Zogby impeachment poll

[ProSense]

Zogby poll: Majority of likely voters support considering impeachment if Bush lied on Iraq, 51-45 percent

Impeachment support is greater among all adults than likely voters

A new poll of likely voters by Zogby International has found that a majority of Americans support Congress considering the impeachment of President Bush if he “did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq,” RAW STORY has learned.

The poll, to be released this afternoon, finds that 51 percent of likely voters want Congress to eye impeachment, while 45 percent do not. It was commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a coalition of progressive groups seeking a Congressional investigation of the events leading up to war in Iraq.

Among all adults surveyed, the numbers were higher: 53 percent supported impeachment, while 42 percent did not. The poll, which has a +/- 2.9% margin of error, interviewed 1,200 U.S. adults from Oct. 29 through Nov. 2.

Not surprisingly, Democrats supported the consideration of impeachment by a broad margin (76 percent) while Republicans opposed (66 percent). However, 29 percent of Republicans told Zogby pollsters that they supported Congress examining impeachment over Iraq.

more...

[elocs]

1. So a majority of Americans

support Congress considering the impeachment of President Bush if he “did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq"... Notice is says that they support Congress "considering" impeachment, plus the big "if". So investigate first, then consider impeachment--not the other way around. Also, this poll is a virtual statistical tie. Investigations may change that significantly.

[ClassWarrior]

6. Yeah, that's how it's done.

:shrug:

Visualize IMPEACHMENT. Then do something to make it happen.

NGU.

[bullimiami]

2. IF? He fucking lied. Everyone knows it. He admitted it already.

Whats the problem then?

[onenote]

3. this is a year old....

[Zhade]

4. And people are ANGRIER now.

They're MORE against the war.

Yet some DUers keep lying about the public, saying they DON'T support impeachment.

[dtotire]

5. While He Should Be Impeached

To convict him, it would require a 2/3 majority in the Senate. The votes are not there, and it would be an exercise in futility. It would be too divisive. It could possibly lose the next election for the Democrats. A vote to censure him would easily pass.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Or it could possibly win the next election for Dems.

Is the dedicated pursuit of justice "an exercise in futility?"

NGU.

[Seabiscuit]

15. If there's a failure to convict in the Senate, the whole exercise could

be perceived by the public as a partisan witch-hunt (it would certainly be portrayed that way in the MSM, who will certainly continue to do their best to brainwash the electorate) and backfire by causing an anti-Dem backlash in the 2008 elections.

Perceptions still matter, like it or not.

[ClassWarrior]

18. After these investigations, do you really think that's going to happen?

NGU.

[Seabiscuit]

22. It all depends...

... on the stubbornness and party loyalty of the to-date rubber-stamping Republicans in the Senate.

Since they've proven for so many years to be completely untrustworthy when it comes to ethics and integrity, all I know is for the time being, I don't think we can count on them to vote to convict in any impeachment proceeding. And by the time investigations are completed, we may have a new President-elect anyway.

All conceivable investigations of every aspect of this putrid administration should proceed regardless of whether the House ever introduces Articles of Impeachment.

I would LOVE to see Bush and Cheney impeached, convicted, and then tried in federal court on a laundry list of criminal charges, then imprisoned for life. While serving their life sentences, I'd like to see them convicted of war crimes in the Hague.

If we had taken back the House and Senate in 2004, perhaps this already would have all been history. But there's only 2 years left now.

Aside from the investigations, we really need to focus on capturing a supermajority in the Senate as well as taking back the Presidency in 2008.

[Qutzupalotl]

11. The votes will be there

after investigations.

[Seabiscuit]

14. Yup. The one thing worse than not impeaching is losing the impeachment

conviction vote in the Senate. Congress recognized during Watergate that Impeachment cannot work and cannot convince the public of its validity unless it is bipartisan in nature - there have to be a significant enough number of Senators of the same party as the President not just to get a 2/3 majority to convict, but to persuade the public it's not a witch hunt by the opposition party (e.g. - the impeachment of Bill Clinton, where the Senate voted 50/50 along partisan lines on whether to convict).

[petgoat]

16. How divisive is "too divisive" and why?

What's wrong with uniting around the defense of the Constitution?

So what if they'd never get 2/3 of the Senate. Just do the investigations and
Bush will probably resign for the good of the party. He can always make a
medical excuse. (That box on his back, you see. A rare neurological condition.)

[cascadiance]

19. If it was so divisive, how come Publicans didn't suffer in congress after Clinton was impeached?

That was FAR more divisive and FAR more against public sentiment than this one would be! And they've had a majority in congress now. I DON'T buy that people will throw out Dems if they impeach. Quite frankly it is one thing we probably could accomplish with this nimrod in as president (as he will be vetoing most everything else). And if someone like Pelosi were to take over and THEN we actually got some things passed throug congress that the people really liked, it might really belp the Dems in 2008!

[onenote]

21. actually, the Clinton impeachment effort did hurt the repubs

The two elections in closest proximity to the Clinton impeachment effort were 1998 and 2000. In those two elections the repubs lost a total of 4 Senate seats and 7 house seats. They also lost the 2000 presidential election but for a little thing called the Supreme Court, and they lost the popular vote in the pres election even with the fraud). By 2002 and 2004, 9/11 had long overshadowed impeachment of a former president as a factor in the elections.

[corkhead]

8. I don't understand why it has to be subjected to polls. If he broke the law, impeach period.

it should be just like any other indictment.


rule of law
rule of law
rule of law

[onenote]

20. becuse its not just like any other indictment

At its core, like it or not, impeachment is a political act, performed by politicians, not prosecutors or judges. (And while the analogy to the criminal justice system is flawed, keep in mind that even in the criminal justice system, there is something known as prosecutorial discretion. In other words, its not as cut and dried as some would suggest).

[mom cat]

9. Keep the pressure on your reps and Pelosi.

[drm604]

10. Think about what this is saying.

Most of the arguments I've see from Republicans are arguments that Bush did not lie, but received faulty intelligence. I've even seen them argue that he was right and that the weapons were moved to someplace like Syria. This is all bullshit of course, but it's what they argue. I haven't heard anyone argue that he lied but that lying is acceptable.

But that's what this poll says. The question was whether or not he should be impeached if he did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq. 66% of Republicans believe he should not be impeached even if he lied! What does that say about those 66%? Apparently 24% of Democrats feel the same way, which is even more disheartening.

[Qutzupalotl]

12. I think some of that stems from fear.

I've heard several express the opinion that impeachment in a time of war scares them. Of course, I'm of the opinion that not impeaching is even scarier.

[ClassWarrior]

13. And besides, we're not in a time of war.

We're in a time of an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation.

NGU.

[petgoat]

17. Bush isn't the wartime president, he's the occupation pretender. nt