So your saying that Bush not catching bin Laden was more effective than bin Laden's taunting and threats to the American voter? I do believe that the taunting helped Bush and always have beleived it. But I would have helped him more to catch bin Laden.

How did you get that out of GD's post?

It seemed to me - and I certainly could be reading what he wrote incorrectly - that he was suggesting some sort of conspirac, that Bush intentionally hadn't caught him yet so that the threat of terror would be more in the front of the minds of American voters. If my interpretation of what he is writing is correct, I think it is wrong. Catching bin Laden would of course been a bigger boost to his candidacy than threats from bin Laden.

Stunning, ain't it? Three years after promising to get Bin Laden (Dead or Alive!), dude gets a bump for being taunted by his sworn enemy.


It's as staggeringly unbelievable today as it was 16 months ago.

What would be the use of polling political affiliations in equal numbers when they are not equal IRL?

Do you realize that people claiming to be democrat outnumber those claiming to republican by between 7 and 9 percentage points, and that further 34% percent of the population claim to be independent?

This is the reason the poll was conducted with 28% republican participation, 37% democratic participation and 34% independent participation.

Equalizing the poll to 50% republican and 50% democratic would serve only to falsely inflate Mr. Bush's numbers. But of course, if that's all you're after... ;)

Now, there is the point to be made that little can be gleaned from this concerning future elections, since not all people vote, and those that do are fairly evenly divided here lately.

THAT I haven't heard. Could you link that article when you find it?

damn- guess I can't vote for him in '08..shucks ;)

WTF:confused:

hello?!! didn't we learn anything?


so now we let the Chinese guard the hen house.


good thing i rike beef and brocorri.




MickeyRumbo