Thanks largely to his increase in support among Republicans, President Bush will end his time in the presidency with an approval rating higher than 30%, according to Gallup's final survey on Bush as president.

Bush's 34% approval rating is his highest score since January 2008 and well above the 25% approval he received just before the November elections. Compared to post-World War II presidents, Bush's rating is the third lowest.

Bush ties Jimmy Carter's final score and is just 2 points higher than Harry Truman's. The final survey for Richard Nixon, taken a week before he resigned office, found that 24% approved of the job he was doing.

Bush's 61% disapproval rating is the second worst, with only Nixon holding a higher percentage.

Honestly, if the brain trust on Michigan Avenue thinks this is going to do the trick of solving the Chicago Tribune's problems, they're in worse shape than I thought. Check out RCP's Media Watch for more discussion about the decline of the newspaper industry.

Senator Burris is going to have to get someone out to the cemetery right away to update his resume tombstone.

The whole Burris affair played out like the political equivalent of a modern day slasher film. You know the formula: a bunch of teenagers go to a cabin in the woods for summer vacation and are stalked by a guy with a chainsaw or wearing a hockey mask.

We know how the movie ends even before it begins, of course, but the fun part - if horror films are your cup of tea - is to see how the carnage unfolds.

In the Burris film, Harry Reid starred as one of the clueless teenagers (with Barack Obama playing a supporting role), wandering around thinking he had the situation under control when in fact he was a dead man walking. Everyone watching knew it but him - though eventually it dawned on the Senator as well.

If you believe what you saw and heard yesterday, this horror movie had a happy ending, with everyone sitting around singing each other's praises. But, politically speaking, Harry Reid got cut to pieces.  He'd better hope there isn't a sequel.

Abdon Pallasch of the Chicago Sun-Times reports on David Axelrod giving some behind the scenes color to folks at a fundraiser for Misericordia, a home for the developmentally disabled where his 27 year old daughter lives.

Axelrod told the group how Obama responded the morning after losing the Ohio and Texas primaries:

"The next day, Sen. Obama showed up at campaign headquarters and he went around to every desk -- and there were a lot of young volunteers. He told them they were doing a great job, and don't be discouraged," Axelrod said.

Then Obama went into a meeting with the senior staff and he told them, "I can think of a dozen things I could have done better in the past few weeks and I'm sure you could all think of a dozen things you could have done better." Axelrod called it "a very productive discussion."

"As he got up to leave, he stopped and turned around and said, 'I want you to know, I'm not yelling at you,'" Axelrod said. "Then he went a few more paces, and he turned again and said to us, 'After blowing $20 million in two weeks, I could yell at you. But I'm not yelling at you.'" That mild-mannered admonishment was more effective than yelling would have been, Axelrod said.

Read the whole thing.

Barack Obama's Big Show, otherwise known as the inauguration ceremony to become the 44th President of the United States, is shaping up to be the biggest production this side of the Academy Awards.  A press release from the PIC (Presidential Inaugural Committee) announces:

INITIAL TALENT LINEUP CONFIRMED FOR "WE ARE ONE:  THE OBAMA INAUGURAL CELEBRATION AT THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL," KICKING OFF INAUGURAL OPENING FESTIVITIES, PRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY HBO JAN. 18

--------
George Stevens, Jr. Executive Produces;
Don Mischer Produces And Directs;
Michael Stevens Is Producer And Writer
--------

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC) is pleased to announce the producers and initial talent lineup for WE ARE ONE:  THE OBAMA INAUGURAL CELEBRATION AT THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL, the Opening Celebration for the 56th Presidential Inaugural, to be presented exclusively by HBO on Sunday, January 18 (7:00-9:00 p.m. ET/PT).  The event will be free and open to the public, kicking off the most open and accessible Inauguration in history.

The special will be executive produced by George Stevens, Jr. (The Kennedy Center Honors), and produced by Don Mischer (Olympic Ceremonies) who will also direct the special, and Michael Stevens (The American Film Institute Salutes) who is also writing the special, and will be a production of The Stevens Company in association with Don Mischer Productions.

Musical performers scheduled for the event include Beyonce, Mary J. Blige, Bono, Garth Brooks, Sheryl Crow, Renee Fleming, Josh Groban, Herbie Hancock, Heather Headley, John Legend, Jennifer Nettles, John Mellencamp, Usher Raymond IV, Shakira, Bruce Springsteen, James Taylor, will.i.am, and Stevie Wonder.  Among those reading historical passages will be Jamie Foxx, Martin Luther King III, Queen Latifah and Denzel Washington.  The Rt. Reverend V. Gene Robinson will give the invocation.  Rob Mathes will be the music director and arranger for the backing band, which will support all of the artists.  Additional performers will be announced as they are confirmed.

"Our intention is to root the event in history, celebrating the moments when our nation has united to face great challenges and prevail," observed George Stevens, Jr.  "We will combine historical readings by prominent actors with music from an array of the greatest stars of today."

Let's hope Mr. Obama and his team can govern as well as they can produce and package political events for television.

New Research 2000/Daily Kos poll on the 2010 Senate race in North Carolina:

Burr (R) 46
Moore (D) 40

A just-released statement from Coleman for Senate Campaign Manager Cullen Sheehan, responding to Al Franken's suggestion that he should be given a "provisional" seat in the Senate:

“Al Franken knows he can't win this election contest based on the major inconsistencies and discrepancies that were part of the recount, and his attempted power play today is evidence of that.  He can't and won't be seated in a seat he didn't win, so he is trying this underhanded attempt to blatantly ignore the will of Minnesotans and the laws of the state.  The totals certified by the state canvassing board include double counted votes, inconsistencies regarding rejected absentee ballots, and inconsistent handling of newly discovered and missing ballots.  These are serious issues that both the canvassing board and the Minnesota Supreme Court directed be handled in an election contest, and that will go forward as required.”

Get all the latest news on Obama's inauguration here.

Michael Barone's latest column is an important one. Its central thesis is that in a diverse country with a long tradition of competitive two-party elections, trying to build a permanent majority is a fool's errand. This is a point worth amplifying - as it relates to our ongoing series on the election.

The classic view of realignments is that they occur in roughly 30-year intervals. Under this framework, the elections of 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, and 1932 represent realignments, or sharp breaks with the elections that preceded them, resulting in the birth of new, lasting majority coalitions. The popularity of realignment theory has spilled over to the general punditry. Hundreds of blog posts and columns have already been written on the question of whether 2008 is a realigning election or not.

As Barone explains, these examples do not fall neatly into the "every thirty years" rubric - or indeed any rubric. The most glaring problem not discussed by Barone is that no clear-cut realigning election occurs after 1932. Some would argue that 1968 was a realigning election, with Nixon's "Silent Majority" signaling the rise of a new coalition. But given that Republicans failed to take Congress for another 25 years, that Democrats won an enormous popular vote majority in the House in 1974, and that Nixon governed as a relatively liberal Republican, this argument is problematic. Some would argue that 1980 was the realigning election, but again, Republicans failed to capture the House for another decade, and their control of the Senate proved fleeting.

More importantly, even the idea of a lasting and unique New Deal majority existing from 1932-1968 is questionable. The 1932-1968 Democratic majorities can best be viewed in three distinct phases. From 1932-1936, the Democrats were ascendant, largely obliterating the Republican Party in Congress and in the governorships. The second phase began in 1938, when the GOP reduced the Democrats' majority in Congress to 262 seats, down from an astounding 334 seats heading into the election.

This was more than just a "dead cat bounce." In the 1938 midterm election, Republicans were about 3 points short of a majority of the national vote in the House. This result is all the more impressive when one considers that 194 Democrats - about 20 shy of a House majority - had been elected with 60% or more of the vote only two years earlier. More importantly, this election brought the Republicans close enough to parity that, in combination with Southern Democrats, they could prevent New Deal legislation from coming to the floor. (more...)

You're looking at a picture of Illinois Democratic State Representative Milt Patterson, who today goes down in history as the lone vote in the State Legislature against impeaching Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. The impeachment vote is the first in state history, and the matter now heads to the State Senate for trial where a 2/3 vote will be needed to convict Blagojevich and officially boot him from office.

So why did Rep. Patterson vote "no?" According to the Chicago Tribune, Patterson "said after the roll call that he didn't feel it was his job to vote to impeach the governor."

One hundred and fourteen of his colleagues in the State Legislature felt differently, believing that based on the evidence it was their Constitutional duty to vote for impeachment. This leaves Rep. Patterson as a tiny historical footnote in this sordid affair - though the drama is far from over.