James Taranto shows us the flaws in this poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC. Some of the questions included:
The Senate has confirmed 35 federal appeals court judges nominated by Bush, while Senate Democrats have blocked 10 others. Do you think the Senate Democrats are right to block these nominations? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
And:
Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush’s judicial nominees?
Taranto notes that:
Read these questions carefully and you’ll see that the Post’s headline is false. The poll not only doesn’t use the word filibuster; it doesn’t even describe the procedure. The way the question is worded, the Democrats could have “blocked” the nominations by the normal method of voting them down–and there is no reason to think that “randomly selected adults” would have been paying enough attention to know the difference.
John at Power Line also has a problem with that latter question, saying:
That is an absurd question, to which I would probably answer “No,” too. The way the question is framed, it makes it sound like a one-way street, as though the Republicans wanted to change the rules to benefit only Republican nominees. If they asked a question like, “Do you think that if a majority of Senators support confirmation of a particular nominee, that nominee should be confirmed?” the percentages would probably reverse.
A confidential Washington Post source sent me an advance copy of another poll to be conducted next week. The first question is:
Would you support an initiative to let Senate Republicans break into your house, take all of your wife’s jewelry, and perform the ancient divinatory rite of haruspication using the family dog while President Bush sings “I’m a Yankee Doodle Dandy” and shouts racial epithets in the background? Do you feel strongly about this?”
It’s my understanding that the questions sort of go down from there.
Comment to post F*ing Hypocrites, December 06, 2004, to both Julie Lund and David X. Would post to the appropriate thread, but for ‘F*ing Hypocrites’ the ‘post comment’ option seems to have been disabled (why?). Anyway:
The death penalty does not *exist* in Romania, and it doesn’t exist in most other European states.
In that view, comments such as Ms Lund’s (“He had to leave that country [Romania] or he would have been killed”), followed by David *?*’s (“a very good friend of mine was the driver in a car accident that killed an elderly woman in an eastern European country. He also returned immediately to the United States, fearing a very summary prosecution and execution”) are extremely slanderous. My two cents.
Sorry you feel that way, George. There have been other posts on this subject with open comments, were you but to look; old posts have their comments closed after a few weeks to prevent spammers from using this website as a free advertising venue. No further discussion on the Teo Peter issue will be allowed in this post.
Just my two cents.
Comment to post Beef! Check out Roast Beef’s, June 30, 2003 to the people who didn’t even bother to comment on this incredible story (why?):
First, making light of Beef’s plunge over a cliff is not *appropriate.* I can’t believe you would be so slanderous, %ponderous%, and such a Sleazac.
My THREE cents.
To the Kent family and everyone else, including but not limited to Superman, Aquaman, or Batman:
Please endeavor to stay on topic.