Obama Administration Fears Future, Promises Dirty War against Republicans

Obama is tanking in the polls. Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan feels she knows why—Democrats are above being poll driven. As Noonan sees it:

the Obama administration thinks it vaguely dishonorable to be popular. If you mention to Obama staffers that they really have to be concerned about the polls, they look at you . . . as if you don't understand the purpose of politics. That purpose, they believe, is to move the governed toward greater justice. [Contrasting justice with popularity,] they think it's weaselly to be well thought of.

Yet Democratic insiders clearly know they are in trouble, and are working on political recovery. According to the “Huffington Post’s” Thomas B. Edsall, Democrats will prevail in 2010 by making the campaign about Republicans:

Democratic candidates, [say Democratic pollsters], should pre-empt Republicans seeking to present a positive image to the public. Among the techniques to achieve this goal are floating negative stories in the press, taking full advantage of sympathetic bloggers to create a hostile portrait of the GOP opponent, and actively using "less visible" means of communication such as phone banks, direct mail, and canvassers. . . [One] Democratic consultant with clients running in House, Senate and gubernatorial races, speaking on background, says "basically it comes down to one thing. You've got to kick the shit out of somebody."

Top Obama strategist David Axelrod said pretty much the same thing, though with less salty words, in an interview with the National Journal’s Ronald Brownstein:

Axelrod's checklist includes . . .most pointedly, an effort to draw sharper contrasts with Republican positions. His comments may foreshadow a much more pugnacious Democratic message as the election approaches. "It's almost impossible to win a referendum on yourself," Axelrod insisted. "And the Republicans would like this to be a referendum. It's not going to be a referendum."

"They want to stand with the insurance industry on health care and protect the status quo, then let them defend that in an election," Axelrod said. "If they want to stand with the banks and the financial industries, and protect the status quo, then let them explain that in an election. If the party that over eight years turned a... surplus into the most significant growth in national debt by far in the history of the country and left this president with a $1.3 trillion deficit when he walked in the door and an economic crisis, let them campaign on fiscal integrity. You know... we're certainly willing to have that discussion. The difference is that we'll have that discussion in the context of a campaign. . . “

Looking at this Axelrod attempt to escape a “referendum on yourself," Commentary columnist Peter Wehner observed:

When a political party controls the presidency and, by wide margins, the House and the Senate, the midterm election will be a referendum on the stewardship of that party [emphasis added]. There’s no way to get around that. [Yet] Axelrod and his colleagues, rather than welcoming a referendum on their year in office, are terribly afraid of it.