Morning News Roundup

I'll stay away from the Middle East for the time being, and devote a lot of space to that region in a little while.

• It's Bastille Day in France - happy independence, Frogfriends. As I noted last night, foreign relations sanity may slowly be returning to that part of the world. (I'll try and find a link to that journal for any Francophone readers I may have.)
• A new AP-Ipsos poll claims that "America wants Democrats in power" - and I'd love nothing more than to be beaten with a stick. Right. You really want Democrats in power? Anyways, that laugh aside, the poll finds the President's approval holding steady at 36% among 1,000 adults. Among 789 registered voters, Democrats are favored on the generic congressional ballot 51%-40%, with 81% of "liberals," 56% of "moderates", and 24% of "conservatives" (all self-identified) saying they'll vote for the Democrat in their district. Among leaners, Democrats also have an edge 51%-41%. While none of this is good news, it's not surprising news considering the traditional "six-year itch" as well as public unease over gas prices, immigration, and the war. Should Congress succeed in passing an enforcement-first immigration bill between now and the elections, I suspect we'll see the number of conservatives voting left decline. The other two factors, gas prices and the war, should they be get better in the eyes of the public, I supect we'll see more moderates switch back towards the GOP. I had a pollster tell me that the generic ballot was going Democrat, but in the districts people are still happy with their Congressman. Should that trend continue, I think the GOP holds the House and probably the Senate.
• In what the GOP hopes is an "open mouth, insert foot" moment for the Left, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, under the aegis of Chicago Congressman Rahm Emmanuel, has released an ad depicting Tom DeLay as a criminal and trying to use images of flag-draped coffins for political benefit. The Tribune goes hard after Emmanuel too, noting his frequent use of the war and the sacrifice of our soldiers for political benefit. The add can be found on the DCCC's website.
• Victor Davis Hanson, a favorite columnist of mine, has a great one today. It's basic premise is that Bush needs to man up and tell the American people (and the world, I think), that "since Sept. 11, 2001, it has had to choose between options that are bad or far worse." This is the kind of argument that needs to be made, that we're not in some socially just utopian ideal but rather in a war and locked in combat with a nihilistic amoral enemy so there are no good choices, just bad and worse. To quote him at length,

  Ultimately, the Bush administration needs to do a better job of presenting this current war in a far larger context. Jihadists of the Arab world for decades have been at war not with George W. Bush alone, but with modernity itself. The radical Middle East street may be fascinated by the Internet, satellite TV, automated teller machines and cell phones--but not by the foreign anathema of democracies, religious tolerance, free markets and gender equality that ultimately account for such goodies.
  
  So there are many fronts in our struggle against Islamic terrorists from the 7th Century. The American people must be reminded of our challenges constantly in lieu of platitudes about the inevitable triumph of freedom and democracy. In short, our government should provide much more explanation of this complex war and far fewer simple declarations about it.

I think that's it for right now, I'll definietly post more as the day goes on.