Another Radical Change for SPIEGEL ONLINE's Bizarre Bush-Meter

(By Ray D.)

Bush-Meter Up 17, then Down 25 Points within 14 Days

It now seems that SPIEGEL ONLINE's Bush-Meter has devolved into an arbitrary measure of the mood of the publication's America correspondents on any given day. Two weeks ago, the meter gave Bush a 33% chance of winning despite Marc Pitzke describing the election race as being "in the region of a stalemate." A week later, after Medienkritik pointed out the contradiction, he "drastically corrected" his mistake and reset the meter at 50%, which seemed to correspond to basic mathematical logic.

Now it seems that Pitzke has been given an unpaid vacation by his editor bosses for daring to give Bush an even chance and replaced with Gerhard Spoerl. Spoerl, a truly left of left hardliner, promptly wrenched the meter down a full 25 percentage points to please the anti-American, anti-Bush appetites of SPON's editors and readers:

Dramatic Ups and Downs: Is the Bush-Meter Broken? Another Sign that SPIEGEL ONLINE Doesn't Take Itself or its Readers Seriously. (Left: July 12; Center: July 19; Right: July 26)

Spoerl says Kerry has everything going for him and says the Bush-Meter "bets 3 to 1 that Mr. Kerry will defeat Mr. Bush." I wonder whether Mr. Spoerl and SPIEGEL's staff would be willing to travel to the nearest casino and put their money on those odds or accept bets.

Let's just break this down to its simple essence: With Bush currently holding a projected narrow lead over Kerry in the electoral vote, Spoerl could not logically justify giving a mere 25% chance of victory to the President. This is pure, unfiltered SPIEGEL cynicism and distortion in its most primitive form.

One is tempted to ask: "Does SPIEGEL think its readers are all stupid?"... By looking at its articles and particularly the Bush-Meter, the answer would seem to be "Yes!"

UPDATE: SPIEGEL ONLINE posted the Bush-meter giving the US President a mere 25% chance of winning just one day after posting an article entitled "Poll: Bush has a Small Lead over Kerry." Dumb...Dumber...SPIEGEL ONLINE!

Comments

[Stupid White Man]

Spiegel probably thinks, most of its readers are stupid, but that´s just because most of them ARE actually stupid...

[Sandy P]

Too bad the bet couldn't be either his job or a pro-American, pro W article when he loses.

[Foobarista]

I always thought Germans were supposed to be better at math and science than us innumerate 'Merkins. After the election, no matter what happens, we should plot that bushmeter and see what it looks like...

Maybe there's a complex formula at work, with a triple integral and something involving gamma(X) in there somewhere. Anyway, if it doesn't explain Bush's electoral prospects, it'll probably explain how strings work and why Kerry's chances of taking Texas are even smaller than the Planck limit. Bush's chances in CA are slightly larger, but not quite above the sub-micron level.

Anyway, like I said before, this election will be truly hard to cover for pollsters and the media because it'll all be in the turnout. It ain't about the fence-sitting middle - it's all about the base and getting their rear-ends to the polls. In fact, the goal of Bush in particular will be to annoy the center enough that it decides "a plague on both your houses" and stays home. In some states, things could well turn on who has a big snowstorm or not in early Nov.

[Joe]

Maybe they should call it the Anti-bush "meter of Hope"! Do they think that they're in North Korea? Where no news can penetrate through the blackout curtains?

[joel]

I suspect they do this to prepare their readers for the claim that, if Bush does win reelection, he stole it, again.

The Germans are slow learners, after all.

For example, Germany really didn't lose WW I. They were stabbed in the back by....
But, I won't go there. They had to be mercilessly (I mean this!) punished during WW II to admit they had lost that war.

So, I am not surprised by this German mindset. Have you ever tried to explain anything to a German?

[Downer]

Und natürlich auch über solche Topmeldungen wollen SPIEGEL-Leser sofort informiert werden:

UNFALL AUF DER RANCH

Bush fiel wieder vom Mountainbike

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,310556,00.html

[Chris]

Hi joel,

>>So, I am not surprised by this German mindset. Have you ever tried to explain anything to a German?

I do so frequently and often get my points across. But that's probably because I am german and seldom have the opportunity to discuss with others than germans ;).
But seriously, if you have really given up "hope" for us germans, why are you here? I thought this blog is about understanding each other and for germans to see that there are other news to hear than from spiegel.
But for understanding each other it is necessary to listen and to think about what you hear. Try not to find the faults in your opponents arguments, but the good points. And tell them what their good points are. Then I'm sure they will be more open for your arguments.

>>The Germans are slow learners, after all.

In some cases it seems we have learnt nothing at all. We do not ask enough questions. If our leaders say/do something, we agree or disagree instantly without asking why or how.
But what about you. From what I hear, your media is mostly left-wing. But if you don't trust your media where do you go for information? WWW? I heard about talk-radio. Do you listen to it frequently?

[Downer]

Und Pitzke ist wie gesagt in Boston, um dort den Demokraten in den Arsch zu kriechen. Das hört sich dann die ganze Zeit ungefähr so an:

"Hi, my name is Marc Pitzke, i come from SPIEGEL-ONLINE - the number one of all Bush-Haters Magazines worldwide!"

Kerry und der Fluch der Clintons

Aus Boston berichtet Marc Pitzke

Der Star des Wahlparteitags der US-Demokraten heißt nicht Kerry, sondern Clinton. Mit einer furiosen Rede riss der Ex-Präsident seine Parteifreunde in Boston von den Sitzen. Viele vergossen Tränen politischer Nostalgie, einer wurde gar ohnmächtig. Clinton stahl Kerry die Show - mit Redekunst, Charme und unerwünschten Karrieretipps.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,310562,00.html

[Ralf]

You guys are so funny!

As Ray already pointed out, the "Bush-meter" is bizarre, and it is obviously useless and stupid

Why are you taking it seriously?

[German KFOR]

"The response of the German KFOR in Prizren presents one of the most fundamental
security failures during the March 2004 riots. Even though one of the largest German
KFOR bases is located right on the outskirts of Prizren, the German KFOR
commanders refused to effectively mobilize their troops during the worst attacks,
repeatedly ignoring pleas from their German UNMIK police colleagues for assistance.153
UNMIK police commanders in Prizren are convinced that a stronger KFOR response
could have prevented the whole-sale burning of fifty-six Serb houses and five Serb
orthodox churches of historic importance, as well as the terror faced by a Serb
population abandoned to their fate by the international community.
An UNMIK official who asked for anonymity explained to Human Rights Watch that
the UNMIK police commanders in Prizren had repeatedly requested for the deployment
of German KFOR troops during the worst rioting. He firmly believed that if one tank
had pulled up during the beginning of the rioting, “the demonstrators would have left.”
According to the UNMIK official, some four hundred German KFOR soldiers had
prepared themselves to leave the base and respond to the riot situation, but never
received orders to deploy. He blamed the failure of German KFOR to respond on
“commanders who don’t want to make mistakes that could end their careers.”154
The failure of German KFOR troops to respond to the rioting in Prizren left the
security situation in the hands of about three hundred and fifty poorly equipped KPS
police—most of them with only a few years experience—and several dozen UNMIK
police. ...
http://hrw.org/reports/2004/kosovo0704/kosovo0704.pdf

Where are the articles about this failure? Any commentaries? Not much in the German media.

[Torture under Saddam]

Frieden im Irak:

Iraq Shows Odai's Olympic Torture Tools
Posted by: Editor on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 12:00 AM

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Torture equipment used by Saddam Hussein's slain son, Odai, to punish underperforming Iraqi athletes was displayed Saturday at a Baghdad sports stadium in advance of the opening of the Olympics next month in Athens.

Journalists were shown medieval-style torture equipment,
including an "iron maiden-like" casket with metal spikes fixed to the inside that athletes had been forced into and chain whips with steel barbs the size of tennis balls attached to the end.

"During the old regime, Odai was looking for results and he wanted winners. He didn't like second place," Talib Mutan, an Iraqi Olympics Committee official, told Associated Press Television News.

"If the athletes didn't come in first, they were punished. And he would punish the people around the athletes, their managers and coaches included," Mutan said.

Odai, who ran the Olympic committee while his father ruled Iraq (news - web sites), and his younger brother Qusai were killed in a fierce gunbattle with U.S. forces a year ago in the northern city of Mosul.

Mutan said athletes who earned Odai's wrath were tortured in various ways, through beatings, sleep deprivation and being forced to walk barefoot over hot asphalt during Iraq's searing summer.

The official said suggestions had been made to display the torture equipment in a museum, but there had been no final decision.

The International Olympic Committee (news - web sites) reinstated Iraq's national Olympic committee in February after it was suspended following the fall of Saddam's regime in 2003, enabling Iraqi athletes to compete at this year's Summer Games.
http://www.iraq.net/displayarticle4936.html

Query by previous poster:
But what about you. From what I hear, your media is mostly left-wing. But if you don't trust your media where do you go for information? WWW? I heard about talk-radio. Do you listen to it frequently?

Oh yes, our media by and large is hopelessly biased. It is so bad that you have to read between the lines, like in a dictatorship, to understand the situation. For example, in Iraq, no news is the only good news you hear. On NPR it slipped out in an unscripted interview that Iraqi talk radio is alive and well. That is good news for democracy, so NPR (National Public Radio) never mentioned this item before. If the oil piplines are not reported burning, you can assume they are pumping plenty of oil, etc.

I never listen to talk radio and I do not watch TV. What for? The people on TV are chosen for how they look, not for their brains or insight. The shows are designed for stupid people with short attention spans. Talk radio is just noise, but, at least talk radio is evidence of democracy.

I get my information from daily reading:
1. NY Times
2. Wall Street Journal
3. Washington Times
4. BBC web site
5. Bloggers, my most interesting sources, like this web site.
6. Druge Report ( The links on the Druge page)
7. Books. I am currently reading three books about the diplomany of the interwar periord and WW II (1918-1945), plus the biography of Himmel's doctor, Kirsten. My house is filled with books, most of them non-fiction (My wife reads silly novels.)

I find overall books are the most important source of knowledge. The best books on history are books writen contemporaneously, especially by participants. There is no other way to understand events unless you understand the mindset of the time. Used books sales are a great place to find old, out of print books.

I could go on. But you get the idea.

[syn]

Two books I highly recommend on subjects which 'liberal' media will never report truthfully:

"The Connection" by Stephen Hayes. How Al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America.

And,

"Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" by David Hardy and Jason Clarke. Everything you want to know about this Hollywood Fascist propangandizing polemicist.

I would like to add that I do have great concern for Europeans. I have lived in Europe, I like the people and their culture.

What concerns me is that Europeans have no idea that Europe is turning into Eurabia.

[Chris]

Hi Syn,

thanks for the info.

>>I would like to add that I do have great concern for Europeans. I have lived in Europe, I like the people and their culture.

What concerns me is that Europeans have no idea that Europe is turning into Eurabia.

Oh, I think we have an idea. With so many arabs around it's hard to ignore that they are are a big part of our population. The problem is whether we should stop those who really appreciate our culture and/or our way of life. Those who are rebellious and only want to bring their way of life into our country should be expelled, but most arabs I know don't think that way. Perhaps when they are young, but the older they become, the more integrated they get. Should we get rid of them, too? Their numbers will increase and unless our own birhrates go up, they will be able to influence elections in a major way. This is a matter of concern for me, but I feel it may be irrational because, as I said, most of whom I know are surely no terrorists (unless they hide it very very good).

[syn]

Chris,
I am referring to policies put forth which promotes Eurabia.

Europeans are being intergrated into Eurabia, not the other way around.

That said, when would an Islamic Fascist announce to you they are a terrorist? Only after they attack and kill you.

[syn]

In my opinion, Islamic Fascist have picked up the cause left by Hitler's Nazism.

Listen to the words being preached in the Mosques.

Just as in Nazi Germany there who those who opposed Hitler, likewise there are those who oppose Islamic Fascism. Unfortunately, those voices,like those in Nazi Germany, go unheard or are suppressed.

[newsance]

Where is the Schroedermeter?

Has der Spiegel noticed that the American economy is growing, U.S. unemployment is falling and almost half that of Germany?

Leute, die in Glass Haueser wohnen, haben nichts d'rueber zo sagen!

[Chris]

Hi Syn,

>>I am referring to policies put forth which promotes Eurabia.

It's a bit embarrasing for me to ask, but which ones do you refer to? Do you mean proposed change of laws or the appeasement of the arab states?

>>That said, when would an Islamic Fascist announce to you they are a terrorist? Only after they attack and kill you.

I meant those arabs who I know well. I think I could recognize it if they were putting on a show, unless they are very good actors. There must be signs of treason.
Perhaps I am wrong, but that would mean that I should suspect every arab to be a terrorist.

[newsance]

Hallo Chris

The Arab terrorists got past security and were allowed to get on airplanes. Those security folks are trained to spot folks who are lying.

Spies and moles are difficult to spot. People you think you know well, could easily be plotting against you.

Was the paranoid Hitler able to spot those who would assassinate him? How long did it take for the British to figure out Kim Philby was a Soviet agent?

Vorsicht!

[newsance]

Even the left leaning ABC/Washington Post poll shows rising weakness for Kerry. Likely due to the voting public realizing that what he says is not what he is likely to do.

Europeans should take heed. Kerry's position on the war changes, while his daily message is "I won't do anything different than Bush!"

[Joe]

Speaking of poll numbers, the US is abuzz with democratic promotion in the press as their convention is going on now. Follow the link to see some poll numbers:

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2004/07/polls_sagging.html

[jo]

Interesting, Joe, but here's a more comprehensive study:
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/polls/jul2004/jul04.pdf

[newsance]

The NPR Poll a study? Hardly a study, but a poll. A poll that has been known to favor Democrats by 7% because it relies heavily on urban areas. (Then, it is NPR)

For a better poll, try rasmussen.com and Zoby.com
For a lisiting of nearly all poll results see:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

Chris: “But if you don't trust your media where do you go for information?”

I read the mainstream media and then I read the blogs to get a feel for how the story has been spun. On important issues I’ll check both the “left” view and the “right” view of the same topic. I also read international papers and blogs to see how the issues are seen locally. (That why I’m here.)

Most people have neither the time nor the interest and so rely on a few sources. The mainstream media spins the news to reflect its own worldview. If you rely on a single source for news your worldview may reflect that bias.

Chris: “But seriously, if you have really given up "hope" for us germans, why are you here?”

The US is at war. Many of our “natural” allies such as Canada and Germany aren’t supporting us and at times are actively hindering US efforts. Many Americans are critically examining our international relationships. Reading the German media and blogs gives insight into local views.

My purpose is not to convince or educate Germans. My purpose is to discover whether Germany is a US ally. There is little point in cooperating internationally with a neutral or an enemy.

From my observations so far, England, Australia, and a few European countries are US allies. Canada appears to be split between ally and neutral, Germany and several other European countries seem to be antagonistic neutrals. France, Russia, and China are enemies.

My guess is that most Americans visit German sites to learn, not to change German views.

Joel: “So, I am not surprised by this German mindset. Have you ever tried to explain anything to a German?”

I don’t support such immature statements and I strongly doubt this comment reflects the average American view of Germans.

Thanks to David for providing this valuable information resource.

[Chris]

Hi!

>>The US is at war. Many of our “natural” allies such as Canada and Germany aren’t supporting us and at times are actively hindering US efforts. Many Americans are critically examining our international relationships. Reading the German media and blogs gives insight into local views.

My purpose is not to convince or educate Germans. My purpose is to discover whether Germany is a US ally. There is little point in cooperating internationally with a neutral or an enemy.

Thanks for your insight. That's probably true for many visitors here. I suggest you should go to http://groups.msn.com/Kontrovers/diskussionsforum.msnw if you like even more insight into german views. It's in german and it's not a blog but a discussion board and you will find it interesting I think. You should go to "Politik" for American issues. Sadly the tendency goes more and more towards anti-americanism...

>>Joel: “So, I am not surprised by this German mindset. Have you ever tried to explain anything to a German?”

I don’t support such immature statements and I strongly doubt this comment reflects the average American view of Germans.

I thought this was rather a statement of frustration than a general attitude. If one holds such view firmly he is not better than those he criticises.

[Gabi]

I watched this Boston festival on CNN: The people had almost no American flag. I wonder if there was an agreement not to do so because Europe does not like the "flag waving silly American patriotic crowd"? What do you think? I saw only red signs with "Teresa", no flags.

FR: Clinton geißelt Bush. Jetzt kommt wieder die Rhetorik für die deutsche primitive Seele.

[Chris]

Hi Newsance,

>>The Arab terrorists got past security and were allowed to get on airplanes. Those security folks are trained to spot folks who are lying.

Yes, but they have to handle thousands of passengers a day and therefore cannot spend much time on all of them. I think that the terrorists would have been spotted if the security personnel would have gotten to know them, i.e. talked to them and expirienced their behavior on a larger timeframe.

>>Spies and moles are difficult to spot. People you think you know well, could easily be plotting against you.

I never take anything for granted. And I know I can be deceived. I watch the behavior of those I work/live/communicate with closely and try to interpret it (not because I suspect them but because I want to understand them better).
But is it really your advice to suspect each and every arab? What about my fellow germans? They could be converts - should I suspect them, too?
My current plan is to watch arabs more closely when tensions between them and us become more imminent. Perhaps that would be to late but the other way seems too paranoid to me.

[Sandy P]

Chris, just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out trying to get him/her.

[Chris]

Hi Sandy,

paranoid wasn't meant as an insult. Of course there can be someone trying to get him/her/me.
But my definition of paranoid is that you are in a restless state of mind, ever suspecting that some harm is done to you. What kind of life would that be?
Do you have arab friends? Do you really suspect them to be terrorists? How does this affect your relationships?
I think if we treat all arabs as potential terrorists we might as well expell them right now. Because this distrust will prevent them from integration into our society and will be the basis for conflicts.

[Downer]

Etwas Abwechslung beim SPIEGEL:

MICHAEL MOORES "FAHRENHEIT 9/11"

Bilder wie Bomben

Von Andreas Borcholte

Purer Populismus: Mit seiner Kino-Dokumentation "Fahrenheit 9/11" will Michael Moore den US-Präsidenten George W. Bush um seine Wiederwahl bringen. Geschickt montiert der Filmemacher Bilder und Off-Kommentare zu einer suggestiven Kino-Polemik zusammen, die den Zuschauer auf unterhaltsame Weise manipuliert.

Außerordentlich gute Passage:

Die Respektlosigkeit und Unverfrorenheit, Bilder wie diese zu zeigen, ist es, die den Erfolg von Michael Moore und seinem "Dokutainment" ausmacht. Ein Kassenknüller dürfte ihm auch in Deutschland sicher sein, immerhin ist die Schar der Moore-Jünger hier zu Lande dank jahrzehntelang schwelender Antiamerikanismus-Tendenzen besonders groß. Ein filmischer Leckerbissen ist "Fahrenheit 9/11" indes nicht: Auf einen rasanten Anfang folgt ein unstrukturierter Mittelteil und ein pathetisches Ende. Von innerem Zusammenhang fehlt jede Spur, Moore hat die Form ganz dem Populismus untergeordnet.

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/kino/0,1518,310662,00.html

[Joe]

Jo: did you really read the thing. They go on to refer to the sample "the 38 voters who said not likely..." referered to a pie chart describing them as 35 percent of the sample.
That means that their "National" survey was of about 110 people.

Look - i heard about this survey on a local station break during Morning Edition. They asked NPR listeners to be surveyed. The whole thing was self selected - as in: invent your own data.

[jo]

Joe,
it seems like you didn't read the thing. The "38 voters who said they believe it is "very likely'..." referred to 5% of the sample which is pretty close to 800 ("The sample size for this survey was 800 registered likely voters with a margin of error of +3.46%"). 38 of 800 is 4.75%. Rounding the numbers as usual gives you 5%.

Also, I don't see the numbers to be so different from other polls. Did the other pollsters "invent [their] own data", too?

[Don]

They may be correct. The underlying numbers show that something like 63% of Independents (when asked whether Bush or 'someone else' should be elected opt for 'someone else'. That gives Kerry an opening he can exploit.

The fall election should show two themes. Kerry will be trying to show he can be trusted to be a decent president. That will be easier than Bush's job, which is to trash Kerry and show that Bush is the only reasonable choice. My best guess (at this point) is that Kerry has a 60% chance to win in November. Tied polls and all.

Another question is what does Kerry do if he wins? Kerry has run primarily on a "I'm not Bush" platform. He may try to repeal the Bush tax cuts and spend it on his favorite stuff.

Rots a Ruck, dude! He's going to have a bitterly divided partisan House still barely controlled by the opposition party. And likely a GOP-controlled Senate. I predict massive ticket-splitting.

"I'm not Bush" is even less of an agenda than Carter ran on. Anyone remember James Earl Carter? President before Reagan? Four years of that, while some Republican raises the revolution at grassroots level. Lot's of possibles. Meanwhile the strongest Democratic leader sits on her hands for 8 long years in the Senate. Good luck, Hillary.

[tm]

Sandy P,

A few months ago, on this blog or another, you said something about how those who cite Jean-Marie Colombani's "Nous Sommes Tous Américains" piece as evidence of how the US has squandered sympathy since 9/11 hadn't bothered to read the article. I'm wondering, have you got a copy? If so, I'd be most beholden if you (or anybody else) could forward me a copy.

[A E Hansen]

I'll take Herr Spoerl's 3 to 1 odds and lay $1000 on the line.

[Don]

Where is the post-convention surge?

I have been carefully watching the Rasmussen Poll (which runs a daily tracking poll of the race between Kerry and Bush), expecting to see a major surge toward Kerry as happened in 2000 toward Gore. It doesn't seem to be happening yet. The poll is constructed as a 3 day running average, with each daily poll reflecting the polling of the three previous days.

We won't really see the final results until Monday or Tuesday, but here is what has happened thus far: Pre-convention it was a tie leaning toward Kerry, depending on which day you looked at. When the convention began Kerry's lead increased to 3 points (48-45) from a tie and held there for three days. Then when the first results which included reaction to Kerry's speech came in Saturday (only one days worth yet) Kerry's lead dropped to 47-46.

A couple things may have happened here. It could be a one-day blip - the result of getting an unusualy number of Bush supporters that day. It could be that an unusually large number of voters have already decided, and therefore Kerry didn't get the large surge of very shallowly-opinioned voters that Gore did in 2000. Or his speech may hot have worked too well. Right now what it looks like is that Kerry's support went up when Clinton, Edwards, etc spoke for him - and then dropped when he spoke for himself.

It's really too early to judge. But I find it a major surprise that Kerry doesn't have at LEAST a 5 point lead in the tracking poll right now. I would not have been surprised to see a 10 point lead. This is the traditional high-water mark for the first candidate to have been nominated. Gore developed a 17 point lead in the week after the 2000 convention. Kerry doesn't seem to be doing so....

[Don]

The Zogby poll has Kerry up 5, 48-43. The interesting thing is that Kerry led 48-46 pre-convention, which means that the effect of the convention was to erode Bush support rather than add to Kerry's support. Interesting but not surprising given that Kerry's speech seems to have been more about attacking the Bush record and less about bolstering himself as potential president.

Kerry seems to be putting forth a doctrine that the US only fights wars which are forced upon it - and Bush hasn't done that. Let's see.... Were the War of 1812, Mexican War, Spanish-American, WWI, Korean War, Vietnam, and Gulf-War I forced on the US? I think not. WWII was (Germany declared war on the US and Japan didn't bother with the formalities). Afghanistan you could argue either way. The Taliban was sheltering Al-Qaida (which also didn't bother to declare war) and to get to Osama it was necessary to go through the Taliban. One could argue that the US should have talked longer with the Taliban, but I didn't see much sign that the Taliban was going to do what was required, which was to immediately turn over all the Al-Qaida leadership to the US. They were trying to shield them from the consequences of an act of war - which made them an accessory to that act of war.

So what is Kerry saying? Possibly that the US shouldn't make war unless our very national survival is at stake? I fguess a pre-emptive nuclear strike with 2000 missiles might qualify, but very lettle else. Afghanistan? Apparently not. WWII? Hmmm. The other side decleared war, after all. But was the survival of the US at stake? Nope. Guess it must be optional, then. We shouldn't have fought it.

[Downer]

Unverändert bei 25 Prozent lässt Spörl den Bush-Messer:

Lässt sich die Festnahme von Osama Bin Laden planen? Benutzt das Bush-Team Terrorwarnungen, um die Angst in der Bevölkerung zu schüren? Der US-Wahlkampf geht in seine heiße Phase, und dadurch geraten auch Mutmaßungen über die eingesetzten Mittel immer spektakulärer.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,311268,00.html

Schon mal was von autosuggestiven Fragen gehört? Nichts anderes wird von SPIEGEL-ONLINE hier praktiziert.

Bei einem aktuellen Gallup-Poll führt übrigens Bush allerdings mit 3 Prozentpunkten:

Now, suppose that the presidential election were being held today, and it included John Kerry and John Edwards as the Democratic candidates and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as the Republican candidates. Who would you vote for?

Kerry/ Edwards Bush/ Cheney Other Neither No

Likely Voters
2004 Jul 30-31 47 50 * 1 2
2004 Jul 19-21 49 47 * 2 2
2004 Jul 8-11 ^ 50 46 * 2 2
2004 Mar 26-28 47 51 -- 1 1
2004 Jan 9-11 43 55 * 1 1

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm

If you really want to understand what the reality is behind 'the 50-year War on Terror' and the surrendering of personal liberties and freedoms in exchange for 'security', read "Adam Weisharpt's Illumibati', by John Robison, M.A.

It's available to read on-line for free and in full at http://www.books-on-history.com/robison.htm, and is an accurate 200-year old warning, forecast and blueprint for the currently-evolving New World Order!