Wednesday, August 03, 2005

On the Gallup Poll

The Gallup Organization has just released a poll which certainly should give all of us who support Senator Kerry for the 2008 election something to ponder.

As they report:
Kerry is the only candidate of the four with higher unfavorables (48%) than favorables (42%). That is a significant shift from last fall, when Kerry averaged a 52% favorable rating and a 44% unfavorable rating in five October Gallup Polls leading up to the presidential election. At least a majority of Americans had viewed Kerry favorably following his surprise victory in the Iowa caucuses and continuing through Gallup's final pre-election poll.
I will not speak to questions of bias in the Gallup organization. This has been addressed by multiple sources.

Above all, in spite of John Kerry's loss in the 2004 election, we can see that his approval rating has barely dropped from 52% just prior to the election to the current 48%. The bulk of his support is intact.

Of course we have work to do! The war in Iraq is not over. Our soldiers are dying in ever increasing numbers each and every day. America needs John Kerry so that we do not have a country who sends another young American to die for a cause that cannot be won. John Kerry understands this.

We cannot have a President who speaks earnestly about drugs in sports in his State of the Union Address:
To help children make right choices, they need good examples. Athletics play such an important role in our society, but, unfortunately, some in professional sports are not setting much of an example. The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message -- that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character. So tonight I call on team owners, union representatives, coaches, and players to take the lead, to send the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid of steroids now. (Applause.)
And then when we have a popular baseball player like Rafael Palmeiro testify in Congress on March 17, 2005, under oath about not using drugs:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Rafael Palmeiro and I am a professional baseball player. I'll be brief in my remarks today. Let me start by telling you this: I have never used steroids. Period. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never. The reference to me in Mr. Canseco's book is absolutely false.
Well, just five months later Palmeiro tests positive and is suspended for ten days:
Five months after adamantly denying before Congress that he had used steroids, Orioles first baseman Rafael Palmeiro has been suspended for violating Major League Baseball's policy on the banned substance.
And all the President can do is support Palmeiro due to his friendship and "trust":
Little more than an hour after word of Rafael Palmeiro's suspension for violating Major League Baseball's steroid policy, President Bush defended the former Texas Ranger.

"He's a friend," the president said in a White House roundtable interview with several Texas reporters. "He's testified in public, and I believe him."

Citing Mr. Palmeiro's previous statements under the "klieg lights" that he had not used steroids, the former Texas Rangers part-owner said: "I believe him – still do."
Is that the best the President of the United States can do about keeping faith with America? Is this a nation where friendship puts individuals above the law? Is it friendship with Karl Rove that puts him above the law? Is it friendship with Dick Cheney that explains Halliburton's no bid contracts? Is it friendship with John Bolton which explains why he stuck with this appointment to the United Nations in spite of the broad-based concerns about his appropriate demeanor?

A President needs to put his nation and the law above friendships and not the other way around.

America needs a return to decency. America needs John Kerry in 2008. If the Gallup poll is correct, we have a lot of work to do! But the importance of the work is not diminished by standing in polls, by wisecracks from talk show hosts or smears by political hacks. America deserves better! We still have your back John!



Blogger Ron Chusid said...

I didn't worry about polls during the actual primary battle, such as those which had Kerry behind Al Sharpton. I'm certainly not going to pay any attention to polling results this many years before an election.

7:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I supported Kerry to the tune of $500, even though one of us was unemployed at the time. I believed in what he had to offer, that it was a superior alternative to Bush. Still do. But finishing up in November with all that unspent money was a big turn-off for me, to be honest with you.

If Kerry's the nominee, yeah, I'll support him again. But there were others I preferred in 2004 (I thought Bob Graham was the best contender, honestly: most diverse resume, executive branch experience, early cynicism over the authorization to use force, etc.), and I might still prefer them in '08.

If Kerry's the nominee, he has my support. But he'd better spend the money I send him!

12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's really no evidence that the results would have been different if Kerry had finished $5 million in the red instead of with some left over. His campaign said they had the resources they needed and held some in case of a prolonged legal battle like 2000.

There simply wasn't enough evidence to support any claim to overturn the results.

Now that doesn't mean Ohio's election was fair. 10 hour waits in democratic leaning districts vs 10 minutes for Republicans hardly seems fair.

Kerry did donate much of what was left to other democratic causes like the legal battle for WA governor. AND for a change the Dems won a close one.

3:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home