You are herecontent / Support for Bush Impeachment Now Higher Than Was for Clinton Impeachment

Support for Bush Impeachment Now Higher Than Was for Clinton Impeachment


This poll finding 42 percent of Americans favoring impeachment of Bush if he did not tell the truth about the reasons for war, puts support significantly higher than it was for impeachment of President Clinton.

average support for impeachment and removal was 27% (11 polls)
average support for impeachment hearings was 36% (6 polls)
http://www.democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Let me make it plain that such polls, at least if broadly reported, are good in as much as they simply push the idea of serious inquiry (into Bush & Co.) into the realm of `publicly discussed possibilities' (vs merely live options among those who've studied the issues). That much about Zogby's poll is a good thing for America, especially in the midst of today's `news' shows. (`Shows' is appropriate, I believe.) Still, I have serious questions about the import of the given poll, questions on various fronts.

1. If the poll isn't widely publicized and, in turn, honestly, fairly discussed in a wide, open forum (e.g., in govt, and in mainstream media), what practical effect, if any, does the poll carry?

2. Is it likely that the poll will be buried in mainstream media and/or govt (especially given O'Conner's retirement and the dominant position that that issue will likely gather)?

3. If `no' to (2), will the discussion be so blatantly biased that the serious issues will be brushed aside, and in turn little be gained towards finding and acting (justly) on the truth?

4. Does anyone have any reason to believe that the Republican-dominated branches will actually look at this issue seriously?

5. On a more poll-specific question: I have no idea how the number can be as low as 42 percent, at least if I understand the form of the question. The question, as I understand it, is a conditional one: if Bush did not tell the truth about the reasons for war, then should Bush be impeached? Those who claim to be patriotic, claim to want a return to justice, morals, and so on, are presumably those who cannot but answer affirmatively to the (conditional) question. Presumably, Bush-supporters fall into the group who claim to be patriotic, desire a `return to justice, morals', etc., but (I take it) many such supporters answered in the negative. Is there a good explanation here? (And by `good' I mean to exclude simple, though perhaps well-motivated, accusations of `stupidity', `duplicity', or etc.)

Note: I suppose that perhaps one explanation is obvious. Perhaps many polled think that the president ought not be impeached if s/he did not tell the truth in an effort to `protect the American public'. If this is the explanation, then I hope (very much) that Zogby will redo the poll and explicitly ask two additional questions:

Q1. Should the president withold the truth from (thereby, `not tell the truth to') Americans if s/he, in her/his best judgment, thinks that doing so will better protect the American public?

Q2. Recast (original) Zogby conditional question: If it is found that Bush intentionally misled the American public by propounding false information (rather than merely witholding some information), ought he be impeached? [NB: Even this formulation doesn't quite get the question right, but it's better.]

I have no data to support this, but I suspect that most people in this country do better with yes/no than if/then. So despite the wording of the question, I'm guessing that many of the respondents were actually answering "Do you support impeachment" rather than "Do you support impeachment IF."

Otherwise, like you, I can't understand the relative lowness of the 42 number. Although it would be very interesting to see how the results change if you ask, "Would you support impeachment if George Bush had sex with an intern and then lied about it under oath?"

If an experiment were so contrived as is suggested, then the normative assumptions overwhelm the effect of the poll. Regardless of "superficiality" or deeply felt opinion, the key is large numbers and whether the lever is pulled.

Now, this is a bit of trivia the MSM never told us...you would have thought the majority wanted Clinton impeached. Now, you would think the majority back Bush's war thanks to the MSM. Glad to know, I am not so far out of the mainstream. Let's take our country back

"yes"impeach the president.

Rep Marcy Kaptur mentioned following the money trail at the DSM hearing. I remember watching a Discovery Channel program Jan. 30, 2003, that mentioned Special Operations Task Force 574 being in Afganistan in JULY 2001.

Also, Task Force 121 is virtually a 'secret army' from what I've read about it and how it is funded. Special Operations apparently are completely 'off the books' for Presidential abuse and without Congressional oversight. This seems to guarantee that if a President wants to do any acts of war he can, whenever he feels like it.

There will be a mid-term election in 18 months or so. It is not inconceivable that majorities change hands.

One doesn't get one's hopes up for such a difficult result to manage to.
(Awkward sentence; "manage to" is jargon)

However, if we are able to communicate among one another/sound some responsive chords in the upcoming contest, it is conceivable that majorities could change.

The Right Wingnuts coalesced around some very easily understood and shared "values"; in right wingnut language/code. I can't get my head around their core values, but that's not the issue.

The issue is whether we of a social investment mindset, rather than a controlling mindset, can mobilize large numbers of fairly loosely connected people.

I don't know if there is a momentum/snowball effect when mistrust and discontent are aroused among large numbers of people.

This has not been a very distributed economic recovery. Although marketers have written off the baby-boom bubble, there is considerable investment in various retirement plans and expectations.

I am pretty sure that the wealth distributed among the vast majority of the baby-boom-bubble is owned by people who thought that a Viet Nam type escapade would never happen again.

Not only that, they are coming to view this bunch in and around the White House is the gang that simply cannot shoot straight; they should not have their fingers on weapons.

I think there is great likelihood that changes are blowin' in the wind.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Store:



















Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.