What they fail to mention is that, since the poll isn't remotely scientific, it's worthless; properly done polls show very few people in favor of impeaching Bush... and every one of those people is a blithering idiot with no idea of what actions can actually lead to impeachment (here's a hint, Bush hasn't done a single one of 'em). Omni | Homepage | 12.23.05 - 5:33 am | # --------------- p.s. the response total is currently over 122,000... regardless of the poll science (or lack thereof), that many responses to anything is not "worthless" and discounting responders as "blithering idiots" is simply a mindless way of disregarding what it's saying... profmarcus | Homepage | 12.23.05 - 6:04 am | # --------------- That's like saying that if 122K bigots vote that blacks are stupid, that'd really prove something about blacks... but all it'd actually prove is that there are 122k morons in the world. What goes on online does NOT reflect the way things are in the real world; remember, according to what went on online before the last presidential election, Kerry should have won in a landslide. Omni | Homepage | 12.23.05 - 10:11 am | # --------------- Omni, You're not paying attention. Turn off Faux News...they lie. Nancy | 12.24.05 - 2:39 am | #

Even "scientific" polls have it at, what, 65%?

64% of those in another poll say he has done nothing.

This is why Democrats do so badly in national elections. You are totally out of touch with reality and with the mainstream.

We asked for signs the signs were sent the birth betrayed the marriage spent Yeah the widowhood of every government signs for all to see. I can't run no more with that lawless crowd while the killers in high places say their prayers out loud. But they've summoned, they've summoned up a thundercloud and they're going to hear from me. --Leonard Cohen

In all fairness, this poll only shows that this story is not going away anytime soon. And that is bad for W all by itself

And the Rassmussen and Zogby polls (one of which I am sure is what PPJ is referring to) didn't mention the fact that the wiretaps were done without warrants, without establishing probable cause, and with no judicial oversight.

PROF. CASS SUNSTEIN, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL: He's helped change the understanding in academic circles and in government circles of the power of president. LEWIS: One of his key memos argues that the Constitution gives the president power to take “whatever actions he deems appropriate to preempt or respond to terrorist threats.� Based on that, the White House also argued that when Congress authorized military force to respond to the 9/11 attacks, it also provided legal authority to detain enemy combatants, since that's fundamental to waging war. The Supreme Court agreed, even though Congress did not specifically mention detaining combatants. By the same logic, the White House now says Congress authorized the NSA's wiretapping, without specifically mentioning it, because intelligence-gathering is also fundamental to waging war. But Sunstein says Yoo's theory is not widely supported. SUNSTEIN: He's not alone in that view, but that view remains the minority view.

OLBERMANN: There's also a kind of backwards way of looking at the electronic surveillance question that was put by a constitutional law professor quoted by "The New York Times," who asked, in essence, if the Constitution directly authorized this kind of stuff, why would we even have this foreign intelligence surveillance court to review wiretap requests? If Mr. Bush can just do this, or any president can just do this, why doesn't he just do this all the time by himself? Why have the court? DEAN: Well, it does happen that we are a government of laws. And-theoretically, at least. And why do we need a PATRIOT Act if he has all these powers? If the-if anyone reads the Article 2 the way Bush does, Cheney, his former counsel, David Addington, and John Yoo do, there are just no powers they don't have in the name of defending the country against terrorism, and terrorism is an indefinite threat. Therefore, they can do anything indefinitely that they wish. That isn't what I think the Constitution contemplates.