LIES, DAMN LIES AND POLLS
From tragically absurd to ordinary absurd. Michael Long, chairman of New York state's Conservative Party, recently blasted the state's US Senator Chuck Schumer for having an "anti-Catholic bias." Long's objection is Schumer's opposition to a few of President Bush's more conservative judicial appointees who happen to be Catholic.

"I believe the sign is in front of the [Senate judiciary] committee door saying you need not apply here," said Long. "He has an anti-Catholic bias when it comes to the principles, traditions and beliefs of the Catholic Church. I'm not saying Chuck Schumer doesn't like Catholics, but I am saying that if a Catholic possesses those views, Chuck Schumer is going to make sure you can't advance in the judicial system."

Translation: Schumer, the ostensible liberal, opposes appointees he considers to be extreme conservatives. In much the same way conservatives opposed Clinton appointees they considered to be extreme liberals. Did Sen. Jesse Helms rush to the defense of Lani Guinier? Were those who opposed Guinier's political opinions anti-black?

"Everyone knows Chuck has voted to confirm more than 90 percent of President Bush's nominees, including dozens of both Catholic and pro-life nominees such as New Yorkers Richard Wesley and Reena Raggi," said Schumer spokesman Phil Singer. "However, Schumer will continue to oppose judges who are way out of the mainstream, either on the far left or the far right, regardless of their religion, gender, or race."

In the face of the allegations by Long (a Catholic), Schumer (a Jew) was lent support by Republican Staten Island boss Guy Molinari (also a Catholic), a former Congressional colleague of Schumer. "As a Roman Catholic myself, I'm outraged by what my friend Mike Long had to say about Chuck Schumer. ... There is no place in the real political world for this kind of stuff," added Molinari.

I've read enough about Northern Ireland for this gratitutous throwing-around of religious labels to make me very uncomfortable.

But this episode is quite revealing. Not just for the questionable tactics of Michael Long, which are not new. But for what it shows is how polls are conducted. According to Newsday, WAMC and several other sources, a poll commissioned by Long went like this. Respondents were asked something like*, "If it could be proven Chuck Schumer had an anti-Catholic bias, would you support or oppose him?"

Give me a break.

If you asked, "If it could be proven that Brian beat his girlfriend, engaged in bestiality and was a child molester, what would your opinion of him be?", heck I'm sure even my mom would give an unfavorable answer.

That demonstrates how polls can be easily manipulated. That's why whenever a big poll comes out, not that I'm a huge fan of polls, I always like to read not just the press write up, but the exact text of the question(s) asked. The precise phrasing can make all the difference in the world.

*-I tried unsuccessfully to find the exact text of what was asked. If anyone is aware of where to find it, please let me know.