posted on November 5, 2005 02:56:30 PM new
By Jim VandeHei
Updated: 12:32 a.m. ET Nov. 5, 2005
President Bush has ordered White House staff to attend mandatory briefings beginning next week on ethical behavior and the handling of classified material after the indictment last week of a senior administration official in the CIA leak probe.
According to a memo sent to aides Friday, Bush expects all White House staff to adhere to the "spirit as well as the letter" of all ethics laws and rules. As a result, "the White House counsel's office will conduct a series of presentations next week that will provide refresher lectures on general ethics rules, including the rules of governing the protection of classified information," according to the memo, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post by a senior White House aide.
The mandatory ethics primer is the first step Bush plans to take in coming weeks in response to the CIA leak probe that led to the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, and which still threatens Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff. Libby was indicted last week in connection with the two-year investigation. He resigned when the indictment was announced and on Thursday pleaded not guilty to charges of lying to federal investigators and a grand jury about his conversations with reporters.
A senior aide said Bush decided to mandate the ethics course during private meetings last weekend with Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and counsel Harriet Miers. Miers's office will conduct the ethics briefings.
The meetings come as Bush faces increasing pressure from Democrats to revoke a security clearance for Rove as punishment for Rove's role in unmasking to reporters a CIA operative whose husband was critical of the White House's prewar assessment of Iraq's weapons capabilities. The five-count indictment against Libby maintains that other government officials were aware of, if not involved in, leaking the identity of Valerie Plame to the media.
Bush's domestic woes followed him to a meeting of Western Hemisphere leaders in Argentina yesterday, where he sidestepped questions on whether Rove will keep his job.
Bush refuses to comment on probe
Speaking to reporters before the official opening of the two-day Summit of the Americas, Bush refused to discuss Rove's future while the probe is ongoing.
"We're going through a very serious investigation," Bush said. "And I . . . have told you before that I'm not going to discuss the investigation until it's completed."
Bush also refused to address a question about whether he owes the American people an apology for his administration's assertions that Rove and Libby were not involved in leaking Plame's name, when it later became clear that they were.
Plame is the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who became a vocal critic of the administration's rationale for invading Iraq.
"It's a serious investigation, and it's an important investigation. But it's not over yet," Bush said. "I think it's important for the American people to know that I understand my job is to set clear goals and deal with the problems we face."
Approval rating sags
The case has apparently helped erode public confidence in Bush's integrity. Among those responding to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 40 percent said they viewed the president as honest and trustworthy -- a drop of 13 percentage points in the past 18 months.
Half of those surveyed said they believed Rove did something wrong in the case, and about 6 in 10 said Rove should resign. But Bush attempted to wave away those findings yesterday.
"I understand that there is a preoccupation by polls by some," the president said. "The way you earn credibility with the American people is to declare an agenda that everybody can understand, an agenda that relates to their lives, and get the job done."
Some senior aides have privately discussed whether it is politically tenable for Rove to remain in the White House even if he is not charged. Others raised the possibility of Rove apologizing for his role, especially for telling White House spokesman Scott McClellan and Bush that he was not involved in the leak. McClellan relayed Rove's denial to the public.
A senior Bush aide said the "mandatory sessions on classified material is a result of a directive by the president in light of the [CIA] investigation."
Next week's meeting is for West Wing aides with security clearance, which allows them to view and discuss sensitive or classified material. Information about Plame was classified. Rove is among those aides who must attend.
"There will be no exceptions," the memo states.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on November 5, 2005 04:28:23 PM new
HA! Five years into his administration he feels his staff needs lessons in ethics !
Just doing this is an admission of serious faults with national security under bush.
If this is the worst punishment they'll be dealt they'll be lucky...but, but , but didn't bush SAY he'd deal with those that broke the law or lied ....ooooohhhhh BOY, DID HE...made them take reallllly overdue classes in ethics....horrible punishment for Republicans
Oh , and who is going to give these classes...Tom Delay ? Bill Frist? Scooterpooter?
Rove?
posted on November 5, 2005 06:19:56 PM new
Too bad ol willie didn't / doesn't have the class to acknowledge the need for a ethics refresher course.
Eight years into his corrupt administration then he and hillary are caught stealing White House furniture along with the china and silverware on their exit. Guess he wanted the chair and desk too, as a momento of his encounter with monica.
The First President To Have To Cut A Deal Days Before He Left Office To Avoid Being Indicted
I Can Balance The Budget In 5 Years, 10 Year, 15 Years
First President to be disbarred (for 5 years) while in office
Death of Vince Foster
Gennifer Flowers
The Rape Of Juanita Brodderick
Kathleen Willey
Porn on AirForce One
Marc Rich
Jimmy Carter calls Rich pardon 'disgraceful'
Soros
Administration Records Set
The only president ever impeached strictly on grounds of personal malfeasance
Most convictions and guilty pleas
Most Cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
Most witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
Most witnesses to die suddenly
Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
Historical Context
Number of independent counsel inquiries since the 1978 law was passed: 19
Number that have produced indictments: 7
Number that produced more convictions than the Starr investigation: 1
Median length of investigations that have led to convictions: 44 months
Length of Starr-Ray investigation (7/00): 67 months.
Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions to date (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 15
Crime Stats
Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
Number of imprisonments: 14
Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122 (9/99)
Smaltz Investigation
Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
Cost of investigation: $22.2 million through 9/99
Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million
Amount Tyson Food still has in annual government contracts: $200 million
Reasons individuals other than Espy went free: Concealing knowledge of gifts to Espy and his girlfriend (1), providing illegal gratuities to Espy(4), illegally supplementing the salary of a government official (2), concealing receipt of illegal funds on behalf of Espy (1) (Espy's chief of staff was sentenced to prison in this case)
Other Matters Investigated by Special Prosecutors and Congress or Reported in the Media
Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.
Unexplained Phenomena
FBI files misappropriated by the White House: c. 900
Estimated number of witnesses quoted in FBI files misappropriated by the White House: 18,000
Number of witnesses who developed medical problems at critical points in Clinton scandals investigation (Tucker, Hale, both McDougals, Lindsey): 5
Problem areas listed in a memo by Clinton's own lawyer in preparation for the president's defense: 40
Number of witnesses and critics of Clinton subjected to IRS audit: 45
Number of names placed in a White House secret database without the knowledge of those named: c. 200,000
Number of persons involved with Clinton who have been beaten up: 2
Number of women involved with Clinton who claim to have been physically threatened: 5 (Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Elizabeth Ward Gracen)
Number of men involved in the Clinton scandals who have been beaten up or claimed to have been intimidated: 9
Number of journalists covering Whitewater who have been fired, transferred off the beat, resigned or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on the scandals (Doug Frantz, Jim Wooten, Richard Behar, Christopher Ruddy, Michael Isikoff, David Eisenstadt, Yinh Chan, Jonathan Broder, James R. Norman, Zoh Hieronimus): 10
GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 60
GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 11
GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 14
GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: c. 500
Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became president: 439
Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3
Yep, thats demoncratic ethics for you
But I forgot. Because a demoncratic did it, its OK
I gave my liberal neighbors son a book for his birthday. He went crazy trying to find where to put the batteries.
posted on November 5, 2005 06:22:49 PM new
Yes, when faced with a bad situation of the current administration, come up with something bad to say about Clinton.
Wow that was original Bear.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on November 5, 2005 06:46:21 PM newJust cant accept the fact can you that the Bush admin DOES have more ethics than the clintons.
What was it that Bush said in 2000. "I will restore honor and integrity to the White House".
Please let me know when he actually fulfills this campaign promise.
Oh by the way, I am still laughing at your post...Bush has more ethics than the Clintons.
Who started a war using doctored information? I do not think it was Bill.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on November 6, 2005 05:54:55 AM new
Poll: White House ethics troubling
Decline in honesty seen in government
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- A majority of Americans say the indictment of senior White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby signals broader ethical problems in the Bush administration, according to a Washington Post-ABC News survey.
Also, nearly half say the overall level of honesty and ethics in the federal government has fallen since President Bush took office, the survey said.
The poll, conducted Friday night and yesterday, found 55 percent of the public believe the Libby case indicates wider problems "with ethical wrongdoing" in the White House, while 41 percent believe it was an "isolated incident."
By a 3-1 ratio, Americans say the level of honesty and ethics in the government has declined rather than risen under Bush.
Bush's overall job approval rating has fallen to 39 percent, the lowest of his presidency in this poll. Just 34 percent think Bush is doing a good job ensuring high ethics in government.
The survey of 600 people has a margin of sampling error of 4 percentage points.
posted on November 6, 2005 06:01:48 AM new
Presidential Ethics in the Bush White House: St. Hippocrates, pray for us
By Dr. Gerry Lower, Eugene, Oregon
May 26, 2005, 07:46
The issue of embryonic stem cell research has brought the Bush administration directly into the realm of medical ethics. This is highly meritorious because presidents and their administrations ought be immersed daily in the ethics of the policies they promote on behalf of the people, especially with regard to health care. This, however, presumes that the Bush administration knows something about ethics. It does not.
There is little doubt that lifting the Bush administration's limits on stem cell research would accelerate the discovery of viable therapies for a large number of diseases and dysfunctions, but the religious right wing considers embryonic stem cell research "akin to abortion." According to Majority Leader Tom DeLay (a strange person to be talking about ethics), removal of limits on stem cell research would force taxpayers to finance "the dismemberment of living, distinct human beings."
According to George W. Bush, efforts to remove his religion-based limits on stem cell research, "would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life. Crossing this line would be a great mistake" (House passes stem cell research bill, Associated Press, May 24, 2005).
If crossing ethical lines is of genuine concern to the Bush administration, as it ought be, then the administration does have some explaining to do, especially to the American people. Most Europeans already know that this administration is bereft of ethics.
In keeping with Roman religious dogma, it is implicit that the Bush administration sees life beginning at conception and ending soon after birth. It concerns itself with the fate of multi-potent embryonic stem cells and not much at all with that of thousands of fully-grown humans wasted as a result of its vengeance-based war on Afghanistan and its preemptory war on Iraq.
All of that utter hypocrisy aside, the Bush administration cannot be confronted with logical arguments from the opposition in the medical sciences. They can only be confronted with arguments that show they know nothing about logic or ethics. In other words, one cannot confront the inadequate results of neoconservative thought, because the religion it derives from confers infallibility upon its thought. One can only confront the inadequate way in which neoconservatives think. This turns out to be a rather elementary task.
To begin with, ethics has nothing whatsoever to do with the Old Testament Roman religion subscribed to by the Bush administration. In fact, Roman religion has never had very much time for ethics. If it had considered ethics, it would not have driven Roman imperialism, European colonialism and American capitalism over the past 1700 years since Constantine manufactured his own imperial religion and locked it into western cultural evolution.
The concepts of laws and ethics are complementary opposites, both sides transcended by the global concept of human rights. From that perspective, the only laws that make sense are a priori laws (before the horrible fact) that prevent people from falling as opposed to punishing them for falling (after the horrible fact) e.g., western legal/penal systems. The only ethics that make any sense are those that are based on human knowledge as opposed to blind loyalty to emperor and society, e.g., eastern ethical systems.
In other words, ethics are properly scientific and that is why the ethics of men like John Muir and Aldo Leopold were able to become part of the thoughtful American mind. Ethics are properly related to the current human knowledge base so that our ethics are intimately related to empirical/logical reality.
All human cultures begin with values. All comprehension begins with empirical/logical knowledge, i.e., What happened, How it happened and Why it happened (in causal terms). All morality begins with knowledge-based value judgments and decision-making. All ethics begin when we take action consistent with honoring our values, consistent with what we know and what we care about. Laws have nothing to do with the making of knowledgeable, ethical decisions.
There is, then, a logical flow in being ethical, from chosen values to knowledge to value-laden judgments and decisions to value-laden ethical action. This flow is not seen in Bush's Presidential ethics, an ethics which is not based on the values of science and democracy or on anything resembling empirical-logical knowledge.
Bush's "ethics" are not ethics at all because they have no basis in human knowledge and, therefore, no basis in human reality. Bush's "ethics" reflect, instead, only his "born-again" concerns with the values of Old Testament religion (an "ethical" stance that also maintains his support base).
Because Bush's administration has positioned itself as having the last word on medical ethics in an over-capitalized America, his administration certainly has its work cut out for it. By its very nature, religious capitalism creates social problems which it cannot solve, not without compromising the hidden worldly agenda beneath the religion-based policies that created them.
If, for example, there be a first principle of medical ethics, it would be that when someone comes to you for help, then you help them. The Bush administration is in no position to concern itself with that principle, not in a CEO-dominated medical "community" practicing exclusionary medicine based on the notion of "one ill, one pill, one bill" (Capitalism and the Crisis in Medical Ethics, January 5, 2005, ).
If there be a second principle of medical ethics, it would be that when you help someone, you strive to do good and avoid harm, i.e., the principle of beneficence. The Bush administration is in no position to concern itself with that principle either, not when debilitating cancer therapies are directed at symptoms (no real cures here) and they typically add to the trauma of disease by ruining the quality of life for its victims (Capitalism, Cancer and Intellectual Corruption), Axis of Logic, September 24, 2004).
Under religious capitalism, we have accomplished the impossible in a democracy. We have made medicine into a greed-driven megabusiness operation, turned control of the whole thing over to the corporate mindset, excluded physicians from the bedside and from the medical decision-making apparatus, and generally ruined everything that was human about medicine in America. We no longer know very much about ethics but we know a lot about how to run medical factories and medical collection agencies.
These approaches, of course, will never survive "the people." If the Bush administration knew anything about ethics in a democracy, it would know that "the people" are the proper bottom line in a democracy. When the people know that, we will be home free.
Read Gerry Lower's bio and additional articles. Dr. Lower lives in Eugene, Oregon and he has a website at www.jeffersonseyes.com. He welcomes your correspondence at [email protected].
posted on November 6, 2005 07:11:55 AM new
THIS CON-SERVATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS CRUMBLING BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO ANSWERS TO THE PROBLEMS THEY CAUSED AMERICA.
While Bear brings up history and gets slammed dunked every time doing it. Like LIAR-LINDA_K he must ENJOY getting beat because he comes back for more.
Bear doesn't realize today is 11/6/05. Bush is President today and we are looking at his Ethic issues.
posted on November 6, 2005 08:41:38 AM newPresident Bush has ordered White House staff to attend mandatory briefings beginning next week on ethical behavior and the handling of classified material
Hope Bush sits in the front row...
____________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush
posted on November 6, 2005 09:24:17 AM new
Bush vs. Clinton????
Bear- you always fail to recognize a significant difference between the two administrations. Though both have had ethics failures and problems, Bush has all of his buddies in the Senate and House to protect and shield this Administration from most of their wrongdoings. Meaning, if the current government structure was more balanced, Bush and Cheney would have been impeached well before Clinton was. The Bush Administration would have had many more problems than Clinton ever did.
Thanks to the Bush Administration we now have over 125,000 murders than Clinton ever had. Talk about washing your hands in blood... but the Christian extremists in this country could care less about all of the blood shed because it happened where they couldn't see it. Typical fascist blindness.
posted on November 6, 2005 09:32:51 AM new
Yep....this administration is soooo far behind the corruption of the clinton administration....THAT'S why the liberals can't stand his name being mentioned. They don't like being made to face FACTS.
and people like rusty keep denying that our democratic leaders ALSO sent our Nation to war. As all should know, our Congress controls the purse-strings....and when and IF they [including the dems] decide the war is over....they will QUIT financing it.
But that leads us into another area of their total denial of reality....and that is that THEIR TOP candidate, old hillary clinton, SUPPORTS our continued stay in Iraq.
THAT and all the other democratic leaders who STILL want us to stay there.....finish the job....just pisses off the ultra-liberals/progressives.
Too bad. Even some democrats KNOW what needs to be done.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on November 6, 2005 09:38:38 AM newIsn't Marion Barry a Democrat?
Yes, he was reelected by the people as well.
Now if you want to bring up drug abuse, you must not forget about Bush's abuses.
Which part is that is supporting torture of prisoners
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on November 6, 2005 09:54:16 AM new
His drug abuses???? LOL LOL LOL
Talk about a walk back in time. PLUS the FACT that he's been elected to several different positions in our government....and it hasn't made a bit of difference in his ability to get elected.
Hey...maybe it's all those liberals who SUPPORT the legalization of drugs that yell the loudest about his past....cause they can't make up their minds if it's okay or not. Guess once again, it totally depends on just WHO'S using the drugs.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on November 6, 2005 12:46:17 PM new
"Yep....this administration is soooo far behind the corruption of the clinton administration....THAT'S why the liberals can't stand his name being mentioned. They don't like being made to face FACTS."
Typical wannabe trying the old standby. We know Clinton lied, but you continue to use it as some kind of excuse that it is ok for the corruption that the Bushies have committed. Change the subject all you want. This administration is filled with two-faced, bigoted, murderous, lying, corruption filled, cheating pieces of crap.
"and people like rusty keep denying that our democratic leaders ALSO sent our Nation to war. As all should know, our Congress controls the purse-strings....and when and IF they [including the dems] decide the war is over....they will QUIT financing it."
As Linda has managed to weasel out of admitting again and again... this war was based on lies by misinformation that the Bush Administration provided. I think she has Alzheimer's or something. She always forgets the important facts.
"But that leads us into another area of their total denial of reality....and that is that THEIR TOP candidate, old hillary clinton, SUPPORTS our continued stay in Iraq."
That is pretty funny Linda. Just because Hillary has supported the military in Iraq, simply proves the diversity of the Democratic Party. They can disagree, yet work together for a common good, unlike the Republicans that went on the witch hunt against Harriet Meyers. And, I've been wanting to answer your question from awhile back, but I forgot... The Democrats are smart enough to let you Neocons eat their own. Why should we get involved in your party bickering. While you neocons were screaming your heads off, Democrats were strategizing how to pull the Rule 21 out of their hat and force your corrupted Republicans to complete phase two of the investigation into the LIES your President promoted in his case for war.
"THAT and all the other democratic leaders who STILL want us to stay there.....finish the job....just pisses off the ultra-liberals/progressives. Too bad. Even some democrats KNOW what needs to be done."
Linda says this, obviously knowing full well that any sensible person knows we cannot simply leave Iraq as it is, even most ultra-liberals/progressives. This of course is a classic example of Linda spewing LIES.
We have to fix the frickin' mess that her beloved Dubya has created. That is the problem with the neocons... they create a mess, then the Democrats have to clean it up. When Republicans lead, we take a step back... When Democrats lead, we take two steps forward.
"Guess once again, it totally depends on just WHO'S using the drugs."
I will agree with that statement. GW has obviously felt that way himself. Coke up his nose, a DUI... hypocrisy hurts. I think he should undergo a unine test for drugs and alcohol right now. I wouldn't be surprised if he is hitting the old bottle and powdering his nose lately anyways.
posted on November 6, 2005 01:06:26 PM new
I'll add to that... The American people already know GW is an idiot, they should also know whether they have a druggie in the White House.
posted on November 6, 2005 01:20:55 PM new
No rusty....what you and other extremists won't acknowledge is that THERE IS NOT PROOF HE LIED....NONE.....
so, imo, it's about time you 'put up or shut up'....because repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true.
You know darn good and well IF the dem party had ANYTHING to use against this administration THEY ALREADY WOULD HAVE. They don't....and ALL the reports/investigations SAY WE WERENT LIED TO.
So you're just continuing to made yourselves look like a bush of babbling fools that hasn't a clue. But hey...you THINK it might just work....LYING TO the American voters....they might just believe it WITHOUT ANY PROOF.
Nope...they're not as stupid as some extreme liberals.....they see the truth.
And as far as any drug problem.....just what part don't YOU get, rusty, that ALL this info has been out there for years, and hasn't made ONE bit of difference to the American voters?
GET THIS RUSTY....CLUE INTO SOME FACTS>
the dem party has thrown all they had BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED....and BEFORE HE WAS RE-ELECTED.....they didn't 'buy' into the liberals lies, thank God.
So...you're only whining again and again about issue that the American voters didn't CARE enough about. You're guy was SO BAD they STILL chose THIS President.
And poll numbers LOL....they change weekly.....not going to change the fact that his legacy on the USSC will be there for generations....NOR that he has THREE more years to guide this country in the RIGHT direction.
So...whine away.....nothings going to change. LOL You'll still be whining in 2008 when ANOTHER REPUBLICAN President is elected.
We know we can't trust the liberals to protect this Nation of ours....they've proved that over and over again. Their heads are to far up their Axx's to see what the REAL world is like.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on November 7, 2005 09:21:37 AM new
Linda,
If the democrats would of put a candidate worth voting for they would of won.
But that being said, I think President Bush has depended on too much of his advisors and subordinates and not enough in himself. The bad information he has received and acted on was in good faith for those same subordinates.
What I would like to see is that he start to censure some of his own people.
posted on November 7, 2005 09:38:36 AM new
Ron - "If the democrats would of put a candidate worth voting for they would of won."
Maybe, maybe not...we'll never know. But the fact is they didn't HAVE a canidate worth voting for. Still don't.
And their party is still fighting with whether it's going fully out liberal/socialist or moderate. PLUS they have nothing to offer at this point....they're too busy bitching and complaining about what this administration is doing.
And while the President is having a rough time right now....he's still doing what it takes to grow our economy...which is doing VERY well...still putting judges on seats...still running a war that's not going as badly as the liberal media which us to believe...they've had another election...etc.
This crap is strickly normal politics...and the dems are pouncing on him when he's most vulnerable. But nothings going to change....he's there for another three years.
Just give it time...it will smooth out soon. This President is a true LEADER....and sticks to his convictions of right and wrong...no matter what garbage the left puts out. He's one of the most honest/honorable Presidents we've had.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on November 7, 2005 06:04:48 PM new
By Dan Balz, Shailagh Murray and Peter Slevin
Updated: 3:46 a.m. ET Nov. 6, 2005
One year before the 2006 midterm elections, Republicans are facing the most adverse political conditions of the 11 years since they vaulted to power in Congress in 1994. Powerful currents of voter unrest -- including unhappiness over the war in Iraq and dissatisfaction with the leadership of President Bush -- have undermined confidence in government and are stirring fears among GOP candidates of a backlash.
Interviews with voters, politicians and strategists in four battleground states, supplemented by a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, found significant discontent with the performance of both political parties. Frustration has not reached the level that existed before the 1994 earthquake, but many strategists say that if the public mood further darkens, Republican majorities in the House and Senate could be at risk.
One bright spot for the Republicans is the low regard in which many Americans hold the Democrats. The public sees the Democrats as disorganized, lacking in clear ideas or a positive alternative to the GOP agenda, and bereft of appealing leaders. In the Post-ABC News poll, voters gave Washington low grades without favor: Just 35 percent said they approved of the job Republicans in Congress were doing, while only 41 percent gave a positive rating to the Democrats.
In shopping malls, town hall meetings and on front porches, Americans expressed their concerns about the country's problems. The president still has strong supporters, but more common are questions about his and the country's priorities. A young mother in the Denver suburbs complained about the state of public education. An Ohio retiree complained about energy prices and said, "We're getting ripped off left and right by the oil companies." Immigration appears to be a volatile issue far from the U.S.-Mexico border. And looming over all else is the U.S. involvement in Iraq, which continues to gnaw at the country's psyche.
Republican strategists and candidates are bracing for losses next year, while hoping that Bush's fortunes and the overall environment improve. They take some comfort in the expectation that the worst of times has come a year ahead of the elections, and relief in the fact that, by historical measures, the number of genuinely competitive contests is likely to be small.
But Republicans have expanded their majorities in Congress in each of the last two elections, and strategists expect, at a minimum, that Democrats will narrow those margins next year. A Democratic takeover of either the House or Senate is not out of the question.
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), the architect of the 1994 GOP victory, said Republicans must take the initiative or risk serious losses next year. "If we regroup and reclaim the mantle of reform and change, we are likely to win '06 and '08," he said. "If we do not regroup, we are likely to have a very difficult '06 and '08."
Troubles ahead?
Republicans believe that, given clear choices, voters will continue to favor candidates who preach, if not always practice, smaller government and who favor lower taxes and the vigorous pursuit of terrorists. But the Republican coalition is showing signs of fraying after almost 11 years of nearly continuous majority status. Conservatives have rebelled against some of Bush's priorities, and moderates are voicing increasing disaffection with their leaders.
If next year's elections prove to be a referendum on the party in power, as is often the case in midterm contests, the image of the Democrats may be less important than the broader unrest in the country over Iraq, immigration, energy and health care prices and the president's popularity.
The findings in this report are based on interviews in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Ohio and Colorado, as well as on a survey of 1,202 randomly selected adults nationwide contacted between Oct. 30 and Nov. 2. The margin of error for the poll is plus or minus three percentage points.
Two-thirds of those surveyed by The Post and ABC News said the country is heading in the wrong direction. Asked whom they were likely to support in next year's House elections, 52 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate, while 37 percent said the Republican. While this testing of generic preferences is not always a reliable indicator of elections, the result suggests that Republicans for now are in trouble.
Republicans may find solace in the fact that 60 percent of those surveyed approved of the job their own House member is doing -- but that, too, was the case one year before the 1994 election. Then the percentage declined throughout 1994; if the same happens next year, Republicans will be in serious trouble.
In another indication of unrest, a majority now say they have little or no confidence in the government in Washington to solve problems, another statistic that is similar to findings at this point 12 years ago. Confidence deteriorated steadily throughout 1994.
When asked which party they trusted to handle the main problems facing the nation, registered voters preferred Democrats by 49 percent to 38 percent. On the eve of the 2002 midterms, when the GOP defied historical trends by gaining House and Senate seats, Republicans led on that question among those most likely to vote by 51 percent to 39 percent.
None of these results can be used to predict the future, but together they explain why many GOP strategists privately are in such an anxious mood. One claimed that this is the most sour environment for the party in power since 1994, when Democrats lost 53 House and seven Senate seats and surrendered their majority. Another said Republicans have not faced such potential backlash since 1982, when the party lost 26 House seats in the midst of a recession.
GOP candidates running as challengers or in districts without an incumbent in the race have begun to separate themselves from the problems in Washington, which range from the unpopularity of the Iraq war to the ethical problems of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), the former House majority leader.
"I think people are angry and concerned about what's going on in Washington," said Rick O'Donnell, a Republican candidate in Colorado's 7th District, a swing district considered one of the most competitive in the nation. "I don't have to defend what's happened in Washington. If the party made mistakes, I'm going to say so. I'm not necessarily going to Washington for the same old, same old."
Democratic candidates are optimistic but well aware of the GOP's political arsenal, which includes an ample treasury and a tested turnout operation. "At this point the climate is positive for a Democratic candidate because there is trepidation about this Congress and the administration," said Ed Perlmutter, one of several Democrats running in the same Colorado district as O'Donnell. "Whether that remains a year from now is another story. Republicans have been resilient and very disciplined in the way they stay on message and win campaigns."
Iraq a key concern
Pat Swensen, 61, stood on a chilly night with more than a dozen others at a busy intersection in Coon Rapids, Minn., and held a candle in honor and sorrow over the 2,000th American casualty in Iraq. Her niece's husband, an Army soldier, is preparing for a third deployment to Iraq.
"What's so difficult is there is no plan," said Swensen, an assistant registrar at a school in Ham Lake. "Nothing concrete that you can start measuring and say, 'We've done this, we've done that, the troops can start coming home.' How many times will my niece's husband have to go back?"
Swensen's question echoes across the country, among those who backed the war from the beginning and among those who opposed it.
The Post-ABC poll found that 68 percent of Americans say the country is off track, with only 30 percent saying things are going in the right direction. Among those who offered a pessimistic assessment, 30 percent cited one of a basket of economic issues: gas prices, jobs, incomes, inflation, the deficit. This downbeat mood has so far been impervious to strong economic news, including the recent announcement of a 3.8 percent annual growth rate in the third quarter.
"The big concern is the economy," said Nancy Emerick, a Toledo, Ohio, librarian. "There are still layoffs all the time in Toledo. [Auto parts maker] Dana, one of our biggest employers, is cutting jobs. My husband lost his job a couple years ago; he's working now, but he's not making what he did."
Issues on voters' minds
The president's Supreme Court nominations, for all the intensity they generate in Washington, do not appear to be significant issues with most voters. Nor did the controversy over the CIA leak case, including the recent indictment of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, register significantly in voter interviews.
But anguish about Iraq comes through unmistakably in conversations at shopping malls, coffee shops and on doorsteps around the country. In the Post-ABC poll, 21 percent of those dissatisfied with the direction of the country cited Iraq as the principal reason.
Kerry Parker, a veterinarian from Lakewood, Colo., opposed the war and believes the administration misled the country about the reasons for the invasion. But like many others, she opposes a hasty withdrawal. "I think that, if we get out, it's just going to go back into chaos with infighting," she said. "There's no one in control over there, and when you take the kingpin species out of the area, everybody else fights. We're trying to establish order and I think we should finish what we started."
Some Americans agree with the president that Iraq is the key to protecting America from terrorism. Others say the United States has already accomplished something positive.
"I think we've accomplished a lot of good," said Frank Erisman, who lives outside Denver. "I think there's a despot [former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein] who's not in power. Who knows what the future is going to be? I think the seeds of discontent are in that part of the world and have been for centuries. We're fooling ourselves thinking we can for all time make it different, but I believe that we have made a difference in a lot of lives."
John Lebenick, a retired engineer attending a congressional town hall meeting near Reading, Pa., said, "I don't like what they're doing in the Middle East." The revelations about intelligence failures in Iraq have left a deep impression on him. "People are going to see this war bogging down and they haven't been told much of the truth."
In Columbus, Army Sgt. Stephen Yeager was home last week from assignment in Iraq. He did not agree with the deployment when it was ordered but has come to believe the United States must stay the longer he has been in Baghdad.
"It is very moving to see the Iraqis," he said. "At first they were pretty hostile, but they are really coming around. And now you see them volunteering for their army, even though they get hit very hard, much harder than we do. But the terrorists are still too strong for them to handle themselves, so we have to stay and help them."
'I expected something more'
Democrats see hopeful signs in an uneasy public mood. In the Post-ABC poll, Americans prefer the opposition party to congressional Republicans on every issue measured but one, including Iraq. The only exception was on terrorism; there the two parties are tied.
But those strengths are offset by two glaring weaknesses. A majority of Americans say the Democrats are not offering the country a clear direction that is different from the Republicans, and on the question of which party has stronger leaders, Republicans thump the Democrats by 51 percent to 35 percent.
"I just think they're sitting back waiting for something to happen," said Diane Mashman, a retired high school teacher who lives in the Denver suburbs and generally votes Democratic. "I don't know if they have anybody ready to run for president. They need to get their act together."
Ask people to name attractive Democratic leaders and they hesitate, pause or come up empty. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York enjoys clear support, but even several who said positive things about her questioned whether she could win the presidency, given the controversy that attaches to her history and name.
Republicans have their own divisions to deal with, from ethics scandals in Ohio to conflicts between conservatives and moderates. Prospective Republican candidates fear they will be caught in the fallout next year.
Republican state Rep. Jim Knoblach is running for Congress in Minnesota's 6th District, an open seat. "I've waited my whole life for a Republican president, Republican House and Republican Senate," he said. "Somehow I expected something more. There's a general uncomfortable feeling in the public, too. So many things are so unsustainable at the federal level."
The Post-ABC News poll shows that moderate Republicans are more unhappy with their party than are conservatives. Bush's approval rating stands at 61 percent among GOP moderates, compared with 89 percent among conservatives.
Other Americans are simply fed up with what they see as the "gotcha culture" of Washington. "It's hard to know the truth coming out of Washington," said Stephen Libor of Andover, Minn. " 'This guy did this, this guy did that.' It seems there's no love, kindness or understanding of other people. It's just, 'Nail 'em!' "
Seats at risk
As ever in politics, a measure of caution is justified in predicting trends. Stuart Rothenberg, a prominent independent political analyst, wrote a recent column in Roll Call debunking suggestions that there may be 100 competitive House races next year.
At this point, he counts fewer than 40, although he said that could grow to 50 or 55 by the time of the election. Democrats will need some breaks to pick up the 15 seats needed to take back control, but Rothenberg said conditions have deteriorated enough to make that possible: "It's not just a cool breeze in their face, it's a strong gust."
Adding to the Democrats' challenge is the fact that there are only 18 Republican-held seats in districts that voted for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in last year's presidential race, compared with 41 districts held by Democrats that were carried by Bush.
Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.) is in one of those Kerry districts, in the Philadelphia suburbs and beyond. Mindful of Congress's and Bush's plummeting popularity, Gerlach walks a tightrope with voters. "I may agree with the president on some issues," he said, "but I don't agree with him about everything" -- most prominently Bush's effort to overhaul Social Security by introducing private accounts.
In the Senate, there are perhaps half a dozen GOP seats at risk and a handful of potentially competitive races in states held by the Democrats. Vulnerable Republican seats include Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Missouri and Ohio. Democrats would have to win virtually every competitive race to retake the Senate, while avoiding losses of their own. Sometimes races all break in one direction, but not always.
In recent elections, parties have made their biggest gains in Senate seats where no incumbent was running, but at this point, nearly all the GOP-held seats at risk require the Democrats to defeat the incumbent. "The fact that Democrats have to knock off five Republican incumbents to get the Senate back makes it hard," said Charlie Cook, who produces a leading independent political forecast.
Those watching the public mood most closely today are the candidates gearing up for next year. In Minnesota, state Rep. Philip Krinkie is seeking the GOP nomination in the 6th District, which wraps around the northern edges of the Twin Cities. Bush carried the district handily in 2000 and 2004, and while Krinkie, if he becomes the party's nominee next year, would welcome Bush's help, he recognizes that the president may not be as big an asset as he was in 2002.
"The word I hear most often is 'disappointment,' " he said. "There's some skepticism, some doubt: 'I voted for President Bush. How come he hasn't done a better job?' There's some discontentment. There's a drumbeat in the district, but it hasn't gotten to be loud voices of objection."
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'