National Poll shows support for Impeachment

[Stone_Spirits]

Findings from a New National Poll show support for Impeachment, Growing Opposition to War on Terrorism

BERKELEY - May 11 - Reporting from an ongoing survey of public knowledge and opinion, Berkeley based NGO Retro Poll released startling results suggesting that 39% of Americans favor impeachment of President Bush. The poll, taken between April 19 and May 5 asked whether people believe that misleading Congress and the Public on weapons of mass destruction to take the country to war is grounds to impeach the President (39% said yes, 40% said no). On whether the U.S. should have invaded Iraq the poll results are consistent with findings of Gallup and other major polls (48% said yes).

Other surprising findings were that almost half of respondents (46%) favor an independent investigation of the U.S. role in the overthrow of Haiti's democratically elected president, Juan Bertrand Aristide, and 57% favor a national moratorium on the death penalty because of the procedural problems that have put many innocent people on death row (112 released so far). Four out of five Americans also repudiate the use of torture.

As in earlier Retro Polls most support for the war in Iraq and the War on Terrorism was found among people who still think that Saddam Hussein worked with Al Qaeda (though no evidence has been published) and among the 32% of people who believe the War on Terrorism is preventing terrorism. However, 24% of Americans believe that the War on Terrorism is actually creating terrorists. In addition, 56 % of people who gave an opinion say the War on Terrorism is removing important democratic rights in the US and large percentages (50-80%) oppose various intrusive provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.

The poll reached 513 random Americans and has a "margin of error" of +/- 3.5% Full results are available at www.retropoll.org.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0511-08.htm

[freetobegay]

1. & the walls keep tumbling down.

[calimary]

2. When I called Barbara Boxer's office, the staffer who answered the phone

said they were getting quite a few calls about impeachment today.

[Kanary]

5. Impeachment calls were inevitable.

Some time ago, when the first uproar was sounded, I encouraged DUers to write/call for impeachment. Hardly any response, and many sneers. Now......

So, are people now ready to call/write? What can it hurt? Certainly could put the DEMS on notice that we aren't happy with this crap.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

3. isn't impeachment pretty much impossible?

given Republican domination and unswerving support by these Republicans for Chimpy?

[Stone_Spirits]

6. doesn't mean that we can't scream, yell and DEMAND it! -nt

[terrya]

8. It can be a distraction.

Realistically, impeachment is impossible. But in an election campaign...I'd love to see it.

Terry

[MallRat]

14. Impeachment was "pretty much impossible" when they went after Clinton...

...do you think it gave the Republicans pause?

But to brand a President with impeachment proceedings DURING A REELECTION CAMPAIGN? I don't know if it would help or hurt.

Didn't the Democrats GAIN seats in Congress in the '98 elections, even while Clinton was being put through the wringer?

-MR

[alfredo]

19. But it was obvious the the majority that impeachment for lying about

sex was a real stretch. Most felt that it was a witch hunt. Remember Clinton's numbers stayed real strong, chimpy's has dropped like a rock.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. Would be nice to see more people polled

but those numbers are pretty impressive. Wonder what the ratio would be if it were likely or registered voters.

[leeroysphitz]

7. I've said it before.

Simply losing the upcoming election is too good for this administration. These bushco criminals need to be brought to justice.

[maggrwaggr]

16. I'll join your chorus in saying that

I've said that from the beginning.

These guys are nothing but a bunch of gangsters and they need to be in jail.

[G_j]

20. history in the making

'lame duck' impeached and put on trial...

[Kanary]

9. Results on Haiti encouraging

*VERY* discouraging that still almost half think the "invasion" was warranted.

Amazing.

Kanary

[ecstatic]

10. If that clown steals the election again, it's on!

Impeachment that is...

[City Lights]

11. OMG!

I'm speechless. :wow:

How can they impeach the entire executive branch?

[peacetalksforall]

12. The Haiti poll is uplifting....

this poll taker must be approaching readers. - a diminishing species in the day os listen and learn from Rush and Sean.

[Tellurian]

13. Thanks, for the good news. God knows, we need to hear it!

[UTUSN]

15. Kick for Alrighty-Then n/t

[troublemaker]

17. This is the worst poll I've ever read

I'd be delighted if this was a valid poll, but it's essentially a frigging 'push poll.' How's this for an impartial question?

Question 26. President Bush misled the public and Congress by saying that Saddam's Iraq was an imminent threat to launch chemical, biological, and nuclear warfare against us. Do you think that misleading the public and Congress in this way in order to take the country to war is grounds for impeachment?

Read the whole thing. It's very weird.

http://www.retropoll.org/results_poll_04.htm

[ConsAreLiars]

22. All polls are "push polls"

insofar as suggest a frame of reference. Gallup, Pew, etc. all do this, but they frame their questions in a fashion that is consistent with mainstream assumptions. Technically, however, the term "push polls" is reserved for disinformation campaigns masquerading as polls.

Now, you may want to argue that the example you provide is just that - false information that "President Bush misled the public and Congress by saying that Saddam's Iraq was an imminent threat to launch chemical, biological, and nuclear warfare against us" - and you are within your right to assert that you believe this is a false statement. I would assert that you were either ill-informed or lying were you to make such a claim, but your beliefs are your own.

The poll question simply repeats what should be a well known fact before asking the question about impeachment. That this information may be unknown to the respondent (or disputed by people like yourself) is irrelevant. It is no different than giving a factual list of Dem primary candidates before asking for a preference. Push-polling, as a disinformation technique, by contrast, would add Satan and Dauhmer and omit Kerry and Dean.

But I second your suggestion that people read the poll. See how people respond to relevant and intelligent questions.

[dpibel]

23. Impartial question?

I'm a little puzzled by your objection to this question. (I also took your advice and read the poll which I was unable to find very weird.)

It's an opinion question. It contains a recitation of fact. I don't even think there's much dispute any more that it's a fact. So how would you phrase the question to satisfy your impartiality requirement?

And what, after all, is your definition of a push poll? Here are a couple of quickly googled ones. The State of Maine thinks:

http://www.state.me.us/ethics/pushpollreqmts021302.htm

21A § 1014-B. Push polling

1. Push poll defined. For purposes of this section, "push poll" means any paid telephone survey or series of telephone surveys that are similar in nature that reference a candidate or group of candidates other than in a basic preference question, and when:

A. A list or directory is used, exclusively or in part, to select respondents belonging to a particular subset or combination of subsets of the population, based on demographic or political characteristics such as race, sex, age, ethnicity, party affiliation or like characteristics;

B. The survey fails to make demographic inquiries on factors such as age, household income or status as a likely voter sufficient to allow for the tabulation of results based on a relevant subset of the population consistent with standard polling industry practices;

C. The pollster or polling organization does not collect or tabulate survey results;

D. The survey prefaces a question regarding support for a candidate on the basis of an untrue statement; and

E. The survey is primarily for the purpose of suppressing or changing the voting position of the call recipient.

"Push poll" does not include any survey supporting a particular candidate that fails to reference another candidate or candidates other than in a basic preference question.

Or how about this:

from here: http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_4_21/ai_62410241

The National Council on Public Polls (NCPP) defined a push poll in a 1995 press release as:

a telemarketing technique in which telephone calls are used to canvass vast numbers of potential voters, feeding them false and damaging 'information' about a candidate under the guise of taking a poll to see how this 'information' affects voter preferences. In fact, the intent is to 'push' the voters away from one candidate and toward the opposing candidate. This is clearly political telemarketing, using innuendo and, in many cases, clearly false information to influence voters; there is no intent to conduct research.

(end quotes)

As far as I can tell, out of the criteria listed, this poll fits, well, right about zero.

Other than that, however, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[Catherine Vincent]

18. That would be GREAT!

But you know those 39% are partisan Democrats! LOL! But that is a pretty good number, though.

[scottxyz]

21. Wow

39% for, 40% against impeachment.

That's pretty serious - especially considering it's not a topic we hear talked about in Congress.

I think most people are pretty smart, as long as they have the facts to work with.

People are learning the difference between being attacked by another country and being attacked by "stateless actors".

Everyone knows that when you're attacked, you need to go after the attackers and defend yourself against future attacks from them. In the case of 9/11, this would mean (a) figuring out who's involved with "Al Qaeda", (b) going after them, and (c) defending ourselves against future attacks by them.

Everyone knows that Bush dropped the ball on these three difficult tasks, because it was easier or more important to him to invade Iraq. He lied to get us to attack Iraq, he alienated our allies, and he violated treaties (the Geneva Convention) that used to protect everyone.

In addition to perjuring himself before Congress and violating treaties, he committed a few more crimes along the way - such as outing a CIA operative and misappropriating $700 million in funds.

I think most people remember these things - and they realize these things go beyond incompetence - they are crimes. So even though the talking heads in the media aren't beating the drums for Bush's impeachment, most people know that if there were one or two more in the House people with a "D" after their name, we could very well be having impeachment proceedings by now.

= = =

I think we really do need to get rid of Bush via impeachment - rather than hoping the Diebold machines aren't rigged this November or Tony Scalia doesn't pull another fast one.

Bush has screwed up in so many ways, but because we haven't punished him for it, he probably thinks he can get away with it. Right now, he's probably not protecting us against the next terrorist attack - which most experts say is a question of "when", not "if".

But why SHOULD he try to prevent any future attacks, when we rewarded him so richly for failing to prevent the last one? 9/11 was his trifecta. Really, it was his inauguration, or his coronation.

He's been under a lot of stress since then - but he's also been having the time of his life. After so many years as a smug sycophantic rich kid that everyone put up with (cheerleader, Yale legacy, Skull & Bones pledge, C student, cokehead, drunk, AWOL, insider trader, business failure, figurehead governor) now he's suddenly this really important guy who can lock up anybody in the world with a stroke of his pen, and he's finally found a way to shut up people who are smarter than him by just saying the magic words "after 9/11" with a phony Texas accet. The more he screws up, the more power he gets! Somewhere deep inside, he knows he's a total fraud and a sham, but his whole life is so stage-managed he's able to avoid that uncomfortable reality for the time being.

The next time we get "hit" by someone, I really won't blame Bush. I will blame the attackers, and us. By letting Bush stay on after all his crimes and incompetence, WE are the enablers.

In Madrid, they still know how to march in the streets when their government lies to them. Until we do something like that here, Bush is going to continue kicking us in the teeth.

I think we need to stay focused on a short list of Bush's crimes and failures. There's plenty of them and they're pretty glaring.

- Didn't pay attention to the Aug 6 PDB.
- Lied about WMDs.
- Lied about Niger uranium.
- Broke the Geneva Convention.
- Misappropriated funds.
- Isn't protecting our cities.

Keep a short list of issues and keep harping on them (like the right wing did to Clinton).

People who put up with dictators are considered fair game to get invaded. Iraqis hated Saddam, but they didn't get rid of him, so now it's ok to invade their country and torture them.

If we don't get rid of our own dictator, some of us will fall victims to this same logic. It's not fair, but that's how the world works. You get blamed for your dictator's mistakes.

So for anyone with the facts, impeaching the Bush is really just a matter of personal safety. The guy is running around the world attacking people in MY name. If I don't stop him, they're probably going to come back and attack me. It's that simple, and around 40% of Americans seem to understand this.

[ima_sinnic]

24. ...here is a handy list of Bush failures

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1537720

[pinniped]

25. Chimpeach the chimp and nothing would change until the "real" pretz...

is impeached as well.

Can they do double impeachment proceedings?

chimp and chain

[indigobusiness]

26. IMPEACH BUSH.....impeachbushwear

http://www.cafeshops.com/indigobusiness

Patriotwear