• No one will ever accuse Fox News of being hip.

  In a survey released by analyst Steve Sternberg, Fox News has the oldest audience among fully distributed cable networks. The network's average viewer last season was 65 years old, according to Nielsen. Heck, it's viewers are even older than viewers of Hallmark Channel, Military Channel and Golf Channel.

  Perhaps the reason viewers tend to leave Fox News on all day racking up hours of big Nielsen numbers is they can't actually change the channel?

  The Hallmark Network, by the way, is the home of Touched by an Angle reruns.

• IL-Sen: Libertarian gets on Senate ballot. Given the conservative dissatisfaction with Republican Mark Kirk, even a few points to the Libertarian candidate might be enough to tip the election in the Democrats' favor.
• Republicans provide another lesson in how to look like morons.

  For some reason, Jesse’s excellent post mocking a bunch of wingnuts for their “brilliant” plan to build a gay bar by the Cordoba House has brought a shitstorm of illiterate Twitter rantings at me from the sexually repressed and those lacking self-awareness or reading comprehension.  You know, even though I didn’t write it.  Their urge to gang up on a lady will not be thwarted by the fact that it wasn’t a she that called them out so much that they have nothing left to do but rave like lunatics.

  I just have one thing to say.  Just because their kids set them up on Twitter doesn’t mean they’re computer literate, or they may have done the first thing that occurred to me, which is to look and see if there are any gay bars within the vicinity of the Cordoba House.  And lookie here, there are!

  

  If you look at this picture, and you’re not too stupid to breathe (sorry, wingnuts!), you should immediately see two things that make this whole “let’s put a gay bar by the Cordoba House and see liberal heads explode!” wishful thinking look even stupider than it is on its surface: 1) There are three gay bars within .1 mile of the Cordoba House and 2) They are all as close or closer to the Cordoba House than the WTC is.

• Hispanic media turns on Barack Obama.

  Univision’s Jorge Ramos, an anchor on the nation’s largest Spanish-language television network, says Obama broke his promise to produce an immigration reform bill within a year of taking office. And Latinos are tired of the speeches, disillusioned by the lack of White House leadership and distrustful of the president, Ramos told POLITICO.

  “He has a credibility problem right now with Latinos,” Ramos said. “We’ll see what the political circumstances are in a couple of years, but there is a serious credibility problem.”

  Give Ramos a drug test!

• The teaparty really is giving Democrats some serious lifelines this year. Among others there's been Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, Marco Rubio, and now: Ken Buck. The Beltway CW:

  Could the Tea Party cost the GOP two or three Senate seats? On the other hand, there are legitimate concerns about whether Buck, Paul, and Angle are their party’s best nominees and if they could enable Democrats to win these Senate contests in an environment where nearly everything is going the GOP’s way. John Cornyn and the NRSC have been doing their job this cycle: putting seats in play and trying to recruit the most electable candidates (like Charlie Crist in Florida, Trey Grayson in Kentucky, Norton in Colorado or Dino Rossi in Washington). The problem is that GOP voters are defeating these establishment-backed candidates -- or, in Crist’s case, forcing them out of the Republican primary. If Republicans lose two out of four in Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, and Nevada, it's hard to find a path to the 10 seats they need for control of the Senate.

• Great job by Blue America on this anti-Boehner ad!
• What, did the New York Times assign an intern on this story, or an NRSC staffer?
• AquaBuddah.com
• Dan Rostenkowski, another corrupt politician, died.

  Don't these things happen in threes? Tom DeLay has got to be a bit nervous right now.

if you are looking for some good news for Democrats, this national poll (not commissioned by Daily Kos, MoE +/- 4) has a whiff of not-so-bad to go with the "if only..."

After an unusually bad July in PPP’s national poll, President Barack Obama has seen a lot of improvement on several fronts. His national approval rating has rebounded, moving from 48-47 in June, to 45-52 last month, back to 47-48 now. For five of the last eight months, Obama has been one point above or below breaking even; in others, he was two points below and four points above.

PPP has asked voters’ approval of Obama’s health care plan for 12 months now, and with 46% approving and 48% disapproving, that is the highest level of approval and the second best approval margin since the first month, September 2009, when it was 45-46. This marks a huge shift since July (40-53). In another improvement for Obama, 50% still say they prefer having Obama as president, compared to 43% who would rather have George W. Bush back. In April, Obama won only 48-46. While independents this year generally favor Republican candidates and disapprove of Obama, they prefer Obama against Bush, 53-36, versus April’s 49-37.

When asked who they think is more responsible for the state of the economy, 49% picked Bush, to 40% choosing Obama. Independents say Bush, 52-38. Fewer Republicans, 75%, pick Obama than Democrats pick Bush, 81%.

While this is still a rough time for Democrats, the reports of Obama's political death are greatly exaggerated.

Note also, the health care improvement is not isolated to this poll. See Kaiser poll: Health care reform support reaches new high.

Now, here's a drum I've been beating:

"July could’ve been a blip on the radar. Obama’s more overt use of Bush in his stump speech of late could resonate with voters, particularly with independents who don’t want to return to past economic policies," said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling.

There's still time for D-leaning indies to come home, but they won't unless we go out and give them a reason to. Reminding them of what Republicans under Bush did to us is good policy as well as good politics.

Still, keep in mind Obama's on a 2012 cycle while House and Senate Democrats are looking at 2010.

It was just a few days ago that Republicans had a collective freakout at Democratic Senate candidate Jack Conway's use of "tough son of a bitch" at the Fancy Farm political extraveganza -- a church picnic that has become the unofficial start of the Kentucky political season. A NRSC web ad was dripping with the vapors:

Wholesome Christian values.

In a long line of the good and faithful.

One Kentucky church picnic was blessed with someone special:

[Grainy video of Jack Conway:] "One tough son of a [bleep]."

A day later, the church in question -- St Jerome Parish -- demanded an apology!

But not of Jack Conway.

Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul has angered a small-town church by saying he and other politicians at the parish's fundraising picnic over the weekend were worried about having beer being thrown on them.

Paul told conservative radio personality Sean Hannity Tuesday night that the picnic at St. Jerome Parish in western Kentucky Saturday was wild, partisan and that people boo the politicians. He also said they worried beer and other objects would be thrown at them.

The picnic does not serve alcohol because it illegal in the community. Nothing was thrown.

Tail between his legs, Rand Paul apologized this morning.

"Dr. Paul trying to convey just how enthusiastic the crowd was and did not mean to imply there was alcohol being served,” Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign manager, said in an iPhone text to the Sun this morning. “Rand has always enjoyed Fancy Farm, thinks it is a wonderful event and apologizes to anyone he may have offended"

See? He didn't mean to imply there would be alcohol at the event when he said the he was afraid of alcohol being thrown at him.

But give Paul a break. It takes a tough son of a bitch to stand up to phantom-beer-throwing partisans. And he ain't one.

Contribute to Jack Conway
Jack Conway for Senate

Mark Sanford deserves some props -- for breaking his word.

Well, it's not exactly breaking his word that he deserves credit for. It's the fact that in reversing his pledge to reject stimulus funding, Sanford is, as Alex Seitz-Wald notes, securing jobless benefits for more than 17,000 out-of-work South Carolinians. NYT:

The federal Department of Labor announced Tuesday that South Carolina had officially cleared its approval process and that the stimulus money was being released immediately.

The reversal by Mr. Sanford attracted virtually no notice, but it made South Carolina the 33rd state in the country to expand jobless benefits to qualify for its full share of stimulus money under the program, according to the National Employment Law Project, a liberal advocacy group.

Of course, while it is true that Sanford is now making the right decision, it's worth noting that he's only doing it after his infamous hike to Argentina, which effectively killed his political career. So this isn't exactly a profile in courage. But it does show that even conservative Republicans, freed of the need to pander to GOP's wingnut base, actually believe the stimulus can do some good. It's too bad more of them weren't willing to make that case in early 2009. If they had been, it might have been possible to get a bigger stimulus through Congress.

Surprise! Despite predictions of economic doom and gloom by opponents of the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling, the moratorium hasn't had a major economic impact:

Here, on what people have recently dubbed "Rig Row," the moratorium is creating an arresting visual, even if its economic and emotional impacts are still a bit fuzzy. Only two of 33 deepwater rigs in the Gulf have left for foreign oilfields, and the predictions of tens of thousands of lost jobs across the region have yet to materialize.

Since the Louisiana Workforce Commission started asking the question June 13, 486 people have filed new unemployment claims that say the moratorium cost them their jobs.

However, weekly unemployment claims data in the mining industry sector, which comprises primarily oil- and gas-related jobs, have shown no noticeable spike since the moratorium was declared May 28. Overall employment data in coastal parishes also show little change since the drilling ban.

At least two large oilfield-services companies, Baker Hughes and Schlumberger, have announced they plan to relocate hundreds of jobs to busier locales, but the firms have not said they will lay anybody off.

Opponents of the drilling moratorium claimed that its economic impacts would be worse than BP's oil spill itself. For example, here's Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) in June:

As I stated, there is no one more environmentally devastated by this oil disaster than the people of the Gulf Coast. It’s our coast, our marshes, and our way of life that is being impacted. However, despite the ongoing oil spill disaster, the great majority of Gulf Coast citizens feel strongly that the administration’s deepwater moratorium is a major mistake. Simply put, it will cost us more jobs and economic devastation than the oil spill itself.

Bobby Jindal carried the same message as Vitter -- and he was just as wrong. It wasn't just Republicans. Conservative Democrats like Mary Landrieu joined the attack on the administration's policy. In a letter to the New York Times, Landrieu (who mocked safety concerns about deepwater drilling in late 2009) claimed:

By idling 33 deepwater exploratory rigs and halting six more en route to the gulf, the moratorium will effectively lay off as many as 46,000 workers. For every 200 workers on a rig, another 800 are onshore providing support goods and services.

According to analysts at Dun & Bradstreet, some 2,800 Louisiana businesses will be affected, and state economists estimate that Louisiana alone could lose up to 120,000 jobs by 2014. The economic ripple effect will make the $100 million fund for unemployed workers just a drop in the bucket.

Finally, when drilling stops here, we simply export millions of barrels of oil production each day to countries like Nigeria that do not have the safety standards or political will to protect the world’s oceans. Is that the environmental solution that The Times is advocating?

These oil-friendly politicians -- virtually all of whom claimed that deepwater drilling is 100% safe before BP's disaster -- claimed that the moratorium would send drilling rigs overseas, never to come back. They were wrong. They argued that even as BP's leaking well gushed into the Gulf of Mexico, we should proceed full-speed ahead on deepwater drilling without figuring out how to mitigate the risks inherent in such drilling. Even if they'd been right about the economic consequences of the moratorium, that position would have been reckless and irresponsible. But they weren't right. They were as wrong as wrong can be.

What changed?

Rep. Mark Kirk voted against legislation helping states pay for teachers and health care Tuesday, just one day after he said he was likely to support the measure.

The $26 billion legislation was approved largely along party lines, and President Barack Obama signed it immediately.

Kirk said Monday that the jobs bill would not increase the federal deficit and he was inclined to support it because it would keep teachers in the classroom. But when it came time to vote, the Republican voted "no."

In a statement Tuesday, Kirk said he decided to vote against the legislation after reading it and concluding it increased spending and taxes more than he first thought.

"As a fiscal conservative, I could not support this bill and will work to cut spending, taxing and borrowing in this and future Congresses," he said.

This is a deficit-reducing bill -- to the tune of $1.3 billion, accomplished in part by ravaging the food stamp program, and by eliminating tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. That's the "tax increases" Kirk is whining about.

So to recap, Kirk would rather keep tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, than to keep teachers in the classrooms.

Interesting priorities, those, and they should be tied to his neck. Indeed, this should be tied around the necks of the entire GOP. Digby:

Here's the lugubrious GOP star Mike Pence on the passage of the emergency state teacher, cop and firefighter funding:

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) picked up on that theme today on ABC’s Top Line, calling it a “massive state bailout.” When host Z. Byron Wolf asked what the GOP plan would be to help teachers who are about to lose their jobs — particularly the 3,600 in Indiana, Pence didn’t have much to offer:

PENCE: Well, look I’m married to a school teacher. My wife spent more than a decade in a public school classroom. So I love teachers! Teachers, firefighters, policemen are all Americans and they all know that the economic policies of bailouts and handouts have failed to create jobs.

can you spot the fear and dissonance there? I knew that you could.

I'm telling you, this is where the vulnerable underbelly of their "just say no" campaign. They are voting against nice, white, suburban middle class Americans this time (along with nice brown and black suburban middle class Americans) with this crusade. And going after teachers, cops and firefighters is a very, very dangerous thing to do.

It's particularly dangerous in Democratic states like Illinois, and it can be dangerous in many more places.

From Pew:

The Republican Party's prospects for the midterm elections look much better than they did four years ago at this time, while the Democrats' look much worse. Voter preferences for the upcoming congressional elections remain closely divided (45% support the Democratic candidate or lean Democratic, while 44% favor the Republican or lean Republican). In polling conducted in August-September 2006, the Democrats held an 11-point advantage (50% to 39%).

What's interesting is where the problem lies (details here):

The GOP is also now running better than four years ago among three key swing groups in recent elections -- independents, white Catholics and seniors.

While the generic looks decent enough (Dems +1 at 45-44), the better likely voter turnout for the GOP means losses for Democrats.

Further, this emphasizes once again, the problem isn't so much the base, it's the indies.

Republicans and Democrats express near-unanimous support for candidates of their own party (93% each), while independents are divided (42% for Republican candidates vs. 35% for Democratic candidates).

More than eight-in-ten Republican-leaning independents (85%) favor the GOP candidate in their district; 78% of Democratic-leaning independents support the Democratic candidate.

Is it rational? Well, never underestimate what voters don't know. Separately, Pew publishes this:

Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama. Another 19% admit they do not know which president signed the bank bailout into law. Notably, there is no partisan divide on the question. Just 36% of Republicans, 35% of independents and 34% of Democrats know that the government bailout of banks and financial institutions was signed into law by former President Bush. And Democrats (46%) are just as likely as Republicans (50%) to say TARP was passed under Obama.

In fact, the public knows a lot more about Twitter than TARP. But they do know about economic conditions, and they will vote on that.

Another bit of conventional 2010 wisdom bit the dust in Colorado last night--the "anti-incumbent mood" of the country sure didn't show up there as Sen. Michael Bennet easily turned away a challenge from former state representative, and state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. Bennet, a novice politician and an appointed, rather than elected official, doesn't entirely fit the mold of an incumbent, but the dynamics of this race put him there.

It also, at least as far as Colorado is concerned, should put to rest the idea that Obama is toxic to Dems. In a political environment like this, the one thing that seems to be emerging, beginning with the fall of 2009 with the special elections in NY-23 and Massachusetts is that there really isn't a conventional wisdom to this cycle. The electorate isn't particularly inclined to follow any rule the punditry prescribes for it.

This very tough primary race will have a few good outcomes. First, it gave Bennet his first tough campaign, experience that he's going to need in the general. His opponent there will be Ken Buck the incredibly gaffe-proned Tea Party candidate and Weld County District Attorney.

At a campaign event, in apparent response to a Norton ad calling on him to "be man enough," Buck said voters should pick him because he "does not wear high heels." When Tom Tancredo called Obama a greater threat to the country than Al Qaeda, Buck was caught saying "I can't believe that guy opened his mouth," and was later forced to concede there was "truth" in Tancredo's statement. Finally, he was recorded by a Democratic operative calling birther members of the Tea Party "dumbasses."

I have a feeling Colorado is going to be an interesting to watch. But the second thing that this primary did was really motivate voters. Turnout was massive, and Colorado Dems became very engaged. A big unity rally tomorrow will be the first attempt at bringing them together for facing Buck.

The race between the plagiarist and UN conspiracy theorist remained too close to call throughout the night and as of this writing. It could be weeks before provisional and overseas ballots are counted and Hickenlooper knows who he faces.

Finally, it's the return of the Bushes. Walker Stapleton, George W's first cousin, won the Republican primary for state treasurer. Oh, joy.

Update: The update for the morning, Maes is declaring victory, and as of this report, McInnis wasn't conceding. "Maes beat McInnis by about 5,300 votes with 100 percent of the precincts reporting." Tancredo remains in the race as the American Constitution Party. Unless Dem John Hickenlooper really, really messes up in the next three months, Dems keep the govnernor's seat.

The quote:

"We have spent the last 20 months governing," Obama told Democratic contributors in Austin. "They spent the last 20 months politicking. Now we've got three months to go, and so we've decided, well, we can politick for three months."

He added of his Republican foes: "They've forgotten I know how to politick pretty good."

This is a huge, huge, flaw in the president's understanding of his job. To read into this comment, the president believes that his job is to "govern," then to stop governing and "politick." It reveals a noble, yet completely impractical, idealism about government that has no basis in reality. Politics is not separate from government. The two things are so fused together, they are one and the same phenomenon with different names. If the president believes they are two separate things, he is making a serious error of understanding about modern presidential leadership in America. Furthermore, this sort of error undermines his ability to move his own agenda forward. Mishandling or neglecting politics is malpractice in governing.

This thinking reminds me of George H.W. Bush's beliefs about his role as president. I have an old book on my shelf called The Rhetorical Presidency of George H.W. Bush that described Bush the Elder's philosophy:

Part of Bush's rhetorical self-immolation revolved around his insistence on separating campaign rhetoric (or politics) from the presidential discourse (or governance). To Bush, politics meant the narrow, self-interested activities that one had to engage in to get elected to office: campaigning, taking ideological positions, appealing to the base, using strong language to differentiate oneself from ones opponent, and generating the emotions necessary to move people to active participation in the electoral process. Governance, in contrast, meant broad, consensus-building activities undertaken for the common good. It meant statesmanship, diplomacy, compromise, and legislative achievement. It called for negotiation rather than proclamation, for quiet diplomacy rather than public declarations.

George H.W. Bush had some legislative achievements he can still be very proud of, like the Americans with Disabilities Act. He also had some significant foreign policy successes such as his handling of the reunification of Germany and the relatively peaceful dismantling of the Eastern Bloc. But his one-term presidency cannot be considered pivotal, and certainly not transformational. This sort of thinking about the separation of politics and governing is the reason his presidency was milquetoast. He neglected good politics during a recession. By the time he came out of "governing mode," it was too late.

The president is, more than anything else, a leader of people. Yes, the president has responsibility to execute the law, and this is why he is given a great number of officers and employees to carry out this task. Yes, it is his job to be the head of state, representing the whole of the United States. He is also the head of a party, chief administrative official, and a legislative agenda-setter. But all of these other roles all come as a result of the public spokesman part. In fact, to do the other jobs, the primary one has to be done with great acumen.

In our 24/7, fast-paced world, the president no longer has the luxury of putting the campaign aside after the election to become his own chief of staff. The president has lieutenants for a reason. They conduct the negotiations, govern the bureaucracy, negotiate with Congress. His job is mainly to inspire loyalty in them and make sure they implement his will. The president's political operation has to require his close attention. That is how he maintains his strong connection with the people. This doesn't take him away from governing, it is the fundamental element in governing. As I've argued before, the campaign is never over for a president who is challenging the status quo. A president's power does not rest on statutory authority, but proceeds directly from support from the people.

I've said since January that I believe the White House political staff needs a shake up. Fresh blood needs to be brought in because I do not believe the president's current staff have served him well. Barack Obama is a fantastic politician, but his staff is not keeping up. They all look very, very tired. All they seem to have in their repertoire is boring, forgettable town halls, throwaway Saturday videos, and oatmeal speeches at Democratic fundraisers. Instead of telling their opponents to "stop playing politics," they need to always play politics. They should always play to win with the same resources, staff, coordination, discipline, aggressiveness, and focus they had in 2008.

The buck, however, stops with the man in the chair. The president has got to understand that government and politics cannot be separated if he intends to re-order the nation as fundamentally as he has promised. There is never a time to put aside the messaging, contrasting, and voter intensification work that is the foundation of a strong presidency. It isn't a distraction. It's a key element in governing.

On the same day that the Fed said that "the pace of economic recovery is likely to be more modest in the near term than had been anticipated," the conservative National Federation of Independent Business released its Small Business Economic Trends report. Its optimism index fell 0.9 point to 88.1 in July, following a drop in June.  

The persistence of Index readings below 90 is  unprecedented in survey history.  The performance of the economy is  mediocre at best, given the extent of the decline over the past two years.   Pent up demand should be immense but it is not triggering a rapid pickup  in economic activity. Ninety (90) percent of the decline this month resulted  from deterioration in the outlook for business conditions in the next six months. Owners have no confidence that economic policies will “fix” the  economy. ...

Bottom line, owners remain pessimistic and nothing is happening in Washington to provide encouragement.  Confidence is lost.  At least the “real variables” (hiring, capital spending and inventory investment) did not deteriorate substantially in July.  The damage to the Optimism Index was done by expectations for business conditions for the second half – owners predict that the economy will not improve appreciably, at least on Main Street.  Big banks and big manufacturers may be doing well, but the small firms are not.  If this doesn’t change soon, the success of the large firms will be imperiled as well.” ...

Labor Market: Ten (10) percent (seasonally adjusted) reported unfilled job openings, up one point from June but historically very weak. Over the next three months, nine percent plan to increase employment (down one point), and 10 percent plan to reduce their workforce (up two points) ...

Capital Spending: The frequency of reported capital outlays over the past six months fell one point to 45 percent of all firms, one point above the 35 year record low reached most recently in December 2009. The percent of owners planning to make capital expenditures over the next few months fell one point to 18 percent, two points above the 35 year record low.

As can seen by this chart, business owners who think now is a good time to expand are not in the ascendancy.  Asked what was the single most important factor holding them back, the majority said lack of sales. Historically, small business has been the engine of economic growth and of ... job creation.

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

Mailbag

Dear Robert Gibbs,

I can't believe what you said! How dare you! I take umbrage, you...you...

Okay, okay...I admit it. I make a lousy hothead. Just ain't in me. So let me quickly say this and then I'll wander off in search of grannies to help cross the street so you can get back to work:

The Obama administration, in which you're a key player, came into office telling its base---namely, us---that we should not be patient. That we should push push push and make you enact the agenda that candidate Obama and his surrogates rattled off hundreds of times on the campaign trail. We were not to be sheep, you said---we were to be hard-headed realists.

"Make us do it!" your boss said. "Hold our feet to the fire!" "Hold us accountable for our actions!"

So we did. And we do. Every day. On blogs, on radio, on TV, through word-of-mouth or any other way we can think of. We're keeping our end of the bargain that you struck with us.

So, um, if I may say, sir: yikes...

During an interview with The Hill in his West Wing office, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted liberal naysayers, whom he said would never regard anything the president did as good enough.

"I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested," Gibbs said. "I mean, it’s crazy. ... They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality."

Well. Consider my butt paddled.

If the quality of our agreeing-to-do-what-you've-asked-us-to-do-since-2008 isn’t to your satisfaction, sir, perhaps you would like to clarify the role we---your base---should be playing. Because your rant has left me confused in the brainhead.

Just because you "achieve something"---whatever that something is---doesn’t automatically mean it's all magically delicious. We praise you loud 'n proud for what you do that makes sense (signing the bill yesterday to save jobs---yay!), criticize you for what doesn't make sense (Not signing a bill that creates public jobs to compensate for the jobs the private sector isn't creating because management has Gone Galt or something), and explain our positions and opinions as best we can by scrawling them on the dirt floors of our rabble huts.

I love your boss, Mr. Gibbs. I stood in line in a blizzard for two hours waiting to vote for him in the Maine caucus. I filled in the oval on my ballot so hard on November 4, 2008 that the marker tip almost went through the other side. And I like you, too, Bob. (Can I call you Bob? My dad's name was Bob.) I like much of what you've all accomplished so far under some very tough circumstances, and I've sang your praises aplenty. So, please...don’t swat at us like pesky gnats just because the feedback you get isn’t always pleasant. The sooner you learn that we're not automatons like the GOP's base, the better. (And we have this little habit of being correct about things an obscenely high percent of the time. You might want to look into that.)

So now what? I suggest we kiss (air kiss only, please, as I hear you have a cold), make up, and get down to the business of making the Republicans---aka the say nothing, do nothing, know nothing southern regional Save The Rich From The Poor party---regret they ever predicted a blowout in November. We'd be happy to meet you halfway by accepting an invitation to the White House for some beer.

Sincerely,

Just me...Billy

P.S. Please thank President Obama for appearing in a video at our Netroots Nation convention last month. I noticed he wove in a lengthy clip of "professional left" MSNBC host Rachel Maddow---who has been relentlessly and sharply critical of some of your policies and decisions---reciting a list of complimentary things about the administration. See? We ain't so bad.

P.P.S Don't look now, but I think your Secretary of Defense just started eliminating the Pentagon. You might want to have a little chat with Mr. Gates. Kucinich may have gotten to him with his mind-altering ray gun.

Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Wednesday punditry.

Via Ezra, here's Kombiz comparing R govs and R congressmen:

Not very serious about governance in Congress, are we?

Via Nate, Jonathan Cohn:

Not surprisingly, conservatives are unhappy with President Obama. Somewhat surprisingly, liberals are too--or, at least, a lot of liberal commentators.

This predates Gibbs.

Maureen Dowd:

Anyway, on one shopping expedition, I had a big fight with a roommate, no doubt over whether to get canned or frozen corn, creamed or whole kernel.

We were at a supermarket in a blighted part of D.C. My roommate got furious, stormed off in her car and left me stranded. I called my brother Kevin to come get me. On the way back to school, he offered this advice: "Never pick a fight with the guy who’s driving."

I took that to heart, literally and metaphorically. It has spared me plenty of problems since.

The column's about not settling for clones as friends and acquaintances, and the virtue of disagreement, but the advice is universal.

Harold Meyerson:

The Republican war  on the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is indeed directed at a mortal threat -- but not to the American nation. It is the threat that Latino voting poses to the Republican Party.

By proposing to revoke the citizenship of the estimated 4 million U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants -- and, presumably, the children's children and so on down the line -- Republicans are calling for more than the creation of a permanent noncitizen caste. They are endeavoring to solve what is probably their most crippling long-term political dilemma: the racial diversification of the electorate. Not to put too fine a point on it, they are trying to preserve their political prospects as a white folks' party in an increasingly multicolored land.

Michael Gerson:

It was always the most precarious of political balancing acts -- the liberal uniter. It worked brilliantly as a campaign theme. It has not survived the realities of governing. Obama's liberalism has provoked an intense national debate on the role and size of government, making him a deeply polarizing figure -- an impression, once created, that is hard to reverse.

The trouble with Republican commentators is they are inherently dishonest about what Republicans think (see Harold Meyerson for what Republicans really think) yet act as if what a small minority of the public thinks actually matters. Of course, lying about what Republicans think is how they attract independents, without which they cannot win.

Thomas Frank:

As the right howled "socialism," President Obama took pains to demonstrate his loyalty to the exhausted free-market faith. On trade issues and matters of economic staffing, he loudly signalled continuity with the discredited past. On the all-important issue of regulatory misbehavior—a natural for good-government types—he has done virtually nothing.

The real audacity has all been on the other side. Many Republicans chose to respond to the crisis not by renouncing the consensus faith of the last 30 years but by doubling down on it, calling for more deregulation, more war on government.

That they have partially succeeded with such a strategy in these years of financial crisis, mine disasters, and oil spills is testimony to their political brilliance—and to Democratic dysfunction. As is the burgeoning populist movement that now stands beside the GOP, transforming anger over unemployment into anger over the auto bailout and the good pensions enjoyed by public workers.

That's Frank's last column for the WSJ.

As part of the USA Patriot Act, the government's power to issue "national security letters" was greatly expanded. Without judicial review, the FBI can drop what amounts to subpoena on anyone and ask that they assist in providing information on a third party. The recipient of an NSL can be a librarian, a movie-rental store, a bank, an Internet service provider, anyone the bureau decides to target. As many as 50,000 NSLs have been issued in a single year, according to a Department of Justice review conducted in March 2008. That review revealed extensive abuse and violation of internal rules regarding the letters.

A national security letter comes complete with a life-long gag order. The recipient is permanently prohibited from revealing that s/he is a recipient of such a letter, even to a lawyer. This irked one recipient - the owner of an Internet start-up - so much that he ignored the bar on contacting a lawyer and got the American Civil Liberties Union to sue on his behalf. He subsequently wrote an anonymous Op-Ed for the Washington Post in 2007. The Post almost never publishes anonymous letters, but in his case, it made an exception. An excerpt:

Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL -- from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.

I resent being conscripted as a secret informer for the government and being made to mislead those who are close to me, especially because I have doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying investigation.

The NSL letter was rescinded in 2006 as consequence of the lawsuit. But the gag on discussing the details of the FBI's request for information in 16 categories of "electronic communication transactional records" and on identifying himself as the recipient of the bureau's letter continued.

Late last month, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero for the Southern District of New York finally lifted - or rather, partially lifted - the gag order. But the target didn't identify himself until Monday.  At Wired, Kim Zetter wrote:

Nicholas Merrill, 37, was president of New York-based Calyx Internet Access when he received a so-called “national security letter” from the FBI in February 2004 demanding records of one of his customers and filed a lawsuit to challenge it. His company was a combination ISP and security consultancy business that was launched in the mid-90s and had about 200 customers, Merrill said, many of them advertising agencies and non-profit groups.

Despite the fact that the FBI later dropped its demand for the records, Merrill was prohibited from telling his fiancée, friends or family members that he had received the letter or that he was embroiled in a lawsuit challenging its legitimacy. He occasionally showed up for court hearings about the case, but sat silently in the audience with other court observers. In 2007, he was prevented from publicly accepting an award for his courage from the American Civil Liberties Union, because he was not allowed to identify himself as the plaintiff in the case. ...

“My gut feeling is I’m an American,” Merrill said, in an interview with Threat Level on Tuesday. “I always have a right to an attorney. There’s no such thing as you can’t talk to your attorney.

“I kind of felt at the beginning, so few people challenge this thing, I couldn’t just stand by and see, in my opinion, the basic underpinnings of our government undermined,” he continued. “I was taught about how sophisticated our system of checks and balances is . . . and if you really believe in that, then the idea of one branch of government just demanding records without being checked and balanced by the judicial just is so obviously wrong on the surface.”

Merrill told  Ellen Nakashima at the Post Monday that he thought it "outlandish" that any of his clients, many of whom were ad agencies and major companies as well as human-rights and other nonprofit groups, would be investigated for terrorism or espionage.

As Scott Horton at Harper's said:

In the view of the national-security state, however, the prohibition on warrantless searches and seizures doesn’t apply to national security matters. They’ve argued this proposition for some time, with a good deal of success—especially with judges appointed by George W. Bush, who seem inordinately beholden to the concept of national security. Although other judges have found that the Fourth Amendment can’t simply be brushed aside, the experience with NSLs is a good demonstration of how the civil liberties envisioned by the Framers are being frittered away–in the hypothetical interest of national security.

Now Merrill can at least publicly accept that richly deserved award for his courage in taking on the national-security state without being able to tell anybody but his lawyers that he was doing so. He also deserves a big round of applause from the rest of us.

= = =

At Daily Kos on this day in 2006:

This is the biggest piece of shit Cal Thomas has ever published in his entire career -- and given Cal Thomas' career, that's saying something.

The narrow primary defeat of veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary is more than a loss for one man. It is a loss for his party and for the country. It completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing.

They used to be "San Francisco Democrats," a phrase coined by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick to describe the party's 1984 convention. But they have now morphed into Taliban Democrats because they are willing to "kill" one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe. ...

Papers that publish Thomas need to ask themselves -- right now -- if they stand by Thomas' virulent speech or not. We're long done with taking silence as an answer from the purveyors of mainstreamed hatemongering who innocently twiddle their thumbs as some of the most loathsome crap imaginable gets horked out on a regular basis.

Tonight's Rescue brought to you by Got a Grip, BentLiberal, shayera, vcmvo2, srkp23, and pico.

Diary Rescue is all about promoting good writers, so remember to subscribe to diarists whose work you enjoy reading.

• The related and vexing problems of AIDS, famine and access to clean water are the subject of boatsie's well-chronicled ecojustice: "IN AFRICA, AIDS HAS A WOMAN'S FACE" Part I. (BentLiberal)
• Setrak does an excellent job of linking and analyzing the latest news in AfPak RoundUp: A Lot of News From the Warzone. (vcmvo2)
• newpapyrus produces an inside-baseball look at space travel concerns of NASA, the military and the private sector in Conquering Cis-Lunar Space with Shuttle and ULA Technology. (BentLiberal)
• Shocko from Seattle shares some questions brought about by the process of trying to build an eco-house, in My building for the future: a glimpse at the economy. (srkp23)
• fake consultant pens an important diary On Saving 319,000 Jobs, Or, Legislation Keeps Teachers Teaching. (BentLiberal)
• iglais posits the need for a real transformative jobs policy in Infrastructure Dreams. (vcmvo2)
• Lefty Coaster writes a great synopsis of George Packer's in depth look at stalemated Senate chasing $$$ in the New Yorker. (BentLiberal)
• Mike Stagg writes a link-filled piece on transferring public assets to a private hospital in Grand Theft NOLA: Jindal Edition. (BentLiberal)
• Alec82 looks Beyond Prop 8: Relationship Recognition. (srkp23)
• In response to a rec-listed diary on the subject of rape, sunspark says writes a poignant first-person account on vulnerability. (BentLiberal)

jotter has the day's High Impact Diaries: August 9, 2010.

brillig has Top Comments - DARTS Edition.

Please suggest your own, and use as an open thread.

Lots to talk about in CT. On a low turnout day (despite the interest, this is vacation month in these parts), we'll have to work to hit 30%. Contrast this with the Lamont-Lieberman primary of 2006, where 43% turned out.

On the D Governor side, Dan Malloy beats Ned Lamont, and it wasn't close.

Democrat Dannel Malloy has scored a stunning victory, defeating Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont in the Democratic race for governor.

Malloy told the Hearst Connecticut Newspapers that Lamont called to concede shortly after 9:15 p.m. "I've won a primary and lost a primary, and winning's better," Malloy said.

Here's how the vote looks right now:

507 of 742 Precincts Reporting - 68%
Name Party Votes Vote %
Malloy, Dan Dem 71,895 58%
Lamont, Ned Dem 52,582 42%

On the R side, it's still too close to call, but Tom Foley leads Mike Fedele, maintaining that 5 point lead all evening:

499 of 742 Precincts Reporting - 67%
Name Party Votes Vote %
Foley, Tom GOP 38,180 43%
Fedele, Michael GOP 33,781 38%
Griebel, Oz GOP 17,116 19%

As for Linda McMahon, she wins but as of this writing with just under 50%:

U.S. Senate - GOP Primary
488 of 742 Precincts Reporting - 66%
Name Party Votes Vote %
McMahon, Linda GOP 43,245 48%
Simmons, Rob GOP 26,621 30%
Schiff, Peter GOP 19,784 22%

CT Post:

Simmons called McMahon and conceded shortly before 10 p.m.

Asked if he would endorse McMahon, Simmons said, "I essentially have endorsed her tonight by pledging my support to her."

In the last Q-poll with general election match-ups, Malloy led Foley by 15 and Dick Blumenthal led McMahon by 10.

Update [2010-8-10 22:51:21 by DemFromCT]: Foley wins the Gov GOP nod by <wait for it> 5.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News analyst and no screaming liberal, became the latest conservative to call out the Dred Scott Republicans for their ridiculous politicking on immigration--repealing or amending the 14th Amendment. Think Progress has the story and video.

NAPOLITANO: The law has been upheld uniformly since 1868 and without exception. And we start with a couple of basics. The Congress cannot change the constitution of the 14th amendment on its own. It takes 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the states to change the amendment. [...] so this is nothing but political chatter by those who are concerned understandably by problems at the border. [...] I can’t imagine that there’d be a consensus to change the 14th amendment. [...]

HEMMER: But if the [Birthright Citizenship Act] were carried out, you had 100 co-sponsors about a year ago, it would require at least one parent to be a US citizen for a baby to become an American citizen at birth. If you were to enact the BCA as some refer to it, is that a way to get around the 14th amendment, and get done what people like John Cornyn, and John Kyl and John McCain, and we heard John Boehner are trying to do.

NAPOLITANO: No! That would not be a a way around it. There is no way to get around the 14th amendment. These people took an oath to uphold the Constitution whether they agree with it or not! All of it not part of it! The Supreme Court has said you cannot take privileges or benefits away from a child because of a crime committed by the parent. Therefore everybody born here is an American citizen, no matter what their parents’ status was at their birth.

It is just so much "political chatter" intended to drive the immigration wedge in further, playing to the absolute worst instincts of the base. Lindsey Graham is slimy, but he's smart enough to know all of the things that Napolitano lays out above, and that when he calls for a repeal of a constitutional amendment, it's not going to happen. What's really sad for America is that what should be the loyal opposition in Congress is so afraid of primary challenges from the crazy right that they're willing to forego their oath to the Constitution.