August 17, 2009

Shhh! Gallup Reports That Conservatives Outnumber Libs in All 50 States; Media Plays Dumb


You know this is important polling news, because the establishment media is pretending it doesn’t exist.

You can’t find a relevant reference to it in searches on “Gallup” at the New York Times,, the Washington Post, or the LA Times. A Google News search on “Gallup conservatives outnumber liberals” (not in quotes) comes up with all of eight results.

The news isn’t just that self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals nationwide. That’s old hat. The big news from Gallup is that conservatives outnumber liberals in every state in the union, including supposedly uberliberal Vermont and Massachusetts.

Note the Gallup story’s clearly impertinent headline, accompanied by an absolutely wrong subheadline (HTs to, CNS News [linked by Drudge], and an e-mailer):

Political Ideology: “Conservative” Label Prevails in the South
Conservatives outnumber liberals in nearly every state, but not in D.C.

The strength of “conservative” over “liberal” in the realm of political labels is vividly apparent in Gallup’s state-level data, where a significantly higher percentage of Americans in most states — even some solidly Democratic ones — call themselves conservative rather than liberal.

…. Despite the Democratic Party’s political strength — seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country — more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal. While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level. Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.

The margins may not be “statistically significant,” but the reported result still shows conservatives on top in HI (+5), VT (+1) and MA (+1). I also have to wonder how you can have a 5-point or more margin of error in a poll of 160,000 people. (Update: Oh, those are for the individual states, not the entire poll; I should have known that.)

As to how Gallup’s online report was organized, the answer is “not well.” Sorry guys, it’s not exactly news that the conservative label prevails in the South, so why did you emphasize and lead with that obvious point? The news is that conservatism prevails at least slightly in each and every state; the District of Columbia, despite Democrats’ fondest wishes, is not a state. It was also “clever” of Gallup to save its 50-state table for Page 2 of its three-page report.

It’s hard not to wonder if someone at Gallup did what they did with the headline and subheadline to help ensure that establishment media outlets ignored this stunning news. I would suggest that they didn’t have to work that hard; the media would have ignored it anyway.

A final bit of good news: The poll was taken over a spread-out period from January through June. I don’t think anyone would want to bet against the percentage of self-identifying conservatives being higher at the end of the polling period than it was in the beginning.

Cross-posted at

Media Obits Whitewash Eunice Kennedy Shriver’s Uncompromising Pro-Life Stance


If you only read the Associated Press, New York Times, and Washington Post obituaries of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who died last Tuesday at age 88, you would have no idea that she was one of the last of the old Guard, pro-life Democrats who went down fighting in 1992.

That was when the party’s presidential nomination of Bill Clinton moved the party firmly into the pro-abort camp, a position from which it has never returned. Barack Obama’s presence in the White House virtually guarantees that Democrats in most quarter will either condone, support, and in some cases even celebrate the 1,000,000-plus unborn infants who perish each year.

That was not where Ms. Shriver stood, as many prolife publications noted shortly after she died. The Catholic News Agency obituary called her “distinctively Catholic,” recounting that she was “an early supporter of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List. She and her husband also supported Democrats for Life of America and Feminists for Life.”

Life News recounted three key moments when Shriver demonstrated her pro-life commitment:

In 1972, one year before the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, Shrive told a Birthright convention that abortions could be reduced if more maternity homes could be established and more adoptive mothers found. Later, she proposed a campaign called “One Million for Life” to recruit one million people to adopt unwanted children.

“How do you equate the life of an unborn infant with the social well-being of a mother, a father or a family?” Shriver asked in 1977. “If it is thought that the social well-being of the mother outweighs the rights of fetuses with congenital abnormalities, we do well to remember that more than 99 percent of abortions are done on normal fetuses.”

In 1992, Eunice and Sargent Shriver joined Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey many other influential pro-life leaders in signing a full-page ad in the New York Times protesting the Democratic Party’s embrace of the pro-abortion agenda.

‘We can choose to reaffirm our respect for human life. We can choose to extend once again the mantle of protection to all members of the human family, including the unborn. We can choose to provide effective care of mothers and children,” the ad said.

The July 14, 1992 full-page ad can be viewed here (2mb JPG). It makes some of the most powerful pro-life observations and arguments ever made, and is worth reading in its entirety, as is the list of signers. The fact that the alleged party of compassion that year became virtually unanimous in supporting real death panels and death chambers, and for all practical purposes hasn’t budged an inch since, is a true American tragedy.

Another overlooked item of historical significance is Shriver’s May 13, 1990 letter to the New York Times. In it, she took great exception to the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) using the legacy of President John F. Kennedy in an attempt to intimidate Catholic bishops into silence, and in the process became the most credible witness available supporting the idea that JFK would have been pro-life had he lived to see the idea of killing pre-born babies come under consideration:

One of the bills my brother was proudest of established the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. He wanted this institute to study problems of pregnancy and early childhood development so that infants who were lost because of birth problems and lack of research on fetal life could survive. So his interest in the fetus and in children was positive and comprehensive, reflecting his moral values. Do we not understand that religious beliefs and moral values are not the same?

The right to life of a newly conceived fetus is a value held by many people who are not Catholic. This is a moral value that deserves debate, and the bishops have a right to advance this view in all of the channels of communication that are available.

I would similarly defend the rights of the abortion rights league to advance its views in these same channels. Why then do such groups object so violently when church leaders organize to communicate their values of respect for human life from its inception? This is not religious doctrine like a belief in the virgin birth, or even the sacredness of Jesus.

President Kennedy believed and practiced the value that America should offer a free marketplace for all views, even those of Catholic bishops. He would have resented his words being distorted to confuse and obscure that value. His family resents it, too.

Of course, that wasn’t in the AP, NYT, or WaPo obits either. In fact, only the WaPo’s write-up noted that she was Catholic.

Cross-posted at

Lucid Links (081709, Morning)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 9:33 am

From the Canadian Press“Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada’s doctors.”

Money quote, from the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association: “We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize.” Will any U.S. establishment media outlet take note? Probably not: Even though the story is a day old, An search on “Canada” as of early this morning had nothing relevant.


Via The Voice In My Head blog (HT to an e-mailer; underlying Rasmussen item is here) — “At the end of eight years, Bush’s Strongly Disapprove number was just 2% worse than Obama’s is right now, at the beginning of just his eighth month in office.”

Specifically, 41% strongly disapprove of Obama now, while 43% disapproved of Bush shortly before he left office.


Tom Maguire“Obama’s Talking About His Grandmother Again; People Who Listened Last Time Are Now ‘Dishonest.’”

Conclusion: “It’s Times-world – Obama can say whatever he wants and later say whatever else he wants, then denounce the people still grappling with the previous version.”

Read the whole thing.


Arlo Guthrie, Republican (HT PJM’s Roger Simon).

He’s not a doctrinaire Republican, if there is such a thing, but he’s a Republican nonetheless. Interesting, and an indirect indication of who has the bigger intellectual tent.


So the end-of-life horrors are supposedly being excised out of ObamaCare by a Senate Committee. That is good news on the one hand (and as Taranto at Best of the Web noted on Friday, a slam-dunk indicator of Palin Power).

But don’t forget that the stimulus bill authorized spending on the insidious “comparative effectiveness” studies that would form the basis for age-based and “productivity”-based decisions on whether and when to provide or withhold medical care. George Will caught this way back in January, saying that it “would dramatically advance government control — and rationing — of health care.” That authorization must be repealed.

Oh, and though there seems to be some she-said, he-said going on, the “public option” is supposedly off the table too. For what it’s worth, Howard Dean is not pleased (awwww).

This development is minimally nice, but doesn’t change the fact the the government-run, coverage-mandating exchanges are still there. Look at what such an exchange has done to Massachusetts:

“Will Commonwealth care cost taxpayers more? No!” So wrote Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in November 2004, the economy then still in full bloom. “Neither the state nor the taxpayers can afford to pay more.”

It’s worth pondering ex-Gov. Romney’s promises just over three years after he crossed partisan lines to reform health care in the Bay State. The Obama administration and congressional Democrats are modeling reform on the Massachusetts model, promoting bureaucratic health exchanges, increased restrictions on health insurance and vastly expanded taxpayer-subsidized care. Like Romney, they promise more coverage at lower cost, even as the evidence suggests otherwise.

….. Romney marketed the plan as a private solution. Yet it’s a massive expansion of taxpayer-subsidized care. Medicaid has increased by 76,000 enrollees and the subsidized plans by 177,000. Forty-six percent pay no premium, and another 12% are highly subsidized. Only 19,000 have signed up for the much-touted non-subsidized private plans offered through the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector.

And it comes at a steep cost. Residents are expected to spend as much as 10% of their income on premiums or face fines.

The big lie in Massachusetts was that costs and taxes would not increase. “Health insurance for all our citizens does not require new taxes,” declared Romney on the eve of the bill’s passage in 2006.

The government’s expansion has cost taxpayers far more than projected. Premium inflation in the state has not been muted by the increase in the number of insured residents, and politicians are scrambling to fund the program. Smokers got hit for $1 a pack in July 2008.

….. In the end, the only way to control costs inside a bureaucratic structure is to cut doctors’ pay, transfer patients into managed care, impose government global budgets and introduce price controls.

And that’s exactly what Bay State leaders have announced they’ll do.

There is also talk in Washington of having “co-ops” instead of the “public option.” Heritage (which pathetically helped to give intellectual cover to the Romney disaster, but appears to have gotten its senses back) caught on to the ruse in that idea several weeks ago (HT Michelle Bachmann), characterizing it, if government-sponsored, as another Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac disaster waiting to happen.

The bottom line is that just about everything in the 1,018-page monstrosity that is the working model of ObamaCare restricts freedom and choice, and that none of it should get into law. Instead, we need more freedom, not less. We can start with fully privatizing the administration and routine oversight of Medicare and Medicaid, expanding Health/Medical Savings Accounts, and speeding up the approval of life-saving drugs.

Positivity: Trek across the country reveals a pro-life America

Filed under: Life-Based News,Positivity — Tom @ 5:56 am

From Washington:

Aug 15, 2009 / 07:01 am

After weeks of witness on the road, in church youth groups, and in front of abortion clinics, forty young people will end their three simultaneous cross-country pro-life walks across America in Washington, D.C on Saturday. The walk organizer said the endeavor helped women to reject abortion and revealed significant pro-life support. Three groups of young people with the group Crossroads began their respective walks in Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles on May 23. They collectively logged 10,000 miles across 36 U.S. states in 12 weeks.

Each walker averaged over 1,000 miles and spoke to parishes and youth groups. They also engaged in “peaceful, prayerful” protests and sidewalk counseling at abortion clinics.

The effort has taken place annually since 1995. This year’s walk will end with a 1 p.m. rally at the U.S. Capitol.

Speaking in a press release, Crossroads president James Nolan said the trip showed that America is a pro-life country.

“[U]nlike polls that take a small, phone-based sample, we have had the advantage of directly interacting with thousands of Americans. And the support for the rights of the innocent, unborn has always been in the majority,” he remarked, charging that the Obama administration is “out of touch” with the mainstream.

Speaking with CNA in a Friday interview, Nolan said walkers spoke at thousands of religious services and met with people one-on-one. He claimed the effort revealed a “massive conversion” of youth towards religion and spirituality and pro-life views. It also showed a “massive rejection” of the “culture of death,” especially among the youth, he said.

Many who interacted with the walkers were “very, very supportive” of the effort. Nolan told CNA that people are “hungry for truth” and for “something new,” and are not “buying the old lies involved with the culture of death in general.”

He explained that participants walked 24 hours a day around the clock during weekdays, while on weekends they would pray at abortion clinics, youth groups, and various religious services.

The Crossroads walk has witnessed “amazing stories of conversion” and of women “choosing life,” according to Nolan.

“There was one parish out in the Midwest where after the walkers spoke at one of the evening Masses a gentlemen came up and asked if they had been praying at the clinic earlier that Saturday.”

The walkers responded that they had.

“This gentleman said that he had actually been driving his daughter to the clinic for the abortion and when they saw young people in T-shirts and praying the rosary, they decided they just couldn’t do it,” Nolan recounted.

After turning away from the clinic, the pregnant woman and her father then went to get an ultrasound. They discovered she was carrying twins.

“The father was just in shock. Before, he was just that close to choosing abortion. Now, he’s a grandfather of two.” ….

Go here for the rest of the story