CHENEY TIME:

The Impeachment of George W. Bush (ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, January 30, 2006, The Nation)

Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush--not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so.

Ms Holtzman seems to have forgotten she was a member of the majority then.

MORE:
Americans Taking Abramoff, Alito and Domestic Spying in Stride (Pew Research, January 11, 2006)

The public has been hardly stirred by the flurry of major Washington news in the early days of 2006. Jack Abramoff's admission that he bribed members of Congress has sparked little interest, with just 18% paying very close attention to news reports on the disgraced Washington lobbyist. An overwhelming majority of Americans (81%) say that lobbyists bribing lawmakers is common behavior in Congress, compared with just 11% who see it as isolated incidents.

In turn, there has been little political fallout from the disclosures. Ratings for Republican and Democratic congressional leaders remain low, and neither party has gained or lost ground as being better able to manage the federal government or to govern honestly and ethically.

Reports about President Bush authorizing wiretaps of Americans suspected of having ties to terrorists has drawn far more attention than the Abramoff case. But there is not an outcry or even consensus opinion about the government's monitoring, without court permission, the phone and email communications of Americans suspected of having terrorist ties; 48% feel this is generally right while about the same number (47%) think it is generally wrong. Public attitudes on this issue are highly partisan, with 69% of Republicans saying the government actions are generally right and nearly as many Democrats (62%) saying they are generally wrong. [...]

The highly-publicized revelations of government eavesdropping have not altered the balance of public opinion with respect to the tradeoff between combating terrorism and protecting civil liberties. Just one-in-three say their bigger concern about the government's anti-terrorism policies is that they have gone too far in restricting the average person's civil liberties. A 46% plurality is more concerned that the government has not gone far enough to adequately protect the country. These views are comparable to measures taken in 2004 and 2005.

Democrats express far more concern about civil liberties than do Republicans, but even Democrats are divided on how to balance security and civil liberties with 42% worrying that the government has gone too far in restricting freedoms, and 40% concerned that they have not gone far enough to protect the country from future attacks. Republicans, by 64% to 16%, say the government has not gone far enough. Among both partisans and independents, views have not changed much since 2004.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 11, 2006 5:20 PM