Skip to main content

[The Impeach Bush Coalition salutes coalition member Lukery of the blog called Wot is it Good 4.  Apparently, Lukery has been hounding Zogby International  to do another poll of the American public in order to find out America's latest opinion on the impeachment of George W. Bush.  As some of you may recall, on June 30, Zogby International found that forty two percent (42%) of Americans believed, at that time, that impeachment was in order if the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.  But since that time, Zogby has not polled the American public on this matter again.  

Since posting his article, Lukery's story has been covered by Raw Story and the Washington Post!  So here is his post:]

Ok - so I finally got a real answer from Zogby about that impeachment question that I've been hounding them about for weeks:

Here's the background:

In a Zogby Poll, released June 30, 2005, we learned that:

"...more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment."

The 'interiors' of the poll say that 59% of dems, 43% of Independents and 25% of repugs "would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances."

On June 30, the day the poll was released, Keith Olbermann interviewed John Zogby on Countdown and they discussed the impeachment question and Keith asked him when he would ask the impeachment question again - Zogby replied:

"We'll test it periodically, probably in a month from now. Again, no-one is really talking about it, but it is a good barometric reading." (Crooks and Liars has the video)

A week later, on July 6, Dan Froomkin in the Washington Post wrote:  
"But you wouldn't know (that 42% want to impeach) from following the news. Only three mainstream outlets that I can find made even cursory mention of the poll last week when it came out.
    Nevertheless, could there be anything that 42% of Americans agree on that the media care about so little?"

On August 3, when a new Zogby poll was released which didn't include the impeachment question, I sent Zogby an email asking, "When [do] you plan to ask that question again?"

On August 10, I got a response - they tried kicking the can down the road, apparently hoping that I'd forget:  

"We'll skip the summer and get back to it in September. John Zogby"

On August 28, I emailed Zogby again, trying to tease a commitment out of them:
"When will you be asking this question? Early in september? Or later in the month?"

At the same time, I wrote a post saying:  
"My sense is that they are nervous about this question for one reason or other. And it's tempting to think that they are nervous because of some pressure from the egadministration - and if the egadmin is nervous, then lets shine the light on 'em."
 Anyway, I hadn't received a response from that Aug 28 email, so I sent the same question to another person at Zogby on Sep 12, and I promptly received this reply (see above):  
    We have decided to not to ask the impeachment question again unless it is raised in Congress. We aim to remain as impartial as possible with our questions. Thank you.
    Christopher Conroy"

E tu Zogby? E tu.

It's not apparent whether the 'impartiality' (sic) rule is a new rule - or whether they already broke their own rule when they asked the question in the June 30 poll, and also when John Zogby was on national TV saying that he'd ask the question regularly.

With remarkable restraint, I replied to Chris' email:  

"That's an odd trigger point. I don't understand how 'impartiality' correlates with "unless it is raised in Congress"
    Could you please explain?"

I'll let you know when/if I hear back from him - although it's been a week now already.

Here's what John Zogby says about polling in the "About" section of":  

"In a democracy, public opinion must be a factor in any policy discussion. I personally have some trouble when polls drive policy or decisions by our leaders, but the opinion of voters must be somewhere in the mix. Ultimately, we elect our representatives to make decisions on principle and conscience, but we also expect that they not be contemptuous of the people who elected them.
    Polls are a good thing. They help connect us -- just like newspaper letters to the editor and talk radio. They let us know if our opinions are in the mainstream or not. They measure values, the ideas we cherish the most. They can also be abused, like anything else. But one thing I have learned in my decade and a half of doing this professionally: those who complain the loudest about polls follow them more closely than anyone else."

On Aug 31, in a post titled "MSM Refuses to Poll on Impeachment Question," Bob Fertik at (another IBC member)noted that "The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll was published today, and despite record-low approval ratings for Bush (45%), there was no question on impeachment." He wrote a letter to some pollsters asking:  
"Can you explain why the Post did not ask a question about impeachment in its latest poll?
    Were you asked not to include such a question, either by senior editors or Republican officials?"

Gallup replied thusly (and the Washington Post concurred):
" But the general procedure Gallup uses to determine what to ask about in our surveys is to measure the issues and concerns that are being discussed in the public domain. We will certainly ask Americans about their views on impeaching George W. Bush if, and when, there is some discussion of that possibility by congressional leaders, and/or if commentators begin discussing it in the news media. That has not happened to date."

(note that there's no mention of Zogby's 'impartiality')

In the June 30 interview on Olbermann's Countdown , Zogby said:  

"It's mainly a testimonial to just how polarized this nation is - the fact that, at this point in time, in the middle of a war, after a re-election, that this many people would even think about impeachment - when no-one else is even talking about it... and so it's troublesome for this administration
    Again, no-one is really talking about it, but it is a good barometric reading"

Of course, when Zogby says "no-one", he means that the punditocracy isn't talking about it. That is to say, 42% of the American people are seriously thinking about the impeachment of the President despite the apparent media lockdown.

So we can see what happened: Zogby was a naughty pollster and he asked the public what they thought without getting permission from the administration - and he did one interview with the apparently-independent Olbermann. A week later, Dan Froomkin had presumably been reading the blogs, and he wrote that the media had barely mentioned the news - this despite both Olbermann and Zogby calling the results "extraordinary".

Fast forward two months, and the pollster-gatekeepers are arguing that they won't ask Americans the impeachment question, because the pundits won't mention impeachment. The only occasion that the story got any media coverage was when Zogby did the poll in June.

Zogby has now 'decided' not to ask the impeachment question again, which ensures that there won't be any media discussion, which means that the pollsters won't ask Americans whether they'd prefer to get rid of their President, which in turn results in the media silence.

It's a lovely little closed loop they've created. It's impenetrable, and it's dangerous.

The purpose of the lockdown is obviously to suppress the consideration of impeachment - if 42% of the population are already of the opinion that the president (and presumably others) should be impeached, then we can safely assume that a much higher percentage of the population would be calling for impeachment if we had a free press.

It is clear that the administration is, or should be, concerned about the possibility of impeachment. It is also clear that Zogby's concern about the 'impartiality' of questions is absurd on its face. As John Zogby himself says: "those who complain the loudest about polls follow them more closely than anyone else" - which necessarily raises the distinct possibility that the administration was sufficiently concerned about the mere mention of impeachment that they asked, bribed, or otherwise threatened Zogby into not repeating the poll about impeachment.

(update: Dan Rather just gave a speech at the Fordham University School of Law in Manhattan where he said that there is an "atmosphere of fear in newsrooms" which comes from politicians "applying pressure" (link))

Of course, it's conceivable that Zogby's decision not to poll the impeachment question is an act of self-censorship. That scenario seems unlikely however, given that Zogby appears to have changed his 'policy' in the week or two after his appearance on Keith Olbermann's Countdown.

We should make some noise about this. The maladministration is concerned about impeachment, and the polling firms are in the pocket of the Rovian machine. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

[Stay Tuned...]

Originally posted to The Bulldog Manifesto on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 04:20 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  awesome post (none)
    Very interesting, since I took the Zogby poll yesterday.  I said that I'd vote for every single damn Dem in all of Wisconsin (I'm sooo lukewarm for Kohl but all of the questions were "If it were Kohl vs. a Republican" so I gave it to him).

    No impeachment question on yesterday's poll - but GWB got a big fat "VERY UNFAVORABLE" from me.

    •  very interesting (none)
      I got one yesterday in Colorado. Similar. It pertained to our Governor's race. Who would I vote for in different matchups.

      "Why are we falling all over ourselves congratulating the President for taking responsibility for something that was his responsibility? I don't get it." - Imus

      by OLinda on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:53:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Zogby was a sell-out in polling in the '04 race (none)
        He carried Bush water in POTUS polling many a time. Why are you surprised? He has no merit.

        He probably got a visit discussing columbian neckties and how well they'd treat his wife and he's changed his mind about polling since...He doesn't even have the conscience to stand by the first amendment. Somone got really close to him...

        •  surprised (none)
          I don't know that I was surprised. Said it was interesting polls were going on in different states yesterday.

          "Why are we falling all over ourselves congratulating the President for taking responsibility for something that was his responsibility? I don't get it." - Imus

          by OLinda on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:47:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Where to write to Zogby (4.00)
      Maybe if enough people write in and ask, he'll poll on this question:

      •  Exactly (none)
        Any ideas on how to start banging the drums on this one?
      •  Thanks for link! (none)
        Nice, easy form to fill out. Even includes a Dear John letter's bomb him with this request for a new polling on the impeachment of GWB.

        The more understanding one posesses, the less there is to say and the more there is to do.

        by Alohaleezy on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:27:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the link! (none)
        Here's what I sent:

        Earlier this summer, you included an impeachment question in your poll. Now, I'm reading that you won't include another impeachment question in your polls unless it is brought up by Congress. I cannot urge you strongly enough to rethink this. You know as well as we do that Congress is controlled by Republicans, and that even the reasonable ones are still controlled by the Rove machine. The American public is growing ever more disgusted by the Bush Administration's lies and failures. All politicians pay attention to polls. If the question is raised and the response is more favorable, those who wish to be re-elected in 2006 will be forced to consider the question, and it is one that needs consideration. It will not happen without some outside impetus, such as polls indicating that the American public want this.

        The 2100+ Americans dead in Iraq, their families, and the citizens of New Orleans and Mississippi deserve no less. PLEASE RECONSIDER! Thanks.

        "Poverty or wealth can make all the differences in securing the substance or only the shadow of constitutional protections." -Wiley Rutlidge

        by asimbagirl on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 08:12:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  thanks (none)
        thanks for the link. I wrote and asked John if he was considering asking the question again after the Fitzgerald indictments of senior Bush Administration officials.

        "I will return the highest standards of honor to the highest office in the land. This is my pledge." - George W. Bush, 2/2/2000

        by HipCitizen on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 08:31:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I wrote (none)
        I told him that no one will start talking about it in the media until someone starts talking about it in the media. That even though it's not talked about now, in the media, it most assuredly is in grocery store conversations that I did not initiate, so the thought is already out there.
        Last I heard, thinking and talking are still allowed in this country. So is asking questions. So is media coverage of said questions and even the answers people give to those same questions. I know, I know...radical ideas. But whatcha gonna do? It's still allowed by law!  Maybe he should also ask if we should still have freedom of speech.
        But he'd have to ask, which means we still have it...oh, what a vicious cycle....;-)

        War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

        by Margot on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 10:44:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I sent a note (none)
        through the form at this page, and soon afterwards received a Permanent Delivery Failure notification.


        Failed address: zogby@company.mail

        Fwiw, I simply said,

        "DearJohn: I would like to see a new poll regarding whether the American people
        would support the impeachment of President Bush and VP Cheney."

      •  Here's my Dear John letter, just sent: (none)
        Dear John:

        I am curious about the current opinion of the populace regarding the impeachment of George W. Bush.  When will you ask the question again?  I can't believe that you're not intrigued by the possibilities.  Surely a current poll would help our elected representatives in formulating their approaches to the matter.

        Thank you,


      •  Thanks. I just sent one. (none)
    •  They didn't include me? (none)
      as an option in the Senate poll?

      No-one who voted against the USAPATRIOT Act has lost an election. I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State. Or Yours.

      by ben masel on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:44:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We live in a plutocracy.... (none)
    and this is blatant evidence of that. If the governing class and their hanger-ons aren't discussing impeachment it is not important. Who cares what the great unwashed masses think?
  •  "Raised in Congress" (none)
    Can't we get SOMEbody in Congress to "raise" the question?

    I'm sure there's a Rep in a deep blue district that can comfortably ignore the hellhounds that would be unleashed by merely "raising" this question.

    Let's call Zogby's bluff.  Which Rep offices should we be starting to call?

    •  John Conyers (4.00)
      Calling John Conyers!!! He's about the only reliable person in Congress any more to bring up the big issues.  Have u hit up Randi Rhodes on this?  I'll bet she's beat the drum....
    •  ...Conyers... (4.00)
      ...let's start emailing and calling them - Pelosi, Conyers, Kennedy, Kerry.. Send them this diary.  Folks, we need to be more aggressive.  Treason (Plame, AD, Niger, an endless list of lies for War) and Impeachment - we can't shy away from those words.  If they are a Dem, I want them to say the words.  Just say the words, say them, say them and redeem themselves for being so passive in letting these gangsters illegally undermine our democracy and illegally take us to war by fraud and lies.  This is the new mainstream position.  The Zogby poll says as much.  The facts are there. It is not extreme anymore, if it ever was. Say the words - Treason, Impeachment.  
      •  I'd love to see the man impeached, (none)
        Not so much for America, who would just have a different head on the same monster (President Cheney?), but because for all the pain and suffering he's caused Bush deserves a long protracted humiliation on national television.

        But realistically, even if 60% of America wanted him impeached, its not going anywhere with this Congress.  Does anybody realistically think that more than maybe three or four Republicans could be persuaded to vote for impeachment in any realistic scenario?  Hell, the man could be revealed to eat babies and you'd still only peel off a few dozen.  These people are partisans first and foremost, and they vote the way they're told.  Add the odd smattering of Lieberman-esque democrats, and there's no way we'd make it over the hump.

        So first things first...let's vote them out.  Then we'll talk impeachment.

        •  ...There's not much difference... (none)
          ..between what we're both saying.  My point is that Democratic leaders need to get in sych with where the new mainstream is.  They have been far too passive and slow to avoid being flanked at nearly every turn.  Their speech needs to be more direct and simple, and up the ante (see today's diary on Mamet's LA Times piece).  Fitzgerald's work, Plame-gate, Downing-Street, Enable Danger, Lies for War, Abramoff - are all tied together as part of what needs to be investigated as a criminal racket.  In short, there is ample evidence for greatly broadening Fitzgerald's inquiry.  Why?  Because there is almost daily more evidence that leave us without any better words than Treason and Impeachment to describe their context.  With Zogby's poll, we see that many Americans have caught on to this.  Why not the Dem leadership?  Its time to say the words: "we need to know if Treason has been committed and if it calls for Impeachment". Simple message many if not most Americans will listen to across demographies.  Will it happen?  I don't know, but it sure as hell wont if nobody has the guts to say what is becoming pretty plain to the mainstream, and never put these gangsters and thugs on the defensive.  
    •  are you serious? (none)
      that guy would sleep with the fishes

      there is no possibility of impeachment


      I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

      by The Exalted on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:35:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  2006 elections (none)
      I think the question may have to wait until after the mid-term elections.  If the Dems can regain their hold on Congress, the question can and should be raised.  If they cannot, it will never happen -- not with repugs in power.

      Stay strong!

      "No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a Party that ignores her sex." -- Susan B. Anthony

      by Yellow Dog Dem Woman on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:52:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  In every Zogby survey... (4.00)
    he asks whether you consider yourself to be in the "investor class" or not. I wonder if this is code for the governing class. Maybe he only regards the "investor class" opinions as important. I wonder to what level a response has to rise to in the "investor class" before it becomes relevant.
    •  fudging (none)
      I try to be honest in those polls. Maybe I will lie on that question now.

      "Why are we falling all over ourselves congratulating the President for taking responsibility for something that was his responsibility? I don't get it." - Imus

      by OLinda on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:51:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Investor Class" (none)
      Every single time I answer "I don't know" because I can't  for the life of me figure out what the "Investor Class" is!

      I think that's a code word for neocon or maybe filthy stinking rich.  

      "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values" - Bill Clinton.

      by RAST on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:29:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah but many folks have (4.00)
        pension plans that are invested in stocks and trusts.  They just don't know it. So say, yes!
        •  On the contrary (none)
          I believe the point of this question is to see what percent of voters/people have been sucked into the GOP line on this BS.

          IMO, the investor class is NOT comprised of working people who have a defined contribution/401K plan - in place of the far safer and likely to provide a decent retirement defined benefit pension plan that used to be available for most blue-collar workers. We have zero say in what the companies our paultry sums are invested in do. If you are extremely lucky you may have 1 socially conscious investment option to pick from and thereby have some minimal influence.

          The investor class is made up of those who have substantial non-retirement sums invested in the market and benefit mightily from reductions in capital gains and income taxes.

          How many Kossacks have $1MM or more in non-retirement investments? ... and I bet we're on average more affluent than most Americans.

          We should be answering NO to this question.

          Democracy is a contact sport...

          by jsmagid on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:05:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Investor Class (none)
            The line comes from Investor's Business Daily, which is --well, I ended my subscription over their editorial policy.

            However, their editorial position on the investor class idea was that they wanted one America in which everyone viewed saving and investment as the road to future wealth.  They emphatically wanted working men and women who had pension funds invested in stocks and bonds to realize that they too are investors, and that the long term financial future of the country, as represented by the economy those stocks and bonds are invested in, should matter to them, too.  

            The prior paragraph may sound a bit different than the usual point of view to some people.


    •  Google Provides the Answer! (none)
      I found this link, seems like a decent description

      •  Great reference (none)
        From the referenced site

        Internal Revenue Service data on income in 2000, the most recent year available, tell a similar story, showing that income derived from taxable stock and mutual fund assets is heavily concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.  Only 22 percent of filers with income under $100,000 reported any dividend income in 2000, while 72 percent of filers with incomes between $100,000 and $1 million and virtually all filers with income over $1 million reported dividends.  Further, the amount of dividends reported rises sharply with income.  Some 63 percent of all dividend income was reported by the 8.4 percent of tax filers with incomes over $100,000, and more than one-fifth of all dividend income went to the top 0.2 percent of filers with incomes over $1 million.  For those with incomes over $1 million who reported corporate dividends, average dividend income totaled more than $75,000 -- 65 times more than the average for filers who reported dividends and had income below $100,000.

        And this is BEFORE Bush's tax cuts; imagine how much more this is skewed towards the top 1 or 2% now.

        This is very bad for America and Democracy as I've talked about before.

        Democracy is a contact sport...

        by jsmagid on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:12:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Of course (4.00)
      I invested in an excellent sandwich the other day.  It had brie on it, even.  Does that count?

      Seriously, I think it is code for the class that gets the tax cuts.

      George W Bush puts our security in the hands of incompetents.

      by daria g on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:19:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Zogby Is a Crappy Pollster (none)
      I don't know why anyone would focus on trying to get Zogby to do something.  He's a terrible pollster, and routinely compromises his professional integrity by not announcing who paid him to do what polls.  And I don't know a single political professional, the people who base multi-million dollar decisions on the empirical soundness of polls, who doesn't think Zogby's polls are unreliable crap.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:27:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You have a point, but (none)
        If Zogby picks up this question and it returns a certain result, won't other polls think of replicating and testing Zogby's results. I think that could be productive. I think it's productive every time the I-word is useful. I perk up my ears, everytime I hear, I tell ya'!

        I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks in Sozadee CA.

        by The Messenger on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:58:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is the reality based community? (none)
        As long as one can accurately view the sample size, operational variables, etc. what does it matter who funds the poll? Any one of my middle school students could determine if the poll was biased or not.

        If we are going to fix this country we had better find out who our enemies are and Zogby isn't one of them. This thread is embarrassing (to me.)

        I once wrote to him asking about the military vote. He answered me personally. That's more than I can say for the liberal pundits I have written. Do liberal pundits reveal that they are working on campaigns at the same time they are broadcasting the political news?

        I am really disappointed that I will not be able to  debate this topic... my lunch break is over.

        Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I torture and a world says, "Kiss me, son of god." ~ They Might Be Giants

        by misscee on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 08:05:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um, No (none)
          The most important part of any poll are the questions, and question wording can give you complete opposite results depending on your phrasing and verbiage.  And who funds it often influences how you word it if you're doing it for private sector clients who want to use the results publicly.

          Check out this article in the American Prospect about Zogby; it should disabuse you of the notion that Zogby is on "our" side, or that he's impartial.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 09:18:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  No Pundit Mentions - No Poll (none)
    Your comment that because the puditocracy is not actively discussing the issue of impeachment, a pollster like Zogby is not polling the question on a regular basis, brings to mind a very interesting quote I heard last night in San Francisco, where George Galloway, the British MP who has been to scathing in his denunciations of the Bush and Blair Administrations, was speaking.

    Speaking prior to Mr. Galloway was Aimee Allison, Conscientious Objector in the First Gulf War, Green Party candidate for Oakland City Council District 2, and a leading counter recruitment GI counselor who said, "Polls show that 80% of Americans are opposed to our involvement in the war in Iraq, but 80% of Democrats in Congress are NOT opposed to the war."

    The public is ahead of pundits and ahead of their representatives.

    Galloway, by the way, was excellent....

    Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

    by dweb8231 on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 04:48:28 AM PDT

  •  Why waste our time with these people? (4.00)
    instead of hounding the pollsters and whining about the media being asleep on the job, why not develop and conduct our own poll?  surely there are people here who could help design and carry one out.
    •  In theory (none)
      not a bad idea, but unfortunately, for the poll to have "legitimacy", it would need to be doen by an "unbiased" source.  I think it would be too easy for pundits to disregard a poll done by "those radical liberal wackos on Daily Kos".

      Though I wonder what a national poll would cost and whether we could raise money to have a poll done.

    •  GREAT idea (4.00)
      How many kossacks would volunteer to help out?

      I would!

      Every [weapon] signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

      by racerx on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:30:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would be willing to help (none)
        For this to work, we would have to create an independent polling agency though.

        "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush

        by chicagovigilante on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:35:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't CREATE a polling agency! (4.00)
          Just hire one! There are plenty out there, and it's much more expensive and complicated than you think to conduct a poll. Contact some, find out prices and pass a collection plate.
          •  WE need to come (none)
            up with the questions. I emailed Zogby about a month ago about polling on Bush's numbers, they said they would... but only in the last few days did they do the same old question.

            When will the taxpayers get tired of paying for Bushco mistakes? Time for accountability..... Gore/Clark..Gore/Clinton..Gore/Cl.. ..flip/flop..flip/flop

            by mattes on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:17:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  My husband (none)
        is a graphic artist and he did a graphic on Monday called 'walkingmoney', it is so cool and I told him it would make such a great anti-republican statement-if anyone is interested in seeing this, please email me.  It really does speak to you if you are interested in politics and our economy at all.

        Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

        by panicbean on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:37:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'd donate money ... (none)
        seriously, who cares about securing an aura of legitimacy?  the right wing will say amything we do, no matter how well researched and conducted, is illegitimate.  so, why don't we stop caring about convincing them that we are?

        the fact that rush limbaugh felt compelled to attack kos and atrios on the air, claiming that 'nobody' reads them shows that large online communities like this are powerful.  in fact, if any poll we do is attacked as illegimate, we should be happy about that because it means they care about what we're saying and doing here. if they care, then we must threaten them in some way.

        •  me too (none)
          I would spend a hundred to see this done properly.

          I would also volunteer time to help.

          If we did a poll that was well designed with a huge enough sample, it would be legit, no matter what the thugs said.

          And like you I don't give a damn what they say, they're going to say whatever it takes to keep their leaders out of jail, which is exactly where they're going if we ever take back the House.

          Every [weapon] signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

          by racerx on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:49:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  ...this is normally called.. (none)
          ..a Push Poll.  You are basically engageing in an effort to persuade in the framework of a poll.  Many here have gotten these types of calls. Questions like "When did Bush stop beating his wife?"  Sorry, folks, its time to get rough and tough.
  •  We should take pictures of all the (4.00)
    "Impeach Bush" signs when hundreds of thousands protest the Iraq War on Saturday, then send those pictures to John Zogby.

    "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush

    by chicagovigilante on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:34:02 AM PDT

    •  Good idea (none)
      The sea of "Impeach Bush" signs at this event may actually be reported by our wonderful SCLM.  A poll taken shortly afterward would be appropriately timed.  Sometimes I wonder which is worse, this corrupt and inept administration or the media that sees it and refuses to expose it.

      In the end, only kindness matters. -Jewel

      by japeechen on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:53:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And what percentage think that Bush lied? (none)

    I'd say some polling is definitely in order, because that drives the pundits.

    I would also say a letter writing campaign is in order, to go after all the polling joints, starting with Zogby.

    Every [weapon] signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by racerx on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:35:27 AM PDT

  •  One word....... (none)
    Conyers.  If anyone would bring up the subject of impeachment in congress, it is Conyers.  If he brings it up, then Zogby no longer has an out.

    Rep. Conyers has already done so much for us, so I hate asking more of him, but this is important.  The only way a groundswell of support for impeachment can happen, is if someone gets the ball rolling.

    If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up... - Hannah and Her Sisters

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:43:57 AM PDT

    •  I think that Conyers will do just that (none)
      I think that he is rallying support behind him as we speak.

      "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush

      by chicagovigilante on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:50:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (none)
        Conyers has been "poo-pooed" by these power-lusting "my way or the highway" schoolyard bullies a lot and he's stood the pressure.  He's like a palm tree in a hurricane, bending but not breaking.

        Besides, I'm willing to bet that he's not very happy about how they stuffed him in the basement for the DSM hearing; and let's not forget how Senselessbrenner abruptly stopped the article 11 Patriot Act hearing by walking off the "set" with the gavel.

        Conyers has conviction and lots of courage.

  •  another reason (4.00)
    to cry for impeachment or resignation. Often it is said we should not try because the Republicans have Congress and it would never happen. He deserves to be impeached, he should resign, and we should be saying it loud and clear.

    "Why are we falling all over ourselves congratulating the President for taking responsibility for something that was his responsibility? I don't get it." - Imus

    by OLinda on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:48:43 AM PDT

  •  How to Fix (none)
    It's called "money".

    Last year, Zogby, et al. pulled the same stunt with respect to accurate lists of Presidential candidates (not every pollster, nor all the time), closing third party candidates out of the race by not mentioning their names.  The Badnarik campaign went to a legitimate pollster and bought the use of several questions, by paying money.  Mind you, it did not work in the end, but it did generate polling numbers.

    By the way, wasn't there a former Presidential political advisor of President Clinton's who started a political advisory organization that does polling?  Perhaps he might have some slight interest in doing his opponent a favor when the opponent is drowning, like throwing him an anvil or two?

  •  The answer Zogby gave is bullshit (4.00)
    Conyers has talked about impeachment.  He authored the introduction to John Bonifaz's book outlining a case for impeaching Bush.

    Barbara Lee filed a Resolution of Inquiry (HR 375) into the Downing Street Memos, a first step to a resolution seeking an impeachment investigation.  Even the lazy Richard Cohen, a WaPo columnist, has accused Bush of impeachable offenses:

    I do not write the headlines for my columns. Someone else does. But if I were to write the headline for this one, it would be "Impeach George Bush."

    That's Congress and Pundits both.

    It is a very mixed blessing to be brought back from the dead.

    by Steven D on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:01:28 AM PDT

  •  Yes, this is very interesting indeed. (none)
    Great diary!  I'll pass this along to my groups.  Let's apply some grass-roots pressure!
  •  Public ridicule as an effective tool (4.00)
    John Zogby deserves it on this one, especially since he (and this is a very hand's on company) has already used the question in his polling. No follow-up? No trends analysis?

    What gives, John?

    "Go fuck yourself, Mr. Cheney!! Go fuck yourself, asshole!!--Dr. Ben Marble greets Dick

    by Scarce on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:15:34 AM PDT

  •  Zogby's rationale, and MSM explanations (none)
    for discontinued polling on the question, are insidiously catch-22 in their logic.

    They seem to be saying that they will not poll unless "congress" is talking about a particular question.  The unstated justification behind this is that supposedly "congress" represents "the people," so if "congress" is talking about it, then that must mean "the people" want it.

    However, congresspeople are famously responsive to lobbyists, political pressure, and other influences that condition their willingness to vote or speak one way or another on x, y or z issue.  And it is well known that sometimes a congresscritter will vote opposite to the prevailing wish or opinion in his/her district, because he/she is taking into account other, greater or more important interests-- such as a $10,000 campaign contribution, say, or a deeply-held ideological belief that is out of step with those held by the people he/she represents.  And in any event, congress people represent "the people" for the purposes of representative government.  But what the hell does THAT mechanism have to do with public opinion?

    So Zogby is essentially saying, that whoever controls the majority representation in government, will also, for the purposes of his polling on this question of impeachment, control the representation of public opinion, whether or not actual public opinion may correspond to the opinions of elected representatives.  

    Isn't that fascism?

  •  Zogby says it himself: (none)
    In a democracy, public opinion must be a factor in any policy discussion. I personally have some trouble when polls drive policy or decisions by our leaders, but the opinion of voters must be somewhere in the mix. Ultimately, we elect our representatives to make decisions on principle and conscience, but we also expect that they not be contemptuous of the people who elected them.

    Since the last time he asked the question 40% of people had thought about this enough to form a public opinion, and this was pre-Katrina, as well as a lot of other happenings.
  •  But what about the root beer? (4.00)

    Will the Impeach Bush Coalition continue to manufacture their delicious root beer and cream soda?

  •  Thank you SO much for carrying the watter on this (none)
    Keep at 'em, tiger!
  •  We are not a Democracy (4.00)
    How many times have we heard that we are a Republic not a Democracy.  John Adams and the Federalists didn't trust the rabble and didn't like Tom Paine.  But without the rabble, they wouldn't have had an army.  Without the shopkeepers and farmers, we would never have been the first modern experiment in democracy.  But the Federalists have won and we are far from a democracy when the will of the people time and time again are not only put aside, but not even given voice by John Zogby and the insiders of Washington.  
    A Little pocket of hope is the movement to "Pay with Pork" for the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast.  Great segment on Wolf Blitzer yesterday with people from New Jersey saying that they would give up their bike path for Katrina cleanup.  

    "Life is a zoo in a jungle." Peter De Vries

    by MontanaMaven on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:55:48 AM PDT

    •  Time for a true People's Party (none)
      broken into "wings" or "collectives" of regional interest, but united in being for the majority of Americans, wherever we are, not the fat cats.

      Do you have a link to that CNN story, btw? That's the kind of thing I'm thinking about.

      "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

      by bellatrys on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 09:25:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was trying to find it. (none)
        I was hoping someone would help me.  It was really a good segment complete with squealing pigs and footage of the Alaskan bridge to nowhere.  It was the last 10 minutes of "The Situation Room".
        Yes, Yes, the regional idea is what we are thinking about here in Montana because of our common problem of lack of water.  Scholars have always argued that the sheer land mass of the U.S. was not viable for a Democracy.   I love "wings".  Cooperatives and collectives might sound too commie.

        "Life is a zoo in a jungle." Peter De Vries

        by MontanaMaven on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 09:50:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not to quibble too much... (none)
      ...but we went from not being a republic to a Facsist States of America, once the Republican controlled Central Vote Tabulators assured that the WH, US House, and the US Senate are all in one party's hands.  Throw in the media and most of the Judiciary, and the proven ability to to rig the vote, and Democracy/Republic debate is dead, done, died.

      "Wonderful things can happen ... when you plant the seeds of distrust in a garden of Assholes" -- Elmore Leonard

      by Blue Shark on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:58:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  contact John Zogby (none)
    I emailed John, and mentioned, 'although I don't have any archives to check it, I am willing to bet you had no qualms about impartiality during Clinton's era and frequently used the Impeachment question!'
  •  Question (none)
    Are Zogby's poll questions consistent with his questioning while Clinton office?

    I realize that the lay of the polical landscape was somewhat different, but it might be interesting to see if Zogby was willing to do push polling to help out the Republicans during the 90's.

    quando os assholes governam dirĂ£o aos pobres que a merda tem o valor
    Revised Portuguese folk wisdom

    by mm201 on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:13:22 AM PDT

  •  NORC (none)
    We need some organization that's close to (heh) unimpeachable to run a survey question on this.

    Does NORC at the U of Chicago do politics?

  •  I blame our representatives (none)
    Why has absolutely nobody, Dem, Republican, or Independent, called yet for the President's resignation. Why not Kerry of all people? What does he have to lose? He can't seriously expect to win the nomination again after the showing he put up. That would get the nation talking about it. I would prefer it come from someone who won't be charged with "sour grapes" but the worst that will happen for whoever comes out for resignation is a drubbing from the right wing media. So fucking what? Are our fearless leaders that craven and weak? Don't answer that.

    Will speaking about resignation force a resignation? No. Will speaking about resignation prompt a discussion as to why the President should resign, in the view of some people? It might, and therefore we have to try it. Someone needs to step up to the plate. Like yesterday.

    •  Nobody in Congress, Perhaps (none)
      The Green Party has been calling for Bush's impeachment since 2003, and has repeatedly renewed those calls as grounds for his impeachment have grown.

      "This war is an ex-parrot." - The Editors

      by GreenSooner on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:58:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Respectfully (none)
        The Green Party has been marginalized entirely by the MSM. Fair or no, the Greens don't currently have the kind of clout that Zogby is alluding to when he claims that "people aren't talking about" impeachment.

        If the Greens could put some folks in the House or even the local legislatures, it might be more meaningful, but I don't see that that has yet occurred.

        •  Marginalization (none)
          Well, as this diary shows, the MSM is also marginalizing the opinions of 42% (at least) of the public re: impeachment.  Just as folks on dKos don't let the MSM's narrow frame define the political future in general, we can't let it define our stance toward the Greens.

          Secondly, we Greens do elect people to city and state governments around the country. Here's a list.

          "This war is an ex-parrot." - The Editors

          by GreenSooner on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 08:58:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm grateful for that list (none)
            And I wish the Green Party much success. Nevertheless, the time has arrived for a figure of stature to risk their reputation by calling for Bush's resignation. The Greens currently don't have anyone who fits the bill.
            •  ...agree.. (none)
              ...I'm glad they did it, but there is a new mainstream out there, particularly post-Katrina, that Dem leaders havent caught up with yet.  They are not taking the intiative and upping the ante.  I still believe they can if pushed hard enough.  They're passive, soft and comfortable.  Being a senator is a nice gig.  No need to get all postal on anybody.  That's for that rabble in the house like Conyers and Waters.  Lovey, will you be attending the Natl. Prayer Breakfast event this year?  The staff will drive you as usual.  I have plans for some tennis with the Canned Goods Assoc. lobbyist and then brunch with some gas and oil types... --------  yes, we need to push them harder.  Harder!  
  •  The pollsters had no problem... (none)
    ...with the impeachment question throughout all of 1998.  Which, by the way, was only favored by a minority most of the year, but they kept asking every chance they got.  
    I just emailed ZOGBY to ask why he won't re-do an impeachment poll. I used the form on his website. The email bounced back with "fatal flaws..." in the address. I then phoned them, the operator forwarded me to a woman's voicemail and I left a message. I said" your credibility is out the window if you chicken out on the question".
  •  I think the argument would be (none)
    that it's seditious to "push-poll" against the government...although sedition is not illegal in USA, it can go too far...

    For instance, what if Zogby asks, "If the President were to be assassinated by an Iraq veteran that had been disabled in the war, would you support clemency or a reduced sentence for the assassin?" whatever the result was...let's say only 5% in could be interpreted as incitement to riot or rebellion.

    The result would be either or both of the crippling of the gov't or the pollsters/press...the gov't might be terrified of what the public might mutter into their phones to pollsters, and the pollsters would be terrified that they, in effect, were steering the ship of state by selectively measuring the wind.

    Pollsters, then, that hewed to the "straight and narrow" of what is being actively discussed by congress or the punditocracy...i.e. providing them cover...would be the ones the "filter" would let through lest the country, yes, become unmanageable or the press lose the faith of its readers to do its job responsibly.

    However, the catch-22 you describe is a very accurate "mirror world" to this analysis, and could certainly be worked as such. And kudos to Zogby for sticking his oar in and asking the impeachment question once. If he keeps asking it, of course, the press will pick up on the trend developing...

    The dark at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming age.

    by peeder on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:48:38 AM PDT

    •  that would be a specious argument (4.00)
      I think the argument would be that it's seditious to "push-poll" against the government...although sedition is not illegal in USA, it can go too far...

      That would be a specious argument.  Impeachment is a legal process, assassination is not.  It would make as little sense to worry that supporting someone other than the incumbent President in the next election could be arguably seditious.

      Proud member of the reality-based minority

      by Bearpaw on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 08:02:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You can make a situation unmanageable (none)
        in a technically legal way...

        Dems must remember that if "the impeachment question" becomes standard practice, it will be used against Dem presidents...and if over used, it will lose its effect when we really do want to remove a prez.

        I would think now would be such a time, where we would use it...I think the only thing to do is keep pressure up like you're doing.

        But there is a place for resisting doing this that isn't sinister.

        The dark at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming age.

        by peeder on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 08:28:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ...sorry... (none)
          ...its more than clear this is the path to take.  Mom and Pop Jones told Zogby in his poll, no?  Starr had some chick with a soiled blue dress.  That's it.  Look at all there is here.  It is so clear to so many now that these turds need to be flushed and we all need to catch up with Mom and Pop.
        •  In case you haven't noticed, (none)
          impeachment has already been used against a Democratic president.

          It's not exactly like the call for impeachment of Bush the Pretender would establish a precedent. In fact, the oppostion has demonstrated exactly how it's done. (FWIW, I think we can do it quicker and cheaper.)

          We must have stem-cell research. How else will Congress and the media grow spines?

          by bablhous on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:03:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Zogby (none)
     Didn't have a problem slamming Clinton with an impeachment poll! Neither did tons of other media! Use these links to demand an impartial stance!


    A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted Tuesday and Wednesday found that 54 percent of Americans supported censure vs. 36 percent favoring impeachment.

    Only 33 percent of those polled said Clinton should resign and turn the presidency over to Vice President Al Gore.


     Poll Taker
    Do you think Clinton should or should not face criminal charges at some point?

     Don't Know  

    Poll Taker compares your response to results from the Feb. 12-14 Washington Post poll. (See full database.) link

    Good list of more here Link

    If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them. --Adlai Stevenson

    by arkdem on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:52:44 AM PDT

  •  If the Democrats Were a Real Opposition Party (none)
    ...there would be debates going on right now about whether or not to make impeachment an explicit theme in the 2006 elections.  

    A serious opposition party would be considering whether such a course of action was a) right, and b) politically sensible.  It would quickly conclude that it was right, and then would have to make the hard, but necessary, calculations about its viability as a campaign theme. At the very least, impeachment would be on the strategic table for 2006. But, of course, it won't be.

    No doubt, somewhere along the way there will be more diaries regarding impeachment and the midterm elections on dKos.  My guess is that even in the context of this blog, these diaries will be seen as, at the very least, coming right up to the "tinfoil hat" line, if not crossing it.  Perhaps if some front pagers are feeling bored or annoyed one day, they'll post a "STOP THE IMPEACHMENT TALK" diary,  and we can have one of those meta-arguments that we love around here.

    But one thing's for sure: the Democratic Party will not seriously consider impeachment as a campaign theme. Nor will they push for impeachment in the (still unlikiely IMO) event they regain control of congress. Wouldn't be prudent.

    What a tragedy that (the possible majority of) Americans who feel we should impeach this president have no up of anybody taking up their cause! But that's our democracy for you.

    "This war is an ex-parrot." - The Editors

    by GreenSooner on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:54:44 AM PDT

    •  ooops... (none)
      ...that's "no hope of anybody taking up their cause."

      "This war is an ex-parrot." - The Editors

      by GreenSooner on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:56:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The 42% is a big deal (none)
      Sorry, but I'm just not someone who is honest through and through. I've always been brought up to believe that it's fine to tell a little white lie.

      To me, it's not that big of a deal that the Bush administration fudged the Iraq WMD info. A lot of people thought Iraq had WMD and was just hiding the WMD really well. I can imagine that maybe the neocons were so convinced about the WMD that they lied about the evidence while not even understanding that they were lying.

      BUT . . . 42 percent of the American people think that lying about WMD is an impeachment-level offense. That's a huge percentage, and the people who might favor impeachment must include a ton of swing voters. So, to me, just seeing that polling figure makes me a lot more interested in the Downing Street memo and related topics.

  •  Impeach Bush??? You've got to be Crazy! (none)
    The Emperor is Nekkid and Other Bad News

    First of all you couldn't get a bill of impeachment through the House.
    Second, if you even put forth a serious effort you'll drive GB's poll numbers right back up again.
    (40%=his rock hard support +  10 to 25% who think impeaching the president is stupid = disastor for the dems for 2006 and 2008 at least.)

    You want to do the conservative cause the biggest favor ever, just keep this shit up.

    The best thing you can do politically is to oppose Bush legislation while he is in his current weakened condition.

    Hate Bush???? You'd better put a better face on it. People who don't hate Bush are already talking about how stupid and unreasonable you are. You are not a where even close to being a majority.


    •  ...would you support... (none)
      ..broadening of Fitzgerald's inquiry?  Your position sounds a lot like Kerry '04, and leaves the other side a lot of room to maneuver, cheat, lie.  Sorry, its time to get tough and not take the failed passive approach that only allows for exploitation and defeat.  
    •  Ah, they've been saying that forever (none)
      I don't care what THEY say about us any more other than the louder they get, the more scared they are.

      As for 'a disaster for the Dems' - please tell me what greater disaster we could have than the one we have now? Speak up!

      Respectfully, not only do we have to keep this shit up, we have to more of it. Really raise hell. Raise hell until the walls come down - and they are showing tremendous cracks right now.

      'Oppose Bush legislation' - hello? Are you new here?

      Feh, enough,

      Sign me: Stupid and Unreasonable (my new badge of honor)

      We must have stem-cell research. How else will Congress and the media grow spines?

      by bablhous on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:13:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tell it to Zogby! (none)
    I hope everyone that has cared to comment on this thread has ALSO fired off a question/request to Zogby asking that he cover this.

    Its easy! It can't hurt! It may even nudge him closer to doing so! As my kids always remind me, sometimes you gotta yell to be heard.

    Write Zogby first, then post your 2 cents worth at Kos.

  •  DKos poll: Why not? (none)
    What's to stop us from conducting our own poll?  I don't mean poll ourselves.  I mean standing outside the local Walmart and polling.  Ask 100 people randomly.  Repeat all over the country.  
    Pour results into statistics program, stir, read the tea leaves, send results to AP, UPI, KR, etc...

    "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 08:19:50 AM PDT

    •  Why not hire Zogby? How much does a poll cost? (none)
      If not Zogby, then maybe a university or some other cheaper polling organization.

      Say a poll costs $10,000. Maybe there's some way to find the $10,000.

  •  How much would it cost? (none)
    Does anyone have any realistic idea of how much it would cost to "commission" a "mainstream" and "well-recognized" polling outfit -- like Zogby -- to actually take such a poll?  He may have been lying through his teeth, but Zogby did say he would consider asking the impeachment question if someone "hired" him to do it?

    So how 'bout" it?  How much would it cost?  Is it something a little dkos/lefty-blogosphere activism could round up?

  •  Democrat party (4.00)
    While Zogby does some good work, nothing bothers me more than the outfit's decision to go with the GOP-invented phrase "Democrat party", than the actual name used by Americans across the country, the "Democratic party".

    Why does the GOP like to use the phrase? Because it gives people a negative impression that (however temporarily) rubs off on the Democratic party. The horrible grammar inherent in the phrase jars people.

    While Zogby may be better than other pollsters, it's very obvious that they cave way too readily to organized attacks from the right wing. Pretty sure this is just another example of the same.

    Which is pretty ironic, because you'd think a polling organization would be well aware of the problems of a self-selecting sample like "the set of people motivated enough to write in about it". A small population can have a disproportionately large voice if they are organized, and the Republicans have been taking advantage of that for quite some time now to drag public discourse far, far, far to the right.

  •  So let me get this right... (none)
    If we agitate for impeachment (Even Though There's No Chance in Hell That a Republican Controlled Congress Would impeach Bush)...

    And if we get our Democratic representatives to try and introduce Articles of Inquiry bills (ETTNCiHTaRCCW pass them)...

    Then the story becomes that Republicans are blocking Democratic naysayers from pushing investigations (ETTNCiHTaRCCW allow an investigation)...

    And then the media then would report that Republicans are blocking those investigations (ETTNCiHTaRCCW follow any recommendations from an investigation anyway)...

    Which would get the idea into Zogby's poll (ETTNCiHTaRCCW screech about evil seditious push pollsters even though they did it to Clinton)...

    Which would reveal the huge percentage of the public that supports impeachment (ETTNCiHTaRCCW give a rodent's rectum about "the public" anyway)...

    Which would give Democratic challengers the "Covering up for an unpopular President" brickbat with which to beat up incumbent Republicans in 2006 (ETTNCiHTaRCCW never have supported impeachment anyway, even if that particular incumbent had personally supported impeachment oh yes he did sir but he didn't want to waste Congress' valuable time on something that would never have passed no maam he did not so lets talk about the new highway projects the good Senator brought to the state this last term)...

    ...which could help bring an end to aRCC.

    Did I miss anything?

  •  Active polling going on (none)
    Twice in 2 weeks I've been contacted by phone and participated in a survey.  Each time the survey was with regard to what I listen to on the radio.

    I was struck by the oddity of having two different surveys take place on the same subject, and so close together (time-wise)...and then I hear that Air America is gaining in popularity.  Their ratings are going up exponentially in a lot of their markets.  I even heard that the Ed Schultz Show (which is on a lot of AAR stations, but is of the Jones Radio Network) REPLACED Hannity's radio show in Salt Lake City!  (that can't feel very good for them)  :-)

    It kind of makes me wonder if the increased polling on the radio subject is a sign of possible "panic" in the GOP??

  •  Zogby is one of the good guys (none)
    I trust the polls that come out of this group.  It's kind of nice to have a polling company that I can trust.  I don't trust them because they are "liberal", but becasue they are independent.  I don't think it's appropriate to try to pressure an independent polling company to ask questions that are partisan.  And I don't think that questions about impeachment can be considered non-partisan.  Only liberals are calling for impeachment right now. When only one party is caling for something, then by definition, it's a partisan issue.  

    If you really want this question asked, there is a simple way of having it done.  Hire a polling company to do it.  It's going to take money - a lot of money.  But that money will go to cover the expenses they incur in asking the question (they can't sell the data - media aren't buying right now).  Trying to apply political pressure to an independent polling firm only makes it appear that we feel that the firm is somehow beholden to us, which undermines it's independence.  This could be dangerous to the company, since it's a business that depends on it's reputation for independence to survive.  It's just not fair to expect the company to be producing information nobody (who is willing to pay) wants.  

    I understand what you want - you want Zogby to do a poll at their expense, so that your (our) political agenda can be moved forward.  But that's not their job. Their job is to assess the population, not push political agendas.  

    •  ...I too.. (none)
      ...respect Zogby.  Have followed his work for decades.  But, his answer in the diary was crap.  He needs to come up with a better reason for not following up on what was a pretty significant poll result on the Impeachment question.  Maybe he will gear it up for when Fitz comes out with his charges/indictments.
    •  If the media isn't buying his info, (none)
      who paid for the other polls he took this summer?

      We must have stem-cell research. How else will Congress and the media grow spines?

      by bablhous on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:18:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know (none)
        Zogby doens't tell who is paying, accoring to another poster.  It's possible that he was paid to ask that question... it's also possible that he chose it on the chance that he could market the polling results to interested media, and got burned when they wouldn't use it (there wasn't a lot of coverage of the results).  Regardless, he isn't obligated to ask questions based on past performance, or what we want, or what the republican party wants.  He runs a business, and his only obligations are to the truth and to his employees and investors.
  •  Potential Polling Question (none)
    I, for one, would like to address how Sinclair had their employees sign a document that said that they would not say anything critical about bush or the Iraq f*ck-up during their news shows.

    Frankly, I don't think that many people know this and I am VERY concerned about it.  If more knew about this little nugget of info, then perhaps more questions would be coming from more people.

  •  Awesome (4.00)
    This is the work that needs to be done , and not everyone can do this quite so conscisely as this . Really well stated , backed by citation and , I might say , fairly embarrasing to the servile pols and pollers.

    I feel a shift , techtonic and irreversable. Now is the time to turn the heat up all over .

    Left Blogostan has enjoyed a rising profile by just this sort of dogged pursuit of the genuine article, and it's produced some victories. Gannon , Novak , M. Brown, some real doozeys have been unraveled by the big brains over here and I see change in the wakening eye of the people.

    The foul spell is broken.

    •  please see my laborously typed comments above (none)
      re doing a poll. I hope this one sits at the end of the thread!


      The critical Office is Secretary of State; they run the elections. Let's find superb candidates ! Sam

      by samddobermann on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:11:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If we can raise $x00000 for political candidates (none)
    through individual donors making paypal donations, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to set up a fund to collect donations to commission a pollster to run this poll.

    If we can get 5,000 accounts on DailyKos to contribute $20 each, that's $100,000 right there, which seems like it should be enough to commission a poll.

    Anybody have the time and inclination to get the ball rolling?

    Cut Bush Downing.
    How many corners do we have to turn before the masses realize we're running in circles?

    by Tarindel on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 09:57:39 AM PDT

    •  I still have a few bucks left in my Paypal account (none)
      that I would donate for this.  Put me down for $25.00 - more if I find a job soon.

      We must have stem-cell research. How else will Congress and the media grow spines?

      by bablhous on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:20:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  my message to Zogby (none)
    I am shocked by your response to not asking about the impeachment of George Bush on you polls.  It is clear the there are many people unhappy with Mr. Bush and that you had no problem asking the question when Mr. Clinton was in office over an affair.  Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court and became president again via questionable election voting machines and other problems.  But asking a question about Mr. Bush's failing to protect us from Sept. 11, lying to us about wmd and the war in Iraq, the fiasco of Katrina.  Well that isn't of interest unless we pay you.  I are just trying to be impartial.  Ask the question and prove to us all that Americans really DON'T want Mr. Bush impeached.
    A science teacher and an American Living abroad.
  •  "Permanent Fatal Delivery" (none)
    Could it be that Kossack traffic is creating problems at Zogby's site? My message (text at the bottom) was returned with this oddly apropos explanation.  In addition to the "it's/its" confusion (no apostrophe for a possessive, people), note the poetic term "permanent fatal delivery":
    The attached message had PERMANENT fatal delivery errors!

    After one or more unsuccessful delivery attempts the attached message has
    been removed from the mail queue on this server.  The number and frequency
    of delivery attempts are determined by local configuration parameters.


    Failed address: zogby@company.mail

    --- Session Transcript ---
     MX-record resolution of [company.mail] in progress (DNS Server:
     Name server reports domain name unknown.
    --- End Transcript ---

    : Message contains [1] file attachments

    Attached Message
    From: akrinst
    To: zogby@company.mail
    Subject: Dear John Website Message
    Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:40:39 -0400

    This message was generated from the Zogby Website "Dear John" Page.

    Full Name: Alvin Krinst
    Email: xxxx@xxxx
    Street Address: Never you mind
    City, State, Zip: Los Angeles, CA
    Country: USA
    Day Phone:
    Include in EmailBlast: NO
    Include in BlastFax: NO
    DearJohn: In your June poll you found 42% of Americans would support impeachment
    proceedings against the President if it was revealed he had misled them about
    his reasons for invading Iraq. You had also expressed an intention to revisit
    this question.  Now I understand you are hesitant to do so unless impeachment is
    raised in Congress. Given that the GOP-controlled Congress would be reluctant
    (to say the least) to
    raise it on their own, it is your responsibility to "take the temperature" of
    the population at large.  I insist that you ask America about impeachment now.  
    No excuses.  Thank you.

    In any case, even if the messages don't get through, I feel the message is getting through.  Know what I'm sayin'?
  •  Done (none)
    Thanks for the heads-up.  I wrote a polite but firm email to Zogby.

    Elected officials get tons of airplay (print, TV, whatever), but we ordinary Americans do NOT.  Polls are one of our few outlets.

    Since Congress is highly partisan, what's the point of waiting on them to bring it up?  Isn't that bowing to partisanship, too?

  •  Bulldog... (none)
    HUGS... Great story.  And it's a hit.  ;-)

    Sept. 24 March in DC - Meetup details found at my blog!

    by RenaRF on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:37:45 AM PDT

  •  so, screw it! (none)
    we start doing our own dKos-sanctioned polls.
    we need 100 to 200 Kosacks willing to trudge down to the local Truck Stop or indy-owned ("mom and pop") diner, and each of us ask at least 10 customers there a Poll Question or two.
    i mean, how hard is that??
    the Poll Question (or two) has to be the Same Question, worded the very same.
    we used to do this here locally, ocassionally, bringing a camcorder so that respondants could go to our website to see what fools they made of themselves; but we haven't done that in 18 months, or so. we asked at the time, "one year after the invasion of Iraq - should we still be there??" we were Surprised that here in the heart of ditto headville, over 40% said "yes!"
    well, we don't need a camcorder. we just need a blank 6 x 4 index card with the Question written on it, and away we go!
  •  Zogby question (for next time) (none)
    Try this poll language:

    "Do you think that President Bush deserves a fair trial?"

    I am the federal government.

    by mateosf on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:25:28 PM PDT

  •  Unfortunately... (none)
    This really does fall in the line of push polling.  It's lovely to think that 42% of Americans would support the impeachment of George Bush, but the way that question is worded, it creates the perception that a) George Bush lied (while I may think he did, and you may think he did--it's still kind of an open question--his answer would be HE was misinformed) and b) impeachment would be a possible recourse for those lies (again, it's a public perception issue.  congress could impeach him for anything, but this would not meet the traditional standard of crimes committed while in office).  I'm all for a discussion of impeachment, but push-polling is wrong no matter who's doing it.

    whoring my blog like it's my job!

    by jjhare on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:48:59 PM PDT

    • now now... (none)
      ...let's not get all righteous on push polling.  Tell me, do you consider the following question to be push polling?  -

      "Do you agree or disagree there should be an investigation to determine if Treason has been committed and if it calls for Impeachment?"  

      or this one:  "Many Americans are now calling for an investigation to determine if President Bush illegally lied to Congress about the Iraq War.  If this were found to be true, would you agree or disagree that he should be impeached?"  

      or "Many Americans are calling for an investigation of whether government officials knew about the Sept. 11 terrorists before 9/11.  Do you agree or disagree this should be investigated?"  

      and "If some officials were found to have LIHOP, do you agree or disagree they would be guilty of treason?"

  •  I sent a "Dear John" (none)
    email to the link listed above and got "failure to deliver" message.  It is a great diary.  Recommended.  I will be sending a message to my Republican Representative suggesting they immediately begin impeachment proceedings against this president before he causes more death and destruction in this country.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

    Judicial nominee stonewallers deserve a NO-vote.

    by macmcd on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:25:16 PM PDT

  •  failed delivery (none)
    I sent an email and got a failed delivery message too. Either they are innundated with emails or they didn't like my suggestion:

    This can be your next question:
    Do you like Bush a lot? or love Bush a lot?

    And those are the only two options the pollee will have.

  •  Dear John Zogby (none)
    Sent a request to poll on impeachment.  Got back:  

    "Thank You

    Your e-mail has been sent to John Zogby."

    •  Impeach (none)
      I take it back.  Got a permanent fatal delivery error in my inbox.

      Their server is probably full-up today with impeachment polling requests.  Well, I'll just have to remind them tomorrow about that impeachment question.

      On another matter, Cheney could help hurricane victims more if he would go f___ himself.

  •  Dr. Evil as President??? (none)
    I appreciate your bulldog tenacity, but can't get by the question above.  Without the filter of Bush's stupidity and incompetence,  what would keep this nation protected from Dr. Evil's 1920 politics?

    Impeachment is a tool to liberate us from a POTUS who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors--not one who has gotten blow jobs from a cow or one who is dumb as a bucket of warm spit.  That goes with the territory.

    Maybe--just maybe--the Republican leadership knows how bad Cheney woud be as well.

    What rough beast, its hour come round at last/Slouches toward Bethlehem waiting to be born?

    by cova1 on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:01:45 PM PDT

  •  re polling and fair elections (none)
    polling is more than going to a place and picking people "at random." Random selection is a specific process so that each person has an equal probability of being selected.

    We (kossaks) could do a poll over an area if we could get a registered voters list -- all voters, not just dems.  Could we get one for Ohio-2 say?  We could only say it represented those folks in Ohio-2, but the press may run with it.  We would need volunteers who would commit to making 5 or 10 calls each - calling and recalling till you connect. It isn't massive numbers but care in selection of sample.  (But bigger numbers impress and give a smaller margin of error.)

    I have run these types of polls before and let me tell you,legislators are very impressed and request their districts be polled (and offer voter registration lists) and even offer to pay for it.

    The other critical factor  is that the questions have to be well constructed, very neutral and MUST be delivered AS WRITTEN out so all are asked the same way. The people being polled will be the first to complain if the feel pushed. NO single question polls please.

    The second is fair elections. The answer is election of DECENT Secretaries of State. They usually control elections. I will address this in a diary soon.


    The critical Office is Secretary of State; they run the elections. Let's find superb candidates ! Sam

    by samddobermann on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:54:50 PM PDT

  •  My comment printed way up (none)
    about doing a poll. Us, Kossaks, through Jason and Associates. I can't handle a National poll at this time but we could do one or more congressional districts. Pleas see my comment above.  Why the hell it printed so high up I don't know. If you approve and would volunter or contribute a small amount of cash - give me a 4.


    The critical Office is Secretary of State; they run the elections. Let's find superb candidates ! Sam

    by samddobermann on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:09:25 PM PDT

Serephin, David Nir, Michael D, Mark Sumner, AP, racerx, Sidhe, spyral, Thumb, Guy Noir, Alumbrados, paradox, RobertInWisconsin, MattK D1, Stirling Newberry, SteveLCo, pb, Irfo, James Benjamin, taylormattd, MadRuth, Hiram, Steady Eddie, Rayne, leftcoast, cracklins, AlanF, Hornito, joejoejoe, Natural Anthem, GreenSooner, joeltpatterson, MontanaMaven, ScientistMom in NY, MikeCapone, its simple IF you ignore the complexity, Alexander, wytcld, Maryscott OConnor, ArkansasJoseph, gorlim, Lahdee, Emerson, Shockwave, shumard, Jim in Chicago, misterajc, LEP, DyspepTex, etatauri, cmk, tryptamine, TX Unmuzzled, saluda, figdish, DFWmom, frisco, lawnorder, Spider Jerusalem, ilona, exNYinTX, Poika, vrexford, bostonjay, Ruth in OR, strengthANDwisdom, memberofthejury, Plan9, chipoliwog, soonergrunt, humbucker, mlafleur, concernedamerican, kwinz, mentaldebris, SamSinister, lpackard, shock, Glic, phillies, pinion, edderh, servantsavant, marchmoon, biggb23, Transmission, roses, chechecule, samddobermann, hrh, Dana in MN, Cousin Vinny, oceanspray, Molee, Fe, sidinny, itskevin, EdwardsRaysOfSunshine, Nate Roberts, thingamabob, ctsteve, arkdem, antirove, bearever, nitetalker, Alohaleezy, CapnCanuck, deminmarineland, ricardo4, Ryvr, rcvanoz, danthrax, oldjohnbrown, NYC Sophia, bogdanmi, Timoteo, Boppy, Rageaholic, TXsharon, Jujuree, Black Maned Pensator, Penny Century, ohiolibrarian, RenaRF, Timbuk3, Eddie Haskell, sommervr, lcrp, Democratic Hawk, outragedinSF, ybruti, schuylkill, OrangeClouds115, DrReason, japeechen, Steven D, anna in philly, bablhous, DrewDown, rickeagle, Daddy Bartholomew, pat208, colonelkurtz, dakrle, Blueiz, Shapeshifter, macmcd, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, weelzup, SteveK, waitingtoderail, Skennet Boch, chumley, Red State Misfit, mediaprisoner, Bluesee, tomabeln, t v d, pattyp, TxTiger, j sundman, Ckntfld, pammo, el dorado gal, m16eib, hiredman, LarisaW, ignorant bystander, nyc175, JoMo DemKim, KnotIookin, DrFood, Alien Abductee, ZappoDave, truong son traveler, station wagon, myeye, olddembroad, Praxxus, NeuvoLiberal, eru, Mz Kleen, kidfury, chicagovigilante, multisect, Irrelevant Prolixity, EThorn, Natalie, calebfaux, JenThinks, neroden, jm taylor, politicslovr, gilliani, Alan Arizona, shack, benvenut, SSMir, khaavren, Boyzee

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site