Originally posted by General Zod I want my president to be smarter than I am. More moral than I am. Stronger than I am.
I would say that I want that as well, if not for the fact that I know no such person exists.
But semi-seriously, if we only elected presidents who were more moral than I (and, believe me, that's not all that high a bar to clear) do you realize how many former presidents would have never taken the oath of office (including many who are ranked among the best ever)?
Of course. This is an ideal not a reality, I understand that. I am only saying that when we are in the process of choosing the person who will be the next president, I don't think qualities like "average" or "regular" should be seen as a positive thing.
I know you're a feminist and I think that's adorable, but this is grown-up time and I'm the man.
well, I would want similar study from someone other than george mason, say, Liberty University. The La Times is, in my opinion, unreliable. "stribish" as it were.
(edited by AWArulz on 30.9.08 1541)
You'd want the study from Liberty University. Of course: the people who scream "liberal bias" will only be happy with "extreme conservative bias". Just like the McCain campaign recently complaining that The New York Times hasn't reported that Joe Biden's son does lobbying for credit card companies--of course, Joe Biden's son does NOT do lobbying for credit card companies, and never has, but I suppose letting that little detail stand in the way of reporting a story the Republicans would like is just another example of "liberal bias".
Do you have any reason to think George Mason has a liberal bias? The LA Times was just reporting the results of the study, so I don't see how their position enters into it (not that I am saying they're biased; I don't read it enough to know, frankly).
Liberal bias is thrown around when the Republicans get caught with something. People forget that most radio networks are conservative by nature that is why Air America was new.
I am also get tired of the phrase "In the tank". I don't know if this is a trendy Fox News or Rush Limbaugh phrase, but its annoying the hell out of me. I am not sure what the tank is or who would want to be in the tank in the first place. All I know is that probably the best example of it is Fox News' coverage of the election.
900 gives a +/- error rate of 4% for the nation I think. Meaning, essentially, that there is a 95% certainty that the actual number lies somewhere between 4% higher and 4% lower than the polled number.