Peter, thanks for those kind words! I'm glad you enjoyed my piece.

I said what I wanted to say about Bachmann in my long article. I'd add, though, that experience has rarely been a deciding factor in presidential contests—just look at the current occupant of the Oval Office!

Bachmann's challenge is to broaden her appeal beyond the conservative base of the Republican party. Can she do it? I think she already is, by deemphasizing social issues and running as a Reagan Democrat who opposes the Obama agenda.

We'll see how well Bachmann does on the trail. But if I were a Democrat or a moderate Republican, I would not underestimate her.

RAYCON raises a good point. It just occurred to me that I chastised Mike Pence for doing the same thing I praised Chris Christie for doing a few days earlier. But here's the difference: I don't think Mike Pence can win the presidency, whereas it's a real possibility for Christie.

Why couldn't Pence win? He's much too ideological. But an ideological edge is exactly the quality that would allow him to make an impact in a primary fight. Right now the political market is looking for a Tea Partying rabble rouser with credentials to captivate the grassroots. In 2016 the market will be full of straight-talking adults with executive experience—and Christie will be the most prominent.

Peter, Bloomberg spent more than $100 million on his mayoral campaign, and as you note he still barely squeaked past 50 percent. It goes to show you that money is necessary but not sufficient in politics. For another example, take Meg Whitman, who's spent close to $120 million on her campaign and still trails Jerry Brown.

Most people would look at the 2009 NYC result and come to the conclusion that his career in politics has plateaued. But Michael Bloomberg is not most people. He is an incredibly, filthy rich and powerful person who is used to getting his way. This is a man who overturns a term limits law, wins reelection, then comes out for term limits again. He's so in love with power that the opinions of voters matter little to him.

In a normal world, that wouldn't be a winning platform. But we do not live in a normal world. And I have a feeling that in 2012, there will be many voters who want an alternative from Obama's liberalism on the one hand and Tea Party populism on the other. They may be tempted by Bloomberg's version of liberalism instead.

Peter, I neglected to mention that "Inflation Minus One!" would make a great chant at future Tea Party marches. I'd rally behind it.

I agree with all of these observations! When we talk about the GOP peaking "too early," though, we need to remember to take all polling with a grain of salt. Revealed preference -- the election -- is far more important than stated preference -- the polls. The RCP average has the GOP advantage in the generic ballot at about 5 points, which is still good for the Republicans, but not quite as whopping as the Gallup number.

The main challenge for the Republicans in 2011 will be not to over-interpret the election results, as the Democrats did in 2008. They will also have to remember that you cannot govern from Capitol Hill, as Newt Gingrich attempted in 1995. And they will have to be prepared for the possibility that Obama will shift to the center (Obama told Brian Williams on Sunday that his focus will be the deficit, debt, and the economy in 2011/2012).

And of course, starting November 3, the Republicans will have to start thinking of how they'll answer Robert Redford's famous question at the end of The Candidate: "What do I do now?"

Scott, to answer your question, there probably isn't a whole lot of disagreement between Ryan and Gingrich on the issues. But manner counts for a lot -- and I'm afraid that, for all his strengths, Gingrich comes off as snarky and polarizing, whereas Ryan comes off as youthful, optimistic, and wonky.

James, I agree. There's always reason to be skeptical when Newt Gingrich says he's contemplating a presidential run. For example, several years ago I wrote about the non-existent 2008 Gingrich campaign for The Weekly Standard. But I think Gingrich is a little more serious this time than last, because the political environment for Republicans seems much more promising (right now, anyway).

And I agree with Scott that in some sense this rivalry is unusual. The two figures are a good match. But, as the cliché goes, there can be only one. And of course this rivalry in no way precludes the possibility of a Palin-Gingrich ticket. (Though I should also say that such a ticket would probably be much too right-wing for the country, and Palin would be better served, if she somehow wins the nomination, to choose Paul Ryan for veep.)

My 2010 summer reading has been a grab-bag. Among the best books so far: Raghuram Rajan's Fault Lines, Norman Podhoretz's Making It, David Willetts's Modern Conservatism, and Ian McEwan's Atonement. A recent trip to Los Angeles brought to mind Harlan Ellison, whose short stories and essays, when I encountered them in my early teens, made me want to be a writer. So lately I've been on an Ellison kick, revisiting the yellowed, musty, out of print paperbacks I've collected over the years, and trying to come up with a peg for an article on the great controversialist. His "I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream" is still one of the scariest things you will ever read.

Jimmie,

I meant that even if Democrats maintain control of the House of Representatives, a center-right majority of conservative Republicans and moderate-to-conservative Democrats would be in a position to block liberal initiatives from Pelosi and company (a VAT, for example). A "confused and meandering stasis" is preferable, in my opinion, to majorities that allow liberals to enact bad laws.

George, there's no reason it can't be both weakness and arrogance!

Why did Obama and Reid want to avoid a public hearing on Berwick? Because the health care overhaul is unpopular, and the idea of rationing even more so.

But I'm also not so sure that "Obama can muscle pretty much any nominee through the chamber." His muscles weren't strong enough to get Dawn Johnson through the Senate, or Robert Harding. Berwick may well have met a similar fate, since Democrats have no desire to take a political risk in the months before what they know is going to be a bad election. Hence the turn to a recess appointment.

The recess power is legitimate; Obama's use of it does not trouble me. Especially because the decision reveals that Obama's influence over Senate Democrats, and the body at large, is waning.

The presidency may be enough to nominate judges and run foreign policy, but to enact major reforms requires congressional cooperation and assent. So George W. Bush was able to prosecute the Iraq surge despite the Democratic Congress, but his domestic agenda was a nonstarter, even on issues such as immigration on which he and the Democrats held common ground.

I think most Republicans and conservatives understand the high threshold required to take back the House and Senate. Failure to do so may cause the media to cheer and a fair amount of conservative thumb-sucking, but a center-right majority of Republicans and conservative Democrats would still control the House, re-orienting the direction of our politics.

What will be lost after this year's election, no matter the final tally, will be Obama's aspirations for a liberal transformative presidency. He could still be the president who enacts major tax and entitlement reforms that produce balanced budgets and economic prosperity. But I don't think that's where his heart is, nor where his ambitions lie.

Rob, I write under Matthew but my friends call me Matt -- and you are a friend!

Your reference to the uncertainty problem brings to mind Amity Shlaes's Forgotten Man. I listened to Shlaes give a talk in 2009, and the lesson I took from it was that it wasn't so much any single New Deal program that prolonged the Depression, but the overall atmosphere created by FDR's anti-business rhetoric and caprice. Let's not forget, either, that FDR's attitude toward the market wasn't any more popular than Obama's attitude is today. Recently Michael Barone pointed out that FDR was on track to lose the 1940 election until the imminent war became the dominant issue. Democrats' anti-business policies come back to haunt them. Question is, will the 2010-2012 Republicans be able -- or even willing -- to undo the damage?

I agree with you, Trace. Though I doubt McChrystal is going to run for president.

Speaking of Hillary, Ursula, the Rolling Stone piece was filled with interesting tidbits, among them further evidence that Secretary Clinton fully supports COIN in Afghanistan. Other tidbits: McChrystal voted for Obama (!), enjoys Bud Light Lime, and edited the West Point literary review.

If McChrystal really wants to be fired, he may get his wish. Here's Sens. Lieberman, Graham, and McCain:

We have the highest respect for General McChrystal and honor his brave service and sacrifice to our nation. General McChrystal’s comments, as reported in Rolling Stone, are inappropriate and inconsistent with the traditional relationship between Commander-in-Chief and the military. The decision concerning General McChrystal’s future is a decision to be made by the President of the United States.

From the oil spill to the (lack of a) budget to Iran to Afghanistan, the Obama administration increasingly looks like it is in over its head.

I take two things away from this fantastic conversation: Sarah Palin continues to be one of the most controversial and interesting figures in American politics, and conservatives are excited but also anxious as the 2012 presidential election approaches. On Palin, I urge everyone to read Norman Podhoretz's March 2010 essay: "What she does know -- and in this respect, she does resemble Reagan -- is that the United States has been a force for good in the world, which is more than Barack Obama, whose IQ is no doubt higher than hers, has yet to learn."

Most failed vice presidential candidates fade away. Not Palin. Why? I think it's because of her remarkable political savvy. She has a deep connection with the conservative grassroots, because she is one of them. Surely that counts for something.

On 2012, we should all relax. The midterms aren't even over! Right now the top tier of candidates is Romney, Huckabee, and Pawlenty. Daniels, Palin, and Gingrich are thinking about it but may not run in the end. It's likely a dark horse will emerge: Who was talking about Huckabee in July 2006? Politics is a dynamic and ever-changing process. Speculation is fun. But it's only speculation.

Duane, Unmaking of a Mayor is a personal favorite. I haven't read Fall of the Berlin Wall, but Buckley's Up From Liberalism and Cruising Speed are two short, funny, punchy books every conservative should read.(Cruising Speed is probably my favorite Buckley book, if you don't count his collected speeches, Let Us Talk of Many Things.) Another argument for short books: They provide curious people with quick access to the world of ideas. Here I'm thinking Hitchens's Letters to a Young Contrarian, Rand's Anthem, and (unfortunately) the Communist Manifesto.