The bounce normally doesn't hit until about Tuesday, after the weekend, so the poll was early.

Normally, though, you don't have a false terror alert to influence the results, so there may be no bounce (you may hate it, but you've got to hand it to Rove).

The alert may be conveniently timed but I doubt it's false. When Clinton launched attacks in Bosnia (or was it Kosovo?) during the Lewinsky scandal, I might have smirked at the timing but I never thought the attacks were unnecessary.

With rare exceptions, I do not believe that politicians of either side rise to the level of manipulation where they create crises. When there's a range of roughly equivalent options, they'll choose the one most favorable politically and they may convince themselves that the politically favorable one is better than it is, but I believe that all of them at the most basic level really do want to serve.

I even believe that Michael Moore believes he is doing a good thing.

I think the government handles terror alerts improperly. It's quite silly actually that even a hint of politicality should cloud the release of threat information.

Before a terror alert is released, a select, bi-partisan committee should be briefed with *more information so that they can independently verify the significance of the claim. Doing so would remove the chances that we hear "wolf" cried by the government and quiet conspiracists who are convinced that every terror warning is politically motivated.

Before a terror alert is released, a select, bi-partisan committee should be briefed with *more information so that they can independently verify the significance of the claim

Listening to Lieberman, it sounds like that happens to some degree.

It does happen, but it is less formal than perhaps it could be. But I suppose that any time an Administration releases information by which it stands to benefit, said Administration will be accused of politicizing.

This specific announcement may or may not be real, but either way it's useless and probably counter-productive, in my opinion. It might make sense if we all had to evacuate or something, but it's unlikely to do any good in stopping a threat.

And when nothing happens time after time, the announcements get less and less meaningful as they sound more and more like crying "Wolf."

Hal,

What would you suggest? Brutal, unadulterated ignorance? Full and absolute disclosure?

It seems that the most reasonable path is somewhere in between. If we're not told, we'll be mad as heck, if we are, a different group of us is mad as heck.

Personally, I pretty much ignore the terror warnings as there is little I can do one way or another. Even so, I would rather hear the terror warnings than not.

I'd suggest not making the announcements public as a general rule, but enahncing security as necessary.

When there is something the public can do beyond "pretty much ignoring" the warnings, make them public.

Some may be a judgment call, but others, like the "we have a no warning warning today" just before the 9/11 Commission report was released should definitely be shut down.

Can't win on that, Hal. If there is no announcement and something happens, the loyal opposition would scream, "Why were we not warned? The American people had a right to know and to prepare!" If there is an announcement and nothing happens, the administration is accused of scare tactics or suspicious timing. The only way the administration looks... well, not good, but is correct- is if they issue an alert and something happens.

Of course, then the loyal opposition screams, "You knew it was coming, why didn't you stop it?"

Back to the poll- since there has been no bounce yet, shall we take Tuesday as the day we should all be looking forward to as Bounce Day?

I think the main problem was that there was no suspense and no surprises coming out of the convention. Edwards was named too soon, and no new substantial policy initiatives were unveiled.

I think that Bush and the GOP should go to school on this and come up with some kind of surprise announcement, lest they suffer the same flat outcome as the Dems.

I guess on the announcement, Mike, I'd ask what's more important: the politics of it or the threat itself?

Announcing it in advance is still counter-productive in a number of ways.

On the bounce, Mike, I don't really care about the poll myself, but am suspicious about the terror alert timing because others do care.

Announcing may serve as a deterrent to some degree, as well.

Sometimes, I truly enjoy thoughts like:

Before a terror alert is released, a select, bi-partisan committee should be briefed with *more information so that they can independently verify the significance of the claim.

Spoken like a true legislator. Can't we bury this one in committee?

Sorry to be a bit cynical. I understand the notion that there might be concern that the warnings are politically motivated; I also understand the idea that announcing them publicly may be a bit unnecessary just because there may not be much the public can, in fact, do about the situation. But really, having been on countless committees, I can say that very rarely does much get done - and when you need something done, you have to give somebody the authority and let them do it. If they screw it up, then you clean up the mess. Investigate whether alerts are being improperly used for political purposes, but please don't waste time running things through another freaking committee.

someone should appoint a blue-ribbon committee to study this idea.

;-)

I do believe that Bush will receive a bounce from the RNC in a month or so. He'll be in New York, just a few days before the third anniversary of 9/11, but that's not why. He'll get a bounce because his views and his values are much closer to most Amercians than John Kerry's, and because more people will watch him because he is the President of the United States. He will emphasize the positive truths of his Presidency within the context of American history, and people - not all people, mind you, but many - will remember why they in a ratio of almost 9 to 1, approved of the job he was doing.

LOL! If this balderdash were true, there would be no reason to have written the rest of your entry. The polls obviously say there is not overwhelming support for the man SCOTUS made president. It always tickles me when people offer evidence and then reach a conclusion opposite what the evidence they presented says. I do congratulate you on winning the Blogcritics Vague Blathering About the Inherent Wonderfulness of Bush Award for today.

Ms. Diva,

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your response below. If you're going to start lobbing patronizing insults at a person, then you should probably take the time to read the post well enough to lob accurate patronizing insults.

You said:

It always tickles me when people offer evidence and then reach a conclusion opposite what the evidence they presented says. I do congratulate you on winning the Blogcritics Vague Blathering About the Inherent Wonderfulness of Bush Award for today.

First of all, I stated my belief that Bush would receive a significant bounce from the RNC. I think he will. This is a non-partisan conclusion. I didn't think Kerry would get a significant bounce, and he didn't, despite the fact that historical evidence suggested he should get about 6%.

Second of all, I never argued that there is overwhelming support for President Bush right now, just that his personal values are closer to those of majority of Americans. Once again, this is a personal judgment that you perhaps disagree with. That's fine, I suppose, but in either case, I don't think that most polls, especially early ones, reflect in any absolute sense, the shared values of the people and a particular candidate. Many people haven't taken the time to determine their own values, let alone taken the time to compare said values to a Presidential candidate. I didn't even say that I agreed with or shared those values.

Thirdly, had you read my post closely, you would have realized that in no way did I vaguely blather about the wonderfulness of Bush. I stated facts: 1. He will emphasize the positive truths of his Presidency within the context of American history, 2. Some people will remember why they approved of the job he was doing in a ratio of almost 9 to 1 (see data below). My conclusion was that he would therefore receive a more significant bounce than did Kerry. There's nothing implying anything about my feelings for Bush, except that I think he'll get a bounce.

Quite frankly, I don't think he's doing that great of job in a lot of ways. I think he totally botched the Medicare Prescription Plan. I think he doesn't stress conservation at all (which will come back to bite us all). I think he's way too friendly with big business (I could say this about most politicians). I don't think he's terribly intelligent. I think he claims too much credit for the slowly improving condition of the economy. I could go on and on.

I understand where you're coming from but your comments were both unjustified and uncivil. I'm happy to discuss particular issues if you like. I'm sure there are a lot of things that we agree on, and probably several that we do not. I, for example, have a five button mouse; you use an amorphous gelly-looking thing. This doesn't mean we can't be friends.

My "Expert Mouse" has 10 buttons, a wheel and a trackball (I, too, use a Mac), so I feel I can ask:

What leads you to say this:

his personal values are closer to those of majority of Americans?

Congratulations on your mouse Hal, I am quite impressed.

First of all, if we are to combine values and personal economic experiences, I don't think either candidate identifies particularly well with Americans as a whole, despite what both of them may say in objection.

Again, this is just my opinion, so take it as you will.

Both convervatives and liberals have rated Kerry among the most liberal of all lawmakers.

The American Conservative Union's ratings suggest that he has a lifetime score of '5,' where 1 is the most liberal and 100 is least.

Similarly, the Americans for Democratic Action give him a 92 out of a possible 100 as a liberal.

Assuming 50 is the mean for most folks in the US, he's pretty far from the center.

We don't have such ratings for Bush as a legislator because he's never been one. Jeffrey Jenkins, a political science professor at Northwestern, took the time to analyze Bush's stated positions:

For simplicity, I examined President Bush's score in the last full Congress, the 107th, relative to Senate Republicans.

As it turns out, President Bush is positioned near the dividing line between the center-right and right quartiles of the party. So, while clearly right of center, he is not a part of the most conservative segment of the party, which at that time was anchored by the likes of Senators Phil Gramm and Jesse Helms.

Assuming 50 is the mean for most folks in the US, he's pretty far from the center.

I don't see how you can make that assumption unless they've also ranked "most folks in the US". (And by the way, what does it mean to take an average of "most folks"? If you start selecting which majority of the population you're going to average, you can get all kinds of crazy means.)

I would guess that on average legislators are more pro-business than the rest of the population. From what polls I've seen, Americans are also on average more pro-choice and pro-environment than this Congress.

It is after all, an assumption. I certainly could be wrong. One other confusing thing, since we are talking disparities between lawmakers and the people is the odd fact that a majority of Americans consider themselves Democrats, yet said party doesn't get such representation come election day.

It is clear I am more different from others like me

You're speaking in riddles. What's in my pocket?

If you take a look at the actual American Conservative Union's ratings, you'll see that he was really voting as a fiscal conservative, trying not to increase the deficit.


Warning: Both rating organizations can be hazardous to your health and wealth.

I have been informed by the author that these remarks in praise of Bush are not vague:

"values are much closer to most Amercians"

"the positive truths of his Presidency"

"many - will remember why they in a ratio of almost 9 to 1, approved of the job he was doing."


I submit that the author is very badly mistaken about these remarks not being vague. However, if he were to be more specific, he would further undermine his claims that Kerry has little or no support and that 90 percent of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing. Since Right Wingers find that the truth about the populace and their chosen God on Earth frightening, I understand why he is being vague.

Ms. Diva,

I fail to see how the remarks are laudatory of Bush. Empirical data suggests that Bush's approval rating was higher than 90% at one point in time. That, of course, doesn't make him a good president, nor does it imply that I think he's one.

Furthermore, Bush can talk about "positive truths of his Presidency," whereas Kerry cannot, since he hasn't been President. I will grant you, there have been several negatives about his Presidency, some of which I detailed to you.

My comments regarding his values you may or may not take as a compliment. I meant it as a judgment that was neither good nor bad.

Admittedly, my comments were non-specific, but they weren't laudatory.

"...his [Bush's] personal values are closer to those of majority of Americans."

Could be the truest thing you've written so far.

Values like:

Greed
Ignorance
Ethnocentricity
Religious Extremism
Moral Superiority
Nationalistic Xenophobia
"Bring 'em on!" Macho Bluster
"My God can whip your God"
"I'll drive my Hummer if I have to invade the entire Middle East to do it."

and a general attitude somewhere between:

"Fuck you, I've got mine"

- and -

"Get it now and fuck the future."

How much of a bounce do you see from this?

Secret GOP Convention Plans