Sam Chi has the list at Media Watch.

One more indicator came Monday that the Great Recession has not yet greatly altered Americans view of big business or big government. A clear majority of Americans continue to view government as the "biggest threat to the country in the future," far more than name big business, according to Gallup.

Gallup has asked since 1965 which three institutions--big government, big business or big labor--pose the greatest threat to nation's future? Big government has led the list every year.

On Monday, Gallup reported that 55 percent of Americans view big government as the biggest threat, while 32 percent say big business and only 10 percent say big labor. This is statistically identical to what the poll found in December 2008.

This White House is investing its political capital in big government measures like national health care. But the poll may especially capture the unpopularity of Wall Street bailouts rather than some potential safety nets. National health care, for example, enjoys majority support in polls. Still, as I noted here in early March, it appears President Obama's active state liberal approach remains not quite in step with the public overall.

Today's recession has not, in fact, impacted Americans to the same degree as the 2002 accounting scandals. That year, for the first time since 1981, the portion of Americans naming big government fell below a majority--to 47 percent. But even in 2002, only 38 percent named big business as the big threat.

Not since the early 1970s has institutional anxiety polled at near balance. In 1969, a third of Americans named big government as the greatest threat, 28 percent named big business and about a fifth named big labor.

The financial crisis has had some impact however. Gallup noted that in December 2006, 61 percent named big government as the greatest threat--6 points higher than today. In that same period, the portion who named big business as the biggest threat rose from 25 to 32 percent.

Democrats, as expected, are driving the small shift. In December 2006, 55 percent of Democrats named big government. Now only about a third name big government as the greatest threat. Meanwhile, the portion of Democrats who name big business as the greatest threat rose from 32 percent to 52 percent. That may portend pressure on Obama from his base.

By comparison, a majority of independents continue to agree with Republicans and name big government as the greater threat to the future of the United States.

Former Japanese finance minister Shoichi Nakagawa (last seen nodding off in what many suspected was a drunken stupor during the G7 conference in Feb.) suggested in a speech today that the country should acquire nuclear weapons: "It is common sense worldwide that in pure military terms, nuclear counters nuclear."

While this would certainly run afoul of President Obama's disarmament aspirations, I can see a number of upsides. A nuclear-armed Japan would further tilt the balance of power in Asia in our favor. It would serve as a useful deterrent to both China and North Korea. And I doubt that the Japanese would constitute a major proliferation threat.

That's not to say it's all upside. Naturally, it's not. But kick-starting a debate about whether Japan should acquire a nuclear deterrent would be useful for the U.S. as well as Japan. For decades, we've treated the country as a U.S. protectorate. There were good reasons for doing so in the immediate aftermath of World War II and during the Cold War, but there's much less reason to do so now.

Do we trust the Japanese to strengthen their military without going off on another imperial bender? Wouldn't having stronger allies in Asia ultimately redound to our benefit?

A fairly large walk out of European UN delegates during Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's racist rant at the Durban II conference in Geneva.

David Axelrod called the Tea Party protests "unhealthy" in an interview on Sunday. Today, Rasmussen is out with a new poll showing 51% of Americans saying they have a "favorable" opinion of the Tea Parties, including 32% who say they view them "very" favorably.

However, Rasmussen reports another bit of data that may help explain the discrepancy:

While half the nation has a favorable opinion of last Wednesday's events, the nation's Political Class has a much dimmer view—just 13% of the political elite offered even a somewhat favorable assessment while 81% said the opposite. Among the Political Class, not a single survey respondent said they had a Very Favorable opinion of the events while 60% shared a Very Unfavorable assessment.

Former representative Bill Orton was killed in an ATV accident yesterday.  Orton, a Democrat, represented a heavily Republican Utah district for three terms in Congress, winning re-election by 19 points in the Republican landslide year of 1994.  He was a victim of a surprise upset at the hands of Chris Cannon (whose stance on immigration recently cost him his seat in a contested primary) in the generally-good-for-Democrats year of 1996, caused in large part because President Clinton designated a good portion of his district a part of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monumnet in September of that year.

Scott Murphy's lead in New York's 20th Congressional District continues to grow: 264 votes now.  To put this in perspective -- assume this is the final count.  1,200 challenged absentee ballots are outstanding, with Republican Jim Tedisco reportedly having challenged around 60% of the challenged ballots.   Tedisco would have to win all of his challenges (including a challenge to the ballot of Kirtsen Gillibrand), while winning over half  of the challenges that Murphy brought against Tedisco's ballots.  Possible?  Certainly.  Likely?  Seems not.

At some point, Tedisco will have to decide whether it is worth it to tie up Murphy in what looks to be a losing battle, or whether he packs it in to live to fight another day.  One imagines that the 2010 midterms will be a better playing field for a Republican than the one that existed less than 100 days after a Republican President left with a 30% approval rating.  But if Tedisco damages his credibility too much by pursuing what will increasingly be viewed as a sore-loser strategy, even the improved playing field won't be enough to help him.

The latest results out of the New York special election to replace Kirsten Gillibrand have Democrat Scott Murphy leading Republican Jim Tedisco in the special election in NY-20 by 178 votes.  There are still a few hundred outstanding ballots to be counted, but unless those ballots break heavily toward Tedisco, he is in trouble.  Such a break is theoretically possible if they are all from heavily Tedisco locales within counties . . . but it is also theoretically possible that I could flip 10 straight heads on an unweighted coin.  And probably more likely.

Politico reports that Tedisco plans to resort to the courts.  I tend to agree with Politico's analysis here:  Since Tedisco has reportedly challenged the most ballots, for him to prevail Democrats would have had to have done a much worse job filling out their ballots than Republicans in order for him to win.  Again, this is possible, but it seems unlikely.

A huge bummer for football fans.

On Tuesday I noted that the Republican Party organization is lining up to support Arlen Specter in his battle against Pat Toomey. Meanwhile, it appears to be moving against Jim Bunning.

Our former colleague Reid Wilson has an interesting article at The Hill, which features this little tidbit:

Bunning will face either a rematch with Mongiardo or a battle with state Attorney General Jack Conway (D), who announced his own candidacy last week. Conway is rapidly scooping up support from prominent Kentucky Democrats while Mongiardo has backing from Gov. Steve Beshear (D).If Bunning leaves the contest, Republican sources close to Secretary of State Trey Grayson (R) say Grayson is prepared to make a bid, and that he would make his announcement within hours of Bunning's own. [Emphasis mine]

I'd take that as a strong signal of the party's intention. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, we'll have a replacement within hours!

The main thrust of this story is that Bunning's first quarter fundraising numbers were dreadful:

Bunning raised just $263,000 in the first quarter, finishing March with $376,000 in the bank. Making matters worse, Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo, the only Democrat who raised money during the quarter, brought in almost $430,000 after just more than a month of fundraising.

As Reid reports, Mitch McConnell, who is not up for reelection for six years, actually outraised Bunning. That makes me suspect that the party establishment is actually trying to freeze Bunning out. It's impossible to know for sure - frustratingly, all of the really interesting stuff of party politics occurs behind doors that are closed, locked, and flanked by armed guards. But I'd note with interest that Mitch McConnell's Bluegrass PAC contributed to eight Republican senators during the previous filing period: Burr, Specter, Crapo, DeMint, Grassley, Isakson, Shelby, and Thune. It chipped in to the NRSC, the Kentucky GOP, the Coleman recount fund, and even Rob Portman's campaign to replace George Voinovich in Ohio. However, not a dime to Bunning. From the looks of Bunning's recent fundraising report, Republican politicos and money (wo)men are taking the cue from McConnell and company.

Not only is the GOP not helping Bunning out, it's also blasting him for not getting any help (anonymously, of course):

"Given what [Bunning will] need to compete in 2010, this is a disaster," said one Kentucky GOP operative. "The margin for tactical error since his race in 2004 has decreased dramatically, and the amount it takes to win in 2010 has increased dramatically."

Talk about adding insult to injury!

Overall, I find this Bunning story fascinating. The party organization has limited means at its disposal to push incumbent candidates out of a race. None of them are particularly efficient - sometimes they can work, but it is typically messy. So, they are rarely employed. But it looks to me like the party is doing everything it can to push Bunning out. This is a rare occurrence - and one to keep watching if you're interested in how the party actually functions.