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!