Careful, Steve. That poll asked some pretty misleading questions.
For one thing, it set up a false dichotomy between privacy and security.
For another, it asked whether people were OK with the data mining if it's only and explicitly used to catch terrorists. No mention of oversight or legality issues.
And, of course, the sample size was small, and the poll was run with little time for the public to digest or even hear about this latest news. Frankly, the simple fact that it found 51% of respondents thinking Bush protects their civil rights makes it suspect in my book, given other recent polls.
Posted by misc at May 12, 2006 07:59 AMIt pisses me off that so much credibility is given to that one poll done on the same day the latest news broke. Give me a break--at least half of the respondents didn't even know what they were talking about.
Some god dam media whore poll always instantly gets put out there in a frame that helps the junta in whatever law they just shit on. It's freaking true and I'm sick of it.
It's a nuanced situation, nothing serious, but it simply cannot be stilled into some god-awful simpleton stupid question from media whores.
The president is a radical freak who thinks no laws apply to him, not in FISA and wiretaps, not in war, not in nothing. The country is gone, ruled by this idiot freak with no one to stop him.
What does that poll say about that? What a fucking surprise.
Soon, very soon, all of us are simply going to stop looking at the whores in DC for any kind of meaningful lead on where a story is going to go. It's useless propaganda trash. People will go to the truth, not these ridiculous assinine polls that decieve and obfuscate.
Posted by paradox at May 12, 2006 08:00 AMDiscussions of this type of intrusion inevitably bring out the "I don't have anything to hide" crowd. Ceding the 4th Amendment comes so easy to many people. Ask them if they'd like glass walls on their houses. Nothing to hide, right? How about mailing a list to every household of every stop all their cars made the previous month. Dad gets mom's list and vice-versa. We'll just tag every car with a monitor and let everyone know all its travels. Nothing to hide, right? How about a high powered microphone by the watercooler at work. Nobody ever gossips or says anything untoward about the boss. Nothing to hide, right? Let's see, we'll publish on the internet everything you view on pay cable, a monthly summary accessible to all. Nothing to hide, right? Where do we stop? We don't, not until each of our daily lives are akin to the amoeba under the microscope, every undulation of its protoplasm noted and recorded. Happy monitoring!!
Posted by steve duncan at May 12, 2006 08:04 AMI'm not suprised. I remember back when I was in college in the 70's somebody had done a survey in Florida asking people if they would support having the first ten amendments added to the constitution. Leaving aside the fact that most of the respondents didn't know what was in the constitution in the first place, every one of the questions was answered in the negative by a fairly significant margin if I remember correctly.
Posted by leftcoastindie at May 12, 2006 08:05 AMAsk them if they'd like glass walls on their houses. Nothing to hide, right?
This is how we make this real to most people. They need some time to understand and absorb the reality of the Total Information Awareness program. I did notice that the media commentators are outraged, and probably because it's happening to THEM. That has really focused their attention. I think Steve is too pessimistic here. There's a reason the administration doesn't want the details of this program to emerge, so all we need to do is keep those disclosures coming.
On another front, I'm a customer of both AT&T and Verizon, and I'm abandoning both (I know everybody shares their lines, but I don't want AT&T bills in my house anymore.) And I can't be the only customer who's bailing. So that will have an economic effect on the depraved companies that have violated my 4th Amendment rights.
Posted by brooklyn at May 12, 2006 08:17 AMYour point is well taken however a poll taken a week from today, after public has been exposed to more Countdown and yes even Hardball on this issue, together with the possible indictment of Rove I would suggest will see those numbers reverse as the public engages in understanding just how much Bush is asking for with little return. I'll be more interested in seeing how the polls move in the next week as people chat over filling up their cars at the pump.
Posted by mainsailset at May 12, 2006 08:32 AMSteve - look at this:
http://tinyurl.com/eoyzy
While I've heard of discussions about this topic for several years now, I rarely see anybody carry out where this type of mass data mining leads.
Bob buys a rifle, he gets a licsense for the firearm. The licsense records several ways to identify Bob, where he lives, and how to find him at any of several permanent places. So Bob's information can be accessed by a law enforcement/intelligence agency if Bob ever becomes a suspect in an investigation.
Bob doesn't like the fact that all of his hard earned pay gets taken away as taxes. Bob talks about this often with co-works and family over the phone.
From the FBI PUBLICATION #0308.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rJSDPxE5E-oJ:www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm+fbi+terrorist+definition&hl=en&client=firefox-a
" A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
So Bob is recorded saying he doesn't like the government taxing his paycheck in all of the colorful language that an angry man would use. Intelligence agencies cross referrence his name and address with the databases that warehouse firearm permits/liscenses. So now Bob is determined to have made a threatening remark againt the government as well has having a firearm that could be used to shoot people in an attempt to coerce or intimidate the government.
Bob is now under constant surveillance, his friends and family who he complains to are also monitored because one never knows when people might suddenly decide to organize.
Bob was just your garden variety working class conservative christian republican bitching about having to pay social security taxes.
Of course, unless there are millions of agents at an intelligence agency to follow through with the investigations, there will be a huge influx and reliance in technology. Technology is only as accurate as those that created and use the technology.
Posted by Jolly Sapper at May 12, 2006 08:47 AMI would be amazed if those who were polled understood the implications of the NSA domestic surveillance program.
First, while it might not seem like a big breach of privacy to give up your phone records, the implication of having everyone's phone records is that NSA can make inferences about who you associate with and how frequently.
Second, if the program really only affected suspected terrorists, then surely legislation could be enacted that would provide for warrants, and thus oversite.
Bush's approval numbers, rapidly heading to the initial primes, indicate that Americans don't trust him to do the right thing. How could it possibly be that they trust him here?
Posted by AltHippo at May 12, 2006 08:53 AMIf misc. is right, it sounds like the simps at The Note wrote the poll.
Obviously we have a lot of educating to do for our fellow citizens over this. But I think it's worth it.
And if our "leaders" in DC can hammer on Bush, Hayden, Abu G, and the phone companies start feeling the heat in their earnings, then the crack this report exposed will fracture the Republican party to pieces......for a good, long time.
Will it be easy? No.
Should we leave the issue for later generations to decipher? Hell no.
Posted by Zappatero at May 12, 2006 08:57 AMIt's because most of the people polled are too simple to understand the implications.
Sure, they may not be worried about their personal calls falling into the net but they don't understand the implications for others. Others like government whistleblowers, political opponents and so on.
We truly do have some of the most naive and simple people in the world living here. Ask the same question of people that have lived under the Stazi in the former East Germany.
The poll question said the NSA does not listen to the conversations they intercept. Big assumption, unsupported by anything other than the Bush Administration's claims. Only 502 people sampled, some of whom were certainly learning about the program because of the poll.
Ask the same questions next week before making broad assumptions from this tiny sample.
The initial inclination IS to trust the gov't to protect us. But there are lots of ways to re-frame the debate as Leahy and others have done:
1) Do you trust Bush on this one?
2) They lied about it. Remember a few international calls?
Also, the Democrats really need to bolster their image as standing something. And the best way to that is standing for something on a highly visible issue. If not now, when?
Posted by Samuel Knight at May 12, 2006 09:17 AMI don't give a fuck what media-snowed Idiot America believes.
The law is the law, motherfucker, and if you break it, you gotta pay.
Chimpy McFuckup is not above the law and never will be, and if he thinks he is, he's eventually gonna get hammered.
Posted by God Of War at May 12, 2006 09:21 AMI think one of the biggest problems is that people have been programmed over the last 5 years to believe that democracy = voting (see: how well it is going in Iraq.)
They do not understand that voting is the last step in a democracy.
Democracy means that we are protected by the rule of law.
Without laws - no democracy. Period.
Our Constitution and our Bill of Rights were designed to protect us from the government - not the other way around.
I think that upon birth every person must be issued a copy of the Constitution.
Fucking morons.
Posted by Anjha at May 12, 2006 09:22 AMFor the sake of discussion, let's say that those polled do represent the majority of Americans. Then, let's say that the corporofascists achieve their neo-conman goals, and America ceases to be a democratic republic. Who do you suspect will yell the loudest that "Nobody warned me this would happen" ?
Posted by pessimist at May 12, 2006 09:25 AMThis sounds like Vichy Democrat roll-over-and-play-dead talk. I thought this blog was better than that. As noted by several above, this survey was quite flawed. For God's sake, it was a phone survey. Surely calling people on the phone and asking them about phone taps introduces all kinds of biases.
More importantly, taking principled stands on issues is the only way to win. If Democrats continue to fail to show backbone when it comes to the obscene crimes of this administration, they don't deserve to win!
Posted by Herb at May 12, 2006 09:27 AMWhen deciding what is right or wrong, most sane people do not check the polls first. Wrong is wrong, no matter what people think. If people don't know we need to educate them. Being a coward is always wrong and will never win an election.
Posted by some dude named steevo at May 12, 2006 09:29 AMTo many Americans the warrantless spying issue is an abstraction, as in bad things only happen to other people, and they're nonchalant about it. However, this nonchalance that many people have often turns to rage when that which was previously an abstraction actually intrudes into their lives and they come face-to-face with it. If we can repetitively show our skeptical citizenry how they're likely to be negatively affected by warrantless spying, the blowback against the Bush administration could be enormous.
Posted by Steven Sanderson at May 12, 2006 09:34 AMFor God's sake, it was a phone survey. Surely calling people on the phone and asking them about phone taps introduces all kinds of biases. Posted by Herb at May 12, 2006 09:27 AM
Heh. That is funny.
I can see the people now.
"Uh, ya, I support the president. Whatever he wants. He's good."
I wonder if his phone-poll approval rating will go up now that people know they are being recorded and their numbers filed in a database.
Heh.
Posted by Anjha at May 12, 2006 09:46 AMSteve,
I'm not a rabid conspiracy buff, but I wonder who leaked the NSA story, in light of political commentary attributing to Bush White House that they believe more American's support them on this issue than oppose. A cynical ploy to boost popularity?
John
Posted by John at May 12, 2006 09:46 AMMSNBC is running a poll. So far it's 76% AGAINST the NSA collection of #'s and 24% FOR. What a difference a day makes. Take heart, Americans may be starting to put their thinking caps on! (ok, call me Pollyanna)
Posted by mainsailset at May 12, 2006 09:57 AMSteve, don't fall for the Rovian spin from WP. Most polls can be framed to get the answer you want. So maybe Rove asked them to get this answer and BLAST it out to stop Congressional momentum. And it worked on you at least!
Posted by whenwego at May 12, 2006 10:05 AMSorry to doubt the public but I can guarantee if the phone company were required to allow people to "opt out" of having their phone records shared with the government, every single person asked would opt out.
I doubt even one person out there who said they had no problem with the government gathering this massive amount of data can explain how it makes us safer.
Safety and privacy can exist at the same time.
Posted by ann at May 12, 2006 10:15 AMThe poll question said the NSA does not listen to the conversations they intercept.
Yeah, and several months ago Bush said they were only monitoring al-Queda calls. How many times are we going to go back to the abusive husband?
Posted by ann at May 12, 2006 10:21 AMHowever, this nonchalance that many people have often turns to rage when that which was previously an abstraction actually intrudes into their lives and they come face-to-face with it.
Sort of like the Kelo decision and eminent domain?
Posted by snark at May 12, 2006 10:23 AMI wonder what the poll numbers will show it it comes out that the government is scanning and storing all of your emails and voice mails as it is doiing.?
Posted by Nobody at May 12, 2006 10:24 AMI'm not a rabid conspiracy buff, but I wonder who leaked the NSA story, in light of political commentary attributing to Bush White House that they believe more American's support them on this issue than oppose.
Rumor control has it that is was some telecom employees that were horrified by the implications.
I saw Bush get all petulant yesterday at his little lecture about 911 and terreristas. He was pissed. This is not a winning issue for Bush no matter how future prison bitch KKKarl tries to spin it.
(NSA fucks that have not quit yet in disgust. I refer you to the nuremberg trials. I also assume you are reading this. To you I say a hardy FOAD.)
Even if the authoritarian loving sheeple are eager to bend over and get drilled some more, there are diamonds to be pulled from this. The lie that Bush told about this not being 'data mining' is one. Compare and contrat with statements made by Hadly that this is 'data mining'.
Even dumb-ass bubas don't like being lied to that blatantly.
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 12, 2006 10:31 AMWhen fascism comes, it'll come wrapped in an American flag.
Posted by Joseph at May 12, 2006 10:56 AMMore observations on the Nero rhetoric/reality dichotomy:
Largest government collection of personal data in history = "your privacy is being fiercely protected!" Pretty funny.
At this point, it's very hard to believe that all of our electronic communications are not being monitored.
TLCers make some good points about the weakness of this poll, but it really should not have been able to generate a 64% number, given reasonably intelligent citizens who had the most basis understanding of government and privacy.
We'll see where we're at next week (the non- scientific MSNBC poll is currently at 85% opposed to Nero's latest spying), but I think Steve is correct to point out how debased the citizenry has become--the proof will come next week, when the story's been digested.
Nero has spent 6 years dividing the country on dozens of issues, especially the issue of "security" versus privacy. It's always presented as an "either/or" matter. Politically, it's a way to continue the bitter battles between countrymen that benefits the GOP. Long term, it's a disaster.
There is not very much about our states which is "united" after 6 years of Nero and the Republican Congress, nor is there any basis for future reconciliation. We would be fools to forgive, and forgetting is literally impossible.
Posted by euzoius at May 12, 2006 10:58 AMThat poll is BS. Most people oppose his warrantless wiretapping, but we're to believe they're A-OK with spying on every single American (does Bush really believe there are 10 million terrorists in this country?).
Posted by dole4pineapple at May 12, 2006 11:01 AMAlso a lawsuit.
It's time to switch phone companies. I am making arrangements now.
Posted by Anjha at May 12, 2006 11:01 AMAs I think I understand it, 'data-mining' is allowed without any kind of oversight AS LONG AS no personal identification is archived along with the data.
For example, the NSA can mine telco data all day long when they're looking at things like HOW MANY NUMBERS called from this region to that region.
Where it get's into eavesdropping, surveillance, wire-tapping, whatever you want to call it... is when the NSA et al ALSO keep your telephone number on file.
Your telephone number, like your SSN, driver's licence #, etc., is considered a personal identifier.
So then, the question I'm waiting to get answered is whether the NSA genuinely engaged in a strict data-mining operation or whether they also kept our personal identifiers.
Posted by Richard Harlos at May 12, 2006 11:15 AMI keep coming back to the fact that BushCo is incompetent. They could have all the data in the world and have no idea how to use it.
These are the people who didn't know what to do with a PDB that said "bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
These are the folks who created a Medicare prescription drug program that is too complicated for most seniors to figure out without help from their children.
These are the folks who didn't know what to do after a hurricane in New Orleans. These are the people who took a well-functioning government agency, FEMA and destroyed it beyond repair.
Why would anyone in this country think that they are capable enough to analyze this kind of data?
Posted by ann at May 12, 2006 11:16 AMThe Bill of Rights is about protecting the rights of minority (even if it is the pwower of One) from the tyranny of the majority of the people or and government. The Bill of Rights is not about the rule of public opinion, the sentiments of surveys or test subjects.
Posted by ROMAN at May 12, 2006 11:23 AMIdeas like yours are the reason we are going to lose the Republic
Posted by you'llknowusbythenumberofdeadinourwake at May 12, 2006 11:43 AMThe tacit support the phone taps receive is based on a hard push frame job by the Republicans and some press. Rather than fight on principle to unravel the uninformed support for this program, the CENTER-LEFT proposes to cede this issue to the Republicans until November.
At what point does the center-left take responsibility for the poor representation we receive from the Dems presently ?
Oh, of course, after November when the goalpost is moved to 2008. I mean, they're going to need some time to implement their strategy as long as it doesn't threaten the 2008 elections.
Am I getting this, or is there something more I should know ?
Posted by self at May 12, 2006 12:16 PMRmn, xctly crrct, yt w hv prblm. Fr nstnc, whl th Cnstttn s dsgnd t chng, t fld t ntcpt th grwth f mlt-ntnl crprtns nd thr mny hndlrs. Thy dd ndd hv sm crp prcdnc wth sm f th clns rn by bby crps; nd thy hd th st nd C., tc, bt ths prcrsrs f r mdrn Crp Clt f Stnsm wr lrdy dyng d t xcss, (slvry ws bcmng nt-cl bcs ndstrlztn prvdd pn-pnt ( fw hrs pr dy) xplttn wtht th slghtst scl rspnsblty, cmmnctn lgs llwd dcntrlzd ctvty f th bby mngrs, lwys prn t vrs chrctr flws; nd pltcls hd th pwr t rvk crp chrtrs, dnd crps prsn stts, nd crp wrn‘t llwd t by stck n thr crprtns).
Wht hppnd? Whn th crp lrds gnd th prprty rghts f s rl hmns, w hv r mdrn mnstr f prft nd dmnnc. Thy hv grwn s pwrfl tht r vry thghts r trcd t thr dcdnt sds f dprvty nd xcss. Hw? Th crp bys cntrl th vry mchnsms hw w lrn: md nd dctn. Th nly bstcl t thr rd t pwr ws th Chrstn Chrch f th trn f th 20th Cntry, wth ts rlnc pn th Bbl. Th Bbl md th crp bys shddr n hrrr: thr ws n fnd n bt vry hm n 1870. Wht t d? llw vry frm f mmgrnt, ch wth 2300 Pgn rlgns, t nvd th S. By vry sngl md tlt, nd prmt vry sngl scl ctvty tht drctly rbls gnst Bblcl stndrds. Thy mprtd vry Blshvk prncpl sd n th SSR, kpng vry n, ncldng th scl chngs tht rvrtd t trdtn whn Stln rn th z.
Ths, th prblm hr s myrd. Bt, mprtntly, whn w tlk bt th ‘Cnstttn,’ ‘Bll f Rghts,’ nd nythng ls vn lsly ttchd t lglty, w’r ncldng nt nly ndvdls f flsh, tht s, rl ppl, bt t, th crprt frks f ntr, n ln ntn tht rns r cntry, wh R LS PRTCTD by th Cnstttn nd thr lws. nd thr ‘mnrty’ f n s fr grtr thn m, ls mnrty r n. Ds ny f ths mk n shrd f sns? Th Cnstttn prtcts r crp lrds, th vry ttckrs f r rl ppl.
Josh Marshall pointed out this bit in WaPo article, that seems kinda important.
Government access to call records is related to the previously disclosed eavesdropping program, sources said, because it helps the NSA choose its targets for listening.
So, no trolling, eh, Chimpy?
Posted by iamcoyote at May 12, 2006 01:03 PMFalse dichotomy? You mean like calling a rating of 'fair' 'unfavorable'?
Posted by cyr at May 12, 2006 01:40 PMLemme see - the #1 and #3 guys at the CIA leave at the same time, for what probably will turn out to be the same reason (crooked). And the CIA is an Agency directly controlled by the President. And that President would be the same one who blamed bad advice and intelligence from the CIA for both 9/11 and the Iraq blunder. I'd say he's not doing a very good job of fixing the problems. But wait, he appointed Goss who appointed Foggo- so really, its Bush who is causing the problems. When will the press notice this?
Posted by T2 at May 12, 2006 01:58 PMAnn said: I keep coming back to the fact that BushCo is incompetent. They could have all the data in the world and have no idea how to use it.
I believe you're right about that as far as catching any terrorists goes. However, think about the people like Karl Rove and what he'd like to do with the information he could get his hands on.
In East Germany the Stazi was much more involved in controlling the domestic population than it was against protecting the country from outsiders.
Posted by fly at May 12, 2006 02:00 PMPoll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts = Never Underestimate The Stupidity Of The Average American...
Some people just refuse to use their brains. Just knowing someone's phone habits will not help in detecting if they are a terrorist or not. That is unless the powers that be are reviewing the content of said calls, which President Bush say's they definitely aren't doing... Hmmm, yeah right!
Posted by IHateRedState.com at May 12, 2006 02:24 PM"in light of political commentary attributing to Bush White House that they believe more American's support them on this issue than oppose. A cynical ploy to boost popularity?"
I voiced the same concern in the previous thread on this subject and someone named "benjoya" launched a foul and personal attack on me.
Posted by Kevin at May 12, 2006 02:26 PMI believe you're right about that as far as catching any terrorists goes. However, think about the people like Karl Rove and what he'd like to do with the information he could get his hands on.
Consider this, fly: a friend of mine recently received a solicitation letter from GWB for the GOP. I don't believe she's ever voted Republican in her entire life, and she's well into her 50s. Sheer incomepetence.
Posted by ann at May 12, 2006 03:22 PMOur Presidents swear to uphold the Constitution, plain and simple. Nowhere does it say his duties are to protect us from brown people. And if we need this issue to bring back civic lessons to our American population, so be it. Neither terrorism, nor anything else, allows one person or small group of people to be above being held accountable for their actions.
It was encouraging to read (via Greenwald) of the long time it took for the burglary of the DNC to lead to Nixon's resignation -- two years, during which Nixon won reelection by one of the largest landslides in history.
What we need are Republican Congresspersons to put country above party and start legitimate investigations. The high crimes and misdemeanors list is long and widespread. I think Republicans who wish to have a party five years from now better start educating their own followers, the facts are catching up with Bushco and Rove.
The poll was poorly worded, rushed, and smelling strongly of Washington insider-dom. The simple fact, if Democrats can just stick to a simple message communicated far and wide, is that there are mechanisms in place for surveillance of legitimate terrorist communications ... it is called a warrant.
If any terrorists are even caught, the prosecutions can't happen if the surveillance was illegal in the first place. Isn't it odd that we haven't had any terrorist prosecutions? Guess why we have Gitmo in the first place; Bush is above the law (see 750 signing statements).
It is obvious that Bush is way out of line and deliberately refusing to go to courts, because he doesn't want a paper trail or to tell anyone who he is listening to (apparently everyone).
Posted by Lanny at May 12, 2006 04:24 PMAre you fucking nuts? This is unacceptable. Now I don't know how you define unacceptable, but I define it as I would just as soon rip the nuts off a repug who accepts this bullshit than look the other way! WORD UP!
Posted by at May 12, 2006 07:11 PMThinking like a politician, typical for a Democrat. It is not hard to explain to people why this is such a bad thing (gee, for starters didn't someone high up at the CIA just get accused of bribery? Can everyone who works at the NSA be trusted with that data). Consider also - who is to prevent monitoring of journalist's phone calls? The NSA may come to suspect a story will break before it does. There are countless reasons. The Democrats never will win an election unless they stand for something and that means making their case.
Posted by M.I. at May 12, 2006 08:39 PMSure, in a perfect world Democrats shouldn’t be afraid to lead on principle even if the public doesn’t share our concerns yet. But the goal is to win in November and not do anything that steers that effort away from favorable terrain into areas where the familiar arguments can be used once again to dissipate support for a change in November.
This kind of reaction from a supposed progressive is really annoying. Quit being afraid of your shadow and take a stand for a change. Most people haven't thought twice about the consequences of losing their personal privacy. Remind them that among the 'bad guys' being monitored are the Quakers and Grandmothers Against the War and you might convince a few that these guys are abusing their authority without making us a bit safer.
Posted by Mike at May 12, 2006 08:41 PMWhere the hell are the Democrats framing this issue? This is the easiest issue in the world to re-frame ... it's a killer for the GOP, a deal-breaker, an absolute end to their party if the Democrats seize the chance. But it's not going to happen unless Democrats get out in front of this issue and lead. And I don't just mean voice concern, express outrage, etc. I mean use spooky rhetoric, run commercials ... really hard-hitting commercials, in fact, framing this issue for what it is ... government intrusion in all of our lives, a creepy real-world example of the stuff of dystopic sci-fi novels and movies.
Look, folks were spooked by the GOP over the Schiavo thing ... they'd be scared as hell over this if the Democrats do the necessary work.
Posted by BriVT at May 12, 2006 11:47 PMWhy are we even having this conversation. Right is RIGHT, and wrong is WRONG! Legal is LEGAL, and illegal is ILLEGAL! Impeach the bastard, and let's be done with it.
Posted by Judith at May 13, 2006 02:27 AMExcellent points by BriVT.
Ask yourself: what would the RNC and Republican representatives be doing if a Democratic president had authorized this NSA data mining? Not merely expressing "concern" and being "troubled", that's for sure.
We are members of a party of weaklings.
Posted by euzoius at May 13, 2006 07:29 AMDo not believe that poll! You Republican-lite Dems have to speak up for DEMOCRACY and people will respond. That poll is most likely inaccurate and aimed at keeping YOU from taking the action that citizens are crying out for, outside the Beltway. I know far more people who no longer vote because the Dems just parrot the Reps or vote Rep because they cannot figure out what Dems are saying beyond that the Reps are doing a fine job. Support this domestic spying abuse and you send that message yet again.
Posted by at May 13, 2006 10:50 AMWe Democrats don't deserve to win another election ever again if we don't pound this administration over the head with this.
Your 'reasonable' argument of unilateral capitulation when even Newt Gingrich is on the side of the angels describes, lays out in perfect detail why I am beginning to hate my party more than the Republicans -- unprincipled cowardice in the face of a relentlessly unAmerican campaign would seemingly be unthinkable after 12 years of equivication and retreat, yet based on a single, irrelevent poll, you hope the Democrats avoid the argument altogether. Perfectly pathetic. Perfectly Democratic of you.
Posted by Jay Brida at May 13, 2006 11:18 AM