In the New York Times article on censure today, Stuart Rothenberg is referred to as a nonpartisan political analyst.  That is inaccurate.  His political leanings are quite clear.  Take this column on national security:

Pardon me if I had a feeling of déjà vu, but the sight of dozens of Democratic members of Congress and "first responders" together "rallying" in Washington, D.C. to prove that Democrats are tough on terrorism and the party of "real security" brought back memories of Boston's Fleet Center and all those senior military men vouching for John Kerry and the Democrats.

With Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Rep. Dick Durbin (D-IL) standing in the front row of a throng of Democratic House and Senate members, who in their right mind is going to think of Democrats as "pro-military" or tough on defense and national security matters?

This is just snotty Republicanism, it's not analysis.  There are good reasons to dispute the merits of the Democratic REAL Security plan.  But snottiness isn't one of them.

And then there's this biased analysis.

Polling confirms that Democrats look better these days on national security, but it isn't because of rallies like the one yesterday at Union Station in the nation's capital. It's because the war in Iraq has not gone well and President Bush fumbled the ball on the Dubai ports deal. But the party still has long-term problems on the issue because many grass roots Democrats and party leaders simply don't believe in projecting U.S. power (including military power) the way Republicans do.

There are two problems here.  One, progressives do believe in projecting US power (Kosova anyone?), but we don't believe that losing wars and lying to the world actually does that.  Two, progressives believe that a country that rests its global stature solely on military strength, and not on the production of wealth, is doomed.

Rothenberg's analysis just sort of assumes that Democrats are isolationists, which isn't true, and that Americans agree with Republicans on the desire to fight pointless wars.  That's fine, coming from a Republican.  So drop the nonpartisan label already.

There's more...