Palin was about BO and not about their specific policies and how they were going to deliver those things that most of their supporters would say were of the utmost importance. It's the same song and dance on either side.

I have talked to people who vote primarily based on homosexuality and abortion and were not even aware of what McCain/Palin had said on record about how they would deal with those issues. They were unable to give me one direct, concise policy position that was going to affect these issues. It's the game of politics. Personally, I'm about burned out with all of it for a while.

Stew, you've never acknowledged any line of argument that points put that Mac promised to appoint conservative judges. That is as strong a commitment to end abortion as he can give. His voting record as a Senator also speaks for itself. No one running for prez can have any policy position on these issues esides saying they r opposed to or are in favor of. The courts decide these issues. Court appointments are the only way a prez can profoundly affect abortion/gay marriage.

You speak as though no one has even brought this counterargument up.

[tstew]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Stew, you've never acknowledged any line of argument that points put that Mac promised to appoint conservative judges. That is as strong a commitment to end abortion as he can give. His voting record as a Senator also speaks for itself. No one running for prez can have any policy position on these issues esides saying they r opposed to or are in favor of. The courts decide these issues. Court appointments are the only way a prez can profoundly affect abortion/gay marriage.

You speak as though no one has even brought this counterargument up.

DB, at this point based on the track record that I have seen, I fear that I can only go by what is specifically promised. Republicans have not always appointed Justices who were inclined to overturn Roe vs. Wade despite all the rhetoric and wishful thinking. Mac is certainly not the most conseravtive Republican to run in recent years. If his direct answers to direct questions is "as strong a commitment to end abortion as he can give" and the moral majority is fine with that, that explains why millions of babies have been getting killed regardless of who is in power.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by tstew

DB, at this point based on the track record that I have seen, I fear that I can only go by what is specifically promised. Republicans have not always appointed Justices who were inclined to overturn Roe vs. Wade despite all the rhetoric and wishful thinking. Mac is certainly not the most conseravtive Republican to run in recent years. If his direct answers to direct questions is "as strong a commitment to end abortion as he can give" and the moral majority is fine with that, that explains why millions of babies have been getting killed regardless of who is in power.

What was specifically promised? Republicans have had some missteps in appointments sure, and maybe some are sincere about overturning Roe, but the Dems are batting 1.000 when it comes abortion. I'll take 2 to 1 odds everytime over ZERO.

[tstew]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

What was specifically promised? Republicans have had some missteps in appointments sure, and maybe some are sincere about overturning Roe, but the Dems are batting 1.000 when it comes abortion. I'll take 2 to 1 odds everytime over ZERO.

...or if millions of murders actually mean anything to you and if you are actually sincere about overturning Roe, you and the millions of others who feel that way can actually ask for specific promises and not be blindly, predictably partisan so as to not be taken for granted and allow such an important issue become a token and rhetorical stance...kind of what I've been saying all along. Otherwise, round and round we go hoping that "maybe some are sincere" while we get lead around by our morals and these issues and every other issue we feel strongly about gets trampled, sheltered by the kind of protection that only blind partisanship can afford.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by tstew

...or if millions of murders actually mean anything to you and if you are actually sincere about overturning Roe, you and the millions of others who feel that way can actually ask for specific promises and not be blindly, predictably partisan so as to not be taken for granted and allow such an important issue become a token and rhetorical stance...kind of what I've been saying all along. Otherwise, round and round we go hoping that "maybe some are sincere" while we get lead around by our morals and these issues and every other issue we feel strongly about gets trampled, sheltered by the kind of protection that only blind partisanship can afford.

I meant to say in the previous post "aren't sincere" versus "are" sincere.

What specific promise could be asked for, and what specifically could a politician promise that could actually be fulfilled in relationship to abortion and gay marriage?

Bush banned federal funding for overseas abortion (saving thousands) and he banned partial birth abortions (saving hundreds). I wouldn't say his stand on abortion was simple rhetoric. What he did was restrict abortion's availablilty. But no president can outlaw it altogether unless the court will support it.

[tstew]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

I meant to say in the previous post "aren't sincere" versus "are" sincere.

What specific promise could be asked for, and what specifically could a politician promise that could actually be fulfilled in relationship to abortion and gay marriage?

Bush banned federal funding for overseas abortion (saving thousands) and he banned partial birth abortions (saving hundreds). I wouldn't say his stand on abortion was simple rhetoric. What he did was restrict abortion's availablilty. But no president can outlaw it altogether unless the court will support it.

For starters, when asked directly whether the issue of abortion and Roe v. Wade is important enough to influence the appointment of a Justice...you say "absolutely"...if you really believe that abortion is murder and that a million murders are being committed every year. Once again I submit that abortion is murder or it isn't. If it is, then it is morally no different than killing a million ten-year olds. The moral majority either needs to treat it that way or quit focusing on it primarily during every election cycle.

Educated observers watch Republican answers to these specific question, and they recognize how diametrically opposed it is to the deep and passionate feelings of their constituents. They know that it is primarily through these feelings that Republicans even had a shot at power...and I believe we end up looking pretty foolish.

As far as gay marriage, they've already established that they all pretty much view it the same so that is a moot point.