DEM GOVERNORS IN TROUBLE - AT 9:45 A.M. ET:  Superb political analyst Michael Barone points out that the Democratic Party's sudden problems extend to the governor level, where a number of Democratic governors have run to heavy flak:

With polls showing a drop in Barack Obama's job rating and sinking support for the Democrats' health care plans, there is evidence of collateral damage where you might not expect to find it, in the standing of Democratic governors. Pennsylvania's Ed Rendell is suddenly getting negative job ratings in both the Quinnipiac and the Franklin and Marshall polls -- his lowest marks in seven years as governor. Ohio's Ted Strickland, who has spent most of his first term working amicably with Republican legislators, scores under 50 percent in the latest Quinnipiac poll and has only tenuous leads over two Republicans, John Kasich and Mike DeWine, who may run against him next year.

Taking back Ohio is key for Republicans.  And...

In the two governor races being contested this year, Republicans seem to have an advantage. Republican Bob McDonnell has led Democrat Creigh Deeds in all but one poll and picked up the support of Black Entertainment Television billionaire Sheila Johnson, one of the biggest contributors to the incumbent, Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine. New Jersey incumbent Jon Corzine, who spent more than $100 million on narrow wins for senator in 2000 and governor in 2005, is 15 points behind Republican Chris Christie. Corzine will not be helped by the indictment of multiple Jersey pols, most of them Democrats, in a case initiated by Christie when he was U.S. attorney.

What does all that mean?

When you put these results together with Obama's slide in the polls, they suggest trouble for big-government Democrats. Pollster Scott Rasmussen now shows Obama with only 49 percent job approval; when he asked voters which party they'd like to represent them in the House, Republicans came out ahead of Democrats.

COMMENT:  Democrats must reflect on why Americans, even at a time of economic distress, are turning away from big government, something they didn't do during the great Depression.  The reason, I think, is clear:  While some liberal government programs remain popular - social security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, those public school systems that are well run - others, especially those launched in the sixties, have been catastrophic failures.  Many seem run for the benefit of those who run the programs.  Others, like the new "cap 'n trade" weirdness that passed the House, are based on trendy "science" that often turns out to be wrong.

Also, the best liberal programs are the ones that meet a clear and pressing need that cannot, in the practical world, be met by private means, and do the job simply, often delivering services directly to individuals.  Eisenhower understood that and refused to go along with some in his party who wanted to "repeal the New Deal."  Ronald Reagan understood it as well, referring to the "great American safety net."

In recent decades, liberals have forgotten the fundamental of any program, private or public:  It has to work.  Problem is, that often means going up against the hacks who run liberal operations, especially in big cities.

The "blue dog" Democrats, the moderates, speak common sense.  Look how they're treated by the party elites.

July 27, 2009