Political polarization has brought Washington to a standstill, but the degree of polarization of the American public remains a subject of debate. Does dysfunction in D.C. reflect a similar split among the people? Or has the vast center somehow lost its political voice?
That's the question the Pew Research Center set out to examine this year, starting with its largest political survey ever—a representative sample of more than 10,000 Americans answering a broad range of questions about their political attitudes and values. The first round of results is being released Thursday.
The study should put to rest any notion that polarization is solely a Washington phenomenon. Our research, which relies on a set of questions we've been asking for two decades, finds that the percentage of American voters who adhere consistently to liberal or conservative views has doubled since 1994, to 21% from 10%.
Partisan acrimony has risen sharply as well. Its not just Harry Reid and Mitch McConnellwho can't get along. More than twice as many Republicans and Democrats express a "very unfavorable" opinion of the other party as did two decades ago—when Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were doing battle. Most of those strong partisans now argue the other side poses a "threat to the nation's well being." And negative views of the opposing party appear to be a more salient political force than positive views of one's own.
Enlarge Image
Martin Kozlowski
The study also undermines the notion, popular in Washington, of "asymmetrical polarization"—which blames Republicans for causing the division. Using a 10-question index of ideological views, our research shows that liberal thinking has coalesced at least as much as conservative thinking over the past two decades. Broad shifts in opinion on homosexuality and immigration, which used to divide the Democratic base, have helped cause the share of Democrats who hold consistently liberal views to more than quadruple, to 23% from 5%. The share of Republicans with consistently conservative views has increased less dramatically over the same time period, falling from 13% in 1994 to 6% in 2004, before spiking to 20% this year.
Those in the ideological wings remain a minority. But they are a growing minority, and more than in recent history they are driving American politics. They are much more likely to vote, make campaign contributions, contact members of Congress or work on campaigns. As a result, 38% of politically engaged Democrats are now hold consistently liberal views—up from just 8% in 1994. And 33% of politically engaged Republicans are consistent conservatives—up from 23% in 1994 and 10% in 2004.
The political and the personal have become intertwined as well. Those on the left and the right don't just vote differently; they live differently. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of consistent conservatives and about half (49%) of consistent liberals say most of their close friends share their political views. Thirty percent of consistent conservatives say they would be unhappy if an immediate family member married a Democrat, while 23% of consistent liberals say the same. Far more liberals than conservatives think it is important for a community to have racial and ethnic diversity (76% vs. 20%), while far more conservatives than liberals attach importance to living in a place where people share their religious faith (57% vs. 17%).
What has caused this political fracturing of the American public? Theories abound: A more openly partisan media, an explosion of negative political messaging, technology that allows people to readily connect with the like-minded, gerrymandering of congressional districts, closed political primaries and even higher levels of education are cited as changes behind the trends. Our work at the Pew Research Center to date doesn't address causes. Follow-up surveys by the center in the months ahead will allow us to dig deeper into such questions.
But whatever the cause, the majority of Americans don't like what has happened to their politics. Most are put off by the "us versus them" tone of current political debates, and most prefer political leaders who "are willing to compromise." Roughly half of all Americans, when asked how they want President Obama and Republican leaders to resolve their differences on important issues, say they should split the difference—a "50-50" compromise.
Those voices are increasingly lost in the din. The majority of Americans may not be getting the politics they want. But growing minorities have taken clear sides in the political battle, see high stakes in the outcome and are filled with passionate intensity.
Mr. Murray, a former Journal deputy managing editor, is president of the Pew Research Center.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Reports: Iraqi Government Begging for US Airstrikes Against Advancing Terrorist Forces
By Guy Benson



 As the threat from Sunni militants in western Iraq escalated last month,Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider carrying out airstrikes against extremist staging areas, according to Iraqi and American officials. But Iraq’s appeals for a military response have so far been rebuffed by the White House, which has been reluctant to open a new chapter in a conflict that President Obama has insisted was over when the United States withdrew the last of its forces from Iraq in 2011. The swift capture of Mosul by militants aligned with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has underscored how the conflicts in Syria and Iraq have converged into one widening regional insurgency with fighters coursing back and forth through the porous border between the two countries. Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister, last year floated the idea that armed American-operated Predator or Reaper drones might be used to respond to the expanding militant network in Iraq. American officials dismissed that suggestion at the time, saying that the request had not come from Mr. Maliki. By March, however, American experts who visited Baghdad were being told that Iraq’s top leaders were hoping that American air power could be used to strike the militants’ staging and training areas inside Iraq, and help Iraq’s beleaguered forces stop them from crossing into Iraq from Syria...In a May 16 phone call with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Mr. Maliki again suggested that the United States consider using American air power. A written request repeating that point was submitted soon afterward, officials said.

They've asked every which way, and the nature of the threat is more urgent than ever. At least one unnamed US official tells AFP that "Washington was considering several options for offering military assistance to Baghdad, including drone strikes." President Obama is in a quandary. On one hand, killing loads of Al Qaeda-type terrorists from the air has become a signature tactic of his, and he's always insisted that the Iraq war was a distraction from the real fight against Al Qaeda. Regardless of one's view of the Iraq conflict -- at the time, or in retrospect -- it's abundantly clear that Iraq and Syria have become ground zero in the fight against an shockingly malignant and increasingly powerful strain of radicals. Syria presents a complicated scenario because Obama has vocally demanded the ouster of Bashar al-Assad, who's actively fighting Al Qaeda in his ruthless struggle to retain power. He's used (and is still using) chemical weapons in this battle, which crossed the president's unenforced "red line." Our official policy is that "Assad must go," even though the people who might supplant the Iranian puppet regime could arguably be even worse. Given that backdrop, it's unsurprising that the Obama administration would prefer not to engage in that country at all, withthe exception of backing some vetted anti-Assad fighters. In Iraq, though, there's a cleaner case to be made: Help the Iraqi government beat back a terrible threat, kill Al Qaeda fighters, and protect the last vestiges of stability that were secured at great cost by the US military. Obama could do so with zero boots on the ground, and could partially make up for his administration's inexcusable Status of Forces Agreement whiff (for which the Maliki government certainly bears some responsibility), which has indisputably contributed to the current crisis.

But there's another looming factor in this calculus: Politics. Barack Obama successfully ran for president as a leader with the foresight to oppose the Iraq intervention from the beginning. He was hellbent on "ending" that war at all costs, buoyed by broad support among the American people, and therefore has little appetite to re-engage in Iraq in any capacity. The public likely wouldn't be too keen on the idea, and his base would absolutely despise the move. To that end,Noah Rothman notes the decidedly mixed reviews so far from Congressional Democrats regarding the possibility of a contingency plan involving airstrikes. In the face of very weak polling numbers, Obama and his party can ill afford to infuriate their base in advance of an election that is already likely to result in Republican gains. Helping the still-fledgling Iraqi government hold off these barbarians is unquestionably the correct course of action, but the politics are hugely problematic. Obama's Commander-in-Chief duties are in direct conflict with his Democrat-in-Chief role. We'll see what, if anything, he does. I'll leave you with this image:

Embedded image permalink

 More US made humvees taken from Iraq to
by ISIS!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)
A Democrat is on a mission to educate citizens on the harm that the Affordable Care Act is doing to senior citizens who depend on Medicare. 
"Before ObamaCare became law, I kept warning, Wait, there's problems with Medicare system, there's problems with the VA system," says Woodrow Wilcox of Indiana.
Wilcox, who recently launched website ObamacareHurtsSeniors.com., says he has worked as a precinct committeeman for the Democratic Party, and was once a delegate to the state convention in Indiana.
Wilcox
He also says he has helped seniors with the Medicare-rated bill disputes for more than a decade. That experience came through an insurance agency, where Wilcox saw first hand that his clients were being charged with false and erroneous medical bills. 
If you impose Medicare-style healthcare on the rest of America, he says, "everybody in the country is going to have the same kind of problems with their healthcare that senior citizens have with Medicare and veterans have with the VA system."
Since the passage of Obamacare, he says, the rules of Medicare have changed and are harming millions of senior citizens.
He maintains that if the current Democratic Party leaders won't change the ObamaCare law to stop harming seniors, then he is one Democrat who will seek to change the leaders within the Democratic Party.
"I'm very disillusioned with it. I just feel like the truth needs to be out," he says. 
-