posted on May 31, 2005 02:22:33 PM new
and if anyone has a problem with me posting the whole article....
take your complaints to logansdad who objects to only partial copy & pastes being posted.
-----------
Appears to me that voters are coming around to this administrations SS plan. UNLIKE what the aol polls posted here imply.
---------
Social Security plan backed in new poll
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Most likely voters continue to support President Bush's proposal to let younger workers invest some of their Social Security payroll taxes through personal accounts, a new survey finds.
The poll by independent pollster John Zogby for the Cato Institute, which is being released today, found that when voters understood the benefits of personal investment accounts, including a better financial rate of return than the current system, the Bush plan was supported by 52 percent of Americans and opposed by 40 percent.
"The thing that is compelling in this poll is that this is the response you get when you use a positive approach on Social Security reform," Mr. Zogby said. "If you use the 'Chicken Little, sky-is-falling' approach, then voters understand that something has to be done, but don't see the connection between personal accounts and fundamental reform of Social Security."
"There are a large number of voters, especially those under 50, who don't think they are getting the best possible deal from Social Security," he said.
As in past surveys on the president's personal-accounts proposal, strongest support comes from younger voters under age 30, who embrace the idea by a margin of 66 percent to 23 percent.
Support declines somewhat among voters between 30 and 50, with 58 percent in favor versus 37 percent who oppose it.
Voters over 65 oppose personal accounts 52 percent to 40 percent and those over 70 oppose them by 55 percent to 38 percent.
The survey also contained a warning for the Democrats about how their opposition to any reform of the Social Security system is playing with the electorate. ....this is where I get to say 'I told you so'....
"By an overwhelming 70-22 percent margin, voters believe that opponents of President Bush's proposals for Social Security reform have an obligation to put out their own plan for reforming the program," including 55 percent of Democratic voters, Mr. Zogby said in a report of his findings.
no....THIS is where I get to say "I told you so"
Among supporters, the most popular reason for supporting private accounts was, "It's my money; I should control it," Mr. Zogby said. "This was true for every group except African-Americans, who chose inheritability as their biggest reason for supporting accounts."
The poll's results suggested that Mr. Bush's proposal would be much more popular if he focused "on the points in this poll," Mr. Zogby said in an interview. "Nobody can understand or relate to the system's insolvency in 2043. But it wins a majority when the issue is raised as a matter of choice and as a positive opportunity," he said. "If it's pitted as just Social Security reform because it is becoming insolvent, that's not enough."
Among the poll's other findings:
•Support was strongest (57 percent to 36 percent) in the "red states" that Mr. Bush carried in his 2004 re-election.
Support split more evenly (48 percent to 44 percent) in the Democratic "blue states" that Sen. John Kerry won.
•Voters by 62 percent to 30 percent remained deeply skeptical about Social Security's promise to pay future benefits.
Skepticism was highest among younger voters, with more than 70 percent saying they doubted that the system would be able to pay their benefits when they reached retirement age.
The poll of 1,006 likely voters was conducted May 23-25 and has a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
I sure thought of his aol polls when I read this...but posted it more to show our liberals here how even THEIR OWN party is viewing their obstructionism on SS discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 31, 2005 07:07:22 PM new
Linda dear, why don't you try and find a more reputable poll besides one from John Zogby.
In a recent New York Times Magazine cover story about animal rights, journalist Michael Pollan reported that 51 percent of Americans believe that "primates are entitled to the same rights as human children." It was a surprising finding, but one that Pollan simply attributed to a "recent Zogby Poll." When Pollan's article came out, you can only imagine the celebration at the Doris Day Animal League, a group dedicated to establishing legal rights for chimpanzees. The league's role in commissioning the survey went entirely unmentioned in the Times story. By hiring the renowned pollster John Zogby, the group had essentially purchased an objective fact, one that entered into the conventional wisdom via the nation's leading Sunday magazine.
Whomever you blame for this small propaganda coup, it's hardly unique. Media coverage of polling results often neglects to mention the self-interestedness of the sponsor, and John Zogby is a leading enabler. Today, Zogby International's polling reputation may be second only to that of the hallowed Gallup Organization, which makes having a Zogby Poll extremely desirable for advocacy groups across the political spectrum. Animal rights is a lefty cause, but one recent Zogby Poll conducted for the libertarian Cato Institute found that "two-thirds of likely voters support personal Social Security accounts" -- i.e., partial privatization. Another, conducted in 1997 for the anti-tort group New Yorkers for Civil Justice Reform, found that Empire State citizens "overwhelmingly believe that the cost of lawsuit awards is too high." And a Newsmax.com/Zogby International Poll, conducted for the right-wing Newsmax Web site, found in late 1999 that two-thirds of Americans wanted Congress to consider a second impeachment proceeding against then-President Clinton. It helped that the poll primed respondents with speculative allegations that the president traded nuclear technology to the Chinese in exchange for campaign cash.
What these polls have in common is that they reveal "findings" that their sponsors wish the public to believe as facts. And Zogby's standing as a reputable pollster buys instant credibility.
There's nothing new about dubious surveys: An infamous Roper Poll released in 1992 came to the wild conclusion that 3.7 million Americans had likely been abducted by aliens. And Zogby International isn't the only firm available for advocacy groups, candidates and corporations in need of creatively framed findings and message testing. But among high-profile pollsters, Zogby is unusual in the extent to which he has blended partisan and interest-group polling with credibility-enhancing contracts for media outlets such as Reuters, NBC News, MSNBC, and numerous newspapers and television stations.
As Zogby himself acknowledges, the repute he derives from media polling helps him sell his services to more self-interested clients. The lucky groups end up with the Zogby brand name attached to findings that advance their agendas. "Media organizations should have people who absolutely aren't polling for interest groups," observes Robert Blendon, who directs Harvard University's Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy. Blendon notes that most major media polling conglomerates, such as the ABC News/Washington Post Poll, maintain firewalls between their work and outside interests.
Frequent Zogby collaborator John K. White of The Catholic University of America believes the pollster does his best to divine what the public really thinks, but, as Zogby himself concedes, the ultimate decision on whether to make public a particular poll rests with his clients. By contrast, Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press notes that when he was president of the Gallup Organization, clients who sought surveys for public-relations purposes had to release the results no matter what they showed.
Gallup likewise doesn't work for political candidates. In the last election, however, John Zogby brazenly polled for a Democratic opponent to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), paying out of his own pocket because he wanted to provide a "fresh challenge" to the Republican House whip. Zogby also polled for New York's millionaire independent gubernatorial candidate Tom Golisano, declaring in late October, "I'm ready to mortgage my house and predict that Golisano comes in at least second, barring anything unforeseen." Golisano came in third with 14 percent of the vote.
In the past half-decade, meanwhile, numerous Zogby Polls for various special interests have relied on creative phrasing to give the impression of wide public support for the view that the given client is promoting. In response to a question about the wording of the Newsmax.com impeachment survey, Zogby responded, "If we had anything to do with the wording of that question, then I guess I have a problem with it." He telephoned back to add that it was "probably not the best wording, but, I mean, I think it's defensible." Zogby acknowledges that he retains control over question phrasing. Indeed, in the world of interest-group polling, clients often submit proposed questions or concepts, but much of what they are buying is the polling firm's expertise in devising wording that produces results.
Zogby protests that he can't control the misuse of sound survey data by interest groups and incautious journalists. And, in fairness, Zogby is just one link in a chain of misinformation. Any criticism of him is also, inevitably, a criticism of major media organizations whose skeptical faculties, when it comes to polling, are suspended.
The Gullible Media
Indeed, key to Zogby's success is a credulous media, particularly cable news. In the unregulated polling industry, journalists are, by default, the chief arbiters of quality. For years, Zogby has been regularly exalted as "the nation's most accurate pollster," in the words of FOX's Bill O'Reilly -- a distinction Zogby owes to his pinpoint prediction of the 1996 presidential outcome. It doesn't hurt that Zogby is a bright and charming television personality in a polling profession that has its share of geeks.
Because Zogby works for both left and right, it's often assumed that he serves the causes of truth and objectivity. Unlike partisan pollsters, who are known for giving their own parties some padding in surveys, Zogby is generally invited on the air without anyone from the "other side" for balance. "I can't think of any pollster other than Zogby who regularly works for people on both sides and is touted by people on both sides," notes University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato. "That's quite an accomplishment. Whether it's good or bad is another question."
In the summer of 2001, journalist Cynthia Cooper alleged on Women's eNews that Zogby had conducted a poll for an "unidentified conservative client" that reached the questionable conclusion that a majority of Americans would support legislation requiring welfare recipients to use birth control in order to be eligible for benefits. Cooper also noted that Zogby's refusal to disclose the poll's sponsor violated the American Association for Public Opinion Research's (AAPOR) code of professional ethics and practices.
Zogby confirms that he did the poll. But he adds, "There is nothing that forces me to reveal [a sponsor's identity]. If I'm issuing that as a Zogby Poll, you know, then I'm fine and willing to take the heat." Zogby also opines, "The credibility is in the numbers, not the sponsorship." In fact, an advice sheet to journalists from the National Council on Public Polls (NCPP) warns otherwise. "You must know who paid for the survey," it reads, "because that tells you -- and your audience -- who thought these topics are important enough to spend money finding out what people think. This is central to the whole issue of why the poll was done."
Yet Zogby is right about his freedom from regulation; he is not compelled to reveal his sponsors. Because industry self-regulation is weak, self-interested polling is often mislabeled, and the media seem not to care.
Look more closely at the Doris Day Animal League survey. The New York Times Magazine report that 51 percent of Americans think "primates are entitled to the same rights as human children" goes far beyond anything in the actual poll. First, the poll didn't ask about primates -- a category including anything from pygmy mouse lemurs to gorillas -- but about chimpanzees. Second, the actual question gave respondents four options to choose from: In brief, they could say that chimps ought to be treated "like property," "similar to children," "the same as adults" or "not sure." Given this particular set of choices, option two was the obvious pick -- almost as if respondents were steered toward it. And after 51 percent had chosen "similar to children," the Zogby survey inexplicably translated "similar" into "the same" in its conclusions -- a very big difference. The Doris Day Animal League then reported this in its press materials.
Organizations such as the NCPP and the AAPOR have guidelines and standards stressing openness, balanced questions, transparency and so forth. But as self-regulators, they've rarely censured individual pollsters. One of the exceptions is Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who was reprimanded by the AAPOR in 1997 because he "repeatedly refused to make public essential facts about his research on public attitudes about the Republicans' 'Contract with America.'" The AAPOR, however, has not taken on Zogby.
It wasn't always clear that John Zogby would end up a pollster: For a while he was a consumer activist in his hometown of Utica, N.Y., and at one point even ran for mayor. In the early 1980s, he was heavily involved, along with his brother James Zogby, in Arab-American political activism. But since the founding of his company in 1984, Zogby, a second generation Lebanese American, has become a dominant figure in the polling industry. Today no one doubts Zogby's political insightfulness, and the fact that he still works from Utica allows him to inject a helpful outside perspective into the cliquish world of Beltway politics.
Yet Zogby is also very much the businessman, one who has seen his firm grow steadily over the past several years into an outfit with some 500 full- and part-time employees. Roughly two-thirds of the 300 to 500 polling projects conducted each year by Zogby International are corporate or private-sector work; business clients run the gamut, from Coca-Cola to Philip Morris to Microsoft. Such corporate contracts, of course, tend to be the most lucrative in the polling business.
To a significant extent, the entire edifice rests upon Zogby's well-remembered success in the 1996 presidential race between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. "All hail Zogby, the pollster who conquered the 1996 election," wrote Washington Post pollster Richard Morin after the results came in. Zogby had forecast an 8.1 percent Clinton margin, and the actual margin was 8.4 percent. Most of Zogby's media-polling contracts date from 1996 and afterward. It didn't hurt that he was also quite accurate in the 2000 presidential contest. (Not that presidential races are necessarily the best way of judging pollster accuracy: By the end, most polls are within a few points of one another.)
Zogby does have has his detractors among the polling fraternity. "The pollsters have a view of Zogby that doesn't seem to be shared by the news organizations," observes Warren Mitofsky, who sits on the polling review board of the NCPP. Zogby's performance deteriorated somewhat in the 2002 elections (which he says prompted an internal audit). According to an NCPP postmortem, Zogby got five races wrong out of 17 polled on a nonpartisan basis. His final Colorado Senate poll, for instance, put Democratic challenger Tom Strickland ahead of Republican incumbent Wayne Allard by a margin of 49 percent to 44 percent. (Allard actually won with 51 percent to Strickland's 45 percent.) Following the election, Zogby put out a mea culpa comparing his firm to the New York Yankees, which despite failing to win the 2002 World Series was still "the best team in baseball."
Moving Right
Zogby describes his personal political history as "very left Democrat." His brother James, head of the Arab American Institute, was an adviser to Al Gore's presidential campaign. Yet 1996 helped establish John Zogby as a favorite pollster with the political right. This crossover potential has allowed him to work for groups from the Club for Growth to the National Environmental Trust while still being labeled objective by the media.
To see how Zogby earned his cachet with conservatives, consider the context of the 1996 elections. The year 1996 was a watershed one for polling because many mainstream media organizations, including the CBS News/New York Times Poll, significantly overstated Clinton's lead, predicting a double-digit victory. Following the election, Everett Carll Ladd Jr., director of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, even wrote an influential article for The Chronicle of Higher Education (reprinted in The Wall Street Journal) titled, "The Election Polls: An American Waterloo." Ladd called the polling "so flawed that the entire enterprise should be reviewed by a blue-ribbon panel of experts." Though much overstated, Ladd's scathing critique -- especially its Wall Street Journal version -- fed into a widespread sense of disillusionment with polling among political conservatives. Republicans, argued Ladd, view polls as tools of the liberal media and are less likely to respond to them, creating a pro-Democrat bias of precisely the sort that plagued the 1996 election.
Into this breach stepped Zogby. Throughout the 1996 election season, his polls had shown a far closer race than others' had. Critics had expressed disbelief but he had been vindicated by the final election result. Zogby claimed to remedy the perceived problem of Democratic bias by weighting his data according to a previously determined distribution of party affiliation: 34.5 percent Democrats, 34 percent Republicans. This somewhat subjective approach gives some academic public-opinion specialists serious heartburn. As the University of Michigan political scientist Michael Traugott explains, "There's no known distribution of party identification in the sense that we think of a known distribution of sex or race. All we know comes from other survey data, so it has to be an estimate by definition."
Even if all of Zogby's techniques couldn't be taught in a university course, that critique seemed irrelevant after he called the election correctly. By February 1998, Zogby had been asked by Rush Limbaugh to do a poll on the Monica Lewinsky scandal, one that, by emphasizing moral questions, would differ from surveys showing widespread support for the president in the face of Kenneth Starr's inquiries. Zogby obliged. The five-question poll opened with the following: "Suppose you are ready to hire a candidate who is well-qualified for the job, but then you find out that they like to have consensual sex with subordinates. Still hire them?"
Another question asked whether it was "immoral" for a U.S. president to have "consensual sex with a 21-yr-old intern." Sure enough, two-thirds of respondents did indeed consider it immoral. Of course, their only other option was that such behavior was "acceptable," something even Clinton's defenders probably didn't agree with.
The Prospect's reviewer of the Limbaugh poll, Cornell University communications professor Dietram Scheufele, notes, "It is possible that the answers to some of these questions were influenced by questions that were asked before, i.e., by question-order effects." In other words, the premise of the first question could influence responses to subsequent questions. Unless the questions were randomly rotated, this would skew later answers.
Rush Limbaugh bestowed on Zogby the "my favorite pollster" mantle, a kind of calling card for use among political conservatives. By October of 1998, Zogby had reiterated in National Review his findings about the public's opinion of the Lewinsky affair. That year Zogby also did some 60 polls for the Republican Congressional Committee. It's no wonder that many today still think he's a Republican pollster.
More precisely, Zogby is a pollster who works with a lot of Republicans, and in ways that are not always disclosed. Most journalists were probably unaware that some of Zogby's so-called American Values Polls were a joint venture with an organization called Associated Television News, which has a very strong Republican pedigree. Associated Television News is run by Bradley O'Leary, a longtime Republican consultant known for his legendary fundraising abilities and for doing direct mail for the National Rifle Association (NRA). Zogby told the Prospect that O'Leary's role in the surveys wasn't always made apparent but, "Anyone who asked, to the best of my knowledge, was told." However, when columnist Arianna Huffington asked Zogby about the funder of an American Values Poll in April of 2000, according to her column, he responded, "I can't say who it is, but he publishes a newsletter in which he prints the poll's results." Presumably that newsletter would be the O'Leary Report.
The strongly Republican slant of the O'Leary-Zogby surveys is unmistakable. One released in October 2000 found that voters favored George W. Bush over Gore on "20 out of 25" campaign issues. Or, as the Zogby International/Associated Television News press release put it, "Bush Overwhelms Gore On Presidential Campaign's Major Public Policy Issues." That's a pretty convenient finding for a longtime Republican consultant just before a presidential election, which may be why Associated Television News was only identified in the release as an organization that "has covered domestic and international news for 20 years" while Zogby International was described as "a respected, non-partisan polling firm."
The poll contrasted purported candidate positions on different issues, and asked respondents to choose which they favored. Bush-Cheney always came first, Gore-Lieberman second. The poll used loaded language such as "partial-birth abortions" (a term coined by anti-abortionists) and tended to define the Gore-Lieberman position in a politically unappealing way. Cornell's Scheufele also notes that the poll created "false dichotomies" by forcing respondents to answer complicated public-policy questions in a simplistic either-or format. For example:
Bush-Cheney say we need to test teachers and better train those who do not meet minimum standards. Students must meet minimum academic requirements before passing, and more funds should be allocated to help state programs. Gore-Lieberman say more teachers should be hired at higher wages, more classrooms should be built, and the federal government should take more control over our educational system to achieve a better balance between rich and poor school districts.
Unsurprisingly, with this framing, 53 percent approved the Bush-Cheney position to just 34 percent for the Gore-Lieberman position. Here's another: "Bush-Cheney say that tax refunds should be returned to those who were overtaxed. Gore-Lieberman say that tax refunds should be used to fund the federal government." Hanging the albatross of the "federal government" around Gore-Lieberman's neck -- while painting Bush-Cheney as the champion of the "overtaxed" -- sounds more like a Republican National Committee press release than a poll.
When the conservative Washington Times covered one of the polls, neither O'Leary's Republican efforts nor his NRA work was mentioned. On Zogby's Web site, meanwhile, a December 2000 American Values Poll with flattering results for the NRA also made no mention of O'Leary. Other American Values Poll results invariably favored conservatives. When asked to explain the striking Republican slant to these surveys, Zogby said: "Call Karl Rove at the White House and ask what he thinks of me. He'll tell you that he hates my guts."
Cato Calling
Among Zogby's more dubious findings have been his polls on Social Security for the libertarian Cato Institute. Academic research has shown that public opinion on Social Security reform varies greatly depending on the questions asked. If respondents are merely asked whether they think people should have the option of investing part of their Social Security income in private accounts, they approve by a margin of roughly 2-to-1. But the response changes dramatically if people are clearly warned that such privatization could have negative consequences, such as cuts in guaranteed benefits. "As soon as the public is given a sense of what the risks are that we entail to ourselves as individuals by partially privatizing Social Security, people then are against it," explains Fay Lomax Cook, director of the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University.
Zogby insists he asks "balanced questions" on Social Security, but consider his Cato polls. The latest, in the summer of 2002, began with this question: "There are some in government who advocate changing the Social Security system to give younger workers the choice to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes through individual accounts similar to IRAs or 401(k) plans. Would you [support or oppose]?"
Sure enough, without any mention of risk, 68.1 percent of the 1,109 likely voters sampled vouched their support. The same Cato poll even managed to use the Enron scandal to demonstrate support for privatization:
With which statement do you most agree? A: The Enron scandal shows the dangers of the stock market and why we must maintain Social Security as it is and not allow individuals to invest their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts. B: The Enron scandal proves that people need more choice and more control over their retirement savings, including allowing workers the option to invest part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account.
Here 63.3 percent chose option B, perhaps because A did such a poor job of framing the argument that business scandals should cause wariness about privatization. Who could object to "more choice and more control"?
Other pollsters have approached Social Security questions more carefully. A December 2002 Los Angeles Times Poll presented the complexities of Social Security privatization and found that 55 percent disapproved of "allowing younger workers to divert their payroll tax money from Social Security into private investment accounts." In the Los Angeles Times Poll, those who approved of partial privatization -- just 38 percent -- were subsequently asked a follow-up question: "Would you still support this proposal if it meant a reduction in the guaranteed benefits retirees receive through the Social Security system?" Thirty-nine percent of the sub-group then said they would be opposed.
Later questions in Zogby's poll made some slight allusion to privatization's risks but no mention of the possibility of a reduction in guaranteed benefits for retirees. Cato relentlessly publicized the finding from the first Zogby question. "Two-Thirds of Likely Voters Support Personal Social Security Accounts," announced Cato's Web site, citing the "respected independent polling firm Zogby International." Zogby protests that he has no control over how his clients and the media cite his results, but he certainly appeared to lend his endorsement by attending Cato press conferences and other events to discuss his findings. United Press International headlined its story about the survey, "Poll says majority wants Soc. Sec. reform," which quoted Zogby on the alleged popularity of the Cato program. "Republicans should wake up and realize they have a winner," Zogby said.
Afterward, supporters of partial privatization had Zogby's poll to cite. In a December 2002 Weekly Standard article arguing that Social Security reform was still very much on President Bush's agenda, Fred Barnes referred to Zogby's Social Security polling as if it came from an objective source rather than a pollster employed by Cato. In a National Review Online article published in September 2002, meanwhile, Stephen Moore and Thomas L. Rhodes of the conservative Club for Growth -- which, as previously mentioned, has also used Zogby's polling -- cited the 68 percent figure. Moore and Rhodes did disclose Cato's role in the poll but didn't mention that Zogby's question omitted possible risks of privatization.
Finally, consider an August 2001 Zogby poll for the conservative Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which advances the theory of "Intelligent Design" (ID), a more subtle successor to Biblical creationism, as a rival to evolution in high-school science classes. The Zogby Poll asked:
Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement: 'When Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in schools, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life.'
An impressive 78 percent of respondents agreed with the statement; 53 percent of them strongly agreed. At first glance this might seem innocuous enough -- who could oppose the teaching of scientific evidence? But how many respondents grasped that "intelligent design of life" is used as a synonym for divine creation? Also, as Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science Education points out, the premise that scientific evidence supporting ID actually exists is a highly dubious one. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has specifically stated that ID is not science.
As with his polling for Cato, Zogby's Discovery Institute work has been widely cited by ID proponents. In part, Zogby is just testing messages for interest groups, which he reasonably calls a "legitimately defined methodology." But Zogby is also trading on his reputation as a legitimate, media-certified pollster to help groups disseminate inflated claims about public opinion based on inventive wording. In his defense, Zogby says he has refused to work for some clients, including ones who were pro-Confederate Flag and militantly anti-gay, and emphasizes that he ultimately controls question wording. "Apparently this doesn't pass your smell test," he says. "I'm telling you, it passes mine."
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on May 31, 2005 07:40:38 PM new
Once again Linda will believe anything as long as it suits her agenda. Nice to know she likes living in her little utopia that is the opposite of reality.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on May 31, 2005 08:00:09 PM new
From a more reputable poll service:
Opinions of George W. Bush are at or near lows for his presidency, according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. Bush's 46% approval rating is just one point higher than the low of his term, and his ratings on the economy, Iraq, and Social Security have never been lower. Only 4 in 10 Americans say they agree with Bush on issues that matter most to them, and just a bare majority says he has the personality and leadership qualities a president should have.
Forty-six percent of 1,006 adults polled over the weekend said they approved of the overall job Bush is doing, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
Over the past year, Bush's rating has hovered near 50 percent, with a low of 45 percent in March and a high of 57 percent just after his second inauguration and the State of the Union in February.
The 46 percent figure is down about 4 percentage points since a poll taken at the beginning of May.
The approval rating poll question, asked by telephone on May 20-May 22, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Pollsters split some questions on specific issues between two "half groups" of respondents. Those questions had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
On domestic issues, the president's approval ratings are at an all-time low -- 40 percent of respondents approve of his work on the economy and 33 percent approve of his plans for Social Security changes.
Bush fared best among respondents when they were asked if they approved or disapproved how how he was handling terrorism.
But while 55 percent of the people taking part in the poll approved, that figure was down 2 percentage points from a poll taken in April.
On the Iraq war, the president's approval mark remained low -- just 40 percent of those agreed with the way he is handling the situation.
Most of those surveyed (52 percent) said they think Bush has "the personality and leadership qualities a president should have."
But many said they differ on the issues that matter most to them -- 57 percent disagreed with the president, while 40 percent said they agreed.
Congressional ratings
Both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate fared badly on the judicial nominees issue.
When asked to choose, 58 percent of respondents in the split part of the poll said Republican leaders were behaving like "spoiled children" on the matter while 31 percent picked "responsible adults."
Democratic leaders were viewed almost in the same light, with 54 percent of respondents disapproving and 36 percent approving.
On a separate question asked of half the respondents, 48 percent said they favored the Democrats in the dispute and 40 percent favored the GOP.
Several questions involving Congress were put to all respondents. Those questions had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
On the question of their interest in the filibuster issue, 37 percent said they had not been following it at all and 20 percent picked "not too closely."
All respondents were also asked whether they would change the filibuster and/or preserve it.
Thirty-five percent sided with changing Senate rules, 19 percent agreed on keeping the filibuster, and 34 percent wanted filibuster rules to remain intact but for nominees to receive a full Senate vote.
On the federal judiciary itself, 29 percent of all respondents said judges were too liberal, 19 percent said they were too conservative and 44 percent said they were "about right."
The poll also indicated Americans might want a change in Congress, with 47 percent of all respondents saying the country would be better off if Democrats were in control, compared with 36 percent who favored Republicans. Nine percent picked "neither."
Republicans control the Senate with 55 seats, Democrats have 44 seats and one senator lists himself as independent.
In the 435-member House of Representatives, Republicans hold 231 seats to the Democrats' 202. One member is an independent and there is one vacancy at the moment.
Now Linda, isn't you that say we should do what the majority of the American people would like?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on May 31, 2005 10:02:21 PM new
What is even worse is the Demomorons is calling a Liberal paper a non-reputable source. Linda's article is clearly more reflective of reality than Logan's.
posted on May 31, 2005 11:32:14 PM new
"Kerry lied and Clinton had an affair blah blah blah and BUSH:
The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of
crowfarm
posted on May 19, 2005 12:57:15 PM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Downing Street Memo, recently leaked, reveals that President George W. Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in summer 2002 and—determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policies—"fixed" the intelligence and facts relevent to WMD.
What has come to be known as the Downing Street "Memo" is actually a document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002. This meeting was held a full 8 months PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003. The Times of London printed the text of this document on Sunday, May 1, 2005. When asked about the document's validity, "British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity."
The contents of the memo are shocking. The minutes detail how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations; how intelligence was manipulated to sell the case for war to the American public; and how all the talk of "war as a last resort" was mere hollow pretense.
Regardless of politics, all Americans should ask themselves: Was I misled? Did President Bush tell me the truth when he said he would not take us to war unless absolutely necessary?
posted on June 1, 2005 06:02:51 AM new
Crow, Bush has lied time and again to the American people. To the point where more and more people can't believe anything he says about his Iraq war or SS or most things he talks about.
Linda_K posts a poll like this and she and bear say AOL's polls aren't accurate. WOW
posted on June 1, 2005 04:35:33 PM new
What no rebutal from the one that believes her poll results are the most accurate?
She must be contacting John Zogby to come up with more bogus poll results that fit her agenda.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
the thing I find MOST ironic, logansdad, is that while you NOW appear to thing people don't HIGHLY regard the Zogby polls....which they do...is that YOU, yourself have used their findings more than once in defense of an issue you wanted to support. So that alone gave me a good laugh.
Whether you dems choose to believe what this or any other polls say...doesn't really matter to me personally, as I don't judge you to have the ability to see things the way they really are anyway. [logansdad, peepa, cf]
But the more rational dems DO worry about what the polls say...and they ALWAYS were what the clinton administration used to guide his decisions on.
But just to post a long post like you have chosen to do...here's another. And, again, understand I don't care whether you agree with it or not. The reason I posted the Zogby one and this one...is only to show you there IS a difference of opinion...in that your OWN party doesn't feel as secure as you'd like to make it sound.
Loss of middle class a 'crisis' for Democrats
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 1, 2005
The Democratic Party, the self-proclaimed defender of the middle class, was trounced by Republicans among those voters in the 2004 election, according to a Democratic advocacy group that says the party faces "a crisis with the middle class."
A report released yesterday by Third Way says support for Republicans begins at much lower income levels than researchers had expected: Among white voters, President Bush got a majority of support beginning at an income threshold of $23,300 -- about $5,000 above the poverty level for a family of four.
The report says the economic gains of Hispanics have translated into strong Republican gains, as have economic strides across every category, save for black voters.
"As Americans become even modestly wealthier their affinity for Democrats apparently falls off. With middle income voters, it is Democrats -- the self-described party of the middle class -- who are running far behind Republicans, the oft-described party of the rich," the report says.
Although Mr. Bush's popular-vote margin of victory over Sen. John Kerry in 2004 was less than three percentage points, the Massachusetts Democrat lost the middle class -- defined by the report as voters living in households with incomes between $30,000 and $75,000 -- by six percentage points. Among white middle-class voters, the gap was 22 percentage points.
Voters from middle-class households made up 45 percent of the electorate last year, those making less than $30,000 constituted 23 percent of the vote, and households above $75,000 accounted for 32 percent of the vote. The median income among the voters was $54,348.
Polls show that voters identify the Democratic Party as the party of the middle class and that Democrats beat Republicans on middle-class issues such as jobs, health care and education, but that hasn't translated into votes, said Jim Kessler, policy director for Third Way, which was created after the 2004 election with the goal of "modernizing the progressive cause."
"Middle-class voters think Democrats care about issues they care about, but they don't care about the middle-class voter as much as they care about other voters -- that they're No. 4 or 5 on the priority list," Mr. Kessler said. Put another way, he said, "they think Democrats care about somebody else's schools, health care, jobs."
The report showed that Democrats continue to do well among black voters, and that did not change with income or education levels. But those findings "masked the deficit they faced with the remaining middle class," Mr. Kessler said.
A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee didn't return calls for comment. Sarah Feinberg, spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said House Democrats plan to push for middle-class voters in the 2006 election cycle.
"Democrats are certainly going to be working to talk to middle-class voters and to make sure middle-class voters understand that their priorities are our priorities," she said, pointing to polls that show voters concerned about rising gasoline prices and access to affordable health care.
She said Congress instead has focused on business-friendly measures such as class-action lawsuits and bankruptcy reform.
"One of the main things we've been talking about this election cycle is the fact that the Republican leadership and the Republican Congress are very out of step with middle-class families, and almost everything in this country," she said.
Many in the Democratic Party, particularly among those on the left, say there are no policy lessons to be learned from the 2004 election, that the party failed to get out its message and that it was overshadowed by a strong president at war. But centrist Democrats have continued to argue that the party may be in bigger danger than many loyalists think.
This month's issue of Blueprint, a magazine published by the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, has several articles looking at statistics similar to Third Way's income data, such as Mr. Kerry's losing married parents of young children by 19 percentage points, taking 40 percent of the group compared with Mr. Bush's 59 percent. Those parents made up 28 percent of the electorate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on June 1, 2005 06:53:04 PM new
Your article is just rehashing why Kerry lost the election. Not much news Linda.
The latest polls keep showing the American people do like what Bush is doing with the economy, the war in Iraq or what he proposes about Social Security.
...is only to show you there IS a difference of opinion...in that your OWN party doesn't feel as secure as you'd like to make it sound.
Just like many Republicans are standing up to Bush's agenda and voting against what Bush wants. Is that because Bush is now the LAME DUCK and the other congressmen actually have to be re-elected in 2006 and 2008 while Bush gets to go back to his ranch?
the thing I find MOST ironic, logansdad, is that while you NOW appear to thing people don't HIGHLY regard the Zogby polls....which they do...is that YOU, yourself have used their findings more than once in defense of an issue you wanted to support. So that alone gave me a good laugh.
Prove it Linda.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on June 3, 2005 07:29:42 AM new
Still waiting for that so called proof Linda
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
