What’s wrong with this picture?
This is a perfect example of how poll results can be misleading and depending upon the credibility of the pollster, questions couched to produce desired results. Furthermore the basic principles behind it are highly indicative of how America goes about electing its presidents, and that is woefully bad.
 |
| AP/Ipsos Poll Courtesy of MSNBC |
How would you answer the question?
If I based my answer on facts and the objectives as defined in President Bush’s surge strategy on January 10, 2007, I can’t give an empirical yes or no answer, and doubt that many, if any, could do otherwise. The only way I could answer the question today is with a high degree of subjectivity and applying provisions or caveats that the next person may or may not apply.
I’ll cite some reasons why I think this specific question is a bad poll question in a moment, but I want to make another point first based on the same principles. As I alluded to a moment ago, this is not a yes or no question, and unfortunately, it is indicative of the types of questions the presidential candidates are asked in debates, especially by CNN. Worse still are the asinine “raise your hand” questions.
Solutions or answers to complex issues and questions cannot be reduced to a neat little black or white box, one of which you choose and walk away with.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both stumbled in recent debates on the issue of providing undocumented workers drivers’ licenses. My personal opinion is Hillary Clinton simply blew it by trying to pander too much, but she’s not perfect like many expect her to be. Obama wanted to qualify his “Yes” answer, but Wolf Blitzer wanted no part of the details Obama had to offer. Blitzer ultimately achieved his, and CNN’s, biased goal - enhance Hillary’s performance and degrade Obama’s. And what was gained from that debate? Other than my rating of the worst debate I’ve ever watched, CNN was winner take all. It was substantially more about ratings and had little, if anything, to do with truly and objectively serving the voters needs.
Think about it. Harry Truman was probably the last president to be elected on something other than 30-second television sound bites. The year was 1948. I’m not slamming TV, I’m slamming what some have allowed it to become and continue to aggessively promote it — direclty and indirectly.
Moving back to the actual question posed above, these are just a few of the obvious holes, but I believe they will help emphasize my point.
If casualties drop from an average of 133 troops killed per month in the spring of this year to an average of 40 troops killed per month last month is that progress? Or would zero casualties be progress? If casualties spike to 75 next month, does that change the answer? Moreover, whatever the answer to the applicable question(s) is, is it a factor in determining if political objectives are being achieved, and if it is a factor, how much weight does it carry and which political objectives should it be applied to or subtracted from?
The number of casualties for U.S. troops and civilians (Iraqi and any other country) has declined over the past few months, but there has been no progress on the ultimate objective - the political solution. In fact, one could easily argue and win that the political objectives are substantially less likely to be achieved today than three months ago. President Bush proved that point by implementing his cut-and-run strategy for political objectives two weeks ago.
If I had to give a yes or no answer and could not qualify it, I would answer no because of the lack of political progress (regression in fact). And if that is not enough, what does my qualified, “No,” answer indicate?
Americans have serious questions they must answer over the next year. Not just two or three like who to vote for president, deciding a position on the war in Iraq, and immigration. The tougher questions are what are the needs of the country and the people? How should tomorrow be approached when no one knows what it will bring? What are the implications, if any to statements like Mitt Romney’s: “Religion needs freedom, and freedom needs religion”
Should certain Senators and Representatives be reelected because they earned it and are we sure we know what “it” is? Is expressing my opinion in the voting booth enough or should I do something else?
That’s enough soapbox-standing for the foreseeable future.
0 Responses to “What’s wrong with this picture?”