I expect it feels good to remember this for supporters of Bush and his war. I expect that such supporters are feeling bad, thinking about how many people are kidnapped in Iraq every day, and are not rescued. Some are beheaded, some are found days or weeks later in mass graves, or on the backs of trucks, or in buses.

You would think, with a leader SOOOOO much more competent than Carter, and with our troops occupying the very country in which this is happening, that we might be more successful!!

Once in a while, we ARE successful, and more often, a captive is freed because the terrorists feel like it.

But, I find it a bit precious when people gloat over Carter’s failed attempt to rescue hostages from Iran when Bush is doing such a miserable job of protecting people from the crap-storm that he has perpetuated in a country occupied by our troops!

Bravo, Fung! Well, with Bush and the Republicans going down in flames, with only their own incompetence, shortsightedness, greed, ignorance and hubris to blame, the only place these guys can look for comfort is to their special take on the past, with Carter a failure who was despised by all Americans, and Reagan revered as a god-like hero. Soon, someone (probably not Bowden) will be writing "GOP War Hawks Down."

Did either of you two guys actually live through the Carter years, I mean old enough to remember. Were you one of those who saw the ghastly photos on the front page, as Steve and I were?

Yes, Dan, I did. I won’t say more, for fear of saying something uncivil and Cheney-or-Scalia-like.

Me too, Dan. Seen any beheadings, lately?

I love it. Jimmah Carter, the great liberal incompetent, re-exposed. Liberals are shocked that Americans have been reminded that one of their patron saints of Bush-bashing is a complete and total incompetent and fraud.

During the Carter years, the press was always on Billy Carter because poor billy was such a loser, but by 1980 most of the American Public understood that Jimmah was just as big a loser as Billy, except Jimmah didn’t have his own failed brand of beer. Let’s see...failed domestic policies, record high unemployment and do you remember astronomical inflation rates? Failed foreign policies, America in retreat all over the globe, Panama, Iran (Jimmah was responsible for pushing the Shah out of the way for the Ayatollah and the current cess pool that we are dealing with today),and then November 4, 1979. Americans taken hostage at the U. S. Embassy in Tehran and weak-kneed Jimmah dithered and dithered. Finally this half-hearted and rushed attempt to free the hostages and to resurrect Jimmah’s glorious re-election campaign. Do you remember?

The only thing worse than Jimmah’s incompetence is that the bush deranged syndrome affected liberals of our day are advocating a return to the failed policies and attitudes that Jimmah represented and that Americans rejected in 1980.

The only thing positive about the Carter years was that the American Public grew tired and weary of Jimmah’s incompetence and elected Ronald Reagan as President.

Carter’s failed mission was reported on my wedding day...both the mission and marriage have failed...shoulda guessed!
I remember Carter’s time in office very well, our first home mortgage was at 14.5%, gas was high as was everything else. For those of you who think this mission in Iraq is a failure, get screwed...one of my sons is there in his second tour and he tells me the truth, unlike your loved msm. We are winning dudes, you’re in denial and there is therapy and drugs for that.

Can anyone out there (i.e., FMG) tell me why everyone is saying Iraq is a ’failure’? If you look at both U.S. and civilian casualties, they are declining. Elections are being held, and Saddam’s sons are out in the public raping women and torturing people for fun and profit.

If mistakes were made, I suspect the major one was not smacking Iran. They are behind most of this violence...those people have been crazy since 1979, and as a recent special on Discovery pointed out, they have been engaging in a ’secret’ war against the U.S. for the last 25 years.

I doubt Iraq will be a ’failure’, and all the cut-and-run wussies will lead us into more "desert classics" situations.

Of course, I meant that Saddam’s sons aren’t raping, etc. Geez, I wish you could edit in this blog.

Can anyone out there (i.e., FMG) tell me why everyone is saying Iraq is a ’failure’?

Sure. The Left wants us to retreat from Iraq in disgrace, to damage Bush. Its all about political power for them, and if 50 million arabs must suffer tyranny for it, thats fine by them.

I don’t even read MSM coverage of Iraq anymore - its all done by "stringers". I get my Iraqi news from sites like Belmont Club and IraqtheModel.

If you read my post carefully, I have neither called Iraq a failure, nor have I said much in support of Carter. What I have done is to remind those who point to Carter’s "desert classic" with such glee that Bush is experiencing that many "classics’" weekly if not daily in Iraq.

And, then I remended you that we occupy Iraq, and to rescue people from a country that we ocupy should be easier than to rescue people from a country that we do not occupy.

Finally, I would remind you that your favorite defense of Bush being the President while we were attacked on 9/11 is that it was all his predecessor’s fault. So it must go with Carter.

I’m trying to think about who HIS predecessor was, with his WIN buttons, remember those? Whip Inflation Now? Did he mean, let’s prevent inflation (kind of a "preemptive strike) so that Jimmy Carter won’t have to deal with it? Or, does that mean that inflation was a problem for Ford.

And why was Ford the President? Was he elected, or was there some other reason? Maybe Dan is old enough to remember for us. Dan? Are you old enough to remember the events of the early 70’s? Do you remember those images with John Dean, and H.R. Haldeman?

Anybody remember "I am not a crook."???

Thanks for this trip down memory lane, Dan, and Lisa. Sorry Jimmy Carter ruined your marriage.

Rather strange if you ask me is the fact that Carter is on some levels a compassionate conservative akin to Bush...one might even argue that he is crunchy...especially when you factor in his religious background.

If Iraq and more generally the war on terror turns out to be a failure blame could be placed upon liberals and the media for poisoning the waters and helping us snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. On the other hand Bush could be blamed for failing to name the ennemy: Radical Islam. If one was blind to "political realities" (which some accuse Bush of being) one might even be able to say that Bush has launched a rather weak attack, short on the shock and awe and heavy on the handouts, to the point of ignoring the root cause of the terror, and thus failling to address it properly (including the building of "democracies" that fall drastically short of being liberal.)

John- I agree with you. The reason that Carter elicits such hatred among this bunch is that he lives the life that Bush pretends to live: the truly compassionate religious human being. The faux preachers and the instrumental spiritualists naturally want to attack the real thing.

As for Iraq being a failure: As a method of attacking the 9/11 terrorists and their friends, it was a failure before it began. As a way to find and capture Bin Laden, it remains a failure. As a way for Haliburton to make money, it is a success. As a strategy to put over 2300 American families in mourning, it is a resounding success. As a way to generate more hatred against the U.S., it cannot be surpassed. So, I guess it depends on one’s criteria....

Attack the real thing? What a hoo-haw laugh that is! Jimmah may be, in some people’s opinion, a fine upstanding man but he was clearly in over his head as President of the United States and history reflects that. Facts are stubborn things, especially when you are trying to defend the indefensible. Jimmah Carter had his chance, he bungled the job and the American Public sent him packing in the quickest called election in American history.

Jimmah serves in this example, in the context of the original article as a crystal clear and modern day example of a failed president but, you have problems with the article and our comments because it doesn’t neatly fit into your narrow point of view. Because, first, Jimmah is a patron saint to the anti-Bush crowd and second, criticism of Carter might cause Americans to realize that George W. Bush isn’t so bad after all, especially when compared to Jimmah Carter

We’ve been force fed the constant din of the anti-Bush crowd cackling for six years now that Bush is dumb, Bush is evil, Bush is Hitler, Bush is blah, double blah, and totally blah. Unemployment is up, it’s Bush’s fault. Unemployment is down, it’s Bush’s fault. A dog farted in Iraq, it’s Bush’s fault. It’s time for a reality check here, just because evil people in Iraq behead their captives is no reason for Americans to stop using their own heads to see beyond the tortured, pained and fictional reasoning that marks Jimmah Carter’s and the loony left’s comments that the msm media spoon feeds their audiences. If you want the truth about what is going on in Iraq skip the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the rest and go read the Belmont Club, IraqtheModel or the countless other milblogs. Try reading what the men and women who are on the front lines are saying and then ask them some questions. Questions like: Why are record numbers of U.S. rroops in Iraq reenlisting? Why do the U.S. troops in Iraq overwhelming support this mission? Then be really brave and ask them if what the msm media is reporting is really the truth, they’ll know because they watch what is being said in the U. S. and most of them are truly outraged because the truth is not being reported.

The reason that Carter elicits such hatred among this bunch is that he lives the life that Bush pretends to live: the truly compassionate religious human being.

LOL. That may have held true while he was building houses - most agreed then that he was the best ex-President. But his recent descent into the fever swamps has destroyed any remaining credibility.

As for Iraq being a failure: As a method of attacking the 9/11 terrorists and their friends, it was a failure before it began.

No. It summoned terrorists to die fighting US Marines in their own backyard, rather than gain experience stalking our families in the local shopping mall. NO ATTACKS ON AMERICAN SOIL SINCE 9-11.

As a way to find and capture Bin Laden, it remains a failure.

If you think the liberation of Iraq was meant to capture OBL, you’re smoking crack. BTW, just because we haven’t captured him yet doesn’t mean we haven’t crippled his ability to plan and launch more attacks. He’s been busy running and hiding for the last 4 years.

As a way for Haliburton to make money, it is a success.

Name another company that can provide the services Haliburton provides to our troops.

As a way to generate more hatred against the U.S., it cannot be surpassed.

They hated us before then. WTC bombing? Kobar towers? USS Cole? The arab mindset respects strength, not nuance. They will love us when we win.

So, I guess it depends on one’s criteria....

If your criteria is appeasement and weasel politics at the expense of national security, then sure. Please quit nagging - what would YOU have done? Crawled to the UN on your hands and knees to beg for a "stern" warning?

I reminded you that we occupy Iraq, and to rescue people from a country that we occupy should be easier than to rescue people from a country that we do not occupy.

Thats a stupid comment. For starters, we HAVE rescued several groups of hostages. Just not all of them.

Secondly, Carter’s OP was a surprise & stealth insert of Special Forces - Delta, Seals, Rangers, Recon. Comparing one to the other is idiotic.

I would remind you that your favorite defense of Bush being the President while we were attacked on 9/11 is that it was all his predecessor’s fault.

We don’t place all the blame on Clinton. We just wish he hadn’t been too busy sodomizing interns to accept OBLs extradition from Sudan...

So it must go with Carter.

Thats disingenuous. The topic doesn’t blame Carter for the hostage crisis, it blames him for his failed response to it. 9-11 was cased and planned on Clinton’s watch. It would have happened regardless of whether Bush or Gore was in office, but their responses to it would have been different.

Yes, it is clear from the historical record that Clinton clearly dropped the ball on OBL. The CIA provided him with two occasions to assassinate Bin Laden...he declined in the first instance because some bystanders might have been killed (bystanders?), and in the second because a UAE prince might have been killed. And of course he refused extradition from Sudan. When he did have a smoking gun he chose Carteresque tactics like tomahawking an aspirin factor.

Ultimately, Clinton will go down in history as the most do-nothing President of all time. I can’t think of a single initiative that was his alone...even welfare reform was forced on him. The guy was the James Buchanan of the 20th Century.

Bush has made many mistakes...no question. But at least he does things that have the potential to improve our situation.

I cannot keep up with all of you. And I can barely believe it. While Bush is caught in lie after lie, you have to go farther and farther back in history to find someone that makes him look good. Maybe you should jump over to fiction: Jabba the Hut was worse! The lying guy on Saturday Night Live lied more often!

You can only get so much purchase out of a bj and a failed rescue attempt. Thousands and thousands of people dead, and you keep pointing to one sexual act. Lies about wire-tapping, and yellow-cake, and "declassifying" (the new term for a leak) and you keep pointing to one (the same one!) sexual act.

Fine. I think you’ve gotten more satisfaction out of it than Bill did.

FMG, why should we jump over to fiction, we have more fiction that we can handle in your posts. The anti-Bush crowd charges that Bush lied, but it is very obvious to many Americans those charges aren’t as crystal clear as the anti-Bush crowd attempts to make them out to be. It is very clear that many of the relevant facts are misquoted or ignored and many of the conclusions are no more than delusions.

Our debate here has nothing to do with Bill Clinton’s full Monica, the argument has been that Jimmah Carter was an incompetent president who badly mismanaged the Iranian hostage crisis and that Bill Clinton also mismanaged his opportunities to address terrorists when the attacked the U.S. and its interests.

1+1=2, Carter mismanagement + Clinton mismanagement = Terrorists who believe they have the United States on the run resulting in escalating terrorist attacks in the Middle East, Africa and in the U.S.on 911. Its clear to many that Carter’s and Clinton’s inactions emboldened the terrorists and that continued inaction would have lead to more devastating attacks on our own soil. How much terrorism and devastation in the United States are you prepared to live with?

Fung, you ignorant slut. When did Bush "lie?" That word comes so easily to your fingertips, and yet there is a difference between lying and acting on false or poor intelligence.

As for the Plame puffery, Bush didn’t LEAK...he declassified the information. Secrets don’t stay secret forever, and someone has to make the call. Bush had good reasons to declassify Plame...she, her hubby, and the CIA were engaged in a war against the administration, and using legal technicalities to tie his hands. He judged (rightly) that her "need" for anonymity was far outweighed by the country’s need for morale during warfare. Convict him if you can, Fung, but my bet’s on Bush.

Dain: He stood in front of the whole world, and said, in effect, " If there is a leak in the White House, then we will deal with it." He was asked later to verify the intent of his words, and he did. He could have said then that he had ’declassified" the Plame information, but he didn’t. He let Judith Miller sit in jail for months, because she has more integrity than he does, and her silence helped him to maintain his lie.

As for "declassification," I am guessing that the subject of such a move might expect to hear that her status was about to be changed BEFORE it happened?

He lied about wire taps, he lied about Iraq,in a conference in Buffalo NY, he lied about Al Quaeda in Iraq.

Back him all you want. You also backed Tom Delay. Remember saying: "There’s no THERE there"? You said that, as well about Plame-gate. Obviously, saying it doesn’t make it true. In fact, if you began to back ME, I might wonder if I was a liar!

Stick to the facts:

here’s a fact: 9/11/01, Bush is President, and the US is successfully attacked. Here is another: The Bush Administration was warned about the methodology, and failed to successfully defend this country.

Here is another: More innocent people are accidentally killed and abducted and murdered in Iraq in one week than were abducted during Carter’s Administration.

Here is another: We enjoyed a budget surplus during the Clinton Administration after a deficit that GREW during the Reagan-bush years, and grew faster and deeper than ever before in the first months of the bush-II administration. Here’s another: The approval rate of bush is in the mid-to-high 30’s, which is roughly on par with the approval rate for athlete’s foot. His administration and cabinet are falling all around him to charges of kiddie porn, attacks of conscience, and investigations by special prosecuters.

He is exposed as a liar and a creep, surrounded by a bunch of hand-picked creeps. The sooner you let go of him, and see them for what they are, the sooner you can look yourself in the mirror, after you realize what you have supported.

Fact 1: 9/11 was planned on Clinton’s watch, and the 1st WTC bombing occurred on his watch. And his lack of action emboldened our terrorist enemies. Deal with it!

Fact 2: Economic cycles and political cycles don’t mesh most of the time. Reforms at time 1 yield benefits at time 2. Even Clinton admitted that Reagan’s reforms and pro-business attitude were partially responsible for the boom of the 1990s. And, that boom fell off before Clinton left office...the recession began in late 1999.

Fact 3: Making an omelet takes more eggs than "fixin’ to make an omelette." Carter and Clinton fiddled while Rome burned...Bush actually has done something (which I think is yielding positive benefits today, and will yield more in the future).

Fact 4: FMG is a MoveOn.org creepface who couldn’t find his own ass in broad daylight with both hands. :) Have a nice day.

Yo, Fung, what’s with calling Fung/FMG an "ignorant slut" and a "creepface"? I can’t see where Fung/FMG has engaged in making any name-calling attacks on you in this thread. What’s your excuse? While I’m sure Fung can handle it all in stride, in the name of NLT’s pledge of keeping things mature, civil, and decent, those comments ought to be deleted.

Seriously, Dain, don’t you think you’re going a little overboard with the name-calling? It doesn’t make you look very mature.

FMG, your facts don’t impress me. They are awkward attempts to connect the dots and all you have to show for your efforts are a jumble of lines. Nothing of any value emerges, there is no clear picture presented from your efforts. Phobic rants are not facts.

The only fact that you’ve presented that I will address is your incorrect point that the budget surpluses of the late 90’s were because of Bill Clinton. I would argue that the House of Representatives, a majority of Republicans was responsible for those surpluses. The only thing that Clinton had to do with the surpluses was that he happened to be in office at the same time that fiscally responsible Republicans held the line on spending.

FMG is a big boy, and we have a history (he has accused me of racism on numerous occasions, which beats ’creepface’ all to Hell). No regrets here.

I AM a big boy, and generally I take the "crassness quotient" of my intrepid critics as an index of their frustration and desperation. When things are going well, and the blog is full of predictions about the downfall of the Left, then they can afford to be polite. But, with Bush’s approval ratings down around his ankles, and DeLay in disgrace, Libby selling out his bosses, Iraq in a shambles, and bush’s lies hitting even his most ardent supporters in the face, they are getting a bit shrill.

You can also tell that times are hard when people won’t even use their name or pseudonym, but rather a phrase. that gets tiresome.

BTW, I assume the first insult was a reference back to the old chevy Chase/Jane Curtin routine. :)

No, tiresome is the silly innuendo that serves as red meat for the kos crowd being served up as something meaningful on NLT, when in fact it is not because it is not supported by the facts at hand. Tiresome is hearing the same old contrived conspiracy theories that have little to no basis in fact being regurgitated again and again. You’re motivated by your hatred of Bush, I think we all have read enough to understand that. You’re frustrated, Bush is President, you’ve lost Congress, you’ve lost the Senate, you’re losing the Supreme Court and you feel misunderstood. So, you head on over to NLT for a little sympathy and you get demands for facts and truth. How depressing!

Ken - If you go back to my original comment, you’ll see that the righties have done more evading than I have. No one has addressed my suggestion that Carter’s job (rescuing hostages from a country like Iran during the islamic Revolution) was immensely more difficult than bush’s job of rescuing hostages from a country like Iraq where everything is going so swimmingly.

Well, one person called the suggestion a name, but really didn’t address its substance.

Otherwise, no one has been able to counter my original point. If bush is so freaking competent compared to Carter, why can’t he prevent the beheadings, the shootings, the bombings, the abductions, the uprisings, the civil war? Why can’t he find OBL?

In the interest of grace, I would suggest that you rectify that problem before you try to make the case that Carter was some sort of buffoon.

And Ken, "silly innuendo"? Have you read the news, or listened to the radio, lately? Have you ever lived through a Presidency that was more unpopular? Have you ever seen a President with more disdain for the rights of Americans? Only one, that I have experienced, and he at least had the good sense to resign.

OK, Fungus, I’ll help you out. Carter had a target, whereas current forces have conflicting intel (or no intel). And Carter FAILED UTTERLY, and destroyed the lives of the poor military men who were part of that slapdash scheme. It was a pathetic attempt. Bush, on the other hand, has sent men into Iraq under conditions where they have a fighting chance to make a difference. And yeah, I know, you can Monday-morning general all you want to, but Bush’s effort wasn’t a day late and a dollar short.

And yes, Bush’s numbers are low at the moment, but that won’t last. And he DID win a second term, whereas Jimmah got is ass wupped...for good reason. And Iraq has NOT been a failure, and anyone who says so is just spinning (or expected us to create a New Athens overnight...you whiners are all alike).

Fung: He stood in front of the whole world, and said, in effect, "If there is a leak in the White House, then we will deal with it." He was asked later to verify the intent of his words, and he did. He could have said then that he had ’declassified" the Plame information, but he didn’t.

Too bad none of the news from this past week had anything to do with the so-called "Plame information." Do you even read the news before you comment on it?

FMG, In respect to Carter’s job being more difficult than Bush’s, I believe that you are off base. Under Bush we are fighting a war, Carter wasn’t. Carter was attempting one mission, whereas a war consists of myriad missions in any given day. With all due respect Bush’s job is much harder.

Why can’t Bush stop the beheadings, the shootings, the bombings, and etc.? Could the answer to that be those are terrorists acts outside the realm of military operations? Why hasn’t Bush found OBL? Here is my question, why hasn’t OBL attacked a target inside of the United States since 911?

The case for Carter’s buffonary has already been made and the historical record is quite clear on that issue.

Do I read the news or watch tv, yes I do, but obviously we’re not reading or watching the same things. Yes, I have lived through presidencies that were more unpopular. At the risk of reigniting your wrath, Jimmy Carter was very unpopular, Richard Nixon was also and in many quarters Bill Clinton was very unpopular. Have I see a president with more disdain for the rights of the American people than Bush? Here again we have conspiracy theories but very little revealed truth, so the jury is still out. I’ve seen a lot of conspiracy theories and legal challenges lobbed like molatov cocktails at this presidency, but I keep reading that as these court cases are decided the amazing thing is that the courts are ultimately ruling for the Bush Administration.

The President can not leak, it doesn’t work that way, but hey, who cares about facts when lies and distortions make better news?

Too bad none of the news from this past week had anything to do with the so-called "Plame information." Do you even read the news before you comment on it?

Once more, with clarity, Mr. Creativity?

FMG, meanwhile another myth in regard to Uranium, Iraq, Niger and Bush lying is imploding. It seems Joe Wilson couldn’t be trusted. Check out the NLT Home Page story "Niger and Iraq and maybe some uranium"

I am way too busy to keep doing this. Try AGAIN to put holes in Wilson’s credibility. Try AGAIN or STILL to find a president that performed more miserably than this one, so that he looks better than someone, anyone. Try AGAIN to swallow "declassification" as a euphemism for what he did. Try AGAIN to equate 2400 killed Americans, thousands more innocent lives, with a bj, or with one abortive rescue attempt.

I will wait and see. When history shows hime to be the biggest liar since Nixon, then I hope you can live with yourselves. In the meantime, I have a semester to finish, and this has become repetitive and sad.

FMG,

The Senate intelligence committee said Mr. Wilson was a liar and that he perjured himself.

FMG gets hysterical like this when he’s proven wrong (or about to be). We have to forgive him, I suppose.

Fung, if you’re feeling like you’re running into a wall, just remember where you’re commenting. Only at sites like NLT would they be babbling on about a president who left office 25 years ago while conveniently ignoring/denying the current president’s plight.

I know Bush and Dain ignore polls, but those numbers aren’t getting any better.

"I know Bush and Dain ignore polls, but those numbers aren’t getting any better."

You’re not kidding about those poll numbers, Phil. Check out the chart in this article. Now I’ll readily concede that the Dems are currently a party that’s, for the most part, devoid of ideas, devoid of spine, and devoid of any willingness to be anything other than just Republican-lite. Nonetheless, for a party that is doing so little, it IS impressive what an edge they’ve got over the party of Big Thinkers, Big Ideas, and High Ideals (as so often espoused here at NLT). Apparently, a Big Nothing looks good to many Americans, compared to the Big, Important Something of the GOP. Notice:

52% trust the Dems to fight corruption in Washington, versus only 27% who trust the Repubs. Nearly double. Abramoff - it WAS a GOP thing.

50% trust the Dems on immigration issues, versus 38% trusting Repubs. Good to know that plenty of people aren’t Dain clones out there - although there’s probably an Aryan Pride scientist working on that one as we speak...

Iraq - Dems win 49-42!

Economy - Dems win 49-43.

And, what’s this??!!....(cue cartoonish sound of flopping jowls as head shakes) on the favorite issue for the Right to milk - the U.S. campaign against terrorism - the Dems now have a one-point lead, 46-45. On TERRORISM!

And, of course, even with Bush’s AMAZING prescription drugs program (which has either pissed off, confused, or gone unnoticed by a retiree near you), the Dems trounce the Repubs on health care and...whoops, prescription benefits!

I know, I know, these polls aren’t nearly as reliable as those conducted by TownHall.com amongst subscribers to their list-serve, or polls done at the FoxNews or NewsMax websites, or even less scientific polls done by Steven Hayward of other well-dressed diners at his favorite steak place near K Street, but still, maybe the permanent Republican majority is just around the same corner where we can find total victory in Iraq.

I know I said I was busy, and I am, but this news story caught my eye:

https://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/11/ake/index.html

apparently, the woman was heard to say, "I am so glad that it is george bush who is failing to rescue my husband! Thank goodness it isn’t that incompetent Jimmy Carter!"

Phil, Craig, keep up the good work!

We ’blab’ about presidents that served over 200 years ago.

Why is that wrong or bad or inappropriate?

In regards to that poll ...

Error sampling rate .... +/-3%

However, for all the seniors polled, of which there were 386 with an overpolling of 202 seniors in which only questions 22-37 where asked, the margin of error is +/-5%

Also, some questions are asked to all those polled, while others are asked to only half of those polled. Keep in mind, of those polled, 202 were intentionally oversampled, seniors, and only asked a portion of the questions anyway, which happen to deal with Medicare.

Also, it is interesting that the article states that the poll was of registered voters and doesn’t mention anything about likely voters, yet there are hints that WaPo Poll tried to differentiate between registered and likely because of the result groupings on some of the questions. All the page explicitly states is that the people polled were randomly selected nationwide. Of course, determining who would be a likely voter, a subset of registered voters, can itself be tricky.

Anyway, all this leads me to believe that the poll, like virtually all polls, is bogus, but hey we can look at the poll a little bit for fun.

While a large portion of those polled think poorly of how the President is handling Iraq, they are split in regards to how the President is handling terrorism (50-49 in favor of the President).

Pretty much, those polled don’t approve of the way the President is handling the issues while some issues are in the margin of error making them a washout.

As usual, those polled don’t approve of Congress, but like their Congressman.

Oh, the result touted by Craig in regards to terrorism and which party would handle it better, that falls within the margin of error - washout!.Also, it should be noted that that this specific question, being just one among others in question #10, was ONLY ASKED TO HALF OF THOSE WHO WERE POLLED!!!!One more thing, as usual, there seems to be more Democrats than Republicans with a hefty about of Independents, all self-declared mind you.

So, yeah, Craig, I seriously doubt this poll on many levels!

One more thing ...

The 50-38 lead in regards to Democrat/Republican handling immigration ...

falls within the 3.5 margin of error so ...

Oh yeah, that question is also just one question asked within question #10 and it was also only asked to half of those polled! Matter of fact, one half aswered that question and the other half answered the question in regards to handling terrorism!

Ugggghhhh!!!!!

Also, those polled stated that overall Iraq was not worth fighting, yet stated that the war in Iraq has contributed to the long term security of the US with a good portion thinking that it has contributed greatly!

More .... ugggghhhh!!!!

Polls, smolls, are like trolls I liked to roll!

Oh heck, might as well continue a little bit more with the confusing results of this poll ...

In regards to immigration ...

Those polled, well half of those polled that is ... sigh ..., strongly disapprove how the President is handling immigration.

In another question, those polled, well half those polled that is ... again ... sigh ..., possibly think the Democrats would handle immigration better than the Republicans (I say possibly because it is within the margin of error).

Yet in another question, those polled, which I am going to assume all those polled because there is no asterisk explaining how how half of the sample were asked this question, stated with a huge majority (75-21) that the United States was NOT doing enough to keep illegal immigrants out of the U.S.!!!!!

Major disconnect here for no party is looking to keep the illegals out and the Dems are especially keen on making the borders as open as possible.

One last thing, in regards to the Medicare drug benefits ...

Most folks (69%), including the 202 over polled seniors, didn’t join due to already having coverage! And, of those enrolled, 74% thought it was easy to enroll and 63% thought it would save money over what they were paying for prescription drugs.

Man, these folks are all over on the issues, which is truly how people think.

One last thing about this poll

34% of those polled, hopefull all this time, think of themselves as Dems, 29% Repubs, and 34% as Indep

YET ...

54% LEAN Dem, 42% Repub, and a whopping 5% Indep

I suspect that the truth about those polled are in line with the last set of stats and not with the first.

FMG, I suppose that was suppose to be tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn’t that funny and in no way helped to make whatever point you were trying to make. Mever mind that is was a crass use of the kidnapped, his wife, and his family.

Comment 43 by Phil Thompson

Fung, if you’re feeling like you’re running into a wall, just remember where you’re commenting. Only at sites like NLT would they be babbling on about a president who left office 25 years ago while conveniently ignoring/denying the current president’s plight.

If I am not mistaken Jimmy Carter was responsible for Iran becoming our enemy single handed. That to me is important in light of recent events.

MSM uses polls to make news, not report it. Let the Dems have their day...it won’t last. Indeed, I’ve often wondered if a good dose of socialism and true incompetence for 4 years wouldn’t cure the GOP’s funk.

I might also add the the reason Bush’s numbers are so low is that he isn’t being CONSERVATIVE enough. His own base is punishing him...as with Alito, it wouldn’t take much for him to correct the situation.

His own base is punishing him...as with Alito, it wouldn’t take much for him to correct the situation.

Hmm, what else could he do to appease his ever-cranky base, Dain? Kick out all the Muslims and Mexicans? Lock up all the homosexuals?

Dale, you said your background was French. Are you actually IN France right now? I’m just curious because of those 3:30 a.m. posts you made.

Toughen up on illegals is one thing. Using his &%%&*( veto power just for once is another. Cutting spending is a third. Making his case about Iraq is a fourth. Should I go on?

No, not in France, in Texas, but I work nights and sometimes when I am off work I up instead of in bed.

Sorry, but the bad grammer ... bad to bed now ... :)

One more time ...

Sorry for the bad grammer ... back to bed now ... :)

"Mever mind that is was a crass use of the kidnapped, his wife, and his family. "

Dale, when you wake up, take a look at the post that began this discussion! I don’t think I am any more crass than that!

French people in West Texas? Do your neighbors know?

Very interesting site, beautiful design, thanks.