CBS News Admits They Ran a Bogus Bush Poll

[Pendragon_6]

by Jim Kouri, CPP


It appears that every other day there's a new poll released on President George Bush's job approval rating. The majority of these polls or surveys are conducted by news organizations or polling companies contracted by news organizations. Many American's believe these poll results are accurate and still trust the news organizations to conduct them fairly.

However, the blogosphere and talk radio uncovered a bit of hanky-panky going on at CBS once again. No, they didn't use forged documents again -- and those responsible for the use of fraudulent memos used to damage the Bush presidency are gone from CBS News, including Mary Mapes and Dandy Dan Rather.

This time we're talking about a CBS poll that showed President Bush's approval rating at an all time low of 34%. For the last few months, American's were fed a steady diet of bad news regarding Bush or members of his administration. From torture to spying to an accidental shooting to the Dubai ports controversy, there's never a shortage of news stories that show the President of the United States in a less than favorable light.



In Full
New Media Alliance (http://www.therealitycheck.org/StaffWriter/jkouri_NMA030106.html)

[BuckeyeMike]

To quote that famous Marine......"SURPRISE,SURPRISE,SURPRISE!"

Golllllleeeee Sergeant Carter, do you really think CBS is honest? SHAME,SHAME,SHAME!

[Republican_Legion]

Rush Limbaugh talked about it this morning.
Majority of those polled were democrats and independents.
The MSM knows the most americans are fooled by biased innacurate polls.
The MSM also knows that fence sitters tend to vote on what the polls say. I'll never trust the Polls again ever since the 2004 election polls claimed John F-ing Kerry was the winner.

[Popperite]

In the provided link I don't see a reference that CBS "admitted" to bending the poll.

CBS News explained to readers what most pollsters do when they conduct their telephone surveys, and then they dropped this little bomb in the midst of their explanation:
Bush's favorability poll was weighted in favor of Democrats.

Bush's 34% approval rating is a result of polling 37% Democrats, 28% Republicans and 35% other or independents.

The rationale behind that COULD be the Party identification statistics of the day.

From:
http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95


on party identification in the US
Democrats Gain Edge in Party Identification
Released: July 26, 2004
The Democratic Party has achieved a small gain in party affiliation and holds a 33%-29% edge over the GOP in Pew surveys conducted in 2004. This represents a modest shift from the two year period following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, when the Republican Party had drawn virtually even with the Democrats.


More recent:

From:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=630


"Regardless of how you may vote, what do you usually consider yourself – a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or some other party?"
Base: All adults

<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=1 width=500 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center width="9%">Year*





</TD><TD vAlign=center width="17%">President




</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%">Republican




</TD><TD vAlign=center width="15%">Democrat




</TD><TD vAlign=center width="19%">Independent




</TD><TD vAlign=center width="24%">Democratic Lead




</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=center width="9%">


</TD><TD vAlign=center width="17%">


</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%">%




</TD><TD vAlign=center width="15%">%




</TD><TD vAlign=center width="19%">%




</TD><TD vAlign=center width="24%">% pts.




</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=center width="9%">2005




</TD><TD vAlign=center width="17%">Bush, G.W.


</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%">30




</TD><TD vAlign=center width="15%">36




</TD><TD vAlign=center width="19%">22




</TD><TD vAlign=center width="24%">6




</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>




In this one the "don't know" responses weren't included.


I don’t know what the most recent figures are, but the way CBS went about this doesn’t seem all that bizarre to me.

[Melz]

Why the hell do liberals care about his rating?? Do they not realize he is not running again? Have they nothing else to offer the voting public still? This "Bush sucks" crap may be fun for them, but posting his approval ratings (albiet, voted on mostly by liberals), does not give their party the boost they will need to win an election.

But hey, if they want to harp on what liberals think of the President, after almost 6 years of hearing these exact same sort of polls, great! They are getting nowhere of course, but it appears they have that "hahaha my daddy can beat up your daddy" thing down. Goodie.

[DoctorDoom]

The poll was bogus, and as Rush's sound bites proved, the MSM parrots recited it as a fifth Gospel. The term "news media" is a pathetic joke. They're RAT-ass-kissing leftist vermin on a crusade to destroy President Bush.

[Native American]

In the provided link I don't see a reference that CBS "admitted" to bending the poll.

CBS News explained to readers what most pollsters do when they conduct their telephone surveys, and then they dropped this little bomb in the midst of their explanation:
Bush's favorability poll was weighted in favor of Democrats.

Bush's 34% approval rating is a result of polling 37% Democrats, 28% Republicans and 35% other or independents.








The rationale behind that COULD be the Party identification statistics of the day.

Strictly speaking, you're right - CBS didn't actually admit it staged an intentionally heavily-biased in favor of the DNC poll. It merely revealed that it based its "poll findings" on a poll consisting of 37% Democrats and only 28% Republicans (that translates into 57% Democrats and only 43% Republicans), when the reality is that the nation votes (approximately) 48% Democrat and 52% Republican, which is a 4% spread in favor of the Republicans.

So the CBS poll sampled 9% (57%-48%) more Democrats than it should have, and sampled 9% (52%-43%) fewer Republicans than it should have.

I guess we're supposed to be thankful to CBS that at least CBS had the decency to reveal how heavily-biased in favor of Democrats its poll was?

And I guess we're supposed to be thankful to all the rest of the Antique Media that dutifully parroted the CBS "poll findings" without even bothering to point out during their newscasts when they regurgitated that CBS "poll" that CBS had heavily-biased the poll in favor of the Democrats?

I wonder what Hillary Clinton's "approval rating" would be if CBS took a poll of 61% (52% + 9%) Republicans and 39% (48%-9%) Democrats?

[queue]

According to a February 2006 Pew Poll (http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/270.pdf)of 1,502 people included in the survey for February the breakdown of which party the respondents considered themselves was 30% Republican, 33% Democrat, 31% Independent, 3% No Preference, and 3% Don't Know (for January 2006 the numbers were 28%, 32%, 32%, 5%, and 3% respectively). The Harris poll of 4,945 people for 2005 the breakdown of which party the respondents considered themselves was 30% Republican, 36% Democrat, and 22% Independent (for 2004 the numbers were 31%, 34%, and 24% respectively). The CBS poll of 1,018 people had 28% Republicans (289), 37% Democrats (381), and 34% Independents (348) (the numbers are the weighted numbers).

According to these numbers, the CBS poll either undercounted the Republicans and overcounted the Independents (the Harris poll) or overcounted the Democrats and Independents (the Pew poll). Either of these ways, the CBS poll is biased against Republicans.

Why don't they look at registered voters and determine which percent of registered voters is Republican, Democrat, and Other and use that as the base for the party affiliation breakdown instead of using other polls to determine party affiliation breakdown?

[Native American]

Better yet, if CBS intends its "polls" to be an accurate indicator in terms of what really matters - who is in charge in politics - then they should poll only Democrats and Republicans (because nobody votes "independent" come election time) and they should do so on the basis of the actual spread of Republicans and Democrats in this country, based on the vote.

Which means CBS polls should be based on 52% Republicans and 48% Democrats, and no self-styled "independents".

[DoctorDoom]

The best response would be for the MSM to stop the incessant polling and making themselves the news by reporting the polls. The self-worshipping sonsabitches are obsessed with their own importance (q.v., the White House press gang's throwing tantrums over the Cheney non-issue). They need to be made aware that the sun does not rise and set around them.

[Popperite]

Strictly speaking, you're right - CBS didn't actually admit it staged an intentionally heavily-biased in favor of the DNC poll. It merely revealed that it based its "poll findings" on a poll consisting of 37% Democrats and only 28% Republicans (that translates into 57% Democrats and only 43% Republicans), when the reality is that the nation votes (approximately) 48% Democrat and 52% Republican, which is a 4% spread in favor of the Republicans.

So the CBS poll sampled 9% (57%-48%) more Democrats than it should have, and sampled 9% (52%-43%) fewer Republicans than it should have.

I guess we're supposed to be thankful to CBS that at least CBS had the decency to reveal how heavily-biased in favor of Democrats its poll was?

And I guess we're supposed to be thankful to all the rest of the Antique Media that dutifully parroted the CBS "poll findings" without even bothering to point out during their newscasts when they regurgitated that CBS "poll" that CBS had heavily-biased the poll in favor of the Democrats?

I wonder what Hillary Clinton's "approval rating" would be if CBS took a poll of 61% (52% + 9%) Republicans and 39% (48%-9%) Democrats?

A lot of people who identify themselves as democrats, vote republican at times. That is a given if you take the affiliation statistics seriously. It is hard to say how and if that fact is weighed in the definition of democrat by the CBS concerning this poll. Democrat affiliation / identification or actually voted democrat last time around? As this poll wasn't about some coming vote however the "proof of the pudding" will not be forthcoming.

[BuckeyeMike]

Hell, what's the point in polls anywho? At about this same juncture in BJ Billy's second term, I remember we were told "not to worry" because he only has two more years......what harm can he do with only two more years."...even the great Limbaugh mouthed this mantra!
Don't worry about it DIMs, HE'S ONLY GOT TWO MORE YEARS....WHAT HARM CAN HE DO?

[Native American]

A lot of people who identify themselves as democrats, vote republican at times.

Perhaps. That's mere speculation on your part.

What the pollsters do know however is that Americans are voting approximately 52% Republican, 48% Democrat. That's why the Republicans keep winning control of the House, Senate, and White House, and the Democrats keep losing.

So for a poll to be as accurate as we can make it, it should consist of 52% who identify as Republicans and 48% who identify as Democrats.

[Popperite]

Perhaps. That's mere speculation on your part.


It seems to follow from comparing the identification polls with actual recent voting. But what is identification? I presume it is based on people's say-so. I suppose it is difficult to define beyond actually being a card carrying member of a certain party.

[Native American]

It seems to follow from comparing the identification polls with actual recent voting.

OK, and the actual recent voting shows about 52% vote Republican and 48% vote Democrat.

So the polls should poll 52% Republicans and 48% Democrat, not 37% Republican and 43% Democrat!

[Popperite]

I would say just picking people out at random is better. It beats mucking about with badly defined categories. And what about the "independent" category. If the group is large enough it will be representative.

The thing about most polls (where voting is concerned) is to find out what people are going to do, not what they did in the past. We already know that.

[queue]

According to U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates (http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2005-01.xls), there is approximately 296,410,404 people in the U.S. as of July 1, 2005.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau Reported Voting and Registration for 2004 (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cps2004/tab01.xls), there are approximately 142,070,000 people registered to vote in the U.S. and that around 125,736,000 people actually voted which leave 16,334,000 people that were registered that did not vote. There are also 73,624,000 people 18 and over that were not registered to vote which leaves a total of 89,958,000 of people 18 and over that did not vote in 2004.

According to the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration 2004 Presidential Election Results (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/popular_vote.html), 122,284,939 people voted in the 2004 Presidential election. Using this number, there were 19,785,061 people that were registered to vote that did not vote for President and 93,409,061 people 18 and over that did not vote for President in 2004.

Using the U.S. Census Bureau numbers of people 18 and over that are registered to vote and not registered to vote comes to a total of 215,694,000 people 18 and over that (supposedly) are able to vote. The Pew poll of 1,502 people is only .0007% of the people able to vote. The Harris poll of 4,945 people is only .0023% of the people able to vote. I find it interesting that anyone would take the results from such a small sampling (less than one hundredth of one percent) and attempt to say that it is as good if not better than the total information from a much larger set of data (the Presidential election results).

There are Democrats (and other non-Republican political party members) that will vote for Republican candidates and there are Republicans (and other non-Democrat political party members) that will vote for Democrat candidates. This is why using election results to determine political party affiliation is flawed. With between 16-19 million registered voters and 89-93 million of possible voters not voting, it would be incorrect to say that a lot of people of one political party voted for a different political party since it could be that a lot of one political party just did not vote (or register to vote) while a lot of the other political party did vote (and register).

(I know that I listed out information that I did not use farther down like the total U.S. population, but I listed that information to show that the other information is not out of line such as having more potential voters than total population.)

[Native American]

IAnd what about the "independent" category.

Simple - they either (A) vote Republican or (B) vote Democrat or (C) don't vote. And, among those who vote, we know that approximately 52% vote Republican and 48% vote Democrat.

So if poll accuracy is what one is seeking, one polls approximately 52% Republicans and 42% Democrats.

[Native American]

There are Democrats (and other non-Republican political party members) that will vote for Republican candidates and there are Republicans (and other non-Democrat political party members) that will vote for Democrat candidates. This is why using election results to determine political party affiliation is flawed.

Agreed! That's a lousy way to determine party affiliation!

But since we're not talking about how to determine party affiliation, but rather about how to construct an accurate poll, what those polls have to do is poll approximately 52% Republican and 48% Democrat, since that is how people actually vote, rather than worrying ourselves about their "party affiliation"!

[queue]

Agreed! That's a lousy way to determine party affiliation!

But since we're not talking about how to determine party affiliation, but rather about how to construct an accurate poll, what those polls have to do is poll approximately 52% Republican and 48% Democrat, since that is how people actually vote, rather than worrying ourselves about their "party affiliation"!In that case, the poll takers should have asked the respondants who they voted for in the 2004 Presidental elections or whether they vote for the Republican candidate for President or the Democrat candidate for President instead of asking whether they consider themselves Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

[Native American]

In that case, the poll takers should have asked the respondants who they voted for in the 2004 Presidental elections or whether they vote for the Republican candidate for President or the Democrat candidate for President instead of asking whether they consider themselves Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

Exactly! And furthermore, they should have kept telephoning people until they had met the following 2 criteria:

(1) a sufficiently high number of pollees (approximately at least 1,000 or so) and

(2) 52% of that total were "People Who Voted Republican" and 48% of that total were "People Who Voted Democrat"

[Bob_Arctor]

OK, and the actual recent voting shows about 52% vote Republican and 48% vote Democrat.
But that doesn't mean that those are the same percentages registered for each party. While it may be unthinkable for you, many people do vote for those outside their party from time to time. :grin:

Popperite's figures show that there seem to be more registered Democrats than Republicans.

They keep doing these polls because Bush's approval rating (good or bad) can affect certain other elections we'll be enjoying later this year.

[Native American]

But that doesn't mean that those are the same percentages registered for each party.

As several posters have already explained to you, voter registration doesn't mean sh*t when it comes election time, Bobby.

Besides, what we're talking about here is how to produce accurate polls, rather than the laughable DNC-biased crap that CBS keeps churning out.

[Bob_Arctor]

As several posters have already explained to you, voter registration doesn't mean sh*t when it comes election time, Bobby.
I explained that to you as well. So why are you stuck on getting a skewed sample of 52% R and 48% D? That won't give any kind of accurate result, as Republicans got a big boost from it being "a time of war."
Besides, what we're talking about here is how to produce accurate polls, rather than the laughable DNC-biased crap that CBS keeps churning out.
Accurate polls are great - but we wouldn't get accurate numbers from the system you've devised. I like Popperite's idea of just getting a huge sample.

Hey, you didn't mention Hillary. Congratulations on your small step. :grin:

[Native American]

So why are you stuck on getting a skewed sample of 52% R and 48% D?

It's hardly a "skewed sample" Bobby, since that's how the American People actually vote.

[Bob_Arctor]

It's hardly a "skewed sample" Bobby, since that's how the American People actually vote.
That's how some of them voted, once. That means little for the future.

[Naturalized-Texan]

In most presidential elections since 1980, there were large numbers of Democrats who voted for the Republican candidate. They were and are known as Reagan Democrats who are disgusted with the extreme leftism and anti-Americanism of the leadership of the Democrat Party. Nearly all of them are labor union members who wouldn't dare register as Republicans, but vote Republican in the privacy of the voting booth.

[Native American]

That's how some of them voted, once. That means little for the future.

It's how they voted in the most recent election, Bobby. It's the best predictor we have for the future.

[Bob_Arctor]

It's how they voted in the most recent election, Bobby. It's the best predictor we have for the future.
Nonsense. You can't actually believe that. Opinions generally aren't static, though yours may be.

During the last election, we had a genuinely terrible Democratic candidate. We had an incumbent President. We had an ongoing war, and we had much fearmongering, both of which contributed to the Republican turnout. You think those conditions are a predictor for elections this November or next November? Each election is an individual case.

I still don't see how your idea of polling Republicans preferentially will give more accurate figures. You haven't really tried to cement that point.

[Native American]

Originally Posted by Native American
It's how they voted in the most recent election, Bobby. It's the best predictor we have for the future.


Nonsense. You can't actually believe that. Opinions generally aren't static, though yours may be.

During the last election, we had a genuinely terrible Democratic candidate. We had an incumbent President. We had an ongoing war, and we had much fearmongering, both of which contributed to the Republican turnout. You think those conditions are a predictor for elections this November or next November? Each election is an individual case.

I still don't see how your idea of polling Republicans preferentially will give more accurate figures. You haven't really tried to cement that point.

OK, we'll take Actor's response a step at a time.

1) "though yours may be" - Actor knows he can't win the debate on its merits, so he begins to make snide personal remarks

2) "fearmongering" - Yeah, waged by the Democrats. But it didn't work for them. The American People prefer Republican leadership over Democrat fearmongering.

3) Actor seems genuinely unaware that the Democrats, in addition to deciding (why??) to run "a genuinely terrible Democratic candidate" (and losing that race) also lost seats in both the House and the Senate. Yes, "each election is an individual case", and it turns out the Democrats lost not only the election for the Presidency, but also lost numerous elections for various House and Senate seats.

4) "polling Republicans preferentially" - Ah, but that's not what I want to do. No, I want to poll the voters, and I want to do it as accurately as I know how. Which means taking the most recent voter behavior we have available to us (52% of the voters voting Republican, and 48% voting Democrat) and constructing our polls around that fact. And notice how Actor is unable to demonstrate any more accurate methodology than that? Sure, he complains that it would somehow be "preferential to Republicans", but he never explains why he thinks it is "preferential".

[Bob_Arctor]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Native American
It's how they voted in the most recent election, Bobby. It's the best predictor we have for the future.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Bob_Arctor
Nonsense. You can't actually believe that. Opinions generally aren't static, though yours may be.

During the last election, we had a genuinely terrible Democratic candidate. We had an incumbent President. We had an ongoing war, and we had much fearmongering, both of which contributed to the Republican turnout. You think those conditions are a predictor for elections this November or next November? Each election is an individual case.

I still don't see how your idea of polling Republicans preferentially will give more accurate figures. You haven't really tried to cement that point.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
1) "though yours may be" - Actor knows he can't win the debate on its merits, so he begins to make snide personal remarks
Your opinion seems to be static. It's hardly an insult, my hypersensitive friend.
2) "fearmongering" - Yeah, waged by the Democrats. But it didn't work for them. The American People prefer Republican leadership over Democrat fearmongering.
"Terror alert! Terror alert! If Kerry wins, the terrorists win! Kerry can't protect you!" Remember any of that? Tell me, what fearmongering have Democrats engaged in?

A few years back people preferred the incumbent, as is typical in a time of crisis. People now - according to the polls! - have more trust that Democrats would do a better job with security. People aren't happy - according to the polls - with the job Bush has been doing.

3) Actor seems genuinely unaware that the Democrats, in addition to deciding (why??) to run "a genuinely terrible Democratic candidate" (and losing that race) also lost seats in both the House and the Senate.
?? This is no secret, so I'm uncertain of why you bring it up.

4) "polling Republicans preferentially" - Ah, but that's not what I want to do. No, I want to poll the voters, and I want to do it as accurately as I know how. Which means taking the most recent voter behavior we have available to us (52% of the voters voting Republican, and 48% voting Democrat) and constructing our polls around that fact.
Do people vote strictly by party affiliation? Obviously not.

Do people vote strictly for the party they voted for in the last election? No.

Bush won by a few percent in one election - in a time of war, in a time of terrorist threats, and when he faced a very poor candidate. You think this sets a firm foundation for how voters will vote, always and forever?

If the presidential election were held today, Bush would be destroyed. If it were held on Sep 20, 2001 he'd win with 80%+ of the vote. If either of those were the case, would it make sense for a poll several years later to poll Republicans 80% to the Democrat's 20%? Or vice versa, the Democratic 60% to the Republican 40%? Would eithe rof those reflect changing reality?

Frankly, if you were to poll according to the scheme you've devised, you'd have remarkably unreliable results. The larger percentage of registered Rs polled would skew the results in favor of Rs. In the real voting, the percentages would shift back to what they actually are in the electorate.

And notice how Actor is unable to demonstrate any more accurate methodology than that? Sure, he complains that it would somehow be "preferential to Republicans", but he never explains why he thinks it is "preferential".
I have, repeatedly. Merely gathering an enormous sample would help. Are you going to go down the Galileo road again?

Frankly, if your scheme were valid it would be in use.

[UnkHiram]

"Terror alert! Terror alert! If Kerry wins, the terrorists win! Kerry can't protect you!" Remember any of that? Tell me, what fearmongering have Democrats engaged in?

Sorry Bob

Even though I tend to agree with what you are saying on the polling data your memory is getting very "Convenient" shall we say. Do you remember "If George Bush is elected Black Churchs in the South will burn again"'

That add was run on stations in Missouri. Similar adds were run all over the country in heavily black districts.

[Bob_Arctor]

Even though I tend to agree with what you are saying on the polling data your memory is getting very "Convenient" shall we say. Do you remember "If George Bush is elected Black Churchs in the South will burn again"'

That add was run on stations in Missouri. Similar adds were run all over the country in heavily black districts.
I'd never heard of that particular line. When I spoke of 'fearmongering' I meant to reference terrorism in specific, not the sadly standard and perennial lies uttered by both parties. Threats of impending terrorist strikes if 'the wrong man' is elected were fairly novel last election and probably swayed far more voters than the other lies you mention.

[UnkHiram]

I'd never heard of that particular line. When I spoke of 'fearmongering' I meant to reference terrorism in specific, not the sadly standard and perennial lies uttered by both parties. Threats of impending terrorist strikes if 'the wrong man' is elected were fairly novel last election and probably swayed far more voters than the other lies you mention.

Bob

You are parcing your question. You asked for fearmongering, I gave you one specific example. There are lots of others I could also quote. The reason that the Terrorist comments swayed more voters is because it was TRUE. John Kerry and his appeasement attitude would make another attack more likely. IF yall really want to win a Presidential Election I suggest you nominate a decent canidate. You can say what you want about Polls, Trends, Hate mongering adds but take a look at who LOST the last few elections.

2004 --- John Kerry --- Ultra Liberal
2000 --- Al Gore --- Ultra Liberal
1996 --- Bob Dole --- Completely Incompetant Campaign
1992 --- George HW Bush --- Completely INcompetant
1988 --- Michael Dukakis --- Ultra Liberal
1984 --- Walter Mondale --- Ultra Liberal
1980 --- Jimmy Carter --- Complete Incompetant
1976 --- Gerald Ford --- Complete Incompetant

Now lets look at who won

2004 --- George W Bush --- Moderate Republican tending to the Right
2000 --- George W Bush --- Moderate Republican tending to the Right
1996 --- Bill Clinton --- Moderate Democrat tending to the Left
1992 --- Bill Clinton --- Moderate Democrat tending to the Left
1988 --- George HW Buch --- Moderate Republican (Yet to be proven incompetant)
1984 --- Ronald Regan --- Conservative Republican
1980 --- Ronald Regan --- Conservative Repuclican
1976 --- Jimmy Carter --- Moderate Democrat (Yet to be proven incompetant)

I will admit that the 1992 and 1996 races were both skewed by the addition of a popular Nutcase (Ross Perot) to the race. I will further admit that there is a HUGE difference between a Moderate Republican and a Moderate Democrat.

[Warlady]

Why ANYONE, including the other media outlets would trust cBS is the question of the day. Hell even Fox news was taking this poll as gospel. Makes me sick to see so many gullible people still out there.

[DeclinetoState]

CBS News' credibility has been on shaky ground ever since Dan Rather made that idiotic comment about telling any number of lies while still being an honest person.

[Warlady]

I'd never heard of that particular line. When I spoke of 'fearmongering' I meant to reference terrorism in specific, not the sadly standard and perennial lies uttered by both parties. Threats of impending terrorist strikes if 'the wrong man' is elected were fairly novel last election and probably swayed far more voters than the other lies you mention.

How is telling the truth "fearmongering"? It's no secret that under Clinton we were attacked FIVE (5) times. The sixth attack was planned on his watch. Since 911 how many times have we been attacked? A: ZERO. The Democrats ARE weak on this issue and there is absolutely nothing wrong with using it as a campaign issue. As for the Democrats "fearmongering" surely you remember them claiming if Republicans are elected children will starve, the air and water will be dirty and seniors will lose their Social Security checks. None of which is true or has happened. I can't believe you don't recall the James Byrd commerical accusing Bush of dragging blacks behind trucks. And Unk is correct. They also ran a telephone ad claiming if Bush is elected churches will burn. They also claimed (Kerry specifically) that if Bush is elected blacks will go back to being 3/5ths of a human being. So you may want to call our issue fearmongering but Democrats wrote the book on the subject.

[Bob_Arctor]

How is telling the truth "fearmongering"?
It's only the "truth" from your perspective.
It's no secret that under Clinton we were attacked FIVE (5) times. The sixth attack was planned on his watch. Since 911 how many times have we been attacked? A: ZERO.
All true. Meanwhile, our response has been to essentially ignore bin Laden and put little attention into the original terrorist breeding ground, because we've been distracted by the mess in Iraq. I don't find that very satisfactory, personally.
The Democrats ARE weak on this issue and there is absolutely nothing wrong with using it as a campaign issue.
I grant you that they are/were clearly far weaker on this issue - Bush was going to do something, while the Democrats didn't know what to do, other than actually "settle" for going to Afghanistan and getting bin Laden.

However, the fact that they haven't been as bold as Bush doesn't mean they're inviting further attacks, which is exactly what we were told in the last campaign.
As for the Democrats "fearmongering" surely you remember them claiming if Republicans are elected children will starve, the air and water will be dirty and seniors will lose their Social Security checks. None of which is true or has happened.
Sure - and I recall the Republicans informing me that the Democrats were going to take my money, try and control every aspect of my life, let rapists and murderers out of prison and hand out welfare checks to everyone.
I can't believe you don't recall the James Byrd commerical accusing Bush of dragging blacks behind trucks. And Unk is correct. They also ran a telephone ad claiming if Bush is elected churches will burn. They also claimed (Kerry specifically) that if Bush is elected blacks will go back to being 3/5ths of a human being. So you may want to call our issue fearmongering but Democrats wrote the book on the subject.
I also recall Willie Horton! Look, I haven't denied that Democrats have done it - all politicians do it, which sucks, but it seems to be a bad habit they won't break. However please keep in mind I was referring only to "fearmongering" relating to terrorism. I wouldn't be silly enough to claim that only Republicans engage in "fearmongering" in general...

[Bob_Arctor]

You are parcing your question. You asked for fearmongering, I gave you one specific example. There are lots of others I could also quote.
Yes, but I was referring only to the terrorism issue, not fearmongering in general. I should have made that clear.
The reason that the Terrorist comments swayed more voters is because it was TRUE. John Kerry and his appeasement attitude would make another attack more likely.
Hard to say. I'd bet that if Kerry had been elected, we'd have caught or killed bin Laden and would not be trapped in Iraq. Frankly I'd prefer that over our current situation. And, of course, bin Laden is/was the terrorist mastermind, not Saddam. He's still free.
IF yall really want to win a Presidential Election I suggest you nominate a decent canidate. You can say what you want about Polls, Trends, Hate mongering adds but take a look at who LOST the last few elections.

2004 --- John Kerry --- Ultra Liberal
Yes, but that's not why he lost.
2000 --- Al Gore --- Ultra Liberal
Yes, and he actually got more votes than Bush, regardless of the quirks of our election system. Therefore it seems being liberal isn't really a problem for voters. We have just as many liberals in this country as conservatives.
1996 --- Bob Dole --- Completely Incompetant Campaign
1992 --- George HW Bush --- Completely INcompetant
Perhaps, but both also ran against the extremely charismatic Clinton which must have made a difference.
1988 --- Michael Dukakis --- Ultra Liberal
1984 --- Walter Mondale --- Ultra Liberal
1980 --- Jimmy Carter --- Complete Incompetant
1976 --- Gerald Ford --- Complete Incompetant

Now lets look at who won

2004 --- George W Bush --- Moderate Republican tending to the Right
2000 --- George W Bush --- Moderate Republican tending to the Right
1996 --- Bill Clinton --- Moderate Democrat tending to the Left
1992 --- Bill Clinton --- Moderate Democrat tending to the Left
1988 --- George HW Buch --- Moderate Republican (Yet to be proven incompetant)
1984 --- Ronald Regan --- Conservative Republican
1980 --- Ronald Regan --- Conservative Repuclican
1976 --- Jimmy Carter --- Moderate Democrat (Yet to be proven incompetant)

I will admit that the 1992 and 1996 races were both skewed by the addition of a popular Nutcase (Ross Perot) to the race. I will further admit that there is a HUGE difference between a Moderate Republican and a Moderate Democrat.
You make an interesting point - that moderates are usually preferred over extremists. That's probably true! However I think that personal factors are involved as well. A guy like Clinton was far more charismatic than Bush or Dole, while Reagan had the same advantage during his races. As you know many people vote for the more likeable candidate, rather than the "better" candidate.<!-- / message -->

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bob: If the liberal media hadn't reported Florida for AlGore before the polls even closed in that state, Bush would have won Florida by about 10,000 more votes than he did (Democrat estimate: 8,000 votes; Republican estimate: 12,000 votes; negating any need for a recount. (And let us not forget the 2,400 legal military absentee votes in FL that AlGore prevented from ever being counted.)) and it's highly likely that, after that cheating by the liberal media, enough Bush voters stayed home to have prevented Bush from winning the popular vote also.

[Native American]

That's how some of them voted, once. That means little for the future.

Perhaps, but since it's the most current and accurate voting info that we have, it's the most accurate basis for polling that we can devise.

Sure, I'll grant you that in November 2006 the vote spread may turn out to be more like 58% Republican, 42% Democrat, we don't know that for certain, so the best we can do is use the latest known vote spread, which is 52% Republican, 48% Democrat, Bobby.

[Incident_command]

[quote=Bob_Arctor]Quote:
"Terror alert! Terror alert! If Kerry wins, the terrorists win! Kerry can't protect you!" Remember any of that? Tell me, what fearmongering have Democrats engaged in?

quote]

Come the entire democrat contribution to the 911 commission and the Mike Moore movies were total BS that could easily be called fear mongering. You want RAT fearmongering go to Moore's web site.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Given the fact that the current Democrat Party is controlled by sicko, hate-America leftists, there are far more registered Democrats who will vote Republican than registered Republicans who will vote Democrat. In fact, the only way that a registered Republican would vote for a Democrat candidate is in the extremely rare case in which a conservative Democrat is running against a RINO.

For example, if Lowell Weicker gets the Republican nomination to run against Sen. Lieberman this year, Connecticut Republican voters will turn out in droves to vote for Lieberman. Lieberman is a moderate who is a rarity among Democrats - a patriot - and Weicker is almost as far left as Kennedy and Kerry.

If anything, polls should give Republicans much more weight than Democrats.

[Bob_Arctor]

Perhaps, but since it's the most current and accurate voting info that we have, it's the most accurate basis for polling that we can devise.
It was accurate for November 2004. It's totally inaccurate for March 2006. It's a pity you can't follow this simple idea.
Sure, I'll grant you that in November 2006 the vote spread may turn out to be more like 58% Republican, 42% Democrat, we don't know that for certain, so the best we can do is use the latest known vote spread, which is 52% Republican, 48% Democrat, Bobby.
Nah. We can use the polls, which work because of statistics. A poll of about 1100 people renders results that are nearly indistinguishable from the poll we'd like to take of hundreds of millions.

58% Republican this fall...hilarious! Some other things will have to change for that to occur. What evidence can you offer to convince me that the Republicans will get even more of the vote this year than they did in 2004?

[Shorty]

It was accurate for November 2004. It's totally inaccurate for March 2006. It's a pity you can't follow this simple idea.

Nah. We can use the polls, which work because of statistics. A poll of about 1100 people renders results that are nearly indistinguishable from the poll we'd like to take of hundreds of millions.

58% Republican this fall...hilarious! Some other things will have to change for that to occur. What evidence can you offer to convince me that the Republicans will get even more of the vote this year than they did in 2004?How about that the liberals havent given the voters a reason to vote FOR them, instead of just AGAINST the Republicans? They have ran on an anti Bush and anti Republican campaign for the past few elections and keep losing.

Besides, statistics can be made to support anything and anyone drooling over polls this early out has issues.

[Bob_Arctor]

How about that the liberals havent given the voters a reason to vote FOR them, instead of just AGAINST the Republicans?
That may well be - I agree for the most part. But that doesn't mean people won't be voting against the Republicans anyway. Even in the last presidential race people were voting against Bush rather than for Kerry...and even then it was close. With how things have changed, do you really think things will go well for the Republicans in the fall? Granted opinions could swing back in the other direction, but if things continue as they have this fall won't be good for conservatives.
Besides, statistics can be made to support anything and anyone drooling over polls this early out has issues.
If polls are lies then it shouldn't matter if we're talking about them now or in November, because they are all lies! :grin:

However if you look at how polls work, they generally support "reality" in the form of election results, within a couple percent.

[Shorty]

That may well be - I agree for the most part. But that doesn't mean people won't be voting against the Republicans anyway. Even in the last presidential race people were voting against Bush rather than for Kerry...and even then it was close. With how things have changed, do you really think things will go well for the Republicans in the fall? Granted opinions could swing back in the other direction, but if things continue as they have this fall won't be good for conservatives.

If polls are lies then it shouldn't matter if we're talking about them now or in November, because they are all lies! :grin:

However if you look at how polls work, they generally support "reality" in the form of election results, within a couple percent.Like the exit polling that showed Bush losing big time? Polls are meaningless this early out. Also, it depends on when the polls is taken (Polls taken during the week will tilt towards the left) Also how the questions are worded will affect the poll and many people tell the pollsters what they think they want to hear.

People want a reason to vote FOR a candidate. They want fresh ideas and specifics instead of Kerry saying "I have a plan" and refusing to say what the plan was. Only being negative will cost you every time.

Remember the "Contract with America"? The right gave a detailed plan on what they wanted to do and the voters liked that the right had specifics. The left refuses to do it, instead they run on an "I hate the Right" campaign. Hell, look who the DNC named as its chair. Ole Howie has been running around saying he hates Republicans. That wont win votes.

[Naturalized-Texan]

How about that the liberals havent given the voters a reason to vote FOR them, instead of just AGAINST the Republicans? They have ran on an anti Bush and anti Republican campaign for the past few elections and keep losing.

Besides, statistics can be made to support anything and anyone drooling over polls this early out has issues.
Besides, all polls conducted by the liberal media - ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCCNBCWASHINGTONPOSTNYTIMESLATIMES USATODAYTIMENEWSWEEKUSNEWSBOSTONGLOBEETC. - are biased in favor of Democrats,liberals and can't be trusted.

With the Democrat Party controlled by the hate-America, lunatic left, it's highly likely that NA is correct: the Republicans will pick up seats in Congress and garner 58% of the popular vote. I have never seen anything in my lifetime (73+ years) even close to the vicious campaign of hate and lies that has been conducted by the Democrat Party in the past 5+ years. We are now seeing the death throes of the Democrat Party.

[Bob_Arctor]

Like the exit polling that showed Bush losing big time?
Exit polling is entirely different from random polls we're talking about.
Polls are meaningless this early out. Also, it depends on when the polls is taken (Polls taken during the week will tilt towards the left) Also how the questions are worded will affect the poll and many people tell the pollsters what they think they want to hear.
True, but these things are usually controlled for pretty well, which is why election results tend to mirror polls taken at the same time.
People want a reason to vote FOR a candidate. They want fresh ideas and specifics instead of Kerry saying "I have a plan" and refusing to say what the plan was. Only being negative will cost you every time.

Remember the "Contract with America"? The right gave a detailed plan on what they wanted to do and the voters liked that the right had specifics. The left refuses to do it, instead they run on an "I hate the Right" campaign. Hell, look who the DNC named as its chair. Ole Howie has been running around saying he hates Republicans. That wont win votes.
I concur, but this isn't the argument here. The Democratic party has been screwed up for many years now.

[Bob_Arctor]

Besides, all polls conducted by the liberal media - ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCCNBCWASHINGTONPOSTNYTIMESLATIMES USATODAYTIMENEWSWEEKUSNEWSBOSTONGLOBEETC. - are biased in favor of Democrats,liberals and can't be trusted.
You're appealing to a conspiracy. Stop that! :grin:

However, Quinnipiac isn't part of the media, nor is Rasmussen, Zogby, or any of the rest. Fox is, but they are the conservative media, and their results are just as bad for the Republicans.

You can't depend on these excuses. The fact is that things have not been going well for your party lately. It happens!
With the Democrat Party controlled by the hate-America, lunatic left, it's highly likely that NA is correct: the Republicans will pick up seats in Congress and garner 58% of the popular vote. I have never seen anything in my lifetime (73+ years) even close to the vicious campaign of hate and lies that has been conducted by the Democrat Party in the past 5+ years. We are now seeing the death throes of the Democrat Party.
We shall see, NT. Perhaps a friendly bet is in order? :grin: Frankly what you and NA speak of bears no resemblance to reality as far as I can tell. Rather, it seems to be wish fullfillment. You guys really love Bush and despise the Democrats, so you're projecting your feelings onto the rest of the country. Bush won by only a few percent last time, back when the war was going better (as in it looked like the end was in sight) and when he was up against one of the worst Democratic candidates of all time. Bush's approval rating was around 50% at the time of the 2004 election, and he won by only a few percent more than that. Now it's at least ten percent less than that - and you think (if he were running again somehow) that he'd win by even more? I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

[Naturalized-Texan]

That may well be - I agree for the most part. But that doesn't mean people won't be voting against the Republicans anyway. Even in the last presidential race people were voting against Bush rather than for Kerry...and even then it was close. With how things have changed, do you really think things will go well for the Republicans in the fall? Granted opinions could swing back in the other direction, but if things continue as they have this fall won't be good for conservatives.
Nonsense! In the 2004 elections, people were voting FOR Bush as well as against Kerry. The people got to know Kerry for what he is - a mealy-mouthed traitor. The only reason that the vote was even close was the vicious campaign of hate and lies conducted against President Bush by the liberal media and the lunatic leftists like George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, et al.

Remember, the editor of the NY Times bragged that media support for Kerry would give him 15 percentage points and he was right. The media ended up giving Kerry that 15 points and he still lost by more than 3 million votes.

[Naturalized-Texan]

You're appealing to a conspiracy. Stop that!
Since you're denying the obvious fact that the so-called mainstream media is controlled by liberals, you're clearly living in an alternate universe. Wake up and come join me in the real world.

[Bob_Arctor]

Nonsense! In the 2004 elections, people were voting FOR Bush as well as against Kerry.
I didn't claim no one was voting for Bush. (People apologize for having done so more and more often these days.) Many did. But not many people voted for Kerry - his votes were mostly anti-Bush votes.
The people got to know Kerry for what he is - a mealy-mouthed traitor.
At least he served, unlike the various draft dodgers comprising the current administration. You guys have a strange point of view when draft dodgers are the patriots and a guy who served is the traitor. It's very 1984-ish.
The only reason that the vote was even close was the vicious campaign of hate and lies conducted against President Bush by the liberal media and the lunatic leftists like George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, et al.
I think Kerry would have won without the campaign of hate run against him by Hannity, Rush, Limbaugh, Fox, the Swift Boaters, and the rest of the right-wing extremists. Soros and Moveon and the rest were just telling the truth, you see.
Remember, the editor of the NY Times bragged that media support for Kerry would give him 15 percentage points and he was right. The media ended up giving Kerry that 15 points and he still lost by more than 3 million votes.
Ahh, the conspiracy. Here's mine, while we're at it - Kerry did win, and the voting machines were hacked, because the company that builds them is run by conservatives. Case closed! :grin: No evidence, you say? Why, that is the evidence - because it's a conspiracy!

(Arguing by appeal to conspiracy is actually pretty fun...I'll have to do it more often!)

[UnkHiram]

I didn't claim no one was voting for Bush. (People apologize for having done so more and more often these days.) Many did. But not many people voted for Kerry - his votes were mostly anti-Bush votes.

I dont know anyone that is appoligizing for voting for Bush. I know alot of people that wish he was MORE conservative and acted MORE like the President that we thought we were electing.


At least he served, unlike the various draft dodgers comprising the current administration. You guys have a strange point of view when draft dodgers are the patriots and a guy who served is the traitor. It's very 1984-ish.

Bob, I realize this might be a shock to you but the Memo's were forged. President Bush served in the Texas National Guard. Surely you are not suggesting that the TNG is made up of Draft Dodgers? People Brand Kerry as a traitor because of his Actions on his return.


I think Kerry would have won without the campaign of hate run against him by Hannity, Rush, Limbaugh, Fox, the Swift Boaters, and the rest of the right-wing extremists. Soros and Moveon and the rest were just telling the truth, you see.

Only a liberal would brand the Truth as Hate. So you think Moveon was telling the truth when they compared President Bush to Hitler? You wanna defend Liberals fine, but I suggest you not try to defend people like Soros and Moveon by saying they were telling the "Truth". Even You are not that misguided.


Ahh, the conspiracy. Here's mine, while we're at it - Kerry did win, and the voting machines were hacked, because the company that builds them is run by conservatives. Case closed! :grin: No evidence, you say? Why, that is the evidence - because it's a conspiracy!

That argument has a great deal in commen with the result of a Bull eating Hay.

[Shorty]

I dont know anyone that is appoligizing for voting for Bush. I know alot of people that wish he was MORE conservative and acted MORE like the President that we thought we were electing. Too true. He has moved to the left for whatever reason. Im guessing he is trying to appease the dems and it will never happen.



Bob, I realize this might be a shock to you but the Memo's were forged. President Bush served in the Texas National Guard. Surely you are not suggesting that the TNG is made up of Draft Dodgers? People Brand Kerry as a traitor because of his Actions on his return.


There is a reason his picture is hanging in Ho Chi Min City.

[Naturalized-Texan]

There is a reason his picture is hanging in Ho Chi Min City.
Communist Vietnamese honor John Kerry, the war protestor, as a hero in their victory over the United States in the Vietnam War.

In the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum (formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum") in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), a photograph of John Kerry hangs in a room dedicated to the anti-war activists who helped the Vietnamese Communists win the Vietnam War. The photograph shows Senator Kerry being greeted by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Comrade Do Muoi.

Jeffrey M. Epstein of Vietnam Vets for the Truth acquired the photograph over the Memorial Day weekend as America was commemorating its military heroes. Epstein's organization, Vietnam Vets for the Truth, issued a general request last week for photographs documenting Kerry's activities on behalf of the enemy. Bob Shirley, a Vietnam Swift Boat veteran (http://www.pcf45.com/), sent the photograph to Epstein in response to that call. Shirley recently joined over 200 other Swift Boat veterans in signing an open letter questioning Kerry's fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/image003.jpg

Photograph of John Kerry meeting with Comrade Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, in Vietnam, July 15-18, 1993. Photo taken in the War Remnants Museum (formerly the "War Crimes Museum") in Saigon in May 2004.

Jeff Epstein explains the importance of the photograph:

"This photograph's unquestionable significance lies in its placement in the American protestors' section of the War Crimes Museum in Saigon. The Vietnamese communists clearly recognize John Kerry's contributions to their victory. This find can be compared to the discovery of a painting of Neville Chamberlain hanging in a place of honor in Hitler's Eagle's Nest in 1945."

(Source: Kerry Honored by Vietnamese Communists (http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545))

More information about the Vietnamese Communists honoring Kerry:

Kerry Museum Photo Documented (http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040604194804799)

[Naturalized-Texan]

And of course, there is this picture of Hanoi John Kerry (look in the background just above Hanoi Jane Fonda's head) attending an anti-American rally uring the Vietnam War:

http://users4.ev1.net/~rwadding/Kerry_Fonda.jpg

[Bob_Arctor]

I dont know anyone that is appoligizing for voting for Bush. I know alot of people that wish he was MORE conservative and acted MORE like the President that we thought we were electing.
Perhaps if I lived down in east Texas I'd have a different set of friends!

Bob, I realize this might be a shock to you but the Memo's were forged. President Bush served in the Texas National Guard. Surely you are not suggesting that the TNG is made up of Draft Dodgers? People Brand Kerry as a traitor because of his Actions on his return.
They may have been forged, but the information in them was accurate. Bush never completed his service. Furthermore, am I supposed to applaud a guy who used his connections to jump the line, so to speak, and get in the guard versus go to Vietnam? I'm sure a lot of guys who went to war would have loved to get into the NG. Bush pulled it off.

Also, I think my comment that the administration is composed of a mix of draft dodgers and nonmilitary people stands. You're not going to try and defend Cheney, are you?
Only a liberal would brand the Truth as Hate. So you think Moveon was telling the truth when they compared President Bush to Hitler? You wanna defend Liberals fine, but I suggest you not try to defend people like Soros and Moveon by saying they were telling the "Truth". Even You are not that misguided.
...
That argument has a great deal in commen with the result of a Bull eating Hay.
That was all tongue in cheek, the mirror image of Tex's equally outlandish claims.

[DeclinetoState]

And of course, there is this picture of Hanoi John Kerry (look in the background just above Hanoi Jane Fonda's head) attending an anti-American rally uring the Vietnam War:

http://users4.ev1.net/~rwadding/Kerry_Fonda.jpg

One of the urban legends is that John Kerry is actually the bearded fellow right behind Jane. However, I believe this photo has been verified as a legitimate, with Kerry being the blurry fellow further back.

[Naturalized-Texan]

One of the urban legends is that John Kerry is actually the bearded fellow right behind Jane. However, I believe this photo has been verified as a legitimate, with Kerry being the blurry fellow further back.
Yes, this is a legitimate photo and Kerry can easily be recognized in the background just above Jane Fonda's head. There was another photo that showed Kerry and Fonda standing together on a platform at a pro-Communist rally - that photo WAS doctored.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Yes, this is a legitimate photo and Kerry can easily be recognized in the background just above Jane Fonda's head. There was another photo that showed Kerry and Fonda standing together on a platform at a pro-Communist rally - that photo WAS doctored.

There is no mistaking a John Forbes Kerry photo. For it is always freakish. Here you see Jon Jon's head mysteriously floating behind Pinky Tuscadero. His enormous head and jutting buckteeth are unmistakable. He is like the spectre in Salem's Lot scratching on the window wanting to be let in. Here he is trying to catch a whiff of the superstar princess's fart. He is only a few feet away, and even here he is angling to jigolo the whoress. For Kerry its subliminal. Rich famous girl = ATM machine. Its like LOJAK. He's hardwired for the pimp juice.

http://users4.ev1.net/~rwadding/Kerry_Fonda.jpg

[Naturalized-Texan]

They may have been forged, but the information in them was accurate. Bush never completed his service. Furthermore, am I supposed to applaud a guy who used his connections to jump the line, so to speak, and get in the guard versus go to Vietnam? I'm sure a lot of guys who went to war would have loved to get into the NG. Bush pulled it off.
That's all bullshit and you know it.

The information in those forged documents was a bald-faced lie and you know it.

Bush did complete his service and completely fulfilled all of the required hours of service in every year he was in the ANG. He received an honorable discharge at the completion of his service. The same thing can't be said of Kerry (see my next post for details).

George W. Bush used no connections to get into the Air National Guard and he never jumped the line. It turned out that he was one of the very few qualified applicants who was willing and able to take the full year of flight training that was required to be a fighter pilot.

Bush tried to volunteer for combat in Vietnam, but his commanding officer refused his request.

[Naturalized-Texan]

At least he served, unlike the various draft dodgers comprising the current administration. You guys have a strange point of view when draft dodgers are the patriots and a guy who served is the traitor. It's very 1984-ish.
At least George W. Bush received an honorable discharge at the completion of his tour of duty. Unfortunately, that can’t be said of John Kerry.

Since Kerry was still in the Navy when he organized and participated in pro-Communist demonstrations and when he lied before Congress about alleged atrocities, he was given a less-than-honorable discharge. Since he has never released his military records, we don’t know the exact nature of his less-than-honorable discharge. Kerry had to wait 5 years, until after Jimmy Carter pardoned the Vietnam War traitors, to get his honorable discharge that was dated in 1977. Also, Kerry’s Silver Star was either put on hold or rescinded, since the award authorization was not signed until 1981 when Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy signed it.

Speaking of Kerry’s Silver Star: He put himself in for it after his commanding officer refused to do it. His Silver Star was awarded for Kerry stupidly jumping off his swift boat and shooting a nearly naked Vietnamese boy in the back as he was trying to run away.

He managed to get 3 Purple Hearts so that he could get out of Vietnam early. He put in for one of those Purple Hearts after he stupidly dropped a grenade into a rice boat that was too close to his swift boat and he was wounded by shrapnel from his own grenade. The requirement for a Purple Heart is that the wound MUST be the result of enemy fire. That was clearly NOT the case for this Purple Heart

And this known traitor and coward wanted us to entrust the safety and security of our nation to him. Thank God that President Bush trounced him in the 2004 election.

Speaking of traitors and cowards, Bill Clinton spent his entire second year at Oxford organizing and participating in pro-Communist demonstrations. I vividly remember one of those demonstrations in which they marched on the American Embassy in London and deposited crude wooden coffins along the fence around the Embassy. It wasn’t until many years later that I learned that Clinton planned, organized, and participated in that demonstration.

Pro-Communist demonstrators (traitors) like Clinton and Kerry prolonged the Vietnam War by about 5 years and were responsible for the deaths of at least 20,000 American troops.

[Native American]

Originally Posted by Native American
Perhaps, but since it's the most current and accurate voting info that we have, it's the most accurate basis for polling that we can devise.


It was accurate for November 2004. It's totally inaccurate for March 2006.

Oh, it's "totally inaccurate", you say? And how do you know? Do you have some more current election results that you are referring to? Or are you merely pulling it out of your butthole again, Bob?

Notice how you never have anything to offer us, other than your theories? Meanwhile, I keep pointing your nose back to the facts - according to the latest election, 52% vote Republican, and only 48% vote Democrat. So that's the latest and most accurate info we have as to what the poll spread should be - we should poll 52% Republican and only 48% Democrat.

[Shorty]

They may have been forged, but the information in them was accurate. Bush never completed his service. Furthermore, am I supposed to applaud a guy who used his connections to jump the line, so to speak, and get in the guard versus go to Vietnam? I'm sure a lot of guys who went to war would have loved to get into the NG. Bush pulled it off.
As someone who served in the US Army I can honestly tell you that if you dont complete your service, you dont get an honerable discharge. Bush has an honerable discharge which means he fulfilled his contract. It doesnt matter who you are related to. The Army doesnt care. They do care what you do while you are a member of the military and they will throw you in the brigg if you go AWOL.

[Pendragon_6]

They may have been forged, but the information in them was accurate.__B_A
________________________________________________

Ha! Contradictions anyone?

[Bob_Arctor]

Oh, it's "totally inaccurate", you say? And how do you know? Do you have some more current election results that you are referring to? Or are you merely pulling it out of your butthole again, Bob?
I have the results of recent polls that show your man Bush in the 34-40% approval range. Therefore, he'd get that much of the vote if the election were held today. He got 52% in the last election, and his approval rating was about the same percentage.
Notice how you never have anything to offer us, other than your theories? Meanwhile, I keep pointing your nose back to the facts - according to the latest election, 52% vote Republican, and only 48% vote Democrat.
Yes, that did happen, a year and a half ago. Would it happen today? Very unlikely, because circumstances have changed.
So that's the latest and most accurate info we have as to what the poll spread should be - we should poll 52% Republican and only 48% Democrat.
Further, this does not follow from the above, despite your wishful thinking. There is absolutely no reason why we should construct a poll in the fashion you envision. It would lead to extremely inaccurate results.

Basically, if you understood how statistics work, you'd understand that a random sample of 1100 people will yield results that are within at most a few percent of the percentage of the population as a whole - regardless of how many millions of people it is. There is no reason to weight the sample in favor of republicans as you desire. The polls are pretty much accurate. I know you don't like how the numbers look for your side, but that doesn't change reality.

[Bob_Arctor]

At least George W. Bush received an honorable discharge at the completion of his tour of duty. Unfortunately, that can’t be said of John Kerry.

Since Kerry was still in the Navy when he organized and participated in pro-Communist demonstrations and when he lied before Congress about alleged atrocities, he was given a less-than-honorable discharge. Since he has never released his military records, we don’t know the exact nature of his less-than-honorable discharge.
i.e., you have no idea if it actually is a less than honorable discharge. You're assuming.

Kerry had to wait 5 years, until after Jimmy Carter pardoned the Vietnam War traitors, to get his honorable discharge that was dated in 1977.
Oh, so then he was honorably discharged.
Speaking of traitors and cowards, Bill Clinton spent his entire second year at Oxford organizing and participating in pro-Communist demonstrations. I vividly remember one of those demonstrations in which they marched on the American Embassy in London and deposited crude wooden coffins along the fence around the Embassy. It wasn’t until many years later that I learned that Clinton planned, organized, and participated in that demonstration.
I don't see the problem. A patriot who believes a war we're engaged in is a terrible mistake has the right to say as much, right?

Pro-Communist demonstrators (traitors) like Clinton and Kerry prolonged the Vietnam War by about 5 years and were responsible for the deaths of at least 20,000 American troops.
I argue that they shortened the war and therefore saved the lives of many who would have otherwise died there.

So where is your condemnation of draft dodger Cheney, of the five deferments? And of all the rest in the administration who avoided serving?

Bush got into the Guard just before his deferment expired. He jumped the waiting list that others had been on for years, and was sworn in as an airman immediately. How'd he pull that off? Oh, with the help of a political connection - Ben Barnes. (His score on the aptitude test was atrocious, so it couldn't have been his supreme talent.)

When he went to Alabama to work on a campaign, he never showed up at the new post. He never took his physical and was suspended from flying for a time. Apparently he didn't fly at all during his last 18 months of service. Then the Guard let him out eight months early so he could go to Harvard business school, which - following a pattern - he was also let into through family connections.

Some service. You hold this guy up as a hero?

[Native American]

I have the results of recent polls that show your man Bush in the 34-40% approval range. Therefore, he'd get that much of the vote if the election were held today.

LOL! Your polls weren't based on 52% Republicans, 48% Democrats, even though that's the vote spread in the latest elections!

Look, we're gonna have to explain it to you again - if you take a poll and bias it with mostly people who voted Democrat, even though the latest elections show that most people vote Republican, then OF COURSE you're going to end up with results showing that the Republican "is unpopular"! Hell, the people who voted Democrat in the last election voted for Kerry, not Bush! Bush was unpopular with those voters then, same as now!

Learn how to take an accurate poll, Bob.

CBS could just as easily gin up a poll today, based on, say, 70% people who voted Republica and 30% who voted Democrat, and ask them, "What approval rating do you give John Kerry?"

Any idea what sort of results would obtain from that CBS poll, Bob? And, if I thought like you (thank God that I don't!) I could say, "I have the results of recent polls which show your man Kerry in the 15-23% approval range. Therefore he'd get that much of the vote if the election were held today."

Yet we know that Kerry instead got 48% of the vote.

If you want to propagandize, you run polls topheavy with either Democrats or Republicans, depending on the "findings" you want the poll to show. But if you want accuracy, you run the polls based on the actual spread of how actual people actually vote. Which means you base your poll on 52% who voted Republican and 48% who voted Democrat.

[Native American]

Basically, if you understood how statistics work, you'd understand that a random sample of 1100 people will yield results that are within at most a few percent of the percentage of the population as a whole - regardless of how many millions of people it is.

Your ignorance is appalling.

The "random sample" polls prior to the 2004 elections showed Kerry leading Bush in the range of 5% to 8%. Yet the reality was that Kerry trailed Bush by 4%! Why? Because those "random sample" polls weren't based on the reality that 52% vote Republican and 48% vote Democrat! Instead, those "random sample" polls were based on more Democrats than Republicans, and with a hefty chunk of so-called "independents" (none of whom voted for the Independent candidate, since there wasn't one) so guess what? Those polls showed Bush trailing, rather than leading!

If you want accuracy, you construct your poll based on the actual spread of how people actually vote, not make it topheavy with Democrats and "independents"! IOW, you base your poll on 52% who voted Republican and 48% who voted Democrat.

[Native American]

So where is your condemnation of draft dodger Cheney, of the five deferments?

Your ignorance is appalling. Just because a person receives a deferrment doesn't mean he is a "draft dodger". For example, people who are blind are given a deferrment. But an ignorant person like you would label them a "draft dodger".

Grow up, Bob.

[omegatrump]

As someone who served in the US Army I can honestly tell you that if you dont complete your service, you dont get an honerable discharge. Bush has an honerable discharge which means he fulfilled his contract. It doesnt matter who you are related to. The Army doesnt care. They do care what you do while you are a member of the military and they will throw you in the brigg if you go AWOL.

Shorty, with all due respect, I have served in the military as well, and my experience is that I would take any military record with a grain of salt. I have a friend who is a WWII vet who has tried for the past 20 years to get his nationality corrected on his military records. They have him listed as Mexican and he has no Mexicans in his family.

I first hand observed the falsifying of records in Vietnam. One incident was when one of our own was wounded by friendly fire. They wrote the wounded guy up as a hero and gave him a silver star, the two sergeants that shot him got bronze stars, they tried to give me a bronze star for the incident and I refused it. I told the Lieutenant, "I didn't do anything, all I did was secure the LZ for the dust off chopper to come get him".

That is just one of the fiction stories I can tell of bogus Army records.

As for the Thread topic, its all Mute. As for the 06 elections a vote for a Republican Senator is a defacto vote for the Democrat agenda. The spineless Republican Senate is the best agenda promoter the Democrat party has. The fact is becoming more evident all the time that Bush is COMING out of his closet of liberalism and it doesn't really matter which party is in power we're going to get more of the same ONE PARTY manipulation regardless.

[Native American]

I first hand observed the falsifying of records in Vietnam. One incident was when one of our own was wounded by friendly fire. They wrote the wounded guy up as a hero and gave him a silver star, the two sergeants that shot him got bronze stars, they tried to give me a bronze star for the incident and I refused it. I told the Lieutenant, "I didn't do anything, all I did was secure the LZ for the dust off chopper to come get him".

John Kerry, in a nutshell.


As for the Thread topic, its all Mute. As for the 06 elections a vote for a Republican Senator is a defacto vote for the Democrat agenda.

Number One, it's spelled "moot", not "mute".

Number Two, voting for a Democrat Senator is a vote for the Democrat agenda, while a vote for a Republican Senator is a vote for the Republican agenda. And the Republican agenda is more popular than the Democrat agenda, which is why the Democrats keep losing the elections.

Number Three, the Libertarian Party is a total waste.

[omegatrump]

Your ignorance is appalling. Just because a person receives a deferrment doesn't mean he is a "draft dodger". For example, people who are blind are given a deferrment. But an ignorant person like you would label them a "draft dodger".

Grow up, Bob.

NA, you exhibit far more ignorance than does B A. In fact your colossal ignorance demonstrates a total lack in the ability to reason. Did you serve in the military or are you a Chickenhawk as well?

[omegatrump]

Your ignorance is appalling. Just because a person receives a deferrment doesn't mean he is a "draft dodger". For example, people who are blind are given a deferrment. But an ignorant person like you would label them a "draft dodger".

Grow up, Bob.

It's spelled deferment, not deferrment you ignorant oaf.

[Rhino]

NA, you exhibit far more ignorance than does B A. In fact your colossal ignorance demonstrates a total lack in the ability to reason. Did you serve in the military or are you a Chickenhawk as well?I did, and he's at least correct in the sense that a deferment does not a draft dodger make. Two very different things. You were correct in correcting Shorty, but you also have to realize that National Guard service is different from active duty. It's very common to have National Guard service curtailed, for a myriad of reasons, and an honorable discharge still results. You don't need political connections or pull for it either.

[omegatrump]

I did, and he's at least correct in the sense that a deferment does not a draft dodger make. Two very different things. You were correct in correcting Shorty, but you also have to realize that National Guard service is different from active duty. It's very common to have National Guard service curtailed, for a myriad of reasons, and an honorable discharge still results. You don't need political connections or pull for it either.

I am not sure about your service, or when it was Rhino, but during the Vietnam era a deferment may indeed be paramount to dodging the draft. The manipulation of draft boards, college deferments (even by rich kids who couldn't keep their grades up but daddy could pay the tuition), and stories of political connections were very common in those days. As for Bush? For me it doesn't matter, the guy is a liberal globalist plain and simple.

[queue]

On July 4, 1999 the Dallas Morning News ran an article called "Bush's stint in Guard scrutinized;Flier avoided battle but favoritism denied" (a pdf copy of the article can be found here (http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/09/Slover-Juempel%20DMN%20article%2007-04-1999%20re%20Bush%20and%20TANG.pdf)). A few exerpts from the article.Officers who supervised Mr. Bush and approved his admission to the Guard said they were never contacted by anyone
on Mr. Bush's behalf.
"He didn't have any strings pulled, because there weren't any strings to pull," said Leroy Thompson of Brownwood,
who commanded the squadron that kept the waiting list for the guard at Ellington Air Force Base. "Our practices were
under incredible scrutiny then. It was a very ticklish time."While Guard slots generally were coveted, pilot positions required superior education, physical fitness and the
willingness to spend more than a year in full--time training.
"If somebody like that came along, you'd snatch them up," said the former commander, who retired as a general. "He
took no advantage. It wouldn't have made any difference whether his daddy was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.""That score for pilot seems low. I made that, and I'm dyslexic," Mr. Ianuzzi, a retired FBI agent who never earned his
wings but said it was significant that Mr. Bush did. "He passed the most important test. He flew the plane."
On the "officer quality section," designed to measure intangible traits such as leadership, Mr. Bush scored better than
95 percent of those taking the test.Mr. Bush's application for the Guard included a box to be checked specifying whether he did or did not volunteer for
overseas duty. His includes a check mark in the box not wanting to volunteer for such an assignment.
But several personnel officers said that part of the application for domestic Guard units routinely would be filled out
that way by a clerk typist, then given to the applicant to sign.
Mr. Bush has said that he signed up for but lacked the number of flying hours to participate in a program called the
Palace Alert, which eventually rotated nine pilots from his unit into duty in Southeast Asia from 1969 to 1970.
His signup and willingness to participate was confirmed by several of his colleagues and superiors, who remembered
the effort as brash but admirable.Former Guard officials and members of Mr. Bush's unit said that release, seven months early, was not unusual for the
Guard. Mr. Bush's unit was changing airplanes at the time, from the single--seat F--102 to the dual--seat F--101. They said
it made little sense to retrain him for just a few months' service, and letting him go freed spots for the Guard to recruit F--
101 pilots from the Air Force and elsewhere.To reiterate, all of this information was known in 1999.

From a February 11, 2004 article on MSNBC titled Alabama commander regrets Bush comments (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4242877)"I don't remember whether he came or not. Our unit had about 900- 1,000 men and he could have attended many meetings without me ever knowing it," Turnipseed said this week.

As for Bush being AWOL, Turnipseed said, "No way. He was never assigned to our unit so he couldn't be AWOL. Like so many Guard and Reserve soldiers during the Vietnam War, they moved around and temporarily attended meetings with other units but Bush never left his original unit in Texas.”

Turnipseed has said all along there would be no mention of the president in the Alabama unit since Bush was paid out of Texas.

When asked about Bush’s pay record, Turnipseed said the paymaster in Alabama would note Bush attended a meeting and send the information onto Texas on what he described as an "IBM 105" card where it would be recorded and sent onto payroll in Colorado.

(snip)

On Tuesday, the White House released payroll records that showed the president received credit for attending meetings in October and November 1972. From a February 13, 2004 article in USAToday titled Former Guardsman: Bush served with me in Alabama (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-13-bush-military_x.htm)A retired Alabama Air National Guard officer said Friday that he remembers George Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972, reading safety magazines and flight manuals in an office as he performed his weekend obligations.
"I saw him each drill period," retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Daytona Beach, Fla., where he is preparing to watch this weekend's big NASCAR race.

(snip)

Calhoun has not made any donations to Bush this election season or during the 2000 season, according to campaign finance records.Also from USAToday, it has copies of the documents released from Bush here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-02-14-bush-docs.htm).

From Wikipedia on Ben Barnes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Barnes)Ben Barnes (born April 17, 1938) is an American lobbyist and former Lieutenant Governor of Texas. He was a vice-chair [1] and top fund-raiser of the John Kerry campaign, being one of only 8 people who have raised over $500,000 for Kerry [2]Some more items regarding Bush's Air National Guard service:

Chicago Sun-Times, Media failed to find facts behind Bush's service record , February 11, 2004 (http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-banal11.html)

The Hill, Bush’s National Guard years Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts by Byron York, September 9, 2004 (http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx)

ChronWatch, Bush Guard Service, the True Story by Gordon Bloyer, August 26, 2004 (http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9259)

[Rhino]

I am not sure about your service, or when it was Rhino, but during the Vietnam era a deferment may indeed be paramount to dodging the draft. The manipulation of draft boards, college deferments (even by rich kids who couldn't keep their grades up but daddy could pay the tuition), and stories of political connections were very common in those days. As for Bush? For me it doesn't matter, the guy is a liberal globalist plain and simple.You assume manipulation. I do not. The deferment system exists for good reasons and, absent manipulation, a deferment does not make you a draft dodger. That was the point I was making. Just about any system can be manipulated for dishonest means, but that doesn't mean valid users of the system should be lumped in with the manipulators. In that context at least, NA was correct that a deferment can not automatically be assumed as dodging the draft. If that were the case, there would be no deferment system at all.

My service was later than Vietnam.

[Naturalized-Texan]

i.e., you have no idea if it actually is a less than honorable discharge. You're assuming.
It's not an assumption at all. It's simple logic. Since he was acting in a treasonous manner while still in the Navy, logic would dictate that the Navy would not and could not give him an honorable discharge at the completion of his tour of duty.

Oh, so then he was honorably discharged.
Only after Carter issued a blanket pardon of all Viernam War traitors 5 years after the end of Kerry's tour.

I don't see the problem. A patriot who believes a war we're engaged in is a terrible mistake has the right to say as much, right?
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, as Clinton and Kerry did, is the very definition of treason as contained in the U.S. Constitution.

I argue that they shortened the war and therefore saved the lives of many who would have otherwise died there.
Then you are ignorant of the facts. We had the Vietnam War won following the American/South Vietnam defeat of the North Vietnamese Army at the Tet Offensive in 1968. Pro-Communist demonstrators like Clinton, and later, Kerry, allowed Gen. Gial to snatch victory from that defeat, thus prolonging the war for another 5 years and causing another 20,000 deaths of American troops.

Here's some more facts about Gen Giap:

From the memoirs of General Giap, Commanding General of the North Vietnamese Army: The Tet Offensive launched by the North Vietnamese in 1968 was the last gasp of a defeated army much as the Battle of the Bulge was in World War II. The Tet Offensive was a huge military defeat for the North Vietnamese Army. Our military commanders knew that the North Vietnamese Army was defeated and wanted to press our advantage but the politicians in Washington chickened out. Consequently, that huge military defeat was turned into a giant propaganda victory for the North by the anti-American press and pro-Communist demonstrators like Bill Clinton.

More from Gen. Giap’s memoirs: Gen. Giap, Commanding General of the North Vietnamese Army, gloats in his memoirs about how the American press and the pro-Communist demonstrators prolonged the war and helped him to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Gen. Giap also confirmed another fact that we who supported our troops in Vietnam knew all along: The war was clearly an invasion of the South by the North Vietnamese Army. It was NOT a civil war as the press claimed. Gen. Giap tells us that the Viet Cong were really crack units of the North Vietnamese Army that were infiltrated into the South during the 1950s to pave the way for the full-scale invasion that followed.

We know from Gen. Giap’s memoirs that the Viet Cong were really crack units of the North Vietnamese Army. The Viet Cong’s recruitment techniques were particularly gruesome. When the Viet Cong needed to “recruit” more cannon fodder, they would go into a South Vietnam village and execute the village elders either by decapitation or disembowelment. Then they would start raping and torturing women and girls until enough men and boys decided to join them. If that didn’t work, the Cong would begin killing babies and young children until they got enough “recruits.” When they went into battle, they would often use the women and children they had just raped and tortured as shields.

You say that you never heard of Gen. Giap’s memoirs? I’m not surprised. The left-dominated American “mainstream” media can’t acknowledge a book that provides proof positive that they lied about the Vietnam War.


So where is your condemnation of draft dodger Cheney, of the five deferments? And of all the rest in the administration who avoided serving?
There's nothing to condemn because they didn't dodge the draft.

Bush got into the Guard just before his deferment expired. He jumped the waiting list that others had been on for years, and was sworn in as an airman immediately. How'd he pull that off? Oh, with the help of a political connection - Ben Barnes. (His score on the aptitude test was atrocious, so it couldn't have been his supreme talent.)
As I have proven before, that is all bullshit. Ben Barnes's claim is a politically-motivated lie. There was no political connection. I posted the facts previously - George W. Bush was one of the very few applicants who was willing and able to take more than a full year of full-time pilot training that was required. He passed the aptitude test and aced the leadership test and his leadership was the deciding factor. (Note: He has continued to show his superior leadership qualities to this day.

When he went to Alabama to work on a campaign, he never showed up at the new post. He never took his physical and was suspended from flying for a time. Apparently he didn't fly at all during his last 18 months of service. Then the Guard let him out eight months early so he could go to Harvard business school, which - following a pattern - he was also let into through family connections.
Again, that is bullshit and you know it. He DID report at the new post in Alabama and he completed all of the required hours for the year that included his work in that campaign. Since his assignment in Alabama did not include flying beacuse the Alabama ANG was not flying F-102s and there was not sufficient time remaining in his service to qualify him for a different plane. Yes, he received his honorable discharge early to attend Harvard Business School, but he had already completed the required hours of service for that year.

Some service. You hold this guy up as a hero?
At least he received an honorable discharge at the completion of his tour, and your hero, Kerry, didn't, and he wasn't a traitor as your heroes, Clinton and Kerry, were.

Here is a link to the facts about Bush's National Guard service. Read it an weep for your ignorance of the facts:

Bush and the National Guard: Case Closed (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp)

Some excerpts:

Ask retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed whether the press has accurately reported what he said about George W. Bush, and you'll get an earful. "No, I don't think they have," he begins. Turnipseed, the former head of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group of the Alabama Air National Guard, was widely quoted as saying he never saw Bush in Alabama in 1972, and if the future president had been there, he would remember. In fact, Turnipseed says, he doesn't recall whether Bush was there or not; the young flier, then a complete unknown in Alabama, was never part of the 900-man 187th, so Turnipseed wouldn't have had much reason to notice him. But most reporters haven't been interested in Turnipseed's best recollection. "They don't understand the Guard, they don't want to understand the Guard, and they hate Bush," he says. "So when I say, ‘There's a good possibility that Bush showed up,' why would they put that in their articles?"

In recent weeks, Turnipseed has found himself in the middle of a battle in which Democrats have called the president a "deserter" who went "AWOL" for an entire year during his time in the Air National Guard. When Democrats made those accusations — amplified by extensive press coverage — the White House was slow to fight back, insisting that the issue, which came up in the 2000 campaign, was closed and did not merit a response. It was only after NBC's Tim Russert brought the story up during a one-hour interview with the president on February 8 that the White House changed course and released records of the president's Guard service.

Those records have not quieted the most determined of the president's enemies — no one who watches the Democratic opposition really believed they would — but they do make a strong case that Bush fulfilled his duties and met the requirements for Air National Guard officers during his service from 1968 to 1973. A look at those records, along with interviews with people who knew Bush at the time, suggests that after all the shouting is over, and some of the basic facts become known, this latest line of attack on the president will come to nothing.

FOUR YEARS OF FLYING
The controversy over Bush's service centers on what his critics call "the period in question," that is, the time from May 1972 until May 1973. What is not mentioned as often is that that period was in fact Bush's fifth year in the Guard, one that followed four years of often intense service.

Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training — a full-time job — at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training — again, full time — at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training — full time — at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty.

........................

THE MOVE TO ALABAMA
The records show that Bush kept up his rigorous schedule of flying through the spring of 1972: He was credited for duty on ten days in March of that year, and seven days in April. Then, as Bush began his fifth year of service in the Guard, he appears to have stepped back dramatically. The records indicate that he received no credit in May, June, July, August, and September 1972. In October, he was credited with two days, and in November he was credited with four. There were no days in December, and then six in January 1973. Then there were no days in February and March.

The change was the result of Bush's decision to go to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. With an obligation to the Guard, Bush asked to perform equivalent service in Alabama. That was not an unusual request, given that members of the Guard, like everyone else, often moved around the country. "It was a common thing," recalls Brigadier General Turnipseed. "If we had had a guy in Houston, he could have made equivalent training with Bush's unit. It was so common that the guy who wrote the letter telling Bush to come didn't even tell me about it."

The president's critics have charged that he did not show up for service — was "AWOL" — in Alabama. Bush says he did serve, and his case is supported by records showing that he was paid and given retirement credit for days of service while he was known to be in Alabama. The records also show that Bush received a dental examination on January 6, 1973, at Dannelly Air National Guard base, home of the 187th (January 6 was one of the days that pay records show Bush receiving credit for service). And while a number of Guard members at the base say they do not remember seeing Bush among the roughly 900 men who served there during that time, another member, a retired lieutenant named John Calhoun, says he remembers seeing Bush at the base several times.

[Popperite]

Your ignorance is appalling.

This should be good.

The "random sample" polls prior to the 2004 elections showed Kerry leading Bush in the range of 5% to 8%. Yet the reality was that Kerry trailed Bush by 4%! Why? Because those "random sample" polls weren't based on the reality that 52% vote Republican and 48% vote Democrat!

A reality to be realised in the future at that point, since the 2004 elections had not taken place yet at that time.

Instead, those "random sample" polls were based on more Democrats than Republicans,

Were they now. Any data on that? Or are you supposing that they weren't "random" and that a hoax was performed? Or did this random sample just turn out to generate that result? If so, what's the problem?
But wait a minute, according to your philosophy those polls should have been based on the most recent election results for President. Those were the results from 2000 weren't they? The ones in which Gore won the popular vote.

and with a hefty chunk of so-called "independents" (none of whom voted for the Independent candidate, since there wasn't one)

I see, so these independents voted for...... one of the two candidates that were around perhaps? Or should people without party affiliation be left out of polls altogether?

If you want accuracy, you construct your poll based on the actual spread of how people actually vote,

Which we don't know yet. Hence the only reason to hold polls in the first place. Prophecy is a lost art NA.

I have not yet seen anyone in this thread explain why recent party affiliation figures, or a random sample, or figures about how many people like oatmeal and how many not for that matter, are in principle a worse thing to base a poll on than your most recent relevant election.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bob_Arctor:

I forgot to mention that George W. Bush released ALL of his military records - twice: in 2000 and again in 2004.

In stark contrast, John Kerry has steadfastly refused to release his military records and the reason is obvious. He doesn't want anyone to see that he was originally given a less-than-honorable discharge and that he didn't deserve his Silver Star and at least one of his Purple Hearts.

[Bob_Arctor]

Look, we're gonna have to explain it to you again - if you take a poll and bias it with mostly people who voted Democrat, even though the latest elections show that most people vote Republican, then OF COURSE you're going to end up with results showing that the Republican "is unpopular"!
This is ridiculous - both your continuing misunderstanding and your use of the royal "we." :grin:

There are slightly more people registered Democrat than Republican. However, the Republican candidate won by several percent. Does this mean that slight Democrat majority suddenly disappeared? Why, no. It means that many of the people registered Democrat voted Republican, during that election. That does not mean that there are actually more Republicans than Democrats out there - it just means some of them voted out of their party, during one election.
Hell, the people who voted Democrat in the last election voted for Kerry, not Bush! Bush was unpopular with those voters then, same as now!
He was far more popular then than he is now. And if that were the case - that all Democrats voted for Kerry - then Kerry would have won, not lost. You've wrecked your own "argument."
If you want to propagandize, you run polls topheavy with either Democrats or Republicans, depending on the "findings" you want the poll to show. But if you want accuracy, you run the polls based on the actual spread of how actual people actually vote. Which means you base your poll on 52% who voted Republican and 48% who voted Democrat.
How can we include 52% Republicans if they are far less than that percent of the voting population?

Basically you still have not provided any rationale for your scheme. It's pure wishful thinking, because you would love to get results that would be, to use your term, propaganda.

Also you've conveniently ignored the fact that once you poll a random sample of 1100 people, the results will always be within a few percent of the results gained from polling the entire population.

[Bob_Arctor]

The "random sample" polls prior to the 2004 elections showed Kerry leading Bush in the range of 5% to 8%. Yet the reality was that Kerry trailed Bush by 4%! Why?

Ahh, I see it now! Suddenly I understand why you're so confused - it's because you make things up! Kerry leading Bush by 5 to 8%? Nonsense.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/polls/index.html
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=770 bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD></TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=622 border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/images/spacer.gif</TD><TD>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/images/spacer.gif</TD><TD>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/images/spacer.gif</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD class=cnnBodyText colSpan=3>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2004/special/images/likely.voters.hdr.gif
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2004/special/polls/images/key.likely.voters.gif http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2004/special/president/showdown/images/charts/likely.voters_10.31.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


And this, of course, is from the supposedly "liberal" CNN, which would assuredly give Kerry any extra benefit. Even so, it shows him usually behind, tied at best.
Because those "random sample" polls weren't based on the reality that 52% vote Republican and 48% vote Democrat!
How could they be? Why would we poll at all if we somehow knew the results ahead of the time? Tsk tsk.
Instead, those "random sample" polls were based on more Democrats than Republicans, and with a hefty chunk of so-called "independents" (none of whom voted for the Independent candidate, since there wasn't one) so guess what? Those polls showed Bush trailing, rather than leading!
So you're saying that if you ask a registered Independent who he'll vote for, he cannot say "Bush"? This is what you're implying. Independents make up a good percentage of the public, and they are indeed allowed to vote. If there is no Independent candidate, they have to vote for someone else - like Kerry or Bush. I feel like I'm explaining this to a child. :rolleyes:

If you want accuracy, you construct your poll based on the actual spread of how people actually vote, not make it topheavy with Democrats and "independents"! IOW, you base your poll on 52% who voted Republican and 48% who voted Democrat.
But if we did that we'd get a very inaccurate result, because, as you cannot seem to fathom, people's opinions change over time. The Republicans did very well over the last few years. Now opinion is turning away from them. It happens.

[Bob_Arctor]

It's not an assumption at all. It's simple logic. Since he was acting in a treasonous manner while still in the Navy, logic would dictate that the Navy would not and could not give him an honorable discharge at the completion of his tour of duty.
That's still an assumption. You've no evidence.
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, as Clinton and Kerry did, is the very definition of treason as contained in the U.S. Constitution.
"Aid and comfort"? Please explain how protesting amounts to that. And if it does, explain why war protesters are never arrested for that very, very serious crime. Explain why conservatives were exempt from "treason" when they argued against Clinton's various military adventures.
Then you are ignorant of the facts. We had the Vietnam War won following the American/South Vietnam defeat of the North Vietnamese Army at the Tet Offensive in 1968. Pro-Communist demonstrators like Clinton, and later, Kerry, allowed Gen. Gial to snatch victory from that defeat, thus prolonging the war for another 5 years and causing another 20,000 deaths of American troops.
I've never heard we had it won before. If we did, why'd we have to declare victory then leave years later, which was instantly followed by the North's victory? Basically if we had it won, it would be won. In reality, it was a lost cause, and protesters are your scapegoat. Conservatives are laying the groundwork for the same excuses for the Iraq debacle as we speak. "Oh, we were winning, until those evil protesters somehow made us lose!"

Also, please explain to me how protesters affect results of battles in war. I've always wondered about that conservative line.
There's nothing to condemn because they didn't dodge the draft.
So Clinton with his deferments did, but Cheney with his deferments did not? What about Limbaugh the chicken hawk? Ashcroft? Wolfowitz? Rove? Right... It's amazing - I'm actually having trouble thinking of any prominent right-winger who did serve.
As I have proven before, that is all bullshit.
"Claimed", not "proven." You tend to confuse your opinion with fact.
Ben Barnes's claim is a politically-motivated lie. There was no political connection. I posted the facts previously - George W. Bush was one of the very few applicants who was willing and able to take more than a full year of full-time pilot training that was required.
Of please. During the height of that war there were waiting lists for the Guard. You mean to tell me that no poor guy who was going to be an full-time infantryman in the jungle would be willing to learn to fly jets full-time at home? You're delusional. What would you have chosen NT, if you had had to decide between them? I sure would have gone for flight training, but I would have been on the waiting list, so I'd be drafted. The same would have happened to you.
He passed the aptitude test and aced the leadership test and his leadership was the deciding factor.
He passed it with the lowest score possible. Wow. Shouldn't they have chosen somehoe who scored a little higher?
(Note: He has continued to show his superior leadership qualities to this day.
Hehe, again in your opinion. I don't think he's a leader at all. I think he's in totally over his head. He's blowing it as President just as he has pretty much everything else he's ever been involved with.

As for his experiences in Alabama, I think Queue's references demolish your partisan claims quite well, though I'll add a few more. Bush's own records who he was absent for months at a time. If Kerry had done what Bush had, you'd crush him.

For example:

-Bush flew for the last time on April 16, 1972. Upon entering the Guard, Bush agreed to fly for 60 months. After his training was complete, he owed 53 months of flying.

But he flew for only 22 of those 53 months.

-Upon being accepted for pilot training, Bush promised (http://www.glcq.com/docs/redacted_five_year.pdf) to serve with his parent (Texas) Guard unit for five years once he completed his pilot training.

But Bush served as a pilot with his parent unit for just two years.

-In July 1972 Bush failed to take a mandatory Guard physical exam, which is a serious offense for a Guard pilot. The move should have prompted the formation of a Flying Evaluation Board to investigation the circumstances surrounding Bush's failure.

But no such FEB was convened.

-Guard members are required to take a physical exam every 12 months.

But Bush's last Guard physical was in May 1971. Bush was formally discharged from the service in November 1974, which means he went without a required physical for 42 months.

-Bush's unsatisfactory participation in the fall of 1972 should have prompted the Texas Air National Guard to write to his local draft board and inform the board that Bush had become eligible for the draft. Guard units across the country contacted draft boards every Sept. 15 to update them on the status of local Guard members. Bush's absenteeism should have prompted what's known as a DD Form 44, (http://www.glcq.com/regs/dd44_instructions.gif) "Record of Military Status of Registrant."

But there is no record of any such document having been sent to Bush's draft board in Houston.

-On July 30, 1973, Bush, preparing to attend Harvard Business School, signed a statement acknowledging it was his responsibility to find another unit in which to serve out the remaining nine months of his commitment.

But Bush never contacted another unit in Massachusetts in which to fulfill his obligation.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/20/bush_guard_records/index2.html

Oh, but of course he got his honorable discharge. I wonder if you or I would have gotten on of those, Tex - since we're just regular guys without any family or political connections. Do you really think things would have gone just as smoothly for us? I really doubt it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bob:
I'll have to apologize for stating that you are ignorant of the facts about Bush's military record. You just can't help yourself. It's isn't your fault that you don't know the facts and are merely parroting the lies of the liberal media. Byron York has actually looked at and analyzed Bush's military records and has published the facts, yet you choose to ignore those facts and place your blind faith on liberal-media lies. Consequently, you are beyond redemption.

salon.com!