Barry:

The AP reports Obama “dismissively” talked about the debate yesterday “and the line of questioning from ABC News’ moderators, arguing that it focused on political trivia at the expense of the problems facing average voters.” At a rally in North Carolina, Obama “drew roars of approval” when he “mocked” the “tough questions” sent his way during the event. ABC World News reports Obama “took issue” with the nature of the debate questions, saying, “”Forty-five minutes before we heard about health care; 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq; 45 minutes before we heard about jobs; 45 minutes before we heard about gas prices.”

Kevin:

Birds of a feather flock together

I have to feel sorry for Hillary Clinton. Only just a teensy bit, though. Here she was inevitable, Obama left for dead before Iowa, and now she’s on the brink of losing the nomination. And so she fights back with her “experience” and her “who do you want to answer the phone at 3AM at the Whitehouse” – but left unsaid is that John McCain wins both those battles. If those arguments persuade you, then why not vote for McCain in the general if you vote for Hillary for those reasons in the primary. I have real problems with McCain-Feingold, but at least it’s major legislation. What’s the legislation with Clinton’s or Obama’s name on it? John McCain has a huge track record in the Senate – Clinton has some, and Obama has what, if anything? McCain isn’t my first choice (Thompson), or my second choice (Romney), but I certainly feel comfortable with him answering the phone at 3AM, and I certainly feel comfortable with his track record of leadership and experience in office.

So when Hillary hammers Saint Barry on his experience and dovishness, all McCain has to do is replace Obama with Clinton and Clinton with McCain and he’s set.

I have not paid close attention to the Presidential race so far. It’s far too early. However, I know the general outlines of what people will complain about – too much money will be spent, the campaign will go on far too long, too many people will be bothered by pollsters and candidates alike, and too many states will bypassed because they “aren’t in play”. I have a rather simple solution. I propose that in return for a small renumeration from all the other states, but large enough to eliminate our income tax, presidential elections be held in Missouri alone. We are the Bellwether State after all — Missouri has voted for the winner of every Presidential race in every election of the past century except one (1956). And in the last half-century, not only have we picked the winner, we were amazingly close to the popular vote.

Think of all the advantages – far less money spent, a much shorter election, nobody outside Missouri disturbed by either the candidates or the media, and nobody has to feel like they’ve been unfairly ignored by the candidates (ignored yes, unfairly, no). All this and the same outcomes! What’s not to like about it?

Here’s a headline you’re not likely to see: Bush twice as popular as Congress. Not that that’s saying much, although more people think Bush is doing a good job than people think the average newspaper is accurate, which again isn’t saying much.

Now I think it’s normal for most President’s approval to trend downward with time because the art of governing in America is the art of comprimise while most Americans want victory on the issues that are important to them. At the start of a Presidency, the only thing people hold against him are promises not made. Over time, a President is bound to not deliver victory on more and more issues important to particular Americans. It’s harder on a President who lost party majorities in Congress and therefore can deliver on very little – although he can still keep his opponents from delivering victories for their supporters.

Since President Bush serves in interesting times, everything is magnified. While the war is clearly a big driver, the President’s failure to deliver on Social Security reform and his difference with his base on immigration reform are another two big hits to his approval. A mainstream media that continues to bend the truth to “get Bush” at all times is no help to his approval ratings either.

I think the real question is why is the approval rating of Congress so low, and what does it mean for America?

I read in the papers about President Bush’s heartless veto of SCHIP — and that’s how it’s always described, heartless, like he’s taking money from orphans or is going to personally infect these nameless masses of kids with some horrible disease and then sit back and laugh in the White House as they aren’t treated because they don’t have “access” to health insurance – and I had a couple of thoughts.

First off, I thought after the Democrats raised the minimum wage in this country, nobody was going to be poor anymore. Silly me. Too bad they didn’t have a set of bench marks for that feel good but harm some while helping some others kind of non-solution. The way to raise wages isn’t by legislative fiat but by helping people to be more productive.

Secondly, where were all these handringers when President Bush was proposing tax cuts for parents? What a novel idea, let parents decide where they want to spend their money for the children, not Washington.

The crazy thing is, the fight is over just how much the program gets expanded, and oh by the way we’re already covering kids above “the poverty line”.

Before we get caught up in all the partisan back and forth, with deception the rule of the day, or go all gushy because children are involved, let’s think. What kind of healthcare system do we want – one with more third party pay, or one with less? And how do we want to pay for programs – with targeted taxes on one group to help another group, or with broad based taxes to help broad swaths of society? Do we want a battle over icons, another meaningless skirmish between two political parties, or do we want to think clearly about public policy? Because in the mangled words of a real political titan, here we go again — down the path of slogan wars and demonizing not just what we don’t understand, but what we don’t want to understand.