Since a couple of people have e-mailed me about Michael Barone's recent phoned in column, I feel obligated to respond.
It's pretty clear that Democrats are less enthusiastic about voting this year than Republicans. The latest evidence comes from Gallup, which reports that Republicans' 3 percent edge in congressional voting among registered voters increases to 13 and 18 points when you include just those likely and very likely to actually vote.
So why are Democrats less enthusiastic? And why has "the progressive donor base," as Democratic consultant Jim Jordans reports, "stopped writing checks"?
I don't think it's just because the economy remains sour or that Barack Obama failed to jam a public option in the health care bill.
I find a more convincing explanation in an offhand phrase in a subordinate clause in a brief article by Adam Serwer of the Center for American Progress on The Washington Post's opinion pages. "There's no question," Serwer writes, defying anyone to disagree, "that Obama has completely reversed on his promises to roll back Bush-era national security policies."
No, I don't have any affiliation with the Center for American Progress, I am not a Democrat, and Obama's continuity with the Bush administration has been a focus of my work here since he took office. Maybe Obama's failure to roll back Bush-era national-security policies makes Democrats less enthusiastic, but judging by the fact that liberals still love him more than anyone else and the fact that he gets high marks on national security, I sincerely doubt it. In the meantime, Barone should put a little more effort into reading comprehension, since my byline is clearly at the top of the post Barone built his column around.
