Bush Doesn’t Govern Based on Polls (Except When He Does)
Bush Doesn’t Govern Based on Polls (Except When He Does)
After taking nearly two weeks off from his regular briefing schedule, it’s good to see Scott McClellan hasn’t lost his touch.
Here’s McClellan on December 13, responding to a poll that found almost 60 percent of Americans do not think Bush has a plan for Iraq:
QUESTION: So what does that say about the hill that you have to climb?
MCCLELLAN: A couple things. Let me first correct you in terms of saying that we don’t ever look at polls. We don’t govern based on polls. The president does not govern based on polls. The president governs based on a clear set of principles and a clear set of beliefs. [WH Press Briefing, 12/13/05]
Today, responding to why Bush is justified in continuing to conduct an illegal wiretapping program:
MCCLELLAN: I think that clearly the American people strongly support the efforts that we are undertaking to save their lives. I think there actually was a poll last week that said 60 percent — more than 60 percent of the American people support the actions the president is taking to prevent attacks from happening in the first place. That is what this president is committed to doing. This is about saving lives.
By the way, that poll that McClellan is referring to didn’t even describe the president’s policy.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
squish,chafe,squish,chafe,squish,chafe,squish,chafe,squish,chafe,squish,chafe,
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:28 pmsquish,chafe,squish,chafe,
Faiz – you mean the poll Mcclellan was referring to didn’t describe people receiving calls from Al Qaeda operatives as the targets of the NSA eaves dropping??? Can you believe it?? Maybe they were neighbors in the old country? Maybe they were just trading lamb marinade recipes? Maybe they were just arranging the marriage of their sister or the delivery of an explosive?
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:38 pmOh Scotty! so good to see you back to your lying ways
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:39 pmMighty Aphrodite, the poll did not mention that Bush was conducting the wiretapping without a warrant.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:41 pmWell, considering ThinkProgress’ agenda for 2005 was based solely on polls, you’re a hypocrite for pointing this out.
Any attempt to paint Bush as the new Joe McCarthy will backfire in the left’s face. Americans know who the real snoopers are – Schumer and of course, don’t forget Kennedy trolling through Bork’s video rental records back in 1987.
It’s 2006, not 1956.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:44 pmBig kudos to Fox News for succeeding in duping vast swaths of our half-attentive citizenry by spewing false information…
While CNN was focused on “Baby Noor” and MSNBC on insane discussions on 2008 candidates, FNC made sure over the last 2 weeks that people thought the issue was about whether Bush could wiretap terrorists or not. If someone raised the point that this is about wiretapping without a warrant (and hence about wiretapping anyone including Bush’s political enemies) that person was shouted over…
Am I the only one ripping my hair out?
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:57 pm#6 – the issue has been raised you partisan swine. Why do you want to lose the War on Terror? Why do love Bin Laden’s cronies and hate Bush?
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:58 pmSane Liberal… a little off topic eh. Bush conducts warrantless wiretaps and you defend him based on mumbling uh Schumer bah uh Kennedy… shut up!
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:58 pmI’ll take care of the terrorists on my block, mighty. Go back to your hole and choke on your pork sandwich.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:02 pm#8 – Schumer’s office illegally obtained Michael Steele’s credit report. FACT. Bush is spying on terrorists and you are trying to say he’s doing it to avg Americans. Let’s have this debate – you’ll lose.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:03 pmMcClellan:
“The president governs based on a clear set of principles and a clear set of beliefs.”
Clearly …… for the corporate elite.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:05 pmSane Liberal – you are neither.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:08 pm#8 – Schumer’s office illegally obtained Michael Steele’s credit report. FACT. Bush is spying on terrorists and you are trying to say he’s doing it to avg Americans. Let’s have this debate – you’ll lose.
Comment by Sane Liberal — January 3, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
And, as I understand it, the people in Schumer’s office responsible for that were fired. And the problem with the president’s warrantless spying is that it’s not just terrorists that are being spied on. I believe I heard that Greenpeace, PETA, and some anti-war Quakers were also spied on through this program. THAT is what bothers us.
Now, if anything I said is wrong, then I apologize for being misinformed. But if I’m right, then nothing you’ve said here has merit.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:13 pmI love when NeoCons choose screen names like Sane Liberal. You are not liberal and judging by your whacko point of view, you are not sane either. Let’s debate that – you’ll lose.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:15 pm#13 – it doesn’t matter if they were fired. If it became public knowledge that Sen. Santorum’s office illegally obtained, say Bob Casey’s credit report, would you hold him responsible? Thought you might.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:17 pm#13 – Wayne, “Sane’s” using the standard “Clinton did it” or it’s “Clinton’s fault” line of reasoning. The point made above was that the poll was poorly worded – they kinda forgot to include the “without a warrant” part, so it was mis-leading to those polled.
If the NSA/President have a GOOD reason to tap a phone/etc – surely the FISA court would easily grant them a warrant. One has to ask the question – why didn’t they seek the warrants – even after the fact (as part of the law)? Who were they tapping and why? (and were they afraid they wouldn’t get the warrant from the court?)
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:19 pm#6 – Insane Neocon – it’s not a “debate”. Burden of proof is on Bush to show he followed the law.
We already know the DHS and the Pentagon spies on avg Americans…
It’s NOT a stretch now to think Bush spied on Kerry…
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:31 pmlets not forget sen kennedy (and others) on the no fly list
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:33 pm#7 – You lose all credibility when you merely say stupid meaningless drivel. Not that you had any credibility, but really, why say stupid nonsense?
Why do you want to lose the war on terror? That is just dumb and you know it. Why do you post ridiculous remarks? Are you that bored and lonely? NeD?
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:35 pmBush money quote to kick off the New Year:
“I was elected to protect the American people from harm, and on September 11, 2001, our nation was attacked.â€
- Bush, at the Brooke Army Medical Center
On the subject of polls: Those smart words didn’t convince too many of our troops. Bush’s military support has now dropped to 54%.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:37 pmI think that “Sane Liberal” is I Right I’s other personality.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:38 pm#21 – It’s Northeast Dilemma. We refer to him as NeD.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:39 pmAny “conservative” who supports Bush in this isn’t worthy of the term. The simple fact is that the President has admitted to violating the law. End of story.
There is no debate — he’s admitted to it, and he’s said he’s going to keep on doing it.
So, the only choice is this: do you support a dictatorship, or do you support a constitutional representative democracy?
Nice to see the right wing fruitcakes being so forthcoming regarding their support for the former. It makes liberals jobs so much easier when the loons come out and state their traitorous preferences.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:41 pm“Sane Liberal”, you are a traitor. You want to convert our country from a democracy to a dictatorship. You and your kind don’t deserve the country thousands of brave Americans have died to give us.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:46 pmThank you Faiz, for clearing up the warrantless wire tapping/poll story. I am surprised anyone would NOT know about that aspect of the story since it’s been EVERYWHERE since Dec. 16th. Bears in hibernation appreciate your diligence.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:47 pmGeorge W. Bush hasn’t done a great job protecting Americans since he took office.
-9/11-3,000 dead Americans. Note to Bush, next time act on the memo that read: “Bin Laden determined to attack the US.
-Iraq War-2,180 dead Americans
-Afganistan-250 dead Americans
-Hurricane Katrina-1,300 dead Americans
In Bizzarro Bush World he is doing a heckuva job.
-GSD
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:48 pmM.A.,
Very little coverage of the story has been regarding the lack of a warrant, and too much of the story has been the efficacy of wiretapping terrorists. The simple fact is that Bush could already do that under the law. The only important detail added now is that Bush is violating the law. That IS the story.
Hence, the poll cited last week was not an attempt to address the current story; rather, it diverted from it.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:49 pmBush is spying on terrorists and you are trying to say he’s doing it to avg Americans.
Care to back up you statement?
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:49 pmDavid,
Bush has admitted that he’s spying on average Americans. There was nothing in any of his statements that said he was restricting his spying to terrorists. In fact, he’s specifically said that anyone contacting a suspected terrorist, no matter how “average American” he or she is, could have been wiretapped without a warrant.
What’s more, the simple fact that Bush is doing this without a warrant, when the law already allowed him to do so with one and when the courts have been so willing to grant those warrants, calls Bush’s honesty into question.
No one with an IQ over 5 could have missed this, which means that anyone backing Bush in this and able to type a response on this message board is knowingly backing dictatorship. It’s really that simple.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:52 pmway to mention all the issues and draw a false conclusion from them without connecting any of them. Bush is a republican, and cake …trees are green therefore …
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:53 pmequally
1. Collect underpants
2. ?
3. Profit!
I believe I heard that Greenpeace, PETA, and some anti-war Quakers were also spied on through this program. THAT is what bothers us.
Wayne … can you source that info. for me. That’s the first I heard of someone having a list of who was listened to …
There is no debate — he’s admitted to it, and he’s said he’s going to keep on doing it.
So, the only choice is this: do you support a dictatorship, or do you support a constitutional representative democracy?
Unfortunately, in terms of Constitutional interpretation, the term “legal” is not unlike the term “fair” (its every day use). It’s very much in the eye of the person who is interpreting … I fully understand why people say the wire taps are “illegal” … I do, and I think there is evidence to support that claim. Given that, and as someone correctly asserted, the burden of proof is on Bush, I think opinions of certainty are a tad early though.
Presidents have historically taken a wide interpretation of Constitutionally inspired powers (because the Constitution is vague on some items) … all of them. Bush has taken a stance that is wider than most.
Can he substantiate this? Some of the comments/arguments are persuasive (for example, the President can send troops to another country and order it to attack that country (a power that most Presidents have used and can be used without Congressional approval), but he cannot order the NSA to LISTEN to those same individuals when they are in contact to within the USA … He CAN kill them, He CAN’T listen … makes no sense).
The interpretation that the President can send troops without a formal declaration of war is a wide, but universally accepted, stance … has Bush widened that interpretation too far … maybe. I want to see who the NSA’s been listening to before I get indignant (I think it makes a difference given my example above).
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:56 pmGiacomo,
The President is not above the law. The law allows Bush to send troops to another country to attack that country with Congressional approval, which Congress granted for Iraq. Congress did not grant the President the power to conduct wiretaps without warrants. In fact, it specifically prohibited it.
The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) grants Congress the power to ” To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”. That is the issue, not some theory regarding whether it “makes sense” that Bush can send troops but not wiretap.
FISA is clear; you don’t need to be a lawyer to understand it (though lawyers who have weighed in agree). President Bush has admitted he’s broken the law; the only issue is whether or not we care that we have a President who claims he doesn’t have to follow the law.
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:07 pmAnd let’s be clear about the differences between attacking a sovereign country, and violating the civil rights of American citizens. There’s a world of difference between the two; we treat our own citizens very differently than we treat those of other countries. To say that Bush should be able to attack another country without Congressional approval, but “wiretapping Americans makes no sense” is an apples and oranges comparison.
I do love the contortions people try to go through to justify Bush’s actions, though. Had this happened under Clinton, the same people would be marching on the Whitehouse, demanding impeachment. The (GOP-controlled) congress would have rushed to approve. And for the record, I would have agreed that impeachment was warranted.
A pity those on the other side of the aisle are more interested in power and party than principles and country.
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:11 pmThe President is not above the law. The law allows Bush to send troops to another country to attack that country with Congressional approval, which Congress granted for Iraq.
1) I agree, the President is not above the law
2) You’re incorrect … the current interpretation is that the President can send troops without informing Congress (Congress must declare formal war, but the President can still sen troops without them currently). This is the established understanding and is relevant to the wiretapping. Yes, Congress did authorize Iraq … technically, they didn’t have to.
The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) grants Congress the power to †To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forcesâ€. That is the issue, not some theory regarding whether it “makes sense†that Bush can send troops but not wiretap.
Article II, section II speaks to the Presidential war powers “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States” … it’s not just about makes sense … it’s about what is Constitutionally appropriate given the other powers implied.
FISA is clear; you don’t need to be a lawyer to understand it (though lawyers who have weighed in agree). President Bush has admitted he’s broken the law; the only issue is whether or not we care that we have a President who claims he doesn’t have to follow the law.
It’s a spin to say the “President admitted he broke the law”. The “President admitted to wire tapping suspected terrorists without a warrant which, I think, is against the law” would be a correct statement … big difference.
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:14 pmThe lasting impression on GWB’s spying that I get is that he didn’t originally know about FISA, or didn’t want to hear about it from his blockade inner circle. Now GWB is screwed and he and his blockade are playing the typical offensive spin and distraction tactics.
Sometimes we give GWB too much credit for actually knowing what he is doing, and this is one of those times.
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:15 pmThere’s a world of difference between the two; we treat our own citizens very differently than we treat those of other countries. To say that Bush should be able to attack another country without Congressional approval, but “wiretapping Americans makes no sense†is an apples and oranges comparison.
As you stated it, there is a world of difference … follow with me though …
1) Universally accepted … the President has the Constitutional power to send troops to another country and attack and kill that country’s populace
2) Universally accepted … no law can reduce the Presidents powers authorized by the US Constitution
3) NOT Universally accepted … listening in on terrorists (the same individuals whom we can legally kill in point one) is a logical extension of point one, only we won’t kill them.
I think we both agree that listening to someone is less injurous to them than killing them, but maybe that’s just me. This entire argument hinges upon WHO the NSA was listening to and in what context … I want to see that list before I get indiignant (as I said earlier).
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:18 pmwell, I’m hoping someone in the gaggle will point it out! another flip-flop from DC’s top flip-flopper…
Scotty says that polls confirm most Americans are ok with the illegal wiretaps… but that’s not how our laws work… if you ask most people if they’d support someone killing OJ Simpson, most would say yes… that wouldn’t make it a legal act in the eyes of the law, however…
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:23 pmFire Bush , change your foreign policy and Move isreal to america ..The world would be a safer place
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:25 pmInteresting that someone mentioned “Bin Laden cronies” and “Bush” in the same sentence…the truth shall set you free.
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:28 pmIts not really spin to say he broke the law. He said what he has authorized and to most legal scholars outside the administraion, to most people it is perfectly clear that the authorization is outside the bounds of the law. Period. I’ll trust the legal scholars and the legislators who drew up the law.
Face it when you lose Safire and Will on the issue, you know it has to be bad.
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:29 pmHello, it was American citizens he was wiretapping without a warrant. That’s the illegal part. American citizens…that’s the bit the right keeps ignoring, or confusing with crap like the Truong (sp?) case.
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:31 pmGiacomo,
FISA exists to prevent the general public (i.e. us) from knowing who was wiretapped. It’s not an issue of having the general public know who was or wasn’t tapped.
The issue is that this is a warrantless wiretap. That is illegal by any account. Warrants are how we define reasonable suspicion in America. Without a warrant, there is no way to define or prove “suspected terrorists” other than to say that everyone is a suspected terrorist.
And suspicion without proof is prima facie a very unAmerican idea. What’s the point of having a Constitution at all if we’re all guilty until proven innocent?
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:58 pmFurther regarding “universally accepted…no law can reduce the presidents powers authorized by the US Constitution”…
The same sentimet could be construded to mean the President has unlimited authority in carrying out law enforcement. Why is it, then, that the President cannot authorize violation of Miranda?
Not only are the President’s powers limited by laws as part of the general “checks and balances” sense of the Constitution, the Constitution specifically says that he must follow the laws.
[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…
Article II, Section 3.
You’ll note that there’s no exception to that clause.
Now, I’ll grant that Congress passing a law that specifically strips the President of one of his Constitutional powers would likely be found unconstitutional. However, as the Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to set rules for Government and the armed forces, I think the assertion that “no law can reduce the presidents powers authorized by the US Constitution” in this case is simply irrelevant at best as a point of debate.
January 3rd, 2006 at 4:30 pmAttempting to appear earnest and sincere, George W. Bush told an American people anguished by the criminal war in Iraq and the White House’s trashing of the Bill of Rights that, “Anytime you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, a wiretap requires a court order.†Bush, the incorrigible liar, spoke those words in Buffalo, New York in 2004, well over two years into a super-secret spying and wiretap program authorized by the President himself
January 3rd, 2006 at 4:32 pm#28 David – Search New York Times for ‘Greenpeace PETA’. You will come back with a Dec 20 article that says FBI -counterterrorism- units are monitoring protest groups.
Claiming that Hasmi and Mohammed would be infiltrating animal rights groups is beyond the pale – these guys want to to stay underneath the radar, and they always KEEP TO THEMSELVES. Go find a profile of a suicide bomber or the 9/11 terrorists – they are xenophobic – they have more in common with the KKK, Branch Davidians, or your local 700 Club watching, home-schooling, homophobe Faux News fundamentalists than liberal protest groups.
When you ASK the Attorney General to approve your warrantless wiretaps, and he says NO, and then you ask his 2nd in command to do it, and he says NO, and you ask the head of the Judiciary Committee about it, and he says “We probably won’t approve it“… guess what? It’s probably illegal.
Then when you go and do it anyway, that’s more than likely BREAKING THE LAW.
January 3rd, 2006 at 4:37 pmNot only that Cluemeister, if the illegal wire tapping is so pertinant to capturing terrorists then why hasn’t Osama Bin Laden been captured?
There’s no argument when the illegal wire taps do nothing to capture the so called mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
January 3rd, 2006 at 5:11 pmOh, I get it…Bubble boy will make a speech were he tells The American People that the wire taps produced evidence that Osama Bin Laden is in Iran and we must attack Iran to capture him.
Once a liar, always a liar.
January 3rd, 2006 at 5:13 pmOsama hasn’t been caught, because as Herr Busch said, “He’s hiding”.
January 3rd, 2006 at 5:47 pm#38 Comment by Giacomo:
1) Universally accepted … the President has the Constitutional power to send troops to another country and attack and kill that country’s populace
The reason why the president can send troops into another country without Congressional approvable is that in 1973 the War Powers Resolution was passed by Congress. It states that if the president introduces American troops into another country he has 60 days to get congressional approval or he must terminate the troop presence in that country.
2) Universally accepted … no law can reduce the Presidents powers authorized by the US Constitution
There is no law limiting presidential powers in this situation. If the president were to bypass FISA and use the Constitution instead, the 4th amendment states that he needs a warrant to spy on Americans. Nothing in Article 2 of the Constitution can be interpreted to mean that the president can spy on Americans without a warrant.
January 3rd, 2006 at 6:45 pm#6, Darth,
January 3rd, 2006 at 7:58 pmI, myself, am half bald by now. What in the hell are they thinking at MSNBC and CNN, not to mention ABC NBC CBS?
It is no wonder that FOX viewers are so certain of what they think — they are 100% wrong — but they have been “sold” by FOX who knows what they’re doing with the news.
#46, Susan
January 3rd, 2006 at 8:06 pmSorry, I am off topic here but I just learned that Dupage County has purchased Diebold voting machines for 2006!
I was going to resign from being an election judge (16 hour bleary-eyed day)but now I think I will have to stay on.
If Bush knows the phone number of the overseas “Al Qaeda menmbers and their associates” that he’s wiretapping, why doesn’t he just bomb them (which would be legal) instead of listening passively to their conversations with American citizens, which is patently ILLEGAL. If Bush doesn’t bomb these Al Qaeda members right now, mightn’t they bomb the United States instead? The obvious conclusion is that Bush is NOT wiretapping known terrorists, because the means exist to trace calls and bomb the participants. Bush is tapping people he can’t get away with bombing, like Catholic Church peace activists, journalists, bloggers, John Kerry? and other Americans who are even more dangerous to Bush than is Al Qaeda.
January 3rd, 2006 at 8:21 pmI would interpret the situation another way. McClellan is not saying that Bush responded to the polls through these actions, he is saying that the polls show support for what the President is doing. Remember, he said “there was a poll last week”. The actions took place long before this poll, thus there is no reason to believe that this poll caused the President’s actions.
January 3rd, 2006 at 8:53 pmBush is spying on terrorists and you are trying to say he’s doing it to avg Americans. Let’s have this debate – you’ll lose.
So you know for a fact that he’s telling the truth after being caught and not wanting to talk about the program at all? Are you in possession of the proper security clearance to know this?
Bush can say he’s spying on whomever the hell he wants… I don’t trust him, he hasn’t done anything in the past five years to earn that trust, and the few things he did do I agreed with were negated by his lying our way into Iraq.
The President is not the Pope. He’s not king, in fact I think he’s a dope.
There is no debating someone who makes their decisions based on blind faith. You’re right in your own mind no matter what evidence is brought to the contrary, inSane Liberal.
January 3rd, 2006 at 8:56 pmJust shows Bush Administrations’”Idiotic Hypocrisy”. They just don’t see that America is finally seeing their BS. So plain yet so simple.
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:58 pmWhen the Bush admission to “spying” came out, I looked for as many clues as I could find to prove to myself that the President really didn’t put the NSA/Echelon sniffers on everyone’s email traffic. And phone calls.
But I have not found anything to the contrary…they’re sifting through our cell phone calls, emails, internet surfing, faxes, land line phone calls, etc.
Americans are in a “put up or shut up” bind. Bush is daring us to show him he is not above the law, isn’t he?
January 4th, 2006 at 4:29 am60% ? That’s something to brag about?
January 4th, 2006 at 11:19 amThank you, Faiz – but you did not respond to the point I made – you responded to the point YOU made.
January 5th, 2006 at 6:00 pm[...] Oh, but he doesn’t govern based on polls. Except of course when he does. [...]
January 11th, 2006 at 9:33 pm[...] Blog Name: Think Progress Article Title: Bush Doesn?t Govern Based on Polls (Except When He Does) After taking nearly two weeks off from his regular briefing schedule, it’s good to see Scott McClellan hasn’t lost his touch. Here’s McClellan on December 13, responding to a poll that found almost 60 percent of Americans do not … [...]
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:23 pmEric
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:50 amhome based schooling
Thanks for the helpful post. I have visited many sites that have been a complete waste of time. It is good to come across a site that actually helps and informs the users… I have included another really good site at the bottom that also helps me ou…
March 26th, 2008 at 3:08 am