--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 8/20/06 11:46:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > And don't you think the Democratic party would have tweaked that > poll by the > > Washington Post by emphasizing warrantless wiretaps in another poll > after > > May 11, if they thought they could have moved those numbers > against Bush? Of > > course they would! > > Oh, wonderful. Now he's trying to prove the public > approves of warrantless wiretapping because there's > been no poll since the Washington Post poll saying > they don't. > > Oh, and the Democratic Party doesn't "tweak" poll > numbers done by news organizations. > > Hey, polls are what the Democrats are all about. They live and die > by the polls. If they can influence public opinion by making people > think they are some how on the wrong side, if they don't agree with > them, they will use them every time.
You are SO BRAINWASHED. Do you *really* believe Democrats live and die by polls any more than Republicans do? Do you *really* believe Republicans don't try to influence public opinion by making people think they're somehow on the wrong side? Republicans made a *huge* deal of that Washington Post poll, just as you did, pretending, just as you did, that it demonstrated a majority was OK with warrantless wiretapping. > All the Democrats would have to do in this case is clearly ask in > a poll if you support the NSA program including wire tapping > incoming foreign calls from suspected terrorists even without a > warrant from a judge to do so. I would imagine there are going to be plenty of polls on this as the court case proceeds. But generally speaking, political parties let the media and independent polling organizations poll on these kinds of issues. They may do their own internal polling, but those results aren't usually publicized. The one on impeachment was an exception; the mainstream media would be unlikely to ask such a question in the first place. > I guarantee you if they thought they could move the poll numbers > from the last poll, Washington Post/ABC, in their favor, they would > in a New York minute. Uh-huh. BTW, pollsters don't "move" poll numbers. They report what they find. > The fact is Judy, 65% of the people want that NSA program in > place as it is If they're even thinking about the warrantless wiretapping issue, you mean. Which we don't know, because the Post's poll didn't ask. > because it looks like it is working Highly debatable. The Republicans certainly try to make it *look* like it's working; the administration hauls out some purported terror arrest every time it's in trouble over some other issue. But then, virtually every time, it has turned out that the supposed threat had been way overblown. The administration and its supporters attempted to make people think it was warrantless wiretapping that resulted in the recent arrests in Great Britain. But that, it turns out, was a lie. And as it happens, Bush didn't even get a bounce in his own approval ratings. People are finally beginning to see through his scare tactics. > and probably a high percentage of that > 65% wouldn't trust their safety with a federal judge deciding > what could and could not be tapped. Oh, interesting suggestion. So now we have a high percentage of the 65 percent majority for the NSA program "in place as it is" actually *opposing* the NSA program "in place as it is" because it requires getting a warrant from a federal judge. > Judges screw things up too many times and let criminals go > that end up killing again. Right, so that must be why only a tiny handful of requests for warrants for wiretapping have been turned down, among thousands made since the FISA program was put in place. > And that 65% definitely wouldn't trust a judge > like Anna Diggs Taylor if she were in charge of overseeing the > program, IMPO. But she isn't, of course. She ruled on whether warrantless wiretapping was legal and constitutional, not whether a warrant justified a particular request for a wiretap. The vast majority who oppose warrantless wiretapping *approve* of wiretapping with warrants and want it to continue. There's zero reason to think Diggs would turn down legitimate requests for warrants. You're stretching so far you've become completely transparent. And it isn't a pretty sight. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
