Arguing Democrats "may be looking for trouble" if they raise domestic spy issue with Alito, CNN's Toobin falsely suggested that public supports Bush's actions
SUMMARY: CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin suggested that "the Democrats may be looking for trouble" if they criticize the Bush administration's warrantless spying program during the Alito hearings, falsely stating that the public supports the administration's program
During CNN's January 9 live coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings regarding Judge Samuel A. Alito's Supreme Court nomination, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin claimed that "the Democrats may be looking for trouble" in criticizing the Bush administration's recently disclosed warrantless domestic surveillance program. According to Toobin: "[I]t is an issue where a lot of Americans think, 'We're spying on Al Qaeda? Good. The more the better.' And I think defining the issue as civil liberties, not protecting us from Al Qaeda, that's a difficult challenge for the Democrats." However, by framing the issue as a choice between national security and civil liberties, Toobin set up precisely the false debate Bush administration officials have advocated when defending the program and attacking its critics. Moreover, polling indicates that a majority of Americans believe the Bush administration should be required to obtain a warrant before monitoring communications involving people inside the United States.
As Media Matters for America noted when NBC host Katie Couric and NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell framed the domestic surveillance debate in a similar fashion, the false "national security versus civil liberties" dichotomy plays right into statements by administration officials such as Vice President Dick Cheney, who claimed: "It's the kind of capability -- if we'd had before 9-11 -- might have led us to be able to prevent 9-11."
Also, Toobin's claim that "a lot of Americans think" we should be "spying on Al Qaeda" misrepresented the crux of the debate surrounding the domestic surveillance program: whether the monitoring of communications involving persons within the U.S. without a warrant -- which the Bush administration has acknowledged doing -- is legal. According to an Associated Press/Ipsos Public poll conducted January 3-5, most Americans believe the administration should be required to obtain a warrant before engaging in this sort of surveillance. According to the poll, when asked: "Should the Bush administration be required to get a warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or should the government be allowed to monitor such communications without a warrant?" 56 percent of respondents said the administration should be required to obtain a warrant, compared with 42 percent that believed a warrant is unnecessary.
From CNN's special January 9 edition of The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer:
TOOBIN: The executive power -- I think the Democrats may be looking for trouble on this issue, because it is an issue where a lot of Americans think, "We're spying on Al Qaeda? Good. The more the better." And I think defining the issue as civil liberties, not protecting us from Al Qaeda, that's a difficult challenge for the Democrats, and it will be interesting to see how they try to do that.
I'm afraid the AP/Ipsos poll is seriously flawed.
The AP waaaay oversampled Democrats over Republicans, 52 to 40 percent! In addition, only 81% of respondents were eligible to vote.
Lots more at : [link to newsbusters.org]
Quite a bit of spin you have there, you and the right wing nutjob site you link to seem to fail to notice that the poll added the people who lean to one party or another to get their 52-40 breakdown, and given the problems the Repuglicans are facing right now it is easy to believe that the figures are representative of the current pulse of the public. But please continue to spout off like the good little right wing lemming you have shown yourself to be.
So rather than use random sampling in the polling to generate an opinion of a cross section of Americans, do you think the poll organization should have selected 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats to poll? Or perhaps 40 Republicans and 40 Democrats and 18 Independents and 1 Libertarian and 1 Green? And 50 males and 50 females? Heck with it, why use random sampling, that is old 20th century science! Next presidential election poll, rather than poll what the general public thinks, let's just poll 50 Republican and 50 Democrat. On second thought, why not poll just 1 Republican and 1 Democrat, and save some polling costs too.
Unfortunately, for your analysis, the poll is flawed because the sampling frame is not representive of the population. This fact is born out by the last three major elections, e.g. 2000, 2002, and 2004, where the voting public was roughly evenly split, or between 50% Democrats and Independents and 50% Republicans, give or take 3 percentage points. In the poll, 60% are associated with voting for the Democrats while 40% are associated with Republican values and voting leanings.
Random sampling is not exempt from bias; in this case, the sampling frame and population approach near disjoint and therefore do exemplify bias. Additionally, one can easily characterize this poll as haphazard at best.
The confidence interval is not as was reported by IPSO, and is easily proven mathematically (use the formulae represented on [link to www2.chass.ncsu.edu]
This poll ignores those facts, and does state so, in the details. You can read it yourself if you like: [link to www.ipsos-na.com]
The pollsters have been doing this for some time. It would seem that most intelligent people would have figured it out by now, given the exit polling and pre-election polling results reported during the last 6 years.
Its does no one any good to use incorrect data or false assumptions if you want to make a case.
True change will occur with the right facts and truth - not fabrications.
is that people have not been asked if they would like their private conversations recorded, their e-mails snail mail broken into or their privacy invaded at the whim of government! Who's held accountable under such a situation. That is what the FISA court is all about. Too much posteuring and not enough common sense seems to be the quideline these days
Because whatever you're smoking to actually believe anything that comes from the MRC has got to be some high grade stuff.
But I do have to ask...so a pollster is just supposed to throw away results because they happened to call a Democrat as opposed to a Republican?
Since this is NOT about an election but about how AMERICANS feel about warrantless wiretaps. Those who dont vote are STILL Americans. You have no point, as usual.
You're going too far on this one. The headline states "... falsely suggested that public supports Bush's actions." Toobin said "a lot of Americans think: we're spying on al Qaeda? Good."
Accept that a lot of Americans DO believe that. What he said is NOT the same thing as saying "a majority of Americans support" it.
It seems as though people are linking his statement to that one (flawed) poll - and while he may have been doing that in his head, that isn't what he said.
Whether or not he said majority he said Dems would be HURT by challenging Bush on this issue. IF the majority AGREE with the Dem position exactly HOW would they be hurt by taking it?
Because the numbers sampled were not exactly the same? Bull....! Anyone with a fundamental knowledge of polling techniques know that these numbers are weighted and the only way to skew a poll is by asking questions which elicit a particular response, e.g." Do you want civil liberties, or do you want national security?"
"We're spying on Al Qaeda? Good. The more the better."
He may have missed the topic. That being about spying in general without permission.
They obviously polled a majority of people who felt the administration should get warrants before spying on people -- that doesn't seem fair. Any truly fair and balanced poll would always return a result 50/50 for and against. Duh!
Are all conservatives as dumb as this, or is it just the internet?
WHAT IS WITH THIS MEDIA???? IT'S LIKE WATCHING FOX NEWS ON ALL THE NETWORKS!!!!
I have a lot of respect for Toobin and am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, if there is any doubt. I think he's being misread here. He doesn't say that the issue is whether or not we should be spying on al Qaeda; rather, he indicates that "a lot of Americans" believe that whether or not we should be "spying on al Qaeda" is the issue. Those Americans are wrong, but that is what they believe. In light of that widespread misconception, his next assertion - that it will be difficult to frame the issue as a civil liberties issue - is correct. I'd like to see more of the transcript to see if Toobin clarified what the real issue is - whether the president can engage in warrantless wiretapping of American persons inside the U.S.
Although these discussions are framed within the context of the "war on terror" (a joke of a term if any) the bigger picture in my mind is - how long will it be until shrub-enabled NSA starts spying/monitoring groups that disagree/dissent from the views of this administration?
How do we know that the DNC, ACLU, Sierra Club and other organizations aren't being monitored/spied on as we speak?
Since they've all at times opposed the shrub administration on issues, are they not considered "terrorist" organizations..
I'm so tired of this "Oh, its the WAR ON TERROR... we can do whatever we want" climate of fear that these people are operating under/imposing their will on us.
It's not supposed to be like this..
if quivering cowardice wasn't the new black.
It didn't have a choice that matched the current law. There should have been another choice:
- Should the Bush administration take advantage of a provision in the current law by obtaining warrants within 72 hours after authorizing wiretaps.
Then those who agree with the current law wouldn't be lumped together with those who would prefer trashing the fourth amendment altogether.
The public does support Bush on this matter. Media matters is wrong again. Find something important or close the sight.
Cite some proof of your statement. Or is that just the opinion of one blind ideologue? Also, if you don't like the content of this site, simply stop dropping by. I'm sure your browser has access to many right-wing sites.
Overusing his rectal database.
How are you able to type with your head so far up your own butt?