Narrative, Interrupted

The Tea Party are extremists that the American people refudiate.

Right?

Well, not so fast (emphasis added):

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% of Likely U.S. Voters think the president’s views are closest to their own when it comes to the major issues facing the country. But just as many (42%) say their views come closest to those of the average Tea Party member instead. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

This marks a small setback for the Tea Party from April 2010 when 48% felt closest to the average Tea Party member, while 44% said they had more in common with the president

On the other hand, it’s right after the full-fledged media narrative-attack over the “shutdown”.

Thirty-four percent (34%) now believe their personal views are closest to those of the average member of Congress when it comes to the major issues of the day. But slightly more (36%) say their views are closest to those of the average member of the Tea Party. A sizable 30%, however, are not sure.

Opposition by Tea Party Republicans to the president’s national health care law has been blamed for the recent government shutdown, and just 30% of voters now have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party. That’s back to the level seen in January and down from a high of 44% in May after it was disclosed that the Internal Revenue Service was targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups.

Many of the “unfavorables” are likely never voting conservative under any circumstances.

The GOP has to present an alternative to the Democrats.

56 thoughts on “Narrative, Interrupted

  1. I think her brain will probably snap a little harder and she’ll forbid you to interpret or draw inspiration from anything starting with the letter “L”. Then “P”. Then she’ll move on to the rest of the alphabet, all while calling *you* a Nazi or a lunatic.

  2. Imagine the result if you asked whether people agree with the policies of the Green Party. No answer? Why not? You don’t know shit about them? Well, what do you know about the Taxed Enough Already Party? Oh, you didn’t even know that was their name? Okay, never mind, go join Dog Gone over there.

  3. I find it remarkable that any modern American woman can be perfectly ecstatic when her side bundles contributions to buy media time to get their message out, but perfectly aghast when our side does it. Tit for tat is a perfectly acceptable strategy in politics as well as game theory.

    Either money taints ALL messages or money is irrelevant to the message. To focus on the money is to overlook the message.

    But then, perhaps that’s her goal.

  4. My primary objection to Dog Gone’s obsession with money is that it’s an ad hominem argument and therefore an irrelevant distraction. It goes like this:

    The Koch Brothers pay me $100 to swear on oath that the flag of the United States is Red, White and Blue. Dog Gone pounces on the payment as proof that my testimony was bought; therefore the flag is NOT red, white and blue.

    But that’s too far a leap. Payment might taint the messenger such that you might not be willing to take my word for it. Fine, go find a flag and see for yourself. But payment doesn’t affect the message. The flag remains red, white and blue regardless who paid me to say it.

    Attacking the messenger because of who paid him to speak is an example of the ad hominem logical fallacy. It’s typical for Dog Gone. But it does get tiresome.
    .

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.