Cogency takes a vacation...

I was watching Fox News late the other night, and they aired the results of a poll that was done (I scoured the FoxNews.com site, and couldn't find the poll to link to, sorry) regarding al-Zarqawi's death and George W. Bush's approval ratings. Now, I can understand if you think the war on terror becomes more dangerous in the short run because of Zarqawi's death (desperation attacks by now-leaderless terrorists, etc.). To be honest, I don't know enough about the terrorists' (insurgents', if you're PC) tactics to know for sure, so I won't weigh in on the short-term ramifications. I can even understand (though I disagree - see this article) if you think there will be little LONG-TERM impact on the war effort.

However, there was one question on the poll that was very telling regarding how much stock one should put into polls like this. The question was essentially, "Do you have more or less confidence in the Bush administration's ability to prosecute the war on terror because of Zarqawi's death?" About 30% said more, 50% said the same, and 20% said (I'll repeat this for emphasis) they have LESS confidence in the Bush administration's ability to prosecute the war on terror because of Zarqawi's death.

Huh? American and Iraqi troops, acting in unison on information given to them by Iraqi citizens, kill the #2 al-Qaeda terrorist in the world, and that makes 20% of the nation LESS confident in our president to prosecute the war on terror? Talk about a complete lack of intellectual honesty. That would be like saying you now have less confidence in Apple's ability to compete with Microsoft now that Bill Gates is relinquishing his day-to-day role. I won't even comment about how the Democratic party is having so much fun taunting W about "not being able to find the tallest person in Afghanistan", but taking the #2 al-Qaeda operative out is somehow insignificant.

(OK, I will comment. That talking point is quite possibly the most immature, deluded attempt at a political stance toward something that could very well cost thousands more American lives, not to mention innocent lives worldwide, that I have ever heard - any politician who repeats this nonsense should not be mistaken as having a realistic understanding of Islamic terror or the prosecution of the war on it. Sure, it's remotely clever, and it points out the failure of the war effort to bring bin Laden to justice. It probably even tested well with focus groups. But it's purposely ridiculing our armed forces and their commander-in-chief, and undermines peoples' perceptions of the sophistication of the al-Qaeda terror network. A quote from a terrorist website, in turn quoted in this excellent article regarding the Moussaui trial says it best: "These Kuffars (infidels) are easy to dupe," said a cadre in the al-Ansar Paltalk room few months ago. "All you have to do is to play their akhlaq (ethics) or lead them to believe that we are busat'a (simple minded).")

Back to the point... What this says to me is that any time there is a poll question that attempts to garner the nation's opinion on Bush's abilities/job approval ratings, there's 20% (+/- the proverbial 3 percentage points) that you can simply ignore; they're simply so willing to bash W that all reason escapes them. Thus, the newest Bush approval ratings (standing at 40%) should be regarded as 40 out of 80, not 40 out of 100. 50% ain't so bad...

(yes, I understand - as a career data analyst - that this method of calculating Bush's approval ratings has no justification in statistical methodology; I'm simply given to hyperbole in my disdain for all these polls that attempt to take the nation's temperature. don't email me or leave comments to refute my calculation methods - I know that they're as bunk-ridden as the poll in question)

In the broader scope, if you want my opinion on the value of the news agencies' preoccupation with presenting opinion polls as news, here's what flashes through my head when I see said polls (hat tip to "Billy Madison"): "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

The truth is, when we're presented with polls like this which smack of intellectual dishonesty, we ARE all dumber for having witnessed it and placing it in our mental Rolodex. My directive? Cut the stupid polls and air people who can articulately state why they think the way they do. Or better yet, just give me the news and shut up.