Take this morning, for example, where the lead Politico story, kicking off coverage of President Obama's speech on the future of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, is a lengthy chat with the corrupt, incompetent clown who helped create the mess the president is trying to clean up.

On the eve of the unveiling of the nation's new Afghanistan policy, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Barack Obama for projecting "weakness" to adversaries and warned that more workaday Afghans will side with the Taliban if they think the United States is heading for the exits. [...]

Cheney rejected any suggestion that Obama had to decide on a new strategy for Afghanistan because the one employed by the previous administration failed.

Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. "I basically don't," he replied without elaborating.

And in response, Politico didn't elaborate either. Sure, the piece does a fine job of publishing all of the various, baseless attacks against the White House trying to clean up Cheney's messes, but the article makes no meaningful effort to tell the reader why the depraved rhetoric falls somewhere between literally unbelievable and hopelessly insane.

During the interview, Cheney laced his concerns with a broader critique of Obama's foreign and national security policy, saying Obama's nuanced and at times cerebral approach projects "weakness" and that the president is looking "far more radical than I expected."

"Here's a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing," Cheney said. "I think our adversaries -- especially when that's preceded by a deep bow ... -- see that as a sign of weakness."

Cheney went on to suggest the president's decisions may give "aid and comfort ... to the enemy." (Now imagine what would have happened if Al Gore, less than a year into Bush/Cheney's first term, had said something similar.)

For any reasonable adult, Cheney's rhetoric is genuinely pathetic. The disgraced, humiliated former vice president sounds no more coherent here than a random right-wing radio loudmouth in a third-tier market.

But there's no real journalism to be found. No fact-checking, no pushback, no scrutiny. Just an uninterrupted string of predictable, misguided nonsense. Cheney could have just written a blog post/screed, and had Politico publish it. This would have saved Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei the trouble of adding quote marks to their stenography.

Keep in mind, rank-and-file Republicans were asked the other day who best reflects the party's principles. Just one chose Dick Cheney -- not 1 percent, I mean one individual person.

So, why is Cheney's 90-minute tirade against the president the lead Politico story today? It's hard to say -- they reported without elaborating.

Given the apparent danger Clemmons posed to the community, Seattle-area residents are no doubt relieved that the search for the gunman appears to be over.

As for the political world, the significance of the story may linger a while.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), by most measures a leading contender for the 2012 Republican nomination, granted clemency to Clemmons nine years ago, despite his sentence of more than 100 years. Obviously, Huckabee had no way of knowing what Clemmons would do in the future, but given the former governor's "long-contentious record of pardoning convicts or commuting their sentences," it's the kind of story that may end his second presidential campaign before it begins.

In a decade as governor beginning in 1996, Mr. Huckabee did so twice as many times as his three predecessors combined. He typically gave little explanation for individual pardons. But he spoke often of his belief in redemption, based on a strong religious belief that even criminals are capable of changing their lives and often deserve a second chance. [...]

In most cases, he followed the recommendation of the parole board, but in several cases he overrode the objections of prosecutors, judges and victims' families. And in several, he followed recommendations for clemency from Baptist preachers who had been longtime supporters.

Prosecutors told him he was ignoring his responsibility to explain to citizens why he was setting free convicted murderers and rapists. His response, some of them say, was to blame others and strike out against his critics -- an off-note from a man they consider a gifted politician.

If this sounds at all familiar, Mitt Romney went after Huckabee shortly before the Iowa caucuses, pointing to clemency for Wayne DuMond.

In December 2007, the AP had an item on Huckabee's record. "It seems to be true at least anecdotally that if a minister is involved, (Huckabee) seems likely to grant clemency," prosecutor Robert Herzfeld said in 2004 after successfully battling the then-governor over the release of a killer.

Joe Conason and Justin Elliott have more on the story, all of which paints Huckabee in a very negative light.

It's worth noting, though, that McCain's guns may have been blazing, but they weren't pointed in a sensible direction.

For example, the Arizona senator insisted that the $491 billion in cost savings from Medicare and Medicaid be reversed entirely, calling them "unwarranted cuts." Igor Volsky noted the Republican's short memory.

McCain was for far more drastic Medicare cuts before he was against them. In October 2008, the McCain campaign announced that the Senator would pay for his health plan "with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid ... in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs." Those cuts would have reduced Medicare and Medicaid spending by as much as 20% over 10 years and cut into benefits.

In addition to policy forgetfulness, McCain also seems to have overlooked some of his associations from 2008.

McCain falsely accused the Senate health care reform of using "Enron accounting" measures. His comments are ironic, however, in light of his close, personal relationship with Phil "Mr. Enron" Gramm.

As I recall, McCain wanted to make Phil Gramm the Treasury Secretary. Maybe he should steer clear of silly rhetoric on "Enron accounting."

Take the transparency angle, for example. If there's one thing Senate Republicans have demanded, it's more sunlight, especially when it comes to posting provisions online for the public to scrutinize. So, yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid probably thought it was a no-brainer when he asked for unanimous consent to have all health care reform amendments posted online before receiving a vote.

It was immediately rejected by Republicans.

A member of the erstwhile "Gang of Six" -- the three Republicans and three Democrats from the finance committee who spent months failing to come to agreement on a compromise bill -- Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wy.) objected to Reid's request.

A message left with Enzi wasn't immediately returned. But on the floor, Enzi said he didn't trust the other party enough to go along. "In light of some of the trust problems and transparency problems we have, while this appears to lead to greater transparency, we can also see ways that this can limit the ability for the minority to offer amendments. And, therefore, I object," he said.

The moral of the story is that Republicans have certain priorities, unless Democrats agree, in which case those priorities are objectionable.

And speaking of Enzi, in a floor speech yesterday, the far-right Wyoming senator complained bitterly that the reform bill isn't ... you guessed it ... "bipartisan" enough.

"I urge my colleagues to start with a blank piece of paper and develop a bipartisan bill that up to 80 members of the Senate could support. Unfortunately the majority leadership had other ambitions, because the bill being debated today is a testament to a partisan ideological division."

For crying out loud, if Enzi wants to trash reform, fine. But Enzi was courted repeatedly -- the entire reform effort was held up for months in a bid to make him happy -- and was offered a compromise that gave him basically everything he wanted.

And yet, in late August, in the midst of "Gang of Six" talks, Enzi delivered a weekly GOP address in which he told ridiculous lies about reform, even lending credence to the "death panel" garbage. It came the same week he told constituents he had no intention of compromising with Democrats -- all the while, assuring Democrats he was negotiating in good faith -- and was only engaged in talks so he can force concessions on a deal he's likely to oppose anyway.

It's going to be a long month.

* As of this afternoon, the gunman believed to be responsible for shooting four uniformed police officers in Tacoma, Washington, remains at large. (Because the suspect, Maurice Clemmons, had his sentence commuted by Mike Huckabee, there's a political angle to the story.)

* In a brazen attempt to antagonize the world, Iran announced its intentions to build 10 new sites to enrich uranium, dramatically expanding the same nuclear program that has helped isolate the regime.

* Not encouraging: "President Asif Ali Zardari has ceded his position in Pakistan's nuclear command structure to his prime minister, in a sudden political maneuver widely seen as a fresh sign of turmoil on the eve of President Obama's strategy announcement for the region."

* Expect President Obama to lay out "a time frame for winding down the American involvement in the war in Afghanistan" tomorrow night.

* The status quo needs improvement: "The administration said Monday that it would increase the pressure on banks to help troubled homeowners receive permanently lower mortgage payments. The Treasury Department said that mortgage servicers would be required to submit plans on how they would decide whether a loan would be permanently modified. Bank that fall short of the guidelines of their agreement could face fines or sanctions, the Treasury said."

* Oh my: "With food stamp use at record highs and climbing every month, a program once scorned as a failed welfare scheme now helps feed one in eight Americans and one in four children."

* Porfirio "Pepe" Lobo, of the traditional National Party, appears to have won Honduras' presidential election.

* The Senate should expect to work quite a few weekends in December.

* A war tax is "probably not" going to happen.

* The White House press corps' interest in the "party crashers" story seems more than a little excessive.

* The elite community college.

* Another potential domestic terrorist is caught with a bomb-making lab in his Ohio home.

* Smart piece from Marc Ambinder on the success of Obama's Asia trip.

* Interesting: "Jeff Sharlet, who burst onto the scene with his book about The Family, the shadowy fundamentalist organization that has infested American politics like a nest of rabid termites, has leveled another revolting accusation at the group. His research and investigation into the group, which involved infiltrating them and living with them, reveals that U.S. lawmakers who are members of The Family are behind the atrocious, hateful Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2009 that is likely to become law in Uganda."

* The Palin "bus" tour has apparently included some private-jet travel.

* I haven't felt the need to write about the ridiculous "Climategate" nonsense, but Kevin's post strikes all the right notes.

* There's something deeply wrong with the right: "By a wide margin, Americans consider Rush Limbaugh the nation's most influential conservative voice. Those are the results of a poll conducted by '60 Minutes' and Vanity Fair magazine and issued Sunday. The radio host was picked by 26 percent of those who responded, followed by Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck at 11 percent. Actual politicians -- former Vice President Dick Cheney and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin -- were the choice of 10 percent each."

* A list to help motivate the liberal a base a bit.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Well, that's actually only part of the problem. While they shake their fist at the stimulus with one hand, they're reaching out for more stimulus aide with their other hand. Lee Fang has this report about Rep. Bill Shuster (R) of Pennsylvania, who loves the recovery package when he's not trashing it.

* Last week, Shuster attended the groundbreaking ceremony for a sewage treatment plant for the Blairsville Municipal Authority. Republican State Senator Don White noted that the project was only possible because of the stimulus, which allowed the state Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST) to provide a $10.4 million grant and a $3 million low interest loan for construction.

* On November 4, Shuster asked Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) to use some of the state's stimulus money to reopen the Scotland School for Veterans' Children. Shuster noted that using the Recovery Act money for the school would save 134 full-time jobs.

* In July, Shuster joined 14 Pennsylvania lawmakers -- including fellow stimulus-opponents Reps. Glenn Thompson (R-PA), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), and Todd Platts (R-PA) -- in writing a letter asking that stimulus money be used towards public universities.

* In June, Shuster hailed the stimulus-funded initiative to build a high-speed rail line between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. The Post-Gazette quoted Shuster praising the project: "I believe we are about to experience a new era in passenger rail in this country. I want Western Pennsylvania to participate in this new era and to enjoy the benefits of increased and expanded passenger rail service."

This comes a week after a Virginia jobs fair in House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's (R) district, where he repeatedly condemned the stimulus effort -- neglecting to mention that the job fair wouldn't have existed were it not for the stimulus effort.

And let's not forget, this isn't exactly an unusual occurrence. Bobby Jindal, Mitch McConnell, Saxby Chambliss, Johnny Isakson, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry all have two things in common -- they (1) railed against recovery efforts, rejecting the very idea of government spending improving the economy; and (2) later discovered they liked stimulus spending after all, and felt it was important to help the economy in their state.

Shuster, in other words, is in good company.

Of course, the phrase these guys are looking for, but can't bring themselves to say, is "Thank you, Mr. President, for rescuing the economy from the recession we helped create."

The sooner they concede they were wrong (again), the sooner we can all move on. I'm confident the White House has no interest in rubbing it in.

Promotional Products

Flowers

Slimming and diet pills

Free Credit Score

Addiction Treatment

Personal Loan

Payday Loans

Personal Loans

Addiction Treatment

Phone Cards

Less Debt = Financial Freedom

Addiction Treatment Programs

Credit Cards & Debt Consolidation

Vacation Rentals

Alas, Kirk's descent continues unabated. In the latest example, the congressman suggests, in writing, that women may be denied mammograms if health care reform becomes law. In a new mailing, Kirk writes:

This month, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended eliminating mammograms for women ages 40-49. The panel concluded that while thousands of women's lives would be saved by continuing the test, "the net benefit is small" for the population as a whole.

Currently, this is only an advisory recommendation. But under the health care bill moving through the Senate, this recommendation could become law.

TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK: Should women between the ages of 40 and 49 be denied access to life-saving mammograms?

Kirk has to know how ridiculous this is. "This recommendation could become law"? According to whom? In Grown-Up Land, this recommendation has no chance of becoming law.

In a statement, DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan called the mailing "a lie," adding, "This is just another pathetic example of a Republican party that offers the American people nothing but fear and lies when what they desperately need is leadership and solutions."

A recent New York Times editorial explained Kirk actually has the story backwards: "There is virtually no chance that any insurers, either public or private, will deny coverage to anyone based on these recommendations. Government and industry officials have said that explicitly and, in fact, every state but Utah requires private insurers to pay for mammograms for women starting in their 40s.... The only part of the reform bills that could affect mammography would only make them more accessible. Under the legislation, the secretary of health and human services might be given authority to waive Medicare co-payments for prevention services that rank highly in the opinion of this task force. Since the task force gave a low grade to screening women in their 40s, the secretary could not waive cost-sharing for them."

It's a genuine shame to see what some Republicans are willing to do to get a win a primary.

But as attention turned to the end game, and the public option emerged as arguably the biggest hurdle to overcoming Republican obstructionism, I've noticed a new argument among some public-option supporters: the current version of the public option may not be worth fighting for.

If you've followed the debate, you know the public option that's survived is a shell of its original self. We're talking about a plan that a fairly small percentage of the population will be eligible to participate in, which features negotiated rates, and which states can opt out of.

A week ago, Josh Marshall was among the first to argue that this incarnation may not be worth the effort, calling what's left of the public option "measly," and not worth delaying the larger reform effort over. He added that the proposed plan would likely become "a dumping ground for what health care policy types call 'creaming' -- health insurers wanting to maintain pools of the young and the healthy and dump responsibility for the aged and chronically ill on to public programs or on to nothing at all." Soon after, Tim F. added, "[W]ithout some major changes the public option is going to suck."

It now seems like I'm seeing the same argument pop up all over the place. Paul Starr wrote in the NYT yesterday:

According to the Congressional Budget Office, [the current version of the public option] would enroll less than 2 percent of the population and probably have higher premiums than private plans. For progressives to say they will block reform without a public option is not just foolish, but potentially tragic if it results in legislative deadlock. [...]

Liberals should be prepared to give up what is now a mere symbol for changes in the bill that would deliver affordable insurance more effectively and quickly to the millions of Americans who desperately need it.

A USA Today editorial, which supports of the idea of competing public and private plans, added this morning that the provision has been "weakened" and "diluted." The piece added, "As things stand, it's a wonder that so many people are fighting so much over something so toothless."

Matt Yglesias didn't go quite so far as to say the provision is no longer worth pursuing, but he concluded that the remaining public option has been "defined down to something that's much less significant."

If this approach catches on among lawmakers, we can probably guess what's going to happen to the provision. There are several Democratic senators who've been pushing hard for a public option since the beginning, but if they come to believe that what's left of the measure is hardly worth fighting for, and reform proponents fear that the remaining public option won't be effective, they'll invest their energies elsewhere.

According to CBO, average premiums in the individual market would increase 10 to 13 percent because of provisions in the Senate health care bill, but, crucially, most people (about 57 percent) would actually find themselves paying significantly less money for insurance, thanks to federal subsidies for low- and middle-class consumers.

Those are two separate findings, but it seems likely that Republicans will use the former finding to attack reform, claiming it will raise people's premiums, and leave people confused about the second finding, which is actually the one that impacts people's pocket books.

This can get a little confusing, which conservatives will no doubt want to exploit, so let's set the record straight before the lying begins in earnest. The CBO looked at premiums for consumers getting insurance as individuals, through small-group coverage, and large-group coverage. Both group markets, which serve a large majority of Americans under 65, are expected to see premiums decrease as a result of reform. That means more money in the pockets of tens of millions of consumers.

And what about the individual market? Premiums are expected to increase by about 10% by 2016. As Ezra Klein explained, however, what matters is why.

The CBO sees the changes coming from three different sources. First, "the average insurance policy in this market would cover a substantially larger share of enrollees' costs for health care (on average) and a slightly wider range of benefits." This accounts for all of the increase in premiums. In fact, it accounts for much more than the projected increase: The improvement in the insurance obtained on the individual market would, on its own, raise prices by up to 30 percent.

But the increase is moderated by two other policy changes. First, the new rules governing the insurance market are expected to make the market more efficient, lowering prices by 7 to 10 percent. Second, the individual mandate, alongside the subsidies and the increased ease of purchasing insurance, is expected to bring in healthier folks, which should save another 7 to 10 percent. Add it all together and we're looking at a 10 to 12 percent increase in premiums for insurance that's about 30 percent better than what people are getting now. It's a steal. And all this is before we get to subsidies.

The CBO estimates that 57 percent of people in the individual market will receive subsidies to help them purchase health-care insurance (folks on the individual market tend to be much lower-income, with much less stable employment). Those subsidies will reduce premium costs by between 56 to 59 percent for the average beneficiary. So in the final analysis, the effect of reform on your typical individual market purchasers is to give them insurance that's about 30 percent better but only 10 to 12 percent more expensive, and then assure them subsidies that will lower their payments by more than 50 percent.

The Congressional Budget Office, in other words, has offered another encouraging report on the benefits of health care reform. With the debate poised to begin in the Senate, the timing is helpful.

It's not an especially enlightening list, and most of the seven are pretty predictable -- the president needs more fiscal discipline; he's too thoughtful and appreciative of nuance; his White House is too mean ("the Chicago Way"); his White House isn't mean enough ("pushover"); he's elevated Speaker Pelosi too much; and he's arrogant.

Of particular interest, though, was John Harris' observation about the president may not be enough of an "American exceptionalist."

Politicians of both parties have embraced the idea that this country -- because of its power and/or the hand of Providence -- should be a singular force in the world. It would be hugely unwelcome for Obama if the perception took root that he is comfortable with a relative decline in U.S. influence or position in the world.

On this score, the reviews of Obama's recent Asia trip were harsh.

His peculiar bow to the emperor of Japan was symbolic. But his lots-of-velvet, not-much-iron approach to China had substantive implications.

I don't doubt that a variety of pundits find all of this very compelling. It's not.

For one thing, the bow wasn't especially "peculiar," and no one outside beltway newsrooms seems to care. For another, the "reviews" of the Asia trip may have been "harsh," but the reality of the trip was far more encouraging. Just as important, the bulk of the Obama agenda seems focused on helping the United States regain its influence and position as the global leader -- which is the opposite of being "comfortable with a relative decline."

As Greg Sargent explained, Harris' assumptions about exceptionalism seem especially off-base.

There's been a general unwillingness [among some political reporters] to acknowledge how vastly the landscape of national security politics has shifted in the wake of Bush's catastrophic foreign policy experiments and the electorate's resounding rejection from 2006 onward of his vision of swaggering unilateralism. Multiple polls have shown that majorities support Obama's engagement of hostile foreign leaders.... The electorate even supported Obama's decision to journey to Berlin and promise a new era of engagement, which was widely ridiculed as an "apology."

Harris notes that Obama should fear a narrative holding that he is "comfortable with a relative decline in U.S. influence," but this formulation, too, is revealing. Obama in 2008 explicitly rejected the notion that pragmatic global engagement, and the willingness to compromise with other countries in order to tackle common challenges, is tantamount to risking a "decline in U.S. influence." He won resoundingly. Indeed, he was elected after insisting that it's in America's interests to carve out a new type of global leadership role built on a rejection of that world view.

Quite right. In fact, in April, the president was specifically asked about whether he subscribes "to the school of 'American exceptionalism' that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world." Obama offered what struck me as the perfect response: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world.... I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone."

It's not how the right perceives American exceptionalism, and it's not how the wired-for-Republicans media perceives American exceptionalism, but it's a thoughtful, nuanced, mature approach to the issue.

That this might be a problematic "narrative" is absurd.

* The proposed RNC "purity test" is struggling to pick up support from party leaders. Yesterday, former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie told CBS it would not be "in the best interest of the party."

* In a surprise move, the Boston Globe endorsed community service leader Alan Khazei in Massachusetts' Senate Democratic primary. Recent polls show Khazei struggling to get to double digits. The primary election is Dec. 8 -- a week from tomorrow.

* On a related note, former Massachusetts governor and presidential nominee Michael Dukakis (D) threw his support to Rep. Mike Capuano's (D) Senate campaign. State Attorney General Martha Coakley remains the Democratic frontrunner, but there's some evidence to suggest Capuano is closing the gap.

* In Wisconsin, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D) leading next year's gubernatorial race, but by a narrow margin. Barrett leads former Rep. Mark Neumann (R) by two (41% to 39%); leads former Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) by five (46% to 41%), and is tied 40% each against Milwaukee County executive Scott Walker (R).

* In Michigan, a new Mitchell Research & Communications poll shows state Attorney General Mike Cox leading Rep. Pete Hoekstra in a Republican gubernatorial primary, 27% to 24%.

* Republicans have been eyeing Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas) as a vulnerable incumbent, but the leading GOP challenger will apparently skip the race next year.

* Ralph Nader is still thinking about running for the Senate in Connecticut next year.

* And in a bit of surprise, Mike Huckabee said he is "less than likely" to run for president in 2012. I find that pretty hard to believe.

One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction. A Cheney victory would mean that America preferred a vigorous unilateralism to President Obama's unapologetic multilateralism, and vice versa. [...]

A campaign would ... give us an occasion that history denied us in 2008: an opportunity to adjudicate the George W. Bush years in a direct way.

I seem to recall a lengthy process -- I believe it was called "the presidential election of 2008" -- where Americans were given a choice between a continuation of Bush/Cheney policies and a more progressive, Democratic approach. I also seem to recall the outcome -- a one-sided victory for the Dem.

It's true that the defeated and humiliated Republican Party maintains that the president did not earn a mandate, but why would an Obama victory over Cheney change the GOP's mind? 365 electoral votes weren't enough?

For that matter, is the jury still out on the Bush presidency? Meacham sees the need for additional adjudication "in a direct way." I'm not sure what more evidence anyone would need that Bush failed in spectacular and historic ways, in practically every area of public policy. It will take many, many years to address the fiascos of the last eight years.

Meacham sees these catastrophes and thinks, "What we really need is the failed president's vice president to seek national office." There's no reason to think that's a good idea.

The Newsweek editor added, "No one foresaw Cheney's reemergence as a force in the politics of the 21st century until it happened." Did it? Sure, the mainstream media loves to follow Dick Cheney's attack of the day, but when, exactly, did the unpopular and discredited former vice president "reemerge as a force in the politics of the 21st century"? I don't remember that happening.

Indeed, rank-and-file Republicans were asked in a new poll about who best reflects the party's principles. Just one chose Dick Cheney -- not 1 percent, I mean one individual person.

The Republican rank and file is largely in sync with GOP lawmakers in their staunch opposition to efforts by President Obama and Democrats to enact major health-care legislation, but a new Washington Post poll also reveals deep dissatisfaction among GOP voters with the party's leadership as well as ideological and generational differences that may prove big obstacles to the party's plans for reclaiming power.

What's tricky about all of this is trying to get a sense of direction. Rank-and-file Republicans aren't happy, but it's not altogether clear what they're looking for, either.

In 2005, 76% of Republicans were satisfied with the direction set by the party's leadership; now that number is 49%. About a third believes GOP leaders do not stand up for the party's "core values."

The next question, of course, is what Republican leaders should do in response, and that's where the poll offers few clues. It's one thing to learn that the party is off-track; it's another to know what to do about it.

It's not like there's a clamoring for an even more right-wing party -- 58% of Republicans want to see the party work with Democrats, and 69% said they approve of GOP candidates who take moderate positions on some issues.

There's also no real sense of what the party's priorities ought to be. About a third of Republicans believe the GOP should spend more time opposing gay marriage, but nearly as many believe the party should do the opposite. About a third of Republicans want to see more focus on abortion, and nearly as many prefer less. GOP voters expressed concern about taxes, spending, and the economy, but that's pretty much what the party leadership focuses on already.

This is not entirely unexpected -- when the party has a small congressional minority, no clear leadership, and no policy agenda to speak of, it stands to reason that rank-and-file attitudes would be all over the place. But the poll isn't much of a roadmap for what party supporters expect their representatives to do.

For the mainstream, one side appears to have the edge.

With that in mind, as the debate in the Senate gets underway again, the White House is highlighting this division. This morning, this video from Vice President Biden was posted online, asking a good question: "When it comes to explaining what health care reform means to you, who do you trust?" He's not talking about the president or members of Congress; he's talking about doctors and nurses.

For those of you who can't watch video clips from your work computers, the video features Biden, along with remarks from Dr. Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, and Rebecca Patton, president of the American Nurses Association.

Biden asks, "Do you trust the defenders of the status quo, the people who say you'd be better off if you left things just the way they are? Or would you rather hear from the folks who actually know something about what's happening in our healthcare system because they work in it every day, doctors and nurses?"

He added. "When it comes to something as important as your health, listen to the people you trust."