They must have polled some of these people.

Did they poll anybody in William Jefferson's district?

It doesn't look like they polled anybody in Conneticut either.

drliftncrude: you should know by now that if you just leave a biased generalization or a prejudicial particular that I will more than likely come back to you with real data. I wonder: when you posted this:

"They must have polled some of these people."

did you not expect that I would repeat a demographic profile of Republican vs. Democrat membership? There is my post "The Majority and the Many" on this blog for intro reading if you haven't been there already. If you request, however, we can look at relative educational levels of the memberships of the two parties, or income levels, or at the task of building a consensus across class and race, but it's your call.

But also, when you posted this:

"Did they poll anybody in William Jefferson's district?"

did you not expect that I might present the data on relative rates of criminal activities among Republican vs. Democratic Congress members? Do you think such an analysis would be helpful to your cause?

I'm just curious, because the point of this blog has been primarily to educate folks and encourage them to move beyond irresponsible claims in their political discussions. I just want to see how that is going with you.

...and ditto with the Connecticut post.

I'm looking for your data now....

Hmm, I can't seem to find it anywhere...

dirtyshirt, seeing as though your so good at FACT finding. Could you tell us how many were polled, and where were these polls taken? From what  I can tell, 100 people from each party  were polled.  Depending on where these polls were taken these stats could be very jaded, don't ya think?

check the urls given. the subtraction columns I did with Excel.

Aubrey: I don't know what happened to your post, but here's my response to your questions about the validity of the poll.

You know, I can't speak for Gallup's methodology; I admit I haven't studied them. 

Two things about that, however: 

1) They are one of the most respected polling organizations in the country and theirs represents state of the art, by reputation;

2) it seems hardly pertinent to accept the polls when they seem to criticize Dems but to reject the same polls, the same data, when it turns on you. I know you didn't make the original post, but are we to reject all claims and conclusions based on Gallup from now on?

refiguy:

I understand you're taking out some frustrations about my recent attempts at using color for clarity - (you've said you don't like the red, in particular), so you want to do the same here on my blog. 

That's fine, but you seem to have messed up the margins somehow. Could you please repost with corrected format?

Note: I deleted regiguy's post only because it was messing with the formatting of the entire page. Please re-post if you wish, refiguy. You had only quotes of my material and one word: "what?" for a reminder.

Leave the color, by all means. Just don't go over the proscripted margin allotments.

what ?????

Did they poll any of Charley Rangel's constituents?

drliftncrude:

One suspects that your posts are designed to be unreasonable just to see if you can push other people's buttons. IMHO, it just makes you look like you don't understand where the real meat of a discussion lies. You do understand that the polls are national, no? That a particular instance means nothing compared to a general trend? That in terms of data analysis, a sample of one (or three) in the hands of a layman is nothing compared to a national, randomized sample in the hands of a professional? 

Is Charley Rangel supposed to embarrass the Dems into submission? I sincerely doubt it will work. Is Dodd or Liebermann? Try putting the shoe on the other foot. Does Bush 43 embarrass you into submission? Do you think he should?

Remember, this is not a football game. It is entirely valid to see the flaws in the folks on your side and still decide to side with them. There is no need to be intellectually dishonest about this.

I like what you just posted dirtyshirt and agree completely.  The part about it being "valid to see the flaws in the folks on your side and still decide to side with them."  I've been suggesting that to the left on here for as long as I've been here.  With no success I might add.

NancyII: in that case, the reaction of the folks on the left to Gov. Blago should probably give you some relief. I haven't seen them defending him - have you?

Dirty,
There’s no compromising with Nancy.

Heck, she only keeps right shoes in her closet.  :>)

And all Democrats are drug abusing, abortionists, who never go to church and bake hack saws into cakes for the good people living in the torturous California’s penitentiary system.

GOD bless the little lady. She only has our welfare at heart. (Not welfare that  comes disguised as a living wage, food stamps, housing or health care of course)

Apparently my point was lost, which doesn't surprise me.  All I tried to point out, as I have so many times before, is that most of the folks HERE on  the left will never admit flaws within their own party while the right (here) freely admits Republicans and Conservatives have flaws and have made mistakes.  Some have tried to tell you that both parties are guilty of corrumtion and greed.  Both are filled with immoral acts and scandals.  It seems that most of the Liberals here almost deify  their party and it's leaders, but you should have noticed that most of us do not approve of the way Bush handled a good share of his presidency.  We're not the ones with the blinders.

Tk, I don't know what kind of "compromise" you're talking about but no, I will never compromise MY beliefs and if you do, shame on you.

By the way, Jose Arredondo made the mistake of using "little lady" in reference to me and I informed him that I had been on my own for many years and this wasn't my first rodeo.  He had the good sense to knock off the condescension before it cost him the sale of a car.  No one prior to, or after that, ever used "little lady" when talking to me or about me...until now.  I find it just as insulting now as I did then.

NancyII:

I haven't been on this site as long as you, so I bow to your superior experience. All I can say in response is that from what I've seen on this site, the people on the right haven't done much 'fessing up about the President and the people on the left get attacked so often and so cheaply (i.e. name-calling, mocking, baiting...) that they don't get much time for the kind of reflection that the admissions you seek require. You must recognize that being constantly attacked doesn't lend to a healthy 'opening up'.

However, I believe in data, so maybe someone should do some counting of 'mea culpas', so to speak.

I still maintain that the lack of support for Gov. Blago should be counted. There was some discussion of that here on bakersfield.com. I will find the thread and post the location here. Do me a favor: find the admissions about Bush by our conservative friends. I would like to see them.

The attacks on Blago by his own party is nothing but CYA.  And they see how this scandal can and should hurt 0bama as it points out the total corruption that is Illinois/Chicago politics.  Hence the efforts to portray Blago as crazy so that when/if he starts singing, his accusations will be ignored.

Maybe one piece of data you could look into is how many Republicans are returned to Congress after a scandal compared to Democrats returned to Congress after a scandal and how many of those eventually reach chairmanship posts.  Off hand, I can think of Foley in Florida, Craig in Idaho, and Stevens in Alaska are all Republican slugs that are now gone.  On the Democratic side, Barney Frank is now a committee chairman, as is Ted Kennedy. William Jefferson was reelected in '06 and won his primary this year.  Alce Hasting is an impeached Federal Judge. If this tells us anything, it is that Republicans hold their elected officials accountable at a much higher rate than do Democrats.  That is also how your polling data above can be interpreted.

On drliftncrude's post about Blago, catpaw and ray harwick did nothing to defend Blago. See it here: http://people.bakersfield.c...

On saberhagen's post about Blago, http://people.bakersfield.c... catpaw, randomfactor and sagefever all failed to defend Blago.

On NancyII's post about Blago, http://people.bakersfield.c... randomfactor, AudreyB, and saberhagen fail to defend Blago.

On ronmexico's Blago post, http://people.bakersfield.c... mattloch, tkozy, saberhagen, ray harwick, randomfactor, TSM, saberhagen, tkozy and msjenny all failed to defend Blago.

So. Can you find some instances of conservatives 'facing the music' so to speak? I have already begun the search and haven't found any. Please, please, let me know where these are. It would do me a world of good to see them. A political education, if you will.

drlifncrude: thank god. we finally have a real conversation going. I am immediately going to research the cases you mention. You may even be correct here - it seems entirely possible, to me, that dems would be more forgiving of Dem faults. 

I don't think the polls above can be interpreted with that same lens, however. Again, these are national polls and Gallup is very good at getting random, representative samples. The opinions reflect a cross-section of America and appear above reproach.

Oh, btw, the discussion between NancyII and I was about the bloggers here at bako.com.

Another example, from 1983, of Democrat constituents "lovin' the sleaze" while Republicans give 'em the heave ho.

Rep. Dan Crane (R. Il) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D. Mass) were the subject of an investigation by the House Ethics Committee into sexual relationships with Congressional pages, the young students selected to work for a year in Washington running Congressional errands while attending high school at the Library of Congress. Both Congressmen admitted having sex with teenage pages: Crane with a 17-year-old female (in 1980) and Studds with a 17-year-old male (in 1973). The House censured both men. A tearful Crane apologized to his family and colleagues, but his constituents voted him out of office in 1984. Studds refused to apologize, and was reelected repeatedly, retiring from Congress in 1996. These activities resulted in a restructuring of the page program to protect youngsters from such relationships with Members of Congress.

Dirtyshirt, while you may have nothing better or more interesting to do than hunt through archives, I do.  But, in the spirit of "getting along," I didn't have to look far.  Sam Heath posted just today that "although I despise Bush" in regard to the shoe throwing incident and he is a Conservative.

From memory, motopoet has said many times on here that he was disappointed in Bush, and I myself have commented many times that I didn't feel he handled the mid east situation to my liking.  Not that I was asked you see.  I'm just using Bush because he's such a handy target but there were any other times when a Republican got caught with his pants down (literally) and was berated or laughed at by bloggers from his own party.

Many times conservative bloggers admitted that BOTH parties screw up but I don't recall a Liberal or a Democrat on here admitting that one party was as bad as the other.  We just see it from different viewpoints.  You see I , and others here, know that power corrupts absolutely (borrowed that you know) and it matters little which letter of the alphabet is tucked behind their name.   I just never see a Liberal saying something like that.  Maybe I missed it because I don't read every single blog post..

I'll repeat in case you missed me saying this umpteen times.   I go back to a time here when this wasn't called a blog, it was just a posting board.  Back when Wimbish was running for Sheriff.  Yes, THAT long ago.  It got shut down, and when they started back up as a blog with a moderator (sort of), this was primarily a Liberal blog site.  I was one of the few Conservatives on here.  It's improved but if you notice, it's still VERY top heavy with Liberal bloggers as opposed to Conservatives.  When I whined about it, I was basically told to get over it.  So I did.  In that time the right has been under constant attack and when one of the left shows clay feet, the left here rarely acknowledges it.  But if it's a Conservative that shows clay feet, the burning at the stake is on.  You'll have to forgive us if we point with glee when one of "yours" falls short after the bashing we take for members of our party when THEY fall short.

Oh dear, you'll also have to forgive this long post as I got carried away.  My apologies for not providing you with links and proof and copies of bonafides but, as I said I have other things I'd rather do.  One thing I will say in closing is that I provide links to things I find interesting but for the most part I'm here for discussion and that means my opinion and not a bundle of links to an archive full of posts.

As I said, I have things I'm more interested in like in an hour or so I'm meeting the family at CALM and I find that vastly more entertaining than digging through archives.  In the meantime, you enjoy the evening and don't get all sneezy from digging through dusty old posts.

(and since you ARE newer, you missed some ring talied tooter insulting profanity filled slug fests before Jason came along....ahhhh, those were the days.  And rarely pleasant.  This stuff is tame.)

Thanks Dril.  I guess my point is that the Dems/Liberals candidates don't walk on water no matter how much scandal they want to turn a blind eye to.  Now I've GOT to go find my gloves, it's cold out at CALM at night.

NancyII: I have a lot of time on my hands because I am pretty much restricted to my house due to an illness - I will be returning to work in February, God willing.

So yes, I have a lot of time to dig through archives. And I don't think doing solid research to back up one's opinions is in any sense a waste of time. I'm sorry you do - or at least feel it is somehow diminished. I have an academic background, raised by academics. To me this is bread and butter; but I understand it isn't for everybody.

At any rate, I don't see a lot of proof to back up your claim. I had (unsurprisingly, I suppose) the opposite view when I read emails with political content. I did the research, counting all the pertinent claims on a bunch of websites and found that I was substantively correct. There is no reason for you to believe this, I know, but I would have reported it had the result been otherwise.

I have, in the past, done other counts about Conservative rhetoric. In various threads online I counted instances of name-calling, slandering, mocking, etc., and found that something like 8 out of 10 times it was coming from the Conservatives. I'm pretty sure the pattern is repeated here at bako.com.

If there was an area where LIbs/Dems cornered more dirt, it might well be in the area of forgiving their own. I am currently working on some research in that regard. I think this will be very interesting.

But, for the record, let me say this, like I have in conversations with friends and family for years, "they're all politicians; you have to know that makes them all questionable people to begin with". I teach my children not to be shepherded along by party, club or affiliation. I have had to teach them not to let the foolish expressions of religion by others put dents in their own faith.

I am truly interested in 'the new American unity".

So far my time on bako.com has been spent, in my view, countering the clutter that is tossed with regularity from the Conservative side. My goal is to get past it.

I think we're making progress.

I'm sure you're reading this Monday or something, so I hope you had a great time with your family at CALM. If my condition allows, my family will be heading out there soon. Love the light show!!

Do me a favor: find the admissions about Bush by our conservative friends. I would like to see them.

Here's mine. 12/10/08  1:41 pm

people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/vanityfair/38334

Nancy,

Your right about the Little Lady thing. Sorry. I guess I’ll go back to Calling you, ‘Ole Gal’.  :>)

Nancy said on Aug 22, 2006 at 10:25 PM :
:

 I fit the profile of what? 

AND..why do I get the feeling this is another neo post.  Anyone who knows me might say I'm a pretty nice ole gal but I doubt ANY would say I'm pure, simple and love everybody.   Baiting me won't work either...I've been to a Worlds Fair, a Rodeo and 2 goat ropin's...you're just another in a long line of people who've crossed my path.  Good and bad.

At any rate you're kinda fun.  I don't have a husband to fight with so it might as well be you.

Good Grief Charley Brown!  Where DO you find the determination to go back 2 1/2 years  to quote me????  ROFL.

As for calling me "ole gal", now you're talking.  As long as it's "a good ole gal."  ;-)

 As for calling me "ole gal", now you're talking.  As long as it's "a good ole gal."  ;-)

OT: I got a chuckle from this.  To call someone "good ole gal/boy" back in my neck of the woods usually meant you were at, or had just come from, their funeral. LOL!!!  I've been calling my spouse "good ole boy" based on that little snippet of a story because I figured it's about time I tell people what I think of them while they're still alive. That means I've been handing out a lot of "good ole boy/gal" strokes over the past decade. One tends to be more generous with praise in their latter days, me thinks.

Here's to the Good Ole Gals and Guys. Keep kickin'.

I think I was thinking more along the lines of the Dukes Of Hazard.  Not that I'm any Daisy Duke you understand.  I NEVER wear hot pants.  To the great relief of the general public.

Sorry....OT too.  Apologies to Dirtyshirt.

Dirthshirt:  I'm one of those people whose eyes cross when faced with rows and rows piled on column after column of numbers.  I may look at the first couple of numbers, but truly I find that after a couple of minutes and a couple of columns my eyes simply refuse to register what they see.  The numbers -- to me -- therefore become a meaningless jumble.  One has to give you credit for your tenacity to look for proof for every statement you make.  However, truth has different ways of being told. 

Opinions mean something here whether anyone agrees with them or not.  And I must agree with NancyII that this blog site is a place for opinions.  It is not one of the rules that every opinion must be "backed up" by link after link after link after link that hardly anyone looks at anyway. 

I believe that most of us have our own favorite "links."  In my own case, I hardly have time for them, let alone links provided by someone who apparently believes that only intellectually challenged people could refuse to accept as gospel the links he provides.  

What happened to plain old opinion-writing?  It's not limited to the editorial pages of newspapers anymore.  But you must do what you must do.  Especially with your academic background. 

alicen: I think an opinion that isn't backed up by references (when the facts are not apparent, which they rarely are) isn't worth stating. That's my prejudice, I suppose. However, if the numbers are a meaningless jumble to you and my summary of them hasn't told the story, then the fault is mine. I apologize, and I promise to pay more attention to my efforts in this regard.

Also, I don't think all links are created equal, so to speak. Some links lead to just another site with another opinion and no factual or respected or trustworthy references. Others lead to encyclopedias, respected scholars, professional statistical organizations, etc..

I really don't see the point of exchanging opinions without someone, somewhere, trying to reference the truth. I don't see the point of it otherwise.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I will try to do better with my summaries.