Thursday, July 14, 2005

Bush "Honest and Straightforward"? Majority of Americans Say No.

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that Bush’s overall job rating has slipped and that his rating for being “honest and straightforward” has dropped to its lowest point.

Only 41 percent gave Bush a thumbs-up for being “honest and straightforward” — his lowest ranking since becoming president. That’s a drop of nine percentage points since January, when a majority (50 percent to 36 percent) indicated they felt Bush was "honest and straightforward."

What's worse: The survey was taken before the current controversy surrounding allegations that Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to reporters.

The survey, conducted by Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart and Republican pollster Bill McInturff, was conducted from July 8-11 among 1,009 adults, and which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

30 Comments:

Blogger Michael said...

A similar (and damning) statistic is that those who say they "doubt Bush's veracity" climbed to 45 percent from 36 percent. (That's the positive assertion that Bush is a liar.) Makes me wonder where the 36 percent have been for the last six years. Maybe they all work for Fox?

My advice to the Dems: keep the Republicans out in front of cameras defending Rove as much as possible in the next few days. Really encourage them to stake their reputations on it. Time is running out before the indictments start coming down and the frog-march pictures show up on the TV. Extra points if you can get Bush himself to defend Rove. That sort of material will be priceless in 2006.

5:41 AM  
Blogger Storm Trooper said...

Have you ever stopped and thought about your thoughts on Jesus? They make no sense. Seriously - you should fry up some chicken and think about the Lord MORE!

7:50 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

Great random thought, Superman. But now that you mention it Rove does make me reflect on Proverbs 14:5 - "A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies."

Oh, just had another thought: why does the "religious right" apply it's morals so selectively? hmm...

8:16 AM  
Blogger Orikinla Osinachi. said...

In politics as well as in ordinary life, no person living could be honest and straightforward 100%.

41% is not bad for someone who has faced the most hostile American Press since Nixon.

I stand by GWB.
He is the Man.

8:26 AM  
Anonymous JollyRoger said...

"The most hostile press since Nixon?"


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...... the MSM has been so thoroughly neutered they have been additions to the Chimp's campaign staff.

But go ahead and stand with him-I choose to stand with America.

9:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hostile American press? You can't be serious! Maybe you walked into this blog from another planet. This blog utilizes documented facts to demonstrate the press has been much too easy on Bush and Bush bullshit spin.
So you probably think the press had been easier on Clinton than Bush? Drink your koolaid and leave the truth alone.

10:05 AM  
Blogger OTTMANN said...

I think you'll have to read our post for the full truth on the matter of Rove. It isn't pretty, but it's pretty amazing.

10:36 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

I think, regarding the poll info, that the distinction should be made between being anti-Bush and being anti-Bush spin (or anti-conservative and anti-conservative spin).

A person can be neutral on Bush's policies -- favoring some, not favoring others -- and still be upset over the Bush Administration's use of spin and propaganda.

For example, if you support Bush in his "war on terror," and are pro-life, then you probably are "standing by GWB." Nonetheless, you might be repulsed by the various propaganda -- undocumented video news releases, paid journalists, misleading comments on Iraq, etc. -- and thus be a fan of blogs like JABBS, which are focused on "Bush's B.S."

As I see it, the B.S., for all intents and purposes, is not a condemnation of Bush, but of the bullsh-t, or the blatant spin (your choice for what the B.S. stands for) that comes from this administration.

What is spin? It's one thing to have a "glass is half full" attitude on any number of subjects, like the economy, Iraq, etc. But it's not spin to say you are conservative and run up massive deficits. It's not spin to say you favor smaller government, then have a huge increase in the size and scope of the government, including the questionable provisions of the USA Patriot Act. It's not spin to say you are on the side of the little guy, the small businessman, the traditional household, etc., and then make a series of decisions on tax policy, environmental policy, land management, etc., that are geared to only favor corporations, in turn screwing over the individual.

I think people look at this blog's title and say "Oh, it's another liberal blog." But in truth, everyone -- liberal, moderate or conservative -- should want a government that at least tries to be honest and straightforward. All Americans should be bothered by the "B.S." coming from their leaders -- whether they are Democrats or Republicans.

That's why I come back to this site almost daily.

And, as for the "hostile press" comment, I have to believe that's just ignorance of recent history.

The New York Times ran story after story building the case for the U.S. going to war with Iraq, then apologized in a half-page story several months later for failing to cross-check information from their lone source -- the government. Compare that lax approach to the New York Times during the Clinton-Gore era, running a front-page story about Clinton's choice of tie, and whether it was sending a coded message to Monica Lewinsky. Compare that to the way the mainstream media -- including the Times and the Washington Post, skewered Gore on things he didn't say or which he was not wrong to say -- running the conservative spin that Gore claimed to "invent the Internet" or that Gore lied about learning lessons from his father on a Tennessee farm, or that he was the model for the lead in the book, "Love Story."

The mainstream media gave Cheney a pass on both the 2000 and 2004 vice presidential debate. They gave Cheney a pass, for the most part, on statements he made as recently as 2004 about Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda and possibly 9/11. Meanwhile, they actually sided with Bush during the 2000 debate with Gore in which Bush talked about Gore's "fuzzy math" -- even though Gore was correct about Bush's economic/tax/Social Security plans.

The grilling that McClellan, not Bush, took a few days ago is the exception -- a remarkable exception -- to the recent rule among the White House press corps. To think otherwise is to ignore the facts.

11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anthony Patch said...

Exactly what was Rove's crime? Was it that he actually told reporters the truth about Mr. Wilson. I'd say, Rover deserves a prize. He is the one who warned Time's Mathew Cooper and others reporters to be wary of Wilson's credibiltiy. If it wasn't for Rove, Americans would have never have known that Wilson wasn't a whistle-blower, but rather a partisan, trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign.

12:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's a nice recitation of Ken Mehlman's talking points.

12:56 PM  
Anonymous JollyRoger said...

Anthony reveals his own beliefset-namely, that American law is only good as long as it doesn't interfere with the agenda of the idols he worships. I cannot think of an attitude that could be any more anti-American than his is.

2:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anthony, you're not talking to ditto-heads here. I can't be bothered to go over the pointlessness of your post, it's already been done.

2:29 PM  
Anonymous Anthony Patch said...

Media chants aside, there is no evidence that Rove broke any laws. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using informaiton he'd obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Rove didn't even know Plame's name and had only heard about her work from other journalists.

2:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rove has said publicly that he didn't know Plame's name. He might have known Plame's identity.

We'll see what the prosecutor comes up with. I don't believe this is a liberal witch hunt.

2:55 PM  
Blogger andym said...

Rove didn't know her name? By saying that it was Wilson's wife, isn't that the very same thing? Merely not saying "Valerie Plame" will not be enough for him to walk away from this unscathed.

As for the most hostile American press quip--you're on drugs, right? They were brutal on Clinton from day one. On the other hand, they gave Bush carte blanche until it began to make them look bad.

3:19 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

Got it, Anthony: you are now officially taking the side of legal loopholes vs. what most Americans consider a simple question of ethics.

Bush said: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know about it, and we'll take appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing."

His spokesman later explained that "appropriate action" meant that the guilty party "will no longer be a part of this administration."

I think that's clear enough, right? So if you want to continue with your "depends what the definition of 'is' is" contortions that's just fine. But don't be surprised when the Republican party becomes associated with untrustworthiness.

We agree on one thing: I think Rove deserves a prize too.

3:49 PM  
Anonymous Anthony Patch said...

Can anyone remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited than Joseph Wilson? The media and John Kerry promptly abandoned the blowhard after they realized that he hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about or even why he was sent on the mission. SO Dear Dissident, I understand your hell-bent on bringing down Bush, but this is a battle that was lost months ago. Rove will walk, just like you buddy Sandy Burgler.

4:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rove is already guilty of leaking Plame's name to a reporter, jeopardizing the security of Americans.
This alone, as even Bush had said, would be enough to fire him.
Here is what to focus on: Rove outed a covert CIA agent who was working on keeping WMDs out of the hands of terrorists.

The only things left to figure out is what were his motivations and who gave him that classified info. I don't find the excuse he heard of Plame's identity from other reporters credible.
Perhaps the MSM should be lending more credibility to the three REPUBLICAN CIA agents Larry Johnson, Michael Grimaldi and Brent Cavan, who initially demanded an investigation. Here is their initial statement:

"We also want to send a clear message to the political “operatives” responsible for “outing” Mrs. Wilson. Such action was treacherous, if not treasonous. ... Such action has allowed the less attractive aspects of politics to supersede the Government's responsibility to protect the citizens of this nation and the individuals who serve in difficult, dangerous covert capacities. This has set a sickening precedent. The “senior Administration officials” who did this have warned all U.S. intelligence officers and the intelligence community that any one individual may be compromised if providing information or factual analysis the White House does not like."

4:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What the hell does Wilson's credibility have to do with anything? If it helps I'll concede that he eats babies and is a member of the Nazi party. Um, so does that mean Rove didn't leak classified information? Nice try at changing the subject though. You keep trying though, Anthony. maybe it will help take you mind off of Bush's credibility free-fall.

5:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, I forgot. Rove is really a hero for helping the reporter get the story straight by leaking the identity of a CIA covert and jeopardizing America's security.
Hurrah Rove. You a--hole.

6:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We need more human intelligence. That means we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."

George H. W. Bush
Dedication Ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence
April 26th, 1999

6:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like even Bush is "hell-bent on bringing down Bush". Uh oh!

6:45 PM  
Blogger bayou_boy504 said...

I love your blog! Just because I live in Louisiana does not mean that I like this state being red.

7:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It concerns me, greatly, that those on one side of the aisle are already willing to send somebody to jail, even before the investigation is concluded. It concerns me equally that those on the other side seem so willing to defend somebody solely because they are on your side.

Everybody ought to take a deep breath, step away from their weapons, and see how our judicial systems plays itself out. But, that is probably far too radical of an idea for most folks.

J.D.

8:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JD -- you and I don't agree often, but I'm with you here.

Rove may or may not be "guilty" of leaking a covert CIA operative's name. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

But I think it's clear that Rove perjured himself, and that McClellan lied to the press along the way, too.

Any way you slice it, it hurts the administration's already questionable credibility.

11:30 PM  
Blogger Martian Anthropologist said...

Sweet. I caught this poll news on CNN this morning. Golly, I wish all of this stuff had happened 8 months ago...

12:26 AM  
Anonymous JollyRoger said...

"Can anyone remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited than Joseph Wilson?"

This is, verbatim, pulled right off a talking-points bulletin from Rove Central.

However, I can answer that question.

A public figure that lied to his constituents in order to get them to go along with a war that was unneccesary.

A public figure that killed thousands of his own troops, tens of thousands of the citizens of a country that had no quarrel with us.

A public figure that made every one of us more vulnerable to terrorists.

1:14 AM  
Blogger Fred said...

Loving every minute of it. I'll throw a keg party if he hits the 30's.

1:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get over yourself, JD. The Republicans made this bed with enthusiasm and dedication, and now that they are forced to lie in it they suddenly become "concerned" for America. Such hypocritical Bullsh*t!!!!

Didn't they set the gold standard of trial by innuendo during the Clinton years? Didn't they lower the bar for politics with Whitewater and Ken Starr?

Consider this: Rove could have made ALL of this dissappear two years ago by simply coming clean with his boss. Instead we taxpayers have spent many thousands of dollars and years of effort, putting reporters in jail, and on and on, just to get stonewalling from the Whitehouse camp and Lawyer-speak from the Rove camp.

Eff 'em. They haven't even begun to get what they really deserve, and unfortunately probably never will.

8:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I understand that Wilson's credibility is insubstantial on whether Rove committed treason, but because the Right has made it an issue to cover-up the true story I will address it.
If I am not correct, someone please tell me why.
The way I read it all Wilson did was make public claims he found no evidences during a 7-day CIA officiated trip to Africa that Sadaam was trying to buy Uranium.
Bush and Cheney knew this but chose to ignore this very significant evidence in the State of the Union address in 2003, which would have decimated their case for war.
So the Senate Committee report, demonstratably Republican biased, and not the Bush apologists instead choose to focus on who assigned Wilson to the trip and that he purportedly did not see documents he claimed to see because they were not made available until 8 months later.
The central issue is being ignored by this argument: Wilson merely stated he did not find any evidences to support the Bush Administration claims during his 7-month trip to Africa. Period.

12:06 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares