[IntinyBut]

Fabrizio nails it. The Dems' biggest problem is that they are pushing an agenda that most Americans don't want: withdrawl from the Iraq war and surrender in the larger war on terrorists; expanding government, intrusion and regulation of more and more private affairs, increasing taxes etc. So most of their campaigning, rather than telling people what their agenda is and why it is good, must go into deceiving people about it and pretending it's something else.

And when it consistently fails to win them elections, they must blame... Republicans, of course.

----------------------

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9145

Sliding Down the Polls

By Lisa Fabrizio
Published 12/14/2005 12:06:18 AM

Armed with their latest polling statistics, liberal Democrats frequently take to the talk shows and editorial pages to proclaim this or that anti-Bushism with steely confidence. In an effort to discredit them, many on the right then try to point out the questionable methodology used in producing such polls.

But rather than list the various ways pollsters frame their questions and over-sample Democrats to produce the results desired by those who hire them, the surest proof of the charge that mainstream media polls are phony is to watch the actions of Democrats, who often run away from their conclusions.

A case in point is the allegation that the American people are turning against the war in Iraq. Countless polls have been produced to support this claim, yet why did House Democrats vote overwhelmingly against last month's resolution to immediately withdraw our troops, as per the pleadings of John Murtha?

If the polling data is accurate, why are most Democratic candidates for the presidency in support of the war? Can it be that they know that their precious polls aren't really representative of the people who really count -- that is, those who vote?

Even some left-wing pundits agree. Try this from liberal doyenne Helen Thomas, wringing her hands over Hillary Clinton and other top Democrats who distance themselves from the Murtha mantra:

--------------------------

Clinton is a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, which might explain why she's busy pandering to conservatives instead of staking out a leadership role on more important issues.

The Democrats' lack of political courage has left voters with the choice of Republicans who call themselves that -- and Republicans who call themselves Democrats. The result: The GOP gets a free ride.

--------------------------

Can Helen read between her own lines to discover why Clinton and others are "pandering to conservatives"? If we are to believe the media polling propaganda that the majority of Americans are in lockstep with liberals in disdaining the president, why then the need for pandering to the enemy?

Because they know deep down that the majority of Americans do not agree with them. And they also know that their current strategy isn't working so it's time to cut and run; from themselves. Howl against the president as they might -- and they do so mightily -- Democrats are having a hard time running away from their own votes and words, especially on Iraq.

The notion that the president dragged them hogtied and blindfolded into war is laughable. But even if we ignore the fact that Democrats warned of Iraq WMDs while George W. Bush was still the governor of Texas, why should the American people trust a party of witless dupes?

Add to that the recent defeatist comments by the party's national chairman, shake in a smoldering accusation of U.S. military terrorism by its 2004 presidential nominee, and you have the perfect recipe for permanent minority status, courtesy of the white flag wing of the Democratic Party.

That is why their latest Fitzmas wish is a two-fer: the hope that liberal bogeyman Donald Rumsfeld steps down in favor of the irksome Joe Lieberman who, post-Al Gore, has returned to his senses and is therefore of no further use to Democrats.

But Democrats say they have a new plan for the nation. Former VP candidate, John Edwards told delegates at a weekend convention of the Florida faithful that Americans would come together behind a leader who asks people to sacrifice for the common good: "There is a hunger in America, a hunger for a sense of national community, a hunger for something big and important and inspirational that they all can be involved in."

This statement illustrates a classic Democratic disconnect. In case Edwards hasn't noticed, there's already "something big and important and inspirational" going on; it's called the War on Terror and it's not only protecting Americans at home. The sacrifices of our troops and those who support them are helping to create a new paradigm of freedom for millions of people across the Middle East and around the world.

The Democrats' tin ear in matters of war and national defense notwithstanding, other issues loom on the horizon; issues they also misunderstand. For all their outward talk of reaching out to "values" voters in red states, their actual agenda betrays them. So watch the polls closely, but watch their actions closer.

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[Anfester]

The Dems' biggest problem is that they are pushing an agenda that most Americans don't want:
(1)withdrawl from the Iraq war and
(2)surrender in the larger war on terrorists;
(3)expanding government,
(4)intrusion and regulation of more and more private affairs,
(5)increasing taxes etc.

Hmmm...

(1) If 38 out of 100 is 'most', then you're right. If we take the more conventional definition of 'most', then you're wrong, since Americans want us out to the tune of 52% to 38%.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/murtha.iraq/

The poll also found that 19 percent of Americans want to see the troops come home now, and 33 percent said they wanted them home within a year. Only 38 percent said they should remain "as long as needed."

(2) Where did the Democrats (or anyone) ever advocate surrendering to terrorists? You can hardly blame the Democrats for the strawmen that you invent.

(3) The American people endorsed goverment expansion by re-electing George Bush.

(4) The American people endorsed private intrusion by the government by re-electing George Bush.

(5) Well, you got this one. But, 1 for 5 isn't too good...