# Are the Republicans losing on the Leadership front? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2005, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590 "2005-04-28T19:25:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/81 "2005-05-03T14:54:00Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Oh, c’mon. It wasn’t more about Bush than about private accounts: that’s just hyperbole. It mentioned Bush, but it was clearly about Bush’s **proposals**. I don’t know about that. If the SDMB tells us anything it’s that when you insert Bush’s name into an otherwise boring subject, it can inflame people to all sorts of emotion. But, if it pleases you I’ll reword it: “It was more about Bush’s **proposals** than it was about private accounts.” Better? The error still remains. That poll isn’t directly addressing whether or not young people would prefer private accounts. It’s addressing whether people like Bush’s plan. Two very different things. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/82 "2005-05-03T14:57:27Z")
Bush’s _proposals_, dammit. Not plan. Proposals. As I’ve already stated, Bush doesn’t have a plan. He’s got some ideas. But, right now he’s just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. “Bush’s plan” is kind of like the “Social Security Lockbox”. It’s easy to start falling for these terms and using them, but we should resist doing so since these things don’t actually exist. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/83 "2005-05-03T15:04:07Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I don’t know about that. If the SDMB tells us anything it’s that when you insert Bush’s name into an otherwise boring subject, it can inflame people to all sorts of emotion. > > But, if it pleases you I’ll reword it: “It was more about Bush’s **proposals** than it was about private accounts.” > > Better? First, y’all conservatives normally never miss an opportunity to remind us pointy-headed ivory-tower liberals that the Straight Dope community has nothing to do with the Real World. What gives? Second, given that Bush’s pre-eminent proposal is the whole “private accounts” thang, I think that’s one hair that won’t split. Dismissing these poll results because Bush’s name got mentioned in this seems really, really partisan to me. (So it’s clear, I’m not dismissing Fox’s results; I’m saying that looking at them in context, they’re an outlying data point.) Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/84 "2005-05-03T15:21:22Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > First, y’all conservatives normally never miss an opportunity to remind us pointy-headed ivory-tower liberals that the Straight Dope community has nothing to do with the Real World. What gives? OK. Forget about the straight dope. Look at bumper stickers on any highway. Do I really need to sell you on the notion that Bush is a controversial president that inspires a lot of emotion from people? > [@](#): > > Second, given that Bush’s pre-eminent proposal is the whole “private accounts” thang, I think that’s one hair that won’t split. Dismissing these poll results because Bush’s name got mentioned in this seems really, really partisan to me. Not to me. Asking if someone is in favor of private accounts is different than asking if they like Bush’s proposal. Just because Bush’s proposal happens to involve private accounts doesn’t mean you can use the two interchangably. You don’t like that other question just because it includes the word “rights”. That’s certainly less of an well poisoner than asking an entirely different question that relates to the president, rather than the idea of privatization. I’m not dismissing those poll results. They are valuable if you want to know what people think of Bush’s plan. I’m just pointing out that they are not to be used to see if younger workers are in favor of private accounts in general. We should probably move on from here. I don’t think we’re going to agree on this nitpick, and the issue has been covered fully. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/85 "2005-05-03T15:27:04Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > OK. Forget about the straight dope. Look at bumper stickers on any highway. Do I really need to sell you on the notion that Bush is a controversial president that inspires a lot of emotion from people? Yes, he does: both positive and negative. I’m not convinced that his public standing is so disproportionately negative that his name will skew a poll question’s answers in a disproportionately negative direction. I _wish_ that were true, but I don’t think it is. > [@](#): > > We should probably move on from here. I don’t think we’re going to agree on this nitpick, and the issue has been covered fully. You’re probably right–as long as you’ll not claim that “young people want private accounts for their SS contributions” without qualification (e.g., “ **some polls show** that young people…”) I’m happy to drop it. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/86 "2005-05-03T15:45:08Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > You may object to the wording of Fox’s questions, but it is patently false to claim that all recent cites have shown **Debaser** to be wrong. Does the irony that _only Fox News_ can find that desired result escape you? Would you also offer up an Al-Jazeera poll as evidence of Iraqi attitudes about the occupation? It is not bullshit to point out that no recent polls _with any credibility_ support his position. If you care to insist that there is other bullshit around that does, go right ahead - but it shouldn’t be necessary to note that even in passing. It is not a nitpick, btw, to point it out in the context of this thread, either. Recall that the OP takes it as given that young people ought to support the “proposal”, and goes on to blame simple poor leadership rather than substance. Perhaps you both could give young people credit for a little thought instead? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/87 "2005-05-03T15:53:35Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Does the irony that _only Fox News_ can find that desired result escape you? Obviously not, since I’ve pointed this out several times in this thread. Nor does the irony of you accusing **Debaser** of dishonest debating escape me. > [@](#): > > Would you also offer up an Al-Jazeera poll as evidence of Iraqi attitudes about the occupation? Absolutely I would, and I think it’s insulting to Al-Jazeera to compare them to Fox. > [@](#): > > It is not bullshit to point out that no recent polls _with any credibility_ support his position. If that’s what you’re claiming, go ahead and prove it. But that’s not what you were claiming before–that’s not the claim i called bullshit on. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you both could give young people credit for a little thought instead? What’s that supposed to mean? Does it mean that any young person that disagrees with you (or with me, for that matter) on this issue is incapable of thought? I think that anyone, young or old, who likes Bush’s (vague, nonspecific, whatever) proposal for private accounts is evaluating information incorrectly. That doesn’t mean they’re incapable of thought. I have the hubris to think I’m right, but I lack the sheer arrogance to claim it’s impossible that I’m wrong. Sheesh. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/88 "2005-05-03T16:31:24Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Obviously not, since I’ve pointed this out several times in this thread. Okay, let me be more direct: Does it not give you pause that no other organization, reputable or otherwise, confirms this finding? What does that tell you about what is most likely the reality? > [@](#): > > Nor does the irony of you accusing **Debaser** of dishonest debating escape me. Sigh. If you can point out any dishonesty of mine, please do so, or Pit it. > [@](#): > > Absolutely I would, and I think it’s insulting to Al-Jazeera to compare them to Fox. You just lost. > [@](#): > > If that’s what you’re claiming, go ahead and prove it. But that’s not what you were claiming before–that’s not the claim i called bullshit on. Sigh. Read what I just said about it not being necessary to point out that other bullshit exists. But if you’d like to stamp your little feet and scream instead of admitting you’re supporting an outlier against the mass of data, go right ahead. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > What’s that supposed to mean? Does it mean that any young person that disagrees with you (or with me, for that matter) on this issue is incapable of thought? No, it means that anyone who takes the view that others whom they themselves have lumped together “should” think something or other is already lost. That meant **John** in specific, but it can be you too. > [@](#): > > Sheesh. > Daniel Try reading what you’re responding to first, and you’d have less sheesh in your life. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/89 "2005-05-03T16:42:24Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Okay, let me be more direct: Does it not give you pause that no other organization, reputable or otherwise, confirms this finding? What does that tell you about what is most likely the reality? Let me respond with a quesiton of my own: when I refer to Fox’s results as an “outlying data point,” what does that mean to you? > [@](#): > > Sigh. If you can point out any dishonesty of mine, please do so, or Pit it. Here you go: “Bullshit. Your only cite for that is from 1999. All recent ones presented to you here show exactly the opposite.” > [@](#): > > Sigh. Read what I just said about it not being necessary to point out that other bullshit exists. But if you’d like to stamp your little feet and scream instead of admitting you’re supporting an outlier against the mass of data, go right ahead. :rolleyes: I’m not supporting it. This little detail seems to have escaped you. > [@](#): > > Try reading what you’re responding to first, and you’d have less sheesh in your life. Irony, thy name is **Elvis**. I’m done with you here. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/90 "2005-05-03T16:52:44Z")
Perhaps a bit of semantic nit-pick is in order. What do we mean “leadership”? Is that like the first lemming over the cliff is the leader? Do we mean persuasion to an end? Well, GeeDubya has certainly given us an example of that, big time, downtown. He led us into this combination quagmire/septic pit we are currently flailing about helplessly within. Is that leadership? Napoleon led his armies into Russia, and led them back out again. Hitler reprised this collossal blunder. Alexander led his armies and spread Hellenism from Egypt to India. Are they all equally “leaders” because they were followed? Are disastrous consequences to be considered seperately from the quality “leadership”? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/91 "2005-05-03T16:55:45Z")
**Elvis, Lefty** , it annoys me when people I like fight. Don’t make me come back there. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/92 "2005-05-03T17:01:50Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Let me respond with a quesiton of my own: when I refer to Fox’s results as an “outlying data point,” what does that mean to you? It _should_ mean that it must be ignored. I did ignore it. Now you’re trying to take me to task for doing so. The broader point ought to be that **Debaser** is full of shit for insisting on obsolete and outlying data while ignoring current and mainstream data. Why are you trying to give him cover? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/93 "2005-05-03T17:06:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > **Elvis, Lefty** , it annoys me when people I like fight. Don’t make me come back there. Don’t mean to annoy you, but it annoys me worse when people are making my side look bad; and when they start impugning all sorts of impure motives to me when I call them on their inaccuracies, it positively irritates me. It’s possible to debate in an honest fashion, in which an opponent’s points are acknowledged respectfully. When I’m trying to do that, and when someone comes in and distorts my opponent’s positions instead of engaging them in a civil fashion, it just creates noise and distraction. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/94 "2005-05-03T17:07:52Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It _should_ mean that it must be ignored. No, it shouldn’t. It **should** mean that it must be explained. The scientist who ignores outlying data points risks his entire reputation for committing scientific fraud. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/95 "2005-05-03T17:14:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Perhaps a bit of semantic nit-pick is in order. What do we mean “leadership”? Is that like the first lemming over the cliff is the leader? > > Do we mean persuasion to an end? Well, GeeDubya has certainly given us an example of that, big time, downtown. He led us into this combination quagmire/septic pit we are currently flailing about helplessly within. Is that leadership? Napoleon led his armies into Russia, and led them back out again. Hitler reprised this collossal blunder. Alexander led his armies and spread Hellenism from Egypt to India. Are they all equally “leaders” because they were followed? > > Are disastrous consequences to be considered seperately from the quality “leadership”? The short answer is: Yes. The longer answer is: Nice little cherry picking, but if you’re going to Godwinize the discussion, please open another thread titled: Is a comparison of Bush and Hitler appropriate? But you actually bring up a very good point. In Bush’s first term, he was able to pretty much get his entire agenda thru Congress. Now, that may be to a rally 'round the flag mentality of the aftermath of 9/11. Be that as it may, the contrast between the way Bush worked with Congress in his first and second term is striking. He’s got a more solidly Republican Congress (both houses) this time, yet doesn’t seem to be able to get things going. Perhaps it’s just a matter of power corrupting. The Dems were similarly leadership challenged in Clinton’s second term, which is when the Pubs started their ascent to power. This editorial in the SJ Merc, [Elephants apparently can forget](http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/11537239.htm), did a good job outlining the similarities. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/96 "2005-05-03T17:22:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > He’s got a more solidly Republican Congress (both houses) this time, yet doesn’t seem to be able to get things going. It’s the agenda. Bush wasn’t trying to reform the sixty year old, largest ever government entitlement program which is defended by the strongest lobby in the country during his first term. By winning a second term, he’s free to take on a more aggressive agenda. Bush said it himself. He’s got the political capital, and he intends on using it. Social Security is a challenging goal politically, much more so than his first term agenda. Would you consider Bush’s presidency more of a success if he did achieve all of his objectives, but those objectives were meaningless and easy? That’s what a lot of people’s take on Clinton is (Chris Matthews for instance). Clinton had all of this power and charisma. He stocked it all up and had a soaring approval rating, but never really cashed it in to do anything. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/97 "2005-05-03T17:58:57Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Clinton had all of this power and charisma. He stocked it all up and had a soaring approval rating, but never really cashed it in to do anything. There are millions of unemployed, underemployed, uninsured and unalive in this country who would gladly trade Bush’s record for a few more years of Clinton’s “meaningless and easy” record. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/98 "2005-05-03T18:05:28Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Clinton had all of this power and charisma. He stocked it all up and had a soaring approval rating, but never really cashed it in to do anything. From [here](http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/eightyears.pdf) - A record 115 months of economic expansion - More than 22 million jobs created - Increased home ownership rate (64.2% to a record 67%) - Lowest unemployment rate in 30 years - Raised education standards and improved school choice - Largest expansion of college opportunity since GI Bill - Lowest crime rate in 26 years - Signed the Brady Bill - Family and Medical Leave Act - Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years - Higher incomes at all levels (bottom 20% saw largest growth) - Lowest poverty rate in 20 years - Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years - Lowest infant mortality rate in history - Deactivated 1700 Soviet warheads - Protected more land in lower 48 states than any president - Paid $360 billion off national debt - Converted largest deficit in history to surplus - Lowest government spending in three decades (from 22.2% of economy to 18.5%) - Lowest federal tax burden in 35 years Clinton’s was hardly a failed presidency and will go down I believe in the top 5 20th century presidents. What has Bush done that compares? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/99 "2005-05-03T18:11:09Z")
And there are a few thousand grieving families of dead and maimed military personnel who would have liked to have Clinton still running our foreign policy, too. [quote=LHOD}No, it shouldn’t. It should mean that it must be explained. The scientist who ignores outlying data points risks his entire reputation for committing scientific fraud.[/quote] Great. Got an explanation for Fox’s data being so far out, then? Got one for why everything else from this century says the opposite? Gonna tell us it’s all wrong and one single source is right? What, _no_, Mr. Occam? :rolleyes: I’d still like to know why you’re persisting in trying to undermine the use of fact here. You’re making all of us look a little foolish by mere association. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/100 "2005-05-03T18:56:41Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The short answer is: Yes. The longer answer is: Nice little cherry picking, but if you’re going to Godwinize the discussion, please open another thread titled: Is a comparison of Bush and Hitler appropriate?.. I’m going to present you with an extraordinary proposition: it is entirely possible to mention…a certain German asswipe/despot…without Godwinizing. Let the idea soak in before you respond. Take your time, digest it carefully. There’s a good fellow. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590.md?page=6)