January 28, 2005

Unreal expectations

We all know that if expectations for any endeavor are set too high, disappointment and negativity inevitably result.  I have had a hunch for some time now that no matter how the historic elections in Iraq on Sunday turn out, a chorus of pooh-poohing will commence among Democrats and liberals.  Attempts to portray the elections as illegitimate will abound.

The accuracy of my hunch has been confirmed, in part, by a recent Gallup poll. Indeed, many in this country have already ensured failure in their minds by setting expectations that are highly unlikely to be fulfilled.  Participants were asked to respond to the following...

Iraq is scheduled to hold elections later this month. In your opinion, what percentage of Iraqi adults needs to vote in order for the election to be legitimate?

Here are the results:

1-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% Over 90% Unsure Same as U.S.

5% 3% 6% 14% 18% 9% 12% 4% 7% 21% 1%

As a point of reference, the American elections last year saw 60% of the voting-eligible population cast a vote.  Never mind the 11% who answered 80% or more - say what?? - what these numbers mean is that fully 40% of those polled who had an opinion (32% out of 79%) believe Iraq has to have a higher turnout on Sunday than we did in November for the elections to be legitimate!

By that standard, not only would the 2004 US election be illegitimate, but every US presidential election since 1970 would be as well!  It's hopeless, folks.  Yes, sadly, there remains in this country a significant slice of the population that simply refuses to see the good transpiring in Iraq.  And they continue to set expectations so high that they won't ever be forced to take the blinders off.

posted by Scott Elliott at 8:15pm 01/28/05
Link to this post |

January 27, 2005

Who do you blame?

I was deeply saddened and discouraged by the untimely deaths of 31 brave Marines whose helicopter crashed earlier this week in Iraq.  My heart goes out to their families.  I am so weary of hearing such frequent reports of US casualties and other violence there.  How I wish the killing would stop!

You might infer from my unrest that I oppose the war to bring democracy to this middle eastern country.  You would be wrong.  I hate the violence and feel so frustrated by the radical philosophy at it's root.  A philosophy bent on imposing its will on others with penalty of death.  No, I'm not talking about President Bush's pre-emptive strategy to oppose terrorism; I'm talking about the terrorists themselves.

Therein lies a stark difference between supporters and opponents of the President.  Those who support him blame the terrorist organizations, their cowardly acts of genocide, and the regimes who support them for the dangers our troops now face in Iraq.  Those who oppose him say he is to blame - some have even proclaimed that he is the real mass-murderer.

For me, the blood of the maimed and dead in this strife is clearly dripping from the hands of the terrorists.  They, not President Bush, are responsible for the necessary trials we now face in Iraq and elsewhere as we wage this war on terror.  I blame Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and their minions of cruelty ... Who do you blame?

posted by Scott Elliott at 1:15pm 01/27/05
Link to this post |

January 26, 2005

I'm still here

Just a quick note to let everyone know that I haven't gone anywhere.  I apologize for the long period of no posts.  The Blogging Caesar’s other roles temporarily forced a short leave of absence from blogging.  I trust this will the last such gap in updating the site.  I will get back to posting at least one update daily starting today.  Thanks for sticking around.  And let me say, too, that I appreciate so much the tone of most of the thoughts being contributed in the comment sections.  I've only had to edit or delete a couple of posts.  Thank you, and keep it up!!

posted by Scott Elliott at 12:20am 01/26/05
Link to this post |

January 13, 2005

Examining the perception of bias

Who's more biased, CBS or FOX?  Certainly, were that question asked of 1000 politically active Americans, the answer would be far from unanimous.  In the aftermath of the Rathergate investigation, that very debate is raging around the blogosphere, including in the comment sections of this website.

Conservatives scoff at the inquiry's conclusion that it was "myopic zeal" and not blatant partisanship that motivated Rather and his cronies to air the irresponsible story on Bush's military service.  Contrarily, liberals say myopic zeal is exactly the reason the story aired.  They point to money and ratings as motivating factors; then they invariably point to Fox News as a true example of bias in the media.

So why is it that we can't agree on where the bias lives?  The answer lies in the shade of the shades we wear.  Each of us, regardless of our philosophical leaning, perceives the world around us according to our personal bias.  We perceive the media in the same way.  Look at it this way.  Let's say there is a room with two red walls and two blue walls.  If I walk into the room with with blue shades on, the blue walls will appear perfectly neutral.  At the same time, the red walls will be starkly different through my eyes.  The opposite, of course, is true if the shades I wear are red.

It used to confound me how most liberals cannot see the obvious bias at CBS, NBC, ABC, or CNN - until I understood that they are simply seeing and hearing what falls in line with their own bias.  They're looking at the blue walls with their blue shades on.  Likewise, it may very well be that the objective reporting I get from Fox News is really just news slanted to my liking.  Honestly, I don't know whether Fox News is truly conservatively biased or not and to what degree.  They seem to me to do a pretty good job of upholding their motto, "We report, you decide."  Of course, that could just be the red shades I wear.  One thing I do know for sure, the liberal bias of the others is no longer veiled.  More and more Americans are seeing that bunch in their true color - a very deep blue indeed.

posted by Scott Elliott at 1:30am 01/13/05
Link to this post |

January 11, 2005

Rathergate report:  A whitewash

Bill Quick, aka The Daily Pundit, isn't nearly as happy as some about the independent report on the forged-documents-George-Bush-bashing-help-John-Kerry-win-the-election story aired by Dan Rather and Sixty Minutes Wednesday, aka Rathergate, just before the election.  He writes:

Many in the blogosphere are hailing this CBS report as a victory, a partial victory, better than expected, or other descriptions from the same general word-patch.  It is not.  CBS stonewalled what really happened, and this report is just a coat of whitewash on that stone wall.

Read the whole thing to find out what really happened and what would have been a victory.

Update:  Bill Roggio at the fourth rail seems to have read the whole report (pdf) and has posted some reactions.  I especially like his comments at the end concerning CBS's claim that the report absolves them of any political bias. Again, make sure you read the whole thing.

posted by Scott Elliott at 3:00pm 01/11/05
Link to this post |

January 10, 2005

Find out where they stand

A friend of mine at work, Matthew Lietzke, showed me this great site today that I heartily recommend to all those who are politically inclined.

OnTheIssues.org

Hundreds of elected officials are evaluated based on past quotes and votes. Each is given a philosophical score that places them somewhere on the following graph.

To give you an idea of how the graph works, I've included the location of the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian candidates in the 2004 election.  As one might guess, Kerry grades out as a liberal, Bush as a conservative, and Badnarik as a libertarian.

In addition to the cool grading scale and graph, this site includes extensive quotes, votes and other information pertaining to a wide range of politicians.  It will be an invaluable resource for me from now on and has been inducted into my "Favorite Links" section to the left.

Thanks, Matt!

posted by Scott Elliott at 4:50pm 01/10/05
Link to this post |

January 7, 2005

A contested election, part two

Looks like Dino Rossi is going to officially contest the Washington state gubernatorial election.  I posted a comment earlier that I thought the Democrats handling of the recount and the mysterious appearance of just enough brand new ballots to give Gregoire the victory would lead to an inevitable Rossi victory in the 2006 Senate race, if he chooses to run.

His decision to contest the election alters that dynamic somewhat.  I don't believe a revote will happen.  Gregoire will be crowned the next governor of Washington.  However, if by some remote possibility, a revote does take place, it will waste the high ground the GOP now holds in the mind of Washington voters, regardless of who wins.  I can only think Rossi doubts the possibility of a revote as I do and that he is simply trying to solidify that advantage as much as he can.

Hat tip:  PoliPundit

posted by Scott Elliott at 9:30pm 01/07/05
Link to this post |

January 6, 2005

Viking Pundit is two

One of my very favorite blogs is Viking Pundit.  Eric Lindholm's site is now two years old.  Scoot on over there and wish him the best.

posted by Scott Elliott at 11:45pm 01/06/05
Link to this post |

A contested election

Citizen Smash is all over the election certification battle, including an extensive play-by-play of the proceedings - just scroll down. (Link via Daily Pundit) Sounds like another shot to the foot.

posted by Scott Elliott at 10:45pm 01/06/05
Link to this post |

Yearning to lose the base

I want to spend a little bit more time on the confirmation hearings of Alberto Gonzales and those cantankerous Senate Democrats.  Even most lefties would admit that their party is a conglomeration of various special interest groups.  One such group that Democrats have counted on in the past is the Hispanic population.  From the results of the last two presidential elections, Democrats are in the process of losing that demographic as a relaible source of overwhelming majority.  In 2000, George W. Bush won around 35% of the Hispanic vote.  In 2004, he won 40%.

Looking at the way Democrats are treating Alberto Gonzales now and Miguel Estrada last year, it appears they aren't too worried about regaining their preference among Hispanics.  Instead, these actions threaten to make the Hispanic voting bloc predominantly Republican-leaning.

If I were a Democrat or if the roles were reversed, I would be unhappy with the conduct of my party.  I don't understand the benefit to the Dems of contesting Alberto Gonzales.  As a conservative, I feel the GOP is in a win-win situation now as a result.  Either the Gonzales confirmation fails, inflicting further damage to Democratic influence among Hispanics, or it succeeds, further endearing the GOP to Hispanics for advancing the political success of one of their own to unprecedented heights.

The Democrats would be better served, I think, quietly letting Mr. Gonzales be confirmed.  That way, they could eliminate the former possibility and minimize the latter.  I'm sure they won't be heeding my advice, however, so I'll just sit back and watch them shoot themselves in the foot... again.

posted by Scott Elliott at 08:55pm 01/06/05
Link to this post |

A statement from Alberto Gonzales

Here are a couple of excerpts from his opening speech to the Senate Judicary Committee.  First, on the role of the Justice Department...

Our government's most basic obligation is to protect its citizens from enemies who would destroy their lives and our nation's way of life.  The Department of Justice's top priority is to prevent terror attacks against our nation. As we fight the war on terror, we must always honor and observe the principles that make our society so unique and worthy of protection. We must be committed to preserving civil rights and civil liberties.

And on the nature of the enemy we face, an enemy whom it seems some in this country wish to coddle and comfort...

After the attacks of 9/11, our government had fundamental decisions to make concerning how to apply treaties and U.S. law to an enemy that does not wear a uniform, owes no allegiance to any country, is not a party to any treaties and -- most importantly -- does not fight according to the laws of war.  As we have debated these questions, the president has made clear that he is prepared to protect and defend the Untied States and its citizens, and will do so vigorously, but always in a manner consistent with our nation's values and applicable law, including our treaty obligations.  I pledge that, if I am confirmed as attorney general, I will abide by those commitments.

Sounds good to me.

posted by Scott Elliott at 6:45pm 01/06/05
Link to this post |

January 4, 2005

Aid for tsunami victims

As many hundreds of thousands of people are now struggling to restart their lives after the recent devastating tsunamis, Americans are showing once again the enormous generosity that has been our trademark for over a century.  If you are wanting to give, may I suggest the World Hunger Fund of the International Mission Board.  Fully 100% of all donations made to this fund reach their intended recipients.

My parents worked for 25 years with the IMB and disbursed many thousands of dollars of World Hunger funds to aid victims of disaster all over Central America.  I'm adding a logo and link to the right panel of this website for the time being.  Give as you feel led.  Thank you.

posted by Scott Elliott at 11:55pm 01/04/05
Link to this post |

Senator Rossi

After the fiasco in Washington state where the Democrats finally managed to push their gal over the top, I believe the only thing that would prevent Mr. Rossi from ascending to the Senate in 2006 is for him to decline a run.  It seems like pretty significant short-sitedness by the Dems to sacrifice so much credibility for the sake of one governorship.

posted by Scott Elliott at 11:30pm 01/04/05
Link to this post |

Commenting is back!

posted by Scott Elliott at 4:30pm 01/04/05
Link to this post |

January 3, 2005

The last Gallup job approval poll

In creating the formula I used to project the outcome of the recent presidential elections, I came across an amazing correlation between a President's job approval just before the election and the resulting popular vote percentage received on election day.  Specifically, the Gallup organization's job approval poll demostrated an uncanny ability to predict the performance of the incumbent. So, I incorporated a compilation of job approval numbers into the formula. That turned out to be a good call.  The formula projected 48 of 50 states correctly. President Bush received 51% of the popular vote.  Gallup's final job approval this time?  51%!

posted by Scott Elliott at 10:55pm 01/03/05
Link to this post |

January 2, 2005

Intermission 2005

The Blogging Caesar is happy to be back at the blogging controls.  You'll see a few slight alterations in the layout of the site as I gear up for the long intermission between election seasons.  I'm excited about the future of Election Projection and plan to remain a small part on the political landscape for a long time to come.  Stay tuned...

posted by Scott Elliott at 10:15pm 01/02/05
Link to this post |

Give to aid the victims of the tsunamis

2004 Projection Results

Popdex