Glenn Beck touted slanted poll on whether U.S. should stay in Iraq
SUMMARY: On February 21, Glenn Beck touted a Public Opinion
Strategies poll, which he said "shows that 57 percent of Americans want
to stay in Iraq
and finish the job, until we win the war." Beck did not mention that the
company that conducted the poll considers itself a "Republican polling
firm" or that, according to Greg
Sargent, the poll has reportedly been dismissed by a Republican
pollster as "leading
and designed to elicit the answers they got."
On the February 21 edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck touted "a new poll," which he said "shows that 57 percent of Americans want to stay in Iraq and finish the job, until we win the war." Beck then said: "[T]hank you. Thank you, America. Sounds like a plan. I couldn't agree with more." But as Media Matters for America has previously noted, the poll in question, conducted February 5-7 by the self-described "Republican polling firm" Public Opinion Strategies and trumpeted on the front page of the February 21 edition of the New York Post, conflicts with recent nonpartisan polling; it has also reportedly been dismissed by a Republican pollster as "leading and designed to elicit the answers they got," in the words of blogger Greg Sargent.
The poll asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements. In touting the poll's finding that 57 percent of Americans want to stay in Iraq, Beck was presumably referring to a question asking respondents if they agreed with the statement: "I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people." Fifty-seven percent of respondents agreed, while 41 percent disagreed.
According to Sargent, Republican pollster David E. Johnson, CEO of the Strategic Vision polling firm, criticized the poll as not being of "the quality we've come to expect from national polling firms" and specifically described the aforementioned poll statement as problematic. Johnson said the question was "designed to elicit a positive response by putting respondents in the position of saying that they don't support 'finishing a job.' ... It's not a straightforward wording at all. It's also put in the first person to personalize it. In polling when you use the first person you generally get a more positive response."
The poll also asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with such statements as:
- "Even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war. (56 percent agreed, 43 percent disagreed)
- The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq. (53 percent agreed, 46 percent disagreed)
- The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism. (57 percent agreed, 41 percent disagreed)
- Victory in Iraq, that is creating a young but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home, is no longer possible for the US. (43 percent agreed, 53 percent disagreed)
- I don't really care about what happens in Iraq after the US leaves, I just want the troops brought home. (25 percent agreed, 74 percent disagreed)
Johnson also argued that the wording of the poll's statement "Victory in Iraq, that is creating a young but stable democracy in Iraq and reducing the threat of terrorism at home, is no longer possible for the US" was "completely unprofessional" because"[i]t's designed to confuse the respondent. People are being asked whether two different things can be accomplished -- establishing democracy in Iraq and reducing the threat of terrorism at home -- and [the question] doesn't clarify which one people are talking about."
Further, recent nonpartisan polls yielded results that conflict with the Public Opinion Strategies poll. For instance, a Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, conducted February 7-11, asked respondents to indicate whether "the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized" or "bring its troops home as soon as possible." The majority, 53 percent, responded that the "U.S. should bring its troops home." The Pew poll also asked: "Do you think the war in Iraq has helped the war on terrorism, or has it hurt the war on terrorism"; 47 percent indicated that they believed the Iraq war has "hurt the war on terrorism." Further, the Pew poll found that 55 percent were more "concern[ed]" that "the U.S. will wait too long to withdraw its troops from Iraq," rather than "leave Iraq before a stable democracy is in place." According to the Pew poll, 47 percent of respondents said that the United States will "probably" or "definitely fail in establishing a stable democratic government in Iraq," versus 44 percent who said they thought the United States would "definitely" or "probably succeed."
Beck did not note that Public Opinion Strategies is a Republican polling firm. Following the November 2006 midterm elections, the firm issued a press release describing itself as a "Republican polling firm" and carried the headline, "Public Opinion Strategies Mourns Republican Losses, Congratulates Many Individual Winners in Tough Races."
From the February 21 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: You know, everybody is talking today about how Britain has decided to withdraw 1,600 troops from Iraq. But the surprising part of the story, at least for me, is that they only have 7,000 troops left there in the first place. They've been withdrawing people for years. We're sending three times as many as part of this surge alone.
Denmark -- also withdrawing their entire contingent of 450 troops. Lithuania -- seriously considering its troop withdrawal of 53. How will we ever go on without Lithuania? By the way, anybody mention that Australia is upping their commitment?
Now, when it comes to Great Britain, I don't believe this is an abandonment but rather a sign of hope. As Iraqi troops take control, foreign troops leave. That's been the plan all along, hasn't it? Let international troops make the country safe, then go home.
A new poll today shows that 57 percent of Americans want to stay in Iraq and finish the job, until we win the war. Man, thank you. Thank you, America. Sounds like a plan. I couldn't agree with more.
But understand this: We will have to win this war. Not Great Britain, not Denmark, not Lithuania, certainly not the weasels in France. It has always been on our shoulders.
We won the war, Glen. No more WMDs (that part was easy), no more Saddam. Constitution. Elected government. The war's over. We won.
But wait, there's more!
Continue calling it a "war" and we'll also throw in billions upon billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money! Perfect for stashing in that offshore 'subsidiary' and away from the eyes of Uncle Sam!
This offer is limited to the first 5,000 Bush crony companies!
ORDER NOW!!!
What a scumbag!
It wasn't long ago that we were told by our leaders of the importance of the commitment made by Denmark, Lithuania and the others who made up the "Coalition of the Willing".
Now it's OK to mock them. Glenn Beck is a disgusting maggot and everyone who has supported this fiasco in Iraq should come down on him like a ton of bricks for his insensitivity.
I heard El Rushbo citing this propaganda poll, but he took it a step further.
His analysis was that America (meaning Republicans) are in favor of Victory, and it's only Democrats (meaning a handful of politicians) who aren't on board, and are hoping for defeat.
He said "defeat-o-crats," right?
He probably did say "defeat-o-crats", and probably in a comical effeminate whiny voice that lets the dittoheads know which side the he-men are on. Grrrrrr.
"...hoping for defeat".
In response to the A-holes who keep screaming 'cut and run' and 'hoping for defeat', etc... They should be faced with a 'Put up or shut up" policy. Beck should devote himself personally to this war. I'm sure (being part of a Mormon) family, there are any number of bright, young people in his extended family who should be enlisted and sent off to fight this so-called 'war'.
These guys are loud-mouthed cowards to the nth degree. It's easy to follow the power and be a cheerleader. Beck and his faux-independent thinker guy bit is no exception.
Beck would be a great soldier if you could defeat an enemy with pinheaded blather.
Yeah... he's like the Andy Taylor of our day... but, dumb.
"Hey! I'm just a regular guy...but, what's with all defeatists out there!" ugh.
Glenny turned 43 the other day so he missed his shot at real glory.
Looks like he'll have to be like the rest of the far right media chickenhawk loons and cling to his imaginary glory.
He'd probably be 4-F anyway. He seems to have some kind of brain defect that makes him say insane things for an hour a day.
- - worrierking / Friday February 23, 2007 03:31:42 PM EST
Wow...and you call Glenn Beck a hate monger.Let me get this straight, you think that it's OK for someone to sell an unpopular war to the American people, cheer that war on from the sideline as it goes to hell, and then insult our allies?
Beck's behavior is an insult to each country that sent people to fight this war and is insulting to anyone who in over there now fighting.
"It has always been on our shoulders."
Just guessing, but maybe that's because it was our (bad) idea in the first place?
Every right wing radio host and pundit/charlatan has been touting the poll since its release. These liars will do anything to rinse the blood off their hands and conscience including wiping it on the backs of the public.
Here's a thought that is only slightly off topic: If the MSM spent half as much time analyzing the Iraq War and how we got into it as they have spent analyzing the death of Anna Nicole Smith, bastards like Beck wouldn't be able to get away with sh*t like this.
The Iraq War is the negative image of Anna Nicole's baby: it has many fathers, but none wants to claim it.
The Iraq War is the negative image of Anna Nicole's baby: it has many fathers, but none wants to claim it.- rusty shackleford
Who are you, Oscar Wilde all of a sudden? Make with the puns and Gravelocity already.
Exactly, it was amazing that MSNBC dedicated an entire hour at 10pm every night to this ridiculous story, as well as Gretta and the CNN group.
Absolutely. It passed the point of absurdity two weeks ago. It seems that every time I turned on a "news" channel, there was Anna Nicole showing off her armpits, or that stupid Judge blathering about what he wore to play tennis. And we're at war? Who could guess?
I strongly feel Americans do not want to discuss the war or even talk about it. We are a nation at a critical time right now. We as a nation feel better watching Anna Nicole or Brittney Spears instead of confronting our real problems with Iraq and war criminal Administration. However we are happy driving our SUVs around wasting gas and listening to our IPODS.
It is disgusting.
According to the rules of consumerism, the consumption society is to be neo-natalized into a state of anxious childishness. Big matters such as war and economics are to be beyond the scope of the average consumer. His or her function is merely to be anxious about not having as much as the neighbour or the people on tv and constantly engaged in non-stop consumption of anything the corporate world decides to give them. The consumer is not to question, not to think about things, merely to consume, consume, consume. He or she is to have the mind of a impatient greedy child, who will buy on command.
This is what corporate America and it's hordes of ad men and behavioural psychologists are trying to turn us into, a nation of easily-led and easily-misled children, all happily trotting off to Disneyland, buying more Coca-Cola and waving the flag for victory as our soldiers kill and die in some foreign land for corporate profits.
America...where 1984 meets Brave New World.
I think part of what's happening here is that the Troglodytes see this as a chance to erase the "shame" of Vietnam. They think that we cut and ran back then, and should have stayed until another 50,000 Americans had died. They've bought into the John Wayne myth and think that war is some kind of video game.
what? C'mon people... can't you just read the questions as worded and decide for yourselves if they are worded fairly or not? Since when does 'blogger' constitute credibility of any form? IMHO the questions are fair. If you do not think the US should finish the job, then say so. I think the troops have done all they can given their rules of engagement and the desire by the residents for the US to leave.
What is so wrong with any of the questions asked? Turn of the hatred goggles for a moment and focus on the survey. Anyone care to reword the question to make it more 'fair'?
Cannonballs, turn of the Rush Limbaugh glasses and get a clue. Do you see an inherent contradiction in this statement from the article cited:
While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq ("creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home") is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it's still possible, while 43 percent disagree.
Take your time; it's a little tricky. Let me help you. 60 percent believe that Iraq will NEVER become a stable democracy. Yet, 53 percent say it's still possible to achieve victory, which is defined as creating a young, but stable democracy in Iraq. HUH?
Either the pollsters or respondents had their heads up their asses on that one...maybe both.
Sure, Nerzog. That makes sense when you're wearing your hatred goggles.Try it with an Excellence in Broadcasting head clamp on.
Of the five "statements" listed in this item, the most "disagreeable" (74% disagreed) was this one:
"I don't really care about what happens in Iraq after the US leaves, I just want the troops brought home."
How clever is that... as has been pointed out, of course the "statement" is in the first person, making it personal...
This particular personal "statement" begins with something that just about everybody would check themselves from, if they found themselves alsmost saying:
"I don't really care about what happens in Iraq after the US leaves"
...which being the first part of the "statement", has the respondent all but assured of disagreeing... then BANG here comes the part of the "statement" that you've been baited into disagreeing with:
"I just want the troops brought home"
Now just why didn't these weasels pull out all the stops, and reach as far as they could, and claim that 74% of the respondents disagreed with (only 25% agreed with) this "statement":
"I just want the troops brought home"
Why didn't they? Because that's reaching too far... that exposes the well-crafted trickery of the "statements"... because then even a fool could see that the respondent was baited into saying he/she disagreed with wanting "the troops brought home" by way of disagreeing with:
"I don't really care about what happens in Iraq after the US leaves"
The other "statements" do a similar thing, by baiting the respondent with agreeable phrases ("victory in Iraq") with disagreeable ones ("is no longer possible for the US"), and in between squeezing in the Bush administration's cover ("creating a young but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home") for the scheme of lies and death and greed they have hatched to loot hundreds of billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury.
And as for the flat "statement":
"The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism"
...and this "poll's" claim that 57% of the respondents agreed with that "statement"?
I say that's a lie!
57% of the respondents did not agree with that "statement", it's a lie to say they did.
I know it... it's a lie.
The Bush administration only wishes that were true...
...the Bush administration only wishes the American People were not onto their scheme of lies and death and greed.
If 57% of the respondents truly agreed with that "statement", then just how was it that the American People turned over the Congressional leadership this past election?
That would never had happened, if 57% of the American People believed the foolish "statement" that:
"The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism"
It's a lie.
I am wondering if cannonball even read the MMFA article and its attached links, or was it hard to see them through the "hate goggles."
OK, how about this for a fair question: "Do you support finishing the job in Iraq enough to volunteer to do a tour yourself, that is, staying there personally 12-18 months or until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people?"
Great question. It should be asked.
It's easy for clowns like Beck to support this war. All it takes is a mouth. I doubt this war would have even started if those who sold it had to risk their lives or the lives of their kids.
Great name too Mr. B.
Actually, that's a really stupid question. People either support the Military or are against it. We have the military to fight wars, protect our country and help other countries when needed. Saying "YOU do it instead..." is juvenile.
The topic and the question have nothing to do with supporting the military. Support for the war and support for those who we've sent to fight it have been conflated by people like Beck. This thread is supposed to be about the discredited poll that Beck and the others are using to drum up support for this war.
Wanting to bring our forces home as soon as possible is showing support for the troops.
Yes America, thank you!! Thank you for sending your sons and daughters to a war I refuse to participate in. I wish I could, but my duty is here, behind a microphone for 3 full hours per day. And its hard work...but I believe that unless I fight the enemy here...they will follow us...uh, scratch that.
So thank you America, thank you for sending your kids to a war we must win. I'll be here, in my nice comfy office, cheering them on...unless they're Muslims.
Glenn Beck
PS - Real Americans don't need body armor anyway...do they?!
Beck has a nephew in Iraq. I have a brother-in-law in Iraq. You can easily support the troops and a war without being in the military. Your statement is silly. I guess none of you can talk about professional sports or politics for real then since none of you are actually employed in either field, right? What a b.s. argument...
Free speech lets us say what we want, and everyone, including the far left, should thank soldiers for defending this very freedom.
Yeah, Saddam was a real threat to our freedom of speech.
yes, he was. especially when he was helping/enabling the training of terrorists that want to kill Americans. Now that he is gone BadMood I'm-In-a-Jihad has taken his place. If we leave Iraq now, Iran moves in, consolidates, makes friendly with Syria and then we have a bigger enemy. What should we do then?
Personally I'd love our troops to pull out immediately. This would enable the scenario above and I'm sure in no time we wouldhave plenty of reason to bomb the heck out of them. But I suppose you'd rather wait until they strick first. Sorry, I mean strick again.
I guess the only way the left will understand this is to wait for the day that a bio weapon or nuke goes off in the US. Then you will all be whining... "why didn't the government protect us?" There is a bigger picture out there that some of you need to think about.
I scanned your rant. Yawn. I've read better over at Little Green Noballs.
I guess you didn't like it pointed out to you that Saddam was no threat to our constitutional freedoms. Oh, and Iran isn't either. They don't have the power.
Now back to your frothing.
Victory in Iraq, that is creating a young but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home, is no longer possible for the US.
You know, I have come to expect as much from the "non-partisan" Beck. He's a right-wing talking head, so I'm not real surprised.
It is troubleing, however, that pollsters, who are supposed to actually be non-partisan, try to influence policy by employing shifty polling tactics, as Public Opinion Strategies (aptly abbreviated POS) has in this case. As a member of the consumer research industry, and as someone who has worked with POS in the past, I am personally appalled. Presenting leading and/or loaded questions to a respondents is amateurish, and I know that they are not amateurs, so something else is clearly going on here. This poll might have some merit if it were merely a survey of the effectiveness of different pro-war messages, meant to aid the policy and PR of the Bush administration. But the poll has absolutely no place being used as a barometer of public opinion, as POS, the Post and Beck have done.
These survey questions are akin to propaganda in their own right. Implying that one's opinion (or even an outright falsehood) is a fact is unethical and just plain bad research. Here's an analogy from the entertainment industry:
Q. "Would you support watching the movie From Justin to Kelly, which is a cinematic masterpiece?"
or better yet
Q. "Would you support watching the movie From Justin to Kelly, winner of the Academy Award for best picture?"
This would clearly be ridiculous, right? Making the claim that victory in Iraq would reduce the threat of terrorism at home is not only NOT a fact, it has been a Bush administration talking point from the outset of the Iraq conflict. You would have to wonder about the interests and motivations of the person writing the Justin and Kelly questions, and the same could be said of the POS survey.
What a great comedian. He always seems to be right on target with his opinions. How could anyone NOT like the guy?
Hey ProudChristian,
if I didn't know better, I'd say you're moving out of the "slow" third of the country.
You seem to be at that point where " Rush/ BilldO/Sean/Glenn is right" turns to "he's just a comedian, don't take him seriously".
It's like a baby step. Not ready to admit you've been fooled, just to say you've been joking.
Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case, ignore this.
What are you talking about? I've like Glenn Beck since I first heard him on knew in the bay area. I've listened to his Christmas special and seen him in concert and shook his hand. He isn't the same religion as me, but he is very compassionate to those who deserve it. Unlike some who pick-and-choose who they are compassionate towards.
So, in essence, I'm tired of argueing with people who have no compassion. People who have no ability to understand logic and I'm just going to watch as everyone else argues and laugh at those who are idiots. I might chime in every now and then. On the last MS thread I wasted a lot of time pointlessly argueing with a bunch of dolts who have no clue.
If he's so compassionate, why is he so eager to get people killed?
Because some people deserve to die.
"but he is very compassionate to those who deserve it. Unlike some who pick-and-choose who they are compassionate towards."
If the above statement is what constitutes logic in your mind, then I forgive you for enjoying G. Beck. You obviously can't help yourself.
I can only assume you fill your days laughing at yourself.
By the way you might want to drop the "e" from "argueing" - kind of an ironic post when you think about it.
Not only are you a COMPLETE moron. Your projection is working at a white hot intensity like that of the interior of the Sun. I would get that you are HERE because you got tired of arguing with those who have no compassion and no capacity for logic at say Freeperland, so you came here. Then I remember that you come HERE and argue without a hint of compassion, in anything you say and a clear congenital inability to even RECOGNIZE logic much less use it. My housecat knows more about Quantam Mechanics than you do about logic. I have seen you support continued torture. Congratulations, you have taken the Stupid Train to a whole new destination.
you are probably the most evil person who posts on this site. never showing anyone compassion unless you decide they deserve it. that's fine in your world (liberal la la land) but in the real world you would not be allowed to run a used shoe shop. you have the ability to organize homeless encampments into a circle, but beyond that, there is no compassion in your soul. it's obvious you are unemployed (and no one will hire you) or else your hate of all those around you would be a little more tempered. perhaps one day your be able to secure a decent job and not live off the governments dime every single waking minute.
I would say it makes sense you would think that but using the term think when posting about you is a non sequitar. You have no ability to think never having aquired the requisite equipment. Actually I have had the same job for 30 years a very good job that pays very well along with allowing me to contribute to society. YOU on the other hand would obviously be challenged running a lemonade stand or teaching finger painting to the OTHER challenged children in your class. I am sure in your sad and pathetic world it is fine for YOU to tell us we have no compassion, no ability to understand logic , are idiots and a bunch of dolts. Then get upset that we have the audacity to treat you the way you treat us. Its so pathetic of you to snivel like a little girl at how you are maligned after a nasty, rude and unbelievably ignorant post like you just regurgitated ONCE AGAIN. Get over yourself, you arent a martyr, just a snivelling moron that hates it when you get back what you dish out. Its so piteous to watch you project in our general direction the very characteristics you so OBVIOUSLY exhibit with your every weak and pathetic post
well, that shows you are ultra liberal. you lie (30 years/good job) and you have a fetish for little girls. you don't post a message EVER without mentioning little girls at least once, sometimes more. that could explain your undending support for some of the left most prized possessions when it comes to women's rights. next you'll be mentioning little boys or other such drivel. thanks for being so predictable. you're just too liberal to pull any surprises on anyone.
now, back to beck. how could liberals not like beck? he pokes fun at virtually the entire republican party, along with much of the democratic party. oh, I know what it is...he is a recovering alchoholic and is very religious. there is nothing the liberal mind hates more than 'former' druggies and that is a religious person. I'm proof of that, the only reason half of you don't like me is because I have a religious word in my handle. other than that, you know nothing about me. for all you know I'm solons abused son/daughter. so glenn beck is doing everyone a service by showing the vial hatefulness of the liberal party. and believe me, if anyone from the outside world ever came in and read some of your posts, they would agree you liberals are vial hateful people. NEVER a good word, NEVER support for one another. keep up the good work solon, you are a shining example of liberals best minds....hatefulness, vial, weak, pathetic.
Wow, PC, you've usurped the Whiny Far-Right Christian Martyr Crown from Anotheramerican. I wouldn't have thought that was possible.
Wow, you set the stupid bar higher with every post. I am not lying, its a fact I hired out on this job in March of 1977, simple fact. YOU are so stupid you really believe you have amazing mind reading powers but what it is rather is you make up this delusional fantasy in your head and judge everything by how it fits into that deluusional fantasy. Its NOT mind reading its cultivated stupidity. YOU do not create reality by simply stating what you WISH were true you just lie to yourself. You just add to the vast total of your delusions. Its what you do. Its sad and pathetic but its all you have. Another delusions is that I attack you because of the religious part to your nick, more blatant ignorance. I am a Christian so why would I care about who else is? Its that needy part of you wanting to be a martyr again. You are so desperate to be seen as picked on that you think even when YOU start the attacks as I showed in my last post its STILL because of your religion we treat you the way you treat us. It also seems like its YOU that has the little girl fetish which is why you keep ACTING like one. Projection is your one trick pony. I guess because you are far to dumb to actually craft an original thought and make a cogent argument. I never get why you ignorant wingnuts think you have the exclusive franchise on personal attacks. Maybe its because you have so little ability to think for yourself that you just mimic your propaganda parrot superiors. The Becks, Limbaughs and Hannities of the world just make things up, state them as facts and say rude things about liberals and you dont understand why you dont get away with doing the same thing. I mean Limbaugh does it, you dons see anyone getting mad when he does so you dont understand why WE dont just take it lying down when you do it to us. Its not going to happen. You come in here and tell us we are uncompassionate idiots and dolts I am coming back at you. I couldnt care less what you think about it. It amuses me to do so. Dont think you are fooling us by the way. The reason you gave up debating the issues had NOTHING to do with the quality of our logic and the fact you got tired of us wiping the floor with you day after day and showing that a reasonably bright ten year old has a better grasp on the issue and logic itself than you have ever shown in any post you have ever made. Now we get your petulance. We took you to school, pounded your weak and pathetic rightwing talking points into mulch and you didnt like it so you gave up and decided to go for insults and a new brand of stupidity. You are free to do what you want but dont expect us to just take it. You throw the mud expect a faceful back
Solon.. why are you so hateful? Seriously. Most of your posts are nothing but name calling and insulting to anyone that you disagree with.
PC, if you're trying to elicit some compassion by mentionng that you went to see Glenn Beck in concert, nice job. (8^O
Hannity also harped such a poll, but refused to ID it, he moved his lips and lied!
Finally a poll asks the pertinent questions...beyond the dumbass questions like "should we bring the troops home" "should we reduce the numbe of troops" "should we get out of Iraq".
Almost everyone wants to bring the troops home and resolve the Iraq situation...we don't need polls to answer those questions. The pandering use of those polls by mmfa and other anti-war supporters is a hollow analysis...that's why mmfa and its supporters have squealed about this revealing poll.
This poll is the same as any other poll. It's results are determined by the framing of the questions.
For example, ask a large group of people if they like higher taxes and two-thirds will respond in the negative. Ask them if they would like universal health coverage even if it meant higher taxes and two-thirds would respond in the affirmative.
Polls, unless they are framed in neutral language, if that is even possible, will reflect the bias of the pollsters. Besides when did right-wingers start religiously tracking poll numbers. Limbaugh et al convinced me during the Clinton years that following polls exposed a lack of character, a lack of leadership ability. What gives?
- This poll is the same as any other poll. It's results are determined by the framing of the questions. - roundhouse
That's a big 10-4...couldn't agree more. Polls are not news...they are agenda driven to create news by political operatives and the lame media.
Polls do not alter the beliefs of those that have core values...be they right or left. All of the blathering about these impotent polls don't affect my values and I bet they don't affect yours either.
mmfa is one of the worst offenders of this pandering...and yes, I will cite poll results in the frame of a discussion...but in the end they are meaningless when you pull the curtain and vote your convictions.
Wow, that's nifty. We are in agreement and yet the world has not ended.
No pertinent questions were asked. Do you want to win in Iraq? Do you think puppies are cute and cuddly? Push poll, no content
Thanks for the help.
- Do you think puppies are cute and cuddly? Push poll, no content -
Asking if you think jpuppies are cuddly and if you want our troops home from Iraq have the same significance...NONE.
mmfa is one of the real champions of using senseless poll data to push their liberal agenda...and then squeal like a pig under a gate when another senseless poll is used against their cherished agenda.
Obvious and laughable.
Except MMFA doesnt use polls to push a position what they point out is when media personalities take positions they cannot possibly defend and are at least to some extent contradicted by what evidence IS out there. When MMFA starts saying we ought to pursue a specific policy BASED on these polls, THEN you will have a point.
Of course mmfa pushes specific positions...they do it every single day...it's called liberalism. You and I both know that your statement is ridiculous.
They have pushed their anti-war rhetoric for months with this phony agenda driven polling data...about cute puppies.
To claim that mmfa does different is really dishonest.
No they dont and no they havent. They point out the distortions the conservative media is pushing, that is not the same thing. Cough up an example of MMFA ADVOCATING any position on the war, NOT pointing out the fallacies of rightwingers taking the opposite position, again NOT the same thing. It is YOUR assertion that is ludicrous on the face of it not mine.
Better yet, show me a MMFA post that is critical of anything on the liberal side of the aisle. Don't even try to defend this site as one that is non-biased or non-partisan. There's PLENTY of stuff they could be posting about the inconsistencies or ambiguity of statements made by the left. I just don't see it posted here.
Wow! So, we have a "campassionate" Christian using a phrase like "liberal party," what ever that means who gets flustered and accuses a member of the forum of basically being a pedophile because he can't think of anything else to say?
The poll was skewed to get the intended results. It's like listening to another Dick Cheney out-of-body experience with reality.
It's old road we drive on in saying that the likes of Beck and Limbaugh and Hannity and Snow and Cheney and Bush and even Bill Clinton avoided military duty like the plague. Don't get me started on those hermaphrodites Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter.
If you haven't figured it out by now, there's big money in telling people how stupid they are. I mean, Republican comedians like Limbaugh and Michale Savage are the neo-con equivalents of Don Rickles, you hockey puck! Nevermind the familiar right-wing whine that liberals treat blacks and other minorities as children, therefore prolonging their agonizing trip to equality.
Let's look at conservative Republicans who are willing to wage war, kill hundreds of thousands, maim hundreds of thousands more, drain our treasury and spew hate at the opposition party in order to simply defend George W. Bush.
What the Hell are you guys planning to do for a living after 2008? Oh, that's right! We'll have a Democrat for President. Lots of job security for Republican funnymen.