Author: Andrew Sullivan

Lynn Vavreck finds that Obama's popularity has fallen but that he's not alone:

Obama still wins in [2012 presidential] contests between all three of the Republicans we asked about – Romney, Palin, and Gingrich.  Against Romney, Obama’s loss in vote share from 2009 is seven points, from 48 to 41 percent – so yes, Obama has lost votes this last year.   But so, too, has everyone else.  Romney’s share of the vote is down 10-points, from 42 to 32; and Gingrich’s dropped nine points, from 39 to 30.  Palin loses the fewest votes, but she was starting from an already low baseline – 35.2 in 2009 to 32.4 in 2010. 

Voters like all the candidates less than they did a year ago, not just Barack Obama. 

More context on his historically solid approval numbers and the previous parallels (Reagan and Clinton) to what seems about to happen next week here.

A reader writes:

Addressing your reader who compares MSNBC's lack of conservative voices to FNC, I think the difference is between an echo chamber and a propagandist.

It is one thing to not have guests of opposing viewpoints – the claim against MSNBC – but quite another to claim a balance the way FNC does. I'm sure FNC has finally stopped listing Dick Morris as a Democratic pollster on his chyron now, but they certainly did for years while he bashed Democrats mercilessly. The same is true of Pat Caddell and other Democrats who get airtime. These are not people like, say, you or David Frum, who identify as conservatives but will give honest critique. Most of the so-called liberals or Democrats that FNC brings on are people who loathe and abhor the Democratic party and presents them as counter-balance. If FNC just presented Republicans and conservatives exclusively – as MSNBC is accused of doing – it would be far less noxious than what it is doing now.

Another writes:

I really believe the revolt against MSNBC started when Chris Matthews embarrassed Michele Bachmann over her absurd comments about investigating members of Congress to determine whether they were pro-American.  Matthews used to get more conservative guests than he does now, and I think that interview is the reason.

Rachel Maddow invited Rand Paul on and the interview went so badly that he is boycotting the network. And it wasn't because Maddow's interview was "gotcha journalism" or blatantly partisan; it was because Paul simply could not coherently explain why, in the 21st century, he still has problems with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Another:

You said of Maddow's show, "But the bias is pretty overwhelming nonetheless – and sometimes veers into suffocating smugness." Yes, she has strong opinions.  So do you.  She regularly invites people with contrary opinions to appear on her show for tough questions and debate.  Isn't that exactly how it should be?  People with strong, well-defined views who aren't afraid to engage with others?  What you perceive as "bias" is the empty chair across from her caused by the cowardice of those with differing views. It's not she just trumpets her view while denying others the right to respond – you know, like not permitting comments on blog posts or something.

Another:

If "suffocating smugness" is bias, then so is preening self-righteousness.

Another:

Kind of tangential to the actual issue here, but I just want to say that I definitely agree with your description of Maddow. I'm pretty much in total agreement with her positions on many things, but I have a really hard time watching her show sometimes because of that smarmy, "I-can't-believe-how-stupid-these-people-are" attitude she gives off sometimes. I would expect you'll get some pushback on that statement, but there's at least one crazy-pinko-commie-leftist who totally agrees with you on that one.

Alexis Madrigal tells an interesting story:

Among the terrible things we learned when BP’s blown Macondo well began spewing those 5 million barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico was that the oil giant did not have a magical petroleum-cleanup machine. Little did we know that one farsighted wealthy man had spent more than $20 million building just such a contraption, scaling it up from laboratory size to be Gulf of Mexico–ready. And who could possibly have guessed that that man was Kevin Costner?

What to make of the findings of the latest NYT poll? I have to say it makes me scratch my head. It portends a big Republican wave election, buoyed by a new conviction that people want smaller government that does less rather (55 percent) than a bigger one with more services (36 percent). At the same time, 71 percent oppose reducing social security benefits for future retirees; 54 percent oppose raising the retirement age (42 percent support it); 57 percent oppose not giving social security recipients a raise in benefits this year; and a small majority 45 – 41 do not want the health insurance reform bill repealed.

So Americans – surprise! – want smaller government in theory, but when forced to make any hard choices on spending, balk. Taxes? Surprise! They don't want them raised either – except for those earning over $250,000 a year, but even then only by 48 – 43 margin. They also prefer the Democratic party to the Republicans – the GOP's unfavorability gap was 11, the Dems was 2 – but are going to give us the most hardline conservative House in living memory. So go figure. A bunch of adolescent whiners? More grist for the Kinsley meme that they are just "big babies"? Or just completely confused and disgruntled and lashing out?

Whatever the explanation, I think all this portends a much better future for president Obama than for the Republicans, even as they cruise to victory next week. People are deeply frustrated by the economy, but they do not take Bill O'Reilly's position that Obama owns the recession because after 18 months in office, and a stimulus decried as too much by the right and too little by the left, he still has 9.6 percent unemployment. Only 8 percent blame Obama for the current economy. 30 percent blame Bush; 22 percent blame Wall Street; 13 percent blame Congress. They're not as delusional as Fox News wants them to be.

As for future politics, Americans overwhelmingly trust the Dems on healthcare, favor the GOP on debt reduction (go figure) and split between the parties on creating jobs. But here's the critical thing: a whopping 78 percent want the Republicans to compromise with Obama rather than stick to their positions in the next two years; 76 percent want the Dems to do the same; and a slightly lower percentage, but still overwhelming, wants Obama to compromise too: 69 percent.

In other words, this looks to me as if the public wants to force a deal by both sides to grapple with the long-term debt, the economy and healthcare. Now, who do they think is most likely to do that?

72 percent say that Obama will compromise; but only 46 percent say the Republicans will. I'd say that gives Obama clear edge in future politics, and helps explain why he remains more popular than anybody else in politics, has a solid 46 percent rating even in a deep recession and has higher favorables than anyone else.

He is right and the lefties are wrong. He will be a much stronger and more transformational president if he sticks to pragmatism, avoids culture war fights, and keeps his focus on policy as much as politics. This is the GOP high-point; and as you survey the attitudes of Gingrich, Pence, Palin and McConnell, you can't help but think they are walking directly into the same hubristic trap as Gingrich before them.

They have campaigned on no compromise; yet the public wants them to. If they don't, they look obstructionist; if they do, they lose their base. As long as Obama keeps his cool, and the economy continues to recover, he's looking good.

Country music – and Southern Americana – meet cannabis legalization:

Brian Wilson wins Dlist's "Hot Slut Of The Day."

It's clear she understands a Murkowski or McAdams victory could hurt her deeply.

A reader writes:

Striking clip, for so many reasons – the pacing, the sobriety of the discussion, the way the director jumps into the conversation to throw it to commercial. But what's most striking about it is something we no longer have anywhere in today's media: real exploration of ideas among people whose ideas don't match.

Here we have Buckley, as conservative an icon as they come (if never a moralist), interviewing a man who, at the time, was considered a radical libertine. And he's actually asking him questions — and allowing him to answer in-depth.

People actually explored real ideas back then. I'm sitting here mourning that loss. Can you imagine how someone like Sarah Palin would fare in that kind of culture? She wouldn't even exist. For that matter, can you imagine how different the public image of Obama would be?

He may not be more popular — if he were to sit down with someone like Buckley and actually have a conversation (and if Americans were forced by the limits of their entertainment options to actually watch), a lot of the President's most ardent supporters might not actually like him, and plenty of his loudest detractors would adore him.

But at least the folks calling him a radical socialist would be laughed out of the room, because the people would know better.

You can't get much clearer than this half-million dollar ad campaign from Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition in favor of Sharron Angle: