Captain's Quarters -

Don't worry, Captain, there will be new polls out very quickly to "correct" these results. We know what Americans really think, because we tell it to them.

So who the bloody hell are the 31% of Americans who don't think we should be keeping a good eye on terrorists?

>> So who the bloody hell are the 31% of Americans who don't think we should be keeping a good eye on terrorists?

Kucinich supporters.

Is there a link missing from this post, Ed? I followed the link and clicked around everywhere I could find, but I don't see any questions regarding Iraq and America's attitude about staying there. Assuming that it's in there someplace, it's very curious in that it's quite different from nearly every other poll I've seen. The same applies to some of the other questions which are shown on the linked page. For example, take a look at Gallup's roundup of American priorities from this summer.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24391&pg=1

A few quotes from those national results:

"In general, Americans have been more likely over the past two years to say that U.S. involvement in the war was a mistake than favor it. As of July 2007, more than 6 in 10 Americans say the Iraq war was a mistake, the highest percentage to do so since the war began in March 2003. The majority of Americans believe that the benefits of "success" in Iraq are not worth the costs. Americans perceive the war is going badly. A majority of Americans favor the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Seven in 10 Americans favor withdrawal of all U.S. troops by April 2008, except for a residual counter-terrorism force."

How could we account for such skewed results? A couple of possibilties come to mind. One, of course, is always the sampling. But I can't find any link to their sampling for this poll, so we have no idea.

The second, and more obvious, is the construction of the poll. Do they use neutral questions or leading question? In this one, it's a pretty easy call. They all lead off with asking of the respondent supports or opposes various actions by the government "intended to protect the nation." That's a great lead, as it sets up the respondent to say, "Do you support protecting the nation or are you a godless, America hating commie? Please choose one."

You can phrase questions for polls many ways. If you did a national poll, for example, and asked Americans if they would allow the use of animal testing in product development to safeguard the health and safety of consumers, you could get a fairly high positive response rate. If you ask that exact same group of people, "Do you support the injection of chemicals into the eyes of rabbits resulting in their being blinded and eventually destroyed as part of the development process for women's cosmetics?" you'd get a positive response rate down in the 20's.

Anyway, I'd like to see some deeper or alternate linkage which covers some of the points in your post which don't appear on the linked page, and if possible, a link to their sampling data.

What I want to know is how the polled population was selected. Was it IBD readers, for example? Especially when the poll shows favorable results, you want to make sure it correctly reflects the mainstream current of American thought. If your selection accidentally skewed the pool (oversampling employed businessmen while undersampling unemployed college students, for example) you might get some nasty surprises come election time.

Ed, I'm not seeing the part about IRaq in the article you linked. I'm not doubting you but I'm not seeing it. Am I blind or did the story change or what?

The sample is very small... just over 1000 people. I suspect a larger poll would produce similar results but this is hard to sell as being solid.

Captain Ed, I'm disappointed in you. You wrote this:

"• 70% of Americans believe we should not quickly pull out of Iraq
Includes 73% of Democrats (more than the 71% of Republicans)"

This is just not true. The IBD poll did not have one, single question regarding Iraq. In fact, the article never even once mentions Iraq. You seem to have invented that figure out of whole cloth.

I finally found it. You need to do some dancing around on the site, but if you click on the "Polls" section on the left, then scroll down the page to the "recent articles" section, you'll see an article talking about opinions on the pullout from Iraq. I'd put a link directly to it in here, but my last comment had one link in it and got shut down.

Got Rights?-Yes

I was at Chicago's O'Hare Airport this week waiting to board a flight home to southern California. In the departure lounge, I saw a couple of young Muslim girls-probably college age- also waiting to catch a plane. One was wearing a headdress. The other, who was not, was wearing a sweatshirt with the words,"Got Rights?" on the front, a take-off on the "Got Milk?" commercial. On the back was was printed CAIR, Southern California. It got me to wondering to myself about the "Rights" that this young lady thought she was lacking.

First and foremost, does this young lady have the right to practice her religion (Islam) freely in the US? Yes, she most certainly does. Does she have a facility in the form of a mosque in which to worship? Of course. There are mosques a plenty in this country, following in the American tradition of freedom of religion. Does she have the right to propagate Islam and attempt to convert others to her faith. Yes.

Next, in the wake of 9-11, does she have the right to get on an airplane and travel around the country? Absolutely, as evidenced by the fact that she was at O'Hare Airport waiting to board a flight. Does she have the right to board without being checked? No, but then again, neither do I. In fact, airport security personnel, anxious not to be accused of racial profiling, are going to subject Swedish grandmothers to the same scrutiny as this young lady. Of course, if she decides to engage in provocative behavior (like the "Flying Imams") deliberately designed to bring attention to herself, then she will be subjected to closer scrutiny.

Does she have the right to speak out to defend Islam and to question whether Muslims "rights" are being violated? Seems to me that was exactly what she was doing, making a statement with her sweatshirt. Does she have the right to engage in demonstrations at her university, and in the name of free speech, defend suicide bombers in Israel, bring in radical imams to speak at her school, who condemn Israel, Jews and the US in the process? Well, if she attends the University of California at Irvine (where I teach part-time), then that is exactly what happens at that school and dozens, if not hundreds of others around the US, courtesy of the local Muslim Student Associations.

Does she have the right to belong to a Muslim advocacy group like CAIR? Yes, she does and apparently she is, indeed a member.

Now let's talk about our rights and why Islam is under suspicion among Americans (and among non-Muslims everywhere). I am sure this young lady, if I had engaged her in conversation, would have explained to me that all Muslims should not be condemned because of the actions of a few fanatics. All well and good, but I'm not sure we are talikng about a few. We are talking about a worldwide movement to impose Islam on the rest of the world through terror and violence. If only 5% of all Muslims in the world subscribe to this vision, we are talking about many millions. That is a lot to be concerned about.

The message of CAIR (at least publically) is that most American Muslims are loyal, decent, and law-abiding people, and that CAIR will defend their rights, in court if necessary (witness the "Flying Imams"). Yet, CAIR, in spite of its moderate rhetoric is a suspect organization, named as an "Unindicted Co-conspirator" in one terror case prosecuted within the US. They also seem to be adopting the mantle of the "NAACP of Muslims" in the US. In my opinion, this is a bad comparison. The NAACP came into being in the dark days of segregation in the US, when African-Americans were denied their basic rights as citizens (at least in the South), rights such as eating in restaurants, voting, using public facilities. The actions of the NAACP in the years prior to and during the Civil Rights era were necessary and noble. (I would argue that the NAACP of today is another matter, but that is off topic.)

I would suggest that American Muslims are missing the point if all they do is proclaim that Islam is really a peaceful religion and they should not be associated with terrorists. What they should be doing is loudly proclaiming to the rest of the Islamic world that they are Americans, and that they will fight the terrorists and preachers of hatred to defend America. They should be getting on planes and going back to their mother countries to spread their message of support for America in the War on Terror. Up to this point, the silence has been deafening.

I would also suggest to the young lady at the airport that she should, in fact, defend Islam, which is her religion. However, it isn't necessary to defend it from the rest of us. It is necessary to defend it from the Al-Quaida's, the Hizbollahs, the Hamas', the Mullahs in Iran, the preachers of hate in the mosques of London and elsewhere. She needs to defend it against those who wish to impose Shariah on the rest of the world whether we want it or not. She needs to defend it against the so-called Jihadists around the world, who are disgracing the religion in the eyes of non-Muslims everywhere. She needs to defend Islam from the rule of those who would kill Salmon Rushdie and others who criticize the religion. She needs to defend it from the suicide bombers, the beheaders and other assorted killers everywhere. Ultimately, she needs to defend it from all of those who murder innocents in the name of Allah. Yes, even if she puts her own life in peril, she needs to defend Islam against these murderers.

The young lady also needs to recognize that, whatever the dark pages in the history of other religions, today, there is only one major religion engaged in such wholesale salughter in its name-Islam. Finally, she needs to recognize that we non-Muslims are correct to question the true nature of this religion that is causing so much havoc in the world. Yes, we fear Islamic terrorists who would perpetrate another 9-11 on our soil. Yes, we are suspicious, especially when some Muslim passengers deliberately bring attention to themselves on airplanes. When we hear words of hate coming from Muslim Imams on our college campuses (as I have), we do question the nature of Islam.

Most of us, since 9-11, are trying to make up our minds about true Islam. Given what has happened, we have every right to our doubts and suspicions. Under our law and Constitution, we have every right to express these doubts (even in the form of cartoons) and ask these questions, and we will not be silenced.

So I would suggest to the young lady that she does have rights. If she hears voices that criticize her religion, I would remind her that Christianity takes hits every day in the US. I feel that Muslims here would make a huge mistake if they think confrontation and litigation is the way to go. They should not compare their situation with that of our African-American fellow citizens.
It is a false comparison. If we suffer further terror attacks here and the American Muslim community does not speak out loud and clear in its support of America, then they will find themselves further alienated- and the criticism of Islam will reach a crescendo.

Young lady, you have the same rights I do. Enjoy them.

gary fouse
fousesquawk

Ah, ok. With the added link, now it comes more clearly in focus. As I was thinking, it was the phrasing of the question. The specific question that they asked was, "Do you agree that the US should gradually - not quickly - reduce the troop surge over several months?"

Pardon my saying, but that's really a "whole nother ball of wax" (as the saying goes) than saying that 70% of Americans think "we should not quickly pull out of Iraq" in my opinion. The question was not really an indicator of whether or not Americans think we should get out entirely or when, and the stated period given for the survey participant to consider is almost baffling. The phrase "several months" is pretty darned quick as it is, given that the phrase "several" is genererally thought of as three. To answer that question in the negative would indicate they think we should be yanking the troops out in a matter of weeks.

I see nothing in that survey question's results that would conflict with 70% of Americans believing we should get virtually all the troops out by next year. Drawing a conclusion, as your guest on the radio program today did (great show, by the way, even if I didn't agree with this point. Liked the first interview) that this survey somehow indicates a swelling American enthusiasm for our staying in Iraq over the long run is either a bit naieve or just plainly disingenuous. The guest was comparing apples and oranges, taking this survey's results as an indication that most people don't want us to stay in Iraq as a "generational effort" (i.e. 8 to 10 years to achieve stability was, I believe, the time frame he quoted) but would otherwise be happy to have us there for some shorter period of years and not leave until stability is achieved.

It was an interesting survey, but again... I would first like to see the sampling rate numbers, and secondly, the inherent bias in the questions and the odd way they were phrased seem a weak basis for drawing the conclusions that some people, including the IBD representative, seem to be drawingn from it.

• 70% of Americans believe we should not quickly pull out of Iraq
o Includes 73% of Democrats (more than the 71% of Republicans)

I have been saying this all along with a lot of flack from others. Democrats are not in favor of doing anything rash. I'm in the 73%.

It's difficult for Americans to take the US government's anti-terror measures seriously when the Feds won't even take the simple step to enforce our existing laws which control immigration. Of course the simple (and correct) answer to that question is that politicians get donations from the class of citizens who make money off of illegals - whether its teachers unions or businessmen. The rest of us be damned.

Lex:
The sample is very small... just over 1000 people. I suspect a larger poll would produce similar results but this is hard to sell as being solid.

Eric:
Actually, this would be a large poll. 300 is a good size poll.

Eric said:

"Democrats are not in favor of doing anything rash. I'm in the 73%."

How come we never hear from or see your 73% on the telly, then? All we hear or see are the whines from the 27% minority.

That alone should be proof conclusive of the media's overwhelming bias to the left.

Fous, Gary. C says:
Does she have the right to belong to a Muslim advocacy group like CAIR? Yes, she does and apparently she is, indeed a member.

Eric says:
She's in a very small group.

Del Dolemonte said:
Eric said:

"Democrats are not in favor of doing anything rash. I'm in the 73%."

Del Dolemonte then said:
How come we never hear from or see your 73% on the telly, then? All we hear or see are the whines from the 27% minority.

That alone should be proof conclusive of the media's overwhelming bias to the left.

Eric Replied:
Yes, you're right. It's a well-known fact. The polls that we see are almost always wrong. I talked about 7 of the last 10 Presidential Polls being wrong. The 3 that were correct were for Democrats. All 10 polls indicated the Democrats winning. In 7 occasions, Republicans actually won. My education is Marketing and Statistics with a minor in Advertising and Journalism. I know that any polling of 300 people will be correct within 3%....depending on the wording of the questions.

Jazz makes the point above that he disagrees with the poll because of the wording. I say, welcome to our world, Jazz. It sucks when people are given cleverly worded questions that steer their answer. It goes 99% the other direction – I promise you Jazz.

I would suggest that American Muslims are missing the point if all they do is proclaim that Islam is really a peaceful religion and they should not be associated with terrorists. What they should be doing is loudly proclaiming to the rest of the Islamic world that they are Americans, and that they will fight the terrorists and preachers of hatred to defend America. They should be getting on planes and going back to their mother countries to spread their message of support for America in the War on Terror. Up to this point, the silence has been deafening.

Actually, this is the exact opposite of the truth. There has been no such silence, and therefore, the deafness appears to be self-imposed on people who have allowed themselves to become Islamophobic and have not bothered to seek out the many, many, many anti-terrorist, anti-anti-American voices out there in the Muslim community.

A little due diligence is all it really takes. The continued insistence that there is silence (deafening or otherwise) on this matter in the Muslim community, at this point, requires willful ignorance, because the internet and the blogosphere manifestly demonstrate that the "silence" is in fact a loud roar that some people simply refuse to hear.

Sad, really. It means "Islamophobia" is real. And that, of course, is counterproductive, because it alienates people who should be our allies, i.e. the Muslim mainstream.