MyDD :: Public Doesn't Believe White House

Public Doesn't Believe White House

by Chris Bowers, Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 03:24:21 PM EST

Here's a sneak peak at an ABC poll that is about to be released:

Just a quarter of Americans think the White House is fully cooperating in the federal investigation of the leak of a CIA operative's identity, a number that's declined sharply since the investigation began. And three-quarters say that if presidential adviser Karl Rove was responsible for leaking classified information, it should cost him his job.

Skepticism about the administration's cooperation has jumped. As the initial investigation began in September 2003, nearly half the public, 47 percent, believed the White House was fully cooperating. That fell to 39 percent a few weeks later, and it's lower still, 25 percent, in this new ABC News poll.

As soon as there is a link up on this, I'll have the full details.

Update: Here is the link. It shows just how much hot water the White House is really in:

This view is highly partisan; barely over a tenth of Democrats and just a quarter of independents think the White House is fully cooperating. That grows to 47 percent of Republicans — much higher, but still under half in the president's own party. And doubt about the administration's cooperation has grown as much among Republicans — by 22 points since September 2003 — as it has among others.

There's less division on consequences: 75 percent say Rove should lose his job if the investigation finds he leaked classified information. That includes sizable majorities of Republicans, independents and Democrats alike — 71, 74 and 83 percent, respectively.

Wow--not even half of Republicans believe the White House is cooperating. It doesn't seem that the spin from last week, that Rove should be rewarded for doing this, is resonating with anyone.

Tags: Media (all tags)

Permalink :: 28 Comments :: Post a Comment

Okay, wow (none / 0)

That cuts seriously into the Republican base. I mean the other low numbers are nice. But, this means that even his base is not believing him on this. This cuts into the Republicans' perceived credibility advantage that they have used over the last 30 years. I don't know who wrote it here, but someone pointed out that Republicans have over the last 30 years built up a brand that no matter who is running or what they stand for the American people will believe certain things about them. More of these types of events, will cut into that brand. The new brand will become that the Republicans are not only corrupt, but can't be trusted. Again, whoah that's a really low number. No spinning it.

by bruh21 on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 03:30:16 PM EST

Re: Okay, wow (none / 0)

Christianity is not stupid.

- Sorry Negativland.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 04:57:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Will Cause Division (none / 0)

The most important effect of this erosion in the base is that it will create problems within GOP ranks over the next couple of months or years. This will be vital, since they do have majorities in both houses, as well as the executive branch. But if some of the GOPers start to see White House mendacity as a noose around their own necks, they will start to take a stand against W.'s more extreme actions.

In the short run, this may be the only way to get rid of Rove. I don't care how many Democrats call for his dismissal, I don't care if he is indicted and put on trial. Shrub will not dismiss him. But, if some of the more responsible GOP power brokers (wow, did I really use that phrase) start to put real pressure on him, it could have an effect. It just has to get to the point that the real damage that the Rove scandal is doing to them is greater than the damage they fear Rove would do in seeking revenge.

by The Goatherder on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 03:44:52 PM EST

Rove can't be cleared (none / 0)

Cooper has already said that he was his source (and presumably Novak's, too, although Novak ain't talking).

Now, he may not have committed a provable crime with that statement, but that doesn't mean he will be "cleared".

by Geotpf on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 04:10:00 PM EST

It is neither liberal nor conservative (none / 0)

To defend your country.

Lets make this simple for you RWNC,
you're going to be either the enemy,
or a US Citizen. I can ask you about
baseball, but when you ask
me about CIA looking for your WMD...

You're going to get a very non partisan
bullet into your skull and here's hoping
it cuts neither right nor left
but straight through the bridge of
your nose.

This is one patriot that would rather
taste bamboo spikes in through his eyeballs
than give away our country and their
great drive to rid the world of
towelheads that want to detonate three
suitcases fulll of u 235 in times square.

You might differ with that. I have no
problems with that. Not everyone
can be a patriot. Someone from my family
has fought for America in each and every war
since the revolutionary war.

I propose that you look at it as if
Rove were giving away the position of an
Air Craft Carrier in the battle of Midway.

Then you get on the damn Dauntless and
see how you feel when you have 500 yards of
a thin layer of pacific over 300 sharks
dining on sailers, to land on when you get
back home.

NO DIFFERENCE

NO COMPROMISE

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 04:15:35 PM EST

Re: It is neither liberal nor conservative (none / 0)

Has the CIA request an investigation into this, or do even they think that no crime was committed?

by JHW539 on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 06:11:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is neither liberal nor conservative (none / 0)

Funny, I said the same thing when freerepublic.com banned me because of my screen name. Why is that I wonder?

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 07:46:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is neither liberal nor conservative (none / 0)

after the flood all the colors came
out..

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 08:54:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Funny. (none / 0)

I just flashed back to before the Iraq War, when kool-aid-guzzling 'wingers would ask me "what are you going to say when our boys find all those tons of banned weapons and nukes Saddam's hiding?"

I'll give you a variation of what I told them at that time: The only way we're going to find evidence that clears Rove is if the White House invents some.

And I have a question for you: What exactly would it take for you to lose faith in these badstars?

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 04:36:26 PM EST

Re: Funny. (none / 0)

Why hasn't the CIA, run by a Republican administration for the last five years (and he's done some housecleaning!) requested an investigation into the New York times outing?

I think a better troll would have been to point out that Bush did not plant any fake WMD. He took his lumps for Saddam having no weapons and moved on, same as he verified that Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

Liberals are just salivating over the biggest PR screw up of this administration. I hope they get over it soon - smearing a lackey like Rove is not going to win them one vote and it is not bringing any compelling ideas to our political table.

by JHW539 on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 06:19:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HMMM 75% of the Independent Vote (none / 0)

75 % of the Independent Vote thinks the White House is lying about all of this...

hmm..... wonder why that other 25% is so high?

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 05:00:42 PM EST

Re: HMMM 75% of the Independent Vote (none / 0)

Ah a typo. You must have meant "faith". Only the reality-based community relies on facts. You cons are part of the faith-based community remember.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 07:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HMMM 75% of the Independent Vote (none / 0)

You got to love it when someone is telling you that they are relying on facts, and then ignore the fact that this is under federal investigation by a Republican prosecutor. And, apparently 75 percent of people, including this person's fellow Republicans don't think the facts are good for his view. So when they say facts, I think it goes beyond faith or believe, and into cult land. Chemist must be a Moonie.

by bruh21 on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 08:41:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HMMM 75% of the Independent Vote (none / 0)

He's just one of those people that
support people who make our president
into a flip-flopper.

" I voted for punishment anyone involved
in treason before I voted against the punishment anyone involved "

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 08:21:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rove should be rewarded.. ? (none / 0)

ROTFLMAO

LOL

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 05:01:32 PM EST

Less than half of Repubs? (3.00 / 1)

I must say, 2005 has been a golden year for Democrats. Really, though, I can't see how we're going to sustain this anti-Republican momentum for much longer. After months of us hammering away on Terri Schiavo, the war in Iraq, the economy, the gas prices, Tom Delay and Karl Rove (to name a few) the public is soon going to get sick of hearing "This is why they suck" and I don't think we have a clear, coherent message that says "This is why we rock" just yet. We need to start pushing a pro-Democrat message.

by material boy on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 05:26:57 PM EST

Re: Less than half of Repubs? (none / 0)

I feel like you have fallen into their trap. Are message is positive. They keep saying it is negative, and the public is buying it. Is the glass half empty or half full? The fact is we wont do this stuff that they have -- that is positive.

We respect personal family lives.
We are for peace and defending only when provoked or threatened.
We are law abiding party.
We won't commit treason.

Sounds positive to me.

by artvandelay on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 07:26:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than half of Repubs? (none / 0)

Tabloids are not reliable sources for your news, naive one. Then again, neither is Fox News.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 07:47:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than half of Repubs? (none / 0)

right wing nuclear chemist
I love you.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 08:55:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Since you won't listen (3.00 / 0)

to anybody here, go ask your fellow 'winger Michelle Malkin:

"DID SENATORS BLOW A CIA AGENT'S COVER? NO."

By the way, "boss man" didn't hide your posts, another user did. If "boss man" comes after you, he'll go scorched-earth, not just hide a couple posts.

Now, I don't entirely agree with this policy, but I can easily understand why people would want to blank out posters who have nothing to offer but discredited "rebuttals" and straw-man arguments.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 09:23:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than half of Repubs? (none / 0)

As a chemist, you really know how to
mix it up. You're just .. the bomb.

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 08:24:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than half of Repubs? (none / 0)

So, I take it, that you admit that your party does not respect people's personal family lives. And you invade and occupy countries unprovoked. And that some Deputy Chiefs of Staff are guilty of treason. Is that right Mr. Right Wing Nucular (as Bush would say it) Chemist?

by artvandelay on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 09:01:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than half of Repubs? (3.00 / 0)

As a kosovo vet myself, I don't need to discuss Yugoslavia. While you sissy cons were protesting our intervention there with a real coalition (ie NATO), Clinton assigned Clark to handle an actual liberation (the stated cause from day 1, not post hoc) and win a war the right way: that is, with ZERO casualties.

Does it always take a democrat to win wars in this country?

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 09:52:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than half of Repubs? (none / 0)

Just because I don't equate "anti-Republican" with "pro-Democrat" doesn't I'm buying into Republican propaganda.

We definitely need to remind the public of the administration's gross misuse of power and the party's agenda to dismantle the Supreme Court and Social Security.

But what alternative have we offered?

We keep saying "Private accounts will destroy Social Security." Well, that's true... but what other choice do we have? The White House has saturated the media and toured the country with its plans for Social Security while most Democrats have nothing to show but blank pieces of paper.

We need to lock the party heads in one room and not let them out until we have an agenda because we need to stop saying "We won't do to your family what they did to the Schiavos" and start saying "We'll push for the Insert Clever Acronym Here Act to protect yours family's rights." And we need all Democrats to say it, from the unknown challengers right up to the Barbara Boxers, Hillary Clintons and Howard Deans of the party.

We're not going to become the majority party in 2006 by defining ourselves as non-Republicans. We tried the lesser-of-two-evils approach with Roe v. Wade and it blew up in our faces. We need fully developed ideas on all the major issues. We need to say "We plan to do this with health care. We plan to do that in Iraq..."

by material boy on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 07:07:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The best thing about this is... (none / 0)

Bush's 2nd term agenda continues to be torpedoed and his "hard earned political capital" appears to be in the red.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 07:48:58 PM EST

Re: The best thing about this is... (none / 0)

He is more of a lame duck now than ever. The Republicans in congress don't want to go down with him, and it is possible they will turn on the administration if anything worse, and what could be worse than the crimes committed by Rove and company, turns up in this investigation.

by Christopher Hitchens on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 09:25:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The best thing about this is... (none / 0)

It doesn't have to be this way. Some of bush's
goals were good. I really hate it when the president
of the united states has to take a dive because
some underling betrays our country and wants
the presidential treatment.

Rove is bulldozing bush out of the president's
chair to get as much protection as he can.

Its really getting old, this anti-Bush thing,
you've got four years with this guy and
people change. Maybe once Rove is gone,
Bush will shine. His pop wasn't so bad after
all... was he? Reagan did ok/. Its not a partisan
thing to wish for diplomacy, a peaceful
end to the strife in Iraq, lower prices,
better government - while someone else
is in power, is it?

The highest form, as I can see it, of
bush-bashing is to keep Karl Rove in
power.

Lets assume for the sake of an argument
that he's a good guy and that maybe traitors
act like "grimer wormtongues" on the throne
of the presidency and suck the very soul
out of the nation.

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 08:29:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Diverting attention to Supreme Court justice (none / 0)

Now that the kitchen is getting too hot for the Republicans to handle over the Rove crisis, they throw fresh meat to the Media with their Supreme Court justice nominee.

by neolib on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:31:35 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.