Going back to the original post, I don't put too much stock in any poll. Its just a snapshot of feelings at a particular time. The outcome of the poll depends significantly on how the question is phrased. Its hard to interpret the true meaning of polls, but the media like them because they can write stories about the.
On the Doug Thompson bit, he writes a e-zine called
www.capitolhillblue.com. I've never heard of it, but here it is:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/dtbio.htm
Seems to me the quotes in his article are all hearsay and are presented without any context. Anyone can pull quotes and make up any story around them. I know nothing of Doug Thompson's views, but based on that, I am skeptical of the quotes in his story. Also, I've not seen this incident reported elsewhere, so it is difficult to give it any weight or import. I'm not saying it did or did not happen, but I'd like to see more credible sources reporting on this.
And now for something completely different!
Has anyone ever stopped to consider what the Presidential Oath of Office actually says? Here it is:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Note that it says "execute the Office of President of the United States". It does NOT say "execute the Laws of the United States" or "execute the Acts passed by Congress", etc. "Execute the Office of President" means the president is entitled to use all of the Article II powers to fulfill his duty, including his powers as Commander in Chief to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He is NOT restrained by the Laws passed by Congress when he is fulfilling his CONSTITUTIONAL duty proscribed to him in Article II.
Our Democrat friends make a big deal to say the President was acting "unlawfully" or "in controvention of the laws passed by Congress". The bad news for them is that, in fulfilling his duty as Commander in Chief, and in the execution of the Office of President of the United States, he can do damn near anything he wants. Wiretapping is being done on his orders as Commander in Chief, a Constitutional duty. Congress can say little about this. Contrast this with the wiretapping done by Richard Nixon. That wiretapping was done to spy on political opponents, clearly NOT Constitutionally permitted. There is a clear difference here, despite the media and left wing punditry to the contrary.
