?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

FUNDASERVATIVE CHEATING ASSES

PBS put up a poll about whether or not their VIEWERS think Sarah Palin is qualified to be Vice President.

Some right-wing groups - you know, the people who don't WATCH, don't fund, and don't WANT PBS to exist, the ones who regularly try to get the allocations removed from the budget - those guys have been spamming the votes on the poll. They think people will be stupid enough to believe that PBS viewers in large numbers think that Sarah Palin is qualified to be Vice President. (The woman wasn't qualified to be mayor of Wasilla, given her performance - why would anyone think she could be VP when she doesn't even know what the Vice President DOES?)

I'm not using my Politics icon for this - I'm using my Angry Duck because, while it doesn't surprise me that this is happening, it pisses me off for its total cynical dishonesty.

http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html

Go and vote IF AND ONLY IF you actually watch PBS, so you can tell them whether or not you think Sarah Palin is qualified. I don't care which you say, frankly, more that an HONEST result is shown.

*EDIT TO ADD: No, I don't think that Conservatives all hate PBS, but there is a significant contingent who DO and the spamming is organized by, and coming from, members of that contingent.

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
anita_margarita
Oct. 23rd, 2008 05:55 pm (UTC)
Done.
jordan179
Oct. 23rd, 2008 06:00 pm (UTC)
What evidence do you have that the poll is being spammed by right-wing non-PBS voters? In particular, what makes you believe that right-wingers don't watch shows on PBS? I've been conservative since 1980, and the various PBS networks are among my favorites on the air.
foomf
Oct. 23rd, 2008 07:38 pm (UTC)
I base my view on the possibly biased sample I see whenever I look for the opinion of conservative pundits about PBS: disparaging and dismissive reports stating that it is a boondoggle, a waste of tax moneys, and a breeding ground for "treasonous liberal thought" ... and on the fact that since it was instituted, the budget for PBS has been fought by conservative-aligned congress critters, who MAY simply be making noise and posturing for their electorate, but if that were the case, then it indicates their electorate also finds it a boondoggle and would as soon it weren't there.

So, you became a conservative in 1980... how did that happen? I mean, you had a conversion experience whereby you suddenly chose that stance? I personally have always found that there is a necessary balance between progressive and conservative values.

Note, I prefer fiscal conservatism in many ways, but not to the degree of endorsing unthinking lassaiz-faire capitalism, or worse, our current situation where business completely runs the government to the benefit only of the short-term bottom line, and we can see where that got us.
Nor do I think highly of any system which puts the government into a position of micromanaging our lives to the point where everything is at the whim of the government. People use the term "to the right of Hitler" to describe someone as being extremely right-wing, but Hitler wasn't right-wing, he was a socialist dictator.

I find 'progressive' to be more useful than 'liberal' ever was, even before the Reagan cultural revolutionary agitprop team somehow turned 'liberal' into a dirty word. One can be progressive without wanting to entirely dismantle business, for instance. And I'm conservative enough to be skeptical of the new-fangled "corporations are persons" legislation, which writes a big fat lie into the law.
(Deleted comment)
foomf
Oct. 23rd, 2008 07:50 pm (UTC)
There's a polarizing factionalism which (and it's hard not to anthropomorphize this) has collected things like fiscal conservatism (cautiousness about spending money) and "traditional" family values (i.e. the nearly extinct but still highly revered rural family structure and the rules that work for such a structure) and "patriotism" in the sense of being willing and eager to go to war for "democracy" (and denying that in almost every case, every war we have entered has been about economics)... and then the factionalism calls that "conservatism" and sets it up as a single thing, even though it's not, and sets it against the "opposites" -- social responsibility (the recognition that the government, in addition to maintaining the framework of the country, needs to protect the more impoverished), freedom of choice, thought, association (something that directly challenges the authoritarian structure of traditional family values, but not the values themselves), pacifism (the desire to be at peace rather than at war, to seek a diplomatic resolution rather than an armed conflict.)

The examples I gave are not opposites, but they end up being portrayed that way because it's simple.

Am analysis of the 2004 election showed that there were very few strongly polarized areas, that (except for the careful application of election fraud in certain districts) the real "red vs blue" was on a door-to-door basis.
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )