Glenn Reynolds alerts us to the latest “Rasmussen [poll]: 43% now strongly disapprove of Obama, same as Bush when he left office: “Imagine how unpopular Obama would be if the press and the late night comedians (who are at least as important as the press) treated Obama as they treated Bush.”

And imagine how unpopular Obama will be should Obamacare pass the House and as we keeping learning about the bill’s myriad moving parts and its plethora of payoffs –not to mention the various inducements to get wavering Democrats to vote in favor of this legislation to limit our liberty.

His poll numbers will continue to decline in the coming days go down as the Senate is going to have to devote an inordinate amount of time to debating all those House fixes.  So, if the House package passes, we’re going to be at this for a while, a long while and the more wer’re at this, the lower Obama’s polls go.

The health care nightmare debate may well continue as will Obama’s polling agony.

So much for Obama’s Apology Tour and bowing before world leaders.  Americans aren’t buying it.  He has become Jimmy Carter II.  (PS – This is JAMES CARVILLE’s polling firm.)

A new Democracy Corps-Third Way survey provides a wake-up call for President Obama, his party, and progressives on national security.

The national mood continues to sour, with the share who see the country headed in the wrong direction moving up 4 points since mid-January, up to 62 percent, the highest mark in a year. The survey also shows concerns about the economy continuing to grow. And even though the Republican brand remains badly damaged, with no improvement in favorable ratings for their party, the GOP continues to gain ground in a named congressional ballot, with the Democratic House candidate now narrowly lagging by 47 to 44 percent. The movement away from Democrats is especially strong among independents, and independent women in particular.

Whereas a majority of the public approves of the job President Obama is doing in most aspects of national security, a 51 to 44 percent majority of likely voters disapproves of his efforts on the “prosecution and interrogation of terrorism suspects.”

[W]e see that the public once again has real and rising doubts about the Democrats’ handling of national security issues, as compared to their faith in Republicans. This security gap, which has roots stretching back to Vietnam, was as wide as 29 points earlier in the decade. The deficit began to close in 2006, with the Bush administration’s catastrophic mismanagement of Iraq and other national security challenges. As public hopes about the Obama presidency rose and peaked, the gap all but vanished. Last May, Democracy Corps found Democrats essentially tied with Republicans (41 to 43 percent) on the question of which party would do a better job on national security.

But now the gap shows signs of re-opening, with Democrats trailing by 17 points, 33 to 50 percent on which party likely voters think would do the better job on national security. The erosion since May is especially strong among women, and among independents, who now favor Republicans on this question by a 56 to 20 percent margin.

Hey, I hate to say this.  But we told you so.  Welcome back to reality, America.  Let’s hope our majority perception of Obama Democrats’ security weakness doesn’t translate into a real threat being ignored by Holder & Gestapo Janet.  The nation is truly run by September 10th’ers.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Late breaking developments tonight from The Politico:

A week after announcing he was retiring from Congress for health reasons, New York Democrat Eric Massa finds himself in the midst of a fast-growing sex scandal involving allegations that he had improper physical contact with several men who worked for him — including at least one intern.

In a widely anticipated interview on Glenn Beck’s Fox News show Tuesday night, Massa acknowledged that he had “groped” and “tickled” a male staffer at the congressman’s 50th birthday party.

He also said he’d used rough language when he shouldn’t have and that he had jokingly told a male staffer at a wedding reception that he’d rather have sex with him than with one of the bridesmaids.

But, Massa told Beck, “I did nothing sexual.”

Now does he mean “sexual” in the Bill Clinton definition?

Moving on….

The House ethics committee has received allegations that former Rep. Eric Massa groped at least three male staffers and conducted himself improperly with interns as well as full-time aides, a source familiar with the matter tells POLITICO.

One incident allegedly occurred when Massa traveled to San Francisco with an aide for a fundraising trip, a second source said.

I have been made aware of other rumors that put the Massa scandal into a whole new orbit.  I cannot print them until I get confirmation.  But I can assure you that this man has some serious criminal charges in his future.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Really, Governor Crist?  This is what you’ve sunk to?

Florida Governor Charlie Crist was on with Greta Van Susteren on Monday March 8. During the interview he accused Marco Rubio of going to salons and getting a back wax.

Sounds pretty gay, doesn’t it?  Speaking of gay Governor Crist…. is this really a topic you want to play around with?  You know there are a lot of rumors about you in the Florida gay community.

Chortling about back waxes might lead your political opponents (gay liberals) to bring up those rumors in the General Election.

So, Gov. Crist…. is this REALLY a wise move?

Republican Primary voters will be the ultimate judges…. but they should tread lightly.  We know what happens when gay liberals come after Republicans with gay rumors swirling around them.

UPDATE: Erick Erickson at RedState.com suggests we all pitch in and send Charlie Crist some back wax from Amazon.com.  PatriotPartner suggests Oompa-Loompa back wax, perhaps?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Welcome Instapundit Readers!  While you’re here, please check out my followup post, Obama’s Focus, not Rahm, is the Real Problem.

As one who first called for White House Chief of Rahm Emanuel’s resignation on this blog nearly a year ago (but have questioned his appointment since it was announced), I guess I should be pleased by the various left-wingers calling for his head and blaming the hyper-partisan Clinton veteran and Chicago politician for the president’s difficulties.

Memeorandum seems to have been linking stories about him (or accusations leveled against him) every day for the past week, with Rep. Eric Massa’s (D-NY) accusations the latest to lead the headlines.  The New York Times magazine is running a lengthy story of the “Limits of Rahmism.“

Some of the coverage seems, well, a little bit sensationalistic, as if no men ever discussed business in the locker room before. I hate to make Rahm seem any less of an nasty partisan, but, guys do this all the time.  And while we’re at it, I join Michelle in warning conservatives against trusting Massa.  He seems more interested in the attention than anything else.

That said, you gotta wonder why, all of a sudden, a lot of criticism of Rahm has suddenly hit the fan.  And, to be sure, there have been a number of news outlets defending him.  Indeed, through Glenn Reynolds, I learn the Hill has devoted an online symposium to this very matter asking, “What does all of the chatter surrounding White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel say about the White House?”  Reynolds himself offers the best explanation:

Unity is easy when things are going well. Backbiting and fingerpointing start when things go badly. The leak attacks on Rahm Emanuel indicate that things are going badly.

Rahm is only to blame in that he is a hard-charging partisan political operative and not a level-headed administrator.  The president needs someone with a cooler head running the day-to-day operations in the executive branch.

All the said, Rahm isn’t the only person to blame for what’s going wrong in the Obama White House.  It’s just that certain folks are determined to make him the fall guy.  The real question is who are they?  And what do they seek to gain by attacking Rahm? (more…)

The question is all the buzz on Twitter today after this article appeared in the British press.

Barack Obama is still struggling to kick smoking, according to his first medical examination since becoming president.

Obama is sensitive about his cigarette habit and tetchy with reporters who raise it. But after his 90-minute medical at the Navy hospital outside Washington yesterday morning, his doctors confirmed he had not yet managed to conquer the habit and suggested he “continue smoking cessation efforts”.

<…>

The doctors also recommended “moderation of alcohol intake”.

One would have to assume that Obama’s doctors had some evidence which led to their recommendation.  What was it?  Did Obama admit he drinks too much? Or did a blood test or other diagnostic provide the doctors a warning of some kind?

Oh yeah, and what kind of moral ground does Obama stand on when he clicks at the health habits of Americans (primarily eating) when he can’t stop smoking?

But more importantly, shouldn’t the American people know if their President has a drinking problem?  After all, those on the Left constantly reminded us that President George W. Bush had quit drinking years before his time in office.

UPDATE: The Guardian story might be more sizzle than substance.  From the political shop of only person at NBC that I trust, Chuck Todd, comes a link to the actual medical report.

Recommendations: Follow-up colorectal cancer screening is recommended in 5 years for routine colon cancer screening. Continue smoking cessation efforts, a daily exercise program, healthy diet, moderation in alcohol intake, periodic dental care, and remain up-to-date with recommended immunizations. Continue modified exercise regimen, and lower extremity muscle strengthening program, for occasional left patella-femoral pain secondary to chronic tendonitis. Recommend dietary modification to reduce LDL cholesterol below 130.

Judge for yourselves.  I still find it odd.  The doctors ARE recommending CHANGES to the President’s lifestyle.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Yep, I’ll be at CPAC this coming Wednesday through Sunday.   And so will GOProud…

GOProud will be the only gay organization co-sponsoring the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).  As most of you know, CPAC is the nation’s premier annual gathering of conservatives and GOProud is honored to have the opporunity to represent gay conservatives and our straight allies at this important event.

GOProud will be at CPAC standing up for the values of gay conservatives and I write to you today asking you to stand with GOProud. 

If you are going to be in DC for CPAC, please join us.  Below is a run-down of some of our plans for CPAC.  Whether you will be here for CPAC or won’t please support GOProud’s work -  Click here to contribute.

Wednesday, February 17, 6 pm – 8 pm – Join us for an informal happy hour at the Dupont Hotel Bar.  Click here for directions.  This will give GOProud folks a chance to meet and get to know each other before CPAC starts on Thursday. (We expect we’ll get together Thursday – Saturday nights too.  Stop by the GOProud booth any day during CPAC to see what’s planned for that evening.)

Thursday, February 18 – Saturday, February 20 - The focus of our CPAC efforts will be our GOProud information booth in the exhibit area near radio row.  This is our opportunity to talk about GOProud’s mission, answer questions, and grow our organization.  Please support GOProud’s CPAC booth by making a contribution to this important effort today

Saturday, February 20, 11 am - GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia will speak to CPAC about “Using Technology to Mobilize Conservatives.”  Click here for more information.

We hope that you will join us next week at CPAC!  There’s still time to register here.  If you can’t make it to Washington, we still need your help.  Remember, only one CPAC co-sponsor represents gay conservatives and their allies.  Please support GOProud today.  Click here to contribute.

In addition, I’ll be a speaker at a Blogger-Free-For-All panel hosted by BankofKev.  The panel is Thursday at 4:00PM.  Please come by the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel to say hello and support GOProud this week.

Oh yeah, I’ll be blogging and hopefully doing some videopodcasts too!  The one speech I’m definitely going to liveblog: MARCOOOO RUUUUBIOOOOO!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Let’s explore the law of unintended consequences.  The monstrous Obamacare National Healthcare Takeover wasn’t the only casualty of US Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) election.  The dropping out of Patrick Kennedy is another obvious one, sure.  And I’m also positive there will be many Democrats running into the arms of retirement who would not have before Brown’s election.

But think about this one:  Scott Brown may have saved New York City from having the 9/11 KSM Show Trial held in their backyard.  Why?  Well, before Brown’s election, there were only scant peeps — mostly Republicans — opposing the Obama-Holder plan to showcase KSM & Co. in Manhattan.

SINCE Scott Brown’s election, the roar of disapproval about the 9/11 trials has become so loud that Obama himself has capped Holder at the knees.  Media reports now say a military trial is likely, perhaps even held at GITMO.

Elections have consequences, my friends.  Sen. Scott Brown’s is the gift that keeps on giving back to America every single day.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

If ABC News were to tap its senior White House corespondent Jake Tapper to host This Week (a choice favored by a plurality of those chiming int to this online poll), it would represent a step in the right director for network news.  The strapping reporter is probably the best in his business, at least of our generation.  He plays no favorites and asks tough questions of both sides, covering public figures warts and all, regardless of their political affiliation.

He would be a welcome replacement to the Clinton official who currently hosts the Sunday talk show.  Via Julie Mason at the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential who offers:

Beltway Confidential’s partiality to ABC News’ Jake Tapper is no secret. He sticks up for his colleagues, sticks it to the man and is as fair and tough as you’d want in a White House correspondent. He’s also hot, but don’t worry about that right now. . . .

From Dartmouth ‘91, Tapper went from cartoonist, to the City Paper (where he parlayed a blind date with Monica Lewinsky into a minor role in the Clinton saga) then covered Bush’s first campaign for Salon and eventually ended up as White House correspondent for ABC News — in line to host “This Week.” Totally weird, offbeat trajectory — but we dig it

Sorry, fellows, he likes the ladies, having wed Jennifer Marie Brown in 2006.

Seems I may have been a bit premature in being optimistic about Obama’s health care “summit” with Republicans.  He may not be looking to have an open discussion with both sides putting their views forward on how to proceed with health care reform, but instead in using this as a back door to pick up some Republican support for his massive health care overhaul.

He has, as law professor William A. Jacobson observes, “imposed the precondition that the negotiations start with the Democratic versions of health care legislation:”

White House aides quickly rejected the idea that Obama wants to start over after nearly a year of contentious legislative haggling among members of his party.

Officials said the president will come to the health-care summit armed with a merged version of the two bills that Democrats strong-armed through the two chambers with almost no GOP backing.

“This is not starting over,” one White House official said, who requested anonymity in order to discuss administration strategy. “Don’t make any mistake about that. We are coming with our plan. They can bring their plan.”

The problem is that right now, while there are a number of Republican ideas are on the table, there is no one Republican plan.  And unless Republican settle on a single plan, the White House will try to use these negotiations to try to cast aspersions on the GOP for not having such a plan.  If the White House comes with their plan (which is something it should have done last summer), they’re all be certain to make it the focus of negotiations.

Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.  And indeed, if Republicans come well-prepared, it may be a good thing.  They can press on removing certain provisions particularly unpalatable to them (and the American people) that Democrats would be loath to remove.  And on inserting such things as tort reform that remain popular with the American people, but are anathema to Democrats. (more…)

With President Obama’s hyper-partisan Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once more in the news for his, well, direct manner of expressing himself, many who follow politics are asking if it’s time for the president to seek a replacement.

When, right after the 2008 election, then-President-elect Obama tapped the veteran of the Clinton White House to be his Chief of Staff, Republicans (and independents) should have recognized that the Democrat’s post-partisan campaign rhetoric was just that, rhetoric.  In his three terms in the House, the Chicago Democrat (Rahm, not Obama) never showed much of an inclination to forge bipartisan compromises.  He preferred attacking Republicans to working with them.

The president could show that he really means to work in a bi-partisan manner by replacing Rahm with someone less belligerent toward the increasingly resurgent GOP.  Yet, in her article considering where the Chief of Staff is  liability or asset to Obama, Julie Mason thinks he’s keeping his job:  ”his close relationship to the president means his position is largely secure.“

That’s too bad, this is a man whose background is not shaping policy, but promoting his fellow partisans.  His departure would signal a White House less committed to winning political fights and more concerned with advancing the national interest.

As you may know, Bruce and I have had different reactions to the James O’Keefe situation.  Bruce has quickly rallied to his defense, while I have been more skeptical, choosing pretty much to steer clear of the fracas in the blogsophere.

All that said, as the facts drip out, O’Keefe is looking less and less guilty and may well be completely exonerated before this even gets to trial.  Newspapers have had to retract “many glaring errors in their gleeful coverage of the O’Keefe story.”  So, in this one case where Bruce and I differ, the more we learn, the more justified Bruce becomes in his initial defense of this investigative journalist for the age of youtube.

So, let’s get some more facts out there.  And at Bruce’s request, I post O’Keefe’s statement in its entirety:

The government has now confirmed what has always been clear:  No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office.  Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines.  Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.

As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN.  For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.”  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working. (more…)

It is starting to seem this way.  We know how O’Keefe works — clever, over the top scenarios that prove the hypocrisy and law-breaking of the elitists in power stealing our taxpayer money.

Seems increasingly like that was his M.O. with Project Landreiu.

From Patterico: Looks like law enforcement and James O’Keefe’s supporters agree: he did not intend to wiretap Mary Landrieu:

A law enforcement official says the four men arrested for attempting to tamper with the phones in the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) were not trying to intercept or wiretap the calls.

Even the Washington Post is now walking back their hysterionic reporting. Again from Patterico:

Earlier versions of this story incorrectly reported that James O’Keefe faced charges in an alleged plot to bug the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu. The charges were related to an alleged plot to tamper with a phone system. The headline incorrectly referred to a plot to bug the phone and a caption incorrectly referred to an alleged wiretap scheme.

Patterico continues:  So there was no intent to wiretap. Let’s dispel that idea now. Nobody is claiming he was trying to bug Landrieu. Everyone who compared this to Watergate was wrong, wrong, wrong — and should be embarrassed. Period.  The only question now is what he and 3 other men did intend to do.

<…>

Precisely.  And the other question that I want to know is this:  What does James O’Keefe know about the Senator or her staff that resulted in Mary Landrieu wanting to call in the Federal thugs to stop that information from getting out to the public?

I predict that pretty soon MSNBC will no longer report on this story.  Why?  Because it will become a DEMOCRAT scandal.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Didn’t watch the whole thing, saw the beginning and the last 20 years minutes.  He seemed defiant, sounded like he was still a candidate running for office and against the party in power and not the leader of the power that has been in power for well over a year.

Not just that, when he talked about bickering and partisanship, he was taking issue with the very kind of rhetoric that has, by and large, defined his attitude toward his predecessor and ideological adversaries.

UPDATE:  Reading through the transcript, and found he made the commitment,but wonder if he follow through:

This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.

Kudos to the president for saying this.  Would have been nice if he could have gone a little more in depth.  Let’s hope he has a plan to make this line a reality.  And if he gets it repealed, it won’t matter that he only devoted one line to the topic in tonight’s address.

So by now, you have probably heard that the young conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe was arrested this week on charges that he was attempting to wiretap (or something) the offices of US Sen. Mary Landrieu. O’Keefe came to public attention last year when he exposed the corruption in many ACORN offices around the USA in a hidden camera expose.

My first reaction to O’Keefe’s arrest was “oh how stupid of him.” Upon further reflection, I have changed my mind. I think O’Keefe is a patriot and was probably onto something that We, The People should know about involving Sen. Landrieu.

Since the media no longer investigates corruption among the liberal elite, the burden falls to brave souls like O’Keefe.

The American Left praises and honors such real criminals and murderers as Castro, Che, Mao and Mumia Abu Jamal. Surely I’m not going to throw O’Keefe under the bus until I know all of the facts. And if he was in the pursuit of truth, then I think his actions were justified.

James O’Keefe is no less a patriot than Ted Kennedy is a murderer. After all, the Democrats in Washington continually ignore our nations’ laws and the US Constitution. Perhaps it is time for We, The People to join the fight on their terms.

These are indeed times that try men’s souls and our time sometimes requires extraordinary measures to expose lies and stand up for Liberty.

UPDATE (from Dan): Bruce, this appears to be an area where we disagree, though appreciate this defense from a commenter at Althouse. Right now, I’m with Malkin, “Know your limits. Know the law. Don’t get carried away. And don’t become what you are targeting.” That said, I’ll wait until the facts are in before rendering a final judgment.

In the coming days, as they have in the last moments of the campaign to elect someone to fill Daniel Webster’s Senate seat, many Democrats will dismiss the election of a Republican in a state which hasn’t elected a Republican to federal office since before the president won his first election as an aberration, the consequence of a weak candidate running a poor campaign.

But, before they dismiss this good woman, they should recall that, in a Democratic state not normally friendly to women statewide, she rose to political power rather quickly and easily secured her party’s nomination to succeed Ted Kennedy. She was running a smart campaign until she, like everyone, including most right-of-center pundits, became aware of the power of the Brown juggernaut.

We all give Barack Obama’s for running a great presidential campaign back in ‘08, but even he was caught off-guard by McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin. It took an economic crisis for that Democrat to right the listing vessel his campaign had become in early September. Had it not been for the mortgage meltdown, Obama may have limped his way to November, handing the White House to the GOP for another four years.

There were 17 days between McCain’s announcement of his running mate and the collapse of Lehman Brothers and 15 between the first sign that Democrats should not take the Massachusetts race for granted and Election Day.  And, in some ways, fewer than that; it took the Democrats a few days to realize the significance of the January 4 Rasmussen poll showing Brown within striking distance.  Perhaps, their delay in realizing the survey’s significance was due to their party’s prejudice against that pollster (as Politico reported just days before the release of that milestone survey). (more…)

Not sure I’m going to have much energy to blog later tonight–it’s almost 9 PM out here and while I’ve had my salad, I still haven’t had my dinner.  So, let me give you some quick takes on the impact of Scott Brown’s election, some of which may provide fodder for future blogs.

1. Let’s start with the obvious.  Obamacare is not only merely dead, it’s really most sincerely dead. Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner says listen to the voters and start over. Democratic Senator Jim Webb says no further votes until the Massachusetts Republican is seated.
2. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is now the second most powerful man in Washington. And to think, Democrats came close to unseating him just 14 months ago. Because the two most waveringest of Republican Senators come from New England states, you know, where Massachusetts is located, don’t expect them to buck the party of Scott Brown any time soon.
3. Expect to see an uptick in the number of Democrats retiring.
4. Expect to see an uptick in Republicans running for federal office.
5. Expect to see some Democrats clamoring for a new White House Chief of Staff–not one who sees crises as a chance to push left-wing legislation on a supposedly unsuspecting public.
6. This may be a blessing in disguise for Democrats. They get the warning only one year into Obama’s term than they didn’t get until 22 months with the Clintons.
7. Scott Brown’s campaign aides will be in high demand.

. . . so go the other polls.

The pollster left-wingers love to hate was the first to show Obama’s approval rating dipping below 50%.   Now the latest CBS News survey, one which normally tilts toward the Democrats, shows only 46% of Americans approving of how the president was handling his job.

Why does that 46% figure look familiar?  Oh yeah, it’s the popular vote percentage John McCain drew in the 2008 presidential election.

Oh, and, the CBS number is consistent with Rasmussen.  And Quinnipiac.  And NBC.  And ARG.

Generally, when two readers of different political persuasions send you e-mails alerting you to the same video, it’s worth posting.

As Robert Gibbs lashed out at Gallup last month?

And while the Bush White House may not have reacted as peevishly as did the Obama White House to its plummeting poll numbers, some on the right (including yours truly) have faulted a number of the “mainstream” polls for tilting left and have done so at least since the dawn of the Reagan Era.  Thus, it’s practically welcome news for us to hear about Dems ripping Rasmussen.

They’re saying some of the same things about Rasmussen’s polls that we’ve been saying about the CBS/New York Times poll, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll and the various AP polls, that they tilt toward the opposing party, Rasmussen toward Republicans, the others toward Democrats:

Nothing, however, sets off liberal teeth gnashing more than Rasmussen’s daily presidential tracking polls, which throughout the year have consistently placed Obama’s approval numbers around 5 percentage points lower than other polling outfits.

Seems some of the other polls show Republicans performing about 5 percentage points lower than their actual standing.  Despite Democratic bellyaching, Rasmussen is remarkably accurate, having closely forecast the results in the past two presidential elections.  (“Rasmussen’s final poll of the 2008 general election — showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent — closely mirrored the election’s outcome.“)

What really gets the lefties is that Rasmussen dares ask the kind of questions that other pollsters don’t ask:

“I think they write their questions in a way that supports a conservative interpretation of the world,” said [Democratic pollster Mark] Mellman. “In general, they tend to be among the worst polls for Democrats, and they phrase questions in ways that elicit less support for the Democratic point of view.”

Um, Mark, some Republicans would say the mainstream pollsters ask questions which support a liberal interpretation of the world.   Just scan the conservative blogs any time a major poll comes out and you’ll find someone wondering about the liberal nature of the questions asked.

Now, that Democrats and others on the left are grousing about Rasmussen, will they now take more seriously conservative grumbling about the liberal nature of some of the “mainstream” polls?