Required reading

Lieberman soldiers on.

Sully tears Karl Rove apart.

Yes, this is exactly what the GOP needs. Have we ever seen a more dimwitted party chairman than Michael Steele?

More excellent material from John Burke at The Purple Center.

Need more proof that governing from the center not only works, but is a necessity?

On the other side of the coin, this piece of garbage from administration shill Eugene Robinson embodies everything that has gone terribly, terribly wrong with modern liberalism.

Speaking of lefty kool-aid drinkers, E.J. Dionne managed to shed the label for a few days and came up with a reasonably insightful piece on young voters.

The Detroit News examines at the utter failure of the "stimulus."

Huck: "I might be fat, but [Corzine] is incompetent, and I can lose weight."

And Aerosmith without Steven Tyler? Really?

Stewart does Beck

Jon Stewart is an occasional guilty pleasure of mine.

When he unloads on the $20 million man, it's wonderful.

For all his citations to the Founding Fathers, Glenn Beck sure must have missed the boat on some of the things John Adams had to say:

"Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction and division of society."

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to the other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

I'm certain many readers view Beck as some sort of great patriot. But few people in 21st century America are as divisive or flat-out ridiculous as he is. Perhaps the most insightful thing I've ever heard Beck say was when he described himself as a "rodeo clown." His wild conspiracy theories and outlandish rhetoric have made him nothing but a shill, and ergo, those to the left of Gary Bauer have trouble taking him seriously.

It seems that anyone -- conservative or liberal -- who equates any presidential administration with the Third Reich ought to be so dismissed.

Maybe while he's recuperating at home, he'll watch Stewart cream him and have an opportunity to think about how ridiculous his shtick really is.

"Irony," defined

Seriously?

At a tea party rally on the steps of the Capitol yesterday, in an attempt to show his originalist bona fides, House Minority Leader John Boehner mixed up the Preamble and the Declaration of Independence.

Oops.

Apparently 10,000 (or, tens of thousands, depending on your source) tea partiers descended on the steps of the Capitol yesterday, cheering wildly while the likes of Boehner, Michelle Bachmann and Tony Perkins tossed them red meat.

(My parents' congressman, Rep. Todd Akin, also reportedly botched an attempt to lead the crowd in a recital of the Pledge of Allegiance.)

A woman named Mary Beth Bishop of Colorado spent $500 on a plane ticket, and was quoted by Politico as warning the Democrats, "We need to show and uphold the Constitution. It wasn't written on toilet paper."

Readers know I am no defender of President Obama's policies. But there is nothing remotely "unconstitutional" about publicly subsidized health insurance. It's certainly bad policy, and Republicans shouldn't hesitate to vote against any bill with a public option in it, but to say that the president and Congress are stepping all over the Constitution is absurd. This is the exact same battle cry used by left-wing moonbats use to claim that any law limiting abortion is "unconstitutional" -- the use of a conclusory statement of law with no precedent to support it.

Come to think of it, do you know what actually qualifies as constitutionally repugnant?

Detaining American citizens as "enemy combatants," without trial and without access to an attorney.

A president claiming plenary wartime powers.

A president, exercising his Article II authority, who claims that he alone determines the scope of that authority.

A president who claims that he cannot be limited by his predecessors' executive orders.

For the last eight years, Boehner, Akin, et al. sat idly by while the Bush administration engaged in an unprecedented expansion of executive power that, of all presidential actions since Nixon, was the most crushing to the text of the actual Constitution.

However, over the past 10 months, the House leadership and the right-wing lunatic fringe have apparently experienced an awakening as to what the Constitution purportedly says.

Ladies and gentlemen, your 2009 Republican Party.

More required reading

Zakaria on Afghanistan.

Will slams Cheney, suggests "dithering" might have been useful re: Iraq.

Will, again, on a potential GOP wave in 2010.

These numbers -- from Illinois, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Nevada and yes, New York -- back him up.

El Rushbo is losing his marbles.

Newsweek's Jon Meacham on our 21st-century conceptions of ideology.

Halperin thinks the administration is punting.

Politico asks: What if Bush had done that?

From deep in the vault: A great John McCain piece, appropriately entitled "The Subversive."

More McCain: Some retro campaign fodder from January '08.

Sullivan on conservatism

Take it with a grain of salt if you must, but he's exactly right:

"It's perfectly proper -- even admirable -- to demonstrate and argue against the new administration's ideas, but it's also worth recalling that this plan in its essentials was an integral part of the president's campaign platform and his party's effective manifesto. It was debated ad nauseum last year, and Obama won by a hefty margin. The tone of these protests suggests that this is some wild power-grab. It isn't. ...

The protesters keep saying that they want their country back. Sorry, my fellow small-governmenters, but this country is a democracy, and you didn't lose your country, you just lost an election. You had your chance for eight years. You blew it, and you lost. What Obama is doing is what he was elected to do. The principled response is not a massive, extremist-riddled hissy fit a few months in, but a constructive set of proposals ... You have to win some political credibility for that; and then you have to beat the man you lost so badly to last year. That's the civil and civilized way forward for the right. It also seems, alas, to be the one they are currently refusing to take."

The right and the president

According to the most recent Fox News poll, President Obama's approval rating has slipped to 49. I have offered my thoughts on the president many times on this site -- I have disapprovingly referred to him as a 50 percent president, saw through his changenhope charade from day one and ripped the starry-eyed Obamatrons who wistfully hang on his every word.

I continue to be dumbfounded, however, by his treatment from the lunatic fringe.

This comment from Glenn Beck -- I'm sure, echoed by many others on the right -- was just obscene. (Here, you'll find some gratuitous Beck weepage.)

Applause to Joe Scarborough -- a guy who was reviled by the far right as one of the first conservatives to criticize the Bush administration during Bush's first term, and who is now being criticized for pointing out the hypocrisy of Limbaugh, Hannity, et al., who willingly followed Bush over a cliff and now insist on calling Obama names to burnish their "conservative" credentials.

By the way, if, as Limbaugh mandates, refusing to call the president names makes you a "neutered chickified moderate," then I suppose Scarborough and I are in this together.

I genuinely don't believe that Barack Obama is Muslim, Marxist, a Manchurian candidate, anti-American, or a man who wishes to take away your guns and weaken our military. I believe he was born in Hawaii, is a Christian and yes, like most liberals, loves his country. I suppose I'm in the minority when I say that the president seems like a reasonably nice man who loves his family (after barely knowing his own father) but is simply wrong. He was wrong about the stimulus, he's wrong about "health care reform," he's wrong about deficit spending, and he's just flat-out wrong about the proper role of government.

If Limbaugh and I sat in the same congressional chamber, I'm sure he and I would vote together more often than not. In fact, away from his microphone, I might even like the man personally.

From 1992 to 1998, Rush Limbaugh shared the spotlight with House Speaker Newt Gingrich as the voice of a thoughtful opposition to the fiscally moderate, socially liberal President Clinton. After the revelation of Clinton's affair(s), the far right went into hysterics (the same people, by the way, who will likely re-elect admitted philanderer David Vitter to a second Senate term, and who would pull the lever for admitted adulterer Gingrich in a heartbeat), led by the thrice-married Limbaugh.

As a result of conservatism's uproar against Clinton's dalliances, Democrats, in turn, upon Bush's election in 2000, were almost universally aligned against the Bush administration from day one. After approving ratings in the 80s following 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, Bush's invasion of Iraq consolidated even moderate Democrats like Jim Webb and Claire McCaskill behind the likes of MoveOn.org and Nancy Pelosi. In the years that followed, some of the things said about Bush were nothing short of despicable. Bush limped through his second term, a lame duck from the very beginning, with very few and 70 percent of the country -- and probably nearly half of his own party -- lined up in firm disapproval of him.

And to this point, Republicans have been just as relentless with Obama. Look -- I don't agree with the man either, and think that his two signature initiatives -- the "stimulus" and his vague idea of "health care reform" -- are disastrous. But his treatment by the far right -- led by virtually every talking head from Beck to Savage and Ingraham to Levin in an effort to toss red meat to the base and spike ratings -- is just as disgusting as Democrats' treatment of Bush.

But I've found that my take on the president is shared by virtually no one: He is flat wrong on almost every policy initiative, but he's not an evil guy.

I suppose that puts me in a lonely place.

Required reading: Nobel Prize edition

Really?

Steele is dead on.

Even liberals can't believe it.

Richard Cohen says the president is still in campaign mode.

Peggy Noonan, one of our favorites and the epitome of a conservative elitist, thoughtfully examines the situation in Afghanistan.

Al Franken annihilates a spongy-kneed anti-plaintiffs lackey. If anyone would care to discuss the GOP's fixation with the utter and complete fallacy that is the "out of control plaintiffs" movement, click here and become educated.

Fiscal responsibility is dead.

Heyward asks: Is conservatism, too?

Or is it just a cult?

Can anyone possibly be surprised by this Fox News report?

Mark my words: This man will be the Republican nominee in 2012.

Another sad example of intolerance reigning supreme on college campuses.

John Stewart obliterates ACORN. (Hat tip: Stubborn Facts)

And Joe Scarborough unloads on Limbaugh.

The maverick rides again

Politico has a worthwhile piece on Sen. McCain and his efforts to reshape the Republican Party. I actually read most of it while in line at the downtown Starbucks on my new firm-issued iPhone.

Anyway ...

The more I have read about McCain, the more fascinating his political career has been.

Democrats dismissed him during the campaign as the second coming of George W. Bush, and argued that his ill-conceived response to the financial meltdown demonstrated a temperament unfit for the presidency. At best, conservatives simply admire the man and his accomplishments -- warily -- from a distance. At worst (see: Glenn Beck), the tin-pot loudmouths on the far right think he's the second coming of Trotsky. Beck, incredibly, went so far as to say that he would be worse for the country than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Ann Coulter said she'd support Clinton before him because, in her words, Hillary was "more conservative." Rush Limbaugh's campaign of perpetual rants against the Senior Senator is approaching the two-decade mark. Laura Ingraham inexplicably engaged in a war of words with McCain's daughter and called her "fat."

At age 72, it would be quite easy for McCain to ride off into the sunset, particularly after two brutal presidential campaigns (2000 and 2008) that left him deeply disappointed. I'm sure most conservatives wish he would do so. However, he intends to seek re-election to his fifth Senate term in 2010, and doesn't appear to be going anywhere.

I've argued here many times -- and Newt Gingrich has said the same thing -- that the Republican Party must enlarge its tent in order to return to prominence. John McCain has voted with the Republican Party better than 80 percent of the time during his 22-year Senate career. He is a conservative. Period. But it's his (in?)famous penchant for crossing the aisle and working with the Feingolds, the Kennedys and the Liebermans that has made him one of the most admired political figures in American life (and one of the most reviled figures by the far right).

Colin Powell was dead wrong when he said the GOP needed to move toward the center and ditch the "small government" mantra if it wanted to return to power. The Republican Party does not need to sacrifice its core principles, but rather needs to be more inclusive, more accommodating, more thoughtful and more civil. There exists an incredible vacuum in Washington -- the president is too aloof and inexperienced, congressional Democrats are too liberal, and Republican leaders feel compelled to capitulate to the shrill voices on the fringe -- that is dying to be filled. Americans want solutions that the vast majority of the Democratic Party is simply unable to provide.

The GOP will be better off if thoughtful candidates who appeal to the vital center are on the ballot. Kudos to Sen. McCain for his work in this regard.

Required reading: Commish's swearing-in edition

Tomorrow, I will be sworn in as a full-fledged attorney at law in Jefferson City, the town that incomprehensibly happens to be the capital of Missouri.

This means that if you're located in or around the St. Louis area and need an attorney, ours is the firm you want. Of course, the shroud of secrecy around "the Commish" means that my identity is never divulged on this site. However, you can leave a post in the comments section at any time with your e-mail address, and I'd be glad to follow up with you. Our firm does mostly civil litigation, but we're pretty close to what you'd classify as a full-service operation.

Now, for some of the web's more interesting reading:

The best take on 9/11, eight years later, is from Andrew Sullivan, who is quickly becoming one of our favorites.

The RCP blog thinks that Sen. Dodd's re-election bid remains on thin ice, despite a recent poll to the contrary.

More election trouble for the Dems?

Charlie Cook says they're "bleeding independents."

Jeremy Lott from Politico thinks, and I quote, President Obama is "failing miserably."

The Obama White House made even more exceptions to their ultra-stringent, transparent ethics standards? I don't believe it!

Philip K. Howard from The Atlantic gives an informative overview of potential medical malpractice reforms. Interestingly, tort reform is virtually the only Republican idea the president has culled thus far as part of his health care package, and it's the plank of the GOP platform that I find to be the most asinine. I'll freely admit my bias against tort reform as a trial lawyer. However, my thoughts on tort reform can be found here. Facts are stubborn things.

Justin Gardner of the invaluable Donklephant examines the world of rescissions.

Our friend John Burke at The Purple Center has a good take on Congressman Wilson's idiotic outburst last week during the president's speech. My thought on Rep. Wilson is this: Sure, many liberals called President Bush a liar at almost every turn. But there's something different about a presidential address to a joint session of Congress, and an elected official's conduct during such a time. Regardless of your feelings on the president, Wilson's outburst was ugly and quite frankly, unbecoming of an elected official. Imagine your outrage, conservatives, if Charlie Rangel had done that circa 2006.

Two good takes on the "Obama wants to brainwash our children" issue: Pat Buchanan and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Bill McClellan.

Sullivan, again, on the conservative movement that effectively excommunicated him.

Brooks.

Michael Moore says he might quit documentaries. Perhaps he should also quit triple cheeseburgers and morbid obesity.

From the WTF department

I'd like to offer a hearty "attaboy" to the members of the lunatic fringe who took to the streets on September 12.

By the way, for those of you interested in cementing the GOP as a permanent, irrelevant minority, dressing your kids up like this is a great start.

Andrew Sullivan has his take here. I agree with 90% of it.

I had similar thoughts in April during the advent of the tea party protests.

I don't disagree with the idea that the current administration spends too much and is unconcerned with the deficit. Unless Sarah Palin inexplicably wins the Republican nomination, I will not be voting to re-elect Barack Obama in 2012.

But how quickly we forget about the incompetent, big-government "compassionate conservatism" nonsense peddled by Bush & Co. for eight years that is largely responsible for the Obama administration sweeping into power in the first place. This was an administration that immediately squandered a $200 billion budget surplus, doubled the national debt in just eight years and at virtually every corner, attempted to expand the size and scope of the federal government (Medicare Part D, the TARP bailout, every single possible issue concerning civil liberties, etc.). Outside of his conduct of the war in Afghanistan, I cannot think of one single measure that should indicate to anyone -- Republican, Democrat or independent -- that George W. Bush was an effective president. Sorry.

Here's why that's relevant. Bush left office with an approval rating right at 30 percent. However, his favorables among self-identified Republicans remained in the 70s. I'd bet the farm that the vast, vast majority of those marching would be more than happy to whoop and holler and tell you how much they miss the free-spending Dubya. As Sullivan noted, "limited government" appears to be quite an elastic idea.

Look. I don't care for Obama, either. I have written ad nauseum about why his "changenhope" banter was nothing more than a dog and pony show, and how he has been intellectually lazy (at best) at almost every turn in addressing critics of his policies.

However, I can't take these protesters seriously. These marches are not borne out of principle or logic, but rather out of the same sort of hyperpartisanship that has driven intellectual discourse in this country to the brink of extinction.