Hugh Hewitt's Pol Poll Poses Problematic Positions

I love taking on-line polls. I think this is because I scored well on standardized tests when I was younger. In some subliminal way, taking a poll sort of makes me feel like I might win something. But, of course, I never do.

Hugh Hewitt, the “Hockey Commissioner of Minnesota,” has posted a poll at his blog today. I have no issue with the lists of "usual suspects" who may or may not be contending in the 2008 Presidential campaign.

I do, however, wonder at the choices we are given in the two multiple-choice responses at the end of the poll.

The first question gives three ways to finish this sentence:” The Republican majority in the United States Senate is: "Too Confrontational," "Just Right" or "Too Collaborative with Democrats."

Surely none of these choices comes close to representing the clear consensus of Conservatives, which is to say: “A bunch of wimps.”

Regarding ANWR, we are told that one can either believe it to be "A national security issue of supreme importance," "A useful bit of exploration that will bring oil prices down in a few years" or "A disastrous despoiling of the wilderness that should left as it is for future generations."

I cannot agree with either the second of the third choices but why does the only choice left seem to be so extreme?

Most conservative folks would agree with Hugh that ANWR is a security issue. But of "supreme importance?" Probably not. Supreme means, the "highest," as in, "there is no other security issue that ranks higher than this.

Hyperbole may score points in a debate but, in a poll, it puts words into people's mouths that make the answer taste as though there was too much chili or thyme in the entree than the recipe called for.