29!

I'm going with stupid:

http://www.udargo.com/mub/2006/05/bush_losing_core_supporters.html

That's a premature conclusion. The 71% contains some fraction who believe that "Bush doesn't go far enough..."

And yet, there stand the Democrats, doing nothing.

This administration seems to do anything it wants, and is very vulnerable right now, and the Democrats can't figure out what to do about it.

My suggestion: Get outraged, especially after the revelation regarding our phone calls. Correction: YOUR phone calls.

Worst administation in history, and the Democrats can't recall the memory that a far better president (Clinton) was impeached for far less. Remember that. Grow some outrage. Save a country while there's still time.

A splendid quote from the Udargo piece:

Laura McDonald, a total fucking moron from Chandler, Arizona, says she is disappointed that the president hasn't been a more forceful advocate of Christian values. "This country was founded on Christian values," she says, "but you'd never know it looking around and seeing all the Mexicans running around. I thought Bush was going to bring Jesus back into the government. Instead, Christians are being persecuted worse than ever before in history, because all these Mexicans come here and tell Christians that we have to respect their religious beliefs. So now it's illegal for children to pray in school. Soon it will be illegal for them to speak English."

Well, MikeM, the Washington Post is reporting this morning that 63% of Americans support the NSA's program to collect information on domestic phone calls. Only 24% strongly object to it. I mean, what are the Democrats supposed to do when confronted by those numbers? I'm not sure I can fault them for sometimes curling up in a corner and sucking their thumbs.

I don't know when Americans became such a cowardly people. Some idiots fly some planes into some buildings and we wet our pants and start begging the government to take our rights from us. I guess we figure that, if the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, they'll stop hating us if we give our freedoms up. Or something.

How can Democrats take a courageous, principled stand when the American people are such whimpy losers?

Here's a link to the WaPo article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR20060…

Very discouraging.

I resent the slur on weasels, they are generally far nicer and much more reasonable then Ann Coulter

Udargo:

that's a crap poll by the Post. It doesn't even mention the fact that the spying is illegal. Americans don't mind the idea that the President should be pursuing terrorists. But they do stand behind the rule of law. They certainly don't want to see a President who thinks he's above the law.

What should the Democrats do? Point out that the President is breaking the law. Point it out again and again. Bring it up every time you go on TV or give a speech. Keep doing it until the lawbreaking stops.

There's no point of being in politics if you're willing to let the opposition violate the law. What's the goal - to pass more laws that can be ignored? Check out Glenn Greenwald's blog for more...he's been an invaluable resource for following the NSA scandals.

And BTW, it's no accident that Bush's ratings have now reached the 29%. It takes a real cognitive failure to think that 65% of the public approves of the President's actions, which have been increasingly revealed to be illegal in recent months, a development that has been accompanied by a severe drop in Bush's approval ratings.

Let's see the Post put together a poll that, instead of framing the question as "terrorism vs. privacy rights" phrases it as "law adherence vs. lawbreaking".

I'll be happy to volunteer to write the question. I'm sure Glenn Greenwald would also be free for such a task.

"Shortly after his inauguration Bush joked to a crowd of Washington insiders: 'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you need to concentrate on.'"
(reported in the 8/14/03 USA Today, p.13A)

And yet, there stand the Democrats, doing nothing.

Indeed, and here's Nancy Pelosi coming right out and saying that they will continue to do nothing.&nbsp

"This country was founded on Christian values...but you'd never know it looking around and seeing all the Mexicans running around..."
"...all these Mexicans come here and tell Christians that we have to respect their religious beliefs."

This is ironic on so many levels it's too funny (or is that too scary?)

1) Isn't tolerance a "Christian value"?

2) Since when were "Mexicans" and "Christians" mutually exclusive? How are the religious beliefs of Mexicans counter to those of Christians? Are Catholics no longer Christians?

3) Is it the Mexicans themselves that are antithetical to Christian values? Or is it the "running around"? Or is it specifically, Miexicans running around?

(Gotta say "Mexicans running around" is a great visual - how dare they, for Christ's sake! Running around like that. Back in the day, Mexicans most certainly did NOT run around)

RickD

So even though the Administration and the NSA are insisting that the program wasn't illegal, and even though no court has yet ruled that it was illegal, you think the appropriate way for the Washington Post to frame the issue is "Do you agree with the president breaking the law to fight terrorism?"

Well, I think you'd probably be disappointed with the poll results even if that question were asked.

As someone above pointed out, part of the reason Bush's approval ratings have sunk so low is because of frustration among his conservative base. Those people are turning against him because of the Dubai ports deal and the fact he's taken a moderate stance on illegal immigration. The last poll I saw showed that almost half of the American people still think he's doing a good job fighting terrorism.

even though no court has yet ruled that it was illegal, you think the appropriate way for the Washington Post to frame the issue is "Do you agree with the president breaking the law to fight terrorism?"

As long as your average slob thinks the wiretaps and seized phone records will only ever happen to OTHER people, who are probably 'bad' (after all, why would the govt. be investigating them if they weren't guilty?), then the public won't be bothered by the silent dismantling of the 4th Amendment. The question to start asking people in polls would be something more like "Would YOU be willing to have your phone tapped and YOUR phone and credit records seized in order fight terrorism? Are YOU willing to be imprisoned without probable cause or trial in order to fight terrorism?" I'd be a lot more interested to see those numbers.

George, they did ask them that as part of this poll:

"If you found out that the NSA had a record of phone numbers that you yourself have called, would that bother you, or not? IF YES: Would it bother you a lot, or just somewhat?"

Yes: 34% (A lot:24%; Somewhat:10%)

No: 66%

That's what I'm talking about. And all you can do is uselessly quote Ben Franklin: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Not that any of these cowards care what Ben Franklin had to say. What did he know? He never faced the threat of terrorism. Sure, it's easy to stand up for political principles when you're one of the Founding Fathers and the only thing you have to worry about is getting a run in your stocking. Those wig-wearing pansies would have sang a different tune if they had ever had to stand up to people who were trying to destroy them.

Udargo, someone pointed something out on Slashdot that has me hoping that poll is BS.
He pointed out that 100% of people polled by phone were "willing to participate in a telephone poll."

In other words, possibly much less concerned about their privacy than the ones who said no.

Anybody care to comment on the Lowest Approval Rating for an American President Ever? Johnson during the Viet Nam era or Nixon during Watergate? Inquiring minds want to know! Maybe a pool? My guess is that Bush surpasses (underpasses?) the mark in 30 days! He WILL be at 19% approval rating, he's only one North Korea war-like comment away!

What should the Democrats do? Point out that the President is breaking the law.

It should also be pointed out why such things are illegal.

Most Americans don't understand the incredible potential for abuse, given the technology, lack of oversight, and secrecy.

Bush complained yesterday about the leaks. Now he has a database to find out who the reporters have been talking to, and who they've been talking to.

He's clearly shown that he thinks national security is a trump card AND that leaks that compromise the secrecy of his policies are a national security issue.

Why would anybody think he'd have any qualms about a Nixon-style enemies list, with much better technology behind it? Given what he's said he believes, he'd be stupid not to.

It is amazing to me that the press is not illuminating that angle, so that the approval of such domestic spying would plummet. Why isn't there a lot of talk about Nixon and his enemies list, or Hoover and his dossiers on people like MLK? It's not like that sort of thing is unimaginable---it has actualy happened before. Now the technology makes it vastly easier and more dangerous---not just in principle, but in practice; the databases exist.

And the president is basically saying that such things aren't unconstitional if he says they're not; we don't need no steenking checks and balances, because we can trust a beleaguered Republican president with plummeting approval ratings.

Golly.

I'd like to see reporters asking if he thinks Carter or Clinton should have had a secret database that contained a records of most Republicans' phone calls to reporters, lobbyists, wayward children, and mistresses. Does he really think every president should have such secret power, and should be trusted not to abuse it? (Or is it just him who can secretly decide what's constitutional?)

"Worst administation in history ..."

There is actually some debate about whether Bush is the worst president in history, or the second or possibly third worst in history. I am pretty sure he has at least second place sewed up, and is working harder than on anything in his life trying for first.

CCC

LOL. And maybe there's some truth to it. Especially if you're unclear on whether the NSA was recording conversations. I imagine there were some people last night who, after hearing the news, wouldn't have been to eager to participate in such a poll.

You know what else bothers me about this NSA thing? My freakin' phone company was SELLING my personal information to the NSA. Without telling me, and while they're charging me outrageous rates for voice and data services, SBC/ATT was MAKING MONEY selling my call records to the government. I'm surprised people aren't at least upset about that.

"And the president is basically saying that such things aren't unconstitional if he says they're not; we don't need no steenking checks and balances, because we can trust a beleaguered Republican president with plummeting approval ratings."

Great post, Paul W. You're right, the potential for abuse and the historical precedents should be a prominent part of the debate.

'So even though the Administration and the NSA are insisting that the program wasn't illegal, and even though no court has yet ruled that it was illegal, you think the appropriate way for the Washington Post to frame the issue is "Do you agree with the president breaking the law to fight terrorism?"'

Uh, sure. Why not? The Post was quite happy to poll about whether Bill Clinton had committed perjury, even while he was insisting he didn't. See, the Post isn't an official propaganda mouthpiece. It's allowed to do something other than repeat the party line. If several prominent legal minds have offered the opinion that the data base is illegal, and the Bush administration has studiously avoided the FISA court, even given the FISA court's prior existence as essentially a rubber-stamp for any investigation of terrorism and/or foreign spying.

I'm really quite curious about the implication in this question: that journalists should rely upon the Bush administration to define their reality for them. In the democracy I was raised in, it was quite OK for people other than "administration officials" to have opinions about the legality of a government program. Because, after all, the government is supposed to represent the people, not rule them. So how about these for poll questions:

1) Have you heard about the NSA database that keeps a record of all phone calls made in the United States, storing the phone numbers secretly for data mining purposes?

2) Do you have any opinion as to whether this program is legal?

3) Do you believe the President is following the law?

4) Do you think, if the President has broken the law, he should be impeached?

#4 is a direct analog to the Post asking "If President Clinton has committed perjury, should he be impeached?"
Sauce for the goose and all that, ya know.

"Well, I think you'd probably be disappointed with the poll results even if that question were asked."

Glad to hear that you have the capacity of speculation! From my standpoint, as an investigator who wants to know what the _truth_ is, as opposed to seeing pseudo-intellectual push polling, I want to see what exactly the responses would be to a proper polling, as opposed to a crap one. And then we can worry about my emotional response to it later. Or maybe we can worry about your emotional response at that time.

"As someone above pointed out, part of the reason Bush's approval ratings have sunk so low is because of frustration among his conservative base. Those people are turning against him because of the Dubai ports deal and the fact he's taken a moderate stance on illegal immigration. The last poll I saw showed that almost half of the American people still think he's doing a good job fighting terrorism."

Yeah, almost half. He's got the big mo. And the question typically isn't "Is he doing a good job" but "do you approve of the job he's doing?" The latest CBS news poll has him at 45% approval/ 45% disapproval.

Look, if the Democrats are going to run away from a President with a 31% approval rating, they should all just go home and quit. This myth of Republican super-competence on defense matters needs to be addressed in a frontal matter, by acting boldly. Part of the "wimp" notion that people have about Democrats stems from their unwillingness to stand up to Republicans in pissing contests like this one. To bring this thought into line with the theme of this blog:

Many species select their dominant leader by how aggressive he (she?) will be when confronted by fellows of his group. The message the public gets every time the Democrats shy away from confronting Bush is "The Democrats are too weak to stand up to Bush; they would never stand up to China/Russia/
the terrorists." If the Democrats want to run this country, and I mean really run it, and not merely have a razor-thin Congressional majority that gets its lunch handed to it by the GOP minority, as was the case for most of the 90s, then the Democrats have to start asserting their policies clearly, their attitude about the rule of law, and stop acting like they are driven by focus groups and passive aggressiveness.

I agree with much of what you say, RickD, but I still think the Democrats are in a bind on issues like this.

You point out how important it is that they look capable of standing up to their political opponents, because the perception is that if they aren't strong enough to stand up to the Republicans they aren't strong enough to stand up to "China/Russia/the terrorists."

Well, if the object is to be perceived as strong, what do you do when a majority of Americans want you to make the Fourth Amendment secondary to protecting everybody from the terrorists? The Republicans are going to make the argument that their domestic spying programs are necessary to effectively combat the terrorists. And it sounds like a majority of Americans are receptive to that argument.

My solution - born just now of several seconds of thought and years of frustration - is that the Democrats need to take on the American people. Forget the Republicans, it's the American people the Democrats need to stand up to. It's time to grab Joe America by the scruff of the neck and say, "Look, you pussy. Dry those tears and dry those trousers and start acting like a fucking American. If Americans had always been like you, we never would have stood up to the British. We never would have raised that flag on Mount Suribachi. Stop running scared. Stand up for your country. Cherish and defend the freedoms so many have fought and died for, and stop throwing them in the air every time the Republicans go 'Boo!' Show some cajones, you little sissy!"

But I doubt the DNC would see much promise in such an approach.

Of course the Democrats aren't standing up and doing something. No politician ever reached a position of power in a democratic government by making principled stands. They reached them by playing to the people -- and when a majority of the people are indifferent or actively approving of a police state, why would they want to commit political suicide for principles?

Well, frankly, I think the Dems just gave up a winning campaign strategy. They should run on the "We'll impeach him" platform, and if voters don't dig it then this nation is chock full of total fucking morons, and it's a signal for the rest of us to get the hell out of Dodge.

Are Catholics no longer Christians?

According to some Fundagelicals I have met, that is indeed the case.

udargo: I guess we figure that, if the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, they'll stop hating us if we give our freedoms up. Or something.

Maybe because I'm pregnant and hormonal, but that *really* made me laugh. It's funny because it's true. And sad.

mark paris: There is actually some debate about whether Bush is the worst president in history, or the second or possibly third worst in history. I am pretty sure he has at least second place sewed up, and is working harder than on anything in his life trying for first.

My favorite bad president is William Henry Harrison. All the bad leadership in the world can't compare to dying of pneumonia in 30 days after stoically refusing a coat during your inauguation speech.

I thought there was no scientific evidence linking chills with disease-contraction.

There's presidential evidence. That's even better.

So now it's illegal for children to pray in school.

Egad, these people are so stupid I marvel that they can even feed themselves. This is what happenes when you listen to your prejudices instead of trying to learn the truth. My devout niece favored me with a forwarded e-mail screed that exhorted its recipients to "think" about why we were suffering God's wrath. It included the completely incorrect "children can't pray in school" meme. I sent my niece a line by line refutation of the message and she has mercifully stopped sending me more junk mail.

My answer to my niece can be found here, along with links to buttress my talking points. You may have seen the original message yourself, which rants about school prayer, Madalyn Murray O'Hare, Dr. Spock, etc., etc. Quite an impressive compilation of rank ignorance and error.

Hey, Zeno, that was great. If anyone sends it to me (I have a lot of fundie relatives), can I cut and paste the whole thing back to them? With proper attribution and a link to you, of course.