4 ms·

You will, no doubt, find plenty of people who trust Obama to not do this. You'll find plenty of people who would have trusted Bush, and you'll even find a lot o

You will, no doubt, find plenty of people who trust Obama to not do this. You'll find plenty of people who would have trusted Bush, and you'll even find a lot of people who don't trust either one of them. But there's a fourth corner to that square, and I don't think you'd find many people in it at all: people who would trust both Bush and Obama with data like this. That's the thing about governments: people have successors. People like Bush and Obama have been elected before, and given enough time, people like them will be elected again. Trusting one administration with a given power means trusting all future administrations, sight unseen, with that same power, and that is rarely a sane thing to do.

wonderyak 13y ago
The other problem -- despite the changing of the guard in the Executive branch -- other branches and workers stay the same.
- SkyMarshal 13y ago
  Exactly. I find it confounding how people are still attributing this stuff to Presidents when it should be obvious by now it's not the elected officials running this show. They're being led along by an entrenched bureaucracy with its own goals and agenda, no term limits, and with the ability to shape the world view and hence decisions of our elected officials by what information they choose to provide or withhold. Stop talking about this in terms of Bush or Obama, Republican or Democrat. The problem transcends any one elected individual or even political party.
  - bcoates 13y ago
    This simply isn't true. Obama ran on being Bush's third and fourth terms and that's what we got. The two of them have been a radical departure from previous administrations. Two presidencies does not make an immutable law of nature. Recent political events have demonstrated just how autonomous the President is, there is no reason to think there is some sort of hidden power at play here. If anything we need a stronger and more professional bureaucracy that's less eager to help the President break the law.
    - csallen 13y ago
      I understand your point, but I don't see any reason to believe it. It seems to me that it's in the NSA's (and every other gov't organization's) best interests to do everything in its power to increase its own reach and influence. It's naive to assume they are working against their own best interests unless you have some sort of evidence to back that up.
    - SkyMarshal 13y ago
      >This simply isn't true. Obama ran on being Bush's third and fourth terms and that's what we got. No, he ran on the exact opposite - being the anti-Bush. Maybe you saw through that are remembering what you perceived instead. And there's no "hidden power" in so far as the Federal bureaucracy is anything but hidden. Secretive maybe, but not hidden. >If anything we need a stronger and more professional bureaucracy that's less eager to help the President break the law. Agreed. That would be ideal. There are elements of it, but it's not universal.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Well let's be fair, they both ran on some part by being "not Bush". The GOP couldn't find a corner dusty enough to stick GWB in during that election cycle.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  That's not exactly a problem. Asynchronous turnover in the branches helps provide operational stability while still allowing for accountability by voting the bastards out. At least that's the theory.
- Millennium 13y ago
  It wasn't always this way, at least in the US. There was a time when many more high positions were appointed, and could be replaced by incoming administrations, though especially at first it didn't tend to happen all that often. But then certain figures got the idea that they could use government jobs as rewards for campaign support, and after a couple of decades of this, the "spoils system" (as it was called) was pretty much ruined for everybody.
brokentone 13y ago
Very well put, and why these various spying, leaks, and harassment issues need to be a big deal for everyone. Do we really trust a large institution that no one knows about (and thus has no accountability) to grab just the data they need and that corresponds to other laws? Do we trust the individuals with the power to access all sorts of data to always do so responsibly, to never play games with it? Do we trust the organizations to always deal with it equitably and never put certain political persuasions under greater scrutiny? Do we trust that the retention won't be used to build cases against formerly innocent people after the fact? Whether this is your guy, the last guy was your guy, or whether neither are, this is frightening.
tootie 13y ago
Rasmussen has been dinged in the past for having a right-wing bias. It consistently gave higher support for Romney than other posters. The recent Pew poll showed moderately favorable views of NSA snooping. More interestingly, it showed that Democrats had suddenly become a lot more trusting while Republicans were suddenly dubious. A reversal from when Bush was caught spying on us.
jsdalton 13y ago
Not just "plenty of people" -- actual majorities in both parties: "There are significant partisan differences [in 2013] in views of the government's program to obtain call logs and Internet communication. Democrats are more likely to approve, by 49% to 40%. Independents (34% vs. 56%) and Republicans (32% to 63%) are much more likely to disapprove than approve. "In 2006, when Gallup asked the similar question about a program that came to light at that point, Republicans were significantly more likely to approve than Democrats. The differences in partisan reaction between 2006 and 2013 reflect the party of the president under whose watch the programs were carried out at those two points in time." http://www.gallup.com/poll/163043/americans-disapprove-government-surveillance-programs.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163043/americans-disapprove-gover... It just baffles me that many Americans are so myopic on this issue that they can't even see past a single election cycle!
- gojomo 13y ago
  Party-affiliation is volatile and self-reported: these aren't the same 'Democrats' nor 'Republicans' as in 2006, both due to switched-voters, new-voters, and expired-voters. In particular, I believe there are a significant number of respondents who either (1) aren't very politically aware, but do have high trust in "our leaders" (whatever party they may be), or (2) don't trust pollsters -- believing they could be "with the government" or other loyalist groups -- and thus answer as if the questions were a loyalty test. Note that for both type (1) and type (2) respondents, they are especially likely to answer (a) "Yes, I'm the same party as the President in power"; and (b) "Yes, I approve of what the President's policing/border/drug/terrorism agents have been doing". The respondents have different reasons, but neither want to express dissension. And yet it's not really telling us what party "true believers" think, just situational switchers. Of course, many party "true believers" can forgive "their guy" in office for the same things they'd raise a stink about from "the other guy". That's also a very common bias/behavior. But I suspect these other low-ideology, "kiss-up-to-whoever-is-in-office" respondents are another significant, 5-15% contributor to what looks like a "partisan swing" in polls like this.
- ianstallings 13y ago
  It's not baffling when you consider Jersey Shore and Honey Boo Boo.
ericcumbee 13y ago
I'm Guilty of it, at the time I would have trusted G.W. Bush with those powers. Now Obama not so much. and certainly not the next Republican President. You maybe able to trust the guy now but will you trust the next guy? That is the lesson that I have learned.
ajtaylor 13y ago
I couldn't have said it better myself. The problem with programs like these is that it's almost impossible to roll them back. They are like a snowball: small at the very beginning, growing larger over time, until at the end they become a catastrophic force (usually for bad). I wouldn't have trusted either Bush or Obama with these powers. Government officials have proven time and time again that they don't always have the general populace's interests at heart. The saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is the first thing to come to mind.
dredmorbius 13y ago
That's a point I've made as well: https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/RJpNqz1ymRz https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/RJpNqz1y... [Long bit about supposing I'm OK with Obama spying on all and sundry] Now take that argument and flip it: I'm a raving reactionary right-wing flag-waving, Bush-loving, Grover Norquist worshiping, NASCAR fanning, Fox-watching, elephant-tattoo-on-my-ass Republican. Guess what: I have exactly the same rapid paranoid concern about Obama's or any Democratic administration's use of FISA surveillance. The so-called PATRIOT Act is a significant part of what's tearing the US apart. It fosters distrust on both sides of a vast and growing political divide. It is more power to the government with less oversight than anyone can trust. "That is not what democracy is about. That is not what freedom is about," to quote Senator Sanders. The so-called PATRIOT Act always was and will be a full admission and capitulation to the fact that we've abandoned our cherished freedoms and the terrorists have won.

wonderyak 13y ago

The other problem -- despite the changing of the guard in the Executive branch -- other branches and workers stay the same.

SkyMarshal 13y ago
Exactly. I find it confounding how people are still attributing this stuff to Presidents when it should be obvious by now it's not the elected officials running this show. They're being led along by an entrenched bureaucracy with its own goals and agenda, no term limits, and with the ability to shape the world view and hence decisions of our elected officials by what information they choose to provide or withhold. Stop talking about this in terms of Bush or Obama, Republican or Democrat. The problem transcends any one elected individual or even political party.
- bcoates 13y ago
  This simply isn't true. Obama ran on being Bush's third and fourth terms and that's what we got. The two of them have been a radical departure from previous administrations. Two presidencies does not make an immutable law of nature. Recent political events have demonstrated just how autonomous the President is, there is no reason to think there is some sort of hidden power at play here. If anything we need a stronger and more professional bureaucracy that's less eager to help the President break the law.
  - csallen 13y ago
    I understand your point, but I don't see any reason to believe it. It seems to me that it's in the NSA's (and every other gov't organization's) best interests to do everything in its power to increase its own reach and influence. It's naive to assume they are working against their own best interests unless you have some sort of evidence to back that up.
  - SkyMarshal 13y ago
    >This simply isn't true. Obama ran on being Bush's third and fourth terms and that's what we got. No, he ran on the exact opposite - being the anti-Bush. Maybe you saw through that are remembering what you perceived instead. And there's no "hidden power" in so far as the Federal bureaucracy is anything but hidden. Secretive maybe, but not hidden. >If anything we need a stronger and more professional bureaucracy that's less eager to help the President break the law. Agreed. That would be ideal. There are elements of it, but it's not universal.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Well let's be fair, they both ran on some part by being "not Bush". The GOP couldn't find a corner dusty enough to stick GWB in during that election cycle.
MartinCron 13y ago
That's not exactly a problem. Asynchronous turnover in the branches helps provide operational stability while still allowing for accountability by voting the bastards out. At least that's the theory.
Millennium 13y ago
It wasn't always this way, at least in the US. There was a time when many more high positions were appointed, and could be replaced by incoming administrations, though especially at first it didn't tend to happen all that often. But then certain figures got the idea that they could use government jobs as rewards for campaign support, and after a couple of decades of this, the "spoils system" (as it was called) was pretty much ruined for everybody.

brokentone 13y ago

Very well put, and why these various spying, leaks, and harassment issues need to be a big deal for everyone. Do we really trust a large institution that no one knows about (and thus has no accountability) to grab just the data they need and that corresponds to other laws? Do we trust the individuals with the power to access all sorts of data to always do so responsibly, to never play games with it? Do we trust the organizations to always deal with it equitably and never put certain political persuasions under greater scrutiny? Do we trust that the retention won't be used to build cases against formerly innocent people after the fact? Whether this is your guy, the last guy was your guy, or whether neither are, this is frightening.

tootie 13y ago

Rasmussen has been dinged in the past for having a right-wing bias. It consistently gave higher support for Romney than other posters. The recent Pew poll showed moderately favorable views of NSA snooping. More interestingly, it showed that Democrats had suddenly become a lot more trusting while Republicans were suddenly dubious. A reversal from when Bush was caught spying on us.

jsdalton 13y ago

Not just "plenty of people" -- actual majorities in both parties: "There are significant partisan differences [in 2013] in views of the government's program to obtain call logs and Internet communication. Democrats are more likely to approve, by 49% to 40%. Independents (34% vs. 56%) and Republicans (32% to 63%) are much more likely to disapprove than approve. "In 2006, when Gallup asked the similar question about a program that came to light at that point, Republicans were significantly more likely to approve than Democrats. The differences in partisan reaction between 2006 and 2013 reflect the party of the president under whose watch the programs were carried out at those two points in time." http://www.gallup.com/poll/163043/americans-disapprove-government-surveillance-programs.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163043/americans-disapprove-gover... It just baffles me that many Americans are so myopic on this issue that they can't even see past a single election cycle!

gojomo 13y ago
Party-affiliation is volatile and self-reported: these aren't the same 'Democrats' nor 'Republicans' as in 2006, both due to switched-voters, new-voters, and expired-voters. In particular, I believe there are a significant number of respondents who either (1) aren't very politically aware, but do have high trust in "our leaders" (whatever party they may be), or (2) don't trust pollsters -- believing they could be "with the government" or other loyalist groups -- and thus answer as if the questions were a loyalty test. Note that for both type (1) and type (2) respondents, they are especially likely to answer (a) "Yes, I'm the same party as the President in power"; and (b) "Yes, I approve of what the President's policing/border/drug/terrorism agents have been doing". The respondents have different reasons, but neither want to express dissension. And yet it's not really telling us what party "true believers" think, just situational switchers. Of course, many party "true believers" can forgive "their guy" in office for the same things they'd raise a stink about from "the other guy". That's also a very common bias/behavior. But I suspect these other low-ideology, "kiss-up-to-whoever-is-in-office" respondents are another significant, 5-15% contributor to what looks like a "partisan swing" in polls like this.
ianstallings 13y ago
It's not baffling when you consider Jersey Shore and Honey Boo Boo.

ericcumbee 13y ago

I'm Guilty of it, at the time I would have trusted G.W. Bush with those powers. Now Obama not so much. and certainly not the next Republican President. You maybe able to trust the guy now but will you trust the next guy? That is the lesson that I have learned.

ajtaylor 13y ago

I couldn't have said it better myself. The problem with programs like these is that it's almost impossible to roll them back. They are like a snowball: small at the very beginning, growing larger over time, until at the end they become a catastrophic force (usually for bad). I wouldn't have trusted either Bush or Obama with these powers. Government officials have proven time and time again that they don't always have the general populace's interests at heart. The saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is the first thing to come to mind.

dredmorbius 13y ago

That's a point I've made as well: https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/RJpNqz1ymRz https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/RJpNqz1y... [Long bit about supposing I'm OK with Obama spying on all and sundry] Now take that argument and flip it: I'm a raving reactionary right-wing flag-waving, Bush-loving, Grover Norquist worshiping, NASCAR fanning, Fox-watching, elephant-tattoo-on-my-ass Republican. Guess what: I have exactly the same rapid paranoid concern about Obama's or any Democratic administration's use of FISA surveillance. The so-called PATRIOT Act is a significant part of what's tearing the US apart. It fosters distrust on both sides of a vast and growing political divide. It is more power to the government with less oversight than anyone can trust. "That is not what democracy is about. That is not what freedom is about," to quote Senator Sanders. The so-called PATRIOT Act always was and will be a full admission and capitulation to the fact that we've abandoned our cherished freedoms and the terrorists have won.