Televised trolling

A PEW Research poll earlier this year found the widest gap in 20 years of measure political party self-identification, with Democrats enjoying a +15% advantage (50% - 35%). The same poll shows increasing majorities favor democratic positions on such questions as "government should help more needy people, even if debt increases?". Support for increases to minimum wages was solid even among Republicans (69%), and higher among Independents and Democrats. A majority (59%) favored immigration reform which provided some form of path to citizenship for current illegal residents. Etc.

Across a wide range of social and economic issues, the clear trends since 1994 (with some exceptions) favor liberal positions. On virtually every major issue, voters have more confidence in Democrats' ability to deal with matters than the current administration.

It would seem nearly unarguable that the nation as a whole is trending left. To the extent voters are irate with Congress, they are upset at it not being liberal enough. In particular, people want to see more done by Congress to get our forces out of Iraq at the earliest reasonable date.

Somehow, none of this seems to sink in to large portions of our D.C.-based media, which consistently harps on the supposed "dangers" of not acting in a "bipartisan" manner (a particular favorite of columnist David Broder), or of being seen as "too confrontational". The latest offender I saw over the weekend was Cokie Roberts opining on "This Week" about the big risk Democratic candidates would take if they move "way to the left".

I'd make some crack conflating Ms. Robert's first name with the type of drug-induced haze she must be in to make such a comment in the face of all evidence to the contrary ... except for the fact another panelist, David Gergen, agreed with her.

I simply don't understand how much willfulness is necessary to make statements like this, without a shred of actual evidence to support the claim. It's as if both Roberts and Gergen are acting like real-life concern trolls.

Frankly, my major concern is that Democratic candidates might actually pay some attention to these blithering morons. The sooner Clinton, Obama, Edwards et. al., stop paying any heed to these pundits - who apparently form all their notions within the warm cocoon of the DC beltway - and pay more attention to what voters actually say they want as opposed to what Roberts, Gergen and their ilk would like those voters to think the better off the candidates will be.

Update: Digby has a post on the same matter here.

*****

The NY Times has an op-ed piece today by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack this morning discussing how wonderfully things are finally going in Iraq. Glenn Greenwald has a nice, lengthy response to it here.

My only addition to Greenwald's piece is to note I made mention of Pollack and his long-standing support of the Iraq war and occupation in a post last week. A perusal of O'Hanlon's writings will make clear he shares Pollacks views on this matter.

There is nothing particularly new about long-standing supporters of the war telling us: "Yes, things in Iraq have been terrible, but now they really are getting better. We swear. Really. Trust us. Just give it six more months." This claim has been made by different people repeatedly for some years now, and has been wrong every time.

There is no reason either O'Hanlon or Pollack should be any more credible now than they have been in the past.