The majority of Americans do NOT support impeaching Bush

[MonkeyFunk]

I've seen it claimed here 6 times in 2 days that the majority of americans support impeaching Bush.

That is simply and utterly untrue.

One recent poll showed 45% support for impeachment, another 36%.

One poll showed 52% support, but the question was along the lines of "If Bush illegally wiretapped Americans, would you support impeachment?"

That's a bit of a loaded question.


When asked straight out if they support impeaching Bush, 45% or less of Americans say "Yes".

[kansasblue]

1. I think a majority favored impeaching Cheney. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

2. a slim majority, yes

but that's not the claim that's made here repeatedly.

[bvar22]

94. The question NOT asked:

Do the polls include a category for those Americans OPPOSED to impeachment?
Almost every poll I've ever seen has <10% "undecided".

At ANY rate, 45% should be enough to make the Democratic Party WAKE THE FUICK UP. :shrug:

[Decruiter]

260. I'm most impressed with your numbers. Nearly 3500 views, 6 reccs and 260

some odd responses. Most skewed numbers possibly ever.

Hang tight MonkeyFunk.

[marshall]

280. Putting the cart before the horse

I think the whole argument about impeachment is coming too soon when it doesn't start with a cogent argument about what Bush did. People don't understand wire tapping, or if they do know something about it they connect it to "terrorists" and not the average American.

It's a whole different ball game than the Clinton impeachment, and it requires starting out slowly and educating the public. People understood the Clinton imbroglio, whether they thought it was impeachable or not, because lying about an affair is something everybody can relate to. Everybody cannot relate to wire tapping.

In my opinion the question about impeachment should not be asked without tying it to something people can understand.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. The numbers are 'bout the same

as they were when a certain Richard Milhaus Nixon stepped on it.

By the way, the numbers, now like back then hover between 45 and 55 depending on the survey.

We are at a very similar moment... the question is... how they will act and how YOU will act as a citizen

Me... tomorrow I am calling back again... something bout that damn squeaky wheel

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Can you find a single poll

that puts the number over 50%? And not the "if he's found to have illegally wiretapped..." poll.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. That was a valid post

sorry if you cannot see it.

As I said, the nubers and the situation is eerily similar to Nixon.... and that whole mess

By the way... I suspect this republic is dead and we crossed the rubicon a while ago... so the eternal cowardise on the part of many of our leaders is eerlily similar to the Roman Senate after Julius Caesar....

[MonkeyFunk]

17. The problem with that poll

is that it presumes the conclusion.

You can ask any "if" question and get the answer you want: "If it were shown that Bush raped Dakota Fanning, should he be impeached?"

That's very different from "Do you support impeaching President Bush?"

Sorry if you cannot see it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Same with you, I am sorry you cannot see

we are well within the margin of error for a solid 50%

I might add, without the press hysterically pushing for it

Clinton, with the press being hysterical about it, never went over 40... with the MOE you could even argue 43%

Now if the press had the same coverage of the bush crime family crimes, where do you think we would be right now?

Why do you suppose they don't do that?

[MonkeyFunk]

28. a loaded question is a loaded question

come on, now, be reasonable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. I am being reasonable

sorry...

It is down right the middle, taking into acount Margins of Error

[MonkeyFunk]

40. not if

you take the polls that DON'T presume a crime has already been committed. Those are 36% and 45%.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. As more and more of them parchesse games

being played by Conyers and Leahy come to light, you will see that gel

Of cousre history is never a guide either.

[MonkeyFunk]

48. You may very well be right

and I support investigating the fuck out of these idiots.

But the majority of Americans do not support impeachment - today.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. They did not in the summer of '74 either

but from what my history professors told me, the numbers were similar to what they are today... been a while since I took my history degree, and fishing them polls will be hard...

And then there is the matter of 10,000 telegrams in the course of 72 hours after the Saturday Night massacre.... and this is a matter of public record... and historical record.

That told the leadership that the little people were PISSED.

We are at a similar moment... and historians will have fun making comparisons, assuming the country survives as a republic.

After all, our crisis is far deeper than anything Richard Milhaus Nixon could even fathom... and Conyers saw THAT movie in the flesh.

Oh and they are getting it. slowly...

See Boxer's comments on the trial balloon at the Ed Schultz show

[MonkeyFunk]

56. What's hard to understand?

I'm not stating that we should impeach if the public support rises above 50%. The level of public support is largely irrelevant, but it will apply political pressure.

I'm arguing against the claim made here repeatedly over the last few days that "the majority of Americans support impeaching Bush". That is not true.

[onenote]

97. Comparing situation in 74 and today doesn't help your case

In November 1973 poll taken in the wake of the Saturday night massacre, a Harris poll indicated
that 83 percent of respondents had a negative impression of how Nixon had handled the Watergate case and sixty-five percent agreed he should be impeached if the tapes reveal his involvement in Watergate.

So, playing the "if" question game, the support for impeaching Nixon was far greater even in 73 than the support is for impeaching chimpy today. And yet, it still took another 4 months before the House voted to commence an impeachment inquiry against Nixon (Feb 74) and that was only after the tapes, including the famous 18 1/2 minute gap tape, had started coming out. And it was another six months before articles of impeachment were voted on by the Committee.

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. It does actually

if you study the record of the excuses given then and now, they are similar.

When congress decided to FOLLOW the people... their worst fears were not realized

In fact, it helps to put a kibbush to all the excuses

I know that damn history degree

[onenote]

135. I'm not sure I follow what you are saying.

This subthread started with the assertion that public support for impeaching nixon was at a comparable level to what it is with respect to chimpy. Yet, the information I provided suggests otherwise. Public sentiment for impeachment today is not yet where it was in 1973 and even with greater support, the House didn't act for several months. Moreover, at the levels indicated in 1973, support for pursuing impeachment against Nixon was clearly gaining significant bi-partisan support, something that isnt't yet happening with chimpy. It may get there, but its not there yet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

199. For nixon it was at 41, for chimpy it is at 45

I am dense I know, but them numbers are higher for chimpy, almost equal, if you take MOE into account

[onenote]

218. in 1973, 65 percent were inclined to impeach -- much higher than today

I haven't seen any link for the poll indicating that only 41 percent wanted Nixon impeached. Do you have one?

[nadinbrzezinski]

219. By the end of it, not when the process got any feet

And we are at that point, the out of the gate, some folks in public (boxer among others) are using the term

[onenote]

263. Still confused, still looking for a link

The percentage of people saying nixon should be impeached if he participated in watergate was over 65% four months before Congress took the very first steps towards beginning an impeachment process--in other words, at a point comparable to where we are now. Do you have a link showing that the number was less than that? Or that the percentage that currently want chimpy impeached approaches 65% today?

The unblemished fact is that the vote in Congress to authorize the Judiciary Committee to start an impeachment inquiry in the Nixon case was 410-4, reflecting the high level of bi-partisan support for that move in th country. You can't possibly think that there is anywhere near that level of bi-partisan support for starting an impeachment inquiry against chimpy at this moment. Hopefully it will grow and we can get to the point where some repubs jump ship (31 Democrats supported starting the clinton impeachment inquiry), but we're not there yet and pretending that we are won't make it so.

If we want impeachment happen, we need to be pushing on repubs to jump ship. Its never going to happen otherwise.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MonkeyFunk]

166. Yes

I believe most polls are accurate within the margins of error stated.

[Joe Chi Minh]

170. My condolences.

[MonkeyFunk]

171. do you have an argument to make

with evidence showing polls are consistently rigged? Or is it just a hunch?

[Joe Chi Minh]

201. It's just seems to be a truism, an axiom, in political circles that they are just one

of many devices used by politicians and political parties. I think Hunter S Thompson either mentions it, or quotes a politician's mentioning of it, simply in passing. Didn't make a big deal of it or anything.

But you only have to have a limited level of worldly understanding to know that if they were kosher when they were first used, the Republicans would very quickly have distorted them for party-political purposes. And in the past, probably not a few Democrats (note the large D).

There is evidently a VERY close nexus between a country's media, particularly TV and the press and its government of the day, nowhere more so than in the US. Perhaps North Korea.

However, in the US, putative polls or surveys, are in there with them. In the US, politics are a blood sport, so why would they not be? Politicians know that many people are totally politically unsophisticated, and just want to be on the winning side! So why not fund a polling outfit to do the party's bidding? They are masters of doing such things indirectly. Also, they may slant the questions, calling on land-lines when only certain folk would be at home. Any number of methodological deficiencies. Very often, in circumstances such as obtain today, it will be a damage-limitation exercise, rather than a question of contrasting concurrence or repudiation of the Government's handling of some issue/its popularity, etc., in absolute terms. Not so much switching as attenuating, muffling, downplaying the reality.

It would be something of a novelty if the MSM were to be found hawking political truths to the public, wouldn't it? Of course, after particuarly defective governments such as we have had in the UK and the US, they have to 'run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, to an increasing extent, but I think you'll find the polls in the US are sacrosanct. The notion of making them sufficiently accurate to be meaningful, were it ever considered, would be considered obscene. Un-American - in a way only someone like Senator Joseph McCarthy of illustrious memory could fully appreciate.

[MonkeyFunk]

202. well

pollsters are in the business of selling one thing: accuracy. If pollsters are consistently wrong, they won't get any business.

all major electoral polls just prior to the last election were right within the margin of error.

What's funny is that freepers also swear polls are biased - for liberals.

I think people tend to think that their own beliefs are more popular than they really are, so when a poll shows sizeable numbers of people disagreeing with them, they blame the poll itself. That's too facile a response.

[Joe Chi Minh]

208. No your posts are too facile.

[MonkeyFunk]

211. Well

it's hard to argue with a reasoned, well-thought-out and well-presented point like that.

:eyes:

[Joe Chi Minh]

258. See my response to your other response. It is clearly a waste of time and effort.

Argue with a fool and you just make two fools.

As I observed in my response to your other post, I'm not seeking to convince you. Just telling you the way it is - and having a bit of fun along the way. Though it's not the kind of game that could engages an adult's interest for very long. So I shall leave you to your strawmen and other misrepresentations. But, you didn't answer my perfectly reasonable and innocent question, were you a Republican until recently?

[skipos]

284. DU posts like yours are very irritating

There is nothing wrong with debating all sides of an issue, but you had to sprinkle your argument with insults. "How dumb can you get," "if you are dim enough," etc.

We are all on the same side here. Can you lay off the name calling?

[Joe Chi Minh]

131. Any 'no-brainer' question may routinely be perceived and depicted

as loaded, because of the ubiquitous Republican culture of deception and denial.

[MonkeyFunk]

136. and liberals never ask a loaded question?

don't be thick.

[Joe Chi Minh]

169. There's no need to load questions where these neocons are concerned;

you're very foolishly trying to posit that despite Bush's very widespread unpopularity, the polls - political charades that they are - are more reliable than people's own lying eyes and ears.

[MonkeyFunk]

173. do you have evidence

that the majority of americans support impeachment? Or is it just a hunch?

[Joe Chi Minh]

209. Would that be a loaded question. If you were a little swifter, you

would have noted that I had lauded the latter, over specious polls paid for by who knows whom - though evidently with less negatively evocative intent and overtones than your 'hunch'. But I like 'hunch'.

All your posts seem to lean towards a Republican viewpoint. Were you a Republican until recently? They would call it their 'gut' feeling. Better an informed intuition than a specious scientismificism.

Anecdotal evidence of public opinion in issues the public considers to be 'of great pith and moment', would, in the nature of things, be far more reliable than any putative telephone survey. How could the pollster know the truthfulness or falsity of the answers given? Didn't Republicans claim they told fibs to the 'exit pollsters'? Yet their predictive accuracy within a small margin of error, have been found to be consistently accurate, and it's not difficult to understand why. The interviewees would want to champion their side's desirability, and the individuals were button-holed personally. Not like the laughable telephone polls.

[MonkeyFunk]

213. this is what's funny about some people here

because I state a factual truth - that polls show a majority of Americans do NOT support impeachment - you accuse me of being a republican.

That's nonsensical. Also aganst the rules.

[Zhade]

222. You're not a republican, you're simply wrong.

There is no dispute that he wiretapped when he does not have the authority to do so. Your argument fails.

[MonkeyFunk]

228. where am I wrong?

My whole thesis is that the majority of americans don't support impeaching Bush.

When asked directly if they do, the percentage is between 36% and 45%.

Asking the "if" question doesn't measure the support for impeachment among Americans today.

[Zhade]

238. Read the thread without your erroneous assumptions and you'll see quite easily.

NT!

[MonkeyFunk]

244. I have read the thread

45 is still less than 50.

[Joe Chi Minh]

261. Not a single comment from you on the political context in which US

political polls are conducted, still less the obvious speciousness of their rationale as purveyors of fact; but rather the contrary - in the current context, not so much bare-faced lies on particular issues as exercises in damage limitation. Total misrepresentations would expose them to the ridicule and anger of the public. If you had a logical mind you could have followed my reasoning. But I'm sure you have other gifts, just as valuable, if not more so.

What you could do though, is to take out a certain amount of time each day to meditate on the points I've made in my posts. Don't try to understand them all at once. You've tried that. Do it incrementally. When you think you've grasped one point, move on to the next. And so on.

[MonkeyFunk]

267. for all your lecturing

and condescension, you don't actually provide anything to back up your argument.

It all comes down to your "hunch".

[Joe Chi Minh]

282. Ah, I perceive you are a scientifmicist. No wonder you get so confused - so many false

assumptions constitute the basis of your posts.

Well, it's time you learn that 'a priori' knowledge, pondering first principles, is inestimably superior to deductive reasoning, the so-called 'scientific method', as it provides the hypotheses, the assumptions upon which the greatest scientists have made their innovative, sometimes epoch-making discoveries.

Newton held 'a priori' reasoning to be superior to deductive reasoning, and when asked what criterion he resorted to, when choosing his basic hypotheses, Einstein replied that it was aesthetic; what mathematicians and theoretical now refer to as 'elegance'. His hunch would be kinda, "Well, gee, that seems quite beautiful. Just the sorta thing God does with the cosmos. I guess I'll havta use that as my initial hypothesis". Beauty, alas, is not something that can be measured under laboratory conditions by the Mr Magoos of this world. But it can trigger some primordially insightful hunches, if Einstein and Newton were any guides.

Now, go back to sleep. There's a good chap.

[Joe Chi Minh]

256. There you go again, misrepresenting the truth. I said that your positions

were extraordinarily similar to those of Republicans, or words to that effect (a simple observation that can either be repudiated factually or accepted); and I asked you if you had been a Republican until recently? That isn't against the rules.

Incidentally, in responding to your posts, I am not interested in your acquiescence. I'm simply telling you the way it is. Sure, I'm having a little fun along the way, pointing out your endless misrepresentations, but that's only human.

You seem to have a problem with facts, while railing against others whose familiarity with the truth even in relation to the exchanges on these threads is evidently far greater than yours.

[MonkeyFunk]

268. My position

is that 45 < 50.

If you think that's a Republican position, there's nothing I can do to help you.

[Joe Chi Minh]

283. Excellent. We've finally got to the point I was aiming for. At last, you

conclude we have reached an impasse.

Fortunately for you, however, I can help you out, this one last time.... if you have ears to hear....

I refer you to my earlier strictures concerning Republican damage-limitation exercises. The idea that only 45 < 50% want Bush impeached is beyond laughable, and would be beyond the Republicans' wildest dreams.

[mikelgb]

90. but he DID illegally wiretap americans

he admitted it

Asscroft found it illegal for fuck's sake

if the MSM would report on it the impeachment numbers would rise, no?

hell make it the first article of impeachment then boom 52%

[MonkeyFunk]

106. no

he admitted to wiretapping. He did not admit to ILLEGALLY doing so.

[mattclearing]

129. So if I admitted to murder, I wouldn't have admitted to illegal murder?

That's idiotic.

[MonkeyFunk]

137. no

murder is a legal term. If one confesses to murder, one automatically admits to breaking the law.

But people admit to killing someone all the time - it doesn't mean they confessed to murder.

Your position is idiotic. Or at least ignorant.

[Zhade]

226. But it would still BE murder. That's the fucking point.

Talk about ignorant!

[MonkeyFunk]

No you're wrong

not all killing is murder. Murder is a legal term.

[Zhade]

239. Premeditated killing is murder.

Your argument remains flawed.

[MonkeyFunk]

245. don't be thick

My point is that not all killing is murder. Murder is a legal concept. It means illegal killing. It is possible to kill someone, and not commit murder.

[Marr]

98. Except he *did* illegally wiretap, and even bragged about it on TV.

Then he promised to continue doing so until he leaves office.

I'd say that poll says as much about our media as it says about impeachment. Apparently there are alot of people out there that don't know what's going on.

[Zhade]

220. Why are you ignoring the FACT that he illegally wiretapped?

He ADMITTED IT - that's called a confession. His argument was that he CAN do it, not that he didn't.

[MonkeyFunk]

233. I'm not

Can't you read?

I'm saying Bush didn't admit to illegally wiretapping US citizens.

You can prove me wrong by showing me a quote from Bush where he admits to illegally wiretapping US citizens.

[Zhade]

241. It's irrelevant that b*s* does not recognize his own illegal activities.

Sociopaths generally don't.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. bush already publically admitted illegally wiretapping.

Also 45% in favor 44% opposed, and 11% undecided. Split that 11 percent down the line and what do you get.

Or another way to look at it, 44% opposed, 56% in favor or undecided.

Also, I oppose impeaching bush....

Unless chaney is impeached, resigns or keels over dead first. I would assume there are a number of others out there that would make the same analysis.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. can you refer me to

a source where Bush admits to illegally wiretapping US citizens?

[John Q. Citizen]

36. It was in the FISA deal. He admitted the NSA, with his approval, went around

FISA and just wiretapped US citizens.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

[MonkeyFunk]

38. and where did he admit

it was illegal?

I'm not saying it was legal. I'm just disputing that "Bush has already admitted" to breaking the law.

[John Q. Citizen]

46. Oh, I guess it was legal because the president says so? Nixon tried that.

Let's try it like this. What law gives the President authority to go around FISA and wiretap Americans?

Please provide a link.

[MonkeyFunk]

49. sigh

the claim was that Bush has already admitted to illegally wiretapping US citizens.

I'm asking for something that backs it up - a quote wherein Bush, for instance, says "Yes, I illegally wiretapped US Citizens".

Can't you understand that you're SPINNING. Yes, you're probably right - yes, it probably WAS illegal. But Bush didn't admit to illegally wiretapping US citizens.

[John Q. Citizen]

59. Should people be prosecuted if they break the law, even if they don't admit it?

Or better, "Should bush be impeached if he illegally wiretapped Americans, even if he claims his illegal wiretapping wasn't illegal?"

Think that would top 50%?

[MonkeyFunk]

62. yes they should be prosecuted

but I never suggested otherwise, so I'm not sure why you ask.

I am merely disputing the CLAIM that Bush has ADMITTED to ILLEGALLY wiretapping US citizens.

[Zhade]

223. His wiretapping was illegal. His not saying the word doesn't change that fact.

NT!

[MonkeyFunk]

230. It probabl was illegal

But Bush didn't admit to illegally wiretapping US citizens.

[Zhade]

237. No. It WAS illegal.

Until you research this better and understand this fact, you're wasting everyone's time.

[MonkeyFunk]

246. No

you're wasting time by arguing against something I never said.

My position is simple: Bush did not admit to illegally wiretapping US citizens.

It's not my fault you can't read.

[davekriss]

180. "and where did he admit it was illegal"

MonkeyFunk, he did not need to use the word "illegal". He admitted to actions that were illegal. This is not a controversial point.

[MonkeyFunk]

193. actually it is

if he had reliable counsel that said it wasn't illegal, or if it was legal under some unknown executive order or signing statement, the legality would indeed be controversial.

I'm not saying it wasn't illegal. I'm saying he didn't admit to illegally wiretapping US citizens, as some have claimed. He admitted to wiretapping. Others are drawing the conclusion that it's illegal, which it probably is. but that's not the same as Bush admitting to illegally wiretapping.

[davekriss]

215. You can keep to your rhetorical point

but that sure ain't helping the republic any. Of course GWB didn't announce that his actions were "illegal" -- he might've then just simply announce that he's impeaching/convicting himself and resign. The whole problem is GWB is drawing powers onto the office of the presidency that we the people haven't given him. He believes he is above the law, that anything he chooses to do is beyond the reach of the legislative and judicial branches -- it's that CinC and unitary executive thing, which is precisely why we must impeach: To clearly draw the boundaries around the Presidency, to say this far and no further. Never before in the history of the republic have we had this extreme need to impeach. Our future Liberty is at stake.

[MonkeyFunk]

231. I wasn't defendng Bush

or saying that his actions weren't illegal.

I was arguing the very narrow point that Bush didn't admit to illegally wiretapping US citizens, as was claimed.


It's funny how people extrapolate so much.

[bettyellen]

264. that's because your point is so narrow as to be moot.

you seem to be the only person on the face of this earth that thinks somehow bush WOULD EVER admit his activities are illegal.
or that it makes any difference if he does.

[MonkeyFunk]

269. bettyellen

what's so strange?

People said "Bush admitted to illegally wiretapping US Citizens".

I disagreed with that, saying that bush has NOT admitted to illegally wiretapping US citizens.

it's not moot - it's a rather important distinction.

[bettyellen]

277. you believe the poll respondants are splitting that hair? they would not want impeachment for illeg

illegal wiretapiing? that they'd ONLY want impeachment if the president says he;s guilty?
that's ridiculous.

[MonkeyFunk]

279. Please read carefully

The only claim I'm making in this subthread is that bush did not admit to illegally wiretapping US citizens.

That's all.

If you can find me a quote where Bush admits he did so illegally, I'll retract it.

I wish people would stop expanding my arguments.

[bettyellen]

286. you're splitting a hair that's moot- the poll stands at 45% for impeachment and 44% against

thanks for agreeing with me, you're claim is pointless when taken in context of the poll stat

[davekriss]

273. You must be a lawyer

as you are cutting hairs and insisting on precision. That's ok. :)

[MonkeyFunk]

275. nope

not a lawyer. But I am precise in my arguments. Only on DU is that seen as a flaw.

[Zhade]

224. If a person truly believes premeditated murder isn't illegal, do they get off?

Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

[MonkeyFunk]

232. no, but I never argued that

I have made two claims here:

The majority of americans don't support impeaching Bush.

Bush did not admit to illegally wiretapping US citizens.

Anything else you read into my position is purely of your own doing.

[davekriss]

177. Monkeyfunk, it is perfectly legitimate to poll in this way

Given that the number is over 50% "if he's found to have illegally wiretapped" we should impeach George W Bush (and Dick Cheney) on Monday morning. Why? Because it is known that Bush illegally sidestepped FISA for years after 9-11. You yourself have given evidence that a majority of U.S. citizens would favor impeachment. And this is just one instance among at least a dozen where Bush/Cheney have usurped powers and abused the Constitution and the American people. What will the American people say if we trot out all the other high crimes and misdemeanors? Never in the history of our republic has there been a President and Vice President in more need of impeachment. Our representatives in the House let us down if they don't act. IMPEACH NOW!

[MonkeyFunk]

195. I'm not saying it's not legitimate to ask that question

but it's not legitimate to presume a majority of americans favor impeachment based on that question.

When asked directly, without qualifiers, the answers are between 36% and 45%.

[struggle4progress]

191. The confusiuon may be that 54% want to impeach Cheney, who is the de facto President

since Chimpy's got a skull full of coke-dusted cobwebs

[calimary]

257. I'll happily join you in the Squeaky Wheel department.

First thing Monday morning!

If they think WE don't care, THEY WON'T, EITHER!!!!

Handy TOLL FREE Capitol Hill switchboard numbers always conveniently located in my sig-line below.

[aquart]

4. What percentage favored impeaching Nixon?

[MonkeyFunk]

10. who cares?

My point is that people HERE keep saying the majority of Americans favor impeaching Bush, and it just ain't so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. It is important since that was the last legitimate effort

by the by, for Clinton is was lower, in the upper 30s

[davekriss]

185. A minority of Americans oppose impeachment !

Impeachment should clearly be back "on the table".

[walldude]

15. I believe the number for Nixon was 41%

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. I believe you are right

[onenote]

101. got a link?

[onenote]

99. using the famous "if" question format: 65 percent in Nov 1973

The question posed was whether Nixon should be impeached "if" the WH tapes revealed he had participated in Watergate cover up. And yet it was still four months until the House voted to authorize the Judiciary Committee to start an impeachment inquiry (and this was after both the Saturday Night Massacre and the release of the first tapes, including the 18 1/2 minute gap tape).

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. And when you subtract the 12% who answer "No opinion" or "I don't know"....

You end up with a majority of Americans who can answer Yes or No in favor of impeachment.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. what a silly spin

that's not a majority no matter how you parse it.

[Truthiness Inspector]

22. Even if you use parseley?

Presentation is everything, and "parseley" is perhaps the most popular garnish.

Therefore, there is popular support.

I rest my case.

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. It is a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the data

Suppose you ask 1000 people whether they support or oppose impeachment of Bush. Your results are thus:

Support impeachment: 45% (450)
Oppose impeachment: 43% (430)
No opinion: 12% (120)

It is perfectly legitimate -- meaning it is done all the time -- to exclude the "no opinion" responses and thus reduce your sample size from 1000 to 880. That gives you

Support impeachment: 51.14% (450)
Oppose impeachment: 48.87% (430)

This is how, when a survey like this reports the raw data, they end up with a sample population that is not a round number, say 613 people rather than 625.

As the incomparable Samuel Clemens wrote: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. because the claim

I'm disputing is that "the majority of Americans support impeachment."

There's a thread right now in GD with that in the title.

It is wrong.

The claim is not "the majority of people who answer yes or no support impeachment".

45% is not a majority of americans.

[TechBear_Seattle]

41. It is if you manipulate the statistics properly

I was a math major in college. In one statistics class I took, the professor told us a story about how, using the exact same raw data, two different research organizations came up with two totally different results about how many people preferred chocolate ice cream over vanilla. The challenge he laid before the class was to figure out which result most accurately reflected the truth. The answer was, of course, that both results, different as they were, were equally correct.

It is impossible to make assertive statements such as "the majority of Americans support impeachment;" there is always a margin of error. It is equally impossible to say that those making such statements are incorrect (provided that the claimants have used accepted methods), as somewhere there will be an accepted statistical model which supports that assertion, provided it is prefaced with "According to the raw data we have collected using this accepted methodology and after applying that accepted system of statistical analysis, we that...."

Lies, damned lies and statistics, my friend. The story itself is irrelevant; all that matters is how you tell the tale.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. no

statistics show the majority of americans support impeachment, no matter how badly you try to spin it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

47. It is not spin

It is manipulation of statistics, which are notoriously open to manipulation. THAT IS THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE.

Just out of curiosity, where are you getting your statistics from? The mainstream media which has been so desperate to kiss the Junta's ass? Do you have actual, unadulterated raw data which you have analyzed yourself, or do you have the process, pre-digested numbers that the MSM regurgitates from time to time when public outcry against the Misadministration becomes loud enough for the White House to notice?

[MonkeyFunk]

51. I'm getting the numbers from published polls

if you want to argue that the polls fudge their numbers, start another thread.

If you want to argue the point I'm making in THIS thread, show me where a majority of Americans support impeachment.

And you are spinning, not just "manipulating". I've never denied the majority of Americans who express a yes or no answer on the question support impeaching Bush (in one poll, of course).

The claim is simple: Do a majority (meaning >50%) of Americans support impeachment now?

The answer is clearly no.

[TechBear_Seattle]

58. Therein lies the problem

If I had the raw data used to generate those numbers, I could prove -- just as correctly as the MSM -- that Bush's approval rating is 10 points lower than what has been published and that a solid majority of Americans support impeachment.

Remember, the mainstream media has proven itself time and again to be propaganda outlets for the Junta and other conservative causes. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, the Big Three television networks, most papers of record around the country, the vast majority of talk radio stations... all owned by neo-cons, all doing as the neo-cons demand. The very fact that these Republick mouthpieces are saying that 45% of Americans support impeachment is remarkable; that means that their own statisticians are unable to coax the results any closer. Again, if a statistician with a progressive agenda had the exact same set of raw data, you would see that more than 50% of Americans solidly support impeachment. Or are you really that foolishly naive to believe that the results published by the MSM are not spun in the Republicks' favor?

[MonkeyFunk]

63. then start another thread

about how you don't trust polls.

[nam78_two]

31. I agree

That is a legitimate interpretation of the data IMHO. It is analogous to not voting isn't it?

[Zhade]

225. Silly spin? This from the poster who argues that b*s* has to say "illegally wiretapped"...

...for it to be a crime?

[MonkeyFunk]

271. Don't be dishonest, Zhade

I never said any such thing.

Somebody claimed that Bush admitted to illegally wiretapping US citizens.

I say Bush has NOT admitted to illegally wiretapping US citizens. That's the extent of my argument.

[nashville_brook]

130. that's a very good point -- and a valid way of stating the numbers

OP should spill why s/he's against impeachment instead of desperately trying to manipulate perception...so tired of the perception management.

[MonkeyFunk]

139. it's not a valid way of stating the numbers at all

the issue is not whether the majority of Americans who are willing to answer yes or no believe Bush should be impeached.

The question is "Do the majority of Americans believe Bush should be impeached?"

If the answer is <50%, the result is "no"

[nashville_brook]

143. naturally, you don't think so -- i can see all your "arguments" and they don't persuade.

i wouldn't blow too much energy on this, because -- give it a couple of days and the numbers will have changed again... making your "argument" even more silly.

[MonkeyFunk]

154. if a poll comes out tomorrow

that says 90% of americans want Bush impeached, nothing in my position would be proven wrong.

My position is that many here assert that the majority of Americans, today, support impeaching Bush. I have shown that is not true. Whatever happens in the future is irrelevant.

I'm not arguing for or against impeachment based on those numbers, either. I'm simply asserting that those who say the majority of Americans favor impeachment are incorrect.

[Rosemary2205]

6. You can say it until you are blue in the face.

I've been saying it for months and taking A LOT of crap from my fellow DUers. There are just some on here who want to believe "impeach Bush and Cheney both- right now" represents America as a whole and won't accept anything else.

[ClassWarrior]

9. Yes, yes, we're powerless before our mighty overlords...

~yawn~

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. yawn away

I'm just correcting a common mistake that people make here.

[ClassWarrior]

127. Then you ought to be glad I kicked the thread.

By the way, I have faith in the American people. Once IMPEACHMENT hearings start to reveal the truth, they'll come around.

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

142. then

do you have any evidence to show that the majority of Americans favor impeaching Bush? If not, you're just jerking off here.

Edit: and your response was #127. I wasn't counting on your kick, but thanks anyway.

[Zhade]

227. Er, you haven't corrected a thing.

NT!

[MonkeyFunk]

235. Sure I have

people have said repeatedly that a majority of Americans favor impeaching Bush.

I have shown that's not true.

[Zhade]

243. Perhaps in your own mind.

I read many posts accurately refuting you.

[MonkeyFunk]

247. And those posts are wrong

45 < 50

[yurbud]

12. that wiretap question wasn't loaded--Bush admitted it and said he couldn't be expected to obey an

"old law"

[walldude]

16. Arrogant fuck isn't he...

[MonkeyFunk]

20. I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it out...

do you have a reference to Bush admitting to illegally wiretapping US citizens?

[yurbud]

87. see post #23

[DearAbby]

23. Didn't Comey testify that Bush had illegally

allowed the program to continue, after failing to gain the AG's signature? What other evidence is needed?

This was the testimony (Eye witness testimony) of the then acting Attorney General, who had refused to sign off on this program because he felt it was illegal. The starting the chain of events of "the ICU Caper" Where Gonzo and Card went to Ashcrofts sickbed to get him to sign it.


What other proof is needed? A signed confession from Bush himself?

[MonkeyFunk]

32. yes, you need proof

not just one person's testimony.

It's certainly the most useful crime to pursue, but it's hardly been proven.

[DearAbby]

64. Sir, this "just one person's testimony"

was the then acting Attorney General who's signature should have been placed on that document by law, the fact that he witnessed Gonzo and Card try to thwart his authority, by trying to get a post-op patient in ICU, to sign this document. He (Comey ((Then acting Attorney General))) wouldn't, he had read it and found it was illegal in his judgment.

Then he testified, Bush went ahead and had this program activated without any signature of the Justice Dept. Which makes it illegal, for that length of time.

This was not just any person's testimony. I would say that carries a little more weight.

[MonkeyFunk]

66. I'm not arguing

that Bush didn't break the law.

I'm saying that one person's testimony isn't going to convince 17 republican senators to remove him from office.

You need to build a case.

[DearAbby]

75. The impeachment process is exactly that

building the case. There is enough to begin the process. I can not see how you know who will vote for what, when the process hasn't been started or completed.

The impeachment hearings will expose these crimes...Do you know for sure how people will vote at the end of these hearings, after crimes have been exposed...like saying before a criminal trial, you know how those 12 jurors will vote before they are given the case. Are you the Amazing Kreskin?

[MonkeyFunk]

79. No

you build the case, then you impeach.

[nadinbrzezinski]

200. Impeachment is building the case

sorry... if I am not clear on this... but in order to convict before a grand jury, what impeachment is, YOU NEED TO BUILD A CASE

Is this clear enough for you, or you still need a translation?

By the way, the Trial is in the senate after a propper conviction by the grand jury

[MonkeyFunk]

203. You build a case

through investigations, which are happening now. When incontrovertible evidence is uncovered, then you vote to impeach.

When did the house first start impeachment hearings on Nixon? AFTER so much evidence was uncovered that Nixon's imvolvement was undeniable.

They didn't impeach, then start investigating watergate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

207. Building the case is PART of the Grand Jury

investigation

I truly have no idea why you are having a problem with this concept.

By the way, those in the in... they are doing all except calling it impeachment.

you see Conyers is a smart man.

But the impeachment process INCLUDES the investigations... They are INTEGRAL to the process

[MonkeyFunk]

214. oh jesus fucking christ

impeachment is equivalent to an indictment. You don't indict and THEN conduct the investigation.

You investigate THEN indict.

[nadinbrzezinski]

221. Ok let me try to explain it slowly ok

The IMPEACHMENT PROCESS ends with a bill of impeachment,

Before the bill of impeachment there are investigations

Jesus H Christ is this clear enough for you? Or do I need to draw pictures?

Hell to be even clearer, during the Summer of Fun back in the 70s we even had a Special Committe on Impeachment... (led by a US Senator) tell me exactly what they were doing... playing parchesse or ahem investigating and laying the facts together to draw a Bill of Impeachment?

[MonkeyFunk]

236. No

and it's "parchesi".

And if you honestly believe a Special Committee on Impeachment was led by a US Senator, you're too ignorant to continue arguing with.

The Senate doesn't impeach.

[Clark2008]

288. Actually, yes you do.

The DA presents enough evidence to the Grand Jury to prove that a crime PROBABLY took place. Upon receiving a "true bill," or indictment, then the DA CONTINUES to investigate the crime for presentation to a jury at a later date.

I covered enough court procedures during my 12 years as a journalist to know this fact. For 10 years, I was a police beat/court beat reporter for three newspapers.

In this case, what you would do is have impeachment hearings. If there is enough evidence to prove that a crime PROBABLY took place, then you vote to impeach. If a majority impeaches, then it is presented to the Senate for MORE hearings and a vote of conviction. For example, Clinton was impeached (indicted), but found essentially "not guilty" in the Senate (equivalent of a jury trial). Get it?

[Zhade]

229. The impeachment process ALWAYS begins with investigations.

They're the first step in impeachment proceedings.

Jesus, you don't even know what the fuck you're arguing against.

[MonkeyFunk]

272. that's exactly what I said

I don't know what you're disagreeing with.

Investigate, then impeach.

[yurbud]

88. impeachment will force media to put on the table offenses they have minimized or ignored altogether

which will shame the moderate republicans into voting to impeach.

[MonkeyFunk]

107. you think that there are 17 Republican senators

that can be shamed? I don't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. Then we might as well surrender

fly the white flag and suspend elections

Hail to the King, long live the king... those are the rights you are giving these criminals.

There rubicon has been crossed then

And that is exactly what the House and the Senate dems are doing. Boxer put it best, this is the closest this country has ever come to a dictartorship... and this is me, when historians look back at this time... they will ask once again, how could it happen in the good ol' US of A? We used to ask the same question about Germany, by the way

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snappyturtle]

147. Did you listen to Bill Moyers program last night on PBS? Fein

said that just the bringing of the impeachment process may well do all that is needed to get bush to back off his delusional and unconstitutional over reaching policies.....that's enough for me. The vote count be damned. What good does it do us to let things go on and on and on and on? imho

[nadinbrzezinski]

197. And that was the history with nixon

[madokie]

152. your words, Bushbots, apologists, weak-kneed and pussified.

no there isn't 67 votes so the hell with making an attempt to stop this runaway illegal maladministration from destroying all vestiges of what's left of our constitution because we don't have the 67 votes that haven't even been counted yet because they haven't been cast yet because the trial hasn't started yet because the house won't impeach yet because people like you keep reminding us that there isn't 67 vote to be had, yet somehow you just know the votes won't be there when the jury goes out for deliberations let alone when they come back in. no better mouthpiece could kkkarl rove have. you stop and think about it bro', Oh, I'll be keeping my Country and I'm be getting impeachment too, bank on it.

we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes,
we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, we don't have the votes, and on and on, sheeze

[davekriss]

188. Great post madokie

The MonkeyFunk camp should note that the poll numbers for impeachment rose a bit after the audacity of the Libby commutation. I believe fair airing of the abuses of the Bush administration will swell the polls in favor of impeachment.

[MonkeyFunk]

196. I couldn't agree more

and I favor continuing aggressive investigations to get the dirt on these bastards.

As far as a Monkeyfunk camp, I don't think there is one. My only point is that 45<50 and that doesn't tend to attract rabid followers.

[davekriss]

216. Point taken (nt)

[Zhade]

234. If you favor agressive investigations - ones with serious consequences - then you favor impeachment.

...since that's how the process works.

[MonkeyFunk]

240. You're wrong

You don't impeach and then investigate.

I favor investigations now that would lead, hopefully, to incontrovertible evidence that would lead not just to impeachment, but to conviction.

[nadinbrzezinski]

198. Sorry to bust your bubble but an impeach bot I am not

I am, on the other hand, a student of history.

As a student I know some facts you are ignoring, and they are... alas, part of the historical record

1.- There have been two impeachments in the history of the US (and if you are thinking Nixon you are wrong). Both were politically motivated and were a political witch hunt. Both were brought forth by the GOP, and in both cases the GOP paid a slight price at the polls in the next cycle. (I might remind you this is what our spineless leaders fear, the price)

2.- There was a threat of impeachment in a third case. It did not even start that way, since that minor break in wasn't anything important that people cared for. In the end a highly unpopular President was asked to resign by his own party, and had the guts, and political valor to do that (or was scared enough once he realized his OWN party would convict if he didn't step down). Oh and the party that pushed for that got a bumper crop of reps elected in the next cycle. Our reps would be well served to be reminded of that history.

3.- When the events of 1972-74 developed, in an amazing parallelism to the current environment, the GOP gave all the cover it could and then some to their President. There was talk back then that there were not enough votes, and that it was purely a waste of time. There was also talk that the country could not be governed while distracted with this impeachment talk. You may, or may not be aware, that the Congress chewed gum and walked at the same time. Yep... they governed and HELD investigations at the same time.

You may or may not be aware also that was changed the POV of the Republicans was not their good nature, or love of law, but... the fear of elections and loosing their jobs.

If you cannot see the parallels I cannot truly help you

We have 33 Senators up for grabs in the cycle. Most of them ARE republicans, and some of them have already seen the writing on the wall... just like the ghosts of '74. Their choice is quite simple: Do I stick it out with this President and go down with the titanic, or vote with the people? They will only do that if they are pestered in large numbers. The Libby affair has crystallized things for many of the little people and the little people are not happy... just like they were not after the Saturday Night Massacre.

Oh and there is something else, perhaps it has clouded my view of this matter.

...that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic... I've taken that oath and YOUR Constitution is under a frontal attack. If we are to remain a nation of laws and not of men, it is time to do the right thing.

But I repeat I am not a impeach bot, unless to be one means loves of country, and love of Constitution... In that case, I plead guilty and I will continue to fight and agitate for our spineless leaders to do the right thing. If they don't... I can almost guarantee that the Dems will loose both houses and even perhaps the WH... and... the country will loose whatever remains of Constitutional order. Dramatic, perhaps... but we are at one of those moments here the fate of this nation is up for grabs.

[madokie]

262. I want that oath they, all employees of our Country, take to mean something

I love my Country and I'll stand with her until I have no breath and I will only dig my heals in more and more as I keep hearing we can't we don't etc. we can and we must impeach. I took that oath myself and as far as I'm concerned I still live under it, no matter the years thats passed. Thanks ;-)

[yurbud]

144. even if they aren't, public will see their unwillingness to punish obvious, blatant crimes

and at least some will vote accordingly.

[walldude]

13. True that there is not a "majority"

I personally haven't made any claims. But think about it, you have 45% of Americans who want the President Impeached. Not censured, not reprimanded. But Impeached. Thats a mighty big number for such a huge action.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. I'm not arguing with that

I'm only disputing the oft-said factoid that the majority of Americans support impeaching him.

[piedmont]

18. I see it a different way. 36-52% support impeachment WITHOUT any additional info.

So without any conclusive evidence drawn from exhaustive investigations by Congress, somewhere around 36-52% are ready to impeach him solely on what we already know. Just wait a little while. That number will go up.

[Truthiness Inspector]

24. Wow

That should not be trumpeted on high.

Guilty until proven innocent, we don't need no steenkin conclusive investigations or convictions.

This is taking on lynch mob proportions.

[piedmont]

26. Impeachment doesn't mean what you apparently think it does.

Impeachment means that he would be PUT ON TRIAL. That's where the evidence comes in. Polling the American people about whether he should be impeached is like polling a grand jury over whether a case should go to trial. Except of course that the former isn't binding and the latter is.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. well

investigations usually occur BEFORE you indict. Impeachment is an indictment. You don't impeach, and THEN investigate.

You investigate, get the evidence, then impeach.

[piedmont]

34. We *are* investigating, last time I checked. And the support is coming based on the

preliminary findings of those investigations. Like I said, I'm encouraged by these numbers. I think they'll only get better.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. 'splain to me EXACTLY what Conyers and Leahy

to mention just two, are doing.

Last time I checked it was investingating, not playing parchesse

[MonkeyFunk]

43. don't be thick

I know they're investigating! I support it 100%! I'm saying that you don't impeach and THEN investigate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. They are investigating, and they will impeach

ONLY after they finish doing that, and IF we push them for it.

Operative words here, WE THE PEOPLE need to push for it. During watergate they were pushed, they did not go there willingly.

[MonkeyFunk]

53. Then push for investigations!

I know I am!

But I'm not pushing for impeachment now, because it would be futile.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. The system needs you to tell then what you want as an end

result

This means, impeachment.

We all know how the game is played...

By the way, the investigations are implicit in any call for impeachment, since this is a grand jury conviction. NO grand jury conviction is done WITHOUT a propper investigation. I am aware my criters are aware of this. Are yours that naive to be unable to know that impeachment only comes after an investigation?

[MonkeyFunk]

57. My critter

is one of the co-sponsors of the Kucinich bill. Stop being so condescending.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. So your critter knows how the game is played

thank you for playing

[Hamlette]

60. not only is it futile, we could engender sympathy for the SOB if we start screaming "impeach"

Support for Clinton went up during impeachment, people thought he was unfairly treated.

52% of Americans supported impeaching Nixon in June 1974, about 2 months or less before he resigned.

There is no evidence of a crime. Bush has, as far as I've seen, covered himself. Think of the way he phrased the 16 words. I was a criminal defense attorney years ago and they would laugh these allegations out of court. I know, impeachment is a political act, not a criminal act but even as much as I hate the bastard we shouldn't use it to get rid of an unpopular president (think Truman, Carter)

I agree we should investigate. In fact, I want to see some investigations about war profiteering. Is that being done?

[Art_from_Ark]

70. I respectfully disagree

The party bringing impeachment threats or actual proceedings against a president has never really suffered for it at the polls--

Look at the historical precedent:
Andrew Johnson, Democrat, impeached in February 1868 for "violating" the unconstitutional Tenure Act. Repubs won the presidential election in November of that year, and went on to hold the reins of power for 36 of the next 44 years.

Richard Nixon, Republican, was not officially impeached, but resigned in August 1974 as it became apparent that if he didn't, impeachment would be his fate. Democrats made big gains in 1974 House elections, and won the 1976 Presidential election in large part because of Nixon's corruption and subsequent pardon by Gerald Ford.

William Jefferson Clinton, Democrat, was impeached in 1998 for one of the most inane reasons imaginable. Yet, two years later, despite Clinton's supposed popularity even during the height of these proceedings, many people refused to vote for the (far, far) better Presidential candidate, Al Gore, because of baggage from these proceedings, and we ended up with Repubs in solid control of all branches of the government for the next 6 years (and arguably longer).

[davekriss]

189. You don't need a crime to impeach...

...you just need a clear abuse of power. Where does it say the President gets to interpret and decide via signing statements how he will carry out (or IF he will carry out) a new law? Did Bush forget that we have a judiciary?

The biggest reason to impeach is, if we don't, we are implicitly accepting the Bush usurping of powers not given to him by the Constitution. Like frogs in slowly boiling water, we empower the next and possibly worse tyranny.

[demgurl]

278. You do not need a crime to impeach.....

When the constitution was written part of it was done with the thoughts of impeachment for exactly this particular scenario. They thought that with the power to pardon and commute sentences a president trying to make a power grab may decide to pardon or commute sentences of those who could testify against him. Doing this makes the president untouchable and we would be unable to convict him at all. We inherited prescription for this EXACT scenario and it is called impeachment. It has been the rule of the land since the constitution was delivered to us. We must make the most of our inheritance and follow our responsibilities.

[Spazito]

77. Wrong, the Impeachment process is the equivalent of laying charges

here is the process:

snip

Although the Constitution does not elaborate on impeachment procedures, the established House practice is to begin with a resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to investigate the charges brought forth.

The House Judiciary Committee then holds hearings and investigates the charges.

If the Judiciary Committee's findings support the charges, it issues an impeachment resolution, which include Articles of Impeachment, to the full House. If the committee believes impeachment is unwarranted, it issues such a resolution to the full House.

The resolution then goes to House floor for consideration. If the House adopts any one of the Articles of Impeachment by a simple majority vote, the official is considered impeached and the matter goes to the Senate for trial.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/guide.html

On order to INVESTIGATE, charges have to be laid which is the BEGINNING of the Impeachment process which is the opposite of what you are saying.

The House investigates through the Impeachment process and, if they find the charges have merit, they Impeach whereby the Trial is held in the Senate.

[TreasonousBastard]

35. That's true, and even more to the point...

is just how are any impeachment sentiments reflected in DC?

As I've said a number of times, around 400 House members were returned to their seats, presumably to do what they've been doing since they've been there, and none had impeachment in their campaign literature.

The Senate does not have even a slim Democratic majority right now, and there is still no guarantee that all Democrats will vote for impeachment-- it comes down to getting at least half the Republicans to go along.

trhen, even more to the point is the raw politics of impeachment-- we've got a number of Senators running for President from both parties, and none of them, nor their supports on the Hill, have any interest in seeing a new face in the Oval Office that might just run in '08 and have a real lead going in.

[melody]

61. The problem, as ever, is in the way the question is asked

If someone asked me if I supported impeaching Bush first, I'd say no.
I support impeaching Cheney first and then Bush.

[SoCalDem]

65. DURING the Clinton Impeachment he had a 70% approval rating

and AFTER ...it went up to 73%

just sayin'

[blogslut]

67. Ya gotta admit

45% is still a lotta people. :)

[MonkeyFunk]

68. indeed it is!

I'm only arguing against people who claim that Congress is not doing the will of the people because "the majority of americans support impeaching Bush".

[blogslut]

69. Well, here's my feeling

I want them gone. Whatever makes that happen, short of violence, I'm all for it. My fantasy is that the threat of an impeachment trial will make those cockroaches resign.

[nolabels]

71. They probably will if he can ever get enough military fools to green light Iran

Many U.S. Citizens still tune to corporate network news night after night even though at some level most know they are being lied to. Mostly a lot of things won't change till a lot of them get out of their comfort level.

The biggest problem it seems is that this time it might be too late :shrug:

[MagickMuffin]

72. A quick google turned up these polls...........

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

Live Vote
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 485469 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
88%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4.2%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
5.6%
I don't know.
1.8%


http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/
Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?
7/5/07 Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 45% 46% 9%
Voters 46% 44% 10%
Democrats (38%) 69% 22% 9%
Republicans (29%) 13% 86% 1%
Independents (33%) 50% 30% 20%
3/15/06 42% 49% 9%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.

Link below has some other questions concerning impeachment and other hot topics. The poll about impeachment went something like this:

USA Today/Gallup Poll. July 6-8, 2007. N=1,014 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"As you may know, impeachment is the first step in the constitutional process for removing a president from office, in which possible crimes are investigated and charges are made. Do you think there is or is not justification for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush at this time?"


There Is Justification There Is Not Justification Unsure
36% 62% 3%

more interesting data at link below
http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm


As a side note: I had the data spaced out to be able to read it better, however, when I went and previewed it didn't show up with all the spacing I added:shrug: If you feel inclined then check out the links provided in my post.
Also I'm not sure when the MSNBC poll was taken. I voted.

[MonkeyFunk]

84. the msnbc poll is an online poll

which is worth the paper it's written on.

The other two are the ones I referred to, showing 36% and 45% of Americans supporting impeachment.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.

[MagickMuffin]

86. Just supplying data

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.

Is it necessary that I have to agree or disagree with you?:shrug:

[madokie]

73. me thinks someone here likes to argue for the sake of arguing

not for the sake of sharing knowledge but for the sake of arguing and arguing only, :shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

80. Can you argue with the substance of my thread?

Or do you just want to cast sly little insults?

[Xenotime]

76. That poll is bull "fucking" shit

Americans want them out! NOW!

[MonkeyFunk]

81. got any evidence

that the majority of americans want Bush impeached?

[Xenotime]

128. His approval rating is the worst for any president?

It's the topic of discussion almost anywhere.

[MonkeyFunk]

155. got any evidence

that the majority of americans favor impeaching Bush, which is, after all, the topic of this thread.

[in_cog_ni_to]

78. 46no/45 yes...I'd say that's pretty damn close to even steven. NOT a MAJOR MAJORITY.

You forgot to show the poll.



July 6th, 2007 8:41 pm
Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday.

The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.

The study by the private New Hampshire-based ARG canvassed 1,100 Americans by telephone July 3-5 and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points. The findings are available on ARG's Internet site.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=10000

Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?
7/5/07 Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 45% 46% 9%
Voters 46% 44% 10%
Democrats (38%) 69% 22% 9%
Republicans (29%) 13% 86% 1%
Independents (33%) 50% 30% 20%
3/15/06 42% 49% 9%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

[MonkeyFunk]

82. how does that in any way refute

what I said?

[BuyingThyme]

83. They would had Nancy Pelosi not attacked the Constitution.

[Joe Fields]

85. For one thing, the majority of Americans are clueless as to what has gone

on in this administration. And so, if 45 percent are in favor of impeachment, that, to me is an overwhelming number of Americans. How many millions of Americans would you say 45% constitute?

[MonkeyFunk]

108. that has nothing to do with my argument

which is simply that those who claim a majority of Americans support impeachment are just plain wrong.

[babylonsister]

89. It had to start somewhere and did; now it's slowly building support.

Consider how many times you heard the "I" word even 6 months ago compared to now. I think it's really becoming a viable idea.

[Mabus]

120. Exactly, remember in May of this year when the pollster refused to ask the question at all?

Headlines from After Downing Street (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling)

June 2007: Harris does online poll on impeachment but does not publish results.

June 14, 2007: CNN's polling director comments on impeaching Cheney, but has done no poll.

June 4, 2007: American Research Group refuses to poll, even for money.

May 30, 2007: Harris refuses to poll on impeachment, even for money.

May 29, 2007: Ipsos refuses to poll on impeachment, even for money.

[rodeodance]

204. and it was to say the I word

[ljm2002]

91. So it's 45% who want to impeach the b*stard...

...that's what, 15% more than ever wanted to impeach Clinton. Yet Clinton's name will always be besmirched with an impeachment, and Bush will get a pass?

[JacquesMolay]

92. Why impeach when you can prosecute?

The democrats in Congress should bring in a special prosecutor to investigate his illegal wiretapping. He openly ignored the law, which carefully prescribes conditions (and punishments for violating them) for obtaining warrants. My guess is that he would be indicted.

[mmonk]

123. No current code of law for it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

93. You Are Right, Of Course. But That Won't Stop Them From Using It Again.

Extremists get so wrapped up in their own delusional world, that they begin to lose grasp on what is real and what isn't, and start to think that the whole world thinks just like they do. It's a bit scary.

[IChing]

138. Extremists get so wrapped up in their own delusional world

Just like Global warming, which I fought against you, constitutional crisis, which I fought against you,
and in war meanwhile
you drive your SUV to Wal-mart and ask humanity
and your so called children to keep the status quo.


You seem to have a new theme going

[0007]

192. 'Tis the new wave ....... mommy mommy those bullies are

doing it again kind of thingie.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

287. Ummmm, Like What The Fuck Are You Talking About?

Are you proving me right?

Global warming: It's a huge problem that requires immediate attention. I support Gore's efforts 100% and think the administrations hampering of efforts is disgraceful. Yet you act as if I'm on their side? That's delusional.

Constitutional crisis: Obviously of monumental importance. This administration is destroying this country and the world at the same time. Never before have we seen such disregard for our constitution. The entire reason I'm on DU is out of recognition for how dangerous this administration is to the very core of our country and its ideals. Yet you have the gall to infer I don't believe we're in a constitutional crisis? Again, how delusional.

The war: An absolute disgrace based on lies in which countless thousands have perished for nothing. I'm 100% against the war and want our troops home safely asap. Yet you act as if I support it somehow? Again, totally delusional.

So what is this new theme iching? Do you even have any idea what you're talking about? I drive an SUV and sometimes shop at walmart. Big fucking deal. Are you some perfect holier than though liberal of which no stones can be thrown? Of course you ain't, and to think so would be additionally delusional. So spare me your falsely perceived attacks of nonsense, as they ring hollow and are of delusional roots.

If we've fought about anything, it would my challenging of extremism, delusion, ignorant premise or unproductive actions. It would've been against closed minded or narrow minded perception of which my challenge was necessary. But to for a second try and act like I support the war, don't take the constitutional crisis seriously, or think global warming is no big deal, shows a level of marvelous stupidity.

[EVDebs]

95. Investigation for TREASON trumps impeachment any day...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1325134&mesg_id=1325379

[Warren Stupidity]

96. The fact that even your data shows 45% in favor

and more in favor than opposed, BEFORE any actual effort to impeach, indicates that there is an enormous amount of support for holding this administration accountable for what it has done and is doing.

However, regardless of popular support, the question that is most important is 'has this administration committed high crimes and misdemeanors that constitute an impeachable violation of their sworn duty?' and the answer is of course, 'yes they have'.

[ProSense]

100. Impeach Bush: Democrats 69%, Independents 50%, Republicans 13%

Question:

Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?

The numbers are being dragged down by Republicans.

Impeachment Fever: America's Got It!



They impeached Clinton with less than a third of the country's support (read: Republicans) and for charges that had nothing to do with lying to start a war, leaking a CIA agent's name (treason), illegally spying on Americans and a other illegal activities.

[Lerkfish]

102. I'm fascinated that the subsets of Clinton supporters and impeachment detractors on this board

appear to intersect.

:shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

122. revenge is a dish best served cold

you'd think that they would want to get back at the vast rightwing conspiracy that did them in.

then again collusion is in the act not the word

[Lerkfish]

103. Impeachment should not be a popularity contest, but rather a solemn duty if crimes are committed

and guess what? impeachable crimes have been committed.

enough of this distraction., the real question is and should be, whether congress will perform its sworn duty to uphold the constitituion or not?

[lala_rawraw]

104. the "if" is misleading...

it was illegal per Comey's testimony, everyone knew it was illegal.

[Stinky The Clown]

105. I'll stipulate your poll number citations, but take issue with your posit

To call it 'simply and utterly untrue' is sorta stretching language to favor your view. The numbers are what they are and they make your case. A very large minority, but not a true majority, favor impeaching Bush. Using those same polls, it is also true to say that a small majority favor impeaching Cheney right now.

You diminish your POV by using language that borders on hyperbole.

[MonkeyFunk]

109. If we take the highest number, 45%

it's either greater than 50% or less than 50%.

I posit that 45<50, therefore, the claim that the majority of Americans support impeachng Bush is entirely untrue.

[Stinky The Clown]

110. Sorry ......

It is 'untrue'.

It needs no modifiers.

It is binary.

'simply and utterly' and 'entirely' add nothing to the argument. Those words do, however, add the implication, unsaid but clear, that support for the measure is very low. *That* is also untrue.

[MonkeyFunk]

111. there are people in this very thread

arguing that the statement is sorta true, and they parse the numbers in a stupid way to prove it.

Nowhere have I implied the numbers are very low. In fact, I provided the numbers in my original post.

You're seeing something that's just not there.

[Stinky The Clown]

113. Your OP used "simply and utterly"

before anyone responded.

I think the notion that some are arguing it is 'sorta true' might also be stated as 'support is close to a majority', making the notion that it is 'sorta true' almost .... well ..... true.

But that's not my argument.

[Beelzebud]

112. Do we enforce laws based on opinion polls now?

[MonkeyFunk]

156. nope

but I've never argued that, so I don't know why you bring it up.

I'm not arguing for or against impeachment based on the poll numbers.

I'm arguing that those who claim the majority of Americans favor impeaching Bush are wrong.

[LittleClarkie]

114. argumentum ad populum

Kind of like a cat puffing itself up to look bigger.

[yodermon]

115. You are wrong.

A Newsweek poll from 10/2006 indicates the following:

* 28% of all Americans say impeaching Bush should be a "top priority"
* 23% of all Americans say impeaching Bush should be a "lower priority" {NOT "don't do it", just "lower priority"}
* 44% of all Americans say impeaching Bush should Not be done.

This leaves 5% undecided, but I am inferring this because the article does not state the exact undecided number.

By my reading, as of October 2006, 51% of all Americans thought that impeaching Bush should have some level of priority in the Democratic agenda.

Now granted, this was not a simple binary "do you think bush should be impeached, yes or no" question, it was a "Do you agree with the Democratic agenda poll." But it's still enough evidence for me to say that your "simply and utterly untrue" assersion is, well, simply & utterly untrue.
Since now I can point to this poll and say "A minority of Americans think that the Democrats should not impeach Bush". Capisci?

And to further fuck with your mind, check out the paragraph that Newsweek actually uses to present this data:

Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a “top priority,” but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done. (Five percent of Republicans say it should be a top priority and 15 percent of Republicans say it should be a lower priority; 78 percent oppose impeachment.)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/page/2/

So, where their own data indicate that over half of all Americans believe that impeaching Bush should have some level of support in the Congress, they lead off with a headline that indicates the complete opposite. Doublespeak at its best.

Don't fall for it.

Bottom line is, we need more polling on this, and saturation polling, a la 1998.

here's a good run down of the state of impeachment polling in the US. Note how many polling org's are just outright refusing to poll on the topic!

[ima_sinnic]

116. gee, I wonder why I get the feeling that that "fact" makes you very very happy?

-- and this is far from your only post that shows where you're coming from ... and I'm sure it won't be the last.

[MonkeyFunk]

157. The fact doesn't make me happy

but when people lie and say the majority of americans favor impeaching Bush, that makes me less happy.

Lying doesn't help us.

[Alexander]

117. Bush DID illegally wiretap Americans.

So your premise is BS.

[mmonk]

118. That's very high for a populace largely ignorant of the crimes.

It certainly is no justification not too. 08 is going to be very tough for me. I'm just not going to be happy nor optimistic nor comfortable with my life here. My anger will stay with me.

[Nunyabiz]

119. Yeah 50% at least favor Impeachment

Now just imagine what that percentage would be IF WE HAD A PHUCKING GD REAL NEWS MEDIA!!! instead of these Reich wing hacks that are lying through their teeth every hour on the hour 24/7.

Most people in this country don't have a clue what is going on, they are idiots.

[Orsino]

121. Nor do we support much of anything else that Congress does...

...but they only balk at actually opposing corruption, don't they?

[leftofthedial]

126. the majority of aMurkans supported shock and awe

what's your point?

[MonkeyFunk]

160. my point

which I've stated at least a dozen times, is that some people here claim that the majority of Americans favor impeaching Bush. They are incorrect.

[Forkboy]

132. Let's decide justice based on polls!

Hurrah!!!!

[MonkeyFunk]

161. Nobody's ever argued that

I'm not arguing for or against impeachment based on the polls.

I'm arguing simply that those who say the majority of Americans favor impeaching Bush are wrong.

[nolabels]

133. I am not really sure about any kind of poll but would gladly contribute.....

to the fund for a * plane ticket to the Hague :shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hague

[mudesi]

134. A WHOLE FIVE percent?!

It's also untrue that light travels at exactly 300,000 km per second in a vacuum, or that there are 24 hours in a day...

:eyes::eyes::eyes:

[book_worm]

140. That's a pretty significant minority, much higher than those who favored impeaching Clinton

but the GOP did it anyway.

[yurbud]

145. Wall Street Journal GRAPHIC comparing Clinton & Bush impeachment poll numbers:

[Perky]

150. An old poll to be sure but if the numbers have not moved

significantly than there is no additional momentum toward impeachment.

[yurbud]

151. there is still minimal coverage of the issue and almost no discussion by Dems vs. 24/7 Clinton

impeachment coverage.

[MonkeyFunk]

162. indeed it is!

My argument is solely that it's not a majority, as many here claim.

[Retired AF Dem]

146. The majority of Americans

are sick of the silly little games between Dems and Repugs. The majority of Americans want an effective Govt.

[Neshanic]

148. They just don't make leaders like the ones that impeached Nixon anymore.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

149. If Shrub doesn't give a flying f*ck about polls, why should we? That said.

It is the LEGAL Obligation of the House To Pursue Impeachment. Period, End Of Story! Watch Moyers' Program from last night. A Must See!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1332753

Once you view it, I'm sure you never would have started this thread.

[yurbud]

153. I wonder what the numbers would be if you put up offenses Nixon was going to be impeached for

or what they were at the time.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

158. Articles of Impeachment for Nixon

http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

Articles of Impeachment Adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary
July 27, 1974

* Article 1
* Article 2
* Article 3
* Analysis of the Judiciary Committee Votes

Article 1
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

ARTICLE 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

4. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

5. approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

6. endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

7. disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

8. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

9. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


Adopted 27-11 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, at 7.07pm on Saturday, 27th July, 1974, in Room 2141 of the Rayburn Office Building, Washington D.C.

* Listen to the roll call of the Judiciary Committee on the First Article of Impeachment
* Listen to the Announcement of the Vote


Article 2
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

2. He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

3. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

4. He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

5. In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


Adopted 28-10 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.


Article 3
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


Adopted 21-17 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

[yurbud]

210. I mean poll numbers if you asked people about any one offense

[HCE SuiGeneris]

159. blah blah blah...

spouting away to validate what? that you are always correct? tiresome

[MonkeyFunk]

167. do you have evidence

that the majority of Americans support impeaching Bush?

blah blah blah indeed. Why not add something of substance to the thread?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

176. There is no substance in the OP other than you want to

"set everyone straight". What a waste of time.

[MonkeyFunk]

183. why is it a waste?

it's a simple factual matter.

People here have asserted repeatedly that the majority of Americans support impeaching Bush.

I'm showing evidence that that assertion is untrue.

That's the entire extent of my argument. Can you dispute it?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

163. Firstly, in this country we don't decide whether or not...

...to hold someone to account for their criminal behavior by popular vote. If Bush and Cheney have violated the law and committed serious impeachable offenses (and we know they have) and continue to do so, it is OUR DUTY to impeach.

Secondly, just because someone doesn't vote saying they think Bush should be impeached doesn't necessarily mean they are opposed to the introduction of articles of impeachment with scheduled hearings. It may mean they're not sure and would like to see what public hearings would expose.

Thirdly, just because you don't like a question that you have no answer for doesn't mean it's loaded.

[BeFree]

164. Dream on

The people will impeach bushco, and nothing you say or do will stop us.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

[MonkeyFunk]

168. I'm not trying to stop it

I'm stating that those who claim the majority of Americans support impeaching Bush are wrong. The majority of Americans do not support impeaching Bush.

That's the entire extent of my argument - anything else you read into it is purely of your own design.

[mmonk]

172. We will never agree in a million years as to the importance of protecting our democracy.

But to let the greatest assault on the system since the Civil War slide is an awful and high risk idea. I consider all who support the crimes to stand my political opposition on some level. We can survive together but we have a permanent disagreement. Whether the system survives only time will answer.

[MonkeyFunk]

175. I think we largely agree

on the importance of protecting our democracy.

Pointing out a simple fact regarding recent polls says nothing about my position on protecting democracy.

[mmonk]

181. I wasn't speaking particularly to you per se.

You were just stating the percentage breakdown of a poll and making a statement. I was speaking generally in America and my approach to those that have a nonchalant approach over all that has happened. If all that has happened doesn't push them to agreement to a vigorous defense of our core liberties and freedoms and thus a desire to impeach, then no actions by any elected officials will convince them.

[MonkeyFunk]

184. to be clear

I want Bush removed. I wanted him removed 6 years ago. I think he's the worst President in history.

Now what I want and what I think is possible are two different things.

[mmonk]

194. I would like impeachment by the House.

The democrats have the number to do that to one of the most egregious violators of our constitutional democracy. That they don't is a failure of character.

[Ghost in the Machine]

174. The 'majority' of Americans didn't even vote. Fuck what *they* think

take a poll of registered voters and see what they have to say.

As far as I'm concerned, the people who don't exercise their right to vote don't have any right to run their mouths about anything.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

178. Precisely. I would love to see that poll.

[MonkeyFunk]

186. it's a non-sequitor

I'm merely refuting those who have posted that the majority of americans support impeaching Bush.

It's funny how people read so much more into my argument.

[Ghost in the Machine]

190. I understand your point you were making about incorrect statistics

I was just offering up a different solution...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

179. also if the dems start impeachment proceedings that number is gonna drop

bush will look like a victim of partisan politics and people love the underdog.

[Bucky]

182. That's 36-45% saying yes when there's no action from Congress & no debate on the issue

The statement that "most" support impeachment is factually wrong, but it's misleading to suggest that's a static number. Opinions are fluid and will shift with events and information.

[MonkeyFunk]

187. of course

I never argued otherwise.

My only argument is that people who say the majority of Americans support impeachng Bush are wrong.

They use that false fact to argue that Pelosi, Reid, et. al. are somehow betraying democracy and betraying the will of the people by not supporting impeachment right now.

I'm only arguing that the majority of americans do not support impeachment. Anything else people are reading into my argument is purely on their part.

[MilesColtrane]

205. MonkeyFunk, why do you hate America?

Just kidding.

Some of the posts in this thread are amazing. Whatever happened to reading for comprehension?

[w8liftinglady]

206. I think it depends on the poll and how it's worded.

Most people are afraid of what will happened if Cheney is the president.

[Duer 157099]

212. then, The majority of Americans do NOT support the Constitution

it's as simple as that.

[SoonerPride]

217. Irrelevant

It makes no difference or way or they other what the public favors or wants.

90% could want it and it still won't happen.

[MonkeyFunk]

242. I haven't argued

that the poll numbers should effect whether or not impeachment happens.

I am arguing against the claim, made repeatedly, that the majority of Americans support impeaching bush.

[ecstatic]

248. Did the majority of Americans want Paris Hilton jailed?

Who cares! If you are a criminal breaking the law then you should be punished. Polls do not and should not dictate our justice system.

[Babsbrain]

249. bullshit

[MonkeyFunk]

250. That's an eloquent

argument, but can you refute the facts?

[Babsbrain]

251. Can you tell who conducted the 'recent poll'?

[MonkeyFunk]

252. Yes I can

or you could read the thread and learn for yourself.

But I'll save you time and tell you it was Gallup and American Research Group.

[Zorra]

253. Big deal. The rat bastard needs to be put in prison, and 3/4 of

the world knows it.

[MonkeyFunk]

254. Not arguing with that

only the assertion that the majority of amricans support impeaching bush.

Why can't anybody read?

[locopolitico]

255. enough with impeachment

The surest way to elect another Republican president would be for the left to fixate on trying to impeach Bush (which will never succeed). Republicans are demoralized and disillusioned right now, and hardly have a reason to get up in the morning. The last thing we need to do is wake them up.

[mmonk]

265. Enough with the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The people aren't amart enough to understand crimes against the constitution and we must have the courage to throw away the freedoms and constructs of this nation for the political aspirations of our political heroes. Protecting this nation and the rights of the people is for wimps.

[Decruiter]

259. Congrats, MonkeyFunk, you did set off the debate. IMHO with a red herring or two.

But hey, you got the response, you started the debate. What you believe and what your purpose is, well it remains to be seen. I have my doubts.

Thanks and well,

Peace

[MonkeyFunk]

270. what red herring?

is 45 < 50 or is 45 > 50?

That's pretty much the extent of my argument.

[spirit of wine]

266. The virtual land of the internet

Seems to have the discussion of impeachment ON the table. The ship has sailed and will not turn back, at what point does it get to the point of no return or has it already gone passed that is something we are talking about right now. So, this administration is TOAST- it is just a matter of when enough people want to admit that. This is going to be a Hot Summer, both here and abroad. Stay safe.

-Peace

[demgurl]

274. The majority of citizens may think speed limits are unfair.....

but that does not mean that the cops will bow to the will of the people and dispense of all future speeding tickets.

I am actually quite impressed with the numbers you quote because most people in this country are in the dark about what is truly going on behind the scenes. With a media that has been complicit in the cover-up of this administration's crimes, those are hefty numbers you quoted.

But getting back to the original topic of impeachment. It does not matter what the people thing because we are a country built on law and order. The founding fathers knew something like this could happen and wrote a remedy for it. Madison said that impeachment is there to address a president who has taken too much power into his hands and is obstructing the justice system by doing commutations for his staff thereby also protecting himself. While blow jobs are not addressed, this situation with Libby is specifically addressed. I think I trust our founders as to what is best for our country, not people who have no idea what has been going on the last few years.

We are a country of laws. Yes, we are a Democracy but that has never meant we take polls or votes to see if someone is convicted of a crime. If someone is suspected of breaking a law then we let the justice system work it out, not our citizens. This is a clear case for our courts. We must stand by our country and not party lines because we are in a crisis and our country needs us. We must step up and take on the responsibility we inherited from our forefathers. We are at the front line of this battle and we must fight with all we've got. It is imperative that justice wins or all else will be lost.

[MonkeyFunk]

276. all well and good

but entirely beside the point.

[demgurl]

281. I know what you are saying.....

but you can not just give poll numbers and not take it to the next logical step. Yes, the poll you stated above does say the majority of Americans do not favor impeachment. I will give you that. You are right.

When posters say the majority of Americans want this they are not saying it for the numbers, they are saying they are frustrated with our leaders and the unasked question, that should be assumed, is why are our leaders not doing anything?

I guess I am a lot like Homeland Security. I see the numbers and I get a 'gut' feeling about Americans. We can go into all sorts of things like psychology and bring up things such as when you do not see others demanding it you are more likely to not demand it yourself. It is like when someone gets attacked but everyone stands around doing nothing because when they look around everyone else is doing the same thing.

But there is ultimately more to it. There is also the fact that most of the country have been shielded from Bush's deeds by the media. Heck, when I tried to educate my family they asked me not to write any more because they did not want to hear it!

Then there are the 32 percenters who would never abandon Bush just because there is an 'R' next to his name and fuck the country, always go for politics!

I guess what I am really trying to say is a few people have said they see your side but we can not work together as a country if you do not try and see the other side. You just dismiss people by saying things like 'that's beside the point'. Maybe if we could have a little more conversation we all might get along a little better and many point of views could be validated since people take the time to think a lot of these out.

If we really must only concentrate on the numbers then so be it. The numbers come with a point about our leaders. Perhaps these people saw a different poll then you or are taking into consideration the pluses and minuses of the numbers. With that, they are almost even. (yes, not ahead) But I think people are also trying to give the American citizens the benefit of the doubt. They believe the citizens have been shielded and once the information starts dripping out they will see the light.

I think the basic reason why so many people are saying 'besides the point' type of things is that a lot of times we infer things from statements. With the posters you talk about I infer not that they are pollsters but that they want our government to start moving forward and they wish everyone would get on board. When I first saw your post it really came across as correcting those who want to impeach and silently asking why we are even looking at the issue at all. Did you say this? No, but look at some of the answers people gave. It came across that way to a lot of people and when you are responsible for posts like that you just need to take a step back, perhaps edit it, and just have a polite conversation with those who choose to interact with you. I am not saying that inferences are always right but I am saying when so many people seem to be getting the same inference then we must look within ourselves and correct what they see. Something made people say the things they did.

And, once again, your numbers state what you say they state.

[HughMoran]

285. Cheney = Yes - so lets start with him

52% is good enough for me. For that many people to want to resort to such an extreme measure, the time is now.