NY Times asserted Libby case "polarized public opinion" -- polls show otherwise
A July 3 New York Times article reporting on President Bush's commutation of the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, asserted that "[t]he criminal case" involving Libby "polarized public opinion almost as much as the [Iraq] war itself." The article added that "[c]onservative backers of Mr. Bush contended that because no one was charged with leaking" the identity of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, "the investigation should have been dropped altogether," while "[o]thers said that lying to a grand jury was a serious offense." In fact, public opinion polls have consistently found a strong majority agreeing with the jury's verdict and the court's sentence. Additionally, opinion polls taken prior to Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence found that a strong majority believed Bush should not pardon Libby.
A November 8-13, 2005, Harris poll found that "[a] 56 to 18 percent majority of adults" believed that Libby "is guilty." Additionally, an October 30-November 1, 2005, CBS News poll found that 61 percent of those polled said that "anything" Libby may have done (e.g., lying to the FBI, lying under oath, and obstructing a federal investigation) was "serious enough to deserve criminal prosecution," while only 14 percent said "anything" he may have done was not serious enough to warrant prosecution. Further, a majority of both Republicans and Democrats concurred with these results. The same CBS News poll found that 39 percent of those polled believed the charges against Libby were "probably true" while only 4 percent said they were "probably not true." 54 percent of those polled "did not know enough" to make a decision.
Further, public opinion polls have found that either a majority or a plurality believed President Bush should not pardon Libby, although they did not poll on the question of commuting Libby's sentence:
- A June 26-27 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that 47 percent of voters said Bush "should not" give Libby a pardon, while 20 percent said he should.
- A March 11-14 Gallup poll found that "Americans are 3-to-1 against a Libby pardon." The poll found that 67 percent of respondents believed Bush "should not" offer a pardon to Libby, while 21 percent believed he "should."
- A March 9-11 CNN/Opinion Research poll found that 69 percent of respondents believed that Bush "should not" offer a pardon to Libby, while only 18 percent believed he should. Additionally, 52 percent believed Cheney "was part of a cover-up to try to prevent the special prosecutor from getting to the truth about who leaked CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the news media," while 29 percent believed he was not.
As usual, the public is way ahead of the news media and the politicians in knowing what's right and wrong.
Who did they Poll?
Everyone in D.C, and the 10,000 political junkies who actually paid attention to this story? ;-)
Not trying to diminish the importance of this, but I seriously doubt the majority of Americans could tell you much about it. That's the truth about America 2007. I'll bet more people know who won American Idol this year than can tell you what Scooter Libby did.
Perhaps now that Bush has commuted Libby's sentence & its getting twice as much media coverage it will be something that will catch the interest of a great many more folks. Maybe.
You're right, Deuce. And that's one big maybe.
Funny you can come up with that post without even mentioning the New York Times claim that the public is polarized.
What you and the Times have in common is the energy to minimalize this Bush Libby commute scandal.
I can't speak for Jeter, who's more than capable of speaking for himself. I understood him, however, to be commenting on the wider public's apathy over this story, not the unimportance of the story himself. If you've read any of my previous posts re Plamegate you should remember that, as a former security clearance holder, I am livid at the way the Bucheney Junta has misused classified information. I'm also livid at the corporate controlled media for either downplaying the story or parroting Strauzi talking points.
Conchobhar,
You conveyed what I meant better than I did, so it's ok with me. I may even hire you to translate my posts here for the *reading comprehension-impaired*.
Your effort however will go over Harlequin's head as he's a one-note poster [Con bad/Lib good]...it doesn't matter what the subject matter is. I don't bother with him anymore. He's all yours ;-)
Thanks, Deuce. Given your moniker, however, I couln't work for you with a clear conscience. My namesake uncle, C. Keeffe Hurley, was the Splendid Splinter's lawyer. I was a member of Red Sox Nation before there was such a thing, even before I was born.
I'm glad that Conchobhar and Jeter2 can have a hugfest and a mutual back scratching along with some jabs at me without even mentioning the substance of my post. Jeter2 attacking the merits of the Poll without mentioning the NY Times claim that the Libby case polarized public opinion leaves one wondering if Jeter2 is being biased.
If anyone would like to get a better idea of this exchange, click on the following link. Think of conservative jones boy detective as being Jeter2 and myself as Moonbat McWacky and it should all come clear to everyone how we relate to each other.
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22425
Clown,
I don't recall "jabbing" at you in my response to Jeter. In my prior response to you, I think I did deal with the substance of your post, both as it pertained to Jeter's post and to mine, as I wasn't quite sure which of us you were jabbing.
Conchobar,
My first post wasn't a reply to you. It was a reply to Jeter2's post.
My second post with the jab comment was pointed at Jeter2 not you. I will take the blame for not being clear about it.
I'm glad that Conchobhar and Jeter2 can have a hugfest and a mutual back scratching along with some jabs at me
Given the tone of your own posts, it seems you should develop a thicker hide.
without even mentioning the substance of my post
nor did you mention the substance of Jeter's in your first response
Jeter2 attacking the merits of the Poll without mentioning the NY Times claim... leaves one wondering if Jeter2 is being biased
...and your comment leaves me wondering if you're either being unecessarily partisan or are unwilling to admit you misinterpreted his post...or both.
If anyone would like to get a better idea of this exchange, click on the following link.
Jeter isn't the detective and you're not McWacky...but with posts like this, the name may be appropriate for you.
Thanks CD :-)
When posters as partisan as Harlequin seems to be, accuse me of being biased it makes me wanna say Pot Meet Kettle.
But no matter, I try hard to remain as open-minded as I can, obviously we all have preconceived opinions that would appear a tad partisan to those that disagree with them.
I'm always very appreciative when a poster such as yourself, whom I respect because of their own record of fairness here, responds as you did.
People like Jeter who put the crook Bush in office should be forced to remove him. Now that Dumbya has ignited his umpteenth scandal, one can't even find a Klansman willing to admit they helped him steal two elections.
In defense of Jeter2, his vote (being in Blue MA) did not put Bush back in the White House. And the same could be said for a lot of others in Blue states, who held their nose with one hand while voting with the other. The problem in a lot of elections between major party candidates is that we wind up voting for the lesser of two evils, because neither candidate meets our expectations and often there is very little political differences between them. Not since 1084 do I believe there has been big differences between the candidates. (personal opinions only)
cmon oscar. there was a huge difference between bush and gore. bush was obviously unqualified for the office and gore was well prepared.
Not since 1084 do I believe there has been big differences between the candidates
I thought Henry IV ran unopposed for Holy Roman Emperor. ???
;)
Thanks Oscar, but those of us that voted for Bush...even though we've admitted our error...will never be forgiven by some of the alleged "tolerant" Liberals here. And quite frankly Heru's opinions about most anything mean diddley squat to me.
Those posters that matter [and they know who they are] have accepted my explanation & concession that I made a mistake & don't feel the need to keep throwing it in my face.
Even President Numbnuts admitted that the jury's verdict should stand. He's just making sure that Libby isn't tempted to sing.
The pardon's coming the day Bush leaves office. In the meantime, Libby's appeals will drag on, and Shrub will hide behind "I'm not going to comment on a case that's before the courts," to keep from answering any questions about White House involvement in Plamegate.
"and Shrub will hide behind "I'm not going to comment on a case that's before the courts," to keep from answering any questions about White House involvement in Plamegate." -CONCHOBHAR
An interesting observation, and one that falls readily to hand. After all, Libby still his Fifth Amendment rights.
But is there a slightly deeper note to this? Is Bush attempting to derail criminal investigations? Is he trying to cover up prior or ongoing criminal activities? Think about that. Think about it with respect to, say, an impeachable offense. Interesting, no?
Truth in disclosure... Not quite an original thought with me, somehow it came to me while reading this: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070307R.shtml
Thanks for that link, Darkmass. Your man is definitely onto something. One very telling point he missed, which I think Jonothan Turley pointed out this evening, is that Libby's team indicated, early in the trial, that they intended to call Cheney as a witness, and to put Libby on the stand. Not only did they do neither, they presented no defense at all. This leads one to suspect, if not conclude, that their message had been heard, and responded to, in the White House. Libby has shown what Chris Matthews calls "incredible loyalty" not because he's a fanatic a la Liddy, but because he knew the fix was in. If that's true, and I believe it is, it means Bush is a prime mover in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Criminal? Of course. Impeachable? That's a political question. I don't think the numbers are there. I am encouraged, though, to read that 60% of Republicans polled thought Libby shouldn't be pardoned. Maybe the party has some integrity at the grass roots, at least.
Libby may not have 5th amendment rights as to anything where he has already testified. if he testified about a particular transaction he cannot later claim 5th about that transaction.
Question: Unless a poll is split close to 50/50, it is non-polarizing????
Buh?
Why the surprise about all this? Bush has gone from one minute with a bullhorn to eight years of bulls**t.
Give baby bush a BREAK!! Will ya? He is still trying to figure out the plot in "My Pet Goat". bush has contracted the dreaded "doodie Touch" Everything he touches turns to s---.
In a way it's true, just not in the way it was presented. Polls say 70% are against this. Right now, the 30% think they are twice as big as they are now, thus the "close" polling done by 2 of them to 1 of everyone else!
80% of the American people don't know or care about Scooter Libby. Just 40-50 people here. A few hundred that watch MSNBC and 15-20 million who watch Fox news. In a few weeks most will have forgotten. This whole fiasco is one big NOTHING.
IF that were true it would have something in common with most of your posts
So because our media did a bad job of reporting on this issue, and basically didn't look at the issue much, and gave it passing coverage, and the American people as a whole are too stupid to realize what is important, this makes it all "OK" then? Yeah, that's brilliant right there. Nice logic you have working.
And yet three different polls somehow came up with surprisingly similar results.
Media Matters got this one flat wrong (at least as far as the headline goes).
I like MM alot, but here they say that polls show other than that the Libby thing polarized Americans. Dictionary.com defines "polarizing" as "to divide into sharply opposing factions, political groups, etc.: The controversy has polarized voters into proabortion and antiabortion groups."
It is obvious that Americans have become polarized over this, as all the polls quoted by MM show. Do I think Libby should spend many years in jail? Yes. Do I think he is a traitor? Yes. Do I think he is a polarizing figure? Yes.
If the polls were 100% to 0%, then he would not be a polarizing figure.