I try my best not to be a Bush basher but things like this make it hard. Why on Gods great earth would this report not be released? Does this administration have a conscience?

A surgeon general’s report in 2006 that called on Americans to help tackle global health problems has been kept from the public by a Bush political appointee without any background or expertise in medicine or public health, chiefly because the report did not promote the administration’s policy accomplishments, according to current and former public health officials.

The report described the link between poverty and poor health, urged the U.S. government to help combat widespread diseases as a key aim of its foreign policy, and called on corporations to help improve health conditions in the countries where they operate.

Three people directly involved in its preparation said its publication was blocked by William R. Steiger, a specialist in education and a scholar of Latin American history whose family has long ties to President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Since 2001, Steiger has run the Office of Global Health Affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Richard H. Carmona, who commissioned the “Call to Action on Global Health” while serving as surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, recently cited its suppression as an example of the Bush administration’s frequent efforts during his tenure to give scientific documents a political twist. At a July 10 House committee hearing, Carmona did not cite Steiger by name or detail the report’s contents and its implications for American public health.

Carmona told lawmakers that, as he fought to release the document, he was “called in and again admonished . . . via a senior official who said, ‘You don’t get it.’ ” He said a senior official told him that “this will be a political document, or it will not be released.”

Story

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Republicans increasingly are backing a new approach in the Iraq war that could become the party’s mantra come September. It would mean narrowly limited missions for U.S. troops in Iraq but let President Bush decide when troops should leave.

So far, the idea has not attracted the attention of Democratic leaders. They are under substantial pressure by anti-war groups to consider only legislation that orders troops from Iraq.

But the GOP approach quickly is becoming the attractive alternative for Republican lawmakers who want to challenge Bush on the unpopular war without backtracking from their past assertions that it would be disastrous to set deadlines for troop withdrawals.

“This is a necessary adjustment in the national debate to reintroduce bipartisanship, to stop the ‘gotcha’ politics that are going on that seem to be driven by fringes on both sides and change the terms of the discussion,” said Rep. Phil English, R-Pa.

English is among the more than 40 Republicans in the House and Senate who are sponsoring legislation intended to shift the mission of U.S. troops. Several other GOP lawmakers, facing tight elections next year and a strong anti-war sentiment in their districts, say they are considering this approach.

Story

AJ Strata hit the nail on the head today with this post. I was particularly impressed with this paragraph:

Most people are quite moderate in their views and open to discussion. I can force some banter through persistence, but it does take work. There are the exceptions, those very vocal. But they tend to be at the extreme ends of the political spectrum. One of the folks I work with just goes off on a liberal tirade against Bush whenever politics comes up - and trust me I like this guy a lot. He is great to work with. But it does seem the intensity of the fringes is muting the voices of the moderates left of center, center and right of center. This is not good for this nation. We need to discuss the issues and resolve a path forward. We need the debate.

One of the many reasons I agreed to write here at J’s was the philosophy she laid out from the very beginning. We would respect the views of those on the right, in the center and on the left and while we might not always agree, we could walk away friends feeling we learned something from civil discussion. Unfortunately, this is something we see very little of whether it be in the press, the blogs or the various mediums of the media.

AJ closes with the following words:

We need to take the time to open up America. And we need to respect the differing views. No more “RINOs”. No more “rightwing”. Because when we do not use our freedom of speech the right way, we end up on a path where we may lose it all together. Showing respect might be hard for some, but it is something we should be doing more of.

Check out the comments under this post while you are there. It seems there are many of us who are feeling the same way these days. Let’s hope it is us who win this battle and not those who do no more than demean and belittle.

The story pretty much speaks for itself but my heart does go out to his family.

The latest wrinkle in the recovery of Tim Johnson is his still-to-be-determined return to the Senate after a debilitating brain hemorrhage — and the complications of it for South Dakota Republicans who are considering challenging him.

Two Republicans, Joel Dykstra and Sam Kephart, have declared their intent to challenge him, but many consider GOP Gov. Mike Rounds the most formidable opponent. And even Johnson’s declared challengers carefully avoid any comments slighting the recovering senator.

In his absence this year, surrogates offer plenty of projections about when he will make his comeback. But their scenarios add to the uncertainty — even for Democrats who might eye the seat.

In a lengthy interview last week, Johnson’s wife, Barbara, told the Rapid City Journal that her husband remains committed to returning to the Senate, but she shied away from announcing whether the Democrat plans to run for reelection in 2008.

Barbara Johnson acknowledged in the interview that his recovery has been difficult and that his speech remains noticeably slow.

Johnson has been convalescing in the Washington area since falling ill last December, and he attends daily sessions at the National Rehabilitation Hospital. Almost everyone interviewed about his health suggests it continues to improve, despite the persistent physical challenges.

Story

I guess Mr. Law and order has taken a turn to the dark side.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s aides, including one of his closest advisers, improperly used the State Police to gather information about the governor’s chief rival, Joseph L. Bruno, the State Senate majority leader, in an effort to plant a negative story about Mr. Bruno and damage him politically, according to a report on Monday by the attorney general’s office.
Spitzer aides, chiefly his communications director, Darren Dopp, concocted a false story for why the information was being gathered, saying the governor’s office acted after receiving a press request seeking details of Mr. Bruno’s use of state aircraft, the report said.

Mr. Dopp later made misleading statements about the involvement of the governor’s office in the effort, the report indicates. The report concludes that Mr. Bruno’s use of the helicopters — on trips that included both political and legislative events — was proper.

Minutes after the report was made public, Mr. Spitzer announced he was suspending Mr. Dopp indefinitely without pay. He said he was also dismissing his liaison to the State Police, the assistant secretary for public safety, William Howard, and moving him to an unspecified job outside the governor’s office.

The report was a blow to Mr. Spitzer, a former prosecutor who came into office less than seven months ago with a reputation for integrity and who promised to bring a new ethical climate to Albany.

Story

I know the press loves to keep repeating this story but I don’t think there is a chance in hell that Democrats are going to commit suicide by trying to impeach President Bush.

While most Democratic activist eyes will be on the first ever YouTube debate in South Carolina on Monday, an equally novel and potentially more consequential clash will be taking place that day in Washington, when peace queen Cindy Sheehan comes to town to declare war on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Two weeks ago, Sheehan threatened to launch a primary campaign against Pelosi in her San Francisco district unless Pelosi agreed to begin the process of impeachment against President Bush by July 23—the day Sheehan wraps up her latest anti-war protest tour with a publicity raid on the Capitol.

The speaker’s spokesman confirmed a few days ago that impeachment remains “off the table.” So on Monday, we can expect the gloves to come off between the left’s two leading ladies.

Story

Maybe they’ll have to wait until his administration is over and then prosecute. What do you think?

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissal

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.”

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege.

Here

Speaks for it self.

Stephen E. Abraham’s assignment to the Pentagon unit that runs the hearings at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, seemed a perfect fit.

A lawyer in civilian life, he had been decorated for counterespionage and counterterrorism work during 22 years as a reserve Army intelligence officer in which he rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. His posting, just as the Guantánamo hearings were accelerating in 2004, gave him a close-up view of the government’s detention policies.

It also turned him into one of the Bush administration’s most unlikely adversaries.

In June, Colonel Abraham became the first military insider to criticize publicly the Guantánamo hearings, which determine whether detainees should be held indefinitely as enemy combatants. Just days after detainees’ lawyers submitted an affidavit containing his criticisms, the United States Supreme Court reversed itself and agreed to hear an appeal arguing that the hearings are unjust and that detainees have a right to contest their detentions in federal court.

Some lawyers say Colonel Abraham’s account — of a hearing procedure that he described as deeply flawed and largely a tool for commanders to rubber-stamp decisions they had already made — may have played an important role in the justices’ highly unusual reversal. That decision once again brought the administration face to face with the vexing legal, political and diplomatic questions about the fate of Guantánamo and the roughly 360 men still held there.

“Nobody stood up and said the emperor’s wearing no clothes,” Colonel Abraham said in an interview. “The prevailing attitude was, ‘If they’re in Guantánamo, they’re there for a reason.’ ”

Story

One more nail in the coffin of the Republican Senate.
Don’t be fooled. This has nothing to do with the war but everything to do with Politics.

Senate Democrats halted their quest to change President Bush’s war strategy yesterday after Republicans blocked a proposal to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq.

After the vote, which followed a rare all-night debate, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) startled colleagues by announcing that the Senate would not vote on several other proposals intended to force Bush to revisit his war plans. Although war critics in both parties had supported the measures, Reid and other Democratic leaders dismissed them as too weak. Instead, they are holding firm in their bid to persuade GOP critics of Bush’s Iraq policy to embrace more aggressive Democratic measures to begin withdrawing troops.
Reid’s move was hailed by antiwar groups, which have urged Democrats not to compromise. But his decision may also have the effect of providing Bush with an opportunity that he has wanted: 60 more days to make his case that the war is making progress.

Yesterday’s 52 to 47 vote signaled that a slim Senate majority supports bringing home most combat forces by May 1, 2008, and came amid indications in recent weeks that a growing number of Republicans are concerned about progress in Iraq. Although Democrats won four Republican defectors, they fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to overcome the GOP’s procedural objections.

After the results were tallied, Reid asked GOP leaders to accept simple-majority votes. When they refused, Reid announced that the debate would be suspended, possibly until after Labor Day or until Republicans dropped their filibuster. He called the 60-vote requirement “a new math that was developed by the Republicans to protect the president.”

The vote followed 24 hours of Iraq speeches on the Senate floor, stretching from 11 a.m. Tuesday until yesterday’s 11 a.m. vote. Cots that had been brought in for the overnight session were wheeled back out to a congressional storage facility, after being used by just six senators.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called the all-night debate “serious and important,” while reminding Reid that the 60-vote requirement had become a standard hurdle for controversial measures in a narrowly divided Senate, including in recent years when Democrats were the minority party.

The war proposals are amendments to the annual defense authorization bill, which includes a military pay raise and Iraq equipment upgrades. Reid’s decision halted progress on that legislation, promoting criticism from Republicans.

“We are abandoning the men and women in the military if we don’t take this bill back up and pass it, conference with the House, and have it signed by the president of the United States, as we have for the past 45 years,” said Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

But Reid’s decision pleased antiwar groups, which have pressed Democrats to bring the war to a close. “I think Senator Reid took an important step toward confronting Republican obstructionism and ending the war,” said Tom Matzzie, a strategist for MoveOn.org.

Story

To have a dream for so long and to have it disappear so quickly.

The year was 1973, and Karl Rove was looking for help — from the Nixon White House.

Tucked away inside 78,000 pages of documents from the Nixon administration, released by the National Archives earlier this week, is a little gem: a strategy memorandum from the man who would go on to become the architect of President Bush’s rise to political power.

Mr. Rove, then a 22-year-old aide on Capitol Hill, was planning a run to become chairman of the College Republicans, a position he would ultimately win twice. So he wrote to Anne Armstrong, then counselor to Nixon. Mrs. Armstrong had been co-chairman of the Republican National Committee, and therefore Mr. Rove’s ultimate boss the previous year when he was executive director of the college group.

In the memorandum, he thanked her for “taking time out of your busy schedule” to talk with him, and offered up his musings — in the form of a nine-page typed outline — on how to strengthen the Republican Party by motivating students.

“Appreciate anything you might be able to do for me,” he wrote, on simple stationery with only his name, Karl C. Rove, at the top. “I have taken the liberty of enclosing the rough outline of my platform. Of special interest is the ‘New Federalism Advocates’ mentioned in the campaign section.”

The document, intended to develop an election program for the 1974 midterm campaigns, suggests that even then, Mr. Rove had a keen eye for organization, and a propensity for slicing and dicing the electorate, the kind of microtargeting that has since become a hallmark of his campaigns.

In his memorandum, Mr. Rove offered suggestions, from having college Republican clubs show “nonpolitical films for fund-raising (e.g. John Wayne flicks, ‘Reefer Madness’)” to developing a “Student Guide to Lobbying” with a “forward by Bush/Nixon.” That, of course, would be the elder George Bush, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, through whom Mr. Rove first met the current occupant of the White House.

Mr. Rove’s memorandum also proposes building a group of “New Federalism Advocates,” modeled on “Friends of Nixon,” a Nixon campaign committee. The group would have representatives from each state who, Mr. Rove suggested, could meet in Washington for “extensive briefings” with top administration officials like John D. Ehrlichman and H. R. Haldeman.

Story

As we creep (jeez, it seems we’ve been creeping a long time already) nearer and nearer to the 2008 Presidential election, Michael Barone touches on a subject to which I have never given much thought.

How We Pick Vice Presidents

Gerard Baker in the Times of London makes a point that I have made myself on occasion: The way we pick vice presidents is crazy. We spend lots of time and money and psychic energy on picking our presidents, with millions of people in one way or the other involved. But we let one man (or, quite possibly this time, one woman) select the vice presidential nominee. And this is considered by just about everyone as the way it should be. Yet, as Baker points out, vice presidents have a tremendous advantage when it comes to running for president. So the decision of Ronald Reagan at something like 3 in the morning in a Detroit hotel room to pick George H.W. Bush as his running mate leads directly to Bush’s election as president in 1988 and his son’s election as president in 2000 and 2004. Had Reagan picked someone else, it is extremely unlikely that either Bush would have been president.

I for one admire Mr. Barone’s work, but in this instance I must disagree.

Can anyone imagine given the political climate in this country today, us being subjected to almost two years of both Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates sniping at one another?
What does the nation do if these two candidates if elected independent of one another have “totally” opposite political philosophies?

Some might argue that would be good for the country, I see it as a recipe for disaster. Little is accomplished now when one party holds both the White House and Congress and even less when the Executive is represented by one and the Legislative another.

In addition, we might have to put the entire country on hold as all the Governors and members of Congress allow their egos to convince them they are the most qualified for the 2nd spot.

As for the ascension of the Vice President to the Presidency, those who have achieved this goal have done so throughout our history, whether it be through election or circumstances beyond their control. This is not a new phenomenon and in my opinion to alter the process at this time would do no more than create chaos.

Also, while I respect the right of Mr. Baker to pen this in the London Times:

Don’ t underestimate that pitcher of warm spit

US vice-presidents should be properly selected

I respectfully ask if rather than analyzing our election process, (and showing your obvious disdain for our sitting Vice President), perhaps you could explain to America why Winston Churchill has been expelled from the education which will produce the future leaders of Britain.

HT: Instapundit

I love the story. He can’t be any worse than some of the people we have elected in the past.

Sen. Al Franken?

If anyone had doubts about the seriousness of comedian Al Franken’s campaign to represent Minnesota in the Senate, his latest fundraising numbers go a long way toward showing his campaign is no laughing matter.

Or, as Franken creation Stuart Smalley might put it: Doggone it, voters seem to like him!

Franken outraised Sen. Norm Coleman (R) in the second quarter by about $300,000, banking $1.9 million to the incumbent’s $1.6 million. He raised money from all of the state’s 87 counties, and from 27,790 individual contributors. He outdistanced his main Democratic rival, attorney Mike Ciresi, in fundraising by nearly a 3-to-1 margin.

In a normal year, a comedian with a record as an unabashed liberal — as well as a lengthy history of provocative statements — would face long odds in winning a Senate seat. While Republicans have elected their fair share of celebrities to office (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sonny Bono) the only notable Democratic actor to hold a seat in Congress recently was former Georgia Congressman Ben Jones — whose résumé is topped by his immortal portrayal of Cooter on the “Dukes of Hazzard.”

But with opposition to the Iraq war running high in Minnesota, this is no normal year, and Minnesota is a state prone to electing
unconventional candidates. Former professional wrestler Jesse Ventura was elected governor in 1998. In 1990, Minnesotans elected the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, then a professor at Carleton College, whose quirky, insurgent campaign was the biggest upset of the cycle.

Story

This speaks for itself.

Relatives of firefighters killed at the World Trade Center reproached GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani in a video Wednesday, pairing footage of the falling twin towers with charges the city’s former mayor was woefully unprepared for Sept. 11.
The parents and siblings of some of the 343 firefighters killed in the terrorist attacks released the video with the International Association of Fire Fighters, which opposes Giuliani’s candidacy.

Giuliani’s campaign denounced the images, saying that the former mayor had a long history of supporting firefighters’ health and safety and that the international union releasing the video only supports Democratic presidential candidates.

Fire union officials and family members, repeating claims they had made for months, charged Giuliani pushed for a faster cleanup of ground zero at the expense of finding remains, put an emergency center in a building that collapsed on Sept. 11 and failed to provide working radios for firefighters, making it impossible for them to learn the towers were on the verge of collapse.

“Virtually the whole thing goes back to him with the radios,” Jim Riches, a deputy fire chief whose son was killed on Sept. 11, says in the video. “He’s the guy on the top, and he’s the guy you yell at.

“He takes the hit. And my son is dead because of it.”

Giuliani’s camp called the video a “mockumentary.” Giuliani campaign spokesman Michael McKeon said the union leadership “makes Michael Moore look like Edward R. Murrow.”

Former New York firefighter Lee Ielpi, whose son died on Sept. 11, and former Office of Emergency Management Commissioner Richard Sheirer appeared at a news conference with McKeon, calling the video a “disgrace” and saying it is full of “half-truths

Story

All administrations do it.

The first U.S. surgeon general appointed by President George W. Bush accused the administration on Tuesday of political interference and muzzling him on key issues like embryonic stem cell research.

“Anything that doesn’t fit into the political appointees’ ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried,” Dr. Richard Carmona, who served as the nation’s top doctor from 2002 until 2006, told a House of Representatives committee.

“The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science, or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds. The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party,” Carmona added.

Carmona said Bush administration political appointees censored his speeches and kept him from talking out publicly about certain issues, including the science on embryonic stem cell research, contraceptives and his misgivings about the administration’s embrace of “abstinence-only” sex education.

Carmona’s comments came two days before a Senate committee is due to hold a hearing on Bush’s nomination of Dr. James Holsinger as his successor. The administration allowed Carmona to finish his term as surgeon general last year without a replacement in place.

Gay rights activists and several leading Democrats have criticized Holsinger for what they see as “anti-gay” writings, but the White House has defended him as well qualified.

U.S. surgeons general in the past have issued influential reports on subjects including smoking, AIDS and mental health.

Story

Very intriguing discussion of Sicko and US health care between Teri Gross and Dr. Oberlander.

I’ve heard many similar concerns over the years from my wife, a health care administrator, and doctors she’s worked with.

Yesterday, Talk of the Nation’s Neal Conan interviewed three vets about their views on how election politics are playing out among the troops. Listen here, or read their columns in this Washington Monthly edition.

Here’s a Washington Post story that says about the same thing the New York Times was quoted as saying yesterday in this post on this blog.

President Bush, facing a growing Republican revolt against his Iraq policy, has rejected calls to change course but will launch a campaign emphasizing his intent to draw down U.S. forces next year and move toward a more limited mission if security conditions improve, senior officials said yesterday.

Top administration officials have begun talking with key Senate Republicans to walk them through his view of the next phase in the war, beyond the troop increase he announced six months ago today. Bush plans to lay out what an aide called “his vision for the post-surge” starting in Cleveland today to assure the nation that he, too, wants to begin bringing troops home eventually.

This time the member of the “Anonymous Family” is called “Senior Official”. Here’s what Senior Official has to say:

“Look, the president understands the American people are frustrated,” said a senior official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging Bush. “We’ve been at this a long time. We’ve sacrificed some of our best and brightest. . . . But they want to see that we have a vision for success that will allow us to gradually downsize our role and reduce our footprint. The president needs to and wants to remind everybody that he shares that frustration.”

We’ll find out today what the president says to confirm the “Anonymous Family’s” reports.

Again, I have no problem with the story if it’s accurate, and I am not questioning the accuracy. I just get irked at people who refuse to be named in newspaper articles when they are quoted.

In something that has interested Guss for a long time, not because of who may be outed, but because it’s a sex scandal, we might as well get the fact Sen. David Vitter’s (R) of Louisiana name has turned up on the D.C. Madam’s telephone rolodex out on the table.

You’ll have to read that one for yourself as I’m not particularly interested in sex scandals whether they be Republican or Democrat.

Finally, President Bush has asked former White House aides Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers to not testify under oath to Congress, asserting Executive Privilege. (more…)

These past few weeks I’ve watched four movies that deal directly with the relationship between Christian faith and politics, and all four were thoughtful, provocative, and well-crafted stories.

Jesus Camp and Hell House are documentaries. Both are political in that Christians reveal beliefs that require new law (or court rulings) in order to see them realized, primarily beliefs in the evilness of homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, abortion, alcohol and drug abuse, and in the case of Hell House, the dangers of non-Christian fantasy such as Harry Potter.

Jesus Camp documents the work of Becky Fischer, a Pentecostal pastor who runs the “Kids on Fire” church camp in North Dakota. She’s out to train a new generation of “Onward Christian Soldiers,” though instead of fighting racial slavery, they are supposed to take back America from the secular slavery these Christians evidently perceive.

Hell House is down south near Dallas,Texas, and presents a different way of creating more space for fundamentalist Pentecostals. Rather than training youth to become leaders that may be able to win positions of power in local or national government, this church is going to bring more people into the fold by scaring them into converting.

Both documentaries were pretty fair, avoiding caricatures, giving the subjects of the study a lot of room to express themselves without outside commentary. I have non-Christian friends who watched one or both of these and came away disturbed, worried about what they see as theocracy. I imagine, calling on memories of my Christian fundamentalist period, that some Christians could watch these films and say “Yes!”

For my part, I think both represent fringe and ephemeral movements, yet the politics of both intrigue me–grass roots movements via religion to gain more supporters for “traditional values.”

The other two I watched may seem very different (and here I expose my German Protestant roots): Bonhoeffer and Bonhoeffer: Agent of Grace. The first is a documentary of one of the few Christian leaders in Germany to openly (and covertly) resist Hitler and Nazism, and who paid for it with his life. The second is a fictionalized version of the same story. Both are definitely worth watching, though I preferred the documentary because the other had some uneven acting and story-telling.

The big question in both, and one relevant today, is when is it right for Christians to oppose their government (i.e. break laws), and what forms of opposition are acceptable? Bonhoeffer is invited to join an underground movement which necessitates lying, and perhaps even murder (and in “Agent of Grace,” one person is willing to be a suicide bomber!). But what if you are shown documents that prove that Hitler is killing political opponents and butchering the Jews and others? There’s the religious and political dilemma.

These two may seem very different from Jesus Camp and Hell House, but what connects all four for me is the matter of how Christians who are deeply opposed to their government and even society work to change that government and society.

What happened? What have the republicans done to bring this on themselves?

Since 1968, the Republican Party has repeatedly capitalized on controversial Democratic stands to win over swing voters - stands on civil rights, women’s rights, busing, affirmative action, gay rights, crime and the use of force.

In the current election cycle, the shoe is on the other foot. The swing electorate appears, for the moment, to be leaning Democratic.

“The story of this period is that independents now line up closer to the Democrats than to Republicans,” said Andy Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. “Independents are so down on Bush, so down on the war, that that is a real problem for these Republican candidates once they get past arguing with each other.”

A major survey [pdf] seeking to identify characteristics of independent voters, conducted by the Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University, found that unaligned voters view the Democratic Party favorably by a 55-41 margin, and the Republican Party unfavorably, 55-41. Independents were asked which party they prefer on 10 different issues, and they chose the Democrats on nine issues, including healthcare, 48-20; the situation in Iraq, 44-28; global warming, 49-21; and on such social issues as abortion and gay marriage, 43-26. The only issue on which independents preferred Republicans was “the U.S. campaign against terrorism,” 39 GOP, 30 Democrat.

“The Republican Party is fragmented, and it really poses a problem,” said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster, currently unaffiliated with any candidate, who recently conducted a study [pdf] comparing the GOP electorate of 1997 to that of 2007. Fabrizio found, furthermore, that the median age of Republican voters has risen substantially over the past 10 years: in 1997, 28 percent were over 55; in 2007, 41 percent were. The percentage of Republicans between the age of 18 and 34 has dropped from 25 to 17, and those between 34 and 55 dropped from 44 percent to 40 percent. This suggests that, at least in the short run, Republican ranks face the threat of depletion.

Story