So, a new paper from these two chaps. Let's see now...should we discuss the association with the Olin Foundation? The critiques on their last outing that had Fox as the most centrist news outlet? Questions, questions.
Another flaw in the analysis of the polls is that most, even those that don't lead to solicit specific answers, usually ask the pollee to choose between "strongly approve", "somewhat approve", "somewhat disapprove", and "strongly disapprove". These are generally reported as simply "approve" or "disapprove" however.
From what I've seen the "strongly disapprove" remains quite stable and no doubt represents those Democrats/partisan lefties who will despise Bush if he should walk on water, cure cancer, magically move all the poor into middle class status, and achieve world peace by Friday. This group regularly polls somewhere in the 30s percentile.
If you add the 'somewhat disapprove' group with the "somewhat approve" and "strongly approve" groups, however, you have a rather substantial majority. Every time I've had a chance to be polled, I have checked the somewhat disapprove category due to my quarrel with Bush over fiscal responsibility and immigration policy.
I would, however, vote for Bush again in a heartbeat over anybody the Democrats have seen fit to put up lately. And I think you'll find that to be the case with a great many of the 'somewhat disapprove' group.
I have nothing to substantiate this with, but I would bet a steak dinner that I'm right.
Foxfyre wrote:I have nothing to substantiate this with, but I would bet a steak dinner that I'm right.
Definitely a good point. There's something falsifying about asking people to distinguish approving or disapproving "somewhat", and then grouping the answers together again in pure categories of (dis)approval.
I for one always assume that anyone who checks that he (dis)approves "somewhat" can still be swayed to the other side - that is, to vote for (or against) the guy/party after all.
That, of course, goes both ways tho. One can "somewhat" approve of a ruling party, but still think its time for change.
By the way: for Rasmussen, for example, the current numbers are:
Bush Job Approval
Strongly Approve 24%
Somewhat Approve 20%
Somewhat Disapprove 15%
Strongly Disapprove 40%
blatham wrote:So, a new paper from these two chaps. Let's see now...should we discuss the association with the Olin Foundation? The critiques on their last outing that had Fox as the most centrist news outlet? Questions, questions.
Well, you could either do that, or just float the question out there as you've done, with no meaning. Your choice.
nimh wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I have nothing to substantiate this with, but I would bet a steak dinner that I'm right.
Definitely a good point. There's something falsifying about asking people to distinguish approving or disapproving "somewhat", and then grouping the answers together again in pure categories of (dis)approval.
I for one always assume that anyone who checks that he (dis)approves "somewhat" can still be swayed to the other side - that is, to vote for (or against) the guy/party after all.
That, of course, goes both ways tho. One can "somewhat" approve of a ruling party, but still think its time for change.
By the way: for Rasmussen, for example, the current numbers are:
Bush Job Approval
Strongly Approve 24%
Somewhat Approve 20%
Somewhat Disapprove 15%
Strongly Disapprove 40%
That 40% is higher than it has been inawhile but Rasussen's 'strongly disapprove' has been consistently in the high 30s. Usually when Bush gets a significant uptick in approval ratings, Rasmussen will qualify that with something like "it is too soon to determine whether this is a significant increase in approval or just statistical noise."
It will be interesting too to see if that 40%, which is significant, holds firm.
Ticomaya wrote:blatham wrote:So, a new paper from these two chaps. Let's see now...should we discuss the association with the Olin Foundation? The critiques on their last outing that had Fox as the most centrist news outlet? Questions, questions.
Well, you could either do that, or just float the question out there as you've done, with no meaning. Your choice.
"Fox as centrist" (claim from their last paper...you can likely find a link from whatever rightwing site you found this recent paper linked from...by the way, which site was it?) is a claim you find without meaning? Odd notion of 'meaning' you have there, tico.
Or perhaps Olin Foundation has no meaning either? Curious again.
Quote:In the 1970s, John M. Olin, one of the country's leading industrialists, decided to devote his fortune to saving American free enterprise. Over the next three decades, the John M. Olin Foundation funded the conservative movement as it emerged from the intellectual ghetto and occupied the halls of power. The foundation spent hundreds of millions of dollars fostering what its longtime president William E. Simon called the "counterintelligentsia" to offset liberal dominance of university faculties and the mainstream media and to make conservatism a significant cultural force. Among the counterintellectuals the foundation identified and supported at key stages of their careers were Charles Murray during his early work on welfare reform, Allan Bloom as he wrote THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND, and Francis Fukuyama as he was developing his "End of History" thesis.
Using exclusive access to the John M. Olin Foundation's leading personalities as well as its extensive archives, John J. Miller tells the story of an intriguing man and his unique philanthropic vision. He gives fascinating insights into the foundation's role in helping the CIA fund anti-Communist organizations during the Cold War and its extensive help to Irving Kristol and others as they moved from left to right to found the neoconservative movement. He tells of the foundation's early and critical role in building institutions such as the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, which served to transform conservative ideas into national policies.
A GIFT OF FREEDOM shows how John M. Olin's "venture capital fund for the conservative movement" helped develop one of the leading forces in American politics and culture.
link
That's a stupid study, Tico. Why? Becuase it makes no mention of the fact that Fox News puts Liberal guests/liberal think tanks on, and then proceeds to make fun of and insult them the whole time while advancing a strictly conservative viewpoint.
To call Brit Hume 'balanced' is a joke. There's no balance if you don't treat both viewpoints fairly, which Fox verifiably does not.
Cycloptichorn
<chuckle> Its comforting to see the Bushophobes maintaining the same grip on reality that has brought their favored candidates and initiatives their past decade's worth of electoral success. Great job, kids - keep it up; its working real well.
Apparently you live in a world where facts are trumped by ideology, Timber; but we've known that for a long time. It's a common failing amongst your peers in the Republican party.
Unfortunately, the common failing amongst my peers in the Democratic party seems to be much the same thing, so....
Cycloptichorn
timberlandko wrote:<chuckle> Its comforting to see the Bushophobes maintaining the same grip on reality that has brought their favored candidates and initiatives their past decade's worth of electoral success. Great job, kids - keep it up; its working real well.
Actually, timber, it is. The majority of americans have joined the rest of the world in windexing their eyeballs and thus, no longer trusting your boy and his pals to be either truthful or competent (as to 'compassionate', that's just a howler now).
Quote:The definite highlight of this morning's news conference is the little Freudian slip: "Saddamosama." That's good stuff. Worth a chuckle.
Wonkette gets it right, as usual.
Cycloptichorn
What do you get when you add...
the war on christmas
+
townhall
?
Quote:... When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian, agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the ACLU, at the forefront.
... But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society; it's been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. For example, the hatred spewed towards George W. Bush has far less to do with his policies than it does with his religion. The Jews voice no concern when a Bill Clinton or a John Kerry makes a big production out of showing up at black Baptist churches or posing with Rev. Jesse Jackson because they understand that's just politics. They only object to politicians attending church for religious reasons.
... It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/BurtPrelutsky/2005/12/08/178211.html
blatham is posting articles from townhall.com on the Bush supporters' thread
We're making progress.:wink:
I did a little research,and found something interesting.
During WW2,there was a propagandist named Tokyo Rose.
She spewed propogand at American troops in the pacific therter.
She had 3 main points that she constantly repeated.
1.That the President (FDR) had lied about why we were at war.
2.That we could not win
3.That the war was so that corporations could make money,nothing more.
Now,after the war,she was arrested by US forces,and because she was an American citizen,she was charged with and convicted of treason.
Now,while I wont make any accusations,arent there some Democrats saying those exact same things?
I find that interesting.
Newsmax | December 19 2005
During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.
On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."
But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.
In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:
"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."
NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."
Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."
Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.
The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."
One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.
Still, the Times repeatedly insisted on Friday that NSA surveillance under Bush had been unprecedented, at one point citing anonymously an alleged former national security official who claimed: "This is really a sea change. It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."
Now my question...
Why didn't the left complain about this?
We KNOW that Bush was trolling for terrorists,what was Clinton looking for?
mysteryman wrote:I did a little research,and found something interesting.
During WW2,there was a propagandist named Tokyo Rose.
She spewed propogand at American troops in the pacific therter.
She had 3 main points that she constantly repeated.
...
Quote:Tokyo Rose is something of an urban legend -- a fictional person cobbled together from scraps of real history. There's no proof that such a woman existed, although one woman was convicted of treason as Tokyo Rose.
During World War II, American soldiers dubbed the female broadcasters on Japanese radio, "Tokyo Rose." It was a name invented by the soldiers -- U.S. government research never found evidence of a person named Tokyo Rose in radio programs anywhere in the Pacific. The voice of Tokyo Rose was said to have taunted Allied forces during the war, hurting morale.
Iva Ikuko Toguri is the woman who was tried as Tokyo Rose. She is a first-generation Japanese-American who happened to be visiting a sick relative in Japan in 1941. When war was declared between Japan and the U.S., Toguri was trapped in Japan and pressured by Japanese military police to renounce her American citizenship. She refused. Instead, she learned Japanese and took two jobs to support herself while she sought a way to return home.
One of her jobs was as a typist for Radio Tokyo. There she met American and Australian prisoners of war who were being forced to broadcast radio propaganda. Toguri scavenged black-market food, medicine, and supplies for these POWs. When Radio Tokyo wanted a female voice for their propaganda shows, the POWs selected Toguri. She was one of many female, English-speaking voices on Radio Tokyo, and she took the radio name of "Orphan Ann." Her POW friends wrote her scripts and tried to sneak in pro-American messages whenever possible.
After the war, several reporters went to Japan to find and interview the infamous Tokyo Rose, offering a large cash payment for an interview. A woman at Radio Tokyo pointed the reporters to Iva Toguri, and Toguri, thinking that she and her new husband, Felipe d'Aquino, could use the money, agreed to be interviewed. She even signed a contract stating that she was the infamous Tokyo Rose. A reporter gave the interview notes to U.S. Army Counter Intelligence, and in 1945, the U.S. arrested and imprisoned Toguri in Japan. She was released in 1946, but was arrested again in 1948, and taken to the U.S. to be tried for treason.
Her trial was considered the most expensive in American history at that time. The U.S. government stacked the deck against Toguri and her meager defense, and the judge later admitted he was prejudiced against her from the start. Toguri was found guilty of only one of the eight treason charges -- "That she did speak into a microphone concerning the loss of ships." She was sentenced to 10 years in prison and fined $10,000. Because she was a model prisoner, Toguri was released early in 1956, although she was served with a deportation order which took two years to fight.
In 1976, the TV news show 60 Minutes told the Tokyo Rose story from Toguri's point of view. This led to a full pardon for Toguri from President Gerald Ford in 1977.
Unfortunately, Toguri's husband was never able to join her in the U.S. They reluctantly divorced in 1980, and d'Aquino died in 1996. Iva Toguri currently lives in Chicago where she runs her family's import business.
source
shorter on
wiki or 'Women's history' at
about.com or just look it at WWII history books.
Best exhange of the press conference this morning:
Quote:Q Thank you, Mr. President. So many questions, so little time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, keep your question short, then. (Laughter.)
Ticomaya wrote:Best exhange of the press conference this morning:
Quote:Q Thank you, Mr. President. So many questions, so little time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, keep your question short, then. (Laughter.)
Yes that was good. The President has been on his game lately, and I hope it is doing some good. Of course the media isn't really reporting it. Their commentary today has been pretty much that the President is just giving the same speech over and over. You'd think they'd firgure out that if they were a little quicker, he wouldn't have to do that.
Walter Hinteler has researched Tokyo Rose. He has not shown that some American women did not broadcast propaganda from Japan during World War II. But I am certain that Walter Hinteler is aware of the
