Yardsticks

Greg Sargent's question of the day:

If there continues to be a lack of a successful terrorist attack, at what point does the refusal by conservatives to credit Obama for it enter the media narrative, given that this is precisely the yardstick they use to extoll Bush’s counter-terror record?

Will the media simply ignore this double standard, or will conservatives redefine what makes for successful counter-terrorism? My guess is the latter: we're going to have a glut of memoirs by Bush administration officials in the next year, all of which we might expect to include some score-settling and attempts to revise the history of the Bush-era (DougJ at Balloon Juice proposes that we'll see a "concerted effort to rehab Dubya fairly soon." The upcoming books by Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, as well as both George W. and Laura Bush, will certainly feature efforts to rehab the Bush years, if not the former president himself).

Breakdown

Newsweek offers an overview of Stanford professor Morris Fiorina’s book, Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics, which argues that although political parties are becoming more fiercely partisan, the majority of Americans remain firmly in the ideological center. This might seem a questionable assertion, given the media emphasis on ultra-vocal ideologues. However, as Newsweek’s Evan Thomas and Stuart Taylor Jr. suggest, this perception stems from an insular feedback loop in which partisan “politicians are egged on by ever-more powerful interest groups and the attack-mode spirit of radio talk shows and cable TV.” Sadly, this loop locks out the vast majority of Americans’ interests, and there is no indication that it will widen in the near future. In other words, there will be only increasing bitterness on Capitol Hill, at least until voters get bored with the petty line-drawing and fallacious either/or arguments, and decide to remind politicians to whom they are supposed to listen (wishful thinking, eh?).

Anyways, do take a look at Newsweek’s discussion of Professor Fiorina’s book.

Obama Approval High, Others' Not So Much

At what point do Congressional Republicans acknowledge that a) the president is popular, and b) the vast majority of Americans support the president's policies? The problem is, to acknowledge either means being forced to a) accept that most Americans rejected the GOP, and b) work with--rather than against--President Obama's policy proposals.

A new CBS / NYT opinion poll falls in line with similar polls. The president's approval rating rests at 63%, correspondent with Ronald Reagan's and "about 10 percentage points higher than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton were at this early stage of their presidencies" (NYT). A second poll, by ABC/Washington Post, finds the president at a comfortable 68% approval rating (60% also agree with how he is handling the economy).

Other polling testifies that the public remains unhappy with Congress's performance, but the Democrats are receiving higher numbers than the GOP. From the ABC/WaPo poll:

50% of respondents approve of the Democrats (44% disapprove)
38% approve of the Republicans (56% disapprove).

When asked "who do you trust to do a better job handling the economy, President Obama or Republicans in Congress?," it breaks down to 61% to 26%--Obama overwhelms Republicans.

So only 26% of respondents have faith in Republicans' abilities to repair the economy, and folks are getting fairly tired of the GOP's current strategy of blanket opposition vs. reasoned debate. The New York Times's poll results suggest why things don't look so good for the GOP, and it has a little something to do with the "b" word (not what you think: it's "bipartisanship):

About three-quarters of those polled, including 61 percent of Republicans, said Mr. Obama has been trying to work with Republicans. But only 3 in 10 Americans said Republicans are doing the same, with 63 percent saying that Republicans opposed the economic stimulus package primarily for political reasons rather and policy concerns.

About 8 in 10 Americans said Republicans should be working in a bipartisan way rather than holding fast to their policies, the poll found, with almost three-quarters of Republican respondents agreeing that bipartisanship was preferable.

The poll found widespread support for Mr. Obama’s attempts to reach across the aisle during his first month in office. But 56 percent of those surveyed said the priority for the president should be following the policies he proposed during the campaign last year, rather than working with Republicans.[emphasis mine].

In other words, folks are willing to support the president should he issue a "my way or the highway" ultimatum (of course, they say that now--nobody really likes such ultimatums, do they? Such rhetoric is unreasonable). Naturally many people remain skeptical about whether Obama's policies will work--whether they'll be enough or whether they're too much--but most folks seem to trust the man's suggestions. Skepticism is good, it's healthy, and it's necessary. But skepticism differs from all out straight-jacketed opposition. We do need debate on how to qualify bailouts for industries and for homeowners, but conceding to an either/or dialectic isn't debate.

As Charlie Cook wrote the other day:

As polling very clearly shows, congressional Republicans have done nothing to help themselves by almost unanimously opposing the massive stimulus package. Indeed, they look increasingly isolated: a narrow party that is looking inward for sustenance. Selecting former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele to be national party chairman is about the only intelligent thing that Republicans have done since Election Day. At this point, a Republican rebound seems more contingent upon a Democratic collapse than anything else. Certainly, Republicans aren't doing anything these days to help bring themselves back.

Do the GOP really hope for a "Democratic collapse" and that the president and his policies fail? It's all well and good to utter such snark when times are good, but when the country is in the midst of crisis--well, that's not the time to wish for further complications in the name of ideology.

What He Said. . . .

John Cole at Balloon Juice:

The next time anyone in Congress opposes any infrastructure stimulus spending, whether it be on roads, bridges, whatever, the very first thing I would do is go through every single Iraq appropriations bill, target line by line the spending appropriations for rebuilding Iraq, and then look at the roll call vote. I bet all sorts of fun could be had pointing out “fiscal conservatives” who repeatedly voted to build infrastructure in Iraq, without so much as blinking, who are now getting the vapors about a couple billion being spent domestically on similar projects. America First, the saying was, right?

A bipartisan group of governors has declared its support of the stimulus plan, but it seems as though Democratic Senators and Representatives arne't nearly as vocal as they should be in their support. If they truly believe in the proposed stimulus, maybe it’s time the began explaining the bill--and what it contains--to the American public. Thus far, they've allowed the bill's opponents to do all the defining. Small wonder popular support has been declining.

Will the Dems Control All? Not Gonna Happen

Yes, the GOP has been vocalizing concerns about Democrats controlling the White House and Capitol Hill for a bit now. Most recently, this:

In a weekend fundraising letter, John McCain says giving the Obama-Biden Democrats free rein could turn the country "from the land of opportunity into the land of government handouts."

Republican candidates in general argue that this is a time when checks and balances are most needed. They say giving Democrats the White House and Congress would mean unfettered freedom to raise taxes and expand government.

Of course, Republicans weren't voicing many complaints when they controlled the House and Senate during President Bush's first term. In all, 34 presidents have done business at some point with a Congress controlled by his own party. (The Guardian)

There's no doubt that the Democrats will pick up several seats in the House and Senate this Tuesday, but a filibuster-proof majority? Nope. Even Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who heads up the Senate Democratic campaign committee sees a majority as highly unlikely because "many of the 11 contested Senate races where Republicans are vulnerable are traditionally Republican. None are traditionally Democratic" (Reuters).

There might be a consensus to "throw the bums out," but we all know that typically means all the "other" bums, not the ones from our districts.