I always get irritated when I see opinion polls, particularly on elections. One of the most misleading questions, in my opinion, is the one on “right track, wrong track” or “presidential approval.” There is always a presumption, that I don’t think is necessarily valid, that this translates automatically into prospects for the reelection of the incumbent. This is probably because the people who do the polls tend to think that voters are really as binary as the myth of the two-party system would indicate.

Perhaps I’m atypical, but you would not be able to figure out how I was going to vote on the basis of my answers to those questions.

I think that the country is on the wrong track, and has been so for decades. I disapprove of the president’s performance in many areas. If you asked me those questions, I’d answer, “wrong track” and “disapprove.”

Does that mean that I’m going to vote for John Kerry in November? Many would infer that, but there’s no logical reason to do so. Almost all of the issues on which I think that we’re on the “wrong track,” and of which I disapprove of the administration policy, would be vastly worse in a Democrat administration.

The polls don’t seem to take into account the fact that many (or at least some) voters will be holding their nose in the booth and voting for the lesser of two evils, as the result of the evil of two lessers, which renders those poll questions, if not meaningless, extremely misleading.

Many airports want to return to private security screening.

To gauge how well federal screeners were doing, Congress ordered five commercial airports to use privately employed screeners who are hired, trained, paid and tested to TSA standards. Those airports are in San Francisco; Rochester, N.Y.; Tupelo, Miss.; Jackson, Wyo.; and Kansas City, Mo. A report comparing the performance of both kinds of screeners is due next month.

John Martin, airport director at San Francisco International Airport, said screeners are hired and trained more quickly there than at airports with government screeners.

“Bottom line: we don’t have long lines at San Francisco,” he said.

I’ll look forward to seeing the report.

Sounds like Mr. Clarke will fit right in with the Kerry campaign.

He says he agreed with the president’s policy before he disagreed with it, and that he thought there was a Clinton plan after he thought there wasn’t. And that he implemented the Bush policy at the time, before he didn’t.

Which Dick Clarke are we supposed to believe? The one who’s just got a new book out in an election year, after not getting the plumb administration job he wanted, or the one who was the administration spokesman at the time? I’m so confused.

[Update on Thursday]

David Reinhard has some good questions:

He’s worked under four presidents — three Republicans, one Democrat — at the highest levels. He was a counterterrorism official when the war on terror began. He’s making grave charges. What he says should be taken seriously. Except the disgraceful Clarke has made that impossible.

Consider the timing and context of his charges. If they’re true, why did he wait so long to make them? Why didn’t he make them the day he resigned his post in the Bush administration? A presidential dereliction of duty so vast would have required no less.

If he wanted his allegations treated seriously, why did Clarke make them in a book published in the middle of a presidential campaign in which his pal, Rand Beers, happens to be the top foreign policy adviser to John Kerry? If Clarke didn’t see the need to make his charges right after he left the administration, why didn’t he make them in an interview or think-tank seminars after the election? That way Clarke couldn’t be accused of having a financial or political motive. This offended official’s charges could be examined solely on their merits.

[One more follow up]

This one is a little surprising due to the source–Time magazine. Mr. Clarke does indeed seem to be at war with himself.

[Friday update]

Lileks has some thoughts on this, and the media coverage of it.