Wash. Post's Weisman "won't believe" impeachment polls, even those conducted by his own paper
During the May 11 edition of the Post Politics Hour online discussion at washingtonpost.com, Washington Post White House correspondent Jonathan Weisman replied to a question -- "How is Washington handling the news that almost 40 percent of Americans support impeachment of [President] Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney?" -- by stating: "We're not. I haven't seen the polling that you are referring to, and until I do, I won't quite believe it." A recent InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll, however, found that 39 percent of Americans favor the impeachment by Congress of Bush and Cheney, and polling conducted over a year ago for the Post indicated that one-third of Americans would support Bush's impeachment and removal from office.
In his May 8 syndicated column on TownHall.com, political strategist and pundit Matt Towery reported that a recent InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll found that nearly four in ten Americans favored impeaching the president. Towery, the CEO of the Atlanta-based polling firm InsiderAdvantage, wrote:
Our InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll asked this:
"Would you favor or oppose the impeachment by Congress of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney?"
Favor: 39 percent.
Oppose: 55 percent.
Undecided/Don't Know: 6 percent.
The survey of 621 registered voters has been weighted for age, race, gender and political affiliation. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.
In addition, a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted April 6-9, 2006, found that 33 percent of respondents favored impeaching Bush and removing him from office. According to an April 11 Post article:
The depth of public dissatisfaction with Bush and the highly partisan nature of the criticism are underscored by public attitudes toward efforts by some in Congress to censure him or impeach him for his actions as president.
Democratic and Republican congressional leaders view both scenarios as remote possibilities. Still, more than four in 10 Americans -- 45 percent -- favor censuring or formally reprimanding Bush for authorizing wiretaps of telephone calls and e-mails of terrorism suspects without court permission. Two-thirds of Democrats and half of all independents, but only one in six Republicans, support censuring Bush, the poll found.
Last month, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced a resolution in the Senate to censure Bush. A majority of Americans, 56 percent, said his move was driven more by politics than by principle.
Calls to impeach Bush are not resonating beyond Democratic partisans. One-third of Americans, including a majority of Democrats (55 percent), favor impeaching Bush and removing him from office. But more than nine in 10 Republicans and two-thirds of independents oppose impeachment.
At the time, Media Matters for America Managing Director Jamison Foser noted several flaws in the structure of this poll that might have reduced the number of respondents supporting impeachment:
Notice that [Post polling director Richard] Morin claims the results to the questions about censure and impeachment indicate "the highly partisan nature of the criticism" of Bush. But do they really? Or do they reflect the fact that the Post injected partisan politics into the questions? The censure and impeachment questions were worded as follows:
40. As you may know, Bush authorized wiretaps on telephone calls and e-mails of people suspected of involvement with terrorism, without first getting court approval to do so. Democratic Senator Russ Feingold has called for Congress to censure or officially reprimand Bush for doing this. Do you think Congress should or should not censure or officially reprimand Bush for authorizing these wiretaps?
41. Do you think Feingold is calling for censuring Bush mainly (to use the issue for political advantage), or mainly (because he believes it is the right thing to do)?
42. Democratic Congressman John Conyers has called for creation of a committee to look into impeaching Bush and removing him from office. Do you think Congress should or should not impeach Bush and remove him from office?
Perhaps the partisan split in the poll results simply reflects the fact that the Post chose to identify censure and impeachment as matters being promoted by Democrats?
By contrast, the Post's January 1998 poll, which asked several questions about the possibility of impeaching President Clinton, did not associate the idea with either political party.
There's another crucial difference between the way the Post asked about impeachment in 1998 and the way it asked about impeachment in 2006: In 1998, the questions asked whether Clinton should be impeached for specific reasons. Two of the questions asked were:
If this affair did happen and if Clinton did not resign, is this something for which Clinton should be impeached, or not?
If Clinton lied by testifying under oath that he did not have an affair with the woman, and he did resign, is this something for which Clinton should be impeached, or not?
In asking if Bush should be impeached, the Post omitted any mention of any reason why one might think he should be.
Finally, in 1998, the Post asked if Clinton should be "impeached." In 2006, the Post asked if Bush should be impeached and removed from office -- leaving no room for the respondent who thinks he should be impeached but not removed, as Clinton was.
So, in 1998, the Post poll gave respondents a specific reason why Clinton might be impeached, didn't tie it to either political party, and didn't include his removal from office in the question. But in 2006, the Post did link the possibility to one party, did not give respondents a specific reason why Bush might be impeached, and did include his removal from office in the question.
Since April 11, 2006, The Washington Post has conducted 10 polls asking respondents if they approve of the job President Bush is doing. None of these polls has asked whether respondents favor impeaching Bush and removing him from office.
Before the April 2006 poll, the Post gave several rationales for refusing to conduct polls on impeachment. In her November 13, 2005, column, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote that Morin told her the Post does not "do a poll on whether President Bush should be impeached" because such a question "is biased and would produce a misleading result." Media Matters for America Managing Director Foser pointed out the inconsistency in Morin's claim: The Post, under Morin's direction, asked similar questions about then-President Bill Clinton throughout 1998. Morin then changed his story, saying that "we do not ask about impeachment because it is not a serious option or a topic of considered discussion."
I'll bet these same newspapers didn't have any trouble believing the outlandish claim that close to 50% of voters wanted Bush to be President.
How dare Weisman ignore polling he has never seen.
Not bothering to look at something is one very effective way to ignore it, Duncan me'boy.
I'd say that since you've never seen Duncan, you can just probably just ignore him.
"..........even those conducted by his own paper". By his own paper over a year ago. Yep, he certainly should have remembered that poll with 33% or should have most definitely knew about the one done more recently by some political website.
I don't think MMFA is making Weisman's inability to recall polls entirely from memory the issue. Still, I'm having a bit of trouble grasping what they are taking issue with. Weisman simply says that until he sees the polling data, he won't "quite believe it." It sounds to me like he's skeptical, maybe thick-headedly so, but it still sounds like skepticism. What am I missing?
Perhaps its this. What is his job again? White House correspondent? Seems to me that being marginally well informed might be part of doing that job. Yet apparantly he doesnt even read HIS OWN PAPER. Also if he is being asked about this poll and responding I dont believe it unless I see it myself what is he saying? Is he calling them liars? What exactly would be his rationale for disbelieving something he had no knowlege of. Why would it be so hard to believe? The guy has less than a thirty percent approval rating the only reason to not believe it would be outright bias. I find the whole thing surreal myself. I am actually suprised it is that low. I would have figured it closer to 50%
Some political website? From "Human Events" : "Mr. Towery served as the chairman of former Speaker Newt Gingrich's political organization from 1992 until Gingrich left Congress. He is a former Georgia state representative, the author of several books and currently heads the polling and political information firm InsiderAdvantage. " A very conservative political website.
By an amazing coincidence, I no longer believe anything I read in the Washington Post unless it's verified outside of the MSM.
Those are pretty big numbers considering the media's almost uniform opposition to impeachment and the Democrat's foolish movement to 'move on' and ignore blatant crimes in this administration. Nancy Pelosi claiming that impeachent is "off the table" when they took power was really an abandonment of her responsibilities. They didn't drive the point home after Reagan/Bush crimes and then the GOP had the gall to impeach a successful, popular president for lying about his sex life. These people need to be exposed for what they are, driven out of power and kept on the lunatic right fringe where they belong. If 40 percent (or anything close) want impeachment in spite of the limp opposition party, that really is something of a movement. Democrats need to pay attention to this for the good of future generations.
Very true. Keep watching those numbers, those in favor of impeachment will continue to rise.
Q Do you think that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should be impeached for misleading the American People and their Congress, by way of FALSIFIED intelligence, into an invasion and occupation of Iraq that serves no National Security purpose whatsoever, and has instead killed 3,398 U.S. Troops (so far) in that place, and siphoned off $430 billion from the U.S. Treasury (so far)?
Q Do you think that if George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were to have performed oral sex on one another in the Oval Office, but they had not done the things described above, should they be impeached for that too?
Q Who would you prefer to have as President of the United States right now, George W. Bush or William Jefferson Clinton?
Q Do you think that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should be impeached for misleading the American People and their Congress, by way of FALSIFIED intelligence, into an invasion and occupation of Iraq that serves no National Security purpose whatsoever, and has instead killed 3,398 U.S. Troops (so far) in that place, and siphoned off $430 billion from the U.S. Treasury (so far)?
Yes
Q Do you think that if George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were to have performed oral sex on one another in the Oval Office, but they had not done the things described above, should they be impeached for that too?
No, but they should have to explain themselves.
Q Who would you prefer to have as President of the United States right now, George W. Bush or William Jefferson Clinton?
Bubba of course.
I'd guess your answer 'yes', to the first question, to place you among about 40% of the American People who feel the same (as the item points out)... but note how my question was phrased: It is 'leading', true, but does it mislead? I don't think so, and my point is that, were the question to be asked that exact way, as I phrased it, I bet you would get greater than 40% responding 'yes'...
With the question including a reminder of FALSIFIED intelligence, and citing the number of lives lost and the hundreds of billions of dollars siphoned from the U.S. Treasury (the true reason for the occupation!), then I'd bet you'd get a simple majority easy, saying 'yes' to Impeachment... maybe even 60%, maybe even two-thirds of the American People could feel that way (two-thirds: The super-majority required in the Senate, to remove an Impeached officer from office).
As for you preferring former president Clinton to George W. Bush, I'd guess you were in a super-majority of much more than two-thirds of the American People on that one... three out of four, maybe four out five (maybe more!) of the American People would agree with you, that they'd rather have Mr. Clinton than Mr. Bush in that Office right now... that they'd rather have those thousands of lost lives back (a thing impossible)... that they'd rather have those hundreds of billions of dollars back too (a thing highly unlikely, as again, that money was the reason those business agents, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, did what they did... and they're not going to willingly give any of it back, that's for sure).
Thank you Media Matters!
It is stunning how blatantly corrupt the Wash Post has become in it's coverage of Bush's reign of error.
The poop is deep with this administration and when this Congress gets on with it's over-due, over-sight duties the poop will/should hit the fan.
Nancy, lovely lady I'm sure, will be obliged to follow the misdeeds in this rats nest of corruption. When the facts of this become apparent her hands will be tied.
I have a mental picture of Jonathan Weisman standing there with his fingers in his ears singing "La la la la la la".
:-)
Wow. The "Washington Post White House correspondent Jonathan Weisman " claims he is not up to speed on national opinion about impeaching the current occupant of the White House? Either he has some dirt on the publisher that keeps him from being fired for gross laziness, or the Washington Post has its cranium so far up its colon they don't know wether to defecate or wind thier watch.
Cut the guy some slack,Pithaughn. He's got to keep up with Hillary's brightly colored outfits and Edwards' haircuts. He's only one man.
Don't mind me, I am just experimenting to see how vulgar I can get before the MMFA filter kicks in. I'm a techy geek at an ISP and am interested in how the filter works. But never the less, Hilary is not in the white house at the moment, and Edwards is unlikely to be a guest for now, so, no he get's no slack from me. I'm not sure why, but for some reason there is a gigantic lack of attention being paid to what is a huge grass roots feeling that George and Dick need to go before 08. Even here in the heart of conservative W Colorado, I easily find someone every day who is for impeachment of these two hacks.
Questions from above in the Wa Post,
40. As you may know, Bush authorized wiretaps on telephone calls and e-mails of people suspected of involvement with terrorism, without first getting court approval to do so. Democratic Senator Russ Feingold has called for Congress to censure or officially reprimand Bush for doing this. Do you think Congress should or should not censure or officially reprimand Bush for authorizing these wiretaps?
41. Do you think Feingold is calling for censuring Bush mainly (to use the issue for political advantage), or mainly (because he believes it is the right thing to do)?
42. Democratic Congressman John Conyers has called for creation of a committee to look into impeaching Bush and removing him from office. Do you think Congress should or should not impeach Bush and remove him from office
I'm no law expert but the wording of these questions in this way reads an awful lot like 'leading the witness' type way of asking them.......
In the court of public opinion this series of questions should be tossed out and the author(s) re-schooled on how to write properly worded questions that have no political inuendo's attached to them!
How should those questions be phrased?
If we go by the Washington Post poll, a higher percentage of Americans favored impeaching Bill Clinton in October 1998. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/10/13/poll/
"In asking if Bush should be impeached, the Post omitted any mention of any reason why one might think he should be."
That is probably because there are no valid reasons to impeach Bush. All moonbat (e.g., Kucinich's) claims concerning "high crimes and misdemeanors" also apply to Bill Clinton.