The Left-Angeles Times
Every morning, I pick up the LA Times and brace myself for the biased, agenda driven headline. This morning it was more difficult for them since they had to report their presidential poll which shows Bush leading Kerry by 6 points (a 6 point Republican lead in the Times usually translates to double digits). The Headline read "Bush Leads Kerry Going Into Debate". I think to myself, okay they're taking their lumps today and just attempting to be impartial. You're still a bunch of left-wing demagogues but bravo, you did your job.
Not so fast: Subheadline -- "Amid widespread concerns about the economy and Iraq war"...blah blah blah. Just for fun, I dip into the first couple paragraphs and the story isn't Bush's solid lead but rather how a majority of voters feel the situation in Iraq "wasn't worth" the effort there. Of course, a majority of voters also think Bush's policies have hurt the economy.
I think to myself that if all these people think things are bad at home and bad afar, then why is Bush leading? Must have to do with the way in which the poll is conducted:
Mr. Pollster: Good morning, do you have a moment to take a presidential survey?
Mr. Dufus Who Has Moment to Take Survey: Sure.
Mr. Pollster: Who do you plan to vote for in the presidential election, Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush?
Mr. Dufus: Uh...Bush.
Mr. Pollster: Okay, but, even though you plan to vote for Bush, do you think that with all of the billions of dollars being spent, over 1000 military deaths, car bombings, beheadings and general anarchy and terrorist-haven creation going on in Iraq, that the war was worth it?
Mr. Dufus: Uh...I guess so. Well, wait. I mean, I think we need to kill the terrorists and protect our children and stuff so...but I don't like all the killing and stuff that's happening there...
Mr. Pollster: I'll take that as a "no", then. Also, don't you think that since the Bush Administration has failed to create even one net gained job from the previous administration, that his policies are responsible for the really bad economy?
Mr. Dufus: Uh...yes?
Of course, I exaggerate...slightly.
Not so fast: Subheadline -- "Amid widespread concerns about the economy and Iraq war"...blah blah blah. Just for fun, I dip into the first couple paragraphs and the story isn't Bush's solid lead but rather how a majority of voters feel the situation in Iraq "wasn't worth" the effort there. Of course, a majority of voters also think Bush's policies have hurt the economy.
I think to myself that if all these people think things are bad at home and bad afar, then why is Bush leading? Must have to do with the way in which the poll is conducted:
Mr. Pollster: Good morning, do you have a moment to take a presidential survey?
Mr. Dufus Who Has Moment to Take Survey: Sure.
Mr. Pollster: Who do you plan to vote for in the presidential election, Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush?
Mr. Dufus: Uh...Bush.
Mr. Pollster: Okay, but, even though you plan to vote for Bush, do you think that with all of the billions of dollars being spent, over 1000 military deaths, car bombings, beheadings and general anarchy and terrorist-haven creation going on in Iraq, that the war was worth it?
Mr. Dufus: Uh...I guess so. Well, wait. I mean, I think we need to kill the terrorists and protect our children and stuff so...but I don't like all the killing and stuff that's happening there...
Mr. Pollster: I'll take that as a "no", then. Also, don't you think that since the Bush Administration has failed to create even one net gained job from the previous administration, that his policies are responsible for the really bad economy?
Mr. Dufus: Uh...yes?
Of course, I exaggerate...slightly.
posted by Wonderdog | 9:31 AM | Permalink
|
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home