When someone makes a decision in politics or government that makes absolutely no sense, it can usually be attributed to “politics”. Roger Simon of The Politico tries to make sense of our sometimes senseless political system today in a column written as if he were explaining our political system to a Martian. Hilarity ensues.

A quick excerpt:

Q We could not help but notice that all the Republican debaters in Simi Valley were white males. Are all Republicans white males?

Yes.

Q Then how do they create more Republicans?

Ah, you have been studying our ways! I was kidding. There are Republicans who are not white and not male. But they are not allowed to run for president.

In a very different, but somewhat related piece, John Moe takes a look at “The Pros and Cons of the Top 20 Presidential Candidates” at McSweeney’s Internet Tendency. Worth a look if you’ve got a couple minutes to kill.

There have been tons of articles over the last year written about how politicians are using Facebook, but it has yet to be determined whether the social networking site is an effective tool for political communication or just another way for college kids to find out about this weekend’s kegger. There are tons of questions that have yet to be answered, including:

• Do Facebook members really engage in politics or are they just putting the equivalent of cyberspace bumper stickers on their profiles?
• Will Barack Obama’s superstar status on the Internet translating into real grassroots support?
• Does Mitt Romney even know that he has a Facebook profile?

The paper, “Expanding the Public Sphere: The Impact of Facebook on Political Communication,” examines these questions and focuses on the ability of Facebook to facilitate political communication between members and extend the messages of political campaigns to a younger audience.

Below is an excerpt from the analysis. Read the full paper here.

Beneva Schulte, a spokesperson for Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd’s Democratic presidential campaign, said, “We’re not waiting for them to come to us; we’re finding them where they live. College students, unless they’re overtly political, don’t go to political Web sites and attend political rallies, so we’re meeting them on college campuses at Harvard and Howard — on Facebook and YouTube.” Facebook’s ability to integrate political communication into a broader social network is what separates it from a campaign web site or Howard Dean’s online organizing efforts. If a candidate’s Web site is like a campaign rally that college students can drive to, then a candidate’s Facebook page is like a campaign rally held right in the middle of campus. The campaigns are bringing their message to where college students live and an increasing portion of the general population is already interacting online.

Even if millions of young Americans are identifying themselves with political groups and taking their political discussions online, none of it matters if they do not take the next step and participate in the real world. Real world political participation can include making financial contributions, participating in political rallies, and, most importantly, voting. Historically, young Americans are the least likely to vote. In 2004, only 46.7 percent of eligible voters ages 18-24 cast ballots, compared with 63.8 percent of all eligible voters. [1] Whether increased political communication on Facebook will actually increase voting rates among younger demographics remains to be seen.

---

[1] Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, November 2004, http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf.

With more polling data coming out on the 2008 campaign coming out every day, I though it’d be useful to post summary of what it takes to accurately report on poll results:

A news report about a public opinion poll needs to have several qualities in order to serve both the public interest and that of the news organization.[1]

The report must be interesting enough to attract general readers and simple enough for general readers to understand. Polls make attractive topics for journalists because the most common results show either 1) a fairly clear winner and loser or 2) a close race. Both make for interesting, easy to write stories. It is rarer to see a journalist tackle in-depth analysis of a poll that takes on multiple aspects of an issue, such as the recent poll of Iraqis done by ABC News, USA Today, the BBC and ARD[2]. If a journalist were to write a story on that poll, he would likely pick out one or two poll questions to focus on.

This simplification is not necessarily a problem. In fact, it can be desirable. If a journalist were to include details on every question in a lengthy poll with careful attention to potential wording bias, sampling size, and methodology, few people would ever read the story. When writing for a general audience, it is better for a journalist to glean the most important facts and relay them with enough detail to assure readers that the poll is credible. While their job is to simplify complex data, it is essential that journalists be educated in statistics and polling methodology. With knowledge of how polling works, a journalist can determine whether the results are valid and whether the story should be on polling results alone or, in rare cases, the motives or shoddy practices of those conducting the poll.

Beyond being straightforward, the report should provide enough detail about the polling methodology for the reader to assess the validity of the results. There are several technical questions that the article should answer:

1) What is the margin of error and confidence interval?

2) What is the sample size?

3) Who is the population being sampled?

4) During what time span was the poll conducted?

Continue reading How to report poll results…

This “Get Fuzzy” strip from November 2005 has taken on a whole new meaning:

Cross-posted at The Proving Ground 

Politicians in America keep saying that we need to turn ideas into action if we want to keep this country great.  They say we need to beef up security if we want to keep our families safe.  According to them, Liberals think that money grows on trees in the yards of taxpayers.

Well, it’s possible that the taxpayer dollars used to pay for the Iraq War, estimated to be over $1 trillion dollars, could have really made an impact if they were put to a different use.

Per John Allen Paulos, a professor of mathematics at Temple University and graduate of the University of Wisconsin, $1 trillion could easily allow the EPA to clean up every environmental superfund site in the U.S. and then some.  It could fund the Department of Education 18 times over and surely, “put muscle into the slogan “No child left behind.”  It could multiply our scientific research hundreds of times and put us years ahead in energy advances to cure our dependency on foreign oil and cure life-threatening diseases.  It could secure nearly every port and chemical plant.  It could even save the lives of million of children across the world dying of what to us are common, treatable illnesses.
Strangely, it seems that it would be almost impossible to convince Congress that any of these endeavors would be a strong investment.
ABC News: Who’s counting: How Iraq’s trillion could have been spent

Crossposted at The Proving Ground

It hasn’t made the front page of U.S. media outlets, but the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) just came out with a report claiming that “Millions of dollars in US rebuilding funds have been wasted in Iraq.” BBC

The report is coming out just as President Bush is asking Congress for Congress to approve $1.2 billion in additional reconstruction aid.

The BBC cites a couple of examples of waste or funds that have gone unaccounted for:

One case involved a payment by the US State Department of $43.8m to a contractor, DynCorp International, for a residential camp for police trainers outside the Adnan Palace grounds in Baghdad. The camp has never been used.

The Iraqi Interior Ministry ordered $4.2m of work there, never authorised by the State Department, that included 20 trailers for important visitors and an Olympic-size swimming pool.

The State Department has said that it is working to improve controls.

Another example cited in the report is $36.4m spent by US officials on armoured vehicles, body armour and communications equipment that cannot be accounted for because invoices were vague and there was no back-up documentation.

On top of millions of dollars in reconstruction aid going unaccounted for, “billions of dollars budgeted for capital projects remained unspent at the end of 2006.” BBC

Democrats have picked up on the report and, “In the House, at least two committees said they planned hearings to examine spending waste and abuse.” NYT

As for the effectiveness of the money the U.S. has spent so far on reconstruction, Special General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen said yesterday that, “billions in U.S. aid spent on strengthening security has had limited effect. He said reconstruction now will fall largely on Iraqis to manage — and they’re not ready for the task.” NYT

Even before the latest reports on U.S. spending in Iraq came out, SIGIR, “was nearly closed down last year by Republicans.” BBC

In November 2006, Republicans in the House Armed Service Committee buried a clause calling for the termination of SIGIR in a massive military appropriations bill.

In the past, the SIGIR investigations “have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.” NYT

The clause was placed in the bill during a closed-door conference. There’s no denying that the elimination of SIGIR was intended to go under the radar. “The one thing I can confirm is that this was a last-minute insertion,” said Susan Collins (R-ME). NYT

With Democrats in control of Congress, the office will continue oversight of the war at least through 2008.

In case you’re wondering, Stuart Bowen isn’t some liberal watchdog bent on ruining the reputation of the Bush Administration. Before he served as Special Investigator General for Iraq Reconstruction, Mr. Bowen, “served President George W. Bush as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Staff Secretary and Special Assistant to the President and Associate Counsel. He has been a partner at the law firm of Patton Boggs LLP, in its Washington, D.C. office. Before his White House tenure, Mr. Bowen served as Counsel to the Bush-Cheney transition team; and from 1994 to 2000, he held a variety of positions on Governor George Bush’s staff in Texas, including Deputy General Counsel, Deputy General Counsel for Litigation, and Assistant General Counsel.” Wikipedia

Journalist Ed Harriman has been following the American audits of spending in Iraq and gave some insight on the current situation in an interview yesterday with BBC World Today Select:

BBC: Do you have a sense that the current Iraqi administration is better at keeping an eye on this type of thing than it’s predecessors?

Harriman: Oh no, not at all. And people are very distraught in Iraq at the moment because the government has become almost entirely unaccountable. What’s really interesting is that the American embassy in Baghdad seems to be unaccountable as well. And that’s after almost four years of the occupation…

BBC: Is it possible to calculate finally how much money is missing, one way or another?

Harriman: There are guesstimates because you never really get to the end of it because crooks are very good at hiding what they steal. But, we’re certainly talking about tens of billions of dollars.

Harriman’s findings have been published in a series of three articles in the London Review of Books:

Where has all the money gone? – 7.7.05

Cronyism and Kickbacks - 1.26.2006

The Least Accountable Regime in the Middle East – 2.7.2006

Sources:

BBC: U.S. money is ‘squandered’ in Iraq

BBC: World Today Select Podcast

NYT: Dems decry report of wasted Iraq aid

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana has announced he won’t be running for president in 2008.  I’m a little surprised since Bayh has been working hard over the last couple years to establish himself as a moderate voice in the Democratic field.  I’m guessing his decision was partly prompted by all the attention Barack Obama has been getting lately, but Obama hasn’t even announced whether or not he will run.

The way things stand now, I only see three people having a real shot at the Democratic nomination: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.  Each has decent to excellent name recognition and the resources needed to win.  Clinton is obviously way ahead in the money race and has the best network of political operatives, but Obama and Edwards have the advantage of young, idealistic charisma that seems to be lacking in so many politicians these days.

We shouldn’t forget other Democrats who have expressed interest, but they’ll have a rough road ahead.  The other Democratic contenders left are: Kucinich, Kerry, Richardson, Clark, Vilsack, Biden, and Dodd.

A couple months ago, I had thought Warner and Bayh would be two of the last to drop out of the race.  Maybe they know something we don’t.

With the midterms fast approaching, both NBC and ABC have begun blogs devoted to providing daily political updates from their respective pools of reporters.

NBC’s “First Read” is a new take on what used to be their morning on-line update of the day in politics.  “First Read” no longer exists in its previous and has been completely folded into the continually updated blog.

ABC has retained their version of the morning update, “The Note”, and added a blog,”Political Radar“, that will allow for continual updates throughout the day.

We’ll see which one proves to be more popular, but it’s interesting that NBC has conceded the battle for the long-form morning update.

CBS may have Katie Couric… but they’re still lacking the comprehensive political reporting teams of NBC and ABC.

From ThinkProgress:

“I don’t really believe those polls.” – First Lady Laura Bush, on her husband’s sinking approval ratings. Mrs. Bush added “As I travel around the United States…A lot of people come up to me and say, ‘Stay the course’.”

Ummm, that’s because no one who disagrees with you is allowed within shouting distance.

And it’s not that Mrs. Bush is saying she doesn’t pay attention to polls, as the President does. She’s saying that she doesn’t believe them. To her, these polls are the James Frey of statistical data — they might as well be fiction.

Reuters: Laura Bush doesn’t believe bad polls on husband

My internship in DC has ended and I’ll be back in America’s Dairyland by the end of the week.  But first, I’ve got to pack and attend ballgames in Baltimore, DC, and Cleveland.  It’ll be a busy week, but I hope to begin some regular posting when I get back on exciting topics like campaign finance reform, the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage and any-combination-sex civil unions in WI, the referendum to bring back the death penalty in WI, the WI Governor’s race, and Brewers Baseball.

As gas prices approach $3.50 a gallon across the country, politicians are scrambling to come up with ideas to lower prices and make Americans happy. They’re scraping the barrel for quick fixes that will appease voters and make it look like they’re taking action.

The only problem is that there are no quick fixes.

As the Washington Post’s Charles Krathammer wrote this morning, the problem is one of supply and demand. When supply goes down or demand goes up, prices rise.

On the demand side, rapidly developing nations like China and India are using more energy than ever before, and subsequently burning more oil. And Americans are still driving SUVs and severely non-fuel-efficient vehicles to pick up the kids at soccer practice.
As far as supply, major hurricanes have disrupted oil refining and ethanol mandates combined with a deficiency in ethanol production have caused fuel shortages in some areas.

Krathammer: Why don’t we import the missing ethanol? Brazil makes a ton of it, and very cheaply. Answer: the Iowa caucuses. Iowa grows corn and chooses presidents. So we have a ridiculously high 54-cent ethanol tariff and ethanol shortages.
Ok, so we know why prices are so high. What do we do about it?

Politicians are calling for investigations into price gouging, but I doubt they’ll find anything. People are outraged that ExxonMobile reported $8.4 billion in first-quarter profits yesterday, but few stop to examine where the profits come from. In a brief segment today, CNN reported that only 1/3 of the $8.4 billion came the U.S., and only about half of that was from gas.

Oil conglomerates are still getting billions in undeserved subsidies from the U.S. government, but they don’t deserve all the blame.

The root of the problem isn’t the oil companies. President Bush has already stated the root of the problem: “America is addicted to oil.”

Supplying the answer?

So far, politicians (especially Republicans) have focused on increasing supply.

They propose drilling for more oil in ANWR, which will help for a few years… but isn’t worth the sacrifice of some of the last pristine landscapes on the planet (I’m a hippie, deal with it).

Some Democrats want to give each family earning under $15,000 a $100 gas rebate to help offset the increased prices.  Such a plan sounds good, but it doesn’t do anything to resolve the long-term problem.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is calling for a temporary repeal of the gas tax amounting in a savings of about $0.18 per gallon. The plan would save taxpayers about $100 million a day. Sounds like a lot, except for the fact that that’s $100 million every day that doesn’t reach the federal government. I would agree with those who say our government has been spending recklessly lately ($300 billion in Iraq, countless earmarks on nearly every spending bill), but this isn’t the way to go about solving the problem. Lobbying and earmark reform is (although those plans are about as dead as John Kerry’s chances of becoming our next president.)

Demand lower prices, new strategies

The only responsible way to solve this problem is to play with the other side of the equation and decrease demand.
The first step: increase efficiency. President Bush actually called on Congress today to increase fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, a request they should heed immediately. (The Washington Post reports, “White House officials said later, however, that they didn’t know when or how the president would use that authority.”)

However, just like the Iowa corn farmers stand in the way of potential ethanol viability (which I’m not convinced of anyway), auto worker unions stand in the way of stricter CAFE standards.

The president also proposed tax incentives to promote the sale of hybrid vehicles. Considering that there are currently tax incentives to buy larger SUVs, I think this would be a pretty good idea.

EVERYONE ignores the fact that all supplies of oil won’t last forever. Experts predict that world oil production will peak within the next five years, so much for increasing supply.

The bottom line

The real short-term solution consists of removing the tariff on Brazilian ethanol, providing investments in and incentives for fuel-efficient vehicles, creating financial disincentives for fuel-inefficient vehicles, changing the law to stop huge subsidies to oil companies (different from taxing windfall profits), developing electric-powered vehicles that can run on energy produced from any energy source.

The real long-term solution is to actually invest in alternative energy sources, especially solar and nuclear power. Anything else is only a stopgap to slow the inevitable expiration of fossil fuels.

WP - Kinsley: Tax the windfall

WP - Krauthammer: Say it with me: Supply and Demand

WP - Mufson and Murray: Profits, prices spur oil outage

Bloomberg - Shlaes: Who’s afraid of $100 a barrel? Only politicians

Gasbuddy.com: Gas temperature map

Since I’ve been too busy to write lately and gas prices are on the rise, it sounds like the perfect time for a “best of TNV” post on the topic.

September 4, 2005: Maybe higher gas prices are exactly what we need

October 28, 2005: Shouldn’t oil company profits be down?

September 18, 2005: What’s up with the gas tax holiday?

Bonus: Will Ferrell: George Bush on Global Warming

Today I attended a press conference announcing the presidential candidacy of former Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK). Just for a little background, he’s the guy who read the Pentagon Papers aloud in the Senate and filibustered the draft during Vietnam. Some might describe him as a maverick, but I’m more inclined to identify him as absurd (in light of his future plans, not his past accomplishments).

Some major planks of the Gravel platform include:

• immediate removal of US troops from Iraq. no timetable, no consideration for a coalition government, nothing. (removing and redeploying US troops is admirable idea, but Gravel’s plan lacks practicality or substantial planning)
• a national legislative initiative to have the population vote on all policy issues
• stripping Congress of the power to declare war and making it a national referendum
• no sanctions against any country, ever
• elimination of the income tax, to be replaced with a national sales tax and annual “prebate” that would account for necessities

If he gets enough backing, Gravel could very well be included in the Democratic debates. He won’t make a great candidate or gain much support, but I think it can be healthy to get a strong voice in the public arena on tax reform and obstacles to electoral participation. Surely each of the issues Gravel brings up merit a serious discussion about reform, even if it won’t result in the extremes that the former Senator from the great state of Alaska might dream about.

The timing of Gravel’s announcement is curious – the 2008 election is over 30 months away all other potential candidates have stated that they’re waiting until after the mid-term elections to announce their decisions. Still, I’d say that Gravel made the right move, especially if he wants to be included in the Democratic debates and cattle calls. Once the first legitimate (sorry Mike) candidate announces later this year, media focus will coalesce around the bigger names, drowning out anyone who hasn’t already worked to establish themselves in the public eye. Gravel said it himself today, he’s currently the official frontrunner.

As they say here in Washington: it’s never too early.

ABC: Teddy Davis devotes today’s AfterNote podcast to the Gravel announcement

AP: Ex-Alaska Sen. Gravel Runs for President

Folkbum writes about ‘08er and former Gov. Mark Warner’s (D-VA) keynote speech at the WI Democratic Party’s Founder’s Day dinner yesterday.

The Journal Sentinel also writes up the event.

A nearly universal health care bill passed easily through the Massachusetts legislature today and is expected to be signed into law by Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA). The law mandates that all Massachusetts residents purchase health care by July 1, 2007.

From the NY Times’ front-page, must-read coverage of the bill:

Individuals who can afford private insurance will be penalized on their state income taxes if they do not buy it. Government subsidies to private insurance plans will enable more of the working poor to be able to afford insurance and will expand the number of children who are eligible for free coverage. And businesses with more than 10 workers that do not provide insurance will be assessed a fee of up to $295 per employee per year.

All told, the plan is projected to cover 515,000 uninsured people within three years, about 95 percent of the state’s uninsured population, legislators said.

Politicians have been talking about a “uniquely American” solution to health care that is somewhere in-between a single payer program and complete privatization. This looks like a great start.

The program is a pet project of Gov. Romney’s that he’s been pushing to get passed before the deadline for additional federal funding expired.

I saw Romney speak about the program when he was in Washington about six weeks ago and it sounds solid. This bipartisan effort will only help his cause moving towards 2008.

State Senator Robert E Travaglini describes the significance of the accomplishment:

“It’s a balanced bill,” said Travaglini, the majority leader. “Whenever you can have the medical community, the business community and the advocates all applauding our efforts, I think that’s indicative of a successful exercise. This is going to be a template for the rest of the nation to follow.”

While you’re in the area, be sure to notice the redesign of the NY Times site.

Here’s my most recent Badger Herald article, complete with exclusive TNV headline:

DNC, NH Dems butt heads

Monday, April 3, 2006

WASHINGTON — More than two and a half years remain before Americans vote for their next president, and potential candidates are already hitting the campaign trail, shaking hands and kissing babies.

But they’re not traveling to the swing states like Wisconsin, Ohio or Oregon or courting support in densely populated areas like New York, Chicago or Southern California. Instead, they’re visiting Iowa and New Hampshire, locations of the nation’s first presidential caucus and primary, respectively.

By the end of April, almost every member of the 2008 presidential field will have visited one of these two states to give speeches and schmooze with state party activists.

In early March, members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee voted 21-1 to allow one or two other states to hold caucuses before the New Hampshire primary. The DNC’s motivation for shuffling the schedule is to increase cultural and geographic diversity early in the nominating process, and a final decision is expected by early fall 2006.

But Kathy Sullivan, chairwoman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, criticized the DNC proposal, as she said it will pack events towards the front of the primary process and prevent candidates from competing in all of them.

New Hampshire’s primary is a “tried and tested” method of vetting presidential contenders, Sullivan said.

“Candidates have to speak to regular voters,” she added.

And in the current nominating process, performance during the first few primaries can make or break a campaign. If a front-runner fails to meet expectations early on, he or she can essentially be knocked out of contention like Howard Dean after he came in third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire during the 2004 campaign.

Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., a probable 2008 candidate, told PoliticsNH.com during his March visit to New Hampshire, “I just think that early in the primary process it makes sense to have more diversity in the process.”

Richardson said the New Hampshire primary would still be “the preeminent event,” even if the DNC added caucuses after Iowa.

Similarly, former Gov. Mark Warner, D-Va., reportedly stated to the New Hampshire Senate Democratic Caucus that the state should always hold the first primary in the nation.

What both Richardson and Warner failed to mention to folks in New England was that, while they support the Granite State primary’s hallowed status, both candidates are investigating ways they could benefit from new caucuses preceding or following the New Hampshire event.

As a westerner with a Latina mother, Richardson would like to see the Democrats add a western contest. And as the former governor of a southern state, Warner would like to see the Democrats schedule a southern contest early in the calendar.

“When they travel to the Granite State, the Democratic ‘08ers are going out of their way to show their fealty to New Hampshire,” ABC News’ Teddy Davis said in an interview with The Badger Herald. “But make no mistake: Behind the scenes, almost all of them have allies on the DNC’s Rules and By Laws Committee, and they are planning to make hay out of whatever calendar the DNC ultimately decides on.”

Wisconsin’s own potential presidential candidate has already stated his view on the issue.

During his September visit to New Hampshire, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told a crowd of fellow Democrats, “of course the first primary should be in New Hampshire.”

George Aldridge, spokesperson for Feingold’s Political Action Committee, said Feingold supports moving other states with more ethnic and racial diversity up in the process, but New Hampshire, he noted, “has something special that’s worth preserving in a historical context.”

If you’re interested, Chris Cillizza and Sylvia Moreno wrote on the same topic in Sunday’s Washington Post (my article had been finished by this point, mind you). They don’t have exclusive quotes from George Aldridge and ABC News’ Teddy Davis though.

Yesterday, a poll by the American Research Group said that Americans favor a censure of President Bush 46% to 44%.

Well, today Rasmussen Reports released their own poll showing that only 38% of Americans favor censure, while 45% oppose it.

How can this be? Scott Shields at MyDD shows that the answer is in the questions:

While Rasmussen is known for being fairly reputable for a partisan pollster, this poll was horribly skewed against censure. Just take a look at the question they asked.

“Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a measure to censure, or publicly reprimand, President Bush for authorizing the NSA wiretapping program. Should President Bush be censured for authorizing the NSA wiretapping program?”

Now compare that with ARG’s question.

“Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?”

The difference is pretty obvious. As Rasmussen frames it, the question is whether or not the President should be publicly reprimanded for authorizing a program. There is no indication that authorizing such a program may be, in fact, against the law. Though it gives at least some information, even the ARG poll is somewhat vague on the topic.

It appears that both questions are at least somewhat biased. The Rasmussen question decidedly omits information about questions regarding the legality of the program. If someone didn’t know the details behind the wiretapping program, why would they want to censure the president simply for authorizing it? Even I might answer “no” to this question… it could easily be about an NSA wiretapping program that falls well within the parameters of established law.The ARG question states that the president authorized the program without obtaining court orders, but that could imply that he should have - and that depends on your point of view.

As Chris observes at MyDD, the true opinion of the American public is probably somewhere inbetween these numbers. But, just to give you an idea of the ideology behind some of Rasmussen’s tactics, here’s their question on the withdrawl of US troops from Iraq:

“Which is more important, getting American troops home as soon as possible or making sure that Iraq becomes a peaceful nation enjoying freedom and democracy?”

It’s interesting to note that the margins of error for the Rasmussen and ARG polls were 4% and 3% respectively. This means that the true results for poll could easily have come within a percentage point of each other. Or, they could be up to 15% points different. Moral of the story: polls are bunk. At least they are when the questions are shoddy.

Update: A Newsweek poll says 42% of Americans favor censure, while 50% oppose.

In my previous post, I wrote that Vice President Cheney criticized Sen. Feingold’s resolution to censure the president, saying that, “The American people already made their decision… They agree with the president.”

Note that the VP doesn’t mention the airtight legality of the program, but what he believes to be the popular opinion of the American public. Following popular opinion would also have us believe that Dancing with the Stars is quality television.

But, if you want to play the popular opinion game, bring it.

Americans actually favor Feingold’s censure of President Bush 46% to 44%, according to a poll by the American Research Group.*

Apparently, someone is wrong here.

*Be sure to observe, however, that the margin of error for the poll is 3%, meaning that the true numbers could be anywhere within three percent of the reported percentages. So, statistically speaking, it’s about half of Americans.

From today’s NY Times:

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who has expressed reservations about the surveillance, said Mr. Feingold had failed to make a case for censure over what amounts to a dispute over the legal basis of the program.

“The president may be wrong,” Mr. Specter said, “but he has acted in good faith.”

Wait! What?

Mr. Specter, the president may be wrong? As in, he may NOT be able to authorize this program under the law? You and many of your colleagues in the Senate have stated that the president was, in fact, right in attempting to protect American citizens (and I would agree with you), so you must be saying that he did might not be legal.

Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn’t allow for illegal action, even it’s taken “in good faith”.

Republicans have demonstrated in the past that presidents must be held accountable, even if they are only suspected of breaking the law.
Impeaching President Bush and removing him from office may not be the right answer, but surely the Senate should acknowledge when the president has overstepped his constitutional bounds.

Yesterday, in Wisconsin, Vice President Cheney said, “The American people already made their decision… They agree with the president.”

That’s quite a pretty broad (and inaccurate) generalization from an Adminstration that’s facing approval ratings of 36%.

I believe Cheney is referencing a recent ABC/WP poll that shows “54% of Americans call the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretap program acceptable.”

A slight majority makes it difficult to say that the American people agree with the president.

And nowhere has it been asked whether the American people believe that President Bush can supersede the law as long as he “acts in good faith”. I doubt the numbers would be anywhere near as high.

NY Times: Democrats beat quick retreat on call to censure president
AP: Feingold draws little support for censure
Harris Poll: President Bush’s approval ratings continue to drop
ABC News Poll: Bush strong on terrorism, wrong on Katrina

This is not democracy.

Michael E. Toner, the chairman of the Federal Election Commission, has some friendly advice for presidential candidates who plan to be taken seriously by the time nominating contests start in early 2008: Bring your wallet.

“There is a growing sense that there is going to be a $100 million entry fee at the end of 2007 to be considered a serious candidate,” Toner said in a recent interview.

The Washington Post: Money’s Going to Talk in 2008