I am a bit disappointed in how the wording turned out in some of these questions. For instance, by throwing in the "including yourself" phrase in question 17, you have planted the seed that the person taking the poll could very well have been spied upon (which is extremely unlikely, if you believe Bush), thus potentially coloring the results to questions 18 and 19.
Also, by adding the "There are significant legal questions about..." phrases to question 19, it becomes very biased; certainly enough to tip a lot of fence sitters into an anti-Bush response. You should have left those out and just straight out asked if there should be investigations on the two topics and let the people decide for themselves if there is significant enough reasons for doing so.
Having said that, I a still impressed with the entire polling project, if for no other reason than it proves that something like this can succeed with nothing but grassroots support. A job well done!
I think that both issues were validly framed.
Because there's no oversight of any kind, the NSA could be spying on anyone. The concern here is that there's no way of knowing what they're doing. If they have nothing to hide, why fight against oversight?
Also, there ARE significant legal questions about what Bush has done. Saying so doesn't unfairly present the situation. Many people are questioning the legality of it, and so a question regarding whether this should be pursued (especially given how many people have little-to-no knowledge of the issue), ought to frame it in the context of people questioning it. If nobody thought it was illegal, why would there be the question of investigation?
Nothing to hide? Hmmm, I would say they certainly have something to hide; in fact, I would go so far as to say they have everything to hide! If the NSA can't work in secrecy, what good are they? Already there is evidence that the terrorists are changing their tactics because of what was revealed about the NSA's activities. Plus, there was oversight - that's why Bush informed members of Congress from both parties; it's just that this oversight can't be made public or all the efforts of the NSA are toast, which is what has happened.
I understand where you are coming from, but they still seem like push questions to me, especially if the person being polled has little-to-no knowledge of the issue. And if some small schuck like me thinks so, just imagine what the Right-wing Noise Machine (as you guys love to call 'em) would do with that question. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong; I just think this is a potential area where the poll could be attacked for being biased, whether it's fair or not.
But, I said it before, and I will say it again, that overall, the entire MyDD polling effort has greatly impressed me, and it's something you should all be proud of.
It's still statements of fact though. Oversight doesn't have to equal public airing. I'm not asking the NSA to announce on the evening news who they're gonna start wiretapping. All I'm saying that if a government agency can do anything it wants without fear of reprisal, repercussions, or, for that matter, of anyone finding out, then there's a problem. Further, you're way off base if you think that the notification given certain members of Congress was substantive or in any way an opportunity for someone to do something. Bush is a master of misinformation.
