Polls are momentarily subjective. I'm sure that with enough finagling you could even find a very, very short time for a poll where my opinions would be be popular among this blog's bloggers.

And, if I finagled a poll enough, there would be a short, short time when I'd be in agreement with the bloggers in this blog.

We all know how painful a poll can be.

As far as polls go, I personally still rely on the old fashioned Nielsen Ratings to tell me about America's mood.

For example, leading up to the midterm elections, when Democrats made congressional gains, conservative news program ratings saw a decline (of course, about half as many people vote in midterms and is the national presidential elections).

In reverse, for example, when it was reported that North Korea reputedly detonated an atomic weapon, conservative news program ratings went up across the board.

Ergo, all it takes is a crises (which isn't hard to come by in this world) and conservative news ratings go up. When things are relatively calm for short periods of time, liberal news ratings go up.

You can bet the farm that there will be more crises than calm in the world, and in the end analysis of when it comes time to vote in the national elections, conservative news ratings will be higher than liberal news ratings.

It's more than personal feelings. It's the reality of ratings. Betting on politics is like betting on the Super Bowl: Never bet with your heart. Always bet with your mind (and your pocketbook, of course, because it's always the economy).

fred call

Sent by fred call | 12:15 PM ET | 11-28-2007

How does perception correlate with factual progress? I am curious.

Of course, that would be actual journalism. ZING!

Sent by Jody Sol | 1:11 PM ET | 11-28-2007

Is it True? No U.S. soldier died in Iraq yesterday? (11/27/2007)

Or is the media too interested in the statistics, tea leaves, and B.S. of another 23-month campaign for the White House to cover "boring" stuff?
Like whipping al-Qaida , al-Sadr and the last of Saddam's buddies, to make the world safe for everyone in this world.

BTW, would someone compare the number of soldiers who have been killed/injured in Iraq to those lost in Vietnam?

Sent by Harold | 1:37 PM ET | 11-28-2007

why compare the number of dead and wounded to Vietnam? We lost that war. Iraq will not end until we win, whatever that is. Then you can compare how the mistake of vietnam correlates to the just and right invasion of Iraq. It's like getting a melvin from the football team and shooting up the glee club for retribution. Why doesn't anyone believe the truth? Because the truth has a liberal bias.

Sent by Tim Schaiberger | 3:17 PM ET | 11-28-2007

Sent by Harold: BTW, would someone compare the number of soldiers who have been killed/injured in Iraq to those lost in Vietnam?

Good question. Type in your seach engine for Vietnam Memorial Wall and the whole story is there, by name and year of death and where the soldier came from. That'd be (and the numbers aren't exact) close to 58,000 (I think little less than two dozen are women).

The exact statistics are there for you to see for yourself. We're talking what was commonly referred to as the Ten Thousand Day War. You do the math how many soldiers died by average per year's duration of Vietnam (and you're talking roughly six to ten million Vietnamese dead, depending on who's doing the counting).

Now, take the Korean War as an anomaly for the American body count, and for reasons known only in the minds of body counters, the number of dead U.S. servicemen ranges from 33,000 to 54,000, depending on whose statitics you want to go by.

And don't ask me to explain the bureaucracy of coming up with a unified statistical American body count for the Korean War. Go read it all for yourself. It's nuttier 'n a fruitcake.

But...and the big but....is that the Korean War was a lot shorter than Vietnam. Korea was roughly about two years long, the 800 day war, or so.

Either way you go, if you divide two years into whatever body count you pick, you see that on a year by year basis, Korea was one bloody mess for American servicemen.

And, a reminder....for Korea and Vietnam, there was a draft (and a lottery system).

So, you guys that don't have to worry about a letter from the State Department arriving in your mailbox, next time you see a serviceman at the ballgame....buy the guy or gal a beer.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 3:19 PM ET | 11-28-2007

Iraq has been described as a 'low-level' conflict and I think the body count is what that is based on. WWII, Korea and Vietnam (at it's height) all saw way more US soldiers dying than Iraq. I seem to recall in 1969\70 that the US body count was in the hundreds each week. But concentrating on body counts ignores two important factors in THIS war. Economic cost and political reality. Because of the high-tech, equipment heavy military of today, this war is running us deeper into debt. We may go bankrupt if we keep this up for too long. Politically, the Iraqi government just isn't moving fast enough (some say at all) to bring a united nation together. Remember that the whole purpose of the troop surge was to buy time so they could get it together. So far, they have squandered this window of opportunity. While they argue and fight and get nowhere, we may go broke. We may end up like the British when they tried to make Iraq a part of their empire. They didn't leave because they were losing a lot of troops; they left because they realized it just wasn't worth it for them to stay.

Sent by John R. Otten | 4:07 PM ET | 11-28-2007

A theory shared by a lot of people is that George Bush is a better president, in part, because of his low ratings with the general public. Allow me to explain why.

There is no question that George Bush rates high with the elite (who do not participate in polls, it's below their dignity too trifle with polls at polo games), while George Bush scores low with the masses (who somewhat enjoy being polled at baseball games choosing their all-stars).

If George Bush were scoring high with the masses, he wouldn't be scoring high with the elite. Whether you agree or not, the world is run by the minority numbers with the majority of financial power.

As the saying goes, one billionaire is worth more than ten million votes.

Hence, the low poll ratings with the general public is misleading as to the source of George Bush and company's power base.

Yes, it's not every democratic sounding. Actually, it's rather feudalistic sounding. But, America is a consumer nation. Americans are in shock and awe of those in power. Be they celebrities or politicians or athletes or whomever.

The underlying angst comes out in diatribes against those who are in power and with big bucks.

The lower George Bush's ratings go, the more power he connects with to the monied elite.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 8:21 PM ET | 11-28-2007

Let's open the anti-war book up to.....ah.....chapter ten: Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that began the Vietnam War.

Where we all ask ourselves: How did the Democratic Party get to be known as the anti-war party, when it was a seated Democrat who began the American involvement in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War?

Truman and Johnson.

And it was a seated Republican President when both the Koream and Vietnam Wars ended?

Eisenhower and Nixon.

And North Vietnam was known as the Democratic Republic of Vietnam?

On the Gulf of Tonkin incident: In 1965, Lyndon Johnson commented: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

Anti-War History Professor fred call aka bigbro

Sent by fred call | 10:54 AM ET | 11-29-2007

[Tim Schaiberger | 3:17 PM ET ] you missed the point I was trying make. But, [fred call | 3:19 PM ET] got most of it.
With today's live, minute by minutiae coverage, 24/7/365, every soldier injured in Iraq is identifed, their life story told and their families are interviewed. Is there nothing else to cover in this war but personal stories?
How about the 40+ chemical warheads for SCUD II missles found in the first year? (Nope, not a WMD, wasn't attached!) How about the artillery shells (placed as a roadside bombs) that happened to be a chemical binaries? (Nope, not a WMD, wasn't fired!)
The truth is: Saddam WANTED chemical, biological and nuclear weapons! He tried to stonewall the IAEA. That led us to believe he was close to having them. Better SAFE, than sorry!

Fred, your other points are right on![10:54 AM ET ] Democrats START wars, Republicans FINISH them!

Sent by Harold | 2:31 PM ET | 11-29-2007

There was a joke making the rounds in the days leading up to the U.S invasion of Iraq in April of 2003. A newspaper reporter asks the President if there is any proof that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. ???Of course,??? is the reply. ???We saved the receipts.???

At the close of active coalition ground troop invason in the First Gulf War of 1991, General Norman Schwarzkopf's troops were fifty miles out of Baghdad's front gates. American forces had captured some fifty thousand Iraqi troops, and pretty much knocked out what was left of Saddam's SCUD missiles that he'd been firing into Israel.

President George Bush the elder called Schwarzkopf's troops back.

If you remember, President George Bush's public poll ratings were at a record high after he called the troops back.

With all those high poll ratings, President George Bush lost to Bill Clinton a year or so later in the next election. It hurst so much to be polled.

In 2004, public polls showed George Bush Jr's ratings low with the public. Yet, George Bush continued his war policy in Iraq. George Bush handily defeated John Kerry in the election. So much for the pains of polling innocent people.

Argue all you want what is right from what is wrong about war in Iraq, the facts speak for themselves.

Every candidate, whether Republican or Democrat or Independent, knows that running on a policy of prematurely ending the war in Iraq is tantamount to automatically losing the election in '08.

In Las Vegas, the Super Bowl is like politics: Vote with your head, not your heart. That way you will end up with a winning bet.

The truth is, America can't walk away from being a superpower. It's way too late in the game for that.

Russia or China will gladly make America a suburb.

Then you'll really have something to complain about.....with nobody to listen as you sit in a frozen gulag.

Democratic candidates...are you listening? Do you care? Do you really want to make an effort at winning?

The anti-war vote will only help you lose the presidency. Plain and simple. A registered democrat sending you a friendly proviso before the voting starts.

Cause there are a lot of us Democrats who will vote the other way. Just thought I'd tell ya for your own good. In a friendly gesture.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 5:43 PM ET | 11-29-2007

"Polls show that talking tough about Russia standing up to foreigners strikes a chord with millions of Russians who yearn for the Soviet Union's once mighty superpower status."

Okay, how's that for a poll? While Putin tells the world that Russia isn't pulling back its tanks from European borders. Russia's not listening to past NATO agreements anymore.

Polls are what people want to read. What is convenient. What is leaning between truth and dendial.

People want the government to take care of their problems. Then people want government to stay out of their personal lives. That's like taunting a pit bull from the other side of the fence, only to discover that someone left the gate open.

Here comes Putin and his Russian tanks. People want the government to protect them. Then people complain that the government is over-protecting them.

And you wonder why polls and politics is like a broken record repeating that people just can't seem to make up their minds because world events are changing just too darn fast.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 9:51 AM ET | 11-30-2007

Harold is partially right but also partially wrong with his last post. And I suspect he missed Fred's point, actually. It's true that Saddam wanted WMD's, that is not in dispute. It's true that he was seeking to reshape the middle east to his liking, and thus was indeed a dangerous man. However, the fact of the matter was that the Bush administration led us into war with the argument that he had a MASSIVE WMD MANUFACTURING CAPABILITY WHICH HE DID NOT HAVE! Why not? Well, because the sanctions were essentially working, that's why. THAT is the point Harold. So why did he keep the IAEA at arms length? If Harold was familiar with Foreign Affairs magazine, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, he would know that Saddam thought his greater enemies were Israel and Iran, both of whom he feared might attack him. So he deliberately gave an impression that he had such a WMD program when in fact he only had a few hundred antiquated chemical weapons that probably wouldn't have been all that effective on the battlefield against our forces or anyone elses. Even King George II admits there was no significant WMD program (your fearless leader, Harold). Now as far as which party starts wars, that is ironic, isn't it? The Democrats have a stigma of being weak on defense yet most of the wars we've gotten into were lead by Democrats. (Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson). What Harold and all those who think like him miss, is that this fact underscores the LIE that the Dems are soft on defense. It's simply not true, Harold. Considering that Korea was not won and technically isn't even over today, and Vietnam was lost, would it not be more accurate to say that the Democrats lead us into war and the Republicans ensure that we don't win them? Yeah, Harold, that's actually more like it.

Sent by John R. Otten | 2:27 PM ET | 11-30-2007

An example of how war works: The global financial institutions and so on and so forth are the global organizations that finance wars. Which, in effect, starts wars. No sense starting something you can't afford. Right? No sense denying the reality of the global marketplace.

Been that way since before the American Civil War when France and Britain (dependent on southern cotton) almost came to the aid of Jefferson Davis, except Gettysburg changed their minds. Was that way when many prominent Americans helped finance Hitler's early years in the Brown Shirt movement. Because back then Hitler was the wedge against Stalin's Bolshevik movement into Europe. Then Roosevelt tried to figure a way to enter the war against Germany, while leaving Japan neutral. Then there was Pearl Harbo. Eisenhower advised Kennedy to stay out of Vietnam. Then there as Dallas. Fast forward a little, Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson led the CIA way to arming Osama and the Mujahideen during the Soviet Afghan war.

Today's allies are tomorrow's enemies. And the beat goes on. In the global marketplace, national defense is the big money maker because it takes money to make money.

Yes, people get indignant that wars cost money to make blood money. We all understand that. At the same time, Americans continue to put Saudi oil in their Toyota gas tanks while listening to Chinese CDs. And the American consumer habit isn't going to stop.

Israel, Pakistan, India and gawd knows who else in the region each has their atomic arsenal, sold to them by the big five arms merchants: U.S., Russia, China, France and Great Britain.

Iraq and Iran is an ersatz 'Berlin Wall' being built in the atomic rich region that happens to have oil (including Chechen oil, etc). We have an Oil/Atomic Weapon's Cold War, or whatever you want to call it, as superpowers with growing populations compete for dwindling energy sources.

Hence, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and generally the whole of the Democratic Party) at this time do not provide America with a strong image to deal with the global market competitiveness. Hence, if a Democrat were to win in '08, I'll run through the innaugural parade buck naked on a cold day.

The Democrats are happy to keep their congressional seats to promote state's rights, while the Republicans will continue to hold the central force of the White House determining global buseinss practices.

As Winston Churchill said, "The argument against Democracy is a two minute conversation with the voters."

In other words, if you left the decision making process up to the masses, you'd have pure chaos and nothing would get done except Russia and China would take us over, the two superpowers who put their dissenters into prison in a heart beat.

For all the discrepancies with the system, you still live in a greatly pleasure and luxury filled places the world has to offer. If you think the system is so unjust to you, if your sense of dignity is so damaged by the process, go live in the Amazon jungle while they burn it down to make way for farmland.

Be thankful for what you have. Forget trying to end the Iraq situation and focus your attention on domestic issues with your Democratic congress people. And get realistic about the reality of the global economy. Because the American people aren't going to go back to living in the trees and caves. And it's too late to pretend we are not a competitive superpower. Because Russia and China aren't going to pretend being nice guys.

Iraq is not end all, be all. It's a stepping stone in the ongoing global competition. And the voters will go with the strong national/international defense image in '08. And be glad you can complain without ending up in Siberia.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 10:17 AM ET | 12-01-2007

Fred says: "An example of how war works: The global financial institutions and so on and so forth are the global organizations that finance wars. Which, in effect, starts wars. No sense starting something you can't afford. Right?" Yes but you left some things out F.C. I have no doubt that global financial institutions have a lot to do with wars starting (WWI being a great example) and they do 'finance' wars. Another word for that is loan. As in, they loan money to governments but those governments are eventually expected to pay it back. Where do they get this money? The taxpayers of course. It's the taxpayers that actually pay for the war, both in terms of money and blood. At present the government is not collecting enough to pay for all this high tech gear (profits from the sale of which eventually make their way INTO the pockets of certain financial institutions) so they are taking the country into debt. Now, if the economy continues its recent upward trend, the gov't may be able to catch up and put itself back into the black. But the mortgage meltdown could monkeywrench the whole thing and send the economy back down, which in turn means less revenue and more debt for the government, which means ultimately more taxes down the road. Now, as for your point about today's ally being tomorrow's enemy: you got that right, big time. But remember, it wasn't the masses that trained Osama, it was the CIA, working at the behest of the Reagan administration. At the time the bogeyman was the Soviets, who turned out to be much weaker than we suspected. Reagan would not even have been governor, much less the president, if back in the 1960s the elite wealthiest members of Orange County, California, hadn't financed and backed his campaign for governor. See how that works?
You're definately right that our fuel consumption habits are fueling much of the political turmoil in the Middle East. And you're right to blame SUVs (monster trucks too) but then that's what environmentalists and liberals have been saying all along. Spending money on a secure America is not somethig I would ever take issue with. Spending money on a war based on lies and deception, however, is something I definately oppose. The decision making process has never been left up to the masses, not at any time in the history of the world. That means that the blame for just about all wars can be laid at the feet of the elite, regardless of the country. I am very grateful that I live in the richest most powerful country in the world where I can say and write what I want without fear. Great, wonderful. I'd like to keep it that way. I don't see idly sitting by and letting a corrupt and morally bankrupt administration as being a patriotic thing to do right now. Complaining about what's wrong IS patriotic if there's soemthing wrong to complain about. Keeping the country from wasting it's resources on unessesary wars IS patriotic. There's no use in having freedom of speech if you're not prepared to use it, right? I never suggested anyone should live in trees or anything like that. Have you been listening to Rush, or Hannity or Savage lately? You're starting to sound a little like them Fred. We are a superpower. So was Rome. But they lived too high on the hog and spent too much on military adventures, the combination of which eventually led to their downfall. I think it's very patriotic to point that out.

Sent by John R. Otten | 3:44 PM ET | 12-03-2007

Sent by John R. Otten: Another word for that is loan. As in, they loan money to governments but those governments are eventually expected to pay it back.

Wrong! Ant this is so complicated a global economic topic that I have to use two simple illustrations.

World War One created a huge debt for Germany, one that Germany could not pay, and in the depth of the economic depression, as more pressure was brought onto Germany to pay the debt, the Brown Shirts rose to power, choosing Hitler as their leader. Hence, World War Two began because the winners of World War One tried to collect a debt levied on Germany.

China can not dump the current debt America owes on Europe or Russia or Japan or anyone else. Short of China coming over here to buy and burn down the White House....China maybe doesn't want to mess with America all that much. (In other words, Don't Screw With Texas).

And if you do not first understand those two simple global economic impact phenomenons, then you don't understand squat about Iraq and Iran.

And you can go march in Washington so the FBI can take another photograph of you.

And the recent anti-terrorism bill was signed by Democrats and Republicans alike (you might not end up in Siberia, but you could end up in Guantanamo...where it is warmer).

And a majority jury of your peers will have no sympathy (pure unemotional fact and friendly advice on the workings of the majority Electoral College Vote mood of America).

And, no. All men are not created equal. Some of them are billionaires. Learn to accept reality in the global market place...and be thankful America has got so many billionaires who want to preserve the American capitalist ideals.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 5:01 PM ET | 12-03-2007