skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I try to make it a point to not live by the almighty poll. When it comes to some political topics, I just really don't care what other people think. (It's called principles!)
However, sometimes it's necessary to look deeper into a poll to prevent perceptions or generalizations materializing out of evidence that simply isn't there, or that is perhaps taken out of context.
I've seen a couple posts (here and here) about the new Rasmussen Survey where only 53% of Americans polled said they prefer capitalism versus socialism, which is exactly the kind of poll I think can be misleading unless all the evidence is examined.As it turns out, Americans aren't so much in favor of socialism over capitalism as they are in calling capitalism "free markets." It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a “free-market economy” attracts substantially more support than “capitalism” may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.
This is further supported by comparing the most recent poll with the December 29 poll about "free markets." Only 15% in the December poll supported a government run economy and that number remains unchanged in the most recent poll. Have fundamental attitudes toward government changed or has the poll verbiage changed?
It's also interesting to note that more people (27%) are unsure of which they prefer than those who know in their heart socialism is better (20%.) Is it because they really don't like capitalism or because they prefer to think of America as a free market society versus capitalistic?
Here's what I took from this survey: conservatives, and Republicans in particular, have been slow to define the other side as "socialists" versus the all encompassing "liberal" label. This poll should be a wake up call to our side to think about how we define issues and to not repeat the mistakes of the past. McCain in particular was slow to clearly define the ideological differences between a free market society and Obama's vision of a socialist America.
It's no longer conservatives versus liberals, it's conservatives versus socialists, and we'd be smart to define the debate in such terms.
Kansas Liberty notes tonight that Sen. Huelskamp leads in the endorsement race. Even though opponent Rob Wasinger started off the firestorm of early endorsements with anonymous comments regarding some national pro-life leaders, it seems Huelskamp has more than shored up his national support and continues to surge in local first district support.
It's interesting to note that the article only mentions two of Wasinger's endorsements, Barton and Thompson. I can only assume that's because those are the only two he's mentioned publicly and officially on his website. This makes it even more curious why his supporters have insisted on anonymously creating endorsements through Facebook groups and in comments here and elsewhere.
Endorsements are nice, but in reality they usually don't translate into votes, no matter who they come from. People make their own decisions, and especially in the independent First District, I think folks will come to the decision to vote Huelskamp on their own without any help from outside influences.
Gov. Sebelius has been caught once again lying about her finances. This time it involved campaign finances rather than personal income taxes.The first person to break this story was the Kansas Meadowlark. In his post, he outlines the evidence behind her $26,000 mistake. You need to go give it a read if you haven't already. It provides much more detail and explanation than you'll find in today's AP story.
Also, you'll note there is an important aspect to the story that the AP story leaves out; the donations Tiller gave to Sebelius that were earmarked for her Insurance Commissioner race but had to be re-appropriated to her Governor's account because they were given after she filed for the Governor's race. So on top of the PAC contributions that she ignored which is discussed quite nicely in the Topeka Capital-Journal story, there's more to it than just that.
What is Sebelius trying to hide? If Tiller is just someone who "provides a necessary health service", why be so secretive about how much campaign cash you got from him?
This again raises questions about the silence from Republicans on her nomination. How many "oversights" does she get? How many times does she get to lie before someone says something? Doesn't the public deserve a public discussion about her campaign ties to the most notorious abortionist in the world?
The next few hours and days will be interesting. So far the only MSM coverage I've seen is the Cap-Journal. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's the only MSM source that carries the story.
I try to make it a point to not live by the almighty poll. When it comes to some political topics, I just really don't care what other people think. (It's called principles!)
