He's slipped in the recent NBC/WSJ and CBS/NYT polls, his Gallup rating has slowly trended downward since the beginnig of May, and now Democratic polling firm PPP shows President Obama sliding as well.  The 52%-44% net approval rating they measure in their poll of registered voters is the lowest they've measured to date.  It was 55%-38% in mid-May, and 53%-41% in late April.

In addition, his leads over potential Republican candidates such as Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are at their nadir.  Obviously these numbers aren't interesting for what they tell us about 2012, so much as they tell us about the public's perception of Obama today.  Obama leads all four by seven to twelve points, but in May their leads varied from thirteen to nineteen points.

Taken alone this could be written off as sampling error.  And the overall RCP average of 59% is still high.  But taken together with some of the other movement we've seen, it appears that the bloom may be (barely) coming off the Obama rose.

The Rothenberg Report presently rates the Oregon gubernatorial race as "Safe Democrat."  But a new poll from Moore Information casts some doubt on this rating.  It finds Congressman Greg Walden trailing former Governor Kitzhaber and Representative Peter DeFazio by only four points, and leading Ex-Secretary of State Bill Bradbury by four points.

Of course, there are some problems here.  Number one, Moore is a Republican polling outfit; it was the only pollster to show then-Senator Gordon Smith leading in the closing days of the election.  This isn't a huge problem: Their high number of undecided voters in their 2008 poll probably made the difference -- they got Smith's percentage more-or-less correct, but the undecideds broke for Merkley -- and even correcting a few points for possible partisan slant, the poll shows a race that is closer than "Safe Democrat."

The second problem is a bigger one.  Namely, Greg Walden so far has not declared.  Republicans' only candidate so far is '08 State Treasurer nominee Allen Alley, who was not tested.  Alley may be a strong candidate, as he lost the 2008 State Treasurer election by only six points, a pretty good result for a Republican in Oregon in that year.  We just have no way of knowing how he matches up against top-tier Democratic nominees.  On the other hand, the only Democrat who has declared is ex-Secretary of State Bradbury, who polled the weakest of the three Democrats tested.

The bottom line is that this race isn't safe for Democrats, though it certainly leans in their direction right now.

As promised yesterday, Rasmussen has numbers out for the general election in the Pennsylvania Senate race.  Arlen Specter leads Pat Toomey 50%-39%, while Joe Sestak leads Toomey 41%-35%.

Specter is only toying with 50%, while Sestak, who is much less known, is only up by six.  Republicans can take some heart in these numbers, because its not clear how many of these undecideds will vote for Specter -- who has been active in Pennsylvania politics since before my parents were married and is therefore pretty well known.  But it is only some heart; Specter will undoubtedly spend a lot of money defining Toomey, and Toomey's voting record and affiliation with the Club for Growth certainly makes him easily definable.

Republican Bob McDonnell and Democrat Creigh Deeds are virtually tied in the race for governor of Virginia, according to a new poll from Daily Kos/Research2000 (June 15-17, 600 LV, MoE +/- 4%).

The survey finds McDonnell leading by just 1 point, 45%-44%, with 11% undecided. McDonnell appears more well-known around the state, with 55% holding a favorable opinion of him, 36% unfavorable and just 9% with no opinion.

Twice as many people have no opinion of Deeds, while 47% view him favorably and 35% unfavorably.

President Obama, who won Virginia in the primary and general election last year, holds a 56%/41% favorability rating.

Deeds now leads by 0.4 of a point in the RCP Average for Virginia.

In case you have been following the conflict between Russia and Belarus: the "milk wars" (the Russian ban on imports of Belarussian dairy products, followed by the imposition of harsh new customs tariffs on Russian roducts in Belarus) are over.  Now, it seems there's a gas war coming.  Belarus's wily authoritarian leader, Alexander Lukashenko (popularly known as "bat'ka" -- a folsky and rather affectionate term best translated as "Big Daddy"), canceled his presence at a summit on security issues in a fit of pique.  What it's really about is the fact that nearly a year ago, Russia gave Belarus a $500 million loan with the tacit understanding that it was the first of installments in a bribe for recognizing Russia's new client states, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.  Big Daddy, who has been playing a skillful game of seduction with both Russia and Western Europe. took the money and bailed on the two republics.  Russia refused to cough up the second installment of the bribe.

There are no good guys in this clash: Belarus is an authoritarian state that, in many ways, makes Russia look like a beacon of freedom, and Bat'ka Lukashenko is a clever thug.  Nonetheless, this latest row underscores the fact that Russia's power in the "post-Soviet space" it likes to claim as its sphere of "privileged interests" is not nearly as great as it is often made out to be -- even if the Kremlin still has the ability to throw money around (in a crisis!) to give another neighboring state the incentive to kick out a U.S. air force base.   Russia's crude manner of swinging its weight around -- in response to Lukashenko's show of defiance, a senior Medvedev Administration official told Kommersant newspaper, commenting on the situation in Belarus, that "apparently, someone has had enough of being president of that country" -- has contributed to its problems.

In this excellent Russian-language article on Grani.ru, the astute Russian policy analyst Stanislav Belkovsky notes that in the past decade, "the Kremlin has done everything it could to squander the remnants of its influence in its former empire" and to quarrel with precisely those neighbors with whom it most needs good relations.

(Cross-posted to The Y-Files.)

51%-32% in the Democratic primary, according to Rasmussen.  This is similar to a Quinnipiac poll that showed Specter leading Sestak 50%-21% earlier in the year.

While Specter has to be pleased to see that he maintains a double-digit lead over Sestak, as Jay has noted there is a darker side for Specter.  He is almost universally known.  Sestak is not.  And yet Specter is barely over 50% against him.  Some strong negative ads showing Bush praising Specter and Sestak could pull this off.

Polling for a Sestak-Toomey matchup (as well as a Specter-Toomey matchup) is due out tomorrow.

The war of letters between conservatives and ABC News over ABC News' decision to air a primetime special regarding health care from the Blue Room of the White House continues.  ABC News describes the event as follows:

The president will answer questions offered by audience members “selected by ABC News who have divergent opinions in this historic debate,” as well as some submitted via ABCNews.com, according to the press release announcing the event.

The special edition of “Primetime” will air from the White House on Wednesday, June 24, at 10 pm ET. “Good Morning America,” “World News,” “Nightline,” and ABCNews.com's “Top Line” will all feature special programming on the president's health care agenda.

Diane Sawyer will have an exclusive interview with President Obama airing Wednesday on “Good Morning America."

According to Drudge, RNC Chief of Staff fired off a missive in response to this plan:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC's web news “will all feature special programming on the president's health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president's health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

ABCNews Senior Vice President Kerry Smith responded that:

"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

Now a conservative interest group, Conservatives for Patient's Rights (CPR) is complaining that they were rebuffed in their effort to purchase advertisements during the show. Rick Scott of CPR writes:

"It is unfortunate - and unusual - that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care program. Health care is an issue that touches every American and all potential pieces of legislation have carried a price tag in excess of $1 trillion of taxpayers' money. The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC's decision - as of now - to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public. Our organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an alternative viewpoint and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people. We were surprised to hear that paid advertisements would not be accepted when we inquired and we would certainly be open to purchasing time if ABC would reconsider."

You can view one of the ads in question here.  Expect more of this kind of back-and-forth as what is probably the highest-stake policy fight of the last thirty years moves onward.

The announcement yesterday by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) that he had an extramarital affair and today's news that Senate leadership has removed him as head of the Republican Policy Committee (the No. 4 slot on the totem pole) means the Republican Party has lost a leading voice in its efforts to deride Democratic policies and promote its own.

Ensign led a credible, yet unsuccessful, effort as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee during the 2008 election cycle, and in this Congress has been at the forefront of several policy debates. Perhaps his biggest victory of the year was the gun amendment Ensign added on to the D.C. Voting Rights bill, which ultimately led to its demise in the House of Representatives.

Now in his second term representing a state increasingly important to presidential elections, Ensign was twice elected with 55 percent of the vote -- in 2000 and 2006 -- and regularly carries far better approval ratings than his Nevada counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). A survey released last month found Ensign with a 53 percent approval rating compared to Reid's 38 percent.

Whether Ensign was preparing for a presidential bid or not, his fall from grace seems just as far.

Talk about timing.

The Washington Post this afternoon runs a story based on what it calls "first extended interview" with former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) since he confirmed last August having an affair with Rielle Hunter. It covers a range of subjects, including his 2008 campaign for president. But he "refused to address Hunter, the baby's paternity, his wife's memoir, or the investigation."

He does talk about his future:

He says he has no plans to make a push to restore his name, along the lines of what former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has embarked on. Reputation "is not something I'm focused on," he said. "The only relevance of it at all is my ability to help people. That's the only reason it matters. I'm not engaged in, or interested in, being in a p.r. campaign."

But he did not rule out a return to politics. He said it was too early to say what the future held -- though an Al Gore-style advocacy role was more likely than elected office, given the scandal. He thinks "every day" about what form his future role in activism or public life could take, but "right now, a lot of that is unanswerable."

You can read the rest here.

John Ensign resigned his position today as chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee. It is the first hit for Ensign following his admission of an extramarital affair. The affair was with a campaign staffer, Cynthia Hampton, whose husband was a top aide in Ensign's Senate office. Scuttlebutt abounds over why Ensign went public. Hampton's husband may have asked for hush money, according to reports.

Ensign (R-Nev.) is a leading social conservative voice in Congress. When he ran against Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as a House member in 1998, Ensign said President Bill Clinton should resign for his affair with a White House intern. More recently, Ensign pushed for Larry Craig (R-Idaho) to resign from the Senate following revelations of Craig's marital indiscretions, involving some disorderly conduct in an airport restroom.

Now Ensign must reckon with whether he should follow his own advice. Today's news may only be the beginning.

Little sullies, and sometimes sinks, politicians more than hypocrisy.