Majorities Disapprove of Bush on Ethics

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
The relentless scandals have finally taken their toll. The polls are clearly showing that the GOP has a *serious* messed up image/PR problem on their hands. Good luck gents, winning your seat this November just got many orders of magnitude more difficult. And really, if you're a Republican Congressman running for re-election, do you really want Bush campaigning for you? Um, probably not.

Majorities Disapprove of Bush on Ethics
Three-Quarters Favor Release of Ambramoff Meeting Records


Jan. 27, 2006 ? A clear majority of Americans now disapprove of President Bush's handling of ethics in government, and three-quarters say the administration should disclose all contacts between White House officials and disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The administration has declined to release records of Abramoff meetings, saying it will not "engage in a fishing expedition." But in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, 76 percent said the White House should produce such a list. Even 65 percent of Republicans said so.

Ethics Gone Awry?

As things stand, the ethics situation in Washington is not working to Bush's advantage. In advance of his 2006 State of the Union address, 56 percent now disapprove of the way the president is handling ethics in government, up from 49 percent in mid-December.

Beyond disapproval of Bush on ethics, there's been some weakening for the Republicans more broadly. Asked which party they trust more to stand up to lobbyists and special interest groups, just 27 percent of Americans picked the Republicans, down from 34 percent last month. More, 46 percent, preferred the Democrats.

Independents ? quintessential swing voters ? picked the Democrats over the Republicans in trust to handle ethics by 46 percent to 20 percent. But skepticism is considerable; a quarter of all Americans, and about a third of independents, volunteer that they don't trust either party on lobbying, or draw no distinction between them.

There is some belief that Congress in the next year will enact tough new regulations on lobbying, but it's muted: Nearly half, 46 percent, call this likely, while 51 percent think it's unlikely. Just 11 percent see it as "very likely" that such legislation will come to pass; 24 percent, on the other hand, call it very unlikely.

Concern

Other measures show the extent of public doubts about honesty in Washington today. Fifty-five percent ? essentially the same as last month ? think the Abramoff case is evidence of "widespread corruption" in the capital, rather than being limited to a few individuals. Republicans are much less apt than Democrats or independents to see it that way.

Moreover, 43 percent say the overall level of ethics and honesty in the federal government has fallen during Bush's presidency ? about 20 points more than Bill Clinton during the Whitewater controversy more than a decade ago.

Methodology

This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Jan. 23-26, 2006, among a random national sample of 1,002 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

Linkage
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Unfortunately for the Democrats, they don't have much firm ground to stand on should they choose a campaign strategy centered on ethics...right now the GOP has more money and resources to counter any such campaign.

Washington is in desperate need of ethical reform...neither party is interested in cleaning their own closets.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Unfortunately for the Democrats, they don't have much firm ground to stand on should they choose a campaign strategy centered on ethics...right now the GOP has more money and resources to counter any such campaign.

Washington is in desperate need of ethical reform...neither party is interested in cleaning their own closets.

Uh, the GOP has a bunch of money b/c they are unethical. A campaign on ethics will do quite well against some Republicans (Santorum, Ney, DeLay). One or more of those guys might even face primary challengers. It's going to get really interesting when Duke Cunningham and Abramoff's closets are emptied out.

It is kind of curious how the Bushies have reacted:
1) Nope, don't know Abramoff . . . never met him.
2) OK, maybe he's been to the White House for Hanukkah . . . and gotten a photoline pic
3) OK, maybe he gave $100k to the campaign and attended some other functions where pictures were taken
4) OK, maybe he's been to the White House on other occasions and met with staffers
5) We gave back the $6k . . . what do you mean he raised $100k for the Bush campaign
6) I don't know anything about any pictures of the President with Mr. Abramoff, if they exist its nothing of consequence
7) Yeah, we've got pictures of the President with Mr.Abramoff but we will not release them b/c they will just be used for politics
8) Why would we keep a picture of the President with Mr. Abramoff? Uh, yeah . . . can you believe the Kings traded Peja for Artest?!
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The relentless scandals have finally taken their toll. The polls are clearly showing that the GOP has a *serious* messed up image/PR problem on their hands. Good luck gents, winning your seat this November just got many orders of magnitude more difficult. And really, if you're a Republican Congressman running for re-election, do you really want Bush campaigning for you? Um, probably not.


Hey, if we keep quiet maybe they will!! ;) I'm sure Bush is arrogant enough to think he can help them, so........ We can only hope. :laugh:

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Unfortunately for the Democrats, they don't have much firm ground to stand on should they choose a campaign strategy centered on ethics...right now the GOP has more money and resources to counter any such campaign.

Washington is in desperate need of ethical reform...neither party is interested in cleaning their own closets.

Well, just one example -- the recent lobbyist reforms -- the Democratic proposal was much tougher than the Republican proposal. But I suppose you're right, we need to clean house and throw the whole bunch of 'em out on their arses.
 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

It is kind of curious how the Bushies have reacted:
1) Nope, don't know Abramoff . . . never met him.
2) OK, maybe he's been to the White House for Hanukkah . . . and gotten a photoline pic
3) OK, maybe he gave $100k to the campaign and attended some other functions where pictures were taken
4) OK, maybe he's been to the White House on other occasions and met with staffers
5) We gave back the $6k . . . what do you mean he raised $100k for the Bush campaign
6) I don't know anything about any pictures of the President with Mr. Abramoff, if they exist its nothing of consequence
7) Yeah, we've got pictures of the President with Mr.Abramoff but we will not release them b/c they will just be used for politics
8) Why would we keep a picture of the President with Mr. Abramoff? Uh, yeah . . . can you believe the Kings traded Peja for Artest?!

You forgot (though not as curious of an excuse):

9) "Well the dummycrats did it too so it's not our problem! Nyuk nyuk nyuk!"

 

Uhtrinity

Platinum Member
Dec 21, 2003
2,263
202
106
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Unfortunately for the Democrats, they don't have much firm ground to stand on should they choose a campaign strategy centered on ethics...right now the GOP has more money and resources to counter any such campaign.

Washington is in desperate need of ethical reform...neither party is interested in cleaning their own closets.


Yeah, more money just means Swift Boat Veterans ver 2.0
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
This is part of the "bringing honor and dignity back to the White House" plan. Have we seen any in the Bush Administration held accountable yet?
 

PELarson

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2001
2,289
0
0
Originally posted by: her209
This is part of the "bringing honor and dignity back to the White House" plan. Have we seen any in the Bush Administration held accountable yet?

I believe that the word wasn't supposed to be honor but the speech writter actually put the middle to rr to close together when they wrote the original speech and it was transposed wrong from then on. So correctly reading the line "bringing honor and dignity back to the White House" as "bringing horror and dignity back to the White House". While making no sense does appear to be correct. ;)
 

PELarson

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2001
2,289
0
0
"<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/larryking98.html">But interestingly, the president was supposed to be a man of virtue most of all. It was one thing to have scoundrels in the Congress or scoundrels as governors, but the president because he'd have vast powers. He's the man with his finger on the nuclear button. He's the man who can -- is going to look the American people in the eye and say we're sending your boys into war, they're going to fight and may die for this.

His word has to be believed. In fact, the Framers were considering having a board of presidents or a committee, rather than a single president because they were so fearful of recreating a monarchy. But they put all of it in one man not to make that one man more powerful, but more responsible.
</a>"

Here is a old quote but I think it is relevant for today. I won't spoil it by telling the name of the originator.