Rasmussen Reports GOP Likes Palin, Dems and Independents, Not So Much

Rasmussen Reports released the findings of a poll concerning views Republicans have of Sarah Palin. The interesting thing is that while 91% of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, 81% of Democrats and 57% of Independents have an unfavorable view of her.

What's also interesting is that 69% of Republicans think that she helped the GOP ticket while only 20% of Republicans think she was a liability. Of the Republicans polled, 64% back Palin for the 2012 Republican nomination, while 12% back Mike Huckabee and 11% back Mitt Romney.

The full article from Rasmussen can be read here.

GOP Worried About Charges of Racism and Sexism During 2008 Campaign

Ever since 1968, when Richard Nixon adopted the Southern Strategy for winning the White House, the GOP has used racism to beat Democrats in national elections. The thinking is that you capture the 11 states of the Old Confederacy, combine them with farm belt states, and then get enough of the industrial states to win the electoral college. This thinking has paid off in wins in every presidential election since 1968 except in 1976, 1992, and 1996. Of course, the GOP lost the popular vote in 2000, but with the aid of the Republican United States Supreme Court managed to win the electoral college.

The strategy also paid off in Congressional races, as the states of the Old Confederacy provide the GOP with 18 Republican Senators and a substantial part of its membership in the House of Representatives.

There has been, however, a political price paid for that success. In the 1960s, the GOP carried most of New England, now it is barely competitive in New England. Nixon saw California as essential to his election prospects, now a GOP candidate cannot carry California. Still, during the 40 years from 1968 to 2008, the GOP has controlled the White House 28 of those years, and controlled both Houses of Congress for 12 of those years.

Given that success, you would think that the GOP would be chomping at the bit to run against either Obama or Clinton. Yet, according to a story in Politico, GOP operatives have become concerned over the possibility that the media will call their attacks on either Obama or Clinton racist or sexist.

This is an interesting dilemma for the GOP, and of course, one of their own making. It also shows how far we have come as a society since 1968, something that those of us who are Democrats tend to overlook.

Of course, we fully believe that the GOP will overcome its reluctance to engage in negative attacks against either Clinton or Obama when faced with the possibility of losing the White House. We also think that 527 groups, created just for this election, won't be nearly as squeamish about being called racist or sexist since such groups won't have a "brand" to worry about damaging. So we still expect one bitter and divisive campaign. After all, what can the Republicans run on, the great success of the Bush presidency?

Republican Representative Pushed Through Financial Aid for College for the Rich

Let's say that you were allocating Federal dollars for a student loan program. Would one of your priorities be getting such aid into the hands of parents who run businesses employing less than 100 people? Parents who may have a net worth in the millions of dollars? Well, if you were Republican Representative Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado that's exactly what you would do.

This is from an article on the U.S. News & World Report website dated November 16, 2007:

A little-noticed loophole written into federal college financial aid rules allows the children of wealthy entrepreneurs to collect aid intended for the needy.

In a bill passed last year, Congress decreed that when determining how much each family can afford to contribute to a child's college education, the federal government should not consider the assets of owners of businesses with 100 full-time employees or fewer. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado inserted this exemption, noting at the time that small-business owners should be treated the same as family farmers, who aren't expected to mortgage their property to pay for college. Musgrave, a Republican, did not respond to requests for comment. The federal government will still consider the income of all business owners.

According to the article, financial planners for the rich are already taking advantage of this provision, as this quote shows:

Matt Geherin, a financial consultant in Rochester, N.Y., helped a client move property worth $700,000 into a limited partnership to reduce taxes and improve his children's eligibility for need-based aid. The new exemption could "change our advice profoundly," he says.

Major advantage. Fred Amrein, a fee-only college funding adviser based in Wynnewood, Pa., says the new exemption allowed one client's child to qualify for a federally subsidized student loan this spring even though the parent's business was worth more than $1 million. Previously, the government would have estimated those parents could have paid more than $70,000 a year for tuition and thus would have awarded the child no need-based aid. "This is a major advantage for small-business families," Amrein says, adding, "I believe the size [of the exemption] is too large."

Marilyn Musgrave: She'll fight to the death to help the rich!

Republicans Putting Anti-War Republicans in Their Crosshairs

The L.A. Times ran a story on October 21, 2007 on how Republican Representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives are being challenged by pro-war Republicans, some of whom are recruited to run by Republican leaders. According to the article such opposition is one reason why more Republicans aren't breaking with Bush on the Iraq War.

Their dilemma is seen in the following results from a CBS News poll. While all adults polled opposed the way Bush is handling the war by 67% to 27%, among Republicans the numbers are reversed with 58% approving his handling of the war and 35% disapproving. These figures make it difficult for Republicans who are opposed to the war in the House and Senate to actually vote against Bush's positions.

Of course, these numbers among Republicans stay up because Bush hasn't asked anyone other than those serving in the military and their families to sacrifice for his war. Republican supporters aren't asked to pay more in taxes, or to risk being drafted, or to go without things to support the war. All they are asked to do is put a bumper sticker on their cars and talk about how much they support the troops.

Republicans Unite Against Hillary

Instead of defining themselves by explaining to Republican voters why they should be elected, the Republican candidates have decided that they will attack Hillary Clinton. While this may be a great tactic to unite the approximately 30% of the public that calls themselves Republicans, it is a stupid tactic in the long run. It isn't enough to be against something, you have to be for something in order to be elected.

The problem that the Republican candidaes have is that most of the public doesn't want what they stand for, a radical, right-wing agenda that calls for endless war in the Middle East, more dependence on oil instead of renewable energy, reckless tax cuts that add to the national debt, and allowing health insurance companies to control the nation's healthcare.

Ultimately the election for president will boil down to one Democrat versus one Republican. When that happens things will be a lot different. It won't be enough to just appeal to the base of either party. If the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, the attacks of her will be relentless. They may or may not work, but this is one thing we do know, Hillary Clinton will fight back.

S-CHIP Incease Less Than 8% of What Bush Has Spent on Iraq

If you look on the right of this blog, you will see that we have installed a counter than provides continuous updates on how much the Iraq War is costing American taxpayers. We obtained this counter from the National Priorities Project. As of this morning, the cost of the S-CHIP funding that Bush vetoed is less than 8% of the cost of the war in Iraq. That means that Bush and his Republican allies are unwilling to spend $.08 cents for children's health insurance for every dollar they have spent so far in Iraq. This is a graphic example of the priorities of the Bush and his Republican allies.

Not only do they not want to spend the money, but as Paul Krugman noted in one of his columns in the New York Times, they make jokes about Bush's veto. According to Krugman, this was Bill Kristol's reaction to Bush's veto of the S-CHIP funding bill: “First of all, whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think it’s a good idea. I’m happy that the president’s willing to do something bad for the kids.” Bill Kristol is the editor of the conservative newspaper the Weekly Standard and an advocate of the Iraq War.

Of course, it is easy for Kristol to joke about someone else's kids not having health insurance, just as it's easy for Bush to veto the bill. Neither of them have ever had to worry about how they were going to pay for medical bills for their children. Even as Bush was bankrupting businesses down in Texas, you can rest assured that "Poppy" Bush and Barbara made sure than his precious twins had health coverage. Well, we suppose we should be grateful for the fact that at least Bush had the decency not to joke about his veto.

UPDATE: See Nancy Pelosi make the point on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.

Into My Own Asks This Question: What is John Boehner Doing About Rural Poor?

The blog "Into My Own" has a very interesting entry up about rural poverty and the lack of Republican response to such poverty. The entry is based on a report about rural poverty that the Dayton Daily News published. The DDN article used a town in Ohio that suffered a tragic fire. It examined what is happening to that town, Greenville, in terms of job loss, family breakup, and crime. The author of the entry believes that Boehner is doing nothing because people who live in such towns don't give campaign contributions.

That may be one reason, but here is another possibility. The problem of rural poverty doesn't lend itself to market solutions which, since the 1980s, have been the preferred solutions to any social or economic problem. A declining work force, inadequate funding base for schools, and a migration out of such places by young people, means that such areas are not attractive places for private investment. Since they aren't attractive for private investment, it is difficult to attract new businesses to such areas or help the ones that are already there.

It doesn't have to be that way. Here are some ideas: (1) put Ohio's school funding on a equal basis so that quality of education is not so dependent on where a person lives; (2) invest in school buildings and other public infrastructure; (3) put up a system of cheap broadband communication so that all areas of Ohio are accessible to the Internet; and (4) put more money into law enforcement in these areas so that the crime rate is driven down. Come to think of it, those solutions would work well for urban areas too.

Such solutions, however, are dependent on having an activist government. Such a government is not compatible with the philosophy of the Republican Party and its elected officials.

Historical Indicators Point Down for GOP

The Associated Press ran a story on Sunday, September 30, 2007, about how historical indicators for political parties are pointing down for the GOP for 2008. This quote is from the story:

"The Democrats will continue to be the majority party in the House and Senate and Hillary Clinton will make history by being the first woman president" in 2008, predicts Rep. Ray LaHood, one of three Illinois Republicans to announce his retirement so far.

Political coalitions don't last forever in American politics. The FDR coalition of Southern whites, labor union members, intellectuals, northern Afro-Americans, and Roman Catholics lasted to about 1968. Starting then both southern whites began to leave that coalition because of the passage of Civil Rights Acts, notably the Act of 1964. After Roe v. Wade, Roman Catholics began to leave the coalition and a lot of labor union members became Reagan Democrats in the 1980s.

Before it broke up, though, it had a hell of a run. It produced Democratic presidential victories in 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1960 and 1964. It also produced a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress from 1932-1946, and in the House of Representatives from 1954-1994.

The Republican Party, starting in 1968, began to put together a coalition that consisted of Southern whites, Northern working class whites, small town whites, and Roman Catholics and evangelicals upset with both abortion and social issues, and members of the business community. This coalition produced presidential victories in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, (if you accept that the Florida vote was legitimate), and 2004. It also produced a Congressional majority in both Houses from 1994-2006.

This coalition, however, may be breaking apart because of the internal tension between business supporters and working class whites over social spending, and between business supporters and evangelicals over what stress should be placed on social issues such as gay rights, abortion, and controlling sexual activity.

It will be interesting to see which political party puts together a new coalition first. Rove thought he could do it by adding Hispanics to the GOP's coalition, but immigration issues are hurting the GOP with Hispanics. Democrats have an opportunity in 2008 and beyond, but this matter is still very much in flux.

Democrats Need to Link Children's Health Insurance and No Child Left Behind

E.J. Dionne has a column about the debate over the State Children's Health Insurance Program that was posted on the Washington Post's website on Wednesday, September 26, 2007. In the column he mentions, in passing, that the No Child Left Behind Act is coming up for renewal at the end of September and that Bush needs Democratic votes to get it passed. Here is a question: Why don't Democrats tell Bush that if he doesn't sign the insurance bill, he isn't going to get a vote on the No Child Left Behind Act?

Time and time again we see Bush being able to hold up Democratic legislation because the Republicans won't allow matters to come to a vote in the Senate. The Democratic response to this tactic is to figuratively throw up their hands and say that there is nothing they can do about it. Well, that's not exactly true. There is legislation that Republicans want passed and that Bush wants passed. No Child Left Behind is an obvious example.

If Reid and Pelosi called a press conference and announced that Bush isn't going to get an extension of No Child Left Behind unless he signs the Health Insurance bill, the media coverage would be extensive. The Democrats would be seen as playing offense, not defense.

Politics is compromise. Democrats don't point that out enough and so Bush gets to have it both ways: he gets to block Democratic legislation and then gets Democratic support for his pet project. Well, life doesn't work that way. If you want something from me, then you have to be willing to give me something in return. It is way past time for Democrats to remind Bush of that fact.

Paul Krugman on Race and Politics

Over the last two weeks, the New York Times has dropped its requirement that Internet readers pay to read certain articles and columns appearing in the NYT. This means that we can now link to articles like this one that appeared on Monday, September 21, 2007 on the Times website and in the print version of the Times. What Krugman does in this article is acknowledge that the political success of the Republican Party in national elections since 1968 has depended on getting Southern whites to vote Republican. The following quotes are from the article:

Consider voting in last year’s Congressional elections. Republicans, as President Bush conceded, received a “thumping,” with almost every major demographic group turning against them. The one big exception was Southern whites, 62 percent of whom voted Republican in House races.(emphasis added)

And yes, Southern white exceptionalism is about race, much more than it is about moral values, religion, support for the military or other explanations sometimes offered. There’s a large statistical literature on the subject, whose conclusion is summed up by the political scientist Thomas F. Schaller in his book “Whistling Past Dixie”: “Despite the best efforts of Republican spinmeisters to depict American conservatism as a nonracial phenomenon, the partisan impact of racial attitudes in the South is stronger today than in the past.”

Appealing to white Southerners is why Republicans candidates aren't appearing at black forums. Its why George W. Bush campaigned at Bob Jones University. It's why Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign by appearing at Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered and gave a speech praising "state rights", code words for white racism. When Republicans told you that impeaching Bill Clinton wasn't about sex, you just knew it was about sex, and when they tell you that appealing to white Southerners isn't about race, you just know it is about race.

Good PD Article on Senator Sherrod Brown & How He Won Ohio

The Cleveland Plain Dealer has an article in the Sunday, August 12, 2007 edition about Ohio United States Senator Sherrod Brown. The article points out that Sherrod's populist campaign in 2006 was successful in winning Ohio and defeating a third term incumbent United States Senator. Here is a quote from Sherrod on winning Ohio: "I think that you can stand up for the middle class and stand up for workers and low-income people and win," he says.

As the article by Stephen Koff of the PD's Washington Bureau points out, Sherrod, and not the Republicans, has been proved right over the last several months since he was elected. He was right to be opposed to the Iraq War; right to be worried about healthcare in America; and right to be worried about trade with China. Sherrod Brown far more than Mike DeWine had his finger on Ohio's pulse.

Of course the Republicans quoted in the article disagree with Brown's analysis of why he beat their guy. They prefer to blame it on the ethical lapses of Taft and the other Columbus Republicans. They don't want to face the reality that America has seen how conservatives govern when they have total control and are rejecting it. Americans don't want to destroy government, they want to make it work. Conservative Republicans only want the government to work for them, not for the rest of us. That's why DeWine lost and that's why Democrats can carry Ohio in 2008.

Are GOP Representatives Leaking Classified Information for Political Purposes?

ABC News reported on how two Republican Representatives, including Ohio's own John Boehner, apparently leaked classified information for political purposes. Boehner stated on a Fox News program that the secret court established under the FISA had issued a ruling against the Bush Administration and that was why the FISA needed to be amended. Now "Representative Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., reported the top-secret budget for human spying had decreased -- the type of detail normally kept under wraps for national security reasons."

In both cases the reason for the leaking of apparent classified information was to gain a political advantage. In the case of Boehner it was to help pass the FISA amendment. In the case of Hoekstra it was to take a shot at funding for national intelligence set by a Democratic controlled House of Representatives. In neither case, however, has there been any repercussions for the Republican involved.

Can you imagine the manufactured outrage if Democrats had done something similar? There would be gnashing of teeth at Fox News and condemnations from the White House. This is just another example of Washington Republicans believing that the rules apply to others but not to them.

Republians, not Democrats, Responsible for Passing Bush's Security Plan

This is very interesting. The media, notably the Washington Post and Huffington Post, on their websites portrayed the Democrats as responsible for passing the "Protect America Act". The problem with this portrayal is that it is misleading and totally lets the Republicans off the hook.

In the House 41 Democrats voted with the Republicans to pass the Protect America Act. That is only 17% of the Democratic Congressional delegation. In the Senate 16 Senators joined with the Republicans. There the percentage is greater, 33%, but again less than 50% of the Democratic Senators. In both Houses the majority of the votes necessary to pass this legislation came from the Republicans. It was because Republicans voted nearly in unison that this legislation passed, especially in the House of Representatives.

Now it is true that if the Democrats had voted entirely against the Act in both Houses it wouldn't have passed. How realistic, though, is it to assume that all 285 Democratic members of both Houses were going to vote as a block on this legislation? Given the diversity of the United States, and the diversity of opinions inside the Democratic caucuses of both Houses, not very likely.

As much Democratic activists may want it, the Democratic Party is not nearly as homogeneous as the Republican Party. Sometimes this works for us, as in it is easier for Democrats to attract new people and groups to the party, and sometimes it works against us, as in the recent vote over the Protect America Act.

Why are Democrats being portrayed as responsible for passing this legislation when, in both Houses, a substantial majority of Democrats voted against this act? The reasons probably vary but one reason may be, at least as far as editorial staffs like the Post are concerned, with weakening the Democratic opposition to Bush by dividing activist Democrats from their elected Democratic officials.

None of this is to say that Democrats shouldn't be upset with the passage of this bill. It is very risky to give this particular administration any more power to spy on Americans, especially without getting the resignation of Attorney General Gonzales in return. Putting Gonzales partly in charge of deciding whether surveillance should be undertaken is much, much worse than putting the proverbial fox in charge of the proverbial hen house. Foxes only eat chickens when they have a reason, but Gonzales seems to want to spy on Americans even when he has no reason.

What I am saying, though, is that spreading the idea that Democrats and only Democrats are responsible for the passage of this legislation is playing into the hands of those who support Bush and his war, especially media supporters like the Washington Post.

Brown, Voinovich Vote Against Cloture for Immigration Bill Debate

During the last week, we have highlighted how Ohio's two United States Senators split over raising the average fleet mileage standards for vehicles sold in America and over the 2007 Employee Free Choice Bill. Yesterday, (6/28/2007), Ohio's two Senators voted in unison to defeat a cloture motion on the immigration bill. (You can see the vote here.)

We actually think this bill is a bad idea and would cost the Democratic Party in states like Ohio, Pennslyvania, and Michigan. We also think that it would allow employers to create a permanent group of workers who would act as a way to make sure that employees don't organize or seek better wages.

In an earlier post we suggested linking free trade treaties to support for the Employee Free Choice bill which would make it easier to form unions. Absent such a linkage we thought, for what it was worth, that the trade treaties with South Korea, Peru, Panama, and Columbia are bad deals for the American middle class.

Those bills, however, would not be near as damaging as the immigration bill that would basically allow guest workers to come in, stay for a period of time, and then return to their native counties. That idea is just crazy.

Those who read this blog know that we have advocated for a policy of "Bring the Troops Home from Iraq and Put Them on the Border." Once Americans saw that the government was serious about protecting border security, and serious about cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, they would be much more willing to accept some changes in the status of the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.

So congratulations to both of Ohio's United States Senators for standing up for Ohio's workers on this flawed piece of legislation.

Brown and Voinovich Split on Employee Free Choice Act

As you can see from this vote in the United States Senate today, Ohio's two Senators split on the vote to shut off debate over the 2007 Employee Free Choice Act. This bill would allow employees to form labor unions and negotiate with employers by signing cards authorizing representation. Such a system would work against companies that block union representation by intimidating employees. Such intimidation usually takes place in activity leading up to representation elections. Senator Sherrod Brown voted to stop the debate while George Voinovich voted against stopping debate. The cloture vote needed 60 votes to pass and it got 51.

American Research Group Poll has Bush as 33%

If you click the link in this entry's title, you can read about the latest poll from the American Research Group on Bubble-Boy's job approval ratings. As the headline indicates, the news isn't too good for BB and his henchmen. Here are a few choice excerpts from the article:

Among all Americans, 33% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 62% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 33% approve and 63% disapprove. In March, 32% of Americans approved of the way Bush was handling his job and 63% disapproved and 32% approved of the way Bush was handling the economy and 64% disapproved......

Among Republicans (31% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 72% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 24% disapprove. Among Democrats (37% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 10% approve and 87% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among Independents (32% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 24% approve and 73% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.....(emphasis added)

As you can see from the part of the second quote that we highlighted, we believe that the rate of dissatisfaction with Bush among independents is key to Democrats' hopes in 2008. If these numbers continue up until next fall, the Republicans won't be able to use Bush as a campaign tool in most states. They will also be forced to choose between aligning their views with his, which will be a problem for them with independents or distancing themselves from Bush, which will be a problem for them with the base of the Republican Party, 72% of whom approve of his job performance.

The Danger with the Republican Approach to Problems

If you click on the link in this entry's title you can read an article about the House Republican Caucus that summarizes the problem with the Republican approach to government. A House Democratic Chair has made arrangments for a group to use a conference room to give a seminar on America's relations with the Muslim world. The Republicans are objecting and calling on the Democrats to retract the invitation. The reason, according to the Republicans, is that the group is an "apologist for terrorism." The group points out that it has been used by the FBI and other governmental agencies for information.

Here's why we think this is important: House Republicans have an adversion to receiving information that doesn't conform with their beliefs. They don't want to hear about global warming, they didn't want to hear whether the Bush Administration's reasons for the Iraq War were valid, they didn't want to hear medical evidence in the case of Teri Schaivo, and they don't want to know whether the policies they push actually work. They believe in "faith-based" government. If they have faith that they are right, that good enough for them and ought to be good enough for the rest of us.

We are fighting two wars involving Muslims. We were attacked on 9-11 by radical Muslims. We get oil from nations that are governed by Muslims. You would think that a member of Congress might want to know more about Muslims and especially the preception in Islamic societies of the United States. Of course, if the member of Congress is a Republican leader or perhaps even a regular Republican member, chances are that you would be wrong.

Republican Attorneys Incensed over Firing of U.S. Attorneys

The article linked to in this entry's title reports on how former U.S. Attorneys, Republicans, are incensed over the firing of the U.S. Attorneys on December 7th, 2006. The former U.S. Attorneys don't dispute the Bush Administration's decision to terminate the U.S. Attorneys, or even necessarily why it was done, but they are upset with they consider the ruining of the reputations of the U.S. Attorneys involved. This article is interesting for several reasons.

One is that Republicans are starting to realize that the man they wanted to be king, Bubble-Boy Georgie, has absolutely no loyalty to anyone or anything but himself and his own family. In the Bush world, people are meant to serve them and once they are of no use, they are disposed of and the Bushes move on. Just ask Donald Rumsfeld.

Second is that, at least in this story, the former Republican U.S. Attorneys don't seem upset that the Bush Administration sacked them for not carrying out political hits on Democrats or for purging U.S. Attorneys who prosecuted Republicans for corruption. They are mad because the professional reputations of the attorneys has been damaged. If true, this says a lot about their priorities both as lawyers and as people.

Third is that Republicans don't seem to have empathy or sympathy for people unless it affects them or people like them. An extreme example of this was when Bush went down to Mississippi and lamented about Sen. Trent Lott's house being destroyed in Katrina while poor people were dying in the streets of New Orleans. If it doesn't happen to them or their friends then it doesn't matter.

Is the Era of the Tax Revolt Over?

In the article linked to in this entry's title Mark Schmitt, a writer for The Washington Monthly, argues that just like every political movement has a beginning, they also have an end, and the end of the tax revolt era is at hand. He points out that with what he calls the tax revolt era spanning 30 years, almost every politician in office has come of age during that period. This means that both Democrats and Republicans have been engaged in campaigns where the rate of taxation is an issue. Indeed, if contemporary conservatism was built around opposition to taxes, opposition to communism, and opposition to "big government", the only thing that may be left that is holding conservatives together in the issue of taxes.

Communism is no longer a viable political movement opposing the United States. The Bush Administration has pretty much demonstrated that conservatives don't mind "big government" as long as it makes their supporters wealthy. Campaigning on lowering taxes is about the only thing left for Republicans. If, however, the public is coming to the realization that taxes are necessary to provide services that taxpayers want, then the Republican Party could find itself without a winning issue. Now, wouldn't that just be a shame?

Newsweek Poll: 58% of Americans Wish Bush Presidency Was Over

According to a new Newsweek Poll, 58% of Americans wish this Presidency was "simply over." The poll breaks down to 86% of Democrats feeling that way, 59% of independents, and even 21% of Republicans. The number of Americans who think that Congress should be more assertive in challenging the Bush administration on the way is 64%. The number of Americans who are satisfied with the direction of the county is 30% while the number of Americans who think that the country is headed in the wrong direction is 61%. (The link in this entry's title takes you to the Newsweek story about the poll.)

The challenge for Democrats is to take the distrust of this administration on Iraq and drive home the point that the Bush administration is the natural result of a radical conservatism that is in control of the Republican Party. A conservatism that believes that government is the enemy and that America should go in alone in foreign affairs. A conservatism that brought us reckless tax cuts, the Iraq War, and no response to Hurricane Katrina. A conservatism that cares more for the rich than the middle class. A conservatism that wants to dismantle the government's safety net for the middle class as well as the poor.