Happy New Year Kossacks!
Once again, Military Times is attributing views to the military as a whole based on highly unscientific surveys of its subscribers. And, once again the media jumps on it as a significant indication of how the military feels about the President-elect. Well let me tell you, it makes this military wife and Obama supporter very angry.
Also, reaction to the political spectacle that will likely occur next week in Washington when Roland Burris shows up at the Senate for a run-in with the U.S. Capitol Police. What a way to start the new year in Congress...
And, Fox News broadcasts some... interesting messages on New Year's Eve.
Twice this year, Military Times has published surveys of their subscribers in which they erroneously attribute the political views of their subscribers to the military as a whole. The headline from their latest poll is 2008 Military Times Poll: Wary about Obama. Without doing any research on the merits of the poll (of course), media outlets such as ABC News are reporting the poll as a snapshot of military opinion. As a military wife, this infuriates me. Military Times has every right to survey their members, but they do a disservice to the military when their headlines and analysis claim this to be representative of the military as a group.
Take, for example, their opening paragraph:
When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.
In follow-up interviews, respondents expressed concerns about Obama’s lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.
This is a misleading statement. Their data in no way represents the opinions of active-duty service members, but rather active-duty Military Times subscribers. If I were to rewrite the opening paragraph, I would have written it as follows:
When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 subscribers to Military Times say they are uncertain or pessimistic.
That would have been a much more accurate reflection of what the poll actually tells us. Buried towards the end of their article, Military Times offers the following disclaimer:
The findings are part of the sixth annual Military Times survey of subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers. This year’s survey, conducted Dec. 1 through Dec. 8, included more than 1,900 active-duty respondents.
The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers.
Basically, this survey is no more scientific than a self-selected web survey, yet Military Times trumpets their poll as an indication of military views when it is not. And right-wing media outlets use these polls to draw conclusions that are not valid. The subscribers to Military Times are not representative of the military as a whole. Buried in a small link called "how we did the survey," we get the following disclaimer:
Although public opinion pollsters use random selection to survey the general public, the Military Times survey is based on responses from those who chose to participate. That means it is impossible to calculate statistical margins of error commonly reported in opinion surveys, because those calculations depend on random sampling techniques.
The voluntary nature of the survey, the dependence on e-mail and the characteristics of Military Times readers could affect the results.
A pollster.com posting from back in October looked at some of the issues with the Military Times polling:
As with previous Military Times surveys the respondents in 2008 were disproportionately white, male and officers. The actual Army population is about 85% male, 14% regular commissioned officers (not including Warrant Officers), and 60% white. The active-duty members of the Army who responded to the Military Times poll were 90% male, 45% regular commissioned officers, and 71% white. Furthermore, the Army's junior enlisted ranks are dramatically underrepresented in the Military Times surveys. About 47% of the Army serves in the ranks of E-1 through E-4. These ranks comprise only 6% of the active Army population included in the 2008 Military Times survey. (The samples of each of the previous Military Times surveys are nearly identical in the degree to which they represent the active military population). Bottom Line: these surveys should in no way be used to assess aggregate attitudes across the force.
I think that could stand to be repeated. A Pollster.com analysis found that these surveys should IN NO WAY be used to assess attitudes of the entire military. Yet, they continue to be used in that way.
Brandon Friedman at VetVoice has similar problems with the Military Times' surveys:
So they're basically saying, "Pay no attention to our divisive headlines or, in fact, most of our article. Just accept our conclusions as we've framed them, even though we're now telling you that we knowingly under-represented Obama's primary constituency, and that we have no scientific basis for what we're presenting as 'facts.'"
I have no problem with Military Times doing surveys of their members and I applaud them for at least mentioning the disclaimers in the article. However, their headlines and commentary continue to infer that these are military-wide opinions. Here are the full results if you care to have a look. I have sent an email to the reporter, Brendan McGarry (bmcgarry@atpco.com), and the editor of Army Times, John Bray (jbray@militarytimes.com).
Why do I feel so strongly about this? Because all morning I've seen headlines like this:
Troops' Support of Obama Iffy: Poll (Chicago Sun-Times)
Military Times Poll Shows Skepticism for New Commander in Chief (ABC News)
I'm sure there will be many more headlines this morning, considering it is now the top story on Drudge.
As I wrote in my email to Military Times, I have no problem with them surveying their members. However, their headlines and commentary (as well as their use of the term "active-duty service members") try to paint a larger picture. I asked them to please consider making their disclaimer more prominent (their indication that this is a self-selected survey is not even mentioned until the article's 12th paragraph) and to refrain from claiming their poll represents the opinions of "active-duty service members" when their data really reflects the opinions of "active-duty Military Times subscribers."
::::::
CNN is reporting that Burris will not be allowed onto the Senate floor on Tuesday:
The man tapped by Illinois' embattled governor to fill an open U.S. Senate seat will be turned away if he arrives for Tuesday's inauguration of new members, according to two Democratic aides.
According to the unnamed Democratic aide in the article, if Burris does show up he will either be turned away by the Senate doorkeeper or the U.S. Capitol Police. For his part Burris thinks it will all work out:
Burris told CNN that he was "certainly going to make contacts with the leadership to let them know that the governor of Illinois has made a legal appointment, and that I am currently the junior senator for the state of Illinois."
This is just the kind of bullshit spectacle we need to kick off the new year when there are so many important things that need to be done. Steve Benen thinks it has the potential to create a very awkward scene next week.
::::::
E.J. Dionne Jr. looks at the options available to Democrats in sorting out this mess:
This leaves Democrats with two choices: a negotiated settlement, or full-scale warfare.
The negotiated settlement would involve agreeing to seat Burris, in exchange for a promise from him not to seek election to the seat in 2010. The 71-year-old Burris, a former state attorney general who has lost several efforts to advance to higher office, could cap his career nicely. In principle, this would end Blagojevich's relevance to national politics and get him out of Obama's way.
But Republicans would be merciless about the taint that would attach to Burris' Senate vote and argue that the nation's Democratic majority was hopelessly wrapped up in Chicago politics at its most corrupt.
That's why Democrats have opted for warfare. This will inevitably involve an increasingly tough offensive against Burris himself, a challenge to his judgment in accepting Blagojevich's gift, and a willingness on the part of Democrats to live without one of Illinois' Senate votes for a while.
Tom Baer argues that, according to the Constitution, Senate Democrats cannot reject the Burris appointment. Akhil Reed Amar and Josh Chafetz at Slate disagree.
And, I don't think it is any surprise to anyone that Blagojevich completely ignored Obama's list of seven qualified candidates for his seat. The two people that we know were offered the seat, Rep. Danny Davis and Burris, were not on Obama's list.
::::::
The Los Angeles Times looks at the potential role moderate Republicans will play in the new Congress:
Congress now has so few moderate Republicans that at least in the Senate they could squeeze into a Volkswagen beetle. Their ranks have dwindled in recent elections. Those who remain in politics have been marginalized by their own party, which has inexorably veered to the right over the last generation.
But now this beleaguered minority has an opportunity to wield outsized influence on what President-elect Barack Obama can accomplish in Congress.
When Democrats were in the minority do you ever remember articles about how much "influence" they would have?
::::::
Caroline Kennedy received some good news for the New Year when Sheldon Silver said he would support her if she is appointed to the Senate:
Despite early reservations, New York state's most powerful legislative leader now says he'll support Caroline Kennedy for the U.S. Senate if the governor names her to the seat expected to be vacated by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told the New York Post he's rethinking his views on Kennedy because he feels Gov. David Paterson will soon pick her to replace Clinton, President-elect Barack Obama's choice as secretary of state.
I think the media is making a bigger deal out of this story than it deserves. First of all, Silver says he will support Kennedy IF the governor names her. I find it highly unlikely that any prominent Democrat in New York would say they would not support Kennedy if she is named. This is less an endorsement than a way for a politician to prepare for the possibility that she will be appointed. Meanwhile, Paterson insists he is still interviewing for the position.
::::::
In Glenn Greenwald's year in review, he argues that it is clear what Obama needs to do to restore civil liberties and constitutional protections:
For the last seven years, Democrats have repeatedly cited GOP political dominance to excuse their wholesale failures to limit, let alone reverse, the devastating war waged by the Bush administration on America's core liberties and form of government. With a new Democratic president and large majorities in both Congressional houses, those excuses will no longer be so expedient. As dark and depressing as these last seven years have been for civil libertarians, culminating in an almost entirely grim 2008, there is no question that the Obama administration and the Democrats generally now possess the power to reverse these abuses and restore our national political values. But as the events of the last 12 months conclusively demonstrate, there are substantial questions as to whether they have the will to do so.
I guess we will find out. I am counting on Obama to fulfill his promise of closing Guantanamo shortly after he takes office. Several countries have appeared open to accepting detainees, but Australia said today that it is unlikely to do so.
::::::
White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley are "frustrated" that they weren't able to do more to improve Bush's popularity:
As two of the top officials who have had to defend controversial administration policies for the duration of the Bush presidency, they voiced frustration over their inability to improve Bush's popularity and to counter the administration's image of arrogance. But in a wide-ranging conversation lasting more than two hours, the two men also rebutted what they consider common misconceptions of the George W. Bush era, such as the president's alleged insulation from bad news and the view that Vice President Cheney wielded unbridled behind-the-scenes power.
They also assure the Washington Post that President Bush actually did seek out and welcome dissenting opinions. Yeah. The Bush Legacy Project continues... at least it is now less than three weeks until he is outta there! Can you believe it? It has been eight long years.
::::::
Barack Obama won a "Person of the Year" contest in Hong Kong. Obama just narrowly beat Edison Chen, a pop star who announced his retirement and fled Hong Kong after "inappropriate" pictures surfaced on the internet of him with several different women.
::::::
FOX News aired the following "greeting" during their New Year's Eve broadcast, where they selected greetings and wishes sent in via text message, according to Think Progress:
HAPPY NEW YEAR AND LET’S HOPE THE MAGIC NEGRO DOES A GOOD JOB. LOVE JEN AND JOHN C.
Classy, huh? You can see the video on Think Progress.
::::::
I hope you all had a Happy New Year! I wonder what we'll be talking about next year at this time...