Impeachment Poll
The Rasmussen organization released a poll stating that 32% of the American people support president Bush being impeached. This is significant for a few reasons. First, Rasmussen polls usually provide Bush with some of his highest approval numbers (they currently have Bush at 50%, despite other polls averaging below 45%). And second–and most interestingly–the poll was taken on December 9 and 10, before the NSA spying scandal became news.
Other polls have found even similar results. A Zogby poll from early November found 51% of likely voters supported Congress considering impeachment if Bush “did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.” That is up from 42% supporting impeachment from a Zogby poll in June, and equal to an Ipsos poll in October which found that 50% approved of impeachment.
All of this is before Bush admitted to an act which, despite massive arguments to the contrary by the administration, was illegal. So how is Bush doing in the polls now? We don’t know–because no trustworthy polls have been taken since the scandal broke. Rasmussen came out with Bush’s improbable 50% rating just a day or two after the NSA story broke, before it became a big deal, even if you discount Rasmussen’s bias. And there have been no major polls since that time. So we’ll have to see if Bush either took a hit, stood still, or somehow garnered support in the wake of the initial story breaking. It would be hard to imagine, however, that somehow fewer people would support impeachment now than they did a few weeks ago.
However, we may not get a full picture from all sources. The Washington Post, once known as a “liberal” newspaper but now with a notable conservative bent, is currently refusing to poll on the impeachment issue. The stated reason by polling director Richard Morin is that a question about impeaching Bush “is biased and would produce a misleading result.” This, however, is highly inconsistent with a poll the Post took in 1998, which asked about the Lewinsky scandal: “If this affair did happen and if Clinton did not resign, is this something for which Clinton should be impeached, or not?” Not only that, they also asked:
“There are also allegations that Clinton himself lied by testifying under oath that he did not have an affair with the woman. If Clinton lied in this way, would you want him to remain in office as president, or would you want him to resign the presidency?”“If Clinton lied by testifying under oath that he did not have an affair with the woman, and he did not resign, is this something for which Clinton should be impeached, or not?”
Since Morin’s obviously inconsistent reply about such a poll being “biased” and “misleading,” he has changed his tune, and now says he won’t poll on the question “because it is not a serious option or a topic of considered discussion.” He said, on a December 20th online chat, that he would not poll on it until a “member of congressional Democratic leadership or any of the serious Democratic presidential candidates in ’08 are calling for Bush’s impeachment.” Of course, the day before he wrote that, Senator Boxer, a high-ranking Democrat, spoke forcefully on the matter. Not to mention that the Post poll on Clinton’s impeachment came out only two days after the story broke. So it’s pretty clear that Morin simply doesn’t want to poll on the question.
It is clear that a bias exists here. It’s OK to poll on Clinton’s impeachment, but to poll on a Bush impeachment when the matter is so relevant is verboten. Damn that liberal media, so soft on Clinton and never giving Bush a break!
Nice post, Luis.
Hard to believe that the public wouldn’t get steamed about such an agreggious break of the law and violation of the constitution.
Just as hard to believe the contortions made by the media to avoid threatening Bush.
I think they are plane, flat out, afraid of recrimations.
As an editor, what could be more fulfilling then going after Bush at this time.
I hope that the President (and the National Command Authority) is tapping into every phone conversation, email, snail-mail, water-cooler chat of anyone vaguely associated with any terrorist/ Islamic group. Those who fear this may have something to hide….Luis.
Presidents in the past, during war, have taken actions that, during peacetime, would have been viewed as questionable (to say the least). The internment of Japanese-Americans during WW 2 comes to mind. But national security takes precedence during war. Protecting Americans comes first.
Welcome to the fascist police state. Safe and oppressive. You may want to live there, but I sure don’t. And in case you haven’t checked, the founding fathers didn’t, either. We don’t go trashing the Bill of Rights every time some of the people get skeered at a phantom like terrorism. That’s weak. Very weak.
Oh yeah, one other thing: even if you agree that the president should have special powers during wartime (I don’t), there’s still the small fact that the War on Terror™ is not a real war. It’s a fake “war.” An Orwellian endless “war,” used as a power grab, which people like you are facilitating. Terrorism is a security matter, not a war matter, and one which simply requires a few commonsense measures and heightened vigilance. But not in violations of our rights and liberties.
Your crowd apparently sneers at people like Ben Franklin, who said that “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” You likely agree with Texas Senator John Cornyn, who said, “None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead,” but I agree more with Senator Russ Feingold, who deftly replied, “Give me liberty or give me death!”
But then, you probably think that Patrick Henry was a pinko commie.
“….there’s still the small fact that the War on Terror™ is not a real war….”
What constitutes, to you, a “real war”? Perhaps you were asleep on 11 Sep 2001, but we were ATTACKED! 3000 Americans were murdered in our backyard. Any reasonable person would agree such an act constitutes an act of war. This is in addition to the previous attacks against Americans and US interests by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Hello, McFly!!
Is this a war in the “traditional” sense….state-on-state? No. Our enemies realize they can’t take us on that way…..we always win (that is, when pinko commies aren’t forcing us to keep our hands tied behind our backs). Our enemies know where our weaknesses are…..and they exploit it by attacking us in unconventional, asymmetrical ways, whether thru IEDs, media coverage, child suicide bombers, etc.
As for Senator Cornyn, he’s absolutely correct. Dead people don’t enjoy civil liberties. It is amusing (somewhat) to listen to you hyper-libs get worked up over the security measures our government has taken in an effort to combat our enemies. You claim we are, or are fast becoming, a facist state. If that were the case, how is it that you, and other hyperlibs (Michael Moore, Slate Magazine, Mother Jones, on and on…) are allowed to continue vomiting your crap, to the detriment of our citizenry as well as the folks in uniform (especially those in the combat zones)? Who is shutting you folks down? Anyone imprisoning you for spouting your hyperlib, anti-American ideas? Obviously not.
Harsh security measures are sometimes (unfortunately) necessary during a time of war, like now. It’s why we tend to avoid war when possible. Bad things happen in war.
You, like many other hyperlibs, have a rather negative and bleak view of American society. If this country were as bad as you seem to think, we wouldn’t be where we are today. Instead of releasing Japanese-Americans from the camps after WW 2, we would’ve gassed them, or sent them to Japan. We would’ve rounded up other non-whites and locked them in camps. Instead, we saw the exact opposite.
What will happen after we win this war (and we will win, despite you and your hyperlib friends), I don’t know. But I suspect this country will continue to be the place that most everyone on the planet wants to move to, live in, emulate, and seek guidance from. Why? Because we will continue to enjoy the freedoms that allow you and me to exchange ideas on here, go where we want, work where we want, live where we want, and become whatever our efforts allow us to become (hint: that’s called liberty). We’re far from perfect but we’re still doing pretty good. Lighten up.
What constitutes, to you, a “real war”?One country declaring war on another. Al Qaeda is a terrorist group, not a country. Terrorism has been around since time immemorial, and it has never been “war.” That’s why we call it “terrorism.” That they were able to pull off a single, spectacular assault using 19 men and box cutters does not make them a sovereign nation. Or, as the dictionary puts it, “a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.” You think Osama is President of Terrorismland? The “War on Terror™” is at the level of “The War on Drugs” or “The War on Poverty.”
But to declare a “real” war on terrorism is meaningless, just as meaningless as a war on drugs (drugs, by the way, kill far more people than terrorists do, as do traffic accidents and cigarettes). Terrorism cannot be “beaten,” so it is an endless war–and if it is, then we have been fighting it since the dawn of history. In this case, it’s a political ploy to consolidate power and to achieve a political agenda.
I’m sorry that you would surrender your rights and liberties because 19 schmucks got lucky with box cutters and killed fewer than 10% of people who died in traffic accidents that year alone. But that’s a reaction from fear, and you can be sure that it tickles Osama bin Laden to hear Americans say that. I’m also sorry to see that you would give credence and legitimacy to the arbitrary imprisonment of 110,000 people, most of them U.S. citizens (the same “Americans” you claimed were being protected) and loyal patriots at that (remember the 442nd with pride), as if it we justified when in fact it was a disgraceful, racist, and cowardly act, stemming from fear and not reason. But that seems to be the case you’re making here, acting out of fear and surrendering freedom. If you’re too chicken to fight for your rights and face the consequences, then go ahead and give yours up–but you’ll have to pry my rights from my cold, dead fingers, as you would with any true American patriot.
…”If you’re too chicken to fight for your rights and face the consequences, then go ahead and give yours up–but you’ll have to pry my rights from my cold, dead fingers, as you would with any true American patriot….”
I’ll keep your comment, as amusing as it is, in mind while I’m standing in Iraq next year, Hyperlib. Should I look for you standing nearby? I think not. “Fighting” is something you and your kind feel a keen aversion to, while WHINING about supposed threats to our rights is big on your agenda.
“….as the dictionary puts it, “a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.”…”
Perhaps you need to be reminded of the meaning of “nation”, which does not necessarily mean “state”.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, “nation” can be a group of people under a single government (state) or a federation or tribe…Native Americans, Kurds, Muslims, Islamofacists (demented Muslims) fall into this category. We are at war with what can be loosely categorized as a “nation”.
As I recall, you are an educator. But you cannot see a war when you are in the middle of one… even when you are one of the targets of our enemies? What else don’t you see, I wonder. Is this what you are passing on to your students? How NOT to see reality? No wonder you have such a skewed viewed of the world….you’ve been spending too much time with Rod Serling.
“….as if it we justified when in fact it was a disgraceful, racist, and cowardly act, stemming from fear and not reason….”
It was very reasonable. While racist as well, the administration determined that Japanese agents might have been infiltrated into the country (as they had been in Hawaii) and prepared to conduct acts of sabotage. That none were committed by any Japanese agents (at least, none that I know of) demonstrates the logic of the move to intern the Nisei. Given the nature of our current enemy, who we know have infilitrated our country with the intent to sabotage, terrorize, and destroy, it would be very reasonable to take the same measures today.
I doubt seriously if we would see anything akin to a Muslim-American version of the 100th Battalion and/ or the 442d Regiment. The Nisei, despite their poor treatment by their own country, still believed in America and were willing to prove their loyalty and patriotism. Muslim-Americans, if CAIR is to be the benchmark, are far too much like you hyperlibs….ready to whine and blame others for their own problems and unwilling to show loyalty to the country that allows them a voice without fear of punishment.
Finally, Happy New Year.
I’ll keep your comment, as amusing as it is, in mind while I’m standing in Iraq next year, Hyperlib.You think that Iraq has anything to do with our rights, our freedom, or even our security? Sad. If you’re serving in the military, I respect that, but if you believe that Iraq is anything but a political and economic war, you are living in a fantasy. Still, if you’re going, keep safe. As for “hyperlibs” and fighting, check out how many high up in the Bush administration dodged the draft, and check out the number of Democratic veterans in Congress as opposed to Republican. If our rights and liberties were truly at stake, you’d find me next to you, despite being a flat-footed 41-year-old. But for the present mess? No soldier serves or dies in vain, I believe, but the politicians send them into conflicts, the foundations of which can be meaningless and corrupt.Perhaps you need to be reminded of the meaning of “nation”, which does not necessarily mean “state”. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, “nation” can be a group of people under a single government (state) or a federation or tribe…You think al Qaeda (or any other terrorist group, or all of them combined) is a “nation”? Even under the loosest possible interpretation, that’s ridiculous. Which is why I’m a language teacher, and you are most likely not.[The internment of Japanese Americans] was very reasonable.There is little to be said about that statement except that it is truly pitiful. I’m sure you would have found it quite reasonable had you been a loyal, patriotic American citizen of Japanese descent when your own country threw you in a prison camp because of your race. I’m certain you would have been cheering from the inside of the fence after having been forced to sell your possessions for a pittance or lose them entirely. God help us from people who think such an act is somehow justified–you will be the reason it happens again.
Be safe, and have a happy new year.
First, you too, be safe and have a happy new year.
Second, I am an American of Japanese descent (Mom was from Okinawa). While I agree that what happenned to the Nisei was disgraceful, it was necessary and quite justifiable. Again, war requires some pretty awful actions be taken.
“…If our rights and liberties were truly at stake, you’d find me next to you, despite being a flat-footed 41-year-old….” Have you read any of the sites spewing anti-American crap? Have you read any of Osama’s crap? These turds want to kill us and destroy what we’ve built. Guess what? You’re one of the targets. Here’s another one…your rights and liberties ARE at stake! Unless you’ve decided to follow the example of Cat Stevens, you’re a legitimate target. When will you hyperlibs wake up? As for your belief that terrorism can’t be defeated, WRONG! It may not be completely eliminated, but it will be defeated. It will certainly be defeated as a legitimate threat to this country, and any other country that’s willing to help us.
What about the draft-dodging Bushies? Who cares at this point? Clinton was a draft-dodger too. Didn’t hear any complaints from you folks during his administration. It is the current generation that is at war….that’s you and me, bud.
Does Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? I don’t know…though I have my own opinions on it. Did Saddam need to go? Yes…without a doubt. Will transforming Iraq help in our overall efforts? Yes!! Without a doubt. A stable government, governed by the rule of law instead of that of a dictator will ultimately help us. Additinally, we have Iran, a serious concern for us for two decades, in our crosshairs (from Iraq and Afghanistan)…and they don’t like it. Look what has happened thus far: Libya has given up its nuclear ambitions, Syria has given up Lebanon (though is still proving to be a problem), even Egypt has made some positive steps towards more freedoms. Since no one else is willing to take up the challenge, it is left up to us (not surprisingly) to show those in the Muslim world that there is a better way. Will it be easy? Obviously not. But is it worth it? If it keeps planes from flying into our buildings, our embassies from being blown up, our allies from enduring suicide bombers, then yes..it is worth it. Why is it worth it? Go look in the mirror, look at your wife, your children…you’ll see what is worth fighting for.
OK….it’s close to midnight. I’m stationed at FT Lewis. I’ll buy you a beer (or two) if you’re ever out that way. Have a good year. Be safe.
The reason the war on terror will not end has very little to do with the enemy, and everything to do with post-modernism. To defeat the Nazi’s, Patton stated we needed to do three things.
1)Defeat them in a crushing, humiliating, undeniable victory.
2)Create a social atmosphere in which it was expensive to offer moral, financial, public support for their ideology.
3)Rebuild them as a democracy.
We succeeded with that stategy in WWII. We now are burdened with moral relativism/post-modernism. Our press is in love with the idea that instead of simply stating the terrorists are wrong to blow up buses, you explain why they are angry. When a justification is set next to the heinous act being reported on it offers an opportunity for people to continue to support the ideology of the extremists. You don’t see the press explaining that the guards at Abu Ghraib has some stress disorder, anger at the prisoners, frustration with the situation, sorrow over lost soldiers, etc. But you do see them try to explain away the beheading of a civilian as caused by poverty, etc. It is a natural thing to do, to try and understand why such terrible things happen. And we never offer ourselves as much slack as we do others, as our expectations of our own military is obviously higher. But the effect is to leave the door open for people to openly support the enemy because an excuse has been publicly stated. Real progress will be made when moderate Muslims rise up and march against the extermist, to take their religion back from the fundamentalists. This shouldn’t be hard when you consider that maybe only 1% of Muslims claim to adhere to the hard-line teachings. But we haven’t made it socially unacceptable to support the actions of the extremists. When we do that, the moderates will have no choice but to speak out against it. That is the only way terrorism will end, when the Muslim moderates take back their religion and manage it from within.