Bush supporters' aftermath thread

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Here's the link to the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE. Do a little careful reading, and I believe you will reach the same conclusion I did. Be sure to read all the way to where they discuss the concern that the NSA would get info under it's warrantless search during a period when the FBI wasn't monitoring due to technical problems.

That's the second time I've read it and I can't come to the same conclusions you have.

I agree the authors are less than crystal clear when they refer to "officials," but I'm really not sure how you can reach any other conclusion based on the way the article is written.

The article refers to "officials" in reference to "[n]early a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight."

As you read the article, those "officials" indicate that Rockefeller had expressed concerns, that the Bush administration views the operation as necessary, that the Bush Administration is confident that existing safeguards are sufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, that the administration had briefed Congressional leaders, that the program "eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time," and that the program helped uncover the Faris plot.

In fact, the "several officials" who talk about the Faris plot seem to be critical of the program, saying "most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime."

The authors do not distinguish those "officials" with any other officials during the article. The article does refer on a couple of occasions to "the White House," and "senior administration officials," but certainly never refers to those folks as "the officials," or "several officials."

Quote:

While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials.

Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said. But they said most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime, including an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

As you read the article, those "officials" indicate that Rockefeller had expressed concerns,

The article, here, says "those officials and others". I find it all very unclear and impossible to draw any conclusion about who said what. But it doesn't matter as even if it is true, it still doesn't make clear that those mentioned incidents could not have been prevented within the established law.

0 Replies

Only a Bushophobe can fail to see the NYT story for the promotional book-teaser that it is, a puff-piece by the author of the soon-to-be-released latest tome of anti-Bush screed. And a special sort of disingenuousness is required to gloss over the obviously considered timing of the article's publication; in reaction to the strengthening of overall polling opinions pertinent to both Iraq in particular and Bush in general, corresponding with Bush's highly effective series of nationally televised talks, and timed both to distract from the stunning success represented by the latest Iraqi elections and to bolster Democratic Senatorial opposition-via-Fillibuster to the renewal of The Patriot Act, while assuring maximum exposure of the article through the Weekend Talk Show cycle.

The surveilance methodology injudiciously disclosed and pejoritively mischaracterized specifically was authorized, as implemented, through The War Powers Act. It is - or was untill its supremely arrogant and likely criminal unmasking - a vital, effective tool in the war against those who mean to harm our Nation and its people. War is by definition an extraordinary circumstance, requiring extraordinary measures. Actions such as this latest unconscionable, self-aggrandizing, obviously commercially promotional, politically motivated ploy on the part of the NYT endanger our troops, embolden our enemies, and place at risk the continued security of our Nation.

Despite the picture presented by Mainstream Media, the economy continues to expand with unpresecedentedly robust strength, the Budget Deficit situation continues to improve beyond all expectation, The War on Terror continues to achieve its aims, Iraq moves by leaps and bounds toward democracy, the advance of liberty is unmistakeable throughout the region and indeed the world, public opinion is swinging back to support for The President, his Administration, and its actions, and The Democratic Party, with its defeat-and-retreat, race-baiting, unfounded, plainly dishonestly presented, class-struggle fommenting leadership mantra, continues to marginalize itself, moving further and further from the Electorate's will and consideration.

The Bush Administration is waging war against the enemies of The US. The NYT, The Democrats, and their fellow Bushophobes are waging war on the Bush Administration. What is called for here is investigation at the highest level into the activities of those who seek actively to interfere with the vital War Effort, and appropriate sanction against those who knowingly aid and abet the enemy.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

public opinion is swinging back to support for The President, his Administration, and its actions

Any consistent numbers to back that up, Timber?

timberlandko wrote:

and The Democratic Party, continues to marginalize itself, moving further and further from The Electorate's will and consideration.

Or that one, for that matter ...

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Only a Bushophobe can fail to see

Just for your info, I stopped reading here. I realize that it was probably addressed to others like you and so you don't care, but just thought you should know.

0 Replies

Just today, I happened to look into the Rasmussen Reports site - one pollster you previously had especially warm words for, Timber.

It has Bush approval at 44%, disapproval at 55%.

Throughout this month, approval has been between 43% and 48%, and disapproval between 52% and 56%. Not much change there; if anything, approval for Bush today is at the low end of those rates.

0 Replies

Trust me, FD, I care very much, and I recognize, understand, and accept the actuality and gravity of the situation.

Nimh, read the polls; the trending over the past few weeks has been news itself. For a fairly readilly trackable indicator, check out Rasmussen. I take the liberty here to remind you of the last dispute between you and I concerning polls and what they indicate and portend.

0 Replies

Looks like we cross-posted, nimh - I do indeed point to Rasmussen, and to not just that pollsters's Presidential Approval Rating - which actually has been fairly consistent over the past several months, but also to the Conumer Confidence Index, The Investor Confidence Index, and the various samplings pertinent to the Iraq situation in particular and The War on Terror in general.

0 Replies

Funny, I just mentioned Rasmussen ... see the post above. No "swing back to support for The President" in that one.

I did pretty well predicting the Presidential elections outcome in '04, if I say so myself ... that is, up untill the very end. It was the enthusiasm of that last climax of the campaign that put me on the wrong foot.

Lesson in that: trust me on the polls - if, that is to say, I'm making my predictions enough time in advance ;-)

0 Replies

And just to mention it - of all the pollsters active throughout the last election cycle, Rasmussen proved most accurate at the end, State-by-State, race by race, office by office, issue-by-issue, and overall General Election.

0 Replies

Well, looks as though we'll continue to agree to disagree politically, nimh - which is cool by me, so long as the endings continue to match my view of the trendings, not yours Mr. Green

0 Replies

BTW, nimh - spend a little time perusing PollingReport-dot-Com; the trending I describe appears clear enough to me there.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

As you read the article, those "officials" indicate that Rockefeller had expressed concerns,

The article, here, says "those officials and others". I find it all very unclear and impossible to draw any conclusion about who said what. But it doesn't matter as even if it is true, it still doesn't make clear that those mentioned incidents could not have been prevented within the established law.

When they say "and others," they are referring to those "other" than "the officials." Thus, when they refer to "officials," they aren't referring to "others."

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I do indeed point to Rasmussen, and to not just that pollsters's Presidential Approval Rating - which actually has been fairly consistent over the past several months, but also to the Conumer Confidence Index, The Investor Confidence Index, and the various samplings pertinent to the Iraq situation in particular and The War on Terror in general.

Oh, thats fine, that you refer to their other polls as well, referring to specific government actions and other indicators of well-being ... that could help you make the point about, say, support going back in his favour on this or that policy or action.

But you were quite adamant about talking of a "swing[..] back to support for The President, his Administration, and its actions" - period. Note the use of the word "and".

Isnt it odd that if support were veritably "swinging" back to the President, himself, it is not reflected by much of a change in his approval rating?

Quote:

BTW, nimh - spend a little time perusing PollingReport-dot-Com; the trending I describe appears clear enough to me there.

Thats funny, I was just looking at that page! Polling Report com, I mean. Hadnt been back there lately again. But I did want to check out the trend you were implying was taking place.

Here's how the polls that have appeared regularly throughout the last three months, as far as this Polling Report page has them listed, have Bush's approval evolving, these past three months ... Detracting "disapprove" numbers from "approve" numbers, you get these numbers:

Code:

BUSH APPROVAL RATINGS, DEVELOPMENT





           FOX    NBC/WSJ CNN/Gallup   Pew  AP/Ipsos



Dec 05     - 9     -16       -13       -16    -15

Nov 05     - 6  

Nov 05     -17     -19       -23       -19    -24

Oct 05     -10               -15/13    -12    -22

Oct 05     -11     -15       -19       -18    -19

Sep 05     - 2               - 5

It looks like NBC/WSJ and Pew basically have the President muddling on without much change, just like Rasmussen had it.

Fox and CNN/Gallup have a distinct, one-time blip downward for the President in early November. That blip's been overcome, but otherwise Bush is pretty much back where he was before - in a bad enough place.

Only the AP/Ipsos poll sees Bush doing clearly better than throughout the past three months. Mind you, thats a leftie poll ;-). There's also the Diageo/Hotline poll, which also supports the "swing back" observation, but which I'd never heard of.

So, three polls that show no progress whatsoever for Bush on the approval front, these past two-three months; two polls that have him stable at some -10 and -15, respectively, bar a one-off downward blip early November; and two polls that do show a swing back to Bush, up to where, in AP's case, he's "only" 15% more disapproved than approved of.

Me thinks your enthused bluster might be a tad premature, Timber...

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

When they say "and others," they are referring to those "other" than "the officials." Thus, when they refer to "officials," they aren't referring to "others."

If you say so.

0 Replies

Quote:

The Bush Administration is waging war against the enemies of The US. The NYT, The Democrats, and their fellow Bushophobes are waging war on the Bush Administration. What is called for here is investigation at the highest level into the activities of those who seek actively to interfere with the vital War Effort, and appropriate sanction against those who knowingly aid and abet the enemy.

Shoot more students! Shoot more students! Shoot more students!

0 Replies

Quote:

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

0 Replies

That's an interesting methodology. It seems that if you did the same study at a time when the Democrats had the majority in Congress you might come up with reverse results.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

That's an interesting methodology. It seems that if you did the same study at a time when the Democrats had the majority in Congress you might come up with reverse results.

Well, the average ADA score in Congress was 50.1. I guess since most Democrats are left wingers, you are probably right.

0 Replies

Quote:

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

[..]

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

It took me a minute to figure this out, but its an interesting approach.

However, I think there a serious flaw thats shown up in the last sentence. It pre-assumes that the American voter bases his choice completely and rationally on the political positions of the lawmaker in question, as they show up in such liberal/conservative measures. But in reality, the voter rewards personality, competence, (perceived) trustworthiness and experience (benefiting incumbents) - and punishes the lack of any of these - as much as any agreement on programmatic issues.

This is often considered to work in favour of conservative forces. Typically, those are more likely to sell themselves on continuity, stability and personal competence, while left-wing forces tend to be more likely to emphasise lofty ideals, the need for change, and ideology over personality. (Thats only a general trend, of course, with plenty of exceptions, probably even more so in America).

It's yielded a common frustration among leftwingers. After all, polls again and again tend to show the voters line up more with their programme points ("rather an improvement of education and health care than tax reduction" is a common example) - and then they go and vote for the other side.

All that just to say that I think the equation here, made for example in this observation, is flawed:

Quote:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The correct phrasing would have been: scored right of the average U.S. lawmaker. How much to the right or left the lawmaker, in turn, stands of the average voter on the respective issues concerned, is actually an open question, and would be worth researching on its own.

Quote:

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

The researchers take a couple of fair shots at media scientists in this article, but a media scientist in turn would never have made the gaffe that the meaning of "a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news" is, "a version of the news that is most similar to popular opinion". Imagine the news broadcast that would have representatively reflected the take of the average German voter in the 1930's to catch on to what the problem here is.

Quote:

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La.

So the average American media is somewhere to the right of Lieberman. Well, that certainly explains why CNN and the like seem so hyper-rightwing to a European viewer ... Razz

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know