It’s the Corruption and Cronyism, Stupid

Public Opinion Watch: Ethics concerns add to public disenchantment with Bush & co.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Article created by The Century Foundation

Iraq. The economy. Social Security. Katrina. The Bush administration has a
lot to answer for as we move into 2006. But with the indictment of Lewis “Scooter”
Libby on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, the issue of corruption
and cronyism in Washington presents itself as a potentially decisive addition
to that mix. When the public is already looking for change (see “Change
Constituency Continues to Grow
” from last week), intensified ethics
concerns may well be the straw the breaks the camel’s back and convinces the
public that the current administration, starting with its GOP supporters in
Congress, simply has to go.

Some data supporting this view are provided by two polls conducted right after
the Libby indictments. Here are the key findings.

  1. The new
    Washington Post/ABC News poll
    measures Bush’s job approval as 39
    percent, with 58 percent disapproval, easily his worst rating yet in this
    poll, which tends to run high relatively high on Bush’s approval ratings.
    The poll also finds more than twice as many strongly disapproving (45
    percent) as strongly approving (22 percent) of Bush’s job performance. In
    addition, the poll finds 25 percent of Republican identifiers disapproving
    of Bush’s job performance, a 17-point jump since the beginning of this year.
    If this trend continues, the assumption that Bush can’t fall much below 40
    percent approval will be called into question, since that assumption is based
    on the claim that Bush’s support among Republicans will not fall below the
    80–85 percent level.

  2. The same poll finds almost two-thirds of the public (64 percent) giving
    Bush a negative rating (“only fair” or “poor”) for his
    handling of ethics in government. That figure includes nearly one-third of
    Republicans and a whopping 71 percent of independents. Moreover, almost half
    of the public (46 percent) says the overall level of ethics and honesty in
    the federal government has declined during Bush’s presidency, compared
    to just 15 percent who say it has improved.

  3. On the Libby indictment itself, 69 percent call it a serious charge and
    only 26 percent term it a technical or minor charge. And 55 percent believe
    that the Libby indictment indicates “broader problems with ethical wrongdoing
    in the Bush administration,” rather than that it is an “isolated
    incident” (41 percent).

  4. In the new
    CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll
    , 56 percent now say the phrase “can manage
    the government effectively” does not apply to Bush, compared to
    43 percent who think it does. That reverses the July result on the same question,
    where, by 53 percent to 45 percent, the public thought that phrase did apply
    to Bush.

  5. By 55 percent to 42 percent, the public now pronounces Bush’s presidency
    so far to have been a failure. And they are not optimistic about the future:
    by 55 percent to 41 percent, they expect the last three years of Bush’s presidency
    also to be a failure.

  6. On the Libby indictment specifically, 76 percent believe Libby either did
    something illegal (45 percent) or unethical (31 percent). On the other hand,
    in contrast to the ABC News result, 55 percent describe the Libby charges
    as stemming from an isolated incident, rather than indicating “low ethical
    standards” for the Bush administration (38 percent). This difference
    could stem from the somewhat tougher language of this question (“low
    ethical standards” versus “broader problems with ethical wrongdoing”)
    and the fact that the Gallup poll does not mention that the leaked name was
    of an undercover CIA employee, while the ABC News poll does specify
    this detail.

These data indicate that ethical problems are likely to aggravate an already
dicey situation for the GOP as they head toward the 2006 elections. Just how
difficult that situation was even before the indictments were handed down is
clearly outlined in a recent
Gallup report based on pre-indictments data
. That report rightly notes that
Democratic leads in the generic congressional ballot, especially this far ahead
of the election, should be treated with great caution. But other more consequential
indicators do suggest a difficult time for the GOP in 2006:

Besides the generic ballot, there are some stronger indications that the
Republican majority in Congress may be in trouble. Chiefly, Americans’ overall
approval rating of Congress is, according to Gallup’s Oct. 13–16 poll,
just 29%. That compares with 50% approval for Congress in October 2002 and
44% in October 1998. The last time congressional approval fell below 30% was
in 1994—the year the previously entrenched Democratic majority was ousted
by a Republican tidal wave.

Also, the percentage of registered voters who believe that most members
of Congress deserve to be re-elected has fallen below 50% for the first time
since 1994. Today, just 46% believe most members of Congress deserve another
term, while 44% disagree. While not as low as the 38% found just before the
1994 elections, the 46% today is substantially lower than the 57%–58%
recorded before the past two midterm elections….

The impact Bush will have on the congressional elections is unclear, but
in principle, his low approval ratings cannot help the Republican Party. If
his ratings continue to dip into the low 40s, as they have for the past two
months, he could be a greater liability to Republican candidates than was
Bill Clinton in 1994.

This finding is underscored by a separate question asking voters what impact
a candidate’s relationship with Bush will have on their vote for that candidate.
By a 55% to 39% margin, a majority of voters say they would be more likely
to vote for a congressional candidate who opposes Bush than for a candidate
who supports him. Only 6% say it would make no difference.

This is notably more negative than what Gallup found in 1994 and 1998 in
reaction to Clinton. In neither case did a majority of voters say they would
be more likely to vote for a candidate who opposed Clinton.

A follow-up question, asking voters how strongly they feel about a candidate’s
support for Bush, reveals an even more dramatic difference in Bush’s potential
impact on the election. Close to half of all voters today (47%) feel very
strongly about voting for a candidate who opposes Bush. Even in 1994, when
Clinton’s approval rating was similar to Bush’s current rating, a much lower
percentage (36%) expressed this level of animosity toward Clinton.

Again, all these data were collected before the Libby indictments came down.
It seems fair to say that 2006 is shaping up to be very rough year for
the GOP.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate