I'm actually in a pretty relaxed mood. I can step back and think it is a little bit amusing that people from either extreme can complain about the MSM at the same time (and they do) ... but certainly tomorrow will bring more, and other, news.

I don't feel the need to defend the administration either. It works both ways, however: no need to make unfounded claims and attacks. I am bothered that 78% see the potential a problem where possibly none exists. Until proven otherwise, it's all smoke and mirrors.

We are, and have been for a while, at the point where attacks against politicians need not even be true. They just have to get press. Fortunately for the Dems, most of the media enthusiastically does their bidding. What people don't realize is that their partisan politics doesn't harm those across the aisle as it does our standing in the world perspective.

But, I still don't see the connection you're making. So 78% in one poll think (very roughly) that "something is amiss". In another poll, 40-something percent support the President. I think that's the connection you're refferring to... That although they might think he did something wrong, they still defend him.
Sorry, it's apples to oranges.

How many know, for instance, of the LIES of Joe Wilson or at least of the points he himself has taken back (e.g., his claim to have identified documents at forgeries which appeared long after his visit to Niger, and which he never saw!)? Do they even know that there is a question about whether Valerie Plame WAS a covert agent whose "cover" COULD be "blown" in 2003?

In other words, most people don't know even the most basic facts of the case (thank you, MSM!)

Now add to that the fact that we are constantly encouraged to be suspicious of our elected officials (most especially of conservatives!), with hardly a thought for the many OTHERS in government. Few recognize the importance of career employees of government agencies, much less that some of these folk are unhappy with the policies of the elected government, policies they are supposed to be helping to carry out.

In light of all this that people DON'T know, how could we possibly expect them to recognize the possibility that some of these "lifers" in the CIA (as in the State Department) might take active steps to UNDERMINE government policies?

"Why do only 10% think nothing wrong occurred, when no wrongdoing whatsoever has yet been proven? MSM tarnishing, perhaps?"

I watched Fox last night, and they tried pretty hard to put me in that 10% ;-)

I don't think I'm confused about this poll though:
That is, the 10% who answer "nothing wrong" in the "complete poll results" box are the same as the "Only one in 10 Americans" from the first blurb.

Finally, I think you might misunderstand my point a bit. I'm talking about people who themselves accept that something illegal or unethical was done. They may be relieved to learn later that nothing illegal or unethical was done ... but what are they doing in the meantime by spinning away on talking points?

Obviously that is not a high moral stand - to know something was wrong - but to defend it regardless.

You're still missing my point entirely, which is virtually the opposite of yours. Why do only 10% think nothing wrong occurred, when no wrongdoing whatsoever has yet been proven? MSM tarnishing, perhaps?

I am all for accountability in politics, but with these partisan witch-hunts, who would ever want to serve their country in this way?

I'm talking about partisan types ("talking point" bloggers, etc.) in a thread which says "Only one in 10 Americans said they believe Bush administration officials did nothing illegal or unethical in connection with the leaking of a CIA operative's identity,"

When I say people leave the high ground, maybe it is that they are in that 90% (they know something illegal was done), but they rise to "defend the party" regardless.

'after all of the original charges turned out empty.'

That would be including the 18 convictions including the WJC successor as guv of AR?

And I guess the 10% who believe "nothing illegal or unethical" was done think lying under oath is both legal and ethical. Whatever.

In the early 80's I was a very happy Reagan Republican. I was happy with the positive attitude, and the basic idea that it was time for the economy to grow itself out of its problems. I was happy that a hard line seemed to be bringing the Russians to the table in bilatteral arms talks.

That said, I didn't give Reagan a free pass. I wasn't going to give up my right as a citizen to watch each issue develop and state my position.

It simply did not dawn on me, as Iran-Contra developed, to fall into the argument. I didn't even feel involved. It was an investigation into possible criminal behavior - not an argument of public policy.

So my question really is, why do so many people act the other way, and see defense of crimes as PART of their partisan responsibility, part of public policy? Is it simple tribalism? Some kind of amoral self-interest? What?

I'd like to see a little more population on the high ground in this. I'd like to see some agreement that you can argue political philosophies, but let the crooks (as they appear) fend for themselves.

They simply deserve no defense from rational citizens in a democracy.

The numbers on Clinton's INTEGRITY were always awful. People just didn't care in light of peace and prosperity.

It's called 'justice', and we just might get some.

I say unplug the press, protect the scoundrels!