The key takeaway is this: "Twenty-one percent of Americans disapprove of the government's actions, but say there could be circumstances in which it would be right for the government to carry out such a program, yielding a combined total of 58% of all Americans who either approve or could theoretically approve under certain circumstances."
I'd bet there are a lot of people in the administration who dislike the idea of surveillance in general, but approve of surveillance in this particular case because of the specifics of the situation. Not saying the belief is justified, but rather that this is always how such beliefs are justified. See the movie The Siege.
And if you look at poll data from similar scandals in 2006, a very healthy (about half) of people who objected now, when a Democrat is in charge, thought it was awesome then, and vice versa.
If you were an intelligence professional, how could you not look at this and shrug? Is there really a message from the public when about half the people who seem to care apparently care only for the political hay they can make of it, and about half the rest just don't know enough to know whether they approve or not?
To me, that's a real negative of the secrecy -- it sets up low-information scenarios where the public can't have a real opinion, and so is easily discounted by insiders, leading to yet more secrecy and potential abuses.
Well, nothing demonstrates that they're the same people. Strictly, there could be a chunk of the populace that shifts their allegiance to whoever is more spy-happy.
I'd bet there are a lot of people in the administration who dislike the idea of surveillance in general, but approve of surveillance in this particular case because of the specifics of the situation. Not saying the belief is justified, but rather that this is always how such beliefs are justified. See the movie The Siege.