Ethics Observations On The Impeachment Poll

johnson-impeachment

Public Policy Polling reported yesterday that…

“Just three weeks into his administration, voters are already evenly divided on the issue of impeaching Trump with 46% in favor and 46% opposed. Support for impeaching Trump has crept up from 35% 2 weeks ago, to 40% last week, to its 46% standing this week. While Clinton voters initially only supported Trump’s impeachment 65/14, after seeing him in office over the last few weeks that’s gone up already to 83/6.”

What’s going on here?

Ethics Observations:

1. The article buries the lede. What has changed is that Clinton voters now want the President to be impeached by an incredible 83-6 margin. Good job, news media! Well done, Democrats! Nice well-poisoning, social media! Now, if the poll is to be believed, virtually all of the 65,844,610 voters who supported Clinton have adopted the Left’s favored totalitarian mode of governance: if our candidate loses the election, gain power through other means.

2. This has been the relentless message wafting in from the Left  like Assad’s poison gas since November 8, 2016, when “The World Turned Upside-Down.” The popular vote should decide the election…Electors should violate their pledges…Trump should be impeached before he takes office…He should be stopped from taking the oath until he sells all of his business interests—Russia “hacked the election,” we should have a do-over…His cabinet should declare him “unable to discharge the duties of the Presidency,” and make Pence President…the military should take over…He should be arrested…He should be shot…Rioters should prevent the Inauguration from occurring…Did I miss any? I’m sure I must have. But now it has come back to impeachment.

3. Impeachment has been the default remedy of radicals, fanatics and crazies who oppose Presidents since at least the 1950s, when the John Birch Society was running amuck. Democrats, having once taken their name seriously and genuinely supported, you know, democracy, used to regard it as dangerous device that could be used to take power away without the inconvenience of elections. John F. Kennedy won a Pulitzer Prize for putting his name on a pop history book called “Profiles in Courage” (he didn’t write it) about heroic U.S. Senators, and one of the most stirring tales was the book’s recounting the story of Edmund Ross, Republican Senator from Kansas, who bucked his party leadership and his constituents by voting for President Andrew Johnson’s acquittal in his impeachment trial, thus causing the effort to throw Johnson out of office to fail by a single vote. Kennedy’s book stated that Ross, whose career in Kansas was ended by the vote (he later switched parties and moved to New Mexico), may well have saved the balance of powers and the integrity of the the democratic process. Johnson was an unpopular and obstructive President who stood in the way of the Radical Republicans’ plans to subjugate the defeated Confederacy, but his “high crimes” consisted of using his power in politically unpopular ways.

4. The Democrats carried on Ross’s tradition when they refused to give Bill Clinton’s impeachment a fair trial, and he had engaged in impeachable offenses. That didn’t mean that it would have been good for the country to remove Clinton from office, however, especially since the Republican Party had been openly searching for ways to undermine Clinton since he was elected. The impeachment was an example of something justifiable done for unethical reasons, thus setting, again, a dangerous precedent. Impeachment has to be a last resort when a President’s conduct abuses law and power, as it would have been if Nixon hadn’t resigned. Any other use of the device will allow elections to be overturned whenever a President’s opposition gets sufficient popular support and representation.

5. But the corruption and inflammation of  Democratic Party supporters is the natural result of the Left’s unprecedented fear-mongering and hysterical attacks on Trump, irresponsibly assisted by the mainstream news media. This has been done recklessly and without concern for its possible disastrous consequences. The ends justify the means.

6. The stunning aspect of the 83/6 ratio is how it illustrates that virtually all Democratic voters are now either totalitarian in philosophy or ignorant as a block of cheese. Whatever the press has told them and hyper-partisan law professors have asserted in nutty essays, President Trump has not committed any impeachable acts. (The Emoluments Clause was not created to stop hotel-owning Presidents from having foreign officials rent a room for the night.) Nor could he ever be impeached and convicted unless the Democrats somehow achieved a majority in the House and a two-thirds majority in the Senate, or if Trump was found to be running a child sex ring out of the Oval Office. That’s what the ignorant Hillary supporters don’t understand, and thank our wonderful public school system for that, Senator Warren. The others, the totalitarians, are the progressives who riot in the streets, chant that Trump isn’t a legitimate President, and who have voted against every one of his Cabinet picks,  something no opposing party has ever done to a President before. Yes, most Senate Democrats are on the totalitarian side now, believing that only Democrats have a legitimate right to power, and elections that place their opponents in office can and should be overturned.

7. Thus the poll, if accurate, tells us that progressives, Democrats and journalists are succeeding in not only dividing the county along the perilous fault-lines of race, gender and class, but also in terms of respect and support of democracy. Hillary voters now have neither. That’s the frightening take-away of this poll, that and the fact that the Left is willing to unravel our society in order to lead it.

8. That last clause raises the question; “Who are the real fascists in this scenario?”

9. Fortunately, other polls suggest a different dynamic. A Morning Consult/Politico poll asked a sample about 11 of Trump’s  most controversial Executive Orders, and found that the ones most condemned by Democrats had the strongest public support. That poll says that 55% approve of the order putting a temporary hold on visas and refugees from terror-prone countries, and only 38% disapprove of it. 55% also approve of the  order to revoke funding for sanctuary cities. 54% backed Trump’s call to freeze all federal regulations.

10. Meanwhile, an Emerson College poll found that the public views the Trump administration as more truthful than the news media, which is faint praise indeed. 48% say the President is truthful, compared with only 39% who trust the news media .The IBD/TIPP poll found that 62% are not confident that the news media will cover President Trump fairly. ( It ought be 100%). The Morning Consult poll says that 59% of independents and 57% of those who are ideologically moderate  believe that Democrats should find ways to work with the President rather than try to obstruct him. (Wow—what a concept!)

Then again,  after the election, who trusts pollsters? Nonetheless, the impeachment poll is ominous, though not for the prospects of an impeachment. It hints at a mass alienation from the nation’s core values, and that one party, rather than trying to heal a dangerous rift, is trying to increase and exploit it, with significant success.

_____________________________

Source:Public Policy PollingInvestors Business Daily

25 Comments

Filed under Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics, History, Journalism & Media, Leadership

25 responses to “Ethics Observations On The Impeachment Poll

  1. “Did I miss any?”

    Global Warming has worsened exponentially?

  2. dragin_dragon

    Actual fact, I can make a poll (which is nothing more than a questionnaire) yield almost any results I want it to yield. Simply manipulate the questions, how they are phrased and in what order they are asked, or manipulate the respondents. If you want a poll showing Trump should be impeached, just confine your poll to San Francisco natives who live in Pelosi’s neighborhood. Sure, it’s unethical, but, given Democrats behavior recently, would that be a surprise? Not to me.

  3. I’ve been wondering if Jimmy Carter would be able to give a speech that would provide a bulwark for others to speak for moderation? I don’t think anyone else with a national profile has an independent voice right now. Jerry Brown?

    • Wayne

      I think hoping that Jerry Brown will do anything to rein in the rabid dogs demanding Trump’s impeachment are remote: https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58879cc0e4b0441a8f712f7e/amp?client=safari

    • Greg

      There are plenty of people who could help calm the public’s hysteria by giving such a speech: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Bernie Sanders, even Elizabeth Warren. There are a lot of television personalities with large audiences who could have a positive effect. But apparently, all of them would rather see the nation destroyed. We are being led over the cliff by evil people.

      seerepublic destroyed instead. We are led by

      • Greg

        Sorry, that tag at the end is a mess, the result of trying to type on my irritating cell phone.

      • fattymoon

        Greg, I’m sorry to say this, but, hysteria my ass. The man’s a nutter. I suggest you, and Jack, and most of you, are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. I could list a dozen credible examples, but why bother? You would only denigrate me and them.

        Still worse, in my eyes (because I much prefer animals to humans) is this… “The removal of the USDA online database will negatively impact animal welfare work across the country.” http://bit.ly/2kEkYUX. I’m told Trump never had a pet. “Until one has loved an animal, a part of one’s soul remaines unawakened.” Anatole France

        Trump’s soul is in need of love. Sorry, I’m not a qualified therapist. The best I can do is work like hell to get him removed from office.

  4. Chris Marschner

    Perhaps that is what Obama was referring to when he said over and over ” that’s not who we are”. Never once did he articulate what he meant, nor has he spoken out against the riots that followed the election.

  5. Matthew B

    Who knew the Democrats wanted a President Pence so bad?

    • Beckie

      I agree with that. It seems to me that a lot of the time the ones yelling for impeachment have no idea 1) that impeaching proceeds don’t necessarily mean removal from office and 2) they have no idea what the presidential line of succession is. Even if it happened and they somehow did the same to Pence, they’d get Paul Ryan next. I’m not sure anyone wants that. I’ve actually had someone tell me that impeaching President Trump will give Hillary her presidency. I just have to shake my head at it all. And learn to stay out of the Yahoo comment section where anything but facts prevail most of the time.

  6. Inquiring Mind

    Between this, #GrabYourWallet, and the way Democrats are trying to obstruct Trump’s cabinet nominees…

    I’ll take three exhibits of Why Kurt Schlichter Is Right, for $2,000 Alex.

  7. luckyesteeyoreman

    These enemies of the state who want to impeach Trump will not stop with Trump. They’ll “get” him, then they’ll move on with getting rid of Pence, Ryan, and…shit, I don’t even know who the President pro tempore is in the Senate…McConnell? Nah – the enemies might just jerk off with love for him.

    • Beckie

      It’s Orrin Hatch. According to some reports, he supposedly missed the inauguration because he was the designated survivor. However, dozens of others said it was Jeh Johnson. After him comes Tillerson, Mnuchin and Mattis, and the list continues with people I don’t think that one side will like much. Maybe they’d stop at Mattis because Sessions follows him in the line.

  8. Steve-O-in-NJ

    “It hints at a mass alienation from the nation’s core values, ”

    I realize I am a bit late to the party on this post, but I think that phrase is the key one here. The fact is that the left, and the Democratic party as the major political organ of the left, has drunk too much of its own Kool-aid. It sees itself no longer as the spokesperson for one particular set of values, but as the spokesperson for the only valid set of values. Therefore, anyone not aligned with that set of values is invalid and illegitimate, and must be defeated, by any and all means, fair or foul. The usual way is by election, but every so often those invalid types put one over on the stupid electorate and score a win. If that’s the case, they are still invalid, they have no right to govern, and we are doing the right thing by preventing them from governing, at least until the next election cycle puts us back in power. I dunno, though, this cycle is proof of a danger to valid values. Maybe after the next cycle we had better take steps to see it can’t happen again…

  9. So over the weekend, Piers Morgan, Jim Jeffries and a couple of other commentators that didn’t really weigh in on this exchange were talking Trump on Bill Maher.

    So Maher launches out with: “So to all the people that said that Trump was the lesser of two evils, can we have an apology now?” Piers asked why, and Maher used the “Muslim Ban”

    Piers: “There is no Muslim ban”
    Jeffries: “Oh fuck off, Fuck off. Fuck off, There’s a fucking Muslim ban.
    Piers: “Look, 85% of Muslims are still allowed inside the country.”
    Jeffries: “”You say ‘he hasn’t done this, he hasn’t done that.’ Give him a fucking chance, mate, Hitler didn’t kill Jews on the first day. He worked up to it.”

    What’s most interesting about this exchange isn’t the way certain people’s brains are liquefying and being able to watch them trickle out their ears in real time, or that Piers Fucking Morgan is the least left leaning person in a conversation, or that Americans cheered as some two bit Australian compared their President to Hitler…. No… All of those things are INTERESTING…. But I noticed something else.

    Despite saying (before the clip above) about 17 variations of “I don’t support Trump, I couldn’t vote for him, and I wouldn’t have if I could have, but we need to pick our fights better and be less hysterical in our opposition. (A position near and dear to my heart)” He’s being smeared as a “Trump Supporter”, giddily reporting on what they would in other situations call a ‘deceptively edited’ video (Because really 60 seconds out of a conversation, edited to remove context.), with all the fawning adoration they can muster, that Jeffries “Blasted” Piers the “Trump Supporter”. In short, the media spoiled itself over Trump yet again.

    But what I found most interesting here, is the left’s use of “Trump Supporter” as a pejorative. I’m not sure what’s keeping them from synonymising Nazi and Trump supporter, it’s close. Like: This guy supported Trump, he’s obviously an idiot, he’s obviously a bad guy, probably literally Hitler. This is…. something… different. Even Nazis are referred to as Nazis, and not Hitler supporters. Romney supporters? Obama Supporters? Mao supporters? Stalin supporters? Pot supporters? Antoinette supporters? Some of those got use, but not like this. I think what’s different here is a couple of things: Despite a festering, burning hate for Trump, his detractors don’t want to identify the broad groups Trump belongs to other than in the most bumpered of stickers (-ist, -phobe, ect.) and that’s for a couple of reasons; First: We aren’t dealing with particularly deep thinkers, and they probably couldn’t accurately group Trump outside of “people I don’t like” or “Nazis”, and second: If they did, they might come by the very uncomfortable realisation that as a populist, Trump holds a lot of very centrist positions outside of the four or five issues that they take great offence at.

    But we’re also beyond hate of Trump now, or even his ideas. As we discussed last week: These people *hate* Trump supporters. They hate that Trump Supports think differently than they do, they hate that they can’t shame them into submission, they hate that the Trump Supports can’t see how pristine and pure their intentions are. They think that they’re uneducated and irredeemably stupid, unreasonable and prone to violence, authoritarian and fascist. You know… Projection. And while bias might makes you stupid, hate makes you dangerously stupid.

    • …And when they lash out, they will learn that more than a few of the vilified ‘Trump Supporters’ are a few other things:

      -rational and logical
      -well armed
      -within the law to protect themselves

      A few of the Alt-right ‘Trump Supporters’ are all of the above plus

      -spoiling for a fight

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s