Decision ‘08

Skepticism on ‘Warrantless’ Poll Unwarranted?

(Wow, I’m so ashamed - that may be the worst attempt at a pun in ~~2006~~ 2005 - oops, getting ahead of myself there).

All kinds of good stuff continues to come out from both sides of the aisle on the Rasmussen poll we’ve discussed previously. Here are a couple of good ones from opposite sides of the fence:Jeff Goldstein has a lengthy post up examining some of the assumptions behind the questioning of the poll’s wording; Glenn Greenwald finds it to be “[o]ne of the most absurdly formulated polls ever”.

It’s all a bit absurd, of course, all this fuss over an opinion poll, but I do think it’s indicative of the political (not legal, not moral, not constitutional) reality that Democrats, despite their bluster, will not pursue impeachment without the support of more of the public, and this ain’t the issue that will win that support.

4 Responses to “Skepticism on ‘Warrantless’ Poll Unwarranted?”

1 Glenn Greenwald Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
I do think it’s indicative of the political . . .reality that Democrats, despite their bluster, will not pursue impeachment without the support of more of the public,

Mark - The Republicans pursued Clinton’s impeachment without the support of the public. Clinton’s popularity was in the 60s and solid majorities remained firmly opposed to impeachment from start to finish. If Democrats (and some Republicans) in Congress really believe that George Bush violated Congressional law, why is it so clear that they won’t pursue impeachment even if majorities don’t support that?

Also, we are in the very beginning of this scandal. It is only two weeks old. What we know now is a tiny fraction of what we will know.

If not a single new fact were revealed, you may be right in your public opinion predictions (although we still have not seen even a single poll on the actual question at hand). But there are going to be lots and lots of new facts to emerge - one way or the other - about who specifically was eavesdropped on, what was done with the information, why FISA courts were bypassed, etc.

We don’t know any of that yet. It is far, far too early to know where public opinion will end up (as the Watergate public opinion arc I posted demonstrates).
2 Mark Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Well, Glenn, I don’t dispute your characterization of the Clinton impeachment (though I think it was a political mistake). I guess my point is I think there are two facts different now: we know how poorly the Clinton impeachment turned out, and we are at war.

Really, all partisanship (well, okay, most partisanship) aside, I think an impeachment proceeding would be disastrous for the Democrats - as I’ve stated elsewhere, it would be handing Bush an Oliver North moment straight out of Hollywood, restore his meager approval ratings, and dash any Democratic hopes in 2008.

Your Watergate analysis was interesting and not without merit - but let’s remember that Bush acted (whether or not you agree with his actions or the legality of them) out of real national security concerns, while Nixon acted out of paranoid, petty vindictiveness…
3 Glenn Greenwald Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
I don’t disagree with your political analysis - it may be that Bush can sieze the moment to his political advantage in exactly the way Oliver North did. But at some point, the Democrats have to act out of principle - I’m not saying they ever will, just that they should. Voters (in my view) don’t perceive Democrats to be weak and spineless because they want to run away from terrorists (they don’t); they see them this way because Democrats always have their finger in the air before acting, and rarely stand up for themselves.

As for Bush’s motives, it all depends on how the Administration used these eavesdropping powers. If they only monitored communications of genuine terrorist supects, you’re right. If it was abused, then it is more like Watergate. That’s one of the facts we don’t yet know (because the eavesdropping was done in secret with no oversight and by by-passing the FISA court).
4 Mark Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
I completely agree that we are long on speculation and short on facts at the moment…