Gallup: 2-to-1 Public becoming more conservative!

According to Gallup
PRINCETON, NJ — Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to 18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and Democrats most often say their views haven’t changed, more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left.

These findings, from a June 14-17 Gallup Poll, somewhat conform to Gallup’s annual trends on Americans’ self-defined political ideology. Thus far in 2009 (from January through May), 40% of Americans call themselves conservative, up from 37% in 2007 and 2008, and the highest level since 2004.

However, the results are conspicuously incongruous with the results of the 2008 elections, in which the Democratic Party won the White House for the first time in eight years, and increased its majority control in the U.S. House and Senate. Rather than suggesting an upturn in conservatism, the elections, the tattered image of the GOP, depressed identification with the Republican Party, and President Obama’s broad popularity have many in and outside of the Republican Party wondering whether the country has outgrown the GOP’s largely conservative platform.

Conservatives currently outnumber liberals in the population, and thus, conservatism has a natural advantage on any question asking the public to choose between these standard ideological labels. So that’s part of the explanation for the incongruity.

Further Read

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 25 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Taxpayer

    Always has been, Bush and his ilk caused them to flee. Obama and his ilk are making them regret their decision!

    • JHL

      Really? And Obama started this in 2004 apparently?

      America identifying as more conservative while election results trend more Democratic? I’d be concerned about this if I were the Republican Party… because if it’s accurate, it shows that the practical electoral results have less and less relationship to voter self-identification. Which means that the “brand” as a whole is becoming less relevant.

      But I think it’s a flawed methodology anyway, because since the left hasn’t been messaged on the phrase “liberal” for a loooong time. Ask people if they feel they’re becoming more “progressive,” and I think you’ll get results that more accurately track practicality.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Ask people if they feel they’re becoming more “progressive,” and I think you’ll get results that more accurately track practicality.

        I doubt it. Let’s face it, Democrats only took control of the house by running some fairly conservative candidates. Obama? He ran from the liberal label as fast as he could. People seem to think he is a nice guy and he polls well personally, but most polls don’t show a hell of a lot of support for the massive spending. This makes a certain amount of sense, you can’t run a campaign based largely on the Bush deficits and then proceed to triple and quadruple them.

        How about on the issues?

        Well, when Democrats took the house, they did so on two things, run away spending and the Mark Foley scandal. Not exactly “progressive” issues there.

        How about some recent legislation? Well, Cap and Tax crossed the finish line in the house by a nose. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for a central issue of progressives. Health care? Most consider it DOA in the senate. How about the stimulus? It’s kind of a running joke at this point.

        In short, I don’t think its a matter of word choice. People just aren’t all that progressive or liberal. This makes sense as even if one is progressive or liberal politically, everyone is conservative in the field of their own endevour.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    What did the poll ask about Michael Jackson?

    I mean what is the relevancy here?

  • valley person

    “in which the Democratic Party won the White House for the first time in eight years…”

    Yes but don’t forget Al Gore got more votes than the other guy in 2000, so in effect Democrats have out polled Republicans in 4 of the last 5 presidential elections.

    “I doubt it. Let’s face it, Democrats only took control of the house by running some fairly conservative candidates.”

    That is an urban myth. A small handful of House and Senate Democrats can be considered slightly conservative. A larger number are true moderates. The vast majority are liberal.

    Take the last election (please). Is Al Franken a conservative? Sheldon Whitehouse? John Tester? Jim Webb? Kay Hagen? Mark Begich? Jeanne Shaheen? If any of these were Republicans they would be to the left of Olympria Snowe and Susan Collins.

    “Well, when Democrats took the house, they did so on two things, run away spending and the Mark Foley scandal.”

    Can we add: Iraq war, international relations, health care, energy policy, and infrastructure spending?

    “Health care? Most consider it DOA in the senate. ”

    Most? Most who? I’ll bet you a pint that a significant, progressive health care bill passes the Senate before the year is over.

    “People just aren’t all that progressive or liberal.”

    Here I agree with you. But they also are not all that conservative in the modern meaning of the word. They are naturally cautious about too much change too fast, and it is “movement conservatives” who, in trying to roll back the welfare state and remake the world in their own image, have thrown caution to the wind.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >That is an urban myth.

      No it’s not. Democrats ran conservative ( and by that I mean right of center ) candidates in 06 to take the house. They also ran on center right themes ( the Mark Foley sex scandel, somehow dirty emails was a big deal to them then, and the run away deficit ).

      >Take the last election (please). Is Al Franken a conservative?

      Democrats did not take the house in the last election, they took it in 06.

      Also, Franken squeaking by with enough recounts to finaly win is more trestiment to the Queen Christine strategy than it is an endorsement of peoples faith in liberalism.

      >Can we add: Iraq war, international relations, health care, energy policy, and infrastructure spending?

      Not really. The liberal position on all of those hardly polls in the majority and they were hardly major themes for most people during the campaign. Sure, they were big for liberals, but not for the overall campaign, BO had you guys already.

      >Most? Most who? I’ll bet you a pint that a significant, progressive health care bill passes the Senate before the year is over. Kids and dogs don’t count.

      Actually if you bet me a pint and a sit down with a group of at least five people who actually think your mode of argument is logical and convincing, I might take you up on that.

      That said, you would have to define what signifigant and progressive mean. In other words after the lying on your income thing, I wouldnt trust you not to welsh on a bet.

      >But they also are not all that conservative in the modern meaning of the word.

      True, and no one ever argued that. The US is a center right country, not a conservative one.

      >it is “movement conservatives” who, in trying to roll back the welfare state and remake the world in their own image, have thrown caution to the wind.

      Well, on that they do tend to have popular appeal, I will agree with you there. Welfare reform? Clinton had to sign it or be dead in the water. Most advancement of the welfare state does have to be done under the cloak of darkness, it just isnt that popular, especially after BO’s spending spree. Look at SCHIP, that was the last major thing and people were up in arms about extending health care to those making $100k.

      • valley person

        “In other words after the lying on your income thing”

        Rupert, you really should get more creative here. I mean, recycling the same name calling over and over as if the more times you repeat a lie it will eventually become the truth. Don’t you ever get tired of your own staleness? Dumb question….I know.

        Significant and progressive, in the case of health care reform, will include:
        1: expansion of health insurance to all or nearly all Americans (above 95%).
        2: Cost control measures (including fixing what Bush did wrong with Medicare prescription drugs)
        3: A public plan or public like co-op plan option for small businesses and individuals.
        4: An end to private denial of coverage based on pre existing conditions

        And never mind the bet. I’m not interested in sharing a beer (even a paid for one) with someone who relies on juvenile name calling to the extent you do. I passed that stage in high school.

        By the way Rupert, nothing pleases me more than conservatives continuing to misinterpret the deep hole they are in, having dug it all by themselves for themselves. Your interpretation of recent election results being the latest evidence (Iraq war not an electoral problem). Your only hope of regaining national power is a spectacular failure by Obama. That or the passage of much time.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >Rupert, you really should get more creative here. I mean, recycling the same name calling over

          Whose name calling? You are saying being worried a guy who lies about his income and can never admit he is wrong isn’t real likely to welsh on a bet? Come on.

          >And never mind the bet.

          Awww, how did I know you would wimp out.

          Well, if you re-think it, I would accept your terms ( with some modification, expansion of health care to 95% is too loose. We already have health care at 100% provided one is willing to pay an unlimited amount in premiums, in addition the health care passed would have to be effective in relatively short order like within BO’s first term, no 20 year out stuff ) of the bet if you accept mine ( you having to bring along at least five adults who think your mode of argument is both logical and convincing, I just love meeting people ).

          >I’m not interested in sharing a beer (even a paid for one) with someone who relies on juvenile name calling to the extent you do.

          Well, it would seem to me if I am willing to share a beer with an abject racialist, then you should be able to meet me half way.

          Oh well, sorry you got in such a snit, but then again I didn’t think that once “significant health care” was actually defined you would actually live up to your bet.

          >I passed that stage in high school.

          And yet you are still stuck in the inability to admit when you are wrong stage. You should get that checked out.

          >That or the passage of much time.

          Gee, why does this sound so much like six months into Clinton.

          Oh well, nothing is better than someone who counts their chickens before they are hatched I always say.

          • valley person

            “being worried a guy who lies…”

            Like I said, you seem to believe that if you repeat that enough times it magically becomes true. But your only evidence is your own faulty memory of what you think you read from someone who may or may not have even been me. Given how badly you misread or misinterpret everything else I write, your confidence in your memory should be pretty low by now. But like your political mentors (Bush and Palin) the last thing you will ever lack is misplaced confidence in yourself.

            “Awww, how did I know you would wimp out.”

            No. First, I know you would never pay up. 2nd, I would not want to share the beer with you anyway.3rd, I’m still waiting for the $10K you said you would send me to be invited to one of my parties. Or was that a lie Rupert?

            “We already have health care at 100% provided one is willing to pay an unlimited amount in premiums”

            That is the sort of thinking that got your movement to its current state. Keep it up. We have 95% housing as well if we count back alleys, bridges and gutters as shelter.

            “if I am willing to share a beer with an abject racialist…”

            Gee Rupert, is that your attempt at creativity in name calling? More insult recycling based on faulty perception attached to failing memory? You are traveling far down your slimy road. Hope you have 4 wheel drive and a hose to wash the muck off.

            “And yet you are still stuck in the inability to admit when you are wrong stage.”

            No Rupert. The problem is you are stuck on the inability to show me I was wrong. Your faulty memory, misinterpretation, and pathetic allegations fail to prove anything other than the low and immature person you have become, or perhaps have always been.

            “Oh well, nothing is better than someone who counts their chickens before they are hatched…”

            No counting necessary, its just objective observation. Your movement is in a deep hole. Your leaders are dropping like flies. You are bankrupt of ideas. The demographics of the nation are headed away from you. You now have a legacy of a recent 8 year failed presidency and Republican dominated Congress that people have to forget (that did not exist during Clinton’s time). And your entire movement seems mired in the same name calling game you yourself have chosen, in lieu of debating ideas backed by facts.Which makes perfect sense since facts just get in your way.

            So if Obama implodes, you have a fresh shot. If he doesn’t you have along wait.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Like I said, you seem to believe that if you repeat that enough times it magically becomes true.

            You are seriously saying you didn’t lie about your income either when Obama was a candidate or when you claimed you got some tax cut due to him? Oh good Lord, give it up man.

            Look, its real simple, when BO was a candidate and the resounding theme was those who made over $250k would pay more. I took objection to that and you said you felt it was fair. In fact, I guess to validate your belief, you claimed you would pay more under Obama.

            Now, a few posts back, you claim you got a tax cut under Obama.

            So, you lie about your income, either then or now. Its not a big deal, lots of people lie about their income. For some reason it really bugs you as evidenced by your really starting to screw up badly in your defense.

            I have never claimed Sarah Palin was a mentor of mine.

            In fact, I don’t think I haven’t really said a whole lot about her one way or the other as regards her political ideas or campaign issues. About the only thing I think I ever really said about her was I thought she was an inspired choice as a running mate and that it was really ridiculous to be going on about her inexperience when BO didn’t really have any more than her. Now you claim she is a mentor of mine?

            Tell me, on what do you base that statement? What statements of mine do you see as constituting her as a mentor to me? Please, we are all waiting for your brilliance on this.

            I have also roundly criticized Bush. I have regularly said his spending was out of control, that his prescription drug plan was inane and he was a striking example of how sounding moderate themes had failed the republican party.

            Yet you claim he is a mentor of mine. How foolish.

            I think you need to brush up on your reading, since Dean weasel number one is the infamous inability to read.

            Perhaps its time for a new Dean Weasel. What are we up to now? Dean Weasel number four, ascribing endorsement of another’s beliefs based solely on party affiliation.

            >No. First, I know you would never pay up.

            I will gladly post the cash equivalent of a pint of beer for six people, you and the five friends I asked for with the owner of this blog or any other mutually acceptable impartial source you can name. You will have to do the same of course. In addition, I will also want the restaurant named ahead of time. If it is down here, I will post $50 for your gas mileage and time, if it is up there, you will post the same.

            > I would not want to share the beer with you anyway.

            You are the one who made the wager. Now when I accept it you back out?

            Ok – So you are welshing on a bet you made when someone accepts?

            >That is the sort of thinking that got your movement to its current state. Keep it up. We have 95% housing as well if we count back alleys, bridges and gutters as shelter.

            Oh good lord, don’t be a nitwit. I wasn’t suggesting that was a proper way to count, I was simply trying to prevent a Dean Weasel on the wager. Namely, I don’t want you trying to claim complete coverage if there is some sort of absurd hoop jumping to get it.

            Try and read first before posting this sort of nonsense. It really doesn’t help your credibility on the income thing when you show the reading skills evidenced here.

            >Gee Rupert, is that your attempt at creativity in name calling?

            No, it was simply giving the things I would be overlooking in sitting down for a beer with you. Which you suggested in the first place by the way.

            I hope you aren’t going to try and deny you have made racialist remarks aplenty on this blog. You once used words to the effect that BO could pick up a few Republican votes if he could convince Republicans he was white. That was probably your ugliest moment. It was clearly racialist.

            >No Rupert. The problem is you are stuck on the inability to show me I was wrong.

            I’ve proven you wrong countless times. You never own up to it. You have shown me wrong three times, I have admitted it forthrightly my error in no uncertain terms on this blog.

            The last time you were wrong was when you, in two separate postings, clearly had no idea of the difference between tax rates and tax revenues.

            Did you admit you were wrong? Of course not, you claimed your misuse of the term was due to “short handing”. How absurd.

            >No counting necessary, its just objective observation.

            You guys won an election by slightly more than half, get over it.

            >Your movement is in a deep hole.

            Really? Seems to me conservative poll numbers are rising. Seems to me for a movement in a deep hole you guys are having some real close votes. Lets face it, when Al Franken has to do a series of ACORN recounts to get elected in Minnesota of all places, its hardly like liberalism is an ethos of the majority.

            >So if Obama implodes, you have a fresh shot. If he doesn’t you have along wait.

            I doubt it. Let’s face it, you guys lost to the stupid guy twice. You won largely on the deficit. It wasn’t the only thing, but it was a biggie. Well, now you guys are king of the deficits for eons to come.

            You beat an old guy who ran a campaign that stunk so bad it was ridiculous. You had a press that 40% of Democrats said was biased towards BO. Don’t let it go to your head is all I am advising.

          • valley person

            “You are seriously saying you didn’t lie about your income …”

            Gee Rupert. You can read. Congratulations.

            “…you claimed you would pay more under Obama”

            Wrong Way Rupert. Your new nickname. You have earned it. I may have claimed I was and still am willing to pay more. I made no claim of having an income high enough to pay more under his proposal during the election. Again, you can keep on claiming I said something I didn’t. You will continue to be wrong. But that has never seemed to bother you before, so stay with it Wrong Way.

            “Now, a few posts back, you claim you got a tax cut under Obama.”

            Yep. A $400 tax credit per individual worker, $800 per household (making up to $150K per year).

            “So, you lie about your income, either then or now.”

            Wrong Way Rupert strikes again!

            “I have never claimed Sarah Palin was a mentor of mine.”

            Given the condition of your memory, are you sure?

            “Tell me, on what do you base that statement? ”

            I base it on the similarity of your styles. Absolute confidence in your position no matter the facts. I assumed you learned at the feet of masters.

            “I will gladly post the cash equivalent of a pint of beer for six people…”

            How many posts ago was it that you offered to pay *anything* to attend a party with friends of mine, promising to stand quietly and simply observe, etc.? I was attending a party last Friday and offered to chaparone you there for a mere $5000, but with another $5000 penalty if you dared to speak. You ran and hid. Now you offer to post chump change over a beer bet? Sorry Wrong Way. Fool me once….etc…

            “So you are welshing on a bet you made when someone accepts?”

            You didn’t “accept” Rupert. You started creating caveats. Caveats upon caveats. The Senate is going to pass a health care bill and it is going to be a significant change from status quo. I listed 4 simple parameters and you immediately created worm holes to squirm through to avoid paying up. I’m not gullible enough to go any farther with you on this. I would need a signed contract and a high priced attorney to collect. No thanks. You are not worth the hassle factor.

            “I have also roundly criticized Bush.”

            Well la di da. The worst president since Hoover and you found time to criticized him. Mazeltov.

            “It really doesn’t help your credibility on the income thing …”

            Drum roll please. Wrong Way Rupert strikes again! Word to the wise. I don’t need credibility with you. It has zero value to me. Once I had it you would simply make something else up you think I might have said once and start in all over again. You can’t help yourself.

            “You once used words to the effect that BO could pick up a few Republican votes if he could convince Republicans he was white.”

            Words to the effect that? Are you serious? Based on that sort of but not really statement I or whoever made it is a “racialist?”Look, I’ll make this easy for you. I don’t recall making any such statement. But whoever made had a reasonable thesis. And there is nothing “racialist” (a non word by the way) about it. If it means that there were a few Republicans who agreed with Obama on the issues but voted against him due to skin color, I have little doubt this is true. It is probably also true for some Democrats by the way. Sad to say Wrong way, but there are actual racists among us.

            “The last time you were wrong was when you, in two separate postings, clearly had no idea of the difference between tax rates and tax revenues.”

            But for the fact that I clarified what I meant by explaining it to you. Therefore, I clearly did have an idea of the difference and still do. Therefore you are wrong in assuming I did not or do not know the difference. Therefore, there is still nothing to admit to other than a poor choice of words. But you have yet another wrong notion to repeat ad nauseum forever now, so be happy about it.

            “Did you admit you were wrong? Of course not, you claimed your misuse of the term was due to “short handing”. How absurd.”

            Its only absurd if you insist on seeing it the wrong way. Aha! Of course that is it. Wrong Way strikes again!

            “You guys won an election by slightly more than half…”

            Yes well in a 2 party system that is pretty much what every election is won by, depending on how you define “slightly”. Obama’s 8 million vote margin was about 1 million more than Reagan v Carter in 1980. His vote number was more than anyone ever received. And he won several states considered to be rock red Republican. I am over it. Looking forward to getting some sensible bills passed and signed.

            “Seems to me conservative poll numbers are rising.”

            Maybe so. But how are people defining “conservative” to themselves when a pollster asks the question? Eliminate social security? No. Start more wars with folks who have not attacked us? No thanks. Keep the current health care system as is? No. Trash the environment? Nope. Ignore global warming? No to that as well. Cut taxes for the rich? No…pass on that.

            Your problem, if I may be so bold, is that you (your team) wears conservatisim as if it were a suit of armor that blocks out all incoming. A chest of anti tax. Arms of anti abortion. Legs of anti environment, Lots of antis. You put the armor on and you don’t have to think, solve problems, communicate with anyone who does not wear armor, and so forth. Its a dead end approach to politics unless you can get 5o + 1% of people to play dress up. And when you read these polls, you see the word “conservative” and assume it means the same thing to Joe and Jane Schmo as it does to you. Big mistake. People ascribe their own meaning to it. Probably the more classical meaning, which means caution. Go slow. No big fast changes. No trashing of long established precedent or institutions. No reinvention of history whenever convenient.

            “Let’s face it, you guys lost to the stupid guy twice.”

            The first time thanks to Jews for Buchanan and 5 Supreme Court judges. The majority of voters actually picked the smart guy.

            “You had a press that 40% of Democrats said was biased towards BO. ”

            The press was biased towards reality. Obama was the better candidate. Reporters are educated people, and educated people voted for Obama by a solid majority. As did rich people. Go figure.

            Your advice is not worth spit.

          • Banned

            I didn’t think that D-E-A-N was allowed to post under any name on here.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Ok, so its pretty simple. You are now denying that you claimed, during the campaign, you would pay more under Obama.

            On the bet, that you made by the way, I merely insisted on a reasonably rigorous definition of what passing of major health care reform would be.

            Once we got into what that definition would be, you backed down on a bet you had made.

            Then you got into insulting me by saying I wouldn’t pay.

            OK – so I accommodated you further offering not only to post the cash equivalent of the beer, but also for your five friends and your time time involved!

            I even offered to post this amount with any mutually acceptable impartial person you could name!

            So now you are backing out of your own bet by saying this is demanding an additional caveat.

            So let me get this straight, you clearly make bets that you back out of.

            And we are supposed to believe my memory is faulty on your income claims?

            Good luck with that one. You might consider the fact of whether you lie about your income under debate, I clearly don’t.

            However one thing is quite clear, you welsh on bets. I mean I think that would be the correct term, but I’m not sure I have ever encountered someone who made a bet and then weaseled out when the other accepted.

          • valley person

            “Ok, so its pretty simple. You are now denying that you claimed, during the campaign, you would pay more under Obama.”

            This is like the 15th time you have repeated this to yourself. Is there some point in our future where you will have it lodged in your brain once and for all and will stop repeating this?

            “Then you got into insulting me by saying I wouldn’t pay”

            Take it as an insult if you want. I merely pointed out you already promised something and then disappeared. Send me the $10K you offered previously and we can talk about new offers.

            “So let me get this straight, you clearly make bets that you back out of.”

            No Wrong way. I made an offer to bet based on 4 items being included in a bill. You caveated and worm-holed. And yes, for the umpteenth time, you have a faulty memory. Either that or you just make stuff up to suit yourself. Which do you prefer?

            “Good luck with that one. You might consider the fact of whether you lie about your income under debate, I clearly don’t.”

            You lie about what other people said. And you repeat your lie over and over hoping something will stick somewhere so that you don’t have to engage in an actual debate. “My opponent is a liar so you can’t believe anything he says” is the oldest debate trick in the book. And the most desperate. Your game is transparent, you have used it once too often, and that is all there is to it. When you have bupkis you try to undermine your opponent. And you have bupkis all too often.

            “However one thing is quite clear, you welsh on bets.”

            So now you have a new lie you can chew on! Did I predict that or what? Does this mean you are giving up your old lie? Is this your version of forward progress Wrong Way?

            “I’m not sure I have ever encountered someone who made a bet and then weaseled out when the other accepted.”

            Accepting a bet Wong Way, is saying “okay I accept your bet.” You didn’t do that. You offered a weasly counter proposal. So again, make any claim you want to. It goes right into the intellectual tumblebug with the others. When you feel up to the challenge of debating actual politics, let me know.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >No Wrong way. I made an offer to bet based on 4 items being included in a bill.

            Nope.

            Scroll up, that’s not at all what happened.

            You bet me that major health care would pass this year. It was only after I wanted to clarify the definition of major health care that we got into the four points.

            In your last post you claimed that was weaseling, now you are claiming that was in your initial bet offer. Which is it?

            I totally accepted your four points by the way, the only caveat being that the 90% coverage had to be by some reasonable criterion, as I could claim 100% coverage now if one is willing to pay unlimited premiums.

            So, not only is it clearly undeniable that you welsh on bets, but now you cant even get your own writing straight within one discussion thread.

            You made a bet, got called and then welshed.

            Now you are trying this silly name calling. I guess that comes from having your bet called and having to back down. Way down.

            Dean, the fountain of youth does not lie in acting like a complete child. Next time, don’t try and be tough and make bets that you can’t handle.

            Just grow up. If you aren’t going to live up to a commitment, don’t make it in the first place.

            You are weak. I think I really understand that now.

          • valley person

            “Scroll up, that’s not at all what happened.”

            OK. Here is what happened verbatim:
            Rupert: “Health care? Most consider it DOA in the senate. ”
            VP: “Most? Most who? I’ll bet you a pint that a significant, progressive health care bill passes the Senate before the year is over.”
            Rupert: “Actually if you bet me a pint and a sit down with a group of at least five people who actually think your mode of argument is logical and convincing, I might take you up on that.”

            (OK…here is Rupert Caveat #1. I’m supposed to spend my time rounding up 5 people, get some sort of written testimony on whether they think my mode of argument is logical, and then maybe perhaps Rupert would take up the bet on a single pint of ale. Rupert, seems to think this amounts to accepting a bet.)

            Rupert ads: “That said, you would have to define what signifigant (sic) and progressive mean. In other words after the lying on your income thing, I wouldnt (sic) trust you not to welsh on a bet.

            (Now we have caveat 2, followed by insult 1, followed by wormhole 1.)

            VP responds: “Significant and progressive, in the case of health care reform, will include:
            1: expansion of health insurance to all or nearly all Americans (above 95%).
            2: Cost control measures (including fixing what Bush did wrong with Medicare prescription drugs)
            3: A public plan or public like co-op plan option for small businesses and individuals.
            4: An end to private denial of coverage based on pre existing conditions

            And never mind the bet. I’m not interested in sharing a beer (even a paid for one) with someone who relies on juvenile name calling to the extent you do.”

            Rupert responds: “Well, if you re-think it, I would accept your terms ( with some modification, expansion of health care to 95% is too loose (sic).”

            Ok. Far enough. At this point Rupert seems to recognize that we don’t actually have an agreed upon bet. That one was offered, that he countered with terms, that his nemesis met (perhaps) some of those terms, and also called the proposal off. End of story? No Rupert now insists that a bet was actually entered into, that I suppose I am now obligated to find 5 people to interview to ruperts satisfaction, and so forth. Its all Rupert needs to begin a new round of name calling (Welsher) never minding the ethnic slur on all Welshman (and women). Need we beat this dead horse more? Yes, because Rupert has a new bone and that is what matters.

            “the fountain of youth does not lie in acting like a complete child. ”

            Yes Wrong Way. That is what I have been trying to tell you. Shifting a political argument to personal attacks is childish. But you are so stuck in it you can’t even understand you are doing it.

            “You are weak. I think I really understand that now.”

            Okay…so you have a new name to call me and a new phony charge. New toys for Wrong Way. Enjoy. And congratulations on managing to again avoid an adult political debate.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            You welsh on bets Dean, live with it. No one ever asked you for written testimony from your friends, I just wanted to meet them.

            Oh, and by the way, next time you get called weak, don’t try and puff yourself up with the spelling *(sic)* stuff.

            You tried to correct the following:

            >expansion of health care to 95% is too loose (sic).”

            Loose is actually the correct spelling in this case. You are confusing “loose” which means not tight or unfastened with the word “lose” which means to fail, to become lost.

            Ok – Now that’s gotta be the ironic moment of the day.

            You *lose* – spell check that.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Oh, and yes, I am still laughing at the *loose* and *lose* thing.

            What a maroon.

            Is there anything you actually do well?

          • valley person

            What I do pretty well is recognize when someone can’t sustain a political argument. They resort to all manner of insult, silliness, and diversion. You win the prize. Congratulations.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Well Dean, that’s why I wanted to meet your friends. I mean anyone who felt you could actually sustain an argument and be persuasive, that’s someone I really wanted to meet.

            Well, at least on this one you went out on a funnier note than usual. The fact that it was the word *lose* is just so deliciously ironic.

            You know, the only thing that makes it even funnier is I warned you about correcting other peoples spelling just a few posts ago.

            Shoulda taken my advice Dean, shoulda taken my advice.

            Next time, don’t make bet’s you cant live up to Dean.

            And spell check *lose*.

          • valley person

            “I mean anyone who felt you could actually sustain an argument and be persuasive, that’s someone I really wanted to meet. ”

            You have met him Rupert. He is you. That is why you find it necessary to run away from arguments time and time again by attacking. Its the only reliable arrow you have in your diminished quiver.

            “Next time, don’t make bet’s you cant live up to Dean.”

            Ah…your new toy. No need to re-read our exchange and find an actual bet actually made. It is lodged in Wrong Way Rupert’s head that such a thing actually happened, that VP is now obligated to recruit 5 witnesses, and nothing short of radical brain surgery could remove it from his brain now. Oh…and a new spell check issue to boot! Its like a gold mine! Why debate politics when one can massage oneself with nonsense?

  • Not a Dem snit vallet person

    Word’s out that God is sorely disappointed with US and verging on commissioning Sarah Palin as Sgt at Arms to edict the iks of volley person back to the lark adages of gliberal socialist facsim.
    Yeah-h-h-h! Indeed, a very good idear!

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)