42% of voters favor impeachment

[Jobber of the Week 0]

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007

 

No Bounce: Bush Job Approval Unchanged by War Speech; Question on Impeachment Shows Polarization of Nation; Americans Tired of Divisiveness in Congress—Want Bi-Partisan Solutions—New Zogby Poll

 

 

President Bush’s televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.

 

The Zogby America survey of 905 likely voters, conducted from June 27 through 29, 2005, has a margin of error of +/-3.3 percentage points.

 

Just one week ago, President Bush’s job approval stood at a previous low of 44%—but it has now slipped another point to 43%, despite a speech to the nation intended to build support for the Administration and the ongoing Iraq War effort. The Zogby America survey includes calls made both before and after the President’s address, and the results show no discernible “bump” in his job approval, with voter approval of his job performance at 45% in the final day of polling.

 

Where voters live has some impact on their perceptions. The President’s job rating remains relatively strong in the South, with 51% rating his performance favorably; in all other regions, those disapproving his performance are in the majority.

 

In a more significant sign of the weakness of the President’s numbers, more “Red State” voters—that is, voters living in the states that cast their ballots for the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004—now rate his job performance unfavorably, with 50% holding a negative impression of the President’s handling of his duties, and 48% holding a favorable view. The President also gets negative marks from one-in-four (25%) Republicans—as well as 86% of Democrats and 58% of independents. (Bush nets favorable marks from 75% of Republicans, 13% of Democrats and 40% of independents.)

 

Impeachment Question Shows Bitterness of Divide

 

In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, 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. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

 

Among those living in the Western states, a 52% majority favors Congress using the impeachment mechanism while just 41% are opposed; in Eastern states, 49% are in favor and 45% opposed. In the South, meanwhile, impeachment is opposed by three-in-five voters (60%) and supported by just one-in-three (34%); in the Central/Great Lakes region, 52% are opposed and 38% in favor.

 

Impeachment is overwhelmingly rejected in the Red States—just 36% say they agree Congress should use it if the President is found to have lied on Iraq, while 55% reject this view; in the “Blue States” that voted for Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry in 2004, meanwhile, a plurality of 48% favors such proceedings while 45% are opposed.

 

A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush’s fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not. Independents are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49% opposed.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well what are we waiting for then dammit, impeach the guy already.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

By the time it gets around to an impeachement trial, no one will care because we'll be talking about who's running for President in 2008.

[NoCalMike 0]

By the time it gets around to an impeachement trial, no one will care because we'll be talking about who's running for President in 2008.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

True.

[Justice 0]

Well, that and the fact that the Senate Intelligence Committee sort of, well, said that he didn't press anyone for bad info or such and that he went in on honest intentions.

 

So doesn't that make this pretty much moot based on prior Senate findings?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Whew, shit's coming to a head within two years.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Couldn't we do it yanno... just for fun?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Well, that and the fact that the Senate Intelligence Committee sort of, well, said that he didn't press anyone for bad info or such and that he went in on honest intentions.

 

So doesn't that make this pretty much moot based on prior Senate findings?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

'

 

No, they never even began the second phase of the investigation into "whether senior Bush administration officials intentionally exaggerated information and pressured analysts in order to build a case for invading the country last year."

 

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0704/070904c1.htm

 

Senator Pat Roberts just kind of decided on his own that he didn't want to.

[Justice 0]

Just to say, the committee did say that they didn't pressure anyone. Now the former, that's debateable then.

[MrRant 0]

Have we started to love the one sided slant of this forum yet?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Have we started to love the one sided slant of this forum yet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I'd say it's more representative of America. More and more people are beginning to realize that Bush is a terrible commander in chief, and while there will always be some True Believers, there was a way higher percentage in CE than there were in reality.

 

Keep in mind I'm not saying the country is majorily Democratic or anti-Republican, but when it comes to W specifically, well come on, the guy's only still holding a positive reputation in the reddest states. Plus we just all pissed on an SC ruling that allows government to kick people out of their homes, so I'd say conservatism is still alive and well here, just traditional light-libertarian conservatism instead of Bush Fanboy 'tax cuts while doubling military spending is kewl' conservatism.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Have we started to love the one sided slant of this forum yet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As opposed to the "fair & balanced" CE folder on the other board?

[MrRant 0]

I don't post there so I wouldn't know.

[RepoMan 0]

I still get the feeling that W's ratings will be low going into the '06 mid-terms but the Dems will still find a way to loss seats.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I don't post there so I wouldn't know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's tilted as far right as this one is left.

[MrRant 0]

Well then they both suck for the same reason.

[snuffbox 0]

By the time it gets around to an impeachement trial, no one will care because we'll be talking about who's running for President in 2008.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just like 1998?

[Guest Vitamin X]

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007

Where voters live has some impact on their perceptions. The President’s job rating remains relatively strong in the South, with 51% rating his performance favorably; in all other regions, those disapproving his performance are in the majority..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YEEEEEEEEEEEEHAW! Hot diggity! You show dem Democrats a thing or two, Georgie!

[The Robfather 0]

What is John Zogby talking about?

 

Zogby International, the polling firm of John Zogby, announced its latest poll yesterday with a press release headlined "No Bounce." The release states that "President Bush's televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll."

 

But if you read the details of the poll, you will find out that it was conducted from June 27-29. Bush gave his speech during the evening of June 28. So how could Zogby tell if Bush got a bounce when a substantial portion of his respondents were interviewed before the speech? This seems like another example of Zogby's questionable professional ethics to me.

[Jericholic82 0]

Well if Clinton got impeached for lying about sex, then you'd think this would be more than enough. I mean here in Cali we recalled Gov Davis for way less then lying about a war. Of course now all the morons here are noy crying about Arnold so it defeats the purpose really.

 

Bush is now a lame duck, just hope that he doesn't screw too much stuff up in his last few years.

 

I'm trying to give benefit of doubt here. Especially since I am now offically sick of all politicians with their childish feuding and name calling.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

the post above this post is the best post of this thread.

[SuperJerk 0]

I don't post there so I wouldn't know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's tilted as far right as this one is left.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most of the conservatives just kind of gave up after the Mike incident.

 

 

Wimps.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Most of the conservatives just kind of gave up after the Mike incident.

 

 

Wimps.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The sad thing is that PowerPlay, Slapnuts!, and others were much smarter and more fun to talk to because they weighed pros and cons instead of just reading out of The President's Five Step Plan For America.

 

It's a little bit like if you, me, NoCal, and others took off because of an INXS banning. I'd probably be the first one here to say how nice the forum would be now that we don't have to listen to about how Hamas protects Palestinian infants from tanks.

[Guest Vitamin X]

But INXS did get banned.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Now take off.

[SuperJerk 0]

In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, 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. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

 

This is one instance when I think the polling is totally wrong.

 

If it is proven (which it has not been) that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq, how could only 42% want him removed from office? Especially after as many casualties as there has been?

 

Maybe a lot people didn't understand they were answering a hypothetical question, and thought they were actually being asked if they thoguth Bush should be impeached right now?

 

I don't know, but I can hardly beleive that 58% of the population wouldn't want Bush impeached if it is proven that he actually did lie. (Not that I'm saying he really lied, I just mean hypothetically if he did.)

[Justice 0]

It's a little bit like if you, me, NoCal, and others took off because of an INXS banning. I'd probably be the first one here to say how nice the forum would be now that we don't have to listen to about how Hamas protects Palestinian infants from tanks.

 

I'd gladly trade NoCal and two draft picks to be named later for the return of Wildbomb.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm just simply giving a comparison of what it would be like on our "side."

 

And to the other guy, yes, I know INXS was banned, which was why I used him as an example. I started writing that post using C-Bacon, but then realized that risked starting shit and backpedaling that I didn't want to get into.

 

But give me Slapnuts!'s "MYTH/FACT" copy and pastes any day over newspaper or magazine editorials rambling on about how the wealthiest 85% of the world is screwing over the remaining 15.

[Justice 0]

Oh, and for the record, I am Powerplay. I just changed my name. o.0

[Gary Floyd 0]

I'm trying to give benefit of doubt here.  Especially since I am now offically sick of all politicians with their childish feuding and name calling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You sound alot like me these days when it comes to politics.