Betrayal and Propriety: Considering Thiessen on Roberts

Who: Marc A. Thiessen
What: "Why are Republicans so awful at picking Supreme Court justices?", The Washington Post
When: July 2, 2012

Washington Post columnist and American Enterprise Institute fellow Marc A. Thiessen reflects on Chief Justice John Roberts' alleged betrayal of his conservative fellows in last week's health care ruling:

Just compare the records over the last three decades. Democrats have appointed four justices — Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. All have been consistent liberals on the bench. Republicans, by contrast, have picked seven justices. Of Ronald Reagan's three appointees (Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy) only Scalia has been a consistent conservative. George H.W. Bush appointed one solid conservative (Clarence Thomas) and one disastrous liberal (David Souter). With George W. Bush's appointments of Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Roberts, conservatives thought finally they had broken the mold and put two rock-ribbed conservatives on the bench — until last week, that is, when Roberts broke with the conservatives and cast the deciding vote to uphold the largest expansion of federal power in decades.

So Democrats are four-for-four — a perfect record. Republicans are not even batting .500.

Why is the Democratic record so consistent while the Republican record is so mixed? For one thing, the whole legal and political culture pushes the court to the left. Conservatives are pariahs if they vote against the left on certain issues. But if they cross over vote with the left, they are hailed as statesmen. Just look the pre-emptive attacks on the Roberts Court when everyone thought it was about to strike down Obamacare — and contrast that with all the accolades Roberts is now receiving from his erstwhile critics. Before the decision he was threatening to plunge the nation into a political crisis. Today he is praised for his "humility," "restraint," being "brave" and "judicial modesty." Meanwhile, many conservatives are twisting themselves in knots to defend or explain his vote. Not a chance the left would do the same if one of the court's liberals had voted to overturn Obamacare. There is no penalty for voting left, but there is for voting right.

One of the reasons legal and political cultures appear to push constitutional law leftward might well be the nature of left and right themselves. Too often in the twenty-first century, people treat the notions as if they have equal weight, as if having one or the other opinion is simply a matter of opinions, and the proposition of effects and implications—that is to say, results—are irrelevant to the question of equivalency.

A Conservative Method

Who: Paul Constant
What: "Mitt Romney Needs More Time to Finish His Taxes, Goddamnit", Slog
When: April 13, 2012

Noting that Mitt Romney has filed for an extension on reporting his taxes that would suggest a mid-October release of the candidate's 2011 financial information, Paul Constant speculates on the reasons:

I can't understand what the Romney campaign's motivation is in holding off on this. It seems like they'd just want to tear the Band-Aid off now, while the race is still heating up. Maybe they're afraid that releasing the 2011 taxes will incite more calls for previous years of Romney's taxes? But it seems like you'd want that controversy to happen as far away from Election Day as possible, wouldn't you? Maybe they're hoping the economy will flatline between now and then, because Romney's great personal wealth could again seem like a positive. Do they really think the press will forget about this? Why are they waiting to release these taxes?

We should remember that a tactical favorite of conservatives is to stir up a controversy and then complain about the fact that there is a controversy. We've seen it most recently and apparently in the GOP's War on Caterpillars.

Wait, wait, wait. It's not caterpillars. War on ... uh ... war on ... I don't know. The GOP's War on Something Important, but after GOP Chair Reince Priebus made that delightful joke about fuzzy-wuzzy caterpillars, I'm just too charmed to remember.

Or something like that.

But you know how it goes: Pass a bunch of stupid laws; say a bunch of stupid things. When everyone else gets pissed off, complain that ne'er-do-wells are mudslinging a manufactured controversy.

Having Romney's taxes come out in October would simply set up his campaign to pitch to the exceptionally gullible among that curious bloc that calls itself "independent voters" and whine about how the evil liberals are manufacturing a controversy to take everyone's attention away from the real issues.

True, it sounds almost unbelievably simplistic and stupid, but there is nothing about the transparent cynicism Team Romney has shown thus far that suggests intellectual exercise.

Malpractice Insurance: Trudeau on the GOP War of the Sexes

Who: Michael Cavna
What: "'Doonesbury' creator Garry Trudeau discusses divisive strips about abortion", The Washington Post
When: March 11, 2012

Michael Cavna of The Washington Post recently interviewed Doonesbury creator Garry Trudeau about an upcoming week of controversial strips covering the American reproduction debate revival:

In my 42 years with UPS, the "Silent Scream" week was the only series that the syndicate ever strongly objected to. [Syndicate president Lee Salem] felt that it would be deeply harmful to the feature and that we would lose clients permanently. They had supported me through so much for so long, I felt obliged to go with their call.

Such was not the case this week. There was no dispute over contents, just some discussion over whether to prepare a substitute week for editors who requested one [which we did].

I chose the topic of compulsory sonograms because it was in the news and because of its relevance to the broader battle over women's health currently being waged in several states. For some reason, the GOP has chosen 2012 to re-litigate reproductive freedom, an issue that was resolved decades ago. Why [Rick] Santorum, [Rush] Limbaugh et al. thought this would be a good time to declare war on half the electorate, I cannot say. But to ignore it would have been comedy malpractice.

Politics and Philosophy

Who: Zach Weiner
What: "Exigology", Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
When: December 14, 2011

Oh, just click on the picture.

Exigology (noun): A statement whose converse is its own explanation.

Well ... Right. Yeah. Exactly. Sort Of.

Who: Mark Steel
What: "Hands off our greedy bankers", The Independent
When: December 14, 2011

They shall never surrender their island ....

You can see why, after 50 years of putting up with Europe, this was finally the issue where we couldn't take any more. Because the bastards were insisting we impose a vague regulation or two on our bankers and speculators, those brave and tireless souls who invest round the clock to keep us safe with not a thought for themselves. Well, the French had the audacity to suggest someone kept an eye on them from time to time. Haven't bankers suffered enough?

So, just like in 1940, we stand alone, and hopefully at every bus stop, you'll hear the plucky British saying: "Blooming Krauts, who do they think they are telling us our bankers aren't allowed to rob us blind? That's the right of every Englishman, to have his country robbed blind by bankers. Now Frau Merkel wants to make them only rob me nine-tenths blind until they get themselves straight. Well, we fought off the Luftwaffe, so we'll see off this lot an' all."

Recognizing the Obvious

Who:
What: "Let's ask florists for a credit rating ", The Independent
When: December 7, 2011

If you resent someone stating the obvious, you're probably more intelligent than the general public, which apparently doesn't recognize the obvious.

Here's my question about economic—why should it send countries into panic when the bankers make pronouncements about countries' credit ratings, as they did yesterday? You could choose any layer of society at random and most people would trust them more than bankers, so it would make more sense if the BBC News started, "Private sector growth must be the priority for Europe, said the scouts today, although canoeists and wrestlers disagreed, and there was strong opposition from people with fetishes that involve celery. Robert Peston, what does this mean for the Government's inflation target?"

And banks aren't neutral observers, they're banks If you resent someone stating the obvious, you're probably more intelligent than the general public, which apparently doesn't recognize the obvious. the people who caused the mess. It's like someone who's wet themselves in a public building insisting they choose which mop the librarian fetches to clear up the puddle.

No, really. If you're wondering why anyone needs to tell you this, you've probably figured out what the rest of your neighbors can't seem to figure out for themselves, and God help anyone inclined to explain it to them.

A Conspiracy, or, What Else Could It Be?

Who: David Horsey
What: "Herman Cain and the liberal media conspiracy", SeattlePI.com
When: November 30, 2011

Because it's always a liberal conspiracy, you know ....

This conspiracy goes back much farther than the brief months of Cain's campaign, of course. It began back in the 1960s when the liberal media elites identified a Kenyan-born baby with an American mother; a child they could groom in secret to become their tool to destroy Christian America. They arranged a fake birth announcement in Honolulu's newspapers, indoctrinated the boy in the Muslim cesspool of Indonesia and, when the time was right, brought him to the exotic, multiracial pleasure garden of Hawaii where he could easily fit in and begin his surreptitious climb to power ....

.... Why, you may ask, would media companies that are deeply enmeshed in the capitalist system and run by rich families and Wall Street investors be so devoted to replacing American free enterprise with Kenyan anti-colonial socialism? And how, you may also wonder, could they be so prescient, so forward thinking that they could plot the rise of a Kenyan baby to the White House, yet not notice until it was too late that Craig's List and Google were stealing all their business?

All the Subtlety of a Newtron Bomb

Who: KCRW
What: To the Point
When: December 5, 2011

Figuring the subtleties of Newt Gingrich is a bit like getting beaten by an angry Pillsbury Doughboy. That is, for all it might hurt, it is hard not to laugh at the absurdity of the proposition; and it is probably something one ought not undertake without first ingesting some sort of hallucinogen.

Still, though, Warren Olney and his panel of guests put in a pretty good effort at trying to explain the Newtron Bomber:

Something About Truth and Power

Who: Bob Engelhart
What: "Who???", Hartford Courant
When: November 21, 2011

If you'll recall, W, in a typically moron Republican move, cut taxes without cutting spending and then waged two, count 'em, two wars. It happened on his watch, and don't forget it. The corporate bailouts happened on his watch, too. I know the GOP doesn't like us to remember that, but unlike their brain-dead elephant and constituents to match, we remember.

NASCAR: When Stupidity is Your Defense

One Lee Owens makes a point worth considering about why some idiotic NASCAR fans booed Michelle Obama and Jill Biden during a veterans-related appearance at the Ford 400 at Homestead-Miami Speedway: "It is not racial," Owens explains. "Michelle Obama is scorned by Nascar fans because her husband is a job-killer socialist."

Now, the question here isn't whether or not NASCAR fans are racist. Rather, it is whether NASCAR fans are idiots.

And as it seems hard to reconcile the idea of Obama as a socialist in any context remotely connected to fact, Ms. Owens, the trodabumsoutgrl, seems to be asserting that yes, NASCAR fans are idiots.

Famous Last Words?

In June, I offered up for friends and associates an analysis of the Republican presidential field in the context of Newt Gingrich:

When Democrats compete to challenge an incumbent Republican president, liberals tend to regard seemingly hopeless candidacies, such as the Rev. Al Sharpton's 2004 run, or even the respectable but wildly unsuccessful effort by former Sen. Caron Moseley Braun, as issue advocacy campaigns.

With the GOP field this year so presently disorganized, it is hard to figure who falls where. In some cases, such as former Sen. Rick Santorum, it is easy enough to figure; he is playing to and for the social conservatives—clearly, barring some apocalyptic collapse of the American political structure, Santorum cannot win. One might suggest the same of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, if she declares as expected.

Some consider Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty the foremost "serious" candidate, with the adjective taken to mean someone who actually can compete in the general election.

Which leaves a tier of candidates like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, who bring leagues of devoted fans and followers to the contest, and certainly have a penchant for headlines—thus posturing them as significant players in the early rounds—who cannot win the general election.

One could easily suggest that these will be relegated to the advocacy tier, but American politics is also so chaotic that Palin or former House Speaker Newt Gingrich could seriously unsettle a candidate like Pawlenty as the Republican Party moves toward its convention in Tampa at the end of August, 2012.

It is astounding how wrong I was. Tim Pawlenty is out. Newt Gingrich is running third.

It would be best, I figure, if I don't try to revise that analysis, and simply remind that anyone trying to tell you what conventional wisdom says is probably wrong. We'll see what the New Year brings, but come on ... really? Newt Gingrich is running in third place? Behind a book tour, and the guy Republicans seem determined to avoid?

Yeah, we'll see how they feel about Romney when the calendar turns to 2012 and the primary season kicks off. But the preseason so far has been an exercise in confusion.

The Obvious Question

Who: Steve Benen
What: "The growing acceptance of the 'sabotage' question", Political Animal
When: November 7, 2011

At first glance, it is just one of those things. Everybody has a certain line they won't cross. It is a line of human decency. And it's not that they won't commit this or that atrocity but, rather, a point beyond which they cannot believe "normal"—a highly subjective word, especially in this context—people would tread. It is a point which other people's cynicism can encompass, but no, one says, not me: I cannot believe that other people should behave that way, or that respectable folk would let them get away with it.

But it's been a question in the back of political observers' minds since the midterm election, if not before.

The New York Times editorial board had a piece today on the importance of unemployment benefits, and made an observation in passing that stood out for me.

"Tragically," the editorial said, "the more entrenched the jobs shortage becomes, the more paralyzed Congress becomes, with Republicans committed to doing nothing in the hopes that the faltering economy will cost President Obama his job in 2012."

The point was made in passing, but it's nevertheless striking. As far as the editorial board of the nation's most important newspaper is concerned, it's simply accepted as fact that congressional Republicans want to hold back the economy, on purpose, to undermine the Obama presidency.

Benen's analysis of the question shows such attitudes are a minority, to be certain, but only barely. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll put Obama up against Congressional Republicans, with the result that 50% sided with Obama.

This comes less than a week after a poll in Florida found that 49% of voters statewide believe congressional Republicans “are intentionally hindering efforts to boost the economy so that President Barack Obama will not be reelected.” The WaPo/ABC poll is, as best as I can tell, the first national poll to consider the same issue.

To be sure, the wording of this new poll isn’t ideal, and is far less direct than the poll conducted in Florida. But the takeaway is still pretty clear: half the country is inclined to believe GOP officials are killing efforts to boost the economy for purely political reasons.

Still, though, such a cynical gamble might work. Albeit with some minor exceptions, the American political system is a two-party arrangement.

A conservative associate recently pointed out to me that in 2010, the Republican margin was actually closer to fifteen percent, because the GOP one 14.77% more votes than Democrats. And it's true: the difference does equal 14.77% of the Democratic vote total. But what, really, does this half-witted fluffing of the margin really say? One would think the similarly-calculated 15.88% margin for President Obama, and the 20.66% congressional numbers (peaking at 25% in the Senate) would say even more in those terms. Yet what it has earned the nation is stonewall obstructionism from the GOP. Were those 14.77% more voters than Democrats hoping to duck out on the national debt? Were they hoping state houses would start tinkering with their zoning regulations to close specific medical facilities? Were they really voting for another round of the culture war as we see coming from the right?

What, really, is the likelihood of that 14.77% more voters than the Democrats won actually got what they were hoping for out of the deal?

Still, though, my associate's determination to convince me that all this obstructionism spells doom for Obama is not unfounded. There is a strong likelihood that it could work:

Though in theory, it should, this won’t necessarily give President Obama a boost. The degree of national cynicism is so intense, many Americans may simply assume Republicans are sabotaging the national economy, but take their frustrations out on the president anyway. As Greg noted, “The number who see Obama as a strong leader is now upside down (48-51), suggesting yet again that even if Americans understand that Republicans are deliberately blocking Obama’s policies, they may conclude that his failure to get around them just shows he’s weak or ineffectual.”

Voters’ understanding of the political process is severely limited, and many Americans likely fail to appreciate the role Congress must play in policymaking. There are no doubt plenty of voters thinking, “Sure, Republicans are sabotaging the economy, but why can’t Obama just go around them?” unaware of the fact that, on a grand scale, this isn’t an option.

Still, it is telling, at the very least, that the question of whether Republicans are deliberately stonewalling the economy in hopes that voters will punish Democrats should even be something we might have to take seriously.

The SimCity Plan

"Presumably, under the Cain plan, disasters would be turned off." (Amanda Terkel)

By the way, have you seen this graph yet?

(Graph by Brian Highsmith, via Jared Bernstein.)

Terms of Payment

Who: David Horsey
What: "Separating the truly scary from the bogus frights", SeattlePI.com
When: October 27, 2011

The last time America picked a president without resorting to a campaign filled with false accusations and trumped up crises was probably in 1796 when an unopposed George Washington won a second term.

By 1800, the compulsion to do battle over bogus issues had kicked in and, since then, many a campaign has been built on manufactured fear. Campaign 2012 is no different.

Watching the Republicans' serial presidential debates, one would think the most fearsome problems confronting Americans are high taxes that are killing economic activity, onerous regulations that keep businessmen from creating jobs, illegal immigration, gay marriage and a president who is too weak to confront Islamic terrorists and dictators.

Well, if you say something often enough and loud enough, people may begin to think it's important, but, outside the realm of boilerplate conservative applause lines, there are far more worrisome threats facing the country.

Halloween is a year-roud enterprise for some. While many criticize the American political circus for its histrionics, and plenty will attempt to sound sage while pointing out that it happens on both sides of the aisle, there is a fundamental process at work that often goes unnoticed for its subtlety.

And it is true that subtlety in politics can be counted as anything short of a twenty-five mile crack in the ice shelf. One sometimes wonders at the psychological processes governing voter perceptions, and whether the phrase cognitive dissonance has not actually been beaten to death in recent years.

Because Their Blacks ... er ... um ... Right

Who: Karl Frisch
What: "Less Vetting Than the Average Godfather's Pizza Delivery Boy", The Cagle Post
When: November 3, 2011

Democratic strategist Karl Frisch sort of states the obvious, and it's hard to know where to start. Of course, the obvious ought to be pretty much ... well ... blatantly obvious to begin with. So let's go with this:

... [Y]es, I realize conservatives assume facts have an intrinsic liberal bias just like the media, science, weather, letters, numbers, and shapes.

At 11:20am on Monday morning, Cain told Fox News, "If the restaurant did a settlement, I wasn't even aware of it." That is essentially the same thing he told the National Press Club not two hours later when he said, "I am unaware of any settlement. I hope it wasn't for much, because I didn't do anything" indicating that he not only had no knowledge of any agreements but that he also had no knowledge of the amount of any agreements if they actually existed.

By 6pm that evening, Cain's story was beginning to change. This time he told PBS, "I was aware that an agreement was reached."

Before calling it a night, Cain appeared on Fox News again at 10pm to completely contradict himself saying, "We ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement, quite frankly … Maybe three months' salary or something like that."

In less than twelve hours, Cain went from being clueless about the whole affair — pardon the pun — to knowing quite a bit more than he'd let on about.

Don't for a second assume that Cain and his team first heard about these accusations when they read them in Politico — they had been contacted several times over the course of nearly two weeks in advance of the publication of the story by reporters requesting comment in writing and in person.

Since the story broke, a third woman has come forward, telling the Associated Press that she had received "a private invitation to [Cain's] corporate apartment" and that the future presidential candidate had made "sexually suggestive remarks or gestures" towards her.

Few people know exactly what happened between Cain and his female employees and only one person has been free to discuss the story openly: Herman Cain.

Since Cain has proven himself unreliable, perhaps the National Restaurant Association should free these women from their confidentiality agreements so they can tell their side of the story.

Then, and only then, can this blame game end.

Life and Art, or, Something About Truth and Fiction

Who: Gail Collins
What: "Day of the Armadillo", The New York Times
When: November 2, 2011

First, the obvious: Regardless of whether or not one likes Gail Collins—and she seems likable, to judge by a scant few television appearances I've witnessed—it is very easy to make fun of her.

Second, though—

Also in the frozen armadillo category: Anything about Herman Cain. Does he want to feed illegal immigrants to alligators or electrocute them? Did he sexually harass women when he was chief of the National Restaurant Association? Did he ever notice that being chief of the National Restaurant Association was just a highfalutin way of saying "lobbyist?"

The one thing we've learned for sure is that Herman Cain's staff has no idea what Herman Cain has been up to. Really, by now they're probably so numb, you could come up to them and say: "Is it true your candidate was once a pirate?" and they'd just promise to look into it.

—that is perhaps the strangest pile of sentences you're going to read this week.

The article also contains the sentence, "Brian Tillerson, a manager at the Taco Bell/KFC restaurant, told The San Antonio Express-News that the man was angry the Beefy Crunch Burrito had gone from 99 cents to $1.49 each."

And there is any number of points one might try to make from there.

A Stimulating Question

Who: Ted Kaufman
What: "Government Stimulus is the Way Forward", Cagle Post
When: October 31, 2011

Most of the media coverage has been about the stalemate between the 236 of the 242 Republican members of the House of Representatives who have taken an oath to never, under any circumstances, raise taxes and Democratic members who refuse to negotiate on entitlement spending until new revenue is part of the solution.

The even bigger, more fundamental argument between the two sides, however, is whether or not the government has any role at all in moving the country out of the recession.

One side says the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—the stimulus bill—was a complete failure.

Yet, as I have pointed out in previous columns, in the quarter the ARRA passed, the Dow Jones average started to climb and has never looked back. The precipitous decline in jobs—a loss of over 700,000 a month when the bill was passed—was turned around. Although the numbers have never been high enough, we have seen positive job growth. GDP, which was falling, also moved into positive ground.

The truth is that the ARRA helped, but the economy is still in trouble because we were in even worse shape back in early 2009 than we thought at the time. The size of the stimulus—the largest that could pass Congress—was simply not ambitious enough.

My question for those who believe otherwise is this: If there is no government action, why will the economy recover? Because of the private sector?

Ted Kaufman is a former aide to Sen. Joe Biden, and was appointed to complete the term when the senator accepted the opportunity to run as vice president. He also served as the second chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel—succeeding Elizabeth Warren—assembled under the Bush-era Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, more widely known as TARP.

Robert Reich states the obvious

Who: Robert Reich
What: "Why This is Exactly the Time to Rebuild America's Infrastructure"
When: September 26, 2011

In fact, it's cheaper than ever for the United States to borrow. That's because global investors desperately want the safety of dollars. Almost everywhere else on the globe is riskier. Europe is in a debt crisis, many developing nations are gripped by fears the contagion will spread to them, Japan remains in critical condition, China's growth is slowing.

Put this together with two other facts:

Unemployment in America remains sky-high. 14 million Americans are out of work and 25 million are looking for full-time jobs.

The nation's infrastructure is crumbling. Our roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, subways, gas pipelines, ports, airports, and school buildings are desperately in need of repair. Deferred maintenance is taking a huge toll.

Now connect the dots. Anyone with half a brain will see this is the ideal time to borrow money from the rest of the world to put Americans to work rebuilding the nation's infrastructure.

Problem is, too many in Washington have less than half a brain.

Remember this in the days to come. Or, to put it simply, anyone want to lay odds that between beltway media and the usual punditry suspects, Reich is an outlier?

Boiling Oil

Who: Eugene Robinson
What: "The GOP is fed up with its choices", The Washington Post
When: August 22, 2011

In theory, Democrats should be nervous about Texas Gov. Rick Perry's decision to enter the presidential race. In practice, though, it's Republicans who have zoomed up the anxiety ladder into freak-out mode.

To clarify, not all Republicans are reaching for the Xanax, just those who believe the party has to appeal to centrist independents if it hopes to defeat President Obama next year. Also, those who believe that calling Social Security "an illegal Ponzi scheme" and suggesting that Medicare is unconstitutional might not be the best way to win the votes of senior citizens.

Perhaps it seems a curious test of the nation, or, at least, the Republican Party. As ideological extremists battle for control of the GOP, there is an emerging sense that the party's presidential field is pandering so hard to the right wing that independent and moderate voters will find them inaccessible.

This argument, though, presumes an abstract political center, and that might be an error.

Cold Tea

Who: David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam
What: "Crashing the Tea Party", The New York Times
When: August 16, 2011

Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.

Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party's "origin story." Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party's supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.

What's more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.

So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek "deeply religious" elected officials, approve of religious leaders' engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party's generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.

This inclination among the Tea Party faithful to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Mrs. Bachmann's lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Mr. Perry's prayer rally in Houston.

Yet it is precisely this infusion of religion into politics that most Americans increasingly oppose. While over the last five years Americans have become slightly more conservative economically, they have swung even further in opposition to mingling religion and politics. It thus makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity.

Campbell and Putnam actually open with a consideration of numbers; the Tea Party tide is waning right now, with approval numbers over the last fourteen months holding more or less steady, and opposition to the movement more than doubling.

The paragraphs quoted above are their answer to a proposition: "... the trends would seem to favor the Tea Party. So why are its negatives so high? To find out, we need to examine what kinds of people actually support it."

And they may have a point.

(Photo by Pargon.)