Zogby Poll: Impeachment is the #1 Cure for Restoring Trust in Government

[kpete]

Impeachment is the #1 Cure for Restoring Trust in Government
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2006-05-24 16:20. Impeachment
By Bob Fertik, www.democrats.com

Zogby released a new poll exposing the extraordinarily high levels of public mistrust of government and business. Only 24% trust George Bush, only 11% trust the media, only 7% trust corporate leaders, and only 3% trust Congress.

When asked "What 2 or 3 specific changes would have to take place in order to improve your trust in government today?", the winner by far was "personnel changes/impeachment proceedings."

So the next time the pundits (and Democratic leaders) say "Americans don't want impeachment," tell them they're absolutely wrong.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/11055
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1116

[Initech]

1. 11% trust the media? Bwahahahaha!!!!

[oxbow]

18. And I'm sure the media will report this poll too

not

[cain_7777]

22. Bush's base

All Faux news and MSRNC. Never watch MSM anymore and I actually know more about what's going on.

[Cha]

38. And they still won't stop

deceiving the American Public on who to trust..they want their tax cuts and monopoly and the country be damned.

They're going to erode that trust and blast that 11% to abyss.

[sandnsea]

42. 65% Trust CABLE NEWS

Table 2. Confidence in Media (ranked by % high)
How the hell bad would it be if this nitwits understood they trust the LEAST RELIABLE news source. Unfriggin believable.

How much confidence do you have that the
reporting is accurate and fair?
High
(4+5)
Medium
(3)
Low
(1+2)
Not
sure

The numbers start with high and go down.

When you read an article in newspapers 25 35 40 1
When you read an article on the Internet 19 48 31 2
When you watch national news on broadcast
television (ABC, CBS, NBC) 25 26 49 1
When you watch national news on cable
television (CNN, FOX News, MSNBC) 65 33 46 2

[Octafish]

2. KRB and P

Passing this around to everyone in the addy book, even Joe Mo.

[lyonn]

3. What other options do we have?

Can't change congress; media; corp. control of the country through congress & Pres. and Supreme Court that they have paid for.

Apparently we the people are "not smart enough to know what is good for us". We shouldn't mention impeachment or censure. Polls must be way wrong, right?

Edit: Clarification?

[earth mom]

4. Congress doesn't want impeachment...

they are worried what might come out in the wash about themselves. Not to mention they may have to work a little for a change.

Can you tell that I am thoroughly disgusted with the lot of them?! :grr:

[lyonn]

7. Work? They have a break coming up real soon, for the summer

Got to get back home and smooze up to the money. Can't lose their job as Sen. or Rep. cause then they would really have to smooze. Gawd how the congress appears to love power over country.

[Bucky]

19. When they went after Clinton in that JOKE, how many Reps took hits?

At least half a dozen got smeared, I think three lost their jobs. It was just a brief taste of what an actual impeachment shoot out over Bush would look like.

[Usrename]

26. They didn't lose their jobs, they ran away like cowards

Two of them were chosen by their country to be third in line to the Presidency. And they just fucking deserted their country.

:nuke:

[dogday]

5. Well if we have to, then we have to

I am all for it, let's go....B-)

[leftofthedial]

6. sadly, impeachment won't change the corrupt system

corporations and the wealthy owners of corporation, not the people control our political process

capitalism is the problem. corruption is but one symptom.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Well, this is nice to know

Although the Democrats are again acting like they don't care whether or not they win.

PELOSI FOR PRESIDENT IN 2007
(Whether she wants it or not)

[adarling]

9. we should send this info to Pelosi and the other democrats

that have said they do not want to impeach. It might be a great campaign tool, did they ever consider that?

[Aiptasia]

10. keeping it on the back burner

Some candidates for the house and senate are sure to use the "impeach shrub" promise in their election campaigns. Honestly i'm waiting for the repukes to find another fundie issue to latch onto to turn out the base (remember the whole boys kissing debate).

I think a lot of Dems are worried to bring up the impeachment word previous to the elections when it should be part of their cut-throat campaign strategy. I'd vote for anyone:

A) Any progressive that isn't already in congress or the senate.
B) Grows a spine and reminds their constituants that "checks and balances" are necessary.

[Quixote1818]

11. Send this out to all the talk shows and to your congress person.

I just sent it to the Ed Schultz show.

[Quixote1818]

12. This has been my feeling all along! We have to detour others from

breaking the law in the future as well as starting preemptive wars based on lies! This is a nation of laws and those in power should be held accountable just like the rest of us are.

This is a NO BRAINIER and I am as moderate as they come here on DU.

[rinsd]

13. Sigh, its showed all of 17% that wrote in the above.

"So the next time the pundits (and Democratic leaders) say "Americans don't want impeachment," tell them they're absolutely wrong."

Because our lies are better for the country.

[savemefromdumbya]

14. they don't trust our courts either!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Don't tell the politicians. It makes them wet their didies.

God forbid that the bosses be held accountable for their crimes.

[Jane Austin]

16. You want to get corporate money out of politics?

Go here and see what Bill Bradley and 3 other former Senators are working on:

http://www.just6dollars.org/

[midnight]

29. I will re-read that idea again, but from first glance.....

It looks like the govt. will put 6.00 a person into the election campaign. This will eliminate corporations from dumping millions into someones campaign? That is a good idea, but if that doesn't work, how about treating the corporation like an individual. Keep the donation level at whatever the level is per person. Didn't corporations grab some perks by claiming person status or some title like that. Use it to keep there donations down to a individual donation.

[Jane Austin]

40. I'd love that.

In fact, I'd love to see corporations out of it completely.

[pinto]

17. Just for accuracy's sake:

(Fertik didn't mention the actual numbers from the Zogby poll. They're still of note, but the numbers provide a little bigger picture than implied. Here's the breakdown)

19. What 2 or 3 specific changes would have to take place in order to improve your
trust in government today?

17% Personnel changes/Impeachment proceedings
10% Curtail/eliminate lobbying, minimize cronyism
08% Campaign finance reform8
07% More transparency
06% Reduce greed, show honesty/integrity etc
06% More focus on holding people accountable
05% Term limits
05% Less partisanship
03% Checks and balances/more equal distribution of power
03% Fiscal/economic responsibility
03% Restructure the government: set up/policies/laws

<snip, the rest are 2% or less>

http://www.zogby.com/Lichtman%20Final%20Report%205-22-06.pdf

[kpete]

21. thanks Pinto

[cascadiance]

23. On campaign finance reform, more specifically public financing for me!

The problem is in the past we've had a lot of "band aid" bills for campaign financing that don't solve the fundamental problems. We need a "Clean Elections" style set of rules for public financing on a national scale to really take the bribery (and the Tom Delay's, Jack Abramoff's, etc.) out of the system. After impeachment, that's my next priority.

Also, in terms of trust in the government, it's not only us, the American citizenry's trust, that's at stake. We also need to restore trust of the rest of the world in our country and its system of government which I think necessarily involves impeachment to allow them to feel they can totally align themselves with us again in the future.

[jsamuel]

20. thanks!

[file83]

24. Who trusts George W. Bush more than the media???

:eyes:

[Raster]

25. I think the question is who has benefited more from bush* than the media?

[proud patriot]

27. Dang , we sure do live in interesting times

(shakes heads) what's next

[Festivito]

28. It also STOPS PARDONING of those who might tell.

Pardoning places Bush above the law. So he thinks, so he GAMBLES. He can pardon ANYTHING, so he's above the law.

Impeachment stops that ability to pardon. Oops! Bad gambit.

Impeach!

[Senator]

30. RoadMap to Impeachment: "Violence" is the Answer

Impeahcment IS the "Positive Agenda."

We choose to Impeach or Appease.

We ALL know that it MUST be done. Even the Repubs must ask themselves; Do they want this UnAmerican level of power in the hands of a President Hillary?!?

But how do we get there?

"Violence" is the Answer.

It can happen before the mid-terms.

---

[Imagevision]

31. President Hillary?!? as opposed to Bushco anything is an approvement

government is and will always remain corrupt, (just more control on leaks) that's just a fact of life, the government for and by the people is nothing more then a fantasy...

[Senator]

32. It's not fantasy

There was no corruption under President Carter or President Clinton.

Government institutions may be less than efficient and easily exploitable by those who would steal from their fellow citizens. But that's just a function of human nature.

Our government has not always engaged in the unlawful enterprises we've seen under Reagan, Poppy, and this bushkid. Because they don't see themselves as corrupt. They imagine they have a right, or worse a duty, to defy the will of the American People. They claim to serve some "higher power" or be battling some "grave threat."

It matters little if the source of that notion is serving a deity, a monarch, a master race, or a power elite -- it is all just simple fascism; the idea that a minority has a right to control, and dictate to, the majority.

It is anti-democratic and therefore Anti-American.

The tendency may always be with us, but it rarely is manifest. And until now it has not been tolerated.

--

[rinsd]

34. No corruption under Carter or Clinton?

Directly under their admin, in government when time was served, in Congress? Under what scope do you mean no corruption because sadly corruption is an ever present reality. Even worse is how rampant corruption has become.

[Senator]

35. The reality is that...

...corruption by Democrats has been nearly unheard of at the federal level. For that matter, pretty much all levels since the racists left the party over Civil Rights. What there has been is of the isolated-individual kind, like this allegation against Mr. Jefferson for taking $90K.

But that's tip money compared to what the GOP (Greedy Old Party) engages in as a manner of course. Like with Iran/Contra and the S&Ls, this Abramoff scam (which is really just complex election fraud as the money ends up in campaign accounts), runs in the tens of millions of dollars.

Even that pales when you consider the impeachable and/or treasonous activity they engage in. They seem to believe that not getting caught is literally the same thing as following the law. Ironically, The Great Communicator Himself said it best:

Reagan: ``They can impeach me if they want, visiting days are Wednesday.''

Weinberger: ``You will not be alone.''

Democrats don't have those kind of conversations.

It may well be that the two words most damaging our nation are; "both sides."

--

[rinsd]

36. "corruption by Democrats has been nearly unheard of at the federal level"

The Congressional Bank Scandal?

The Keating 5?

The Congressional Post Office Scandal?

Saying the above makes in the light of reality makes you look untruthful and less credible. I say this as a tip for when you are in the non virtual world. I am not doubting your sincerity.

It's not about saying both sides do it, its about not lying by saying our side never does or has.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans is Democrats actually seek to clean up their messes whereas Republicans pretend they don't exist.

[Senator]

37. You make my point

You are comparing kiting checks, mis-spending stamp money, and lobbying regulators for a contributor to funneling tens of millions of taxpayer dollars into their own campaign coffers, crony's pockets, and illegal wars.

And you're comparing petty thefts to RICO-like international conspiracies requiring the Presidential pardoning of co-conspirators and long-term (taxpayer) bail out of the banking system.

(And that's even leaving aside the human cost of their corrupt enterprises.)

Do the math. Add up the taxpayer dollars and the number of criminal convictions, indictments, and resignations.

Leave the level of Republican outrage and Euphemedia fascination out of the equation.

Then see which conclusion is more credible.

--

[rinsd]

39. Where did I say they were equal?

To pretend something doesn't exist because you feel it is insignificant is foolish.

The voters didn't take those scandals lightly, they helped usher in the GOP Revolution who spoke in hollow terms about reform and term limits and all the other bullshit.

[Senator]

41. You're doing it again

By taking into account the effect on voters and/or how they were exploited.

It's like comparing Clinton's nookie with Monica to Reagan's forcible rape of Selene Walters.

Sure, they're both "offenses," but not to judge them on their own merits is the pretense.

It's the first step on the way to lost perspective.

--

[rinsd]

43. I think you've already lost perspective....

"By taking into account the effect on voters and/or how they were exploited."

That's the point. You want to pretend these things didn't happen and frankly they did. Is there equivalence? Of course not but these examples were not brought to create some phony balance but instead to rebut your preference to pretend these things never happened.

If you want to decide that honesty is an obstacle to achieveing honest government then you are welcome to your delusion.

[Senator]

44. Good, you're getting there

Admitting that "equivalence" is not there.

Then you must admit that saying "both sides" is the dishonesty obstacle, as it implies equivalence.

--

[Swamp Rat]

46. Stop making sense

:D

[Eurobabe]

33. Farkin A!

Let the games begin...

Clean HOUSE

[AuntPatsy]

45. I agree, good cure for what ails this country.