it seems obvious that the most likely explanation for the "yes" answer not being higher is that a fair amount of respondents (even if just 20% or so) mentally added "without a warrant" to the question....the problem with taking such a poll when there has been heavy news attention to the issue.

Well, the poll says that sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely. So people know that the program didn't involve warrants. Seems to me that Benon's criticism of misplaced.

I think what Al is saying is that they folks should have answered the implied question, and not the question actually asked?

This controversy strikes me as one in which the process of inquiry will play an absolutely major role in how the American people perceive it.

Just as it's easy to caricature many jury verdicts as outrageous when you don't have the same facts as the jury (e.g., the McDonald's scalding coffee case), so also it's easy for the Bush WH to spin what it's done, and the legal context in which it did it, so long as the American people don't hear the real case against it.

What this means is that it's going to be VERY important for the Democrats to pursue the Congressional inquiries carefully and artfully, making it quite clear just how far out of legal bounds the Bush WH went.

THEN, and only then, will the American people "get it". And the Bush WH won't see wonderful numbers when that happens.

Al:

it does make the poll flawed. it seems likely that a significant number of the poll respondents mentally added "without a warrant" to the question. which means that some (most I'm sure) poll respondents were reading the question literally while others were not. any poll where more than a de minimus number of respondents are reading the poll differently than others is essentially worthless.

They didn't ask whether or not people found warrantless spying on Americans objectionable. That is a different question entirely. If I were asked their question I would have said "yes" too.

As for people saying they follow the NSA spying story "somewhat" is vague enough to indicate that they've heard of the story-- seen it on the front page or heard someone reference it on CNN-- but don't necessarily know much about it. With over 30% admitting that they haven't heard/followed it at all it's still too early to gauge the American people's take on this story.

This story is a disaster for Democrats, just as the Murtha story was. Someone once asked Moshe Dayan how he came to be such a successful general. He answered, "Fight Arabs !"

Bush might have a similar answer. There is a pretty fair chance that Joe Lieberman could have won the 2004 election. Gephart might even have won.

The Democrats are making a mediocre politician look better than he is. Keep up the good work.

I say that not because I like everything he does. The only thing I agree with him completely on is Iraq. He is lucky in his enemies.

What this damn poll REALLY indicates is that a large part of the press itself isn't paying even the most basic proper attention to this story -- which is rather discouraging when it comes to their effect on the public. It will be the job of the Dems (plus the small but doughty minority of Republicans expressing concern about this) to educate everybody, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't do it for us.

Nathan: I agree that the poll isn't perfect. However, With the vast majority of people following the story, I'd surmise that most people who answered understood the question to mean the warrantless eavesdropping involved in the NSA program.

Reason #5398743 why the Dems need to quit letting the Repugs frame the terms of the debate. By playing the game this way, the RNC consistently has the home court advantage. If the Dems let the debate center around whether or not the NSA can surveil terrorists, they'll appear weak on the NatSec issue once again and miss another opportunity for a knockout blow. That'd be a shame, since anyone with a pulse should be able to see the issue is actually whether the POTUS's power is any way bounded or checked by the goddamn lawbooks.

SS
www.progunprogressive.com

The poll simply doesn't offer any sense of what Americans believe about the controversy on the points that matter most.

Just as the Bu$h administration likes it. Keep the public in the dark. Keep the sheeple scared. Blather on about how it's all a matter of "n4ti0nal s3cur1ty" and taking the fight to the t3rr0rists. No mention of unconstitutionality, w4rr4ntless s3arches, absolute exec power.

Al: who knows how well they followed it?

Mike K.: we agree on this 100%. I thought Marshall Wittmann's Screwtape letters post was the most succint and amusing post I've seen on this subject. If I were running the Democratic party I would make Abramoff and Republican congressional corruption the issue 24/7...but they're too consumed with Bush hatred to do it. As I noted here last week, if the NY Times had run the NSA story before the election, Bush's vote tally would have increased.

Mike K, you're either a parody or a moron. Surrendering your civil liberties and democracy is a-ok with you as long as you support Bu$h and defeat Dems? Idiot.

Al: who knows how well they followed it?

Well, the poll says 68% followed the NSA story "somewhat or very closely". I think that someone who followed the story even "somewhat" closely would understand that the program involved warrantless surveillance.

So the question is, do you think people, most of whom understood at least the very basics of the NSA program, were answering (a) do you approve of the surveillance in the NSA program, or (b) do you approve of surveillance generically? I think most people are answering (a).

If I were running the Democratic party I would make Abramoff and Republican congressional corruption the issue 24/7

Really? The latest NPR poll found that more people think BUSH is doing a better job improving ethics in DC than the Democrats.

Al: that just shows what a poor job Democrats are doing in not harping on Abramoff...the NSA thing is a loser for them but some won't listen...I've talked to some DLC types and James Fallows about this and they get it but....

ckelly: I'd suggest that you actually reread James K....you completely misunderstood him.

The story is a story because the wiretaps were illegal. The poll should have asked if the respondents thought that the president and the NSA should be able to break the law to spy on Americans, or it should have made a reference to warrants.

Tbrosz or someone was trying to make a big deal out of this poll on the thread last night, so I'm glad you've pointed out its stupidity, Steve. It's just as bad as crooked conservatives claiming that the program wasn't illegal-- total spin, a total lie.

Mike K, that's an interesting perspective that seems to lend some insight into the way Bush is thinking and the way that many rather naive supporters of the Iraq misadventure are thinking-- the secret to winning the war on terrorism is to "fight arabs." Now, it doesn't matter whom you attack or where or why... just fight and fight constantly. That actually sounds like more of a formula for social manipulation than a winning military strategy, however. I can see something similar with the illegal wiretaps-- "it doesn't matter why we're wiretapping, if it's useful, or if it's legal. The important thing is to do it."

Oh, and another thing, the mindless lashing-out at Murtha by you guys kind of makes you all out to be a bunch of petulant children.

Swan: when even Cass Sunstein thinks the intercepts may have been legal...it's not spin, there's a legitimate legal grey area...and where the law is murky on a national security issue the people will give the president the benefit of the doubt. that situation will always rebound to the benefit of a sitting president.

Constantine:

You're too intelligent to misread Mike K. that badly. I'm serious, reread his post. You completely misunderstood it. (Hint: his post wasn't about "fighting Arabs" or anything like it.)

I think the vast majority of the people, regardless of how closely they'd been following the story, would be answering the question they'd been asked, which was "Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?" Only a small minority would be making up their own question and answering that instead.

Given the GOP's dominance of the broadcast media and their concomitant ability to get their preferred wording across, I'd say this poll is an accurate reflection of how public opinion is going to play out on this issue.

Personally, I like and respect Murtha.

His not too intelligent mistake was to speak out a. just in time to deflect attention from Abramoff and b. just before the Iraqi elections.
His timing was politically awful (for Democrats).

Nathan, the reason that the Democrats are harping on the NSA thing is because it is morally offensive to them. The Republicans caught up in a web of bribes and big-money influence peddling? Well, come on-- let's be serious... that's why people elect Republicans in the first place. They're America's gangsta rappers. Their golf junkets and Louis Phillipe commodes are the 21" rims and massive auto sound systems of the Republican party. By contrast, illegal wiretaps are really the sorts of things that the past generation of Democrats actively fought to put an end to and tried to purge the government of after the Nixon administration.

To put it succinctly-- while corruption is certainly worthy of sending the better part of the Republican House leadership to jail over, the power grab by Bush when it comes to wiretaps is an actual moral offense to the Constitution. Democrats, being a bit more morally-minded when it comes to Constitutional government, are predictably much more upset over this.

Nathan, YOU give this president the benefit of the doubt...I see him as a political opportunist who talks the talk but walks bowlegged! EVERY decision he makes is all about his image AND the party...he loves the taking credit for what others put out there...WHY do you think the Repugs keep harping on Democrats to come up with a plan for Iraq? Because they want to co-opt it and call it their own...as they are beginning to do with troop withdrawls...OOPS...not staying the course!? They'll be out of Iraq one way or another whether the security there is better or not...playing the "we brought the troops home like you wanted" card is their best way to keep the POWER!!!

As unhelpful as this poll was with its lack of context, the polls that came out prior to the war in Iraq were damned destructive: so far as I can recall, the hypothetical about international support was occasionally introduced, but nothing about "even if there were no WMDs" nor "even if he weren't involved in 9/11."

More here: http://www.samueljohnson.com/blog/archives/0512c.html#29b

Nathan, given that Mike K said, "Bush might have a similar answer," I don't think I was misreading him at all. Mike K went on to say that the Iraq misadventure was the thing he agreed with Bush the most on. This indicates that Mike K isn't a particularly discriminating thinker and resents those who are.

I like the comment above about how the Democrats are mishandling the debate on this (and a host of similar issues!) be leaving themselves looking too much like they're concerned about how terrorists are surveiled.

I was just about rolling my eyes as I read the thread on this last night. "Civil liberties." Heh! That's just a word. What does it mean? If it's a word that's important at all, it should mean something important, that people should grasp and be able to grasp. But do they? Does anyone besides heady democrats?

If the people understood that the criminal procedure rules were "bad cop" rules to keep cops from abusing their powers, and to keep them from targeting innocent people out of ineptitude or non-law-enforcement related purposes (racial/political harassment, etc.) then the public's focus and concern about this issue would be a lot greater.

I'm continually disappointed by the failure of the democrats to face reality. What do thay think is going on? They know about K Street and the redistricting. They know about all the dirty tricks. They know about DeLay and Armstrong Williams. We know about th hack appointments to every federal agency. So what about when the president of this crew secretly authorizes illegal surveillance?

That couldn't possibly have anything to with consolidating their party's political power, like everything else they do, could it? In these peoples' hands, even allowing them the opportuntity to do that is an issue. Dems need to wake the fuck up and deal with reality.

Gosh Nathan everyone seems to be "misreading" Mike K except you I suppose. How shall I interpret this..."The Democrats are making a mediocre politician look better than he is. Keep up the good work? Lemme see. Oh, that's right, Mike's a Bushlicker.

Dancer:

er, show one spot on this thread where I have uttered one word of support for Bush (or even for the intercepts)...sigh, like many, you're too dense to catch the idea that saying that a certain criticism will politically backfire is completely distinct from making any statement on the validity of said criticism.

Constantine: yeah, you were misreading Mike K. "Bush might have a similar answer" means "if Bush was asked how he survives politically he would say "run against Democrats"". reread Mike K's post, you'll see what I mean.

ckelly: yup, you're unfamiliar with sarcasm. you'll also note that the only thing Mike K. actually says about Bush is that he's a "mediocre politician".

Nathan, name-dropping Cass Sunstein has no effect on me (although I haven't read his article to check whether your characterization is correct, or whether you're just making stuff up).

All that matters is whether the person is right in the particular instance, in their particular argument. Even someone I respect greatly can be wrong sometimes; even someone I would never give the benefit of the doubt to can be right sometimes.

Nathan, hm. I suppose that is a possible interpretation of Mike's post, but in context, it didn't seem to me that he meant it that way. That interpretation seems to be a stretch, though if he did mean it that way, it would be a more valid argument. The context of his statement was that he was saying that "Bush focuses on fighting Arabs while the Democrats are flailing around being concerned about good government and whether the president is obeying the law." I'd prefer that Mike K speak for himself on that one.

Least helpful for liberals absolutely! It blows them out of the water. No politician will work against the will of 2/3's of the population. This is a total disaster for the left. 68% of the people are following the story which means the ALL understand the Impeach Bush nonsense. 2/3's are against the liberals on it.

It's more than pitiful that 52% disapprove of GWB but only 23% disapprove of this. The left has BADLY misplayed their hand.

This is a political disaster. The impeach Bush crown has been thoroughly rebuked. They next time they yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre no one will listen.

Nathan, hm. I suppose that is a possible interpretation of Mike's post, but in context, it didn't seem to me that he meant it that way. That interpretation seems to be a stretch, though if he did mean it that way, it would be a more valid argument. The context of his statement was that he was saying that "Bush focuses on fighting Arabs while the Democrats are flailing around being concerned about good government and whether the president is obeying the law." I'd prefer that Mike K speak for himself on that one.

Swan: the point behind bringing up Sunstein is that the illegality of the intercepts isn't as clear as some here may have you believe. When sound legal minds disagree we're in a gray area.

Constantine: seriously, reread it. What does James K. write: Moshe Dayan is asked why he was successful....he basically responds, "I fought idiots". then, how is Bush successful....he might say the same.

I guess subtlety doesn't work so well online. ;)

Swan:

Sunstein's comments can be found here:

http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/

I don't know much about polling, but I suspect there are two kinds of polls:
- the secret in-depth ones that really probe issues, that politicians use to really find out what the public really thinks, and
- the ones with loaded questions that politicians can point to and say "See! See! People support us!"

There's probably a third type too: in-depth polls to find out what loaded questions to ask

I suspect the GOP or some group connected with it paid for the "Type Two" Rasmussen poll. The web site doesn't say that. It makes it look like Rasmussen is just doing it out of scientific curiosity. But why should pollsters have any more integrity than journalist? The Washington Post article on Abramoff reports on op-ed writers being paid to write puff pieces for him. Why not puff polls too?

frankly0,

Wishful thinking is not analysis. Apparently you have never seen these Senate committees in session. They are the worst blowhards. They are awful on TV. This is going to be a case of dueling lawyers and soundbites and the best the Democrats can hope for is a tie and a lot of confusion. The average citizen is going to turn the channel before Kerry gets to his 2nd sentence. Of course that could be 10 minutes but even if they were to listen to the entire 10 minutes there's no chance they understand a word of it.

This is your problem. You don't have anyone to speak coherently or intelligently on the subject. Slick Willie has already voiced his support for Bush. Reid will admit his lack of English instruction as a lad makes him a weak choice. Forget cut and run Pelosi or Barbara Boxer. Howard we can win Dean is done.

Here's what happens. The Congress looks for a face-saving surrender. We'll get some kind of modification to FISA which lets Bush continue to do exactly as he has been doing AND makes it seem Congress is watching.

I guess subtlety doesn't work so well online. ;)

Nor, for me, even in person. I'm an engineer. :)

that situation will always rebound to the benefit of a sitting president.

Your way with words doesn't redound to your credit or intelligence, Nathan. You might want to brush up on your "way" with words.

Is that too subtle?

Nash:

"rebound" was a correct word choice for that sentence.

Constantine: ah, an engineer, heh...I dated one once. I wouldn't say that engineers aren't subtle...I'd say that they can be over-literal... :)

Fraid not, Nathan, but nice try.

Something does not "rebound to [something's] benefit."

Cretin. And now a foolish cretin for thinking this can be argued. But do go on, you moron.

What strikes me as "thick-headed" is that so many polls, questions, justifications, arguments and responses have to do with issues that are purely POLITICAL when this is not a political issue at all. It is strictly a LEGAL and or CONSTITUTIONAL issue. The question isn't whether or not anyone agrees with what was done, but whether or not anyone believes that what was done was LEGALLY just, not politically or ethically just. Why doesn't some pollster ask if people believe that Mr. Bush, the DOJ and the NSA have the LEGAL AUTHORITY to summarily ignore federal criminal statutes and or Constitutional provisions for oversight if they deem them too cumbersome?

Let me just add Plamegate to the list of reminders of things the GOP leaders are willing to engage in solely for the sake of political profit.

What we basically have is the party in power engaging in a pattern of practices-- it's a pattern of assaulting th basic rules of society that people depend on each other to mutually respect, for our mutual gain, so we know that we'll get a benefit out of cooperating in society and following the rules.

The GOP is basically saying by its actions, "fuck democracy." They're saying, "yeah you can vote, but with every bit of power you give us whenever you vote us in, we'll do all we can to take away any ability you have to keep us out of power." And we see what the result is: the aftermath of Katrina.

All they care about is control. We depend on the government to protect us. But the GOP leadership doesn't care about that, so they throw our expectations out with the trash so that their little GOP rich-boy group can have an edge at getting more and more of the pie.

Well, the poll says that sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely. So people know that the program didn't involve warrants.

But the question asked a hypothetical, abstract question, not a question about the actual specific program. Certainly, some percentage of respondents answered the question not asked "Do you approve, based on what you know, of the program by which the executive branch had the NSA intercept the communications of people it asserts were terrorism suspects without a warrant and without meeting the criteria for warrantless searches under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?", and certainly some percentage answered the other question not asked, "Are you unfailingly loyal to Bush no matter what he does, even if you would oppose the same action by another President?" or, conversely, "Are you reflexively opposed to everything Bush does?"

But how big those percentages are is unknowable. The presumption in interpreting poll results is that people answered the question actually asked, not some other unasked question. Your persistent insistence in trying to suggest that the entire 64% answering the question in the affirmative were, in fact, answering a completely different question than the one asked because it is politically convenient for the side you favor is ridiculous.

Osage,

This is almost purely political. The left started this as a cause for Impeachment. They blew it.

I will note, Nathan, that you are in good company for this wrong use of "rebound." It is common amongst the barely literate class. I remember Paul Glastris making the same boner in these very pages.

This is a political disaster. The impeach Bush crown has been thoroughly rebuked. They next time they yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre no one will listen.

I *love* the fact that certain people seem to view this story as a GOP v. Democrats issue-- despite the fact that there are PLENTY of REPUBLICANS who are upset about this-- you know, the people who are calling for and organizing the hearings.

I wouldn't gloat yet, fellas, this story has hasn't had much time to take root. The fact that it broke during the one time of year people are pretty much totally distracted from politics also doesn't help your belief that no one cares.

Add the NSA story to the upcoming Abramoff expose, the "Kenny Boy" Lay trial and the GOP better get ready for an outrage-over-corruption shitstorm. Or do you not see that coming down the pike?

This is almost purely political. The left started this as a cause for Impeachment. They blew it.

Um, no. Unless you think all those Republicans pushing for congressional hearings or who were openly outraged the day the story first broke are all part of the Left.

What strikes me as "thick-headed" is that so many polls, questions, justifications, arguments and responses have to do with issues that are purely POLITICAL when this is not a political issue at all. It is strictly a LEGAL and or CONSTITUTIONAL issue.

All legal questions are ultimately political; this is particularly true in a case like this where private remedies imposed by the courts are unlikely and the only likely means to any alteration of the policy is political pressure and legislative action.

cmdicely,

When have those questions EVER been asked in any poll?

The reason I recomment polipundit is their skill at analyzing polls. Reuters and many others are famous for polling data which has 50% democrats polled vs 30% republicans and then it's not adjusted to match the true population. Rasmussen has been a reliable pollster for many years. All polls have their limitations but he's no zogby.

You are upset because you know this is a disaster. By all means analyze the poll but come up with something credible.

Nash: it can indeed be correct to write that something can rebound to a [different something]'s benefit.

cmdicely: we share the same analysis of the poll.

osage: the fact that there is an issue as to the legality of the intercepts does not make a discussion illegitimate as to the political effects of the revelation of said intercepts. I will grant that you are not the only one here incapable of seeing the distinction.

RDW: Tell the FISA judges and the defense attorneys that will get their clients off because of the tainted evidence obtained from Bush authorized warrant-less surveillance that this is a political rather than legal issue. I know the GOP would prefer to believe this is a legal issue, but like so many self-deluded Bush supporters they are seriously mistaken.

rdw: this poll was particularly flawed.

Nash: it can indeed be correct to write that something can rebound to a [different something]'s benefit.

You keep on saying it, Nathan boy, but you just keep on being wrong. I wondered about your educational level with mistakes like that, now I wonder about your intelligence and emotional maturity because you aren't smart enough to admit your error.

You will need to take it up with, e.g., the SAT experts--that was a contrast that appeared on last year's exam. "Rebound" was one of the wrong answers--"redound" was the only correct one.

Osage: I'd actually be surprised if anyone "gets off"....this surveillance is aimed at prevention, not law enforcement...except in the case of difficult-to-prove inchoate crimes, the most efficient way to conduct law enforcement is to wait until after the crime has been committed. not an option with terrorism.

RDW: MY MISTAKE. Tell the FISA judges and the defense attorneys that will get their clients off because of the tainted evidence obtained from Bush authorized warrant-less surveillance that this is a political rather than legal issue. I know the GOP would prefer to believe this IS NOT a legal issue, but like so many self-deluded Bush supporters they are seriously mistaken.

In my opinion, Mr. Bush's warrant-less surveillance program violated federal criminal law — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As a result, any information collected by the program is inadmissible in court per the exclusionary rule. If that information is critical to the government’s case, a guilty terrorist can be found not guilty. This is the reason FISA judges have called the DOJ and NSA before them to outline the warrant-less surveillance they have conducted. I think FISA judges see this as a LEGAL issue.

Nash:

I refer you to Dryden's translation of the Aneid, specifically Book III. if it was good enough for Dryden it's good enough for me. game, set, match.

When have those questions EVER been asked in any poll?

None of the "unasked" questions I mentioned have, to my knowledge, ever been asked in a poll; they certainly were not asked in the Rasmussen poll that has gotten attention recently.

That's why its silly that the first of them is the interpretation lots of Bush defenders want to insist that everyone is actually answering instead of the question actually asked in the Rasmussen poll.

The reason I recomment polipundit is their skill at analyzing polls.

What is "polipundit" and what does it have to do with people pretending that the answers to the Rasmussen poll were answers to questions that weren't asked?

Reuters and many others are famous for polling data which has 50% democrats polled vs 30% republicans and then it's not adjusted to match the true population.

Since people's self-indentification in response to questioning can vary based on their current feeling about political issues, there are very good arguments against such adjustment, in general, though your numbers, I suspect, have no connection to any actual polling result from Reuters.

Rasmussen has been a reliable pollster for many years.

I haven't been arguing that Rasmussen is not (or is, for that matter) reliable as a pollster, or that the results of the poll are in anyway inaccurate. I have only challenged the interpretation of the results which presumes that those answering the question were not answering the question -- one on which there is very little controversy -- but instead a completely different and more controversial one.

You are upset because you know this is a disaster.

I'm not upset, in the first place, and I don't believe, much less "know", that this poll is meaningful in the current controversy, much less a disaster.

By all means analyze the poll but come up with something credible.

I fail to see how it is incredible to suggest that the proper interpretation of the poll results starts with assuming that the question people were answering was the question that was, in fact, asked.

Osage,

They can only get their clients off IF the evidence being used to convict them is inadmissable. There's no evidence to suggest that is the case.

Just because Tommy Daschle didn't give GWB his permission doesn't mean it's inadmissable.

I'd also 2nd Nathans comments above. This was about stopping terrorists. That's why 2/3's of Americans support it. We are talking about it because the left tried to make it about impeachment.

Osage: you may be correct, or may not. (btw, on what is your opinion based? you're not an attorney.) You are correct that the intercepts appear to facially violate FISA (although without knowing details there is the technical -- if small -- possibility that FISA's language doesn't apply). However, you are also assuming a. that FISA does not unconstitutionally abrogate the president's Article II power; and b. that the 2001 AUMF does not authorize the president's actions (Hamdi is interesting on this question) as "otherwise authorized by statute" in FISA.

From the day Bush was "re-elected" the Republicans in Congress have begun to distance themselves a bit. If his public opinion polls drop he's toast.

But, what of public opinion polls? Wasn't it the Republicans who dissed the Exit polling for the 2004 election and the pre-election polling in Ohio just prior to their large referenda vote? In all those cases the polls and final vote tallies were quite different.

Maybe the MSM is just helping Bush beef up his appearance via fake polls (by not adding "without a warrant") to help Repubs through this difficult time.

Whatever.

Bush specifically avoided getting a warrant and then spied. Seems pretty clearcut to me.

before Nash jumps on it, the "or may not" to Osage above was redundant.

Mark H.

actually, the final election polls were quite accurate. the only point where they were substantially off is that the final polls awarded 90% of "undecideds" to the challenger -- as is traditional. what was unusual about 2004 is that only about 50% of the "undecideds" actually went to the challenger.

go to Blumenthal's site: mysterypollster.com and check the archives for more.

WEll how about this poll Bush approval 35% Cheney 19% OUCH!

Since people's self-indentification in response to questioning can vary based on their current feeling about political issues, there are very good arguments against such adjustment, in general, though your numbers, I suspect, have no connection to any actual polling result from Reuters.

Self-identification doesn't change that quickly and thos who are the least decisive,and thus more likely to swing, usually self-identify as independent.

The underlying characteristics of the population polled are critical and without knowing this informatoin the poll is useless. Polipundit will in fact refuse to publicize pollsters who do not provide their methodology but will advertize the fact they refuse to provide this information. There can only be one reason.

Rasmussen has been a credible pollster for many years.

Please vist NSA website,Thankyou!! heh heh

Irony alert!

rdw says "Wishful thinking is not analysis"

Indeed.

Poor Nathan is in over his little noggin:

Nash:

I refer you to Dryden's translation of the Aneid, specifically Book III. if it was good enough for Dryden it's good enough for me. game, set, match.

Nathan, you've just given me the gift of the biggest laugh I've had for the entire week and, at the same time, proven what a stupid shit you truly are. Indeed, it greatly diminishes your credibility across the board, because people observe how you can't even admit you are wrong about something as trivial as this and they rightfully conclude that the vigor of all of your arguments is debased.

For anyone else trying to fathom how truly stupid Nathan is proving himself, he cites as his authority the 17th century author and Latin translator Dryden, whose usage of "rebound" (3 times) in the cited text is not in anyway close to the sense of having a result or effect to the credit or benefit of something, but rather the more modern one of an object or sound striking another object and rebounding. Nathan just can't admit that the word he was looking for and missed was "redound."

Here are Dryden's 3 uses of "rebound(s)"--see for yourself:

In vain- the fated skin is proof to wounds;
And from their plumes the shining sword rebounds.

Achates first pronounc'd the joyful sound;
Then, 'Italy!' the cheerful crew rebound.

Far off we hear the waves with surly sound
Invade the rocks, the rocks their groans rebound.

Nathan assumes no one knows this text he falsely cites. Wrong. He assumes he can throw out verbiage to cover up just how dishonest and stupid he is. How like a reactionary to cite word usages from 400 years ago and to cite them incorrectly to boot!

Nathan, you should never argue semiotics with a linguist. It just confuses the kids and makes you look foolish.

But thanks again for laugh. And the knowledge that I can get under your skin to this degree over such minutiae is an immense joy.

Nathan: Correct. I'm not a lawyer. Nonetheless, I can read and reason. I read the Moschella letter. I've read and studied legal opinions of practicing attorneys and law school professors on both sides of the argument, which lead me to the opinion that Mr. Bush's authorization of warrant-less surveillance on American citizens is a violation of FISA. It is my opinion that FISA is controlling and that the AUMF did not intend to provide nor does it provide the president with power that overrides the Constitution. I've made a serious effort to educate myself and learn everything I can. That's all I can do. As you said, I could be right or I could be wrong. So could you. Even if you happen to be a lawyer.

Rasmussen has been a credible pollster for many years.

Sure, and its quite credible that, as they report, 64% of the country agrees with the relatively non-controversial statement they asked a question about.

What is wrong is drawing conclusions about actual controversies from that.

"Credible" and "relevant" are two different issues.

That last post about Nathan, of course, was by me. Although I kind of like the idea of Nathan chewing himself out for being so ignorant.

Nash:

um, we're not discussing semiotics. Dryden was one of the foremost stylists of the English language in any area. "the rocks their groans rebound" is indeed analogous to my use (btw, "redound" would be incorrect).

I'm not so contemptuous of the education of posters here to believe that they're not familiar with either of Dryden, the Aneid or with the ready availability of a classic translation online.

if you really want to play this game...see Webster's or virtually any other dictionary.

Nathan: "... when even Cass Sunstein thinks the intercepts may have been legal...it's not spin, there's a legitimate legal grey area...and where the law is murky on a national security issue the people will give the president the benefit of the doubt. that situation will always rebound to the benefit of a sitting president."

If you're referring to Sunstein's December 20 post, then it's important to note that he concludes by saying that his is "an exceedingly tentative analysis."

Part of that probably has to with the fact that nobody knows exactly what the program in question involves. Sunstein says:

"The cases do not clearly support the view that when monitoring (a) an international call involving (b) someone with an Al Qaeda connection (c) to or from the United States, the President must, (d) under post-9/11 conditions, obtain a warrant. (The AUMF is helpful to the President here.)"

But it's not at all clear that this wiretapping is limited to individuals with Al Qaeda connections. The program is believed to be so massive as to inevitably include thousands of (if not more) names of ordinary people. In fact, it's already apparent that at least some spying has been done on ordinary citizens who've done nothing more treasonous than disagree with the administration & organize to voice that disagreement. It's difficult to imagine how spying on ordinary citizens is going to "rebound to the benefit of a sitting president."

to simplify matters for anyone who may be observing:

Nash is asserting that it is incorrect to use "rebound" as a synonym for "bounce-back".

chaunceyatrest:

if you have examples of NSA warrantless surveillance such that "it's already apparent that at least some spying has been done on ordinary citizens who've done nothing more treasonous than disagree with the administration & organize to voice that disagreement" then I would agree that it could be tremendously politically harmful to the administration. However, I have seen nothing to indicate that that's the case.

Ohhh Nathan. that was the most thorough take down I have ever read. Did Nash run over your dog or something?

Nathan,

um, we're not discussing semiotics.

We're discussing a point of semantics, semantics is a subset of semiotics, ergo, we are discussing semiotics, in the sense Nash clearly intended the statement (discussing a matter contained within the scope of that field, rather than the entirety of the field.)

Dryden was one of the foremost stylists of the English language in any area. "the rocks their groans rebound" is indeed analogous to my use (btw, "redound" would be incorrect).

Er, no, it was in the sense of "reecho, resound", a perfectly good use of "rebound", but not at all what you did here:

when even Cass Sunstein thinks the intercepts may have been legal...it's not spin, there's a legitimate legal grey area...and where the law is murky on a national security issue the people will give the president the benefit of the doubt. that situation will always rebound to the benefit of a sitting president.

See, here you just use "rebound" when you should be using "redound". There is no sense of "rebound" that makes even a bit of sense, except perhaps a metaphoric one in which you suggest that the situation of the type described will always initially go badly for the President and then, metaphorically, bounce back (though that's a stretch, as nothing in your statement suggests anything about it inevitably going badly, though certainly in the instant case there has been opposition even within the President's own party). However, that's not at all parallel to the rather more concrete use of "rebound" by Dryden.

"There is no sense of "rebound" that makes even a bit of sense, except perhaps a metaphoric one in which you suggest that the situation of the type described will always initially go badly for the President and then, metaphorically, bounce back"

um, what other sense do you think I had intended? as I noted above..."bounce-back" was the sense I was using it in (and "redound" would therefore be incorrect). I'm now thoroughly confused as to how you and Nash were reading my post.

to simplify matters for anyone who may be observing:

Nash is asserting that it is incorrect to use "rebound" as a synonym for "bounce-back".

Ah, finally, the strawman is introduced by Nathan. Of course, I assert no such thing because that was not the question from the start.

To honestly make matters simpler for anyone who might be observing, rather than, like Nathan, to lie about what was said:

Here is Nathan, where he used "rebound" when he truly wanted "redound":

will give the president the benefit of the doubt. that situation will always rebound to the benefit of a sitting president.

Your problem was the word "benefit," Nathan. "Redound" has the distinct meaning of working to the credit or benefit of something. "Rebound" does not have this meaning. You are simply wrong and cannot admit it.
Again, I will note that this mistaken usage is quite common. I understand why it occurs. It doesn't make it right. A lawyer, in particular, should have known better.

Once again, we are speaking of an idiom here, you moron.

The idiom is that something redounds to the credit or benefit of something else, not that it rebounds to the credit or benefit of something else.

And again, don't say stupid things like we aren't arguing semiotics to a linguist. You should know better.

BTW, it's "Aeneid", not "Aneid."

I'm guessing that anyone following this trivia (and I fully admit it is) sees your credibility diminished by your inability to admit error. You would be lucky if no one is following it.

Nash: if we're going to be pedantic I would note that you improperly used "strawman" above...but that would nit-picky.

but anyway, I would suggest that any objective reader would understand that I was stating that law v. national security scenario may begin with negative attention for a president but will inevitably rebound in the president's favor. I'm not sure how you were reading me, but I take it that wasn't it. if so, we were arguing at cross-purposes.

Nash: if we're going to be pedantic ...

When is Nathan not pedantic?

um, what other sense do you think I had intended?

The rather obvious sense of to produce an effect, as "redound" is usually used; the rest of your argument (granting, arguendo, its validity and accuracy) supports the contention that national security legal gray areas will always ultimately work to the benefit of the president, not that it will always initially go poorly and then bounce back. If you really meant "rebound", that your use of "that situation", and your connecting it the rest of your discussion is unuually sloppy and unclear (and you aren't prone, IME, to such sloppiness except for a clear political purpose, which seems not to be the case here.)

And even granting that you initially meant what you claim, its odd that you would cite, as parallel, the use of Dryden's that is clearly not parallel to your claimed usage (whereas the first usage of Dryden's is roughly parallel to the usage you claim you intended).

And I'll just point and laugh at your claim that this discussion doesn't concern semiotics.

Nash: if we're going to be pedantic I would note that you improperly used "strawman" above...but that would nit-picky.

And, additionally, wrong as Nash correctly used "strawman" to refer to your false erection of a claim he did not make, for you to rebut.

Anybody know of any other polling data?

Nathan,

No, the spying to which I referred was done by the Pentagon.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

This fact, combined with suspicions about a massive wiretapping program, is a pretty legitimate reason for folks to be concerned that the President may well have initiated some unconstitutional activities. People most certainly would have given the President the benefit of the doubt shortly after September 11, but we're now four years beyond that, and the President has procedural routes available to him that will grant him exactly what he needs, without sacrificing efficacy or expedience. We are no longer at war with any country, so it's fair to ask how long the President can continue his claim as a "war President," while demanding availability to the measures that would imply.

The threat of terrorism isn't going to go away now. It's a regrettable & sometimes unpreventable fact of our lives. That said, there hasn't been a terror alert since before the last election. There are inconvenient compromises that we have to make, insofar as how we go about our ordinary lives, but wiretapping & spying on American citizens doesn't sound like much of a compromise to me. It's increasingly beginning to seem that what the President's doing is marshaling power for power's sake.

chauncey: it does seem that the Pentagon may have overreached in its force protection efforts...nothing too unusual there...obviously it makes sense for the Pentagon to keep an eye on groups that trespass at the School of Americas or at VLF transmitter sites in Wisconsin...its the gray area of how quickly they should determine a group is not a threat...nonetheless I've seen nothing to indicate that these measures were politically motivated or directed from the WH.

cmdicely: how's this -- I may have been less than perfectly clear in the wording of that phrase. with that said, I meant that the issue would inevitably shift from negative to positive...if my usage of "rebound", in that context, was not immediately clear (which I guess it wasn't to at least 2 readers)...I am at least partially at fault.

I'll stand by my characterization of Nash's use of "strawman".

as for the question of semiotics, I see this more as a matter of syntactics and I'll grant that in a broad, dictionary sense, of course that's covered under the rubric of semiotics. if we're discussing semiotics in a more narrow structuralist-functionalist context (the way in which I usually use the term) than "no." regardless, I shouldn't have made that unequivocal statement.

as for the spelling of "Aeneid"....I did indeed type a typo (twice) in error.

can we put all this to rest now?

chauncey:

here's the document that story was based on.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/DODAntiWarProtestDatabaseTracker.pdf

fwiw, it does appear that when activities were determined to be peaceful they shut off surveillance.

Nash:

Something does not "rebound to [something's] benefit."

Cretin. And now a foolish cretin for thinking this can be argued. But do go on, you moron.

There are certain people on the internet who make a very large deal out of correcting minor grammar or spelling errors in other people's posts. They may or may not be correct on these issues--I'm no grammar expert myself--but they do tend to leave one with the impression that you couldn't pull a pin out of their asshole with a tractor.

but they do tend to leave one with the impression that you couldn't pull a pin out of their asshole with a tractor.

Indeed, I could not, tbrosz. You are quite correct.

And now that I've gotten TWO of you to pay attention to trivia, I feel all the more pleased with myself with every passing electronic moment. That I can get under your skin enough to complain and defend each other is quite fulfilling.

But, as I said, do go on.

There are certain people on the internet who make a very large deal out of correcting minor grammar or spelling errors in other people's posts. They may or may not be correct on these issues--I'm no grammar expert myself--but they do tend to leave one with the impression that you couldn't pull a pin out of their asshole with a tractor.

As the antecedent of "they" and "their" in the second sentence is "certain people" in the first, you clearly must mean to say something more like "...couldn't pull a pin out of any one of their assholes...", unless you are intending to suggest that the "certain people" are, in addition to having the traits you are criticizing, are all of a single set of conjoined siblings. ;)

As the antecedent of "they" and "their" in the second sentence is "certain people" in the first, you clearly must mean to say something more like "...couldn't pull a pin out of any one of their assholes...", unless you are intending to suggest that the "certain people" are, in addition to having the traits you are criticizing, are all of a single set of conjoined siblings. ;)

Now that was seriously funny, cmdicely.

Nathan: "fwiw, it does appear that when activities were determined to be peaceful they shut off surveillance."

But this isn't reassuring. It implies that people who assemble & exercise their right to free speech are assumed to be dangerous until determined otherwise, that determination coming through surveillance. (It's not clear what that entails. Eavesdropping? Infiltration? Who knows?) Nearly four dozen of the cases cited by the Pentagon occurred nowhere near any military installations or recruiting stations, so it's implausible to claim that these were threatening instances.

But ignore for a moment the political arguments about what it means when government begins spying on its own citizens. Do we really want the Department of Defense observing protests in downtown Los Angeles? Is this a wise use of limited resources? And consider how much more difficult it becomes to effectively analyze the vast amounts of data being collected. If intelligence services struggled to detect Al Qaeda before, are they going to be any more effective when nets are cast this broadly?

My primary concern, though, is that this is not how our democracy is supposed to work. Yes, you might reduce crime if your police force can tap phones without warrants & monitor citizens' speech, but is this what we're prepared to reduce ourselves to?

Shorter Lefty critique of the poll:

Dumb Americans, who we want to govern, don't know what's bad for them about letting foreign terrorists call operatives based in America to plan tactics and strategy about attacks against those same Americans unless a court authorizes the intercepts so we'll criticize the poll methodology.

A serious question or two:
Has insulting the electorate worked in the past to garner election victories?

Where do you Lefties buy all that condescension? Must be from one of those big box you claim to revile given the quantities you've purchased.

"Credible" and "relevant" are two different issues.

This is quite true but only time and events can tell if any poll is relevent. For now this poll is being widely reported and used as the 1st measure of the public's opinion on these NSA events. As you know it's the 1st impressions which usually hold. Absent new information the NSA abused the program, this has no political value for the DNC. They've already so horribly overplayed the impeachment angle it's a clear negative.

We have a party with half its members running around with their hair on fire. At least on this post they've proven they're not totally clueless. The "I" isn't being repeated. That's a clear signal this poll has been very, very successful for Bush. The Democratic leadership has no choice but to chill the rhetoric as you have done and seek some way to walk backwords quietly. 64% of those comfortable with the program have already moved on. They're bored with you. Change the subject.

big box --> big box stores

Darned invisible word.

Where do you Lefties buy all that condescension?

We don't know, Birkel, do tell...

Must be from one of those big box [stores] you claim to revile given the quantities you've purchased.

I absolutely adore the chirpy way Birkel mocks himself here.

Thanks, my plasma was irony lite.

Where do you Lefties buy all that condescension?

Well, there's plenty of surplus from the Right.

Nice straw man, there, Birkel, by the way.

rdw: "The "I" isn't being repeated. That's a clear signal this poll has been very, very successful for Bush."

Sounds like someone is setting the bar for success awfully low, but that's been the case for four years now.

Sounds like someone is setting the bar for success awfully low, but that's been the case for four years now.

If you mean setting it low for impeachment you are quite correct. It's almost fun watching liberals so hateful of Bush and so wanting to impeach him do their chicken little routine. It's what they've become. Little chics running about with their hair on fire. They can't bear the thought of three more years. I assumed this level of angst was limited to Gore and Kerry and the small army of snycophants lined up for jobs. It appears to have infested a majority of the 20% of the country willing to identify themselves as liberal.

You are your own worst enemy with your hyper-partisanship. Most people have already tuned out this MSA debate after coming to the conclusion GWB is hunting terrorists and liberals are hunting GWB.

rdw: "If you mean setting it low for impeachment you are quite correct."

No. That's not only not when I meant, it's not what I said. Funny, I thought the post was short enough that even you might understand. Clearly, I overestimated you.

But do go on. The rest of us are eagerly awaiting your explanation of why hyper-partisanship is bad for your soul.

Chauncey,

Yes, you do keep over-estimating us. Well, 364 days a year maybe. There's one day you under-estimate us. Wanna guess which day that might be?

Shorter Lefty critique of the poll:

Dumb Americans, who we want to govern, don't know what's bad for them about letting foreign terrorists call operatives based in America to plan tactics and strategy about attacks against those same Americans unless a court authorizes the intercepts so we'll criticize the poll methodology.

Well, except that we "Lefties" (a) don't think anything like that, and (b) aren't criticizing the poll methodology but instead the outright lies being told by the Right in characterizing the poll. But nice try, anyway.

The rest of us are eagerly awaiting your explanation of why hyper-partisanship is bad for your soul.

It's not bad for my soul. It may not even be bad for your soul. But it's sure not helping your brain any.

There are a number of relevent issues in the NSA story which need to be worked out politically. At a minimum we have a serious separation of powers issue and then we have a decision as to how to upgrade our ability to track terrorist in the modern information age where cell phones and email have made the old rules useless. As always we need to give the Govt the tools it needs while protecting civil liberties.

But having a discussion wasn't at the top of the list. Impeaching Bush was at the top of the list. You let your hair get on fire and you blew a perfectly good opportunity to show yourself as serious about National Security. Every Pundit on the planet has explained to the Democrats they'll be the minority party until they're trusted on National Security. There's no rocket science here.

Instead, what do we see? We see Bush hunting terrorist and we see liberals hunting Bush. It never ceases to amaze me how a group of people so well educated, obviously smart, definitely articulate and well meaning, can at the same time be so friggin stupid. I bow to your intellectual and moral superiority. I'll also continue to savor election days!

Do you by any chance teach at the University of Massachusetts? There was a report last week a student told two professors the FBI had been to his house to question him because he tried to take Mao's Little Red Book out of the library. The professors of course believed it immediately. Hard to believe there's that much stupid in the world but coming from academia it's not a total shock.

For now this poll is being widely reported and used as the 1st measure of the public's opinion on these NSA events. As you know it's the 1st impressions which usually hold.

Er, no, I don't know that the first impressions usually hold of public figures actions, particularly as more information comes out (see, for instance, Watergate, which took quite some time before it came to a head).

Furthermore, inasmuch as first impressions are durable, its the first impressions that people have of the actual events and actions, not the first spin that get trumpeted in the media claiming to represent what people believe. So even if the spin that this means most people agree with the President is widely reported, that doesn't mean that most people are going to think that they actually agree with the President.

Absent new information the NSA abused the program,

Which has been coming out by dribs and drabs since the story reported, such as the revelation that the original claim that it only monitored calls where one endpoint was outside the US were false.

this has no political value for the DNC.

So?

They've already so horribly overplayed the impeachment angle it's a clear negative.

While some democrats have suggested it is an impeachable offense, the DNC, per se has not, too my knowledge, played the impeachment angle at all, much less "overplayed" it. Indeed, I've seen more conservatives jumping straight to attacking the impeachment idea without it being raised than liberals arguing for impeachment; I suspect, because they expect that such a defense needs to be established well in advance as an innoculation to prevent a repeat of Watergate, because they are so sure of their own leaders character that they expect far worse than is known now to come out.

64% of those comfortable with the program have already moved on. They're bored with you. Change the subject.

Sorry, I started my New Years Resolution Compliance Program for 2006 early, and am therefore not accepting political advice from people whose political interests are clearly and overtly directly contrary to mine. Too likely that they are telling me what is in their political interest, not mine.

cmdicely,

You've been around the block a few times. You understand the old adage about 'perception being reality' as regards politics. The MSM plays this game every day. No poll is perfect but this is a good one especially considering 68% said they were paying attention to the story.

The fact the MSM has been selling it as a scandal is a scandal but it's nothing new. Thus we know most of those 68% have heard impeach Bush many times and are aware the reason it's a story is because of the lack of warrants.

The bottom line politically is that the people are very supportive of the NSA wiretapping for terrorism and they're not even a little bit interested in impeaching Bush.

That's why Steve Benen is so obviously distraught. "Least helpful poll...ever". Indeed!

Impeachment wasn't even on the list of Democrat priorities, but it suits some point that you're trying to make. You come here to gloat about the fact that Bush won't be impeached (a virtual mathematical impossibility even if he were caught in bed with a 12-year-old boy) and you completely ignore the fact that civil liberties are eroding as we speak. You may be happy with the warrantless eavesdropping of your phone conversations, but some of us take the Fourth Amendment to mean what it says. We also happen to view the Congress as a co-equal branch of government.

Now get back to your strawmen, misreadings, intentional misreadings, & non sequiturs.

While some democrats have suggested it is an impeachable offense, the DNC, per se has not

I'm not tracking the DNC but again perception is reality and the MSM has been breathlessly reporting 'impeach Bush'. At a minimum Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer have been using the term and I'll bet there's another 10 prominent politicians who have as well.

One doesn't even have to use the 'I' world. 'Watergate' will do. Nothing has been more obvious this year than the liberals desire to re-live the past. Watergate and Vietnam are on the tip of every tongue pulled out at the 1st opportunity. Ah, the glory days!

You are desperate for an anti-war movement that isn't a joke. It's not going to happen. As we've seen so many times they can't even get a demonstrations going on campuses. The only people who show up are graybeard professors and as we've see they're too friggin stupid.

Bush might be evil in your eye but even you have to a admit he's not Nixon. Hell, Nixon was curious. That's why he had so many problems. We can at least agree George just isn't very curious. I'm not saying the govt isn't doing too much snooping. But it ain't George.

Give up Watergate and give up Vietnam. The memories are turning you moonbat.

You've been around the block a few times. You understand the old adage about 'perception being reality' as regards politics.

I understand that its quite easy for people to overstate the degree to which that adage reflects reality; sure, perception is an important reality of politics, but, on the other hand, actual reality exerts an influence on perception.

Watergate wasn't initially publicly perceived as a big deal for the Nixon Administration.

The MSM plays this game every day.

I have no idea what game you are talking about.

No poll is perfect but this is a good one especially considering 68% said they were paying attention to the story.

Quite literally no one is questioning the accuracy of the poll. What is being questioned is the meaning your side is desperately trying to force on it by claiming that the question people were answering is, universally, not the one asked.

The fact the MSM has been selling it as a scandal is a scandal but it's nothing new. Thus we know most of those 68% have heard impeach Bush many times and are aware the reason it's a story is because of the lack of warrants.

So? The other question was not about support for Bush's particular position as regards the story. It was about government powers that relate to the story. But it directly concerned a point that those paying attention to the story would clearly be aware was well accepted by both sides. Unsurprisingly, most of the people polled also accepted it.

The bottom line politically is that the people are very supportive of the NSA wiretapping for terrorism and they're not even a little bit interested in impeaching Bush.

So? Even were that a valid conclusion from the results of the poll -- as it clearly is not -- the issue at hand is not "Should we wiretap terrorists, on the one hand, or impeach Bush, on the other?"

Nothing has been more obvious this year than the liberals desire to re-live the past. Watergate and Vietnam are on the tip of every tongue pulled out at the 1st opportunity.

Er, yeah, like the tongue of Dick Cheney, whose justification for the illegal wiretaps was that the Bush Administration wanted, specifically, to restore Presidential powers constrained by law in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate.

This issue, IOW -- by Cheney's own admission -- wouldn't have occurred if Bush had worked within the law to protect the country from terrorists rather than putting a desire to refight the divisive battles brought on by Vietnam and Watergate above his Constitutional duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws.

Its not our side that is looking to refight the battles of the 1970's; we, largely, won them the first time and don't need to refight them, we've got lots of other things we'd rather be working on to move the country forward. Its your side that is trying to get a "do over" to move the country backwards.

chauncey,

Go and reread the intro to this thead. Steve gives the impression his dog just died. This was about impeachment. Unauthorized wiretaps don't lead the news for a day let along a week. This won't be leading much longer. The American people have spoken. There will not be an impeachment. They want these wiretaps.

The debate is about to shift. Technology has outpaced the legal system. The debate will be over how to catch up. Hopefully there will be a way to get the Supreme court to rule on the separations of power issue. Bush will win this battle.

BTW: Fox just reported Teddy Kennedy is still repeating the Little Red Book hoax. The man is a buffoon. It's embarrasing how many newspapers have had to print retractions.

Steve gives the impression his dog just died.

If that's the impression you get, I'd suggest that says more about you than Steve. He makes a very clear criticism of the relevance of the poll to the controversy, nothing like your characterization.

This was about impeachment.

Well, clearly, that's all you want it to be about, since then you can argue that your side has "won" so long as impeachment has not occurred.

The American people have spoken. There will not be an impeachment.

Really? Where did the American people say "there will not be an impeachment"? And, even if they had, why couldn't that change with further information, just as it clearly was going to resulting in Nixon's resignation over the initially-minor Watergate story, or as it did, though short of conviction, with one of the many reports, most of which -- including that one -- were initially treated as minor by the public, of infidelity on Clinton's part?

The debate is about to shift. Technology has outpaced the legal system. The debate will be over how to catch up. Hopefully there will be a way to get the Supreme court to rule on the separations of power issue. Bush will win this battle.

Your faith is great, for you, I suppose, but you provide no reason for anyone else to join you in it.

to restore Presidential powers constrained by law in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate.

Working to undo the negative effects of the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate is not the same as reliving either. The fact is, as least according to historians, Presidential power has been reduced over the last 35 years. Bill Clinton continued the trend by losing a series of lawsuits in the Supreme Court. Bush/Cheney would like nothing more than to reverse this trend and restore Presidential Power.

That's not all Cheney said. We have significant technological issues that provide the terrorists with a great deal more communications flexibility and speed which made the current process overly cumbersome. I'd rather not pay an army of FBI agents to file paperwork when they could be hunting terrorists. I'd much rather have the executive make the decisions at the cutting edge than a commmittee of congressmen or unelected judges.

We do need to have this discussion. If you want to yell 'impeachment' you'll merely delay it and pay a price for your raw partisanship. The people have said this is far too serious for that. They want this done.

LEAST HELPFUL...POLL...EVER....

That strikes me as stong language. Steve understands how this is going to be used. The whacky left smelled blood in the water. Rasmussen added clorine. Steve knows it.

rdw: "We do need to have this discussion. If you want to yell 'impeachment' you'll merely delay it and pay a price for your raw partisanship. The people have said this is far too serious for that. They want this done."

You brought up the issue of impeachment, and by raising that tangent, you attempt to divert the discussion.

Your association of the post's title with impeachment simply goes to my point about your misreadings, intentional or not.

This was about impeachment.

Well, clearly, that's all you want it to be about, since then you can argue that your side has "won" so long as impeachment has not occurred.

Cmdicely, I have not counted but my guess is you have called for impeachment at least 5 times and possible more than 10 times. What's your guess?

The fact is, as least according to historians, Presidential power has been reduced over the last 35 years.

As a direct consequence of Presidential abuses of powers that the President held in the absence of law constraining them. Quite.

This does not explain Cheney's desire to reopen the door to abuse.

Bush/Cheney would like nothing more than to reverse this trend and restore Presidential Power.

I quite agree. Among the things they would not like more than expanding Presidential Power are "defending the country from terrorists" and "seeing to the faithful execution of the laws", and both of those have, therefore, been compromised in the pursuit of Presidential power.

Which, I suppose, is good if you are a believer in fuhrerprinzip above all else, but bad if you care about the rule of law, popular sovereignty, and/or national security.

That's not all Cheney said. We have significant technological issues that provide the terrorists with a great deal more communications flexibility and speed which made the current process overly cumbersome.

The problem with this is that it is an outright lie; if there are specific personal targets of monitoring, the current process is equally workable no matter what technological means of electronic surveillance are available. If there are not specific personal targets of monitoring, the administration's characterization of the program is an outright lie, and, in addition, its highly improbable that any stretch of logic could make such searches reasonable, with or without a warrant, under the Fourth Amendment, in any case.

I'd rather not pay an army of FBI agents to file paperwork when they could be hunting terrorists.

The evidence that this is the alternative to the Administration program is...what, exactly?

I'd much rather have the executive make the decisions at the cutting edge than a commmittee of congressmen or unelected judges.

Good for you. Nothing stopped Bush from seeking a declaration of war after 9/11, and using the 15-day power of unlimited searches -- and using that 15-day period to present a bill to Congress granting him broader authority than FISA does to conduct searches and make those decisions. Certainly, there is a debate that can be engaged in about where decisions should be made in the government. But popular sovereignty is thwarted when those in government don't respect the decisions that have been made about such matters through the proper processes -- such as FISA, which represented the product of substantial debate about the issue of who should have the authority.

We do need to have this discussion.

First, we need to agree that the President is bound by the law. Then we can discuss what powers such a President should have, and discuss how, if at all, to change the law to achieve that.

If you want to yell 'impeachment' you'll merely delay it and pay a price for your raw partisanship.

You really don't have much room to talk about anyone else's raw partisanship.

The people have said this is far too serious for that. They want this done.

This is about the 29th different thing you've said the people have said, all based, apparently, on two poll questions that say nothing of the sort.

First, we need to agree that the President is bound by the law. Then we can discuss what powers such a President should have, and discuss how, if at all, to change the law to achieve that.

Bill Clinton proved no President is above the law. GWB will prove the Congress is a co-equal branch and cannot pass laws which infringe on presidential powers. GWB will prove the President answers to the Constitution, not to Congress.

The people have said this is far too serious for that. They want this done.

This is about the 29th different thing you've said the people have said, all based, apparently, on two poll questions that say nothing of the sort.

It's really not hard to figure the numbers out. 68% of the people have been following the story. They know about impeachment and warrantless searches outside FISA authorization. As if they could get away from it. A very impressive 64%, knowing all this, STILL WANT IT DONE.

What is so hard to understand?

You of course don't have to see it that way. You are not running for re-election. Ask Tom Daschle about going up against this dolt of a President. I know you think he's stupid. I'll promise you Tom Daschle does not share that opinion. No sane politician is going to work at cross purposes to these polls. They don't want to be the Tom Dachle or Max Cleland of 2006. The adults are going to race to the front of the parade to appear 'strong on national security' and try to expand FISA to acommodate administration needs.

Quit running the legal nonsense. It's silly. You're not a lawyer. Even if you were it's still silly. This justice dept decided BEFORE the program started it was legal and we have a series of quotes from prior administrations in support. There are ONLY 9 people who will have any say in this matter. It'll be time to listen when they speak. I don't mean to disrespect your intelligence in this regard but you have zero credibility in terms of constitutional law.

Your association of the post's title with impeachment simply goes to my point about your misreadings, intentional or not.

Steve Benen is a Bush hater right there with the best of them. He's not remotely interested in 'fixing' FISA so these types of searchs can be done with warrants. He wants a piece of Bush. He wants to extract a price. I didn't check if he used the "I" word but Kevin did several times and this is his blog.

And who are you trying to kid anyway? This isn't a legal blog. It's called 'Political Animal' for a reason. When Steve saw that poll his heart sank. As a political matter what appeared to be a gift from God is now a potential disaster.

rdw: "This was about impeachment."

Contrary to your assertion, this post was about the "Least helpful... poll... ever." Since you seem incapable of comprehending the meaning of that, I'll do my best to explain to you without benefit of illustrations.

Polls are helpful only insofar as they go to explain, with some degree of accuracy, what people are thinking. This particular poll asked a question without including an essential qualifier. In this case, that question is, "Should the president order the NSA conduct electronic surveillance on its own citizens?" The question neglected to add the essential prepositional phrase, "... without a warrant?" Without that essential qualifier, the poll fails to provide accurate information about what people think about the entire subject.

Your mistake, as cmdicely has suggested, and as you've surely realized by now, is that you jumped to the conclusion that the question assumed the poll was unhelpful because it failed to reveal that most people feel that such surveillance might be within the president's purview, and therefore unimpeachable. Clearly, you're mistaken, as you are the only person in the thread pursuing the issue of impeachment. The fact that you are suggests that it's a very real issue for you, and one that the American people may come back to in the future.

rdw:

Shut up. We all hate you.

:)

Let me just chime in on a note of lightness to highfive Nash and cmdicely for the wonderful thwacking they just administered our friend Nathan the hyper-pedantic lawyer.

It was an absolute joy to watch him eqivocate and shuffle his feet when he finally had to admit he was just flat-out wrong. Instead of just, you know, being a man about it and admitting he was whupped fair and square.

The pretentiousness of citing Dryden was beautiful -- but I knew the game was up maybe a microsecond before Nash did when I noticed that Nathan misspelled the Aeneid. Look -- nobody gives a shit about spelling on a blog, but if you're going to live by the sword of pedantic appeal-to-authority, it's certainly a sinful delight to watch such a person die by it :)

Never argue semiotics with a linguist, indeed :)

Sorry, Nathan. Lately you've offered some sensible, balanced opinions on things -- but you really did lose some cred with the way you conducted yourself here. There is no metaphoric context for "rebound to Bush's benefit." The phrase I have heard for years is "redound to" -- though honestly I couldn't tell you precisely what that word means, being too lazy to go look it up after the defeat's been clearly established.

Next time just yell uncle and get it over with, k?

Bob

There are ONLY 9 people who will have any say in this matter. It'll be time to listen when they speak. I don't mean to disrespect your intelligence in this regard but you have zero credibility in terms of constitutional law.

Posted by: rdw

The courts have already spoken on previous cases and have sided with the adminstration in power at those times. Saying the President has the right do it as long as a suspect in a foriegn country was on the other end. So the person in this country communicating with a foreign terrorist is only spied on only during his communication with the overseas suspect. Survielance of people soley in this country still requires a warrant. Pretty simple stuff but lefties have a hard time accepting the previous court rulings. They would rather bash Bush than recognize the truth.

Fat White Guy:

*munching thru a mouthful of WhiteyBurger, washing it down with a big glass of blood* .... *gulp!*

A lot of those warrantless wiretaps were, uhh, totally domestic, you realize, right?

Bob

A lot of those warrantless wiretaps were, uhh, totally domestic, you realize, right?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1

You ignorance abounds. There has been no evidence that any purely domestic wiretaps were done outside of FISA. There are also provisions in FISA to do a wiretap and get the warrent from them later.

You realize you come off as pretty stupid when you don't know what you are talking about, right?

Fat White Guy:

You obviously didn't read the NYT last week.

Why am I not surprised? :)

Bob

Fat White Guy:

If I was concerned about coming across as stupid, I'd have a handle like Fat White Guy or something, as opposed to rmck1 :)

Bob

You obviously didn't read the NYT last week.

Why am I not surprised? :)

Bob

Considering past history and their lefty anti=Bush bias the NYT does not have much credibility. So any accusations coming from the NYT is suspect until confirmed by sources that are not using the NYT as a reference.

Poll number one: Police should be able to shoot heavily armed evil doers who present a threat: almost 100% will say yes.
Poll number two: Police should be able to shoot innocent bystanders while apprehending an unarmed, nonviolent offender: most will say no.
MSM headine: Most support police shooting evildoers.

This post and the comments are very interesting. The poster reflects the liberal view that what "matters most" are the process questions of warrants, oversights, checks and balances, etc. The conservative view is what matters most is whether the NSA should monitor the calls, which of course, is what was polled.

I think the conservative view is correct.

In regard to polling, I think "without a warrant" are such pejorative words that they would unduly affect any poll results, and it would be very difficult to use those words and still fairly phrase the question. But Rassmussen obviously did not seek to poll the process issues, and the question polled in pretty straightforward.

An interesting poll would be one that fairly posed the question of what was more important -- that terrorist calls be monitored or that warrants be secured prior to such monitoring. This is what liberals are really asserting. I think liberals would even lose on that question as well, even though it is phrased unfairly in favor of liberals because most legal analysis appears to support that warrants were not required.

In any event, it sure appears the issue is a loser for democrats and liberals, so it also appears the dems are beginning to go dark on it. Powerline has a very interesting post tonight on how democrats are hurt by their inability to act other than from the mindset of the "lessons of Vietnam" as they see them.

Fat White Guy:

The NYT for all its flaws (and many Bush-haters will tell you it hasn't come down nearly strong enough on the administration) is still the Paper of Record, so nyah.

If they wanted to bash Bush so badly -- why did they hold that story for over a year?

They coulda tried to pull a Dan Rather, after all :)

Oh and while you're so big in the NYT being an anti-Bush mouthpiece -- explain Judith Miller to us, if you'd be so kind.

A lotta lefties would *love* to know just what got into the Times for such a shameful lack of critical distance.

Thanks in advance;

*kisses*,

Bob

This particular poll asked a question without including an essential qualifier. In this case, that question is, "Should the president order the NSA conduct electronic surveillance on its own citizens?" The question neglected to add the essential prepositional phrase, "... without a warrant?" Without that essential qualifier, the poll fails to provide accurate information about what people think about the entire subject.

Quite true about the qualifier. I would like to have seen a different poll question asked. Steve had 7 or 8 questions. In a perfect world. But this is true of all poll questions.

What you are ignoring is the results of the question about following the story. 68% are following or have followed the story. The ONLY reason this is a story in the 1st place is the lack of warrants. If anyone is paying the slightest bit of attention they are aware Bush did not get warrants. The 2nd most obvious facet is the liberals have their hair on fire over a potential impeachment. EVERY outlet has discussed impeachment. That would be ALL of the networks and cable shows, all major newspapers and the weekly magazines. Jonathan Alter and Howard Fineman of newsweek discussed it in detail in columns and on TV and Radio.

This isn't hard or even remotely confusing. If 68% of the people are following the story ALL 68% know the searches were done without a warrant and ALL 68% know the libs would love to impeach Georgie over it.

With all that we STILL have 2/3's support. 64% support is unusually high.

We can at least agree Steve would never have given the poll any exposure if #1 he thought it was crap #2 if he thought it wasn't relevent to the political environment.

We can also agree the title is rather dramatically pessimistic. "Ever"? Covers a rather extensive period doesn't it?

As far as taking a poll to see if GWB was operating legally that's nonsense. That's a difficult constitution question on separation of powers. We've got 100 lawyers on each side of the issue. That's what's so cool about search engines. I actually heard Bill clinton's soundbite agreeing with Bush as well as Jamie Gorelick's soundbite supporting Bush BEFORE I heard Jamie claim it was illegal. There is nothing more comicial than catching a partisan hack like Jamie Gorelick talking out of both sides of her mouth. You will note Jamie quickly disappeared and the MSM stopped using her. I would bet 5x's as many people heard Jamie claim the President had the authority to do wireless searches than heard her initial remarks saying he didn't. The end result being the public's head is spinning regarding the legality but they want the terrorist tracked. Let the legal pinheads settle that but keep this program.

This is without a doubt a disaster for the politicians. No politician will take an aggressive stand against the will of 2/3's of the American people.

BTW: I'm not pushing impeachment. Cmdicely was aggressively pushing it as was Kevin Drum. I asked Cmdicely how many times he mentioned impeachment but he chose not to answer. I estimate at least 5.

The NYT for all its flaws (and many Bush-haters will tell you it hasn't come down nearly strong enough on the administration) is still the Paper of Record, so nyah.

The NYTs is the paper of corrections. This has been a really bad century for the paper. They had two layoffs in 2005 alone and are on their 3rd managing editor and asst managing editor. The Miller story was a total debacle. They spent a fortune defending her and lost every suit up to the Supreme Court. Scooter will be going to trial this year bringing 50 reporters in to testify and every one will have to answer thanks to the NYT's. Judy created a civil war in the newsroom and then they had to pay her a fortune to retire. On top of all that her reporting sucked. And that's not all. As bad as Judy Miller was, and as visible, she was small potatoes compared to Jayson Blair.

The NYT's is a piece of sh*t. At least they didn't pick up the Mao's Little Red Book scam.

In this case, that question is, "Should the president order the NSA conduct electronic surveillance on its own citizens?" The question neglected to add the essential prepositional phrase, "... without a warrant?" Without that essential qualifier, the poll fails to provide accurate information about what people think about the entire subject.

And, even with that qualifier, it fails, as it is quite arguable that, if you accept some of the defenses offered for this program, if the procedure (pre and post) for warrantless surveillance laid out in FISA were followed (involving determinations of cause by the AG, minimization procedures, and report to Congress and the FISC), this would have been legal warrantless surveillance under FISA.

The question rdw wants to read the question as asking is "Is what Bush did right?" But that's not what the poll asked, and that's not a reasonable interpretation of the answer.

rdw:

> "The NYT's is a piece of sh*t."

No, the NYT is s newspaper. *You're* a piece of shit :)

I knew Judy Miller's reporting was suspicious to say the least on
the days her oh-so-mysteriously-sourced stories ran. Nonetheless,
as a Bush supporter you should be kissing her slippers because
she's probably the single biggest instrument of mainstream
"wisdom" that got the public behind the idea of the Iraq war.

The NYT had a terrible year; there's no question of that and no
adequate defense for it, either. Add TimesSelect effectively
removing some of America's most influential columnists from the
the public discourse and you have a veritable annus horribilus.

All this being said, I think it's tragic that virtually all
privately-owned newspaper companies are having such a terrible
time with the bottom line. The public is ill-served by
entertainment conglomerates and biased tycoons like Murdoch
buying them up and eroding their mission of covering the news.

The blogosphere left and right loves to crow about this, the
better to puff themselves up, but really nobody wins here.
Whether left of right, bloggers depend first and foremost on
newspapers and wire stories to get their raw information from.

My biggest gripe with the NYT -- same as Mickey Kaus':
Pinch Sulzberger, the poster boy for dynastic nepotism.

Bob

Fat White Guy:

The fact still remains (and it's been discussed in more than the NYT) that the NSA was capturing so many calls through trunk lines (that's old terminology; I forget what they're called) and internet backbones that many of the calls and emails they intercepted were of both domestic origin and destination.

The NSA doesn't refute this, btw. They say it's virtually inevitable in what they're trying to do.

Which all adds up to further evidence that the NSA wasn't merely wiretapping targeted suspects (which nobody opposes) but rather engaging in a TIA-style data mining operation.

Bob

rdw: "If 68% of the people are following the story ALL 68% know the searches were done without a warrant and ALL 68% know the libs would love to impeach Georgie over it."

None of this stands to reason. That someone claims to be "following the story" does not at all mean that s/he is aware of all the details of the story. Again, the only way to determine a.) whether people were aware of the fact that this was warrantless surveillance, and b.) how they feel about it, would be to ask the question in its entirety: should the president order the NSA to perform warrantless eavesdropping? But that wasn't the question, which renders the poll fairly useless, bringing us full circle to your complete misunderstanding of the post. You incorrectly assumed, from the beginning, that this was about impeachment. In fact, you're still talking about it.

To the best of my knowledge, the poll didn't have anything to do with either liberals or impeachment. Those two things seem to be an obsession of yours.

chauncey,

The warrantless aspect of the Searches IS THE STORY. It would not be in the news otherwise. We know almost nothing about the searches except that they were warrantless. 68% are aware of this.

Knowing this 64% support it. That is a stunning number.

Remain in denial as long as you like. But I must be honest. Steve's headline is emphatic.
LEAST HELPFUL...POLL...EVER....

Steve sees the disaster.

BTW: You can't be that naive regarding the politics. It's very smart politics for the RNC to portray liberals as unglued blame America first radicals. It's very dumb politics for the DNC to cooperate so generously. You placed Nancy Pelosi at the head of the party. Her over-wrought act plays very well in San Francisco and in the North East. She's not doing so well in Ohio. Get a clue.

cmdicely,

Knock yourself out. Steve is sooo happy because as you suggest the poll is meangingless. Actually, he's not even a little bit happy. Perhaps you have an explanation why?

I've made my point to Chauncey regarding the nature of the poll. At this point it does not matter. Every politician in Washington is seeing widespread support for the NSA program and a voting public not much concerned Congress is in a snit with the President over some territorial/bureaucratic issue. They want Bush and Reid to work it out while the NSA keeps at it.

This civil liberties thing ain't selling. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't Watergate. That was almost 35 years ago so those under 45 have no recollection of either. Bush isn't Nixon and he isn't even Clinton. You lose credibilty when you try to tie Bush to Nixon. Even ignoring the fact 50% of the voting population has no memory of Nixon and are only vaguely aware of the facts
(thus the connection isn't remotely 'troubling') another 25% know Nixons spying was for personal political gain. Bush is going after terrorists.

This is post 9/11. In the sane world going after terrorists is a good thing. If you must err, err on the aggressive side. Be over-protective. We can fix civil rights abuses. We can't bring back people killed by terrorists.

This is another reason why that Little Red Book scam is so bad for your party. In terms of grotesque stupidity I think that scam ranks right up there with Dan Rather. That's going to be very useful as an example of what's going on in Academia today and inside your party.

Your party is not fit to lead.

bob,

You've trashed the Times amlost as well as I have. Pinch is a disaster. Daddy even had to come back and fire Raines. This is far more than a bad year. This has been a rotten century and it's not going to be better anytime soon.

I can't imagine who you deem influencial among their columnists. Thomas L. Freidman would qualify as a 1st tier columnist but he's hardly influential anymore. He also is as furious with the Dean/kerry/Murtha wing of your party as he is of Bush. Thomas may ave influencedClinton a great deal but the last camp david talks were a disaster that blew up in both their faces. Tom and Bill got it exactly wrong

The only person Thomas had any cred with in this administration was Colin Powell and I'd argue Colin used he more effectively than Freidman used Powell.

One other thing about Thomas. He took time off to do a series on Globalism and espeically as regards India and Asia. He is in fact supportive of the tremendous progress GWB has been making in th region and with India specifically. The NYT's wants to make outsourcing a national scandal. Freidman is on the exact opposite side.

When Reagan was President he felt it was important to meet with the editorial board and publisher of the Times fairly regularly. He wanted to suck-up. He thought they mattered. In 1981 he was correct. This ain't 1981. This ain't even 2001 and in 2001 Bush gave then NOTHING! NADA! Cheney made it a point of kicking them off his plane 1st when he went to smaller planes.

There are no other columnists at the Times with much of a National reputation save for David Brooks and he's fairly new. Dowd and Grubman are embarrasments. Herbert and Rich went off the deep end a long time ago and are more valuable to the right because they are so extreme.

The NYTs is not done downsizing. Going to Times select was a business decision made from a position of weakness. It will dramatically reduce their exposure. The big problem is they still have serious echo chamber issues that come from living in a bubble. Pinch poses a unique problem. He is a disaster. how do you fire the owner?

rdw: "The warrantless aspect of the Searches IS THE STORY. It would not be in the news otherwise. We know almost nothing about the searches except that they were warrantless. 68% are aware of this."

Yes, the warrantless aspect is the story. No, it probably would not otherwise be in the news. And it's correct that we know almost nothing about the searches. But claiming that 68% of the people polled are aware of any or all of these points relies on an assumption that you're willing to make because it suits some purpose you seem to have. The poll asked nothing about warrants and nothing about the searches themselves. Again, these shortcomings make the poll fairly useless.

"Remain in denial as long as you like. But I must be honest. Steve's headline is emphatic. LEAST HELPFUL...POLL...EVER....

Steve sees the disaster."

Well, you've established that your mind-reading & text-reading skills are equally abysmal.

chauncey,

The arrogance of liberals never ceases to astonish me.

68% have been following the story

The story is warrentless wiretaps. That's all it is. You can't be following the story and not be aware of the warrantless wiretaps.

You say:

But claiming that 68% of the people polled are aware of any or all of these points relies on an assumption

I say:

Yes it relies on an assumption. The assumption is they're not complete morons. To dispute my point you have to assume they ARE morons.

rdw:

> You've trashed the Times amlost

"amlost." I like that. Freudian typo? :)

> as well as I have.

I don't "trash" the NYT. Like most sensible news junkies I have sharp
criticisms of them, but I'm not out to delegitimate them whole cloth
the way you are and the way some of my leftier friends seem to be.

> Pinch is a disaster.

He certainly seems to be. I think his relationship with Judy Miller
was inappropriate (not implying anything sexual) and blinded him to
the contradiction between calling for an investigation of the Plame
affair and not allowing reporters to be be the major witnesses.

To me, that issue is cut and dried. When anonymous sources use
reporters to mislead the public, they don't deserve protection.
Whistleblowers deserve protection. Deep Throat was never
about preserving the perogatives of stenography to power.

I like Kat Kinsman's anonymous source
nickname for Karl Rove: ReachAround :)

> Daddy even had to come back and fire Raines. This
> is far more than a bad year. This has been a rotten
> century and it's not going to be better anytime soon.

Well once again, Wooten, you are indulging in the very sin you love
to bash lefties for -- taking a bad situation and squeezing it for
every last drop of partisan/ideological advantage, and in the process
discrediting your view in the eyes of less ideological observers.

The NYT has won more Pulitzers than any other newspaper. Howell
Raines may have made an unforgivable mistake with Jayson Blair,
but his tenure also produced the 9/11 coverage, which was a triumph.

> I can't imagine who you deem influencial among their columnists.

Well of course not, Wooten. You're an ideologue. You hang out on
PowerLine and InstaBloviator. It doesn't matter whether or not you
agree with a columnist to call them influential. The point is, prior
to TimesDefect, the entire blogosphere buzzed with those columnists.

> Thomas L. Freidman would qualify as a 1st tier
> columnist but he's hardly influential anymore.

Because of TimesSelect.

> He also is as furious with the Dean/kerry/Murtha wing of your
> party as he is of Bush. Thomas may have influenced Clinton a
> great deal but the last camp david talks were a disaster that
> blew up in both their faces. Tom and Bill got it exactly wrong

You can't blame the guys for trying.

> The only person Thomas had any cred with in this
> administration was Colin Powell and I'd argue Colin
> used he more effectively than Freidman used Powell.

You know, Wooten, one of the most objectionable things about
you to people here is your constant evaluation of everything
in terms of who "used" whom. As if using people somehow wasn't
highly morally objectionable. It makes you come across as a
cold and unsympathetic person. The sort of guy who'd kick a dog.

Neither Powell nor Friedman "used" each other. Powell's Pottery
Barn Rule was probably the key argument that kept lefties aboard
for the occupation no matter how much they opposed the war, and
Friedman was a strong advocate for it. Problem is, that view is
beginning to fray coming into the fourth year of the occupation.

> One other thing about Thomas. He took time off to do a
> series on Globalism and espeically as regards India and
> Asia. He is in fact supportive of the tremendous progress
> GWB has been making in the region and with India specifically.

Friedman also realizes, in a way that you never do,
that globalization is supranational. Oddly enough, the
more globalization encroaches, the less relevant will
be national borders and huge chunks of foreign policy.

> The NYT's wants to make outsourcing a national scandal.

Once again, it's Wooten the Dog-Kicker. Let's say a red-state
guy (and some of those Family Values Republican Congresscritters
have a fierce protectionist streak; witness their resistance
to CAFTA) with a 10th-grade education works in a textile mill
all his life and gets cashiered at 52 with no pension, cuz his
plant moves to fill-in-the-blank. Oh, it's the global economy.

Well, okay. But there's a human story there, Wooten. A tragedy.
It might well break your heart, Wooten, if you had one to break.
And it's the business of the press to tell these human stories.

I'm not a big fan of Friedboy, btw. I think he's glib, annoyingly
rhetorical and very much in love with his own access to power, which
often causes him to completely misread the so-called "Arab street."
He's a "big picture thinker" who squeezes all his data into whatever
paradigm du jour that he's cooked up a would-be buzzword for. He's
incredibly naive about soft power and the inevitability of "progress,"
and stone-clueless about the reasons that free market capitalism is
so destructive to traditional societies. Iraq develops a version
of American Gladiator on TV, and to him that's a wonderful sign.

Because he's so fixated on soft power, he takes his eye off hard
power altogether. This opens him up to charges of grotesque
hypocrisy, of conscience-salving apologism for precisely the sorts
of authoritarianism that he's supposed to boost soft power to oppose.

> Freidman is on the exact opposite side.

No, he's not, Wooten. Give the devil his due; Tom Friedman has
never advocated a Social Darwinist approach to the human costs
of globalization. At the end of the day, he's a liberal.

> When Reagan was President he felt it was important to meet
> with the editorial board and publisher of the Times fairly
> regularly. He wanted to suck-up. He thought they mattered.
> In 1981 he was correct. This ain't 1981. This ain't even 2001
> and in 2001 Bush gave then NOTHING! NADA! Cheney made it a point
> of kicking them off his plane 1st when he went to smaller planes.

Then don't be surprised when Bill Keller ok's running a story over
the fierce private objections of the Bush war cabinet in a hastily
called White House meeting. I wonder if they served them coffee.

> There are no other columnists at the Times with much of a
> National reputation save for David Brooks and he's fairly new.

The UberPutz David Brooks is my least favorite columnist of all time.
Mr. Sociology. He's trying *so hard* to do the Tom Friedman thing
and find some new trend among the upper middle class that he can give
a catchy name and write a book around. It didn't work with BoBo.
Everybody in his exurban target audience thinks that's just who they
invite to their child's sixth birthday party along with the magician.

He's like "Damn! Why couldn't *I* be the guy who named yuppies."

> Dowd and Grubman are embarrasments.

Paul Krugman is a Princeton professor who knows more about economics
than you have a prayer of being able to coherently synopsize. And
he has a critique of free market fundamentalism. Since you're a
free market fundie (who are as loathesome as any other flavor of
fundamentalist), this offends you. But you can't cogently rebut
him, so you call him names and try to character assassinate.

Dowd is a mixed bag; definitely an acquired taste. I find myself
engaged by her wit literary allusions about two thirds of the time
(which is a fairly decent batting average, considering). The rest
she annoys me with her whiny self-absorbtion and refusal to recognize
how very rarefied is her position as femme fatale on Murderer's Row.

> Herbert and Rich went off the deep end a long time ago

What you guys consider "extreme" is pretty laughable. Bob Herbert
is an old-school civil-rightser who has no trouble taking his own
people to task on cultural issues where appropriate. Frank Rich
is an outrage groupie to be sure, but he's also a personal favorite
because he's so good at tying politics together with culture. Since
he's often a mouthpiece for gays (being a longtime NY theater critic
will do that to one), I'm sure this makes you highly uncomfortable.

> and are more valuable to the right because they are so extreme.

"Valuable," of course, the way we find HeadRush, O'Loofah and
InSannity valuable. And since their market penetration is so
much deeper, we're laughing at them along with vast segments of
the entire American public, not just right-wing blogophiles :)

> The NYTs is not done downsizing.

You have some insider information you'd like to share?

> Going to Times select was a business decision made from a
> position of weakness. It will dramatically reduce their exposure.

Sadly, Wooten, I have to agree with this. I think the WSJ got
it right: charge for their news coverage; leave their opinions
in the public domain. This is a war over the country's direction.

> The big problem is they still have serious echo
> chamber issues that come from living in a bubble.

Spoken like an ideological prisoner of the right-wing blogosphere :)

> Pinch poses a unique problem. He is a
> disaster. how do you fire the owner?

Negotiate a prisoner exchange for Rupert Murdoch :)

Bob

The NYT has won more Pulitzers than any other newspaper.

True and admirable but the prize is not what it used to be. Like the Nobel prizes it's pretty much limited to lefties. I wasn't addressing the quality of the writing but the slant of the writing and the amount of infuence.

The MSM is still very influencial. They have the biggest megaphone. But every year they're less influential than the year before. I've had the feeling for over a decade the press advantage actually benefits the GOP more because it makes the selection process tougher. The buffoons get weeded out earlier. A great example is the JFK Xmas in Cambodia story. If he was GOP the press would have caught the obvious lies 20 years ago. If he survived he would have survived as a much better candidate because he'd edit himself more closely.

The real drop in influence is more the result of incredible sloppiness. I am still stunned Dan Rather used those obvious frauds. In 1992 and 1996 GWB would never have recovered from the TANG story. By 2000 and especially 2004 The alternative media is much quicker than the MSM and with a much, much larger research team. Again I refer to the Dan Rather story. The blogs had a team of several top of the class document experts on that story with a recommmendaion within 12 hours. The NY Times could never react so quickly.

More recently with MSA story shows how powerful the MSM megaphone is but also how powerful the alternative media is at debugging the MSM. They saved GWBs bacon and he's got a big political advantage right now. With 12 hours of the story breaking I heard quotes from Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Jamie Gorelick and Griffin Bell supporting GWB.

The MSM is only influential to the extent they tell the full story honestly. Dan Rather destroyed TANG. The MSM story has reversed to GWBs advantage. Kerry lied about Xmas in Cambodia and set up the SBVs. The MSM could not protect him.

Paul Krugman is a Princeton professor who knows more about economics than you have a prayer of being able to coherently synopsize.

But you can't cogently rebut him, so you call him names and try to character assassinate.

Paul forget more economics than I ever knew (and I actually like economics) but Paul left the planet some time ago. He is consumed by Bush hatred and as a political economist is awful. He's frequently selects inacurrate data and goes to bizarre lengths to demonize what is a terrific economy. My own suspicion is that Paul is rather bitter at having been passed over by Clinton for a top economics post and was distraught at seeing the WH in GOP hands. Today he could never pass Senate scrutiny.

When the Times 1st ombudsman, Daniel Okrent 'retired' he blistered Paul for sloppy work and a refusal to acknowledge obvious errors.

I have never tried to rebut Krugman. But the WSJ does every day. Paul is going to have an especially hard 2006. His paper isn't doing very well but GWBs economy is. Look for even stronger jobadds heading into the election.

Freidman is on the exact opposite side.

never advocated a Social Darwinist approach to the human costs of globalization. At the end of the day, he's a liberal.

I meant to limit Toms opposition to his newspaper to Iraq. Not the post war but the pre-war and regarding Tom's deep frustration the democrats have no counter-proposal for dealing with terrorist. He agrees with conservatives that this is NOT a police issue.

Tom is unabashedly liberal. I know he's a smart man but about two years ago I saw him do a series of tirades on TV in different interview formats where he really lost his composure that GWB after 9/11 didn't raise income taxes and gasoline taxes and start a massive energy independence program. Tom was at one point almost screaming at Tim Russert.

I remember it vividly because I was dumbfounded. Did Tom really think GWB was going to use 9/11 as an opportunity to implement the liberal agenda? That's just stupid. If GWB believed any of that stuff he's be a Democrat.

The NYTs is not done downsizing.

You have some insider information you'd like to share?

Of course not. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the trends. The papers have as severe a demographic issue as the French. Kids under 25 don't buy newspapers. Kids under 35 don't buy many. Conservatives don't have to put up with the Times. I was able to drop my Phila Inquirer 4 years ago for a surburban paper and the internet. Conservatives are increasingly abandoning liberal newspapers. When you lose the young and then half of your remianing base it can't be good.

adult personals - adult personals and adult singles top choice

free adult personals - free adult personals, adult singles and adult chat rooms

adult dating - adult dating for adult personals and adult singles

free adult dating - free adult dating with free adult web cam and free adult chat - adult dating free

adult swingers - adult swingers and adult personals use this free adult web cam and adult chat

free adult swingers - free adult swingers, free adult personals - adult sex dating

adult chat - adult chat and free adult dating for adult personals

free adult chat - free adult chat and free adult web cam

adult friend - adult friend and adult personals free adult dating

adult web cam - adult web cam and free adult chat for sex personals

adult finder - adult finder for adult personals

free adult web cam - free adult web cam and free adult chat

adult dating service - free adult dating service with free adult chat

sex dating - sex dating for adult personals and erotic adult personals

adult sex dating - adult sex dating for adult personals and adult singles

adult singles - adult singles for adult sex dating

sex adult dating - sex adult dating, adult singles site

adult dating service - adult dating service, sex adult dating

adult models directory - top adult models free directory

adult friend finder - find adult friend for free

adult finder - adults find friends for free!

adult chat - best adult chat available here

best porn stars - best and most famous porn stars

adult dating - top adult dating site

adult dating chat - adult dating chat - any adult welcome!

adult sex dating - adult sex dating portal

free adult dating - free adult dating available here

adult dating online - adult dating online best choice

adult dating personals - find adult dating personals here

adult dating site - best adult dating site

adult xxx dating - adult xxx dating available here

adult singles dating - adult singles dating top site

porn star gallery - most famous porn stars free gallerys

porn star gals - best porn star free gals

famous porn stars - most famous porn stars free photos

porn stars - porn stars and adult models free photos

free porn stars - free porn stars listings and galleries

top porn stars - top porn stars free listings

online dating service - free online dating service

dating services - free dating services, online personals

single dating - singles dating online

internet dating - best internet dating site!

christian dating - christians dating services free

christian dating service - dating service for christians

christian dating services - dating services for christians

free online dating - free online dating services

online dating Louisville - Louisville online dating

hispanic dating service - hispanic dating services

dating lexington online - dating lexington online singles and personals Discount Pharmacy discount pharmacy best choice

Online Pharmacy cheap online pharmacy store,

Discount Online Pharmacy at best prices.

Sildenafil Citrate Sildenafil Citrate pills

Tadalafil - Tadalafil pills and Generic Cialis - Generic Cialis pills

Vardenafil HCI

6-Tablet Trial Pack

Carisoprodol (Generic Soma)

Finasteride (Generic Propecia)

Atorvastatin (Generic Lipitor)

Sibutramine

Celecoxib (Celebrex)

Metformin (Glucophage)

Amlodipine (Norvasc)

Simvastatin (Zocor)

Tretinoin

Atomoxetine (Generic Strattera)

Bupropion SR (Generic Wellbutrin)

Eszopiclone (Generic Lunesta)

Fexofenadine (Alegra D)

Loratidine (Claritin)

Ranitidine (Zantac)

Regalis (Cialis)

Sertraline

Free games free games

free ringtones free ringtones

free online games free online games

free screensaver free screensaver

free credit report free credit report

free clip art free clip art

free downloads free downloads

free stuff free stuff

free wallpapers free wallpapers

free email free email

free people search free people search

free translation free translation

free chat rooms free chat rooms

free chat free chat

free software downloads free software downloads

free sample and free samples

free desktop wallpaper free desktop wallpapers

Skin treatment skin treatment

natural skin care natural skin care

Natural skin treatment Natural skin treatment