This chart says it all

[B2G]

[truebluegreen]

1. Yes, it does--and it is pathetic.

[enlightenment]

2. I'll second that. nt

[B2G]

3. I'd love to hear the reasoning of the 64%

Any takers? No?

Color me shocked.

[LWolf]

6. It's called

"partisan hypocrisy."

[1-Old-Man]

4. It sure doesn't seem to take long for a Nation to become incredibly meek and stupid.

7 years.

[Igel]

5. It's only a 5-6% shift, overall.

The big 30 point shift is mostly tribal. (D) didn't oppose it because it was surveillance, they mostly opposed it because it was done by somebody they viewed as inherently bad and therefore untrustworthy. Same for (R), now.

Now (D) view the surveillance as done by somebody who is inherently good and trustworthy. Same for (R), then.

Part of 5-6% is going to be a kind of numbing. Part is going to be the differences between the program in 2006 and now.

Of course, the (R) will say it's because the level of threat has decreased, making the surveillance less necessary or the claims are that the surveillance has even ramped up over time. Or it's part of a pattern of oppressive, totalitarian government (after all, asking about health insurance is also an invasion of privacy).

And (D) will point to minor differences as being crucially, awesomely important and retort that the only reason that (R) don't like the surveillance is race. Even if it's likely that a core of both (D) and (R) were and are opposed to the surveillance.