Today is a teaching day, and I am in a rush. Had I had time earlier this morning, before I posted the piece on realignment that I composed last night, I would have read and referred my readers to the essay, entitled The Great U-Turn, that James Bennet has published in the new issue of National Review. It is an historically sensitive account of the manner in which Europe went one way in the 20^th century while American went another. It underlines the importance of the election of 1946 and of our geographical circumstances.

I would add to his analysis only one point. The 401k, which had its debut on 1 January 1980, has had a transformative effect on American politics and is, to a considerable extent, responsible for the great battle now underway.

The reason is simple. Thanks to the legislation providing for the 401k, defined-contribution plans took over in the private sector, and untold millions of ordinary citizens found that they had a clear and obvious interest in economic growth and in private enterprise. In the public sector, nearly everywhere, we still have defined-benefit plans. Workers in the private sector look to the market for their long-term well-being; workers in the public sector look to the government.

One of the reasons why Barack Obama was elected is that private-sector workers with 401k’s felt betrayed by those in power in and before 2008. One of the reasons why the Republicans will sweep in the midterm elections of 2010 is that private-sector workers now feel betrayed by President Obama and the Democratic Congress. The 401k is the bulwark of the market system. If the Democrats cannot destroy the defined-contribution retirement plan – which many of them would very much like to do – the Left is doomed. If, over the next few years, the Republicans can shift public-sector workers from defined-benefit to defined-contribution plans, the Left will lose most of its base.

The times they are a-changing.

If there's one thing that I love, it's tiffs--small and large--between two like-minded publications, especially if they're conservative. It suggests a vibrant debate, tensions, and forward movement within conservatism. It proves, contrary to the liberal media's portrayal, that there is no lock-step Right.

With that in mind, I turn your attention to a piece today in the Daily Caller by Tucker Carlson which goes after National Review and, specifically, NR's editorial endorsing the Pledge to America. Carlson calls NR's editorial an "inside job." It was, he alleges, "prearranged" by National Review and Neil Bradley, an aide to Rep. Eric Cantor.

We know that GOP leadership aides were aware of, and excited by, National Review’s editorial before it was published. We know that the piece was posted online just minutes prior to the start of the Wednesday evening caucus meeting, yet somehow aides were ready with copies to pass out to members. A coincidence? Please.

But there are also some things we don’t know. Who at National Review (or its non-profit arm, the National Review Institute) spoke to members of the Republican leadership staff about the editorial, and when? What was the substance of those conversations? And are there other instances in which National Review has used its influence to help the Republican leadership placate its conservative base?

I pointed out last week that NR wrote a glowing editorial praising the Pledge even though some conservatives have criticized it as fluff--the Pledge does not, for instance, mention earmarks, entitlements, or a balanced budget amendment, even though it is ostensibly focused on reducing the debt and the deficit.

This is in part why National Review's endorsement of the Pledge, as Carlson points out, was "precious" for Republican lawmakers. Carlson writes:

If you’re a member of the Republican establishment in Washington, ideologically out of sync with your conservative supporters but anxious not to offend them, endorsements like these are precious. And indeed, leadership aides passed out copies of National Review’s editorial at the GOP caucus meeting.

In the tug-o-war between the conservative establishment and the grassroots, does National Review hang with the iced-tea or the martini crowd?

National Review has written enthusiastically about the tea party folks. But in the past, under the George W. Bush administration, NR was criticized by conservatives for hawking RNC talking points rather than facilitating an open discussion about the state of the GOP. Is it fair to say, as Carlson suggests, that NR is acting as an organ of the establishment fellows of the Republican party? Carlson concludes, "National Review has taken sides, providing ideological cover for the party’s establishment wing at a critical moment."

What do you think?

Peter and I discuss Thatcher, Palin, Turkey and moderate Islam. Now remember: Peter has actually met Margaret Thatcher. (And I've met moderate Moslems.)

I meant to be extremely calm when the subject of Sarah Palin came up. But somehow it didn't work out that way.

Thank you, Peter, for having me on the show.

What do you think about Bill O'Reilly?

I ask because voters apparently love him.

According to a new poll of likely voters out by Politico/George Washington University, in a ranking of media personalities, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh were the top three favorites, coming in at first, second, and third respectively "as having the greatest positive impact on the political debate in the country." Note: this was a poll of likely voters, not of likely Republican voters.

Politico reports:

Fox’s opinionated personalities were also rated as having the greatest positive impact on the political debate in the country. Bill O’Reilly was rated as having, by far, the greatest positive impact, with 49 percent of respondents rating him positively, and 32 percent negatively.

Glenn Beck was the second most-positively rated personality, with 38 percent of respondents saying he had a positive impact, and 32 percent saying he had a negative impact.

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh was the third-most-positively ranked, with 36 percent saying he has a positive impact on the discourse, but his negatives far outweighed his positives, with 52 percent saying he has a negative impact.

But poor Rachel Maddow--no one apparently has heard of her, or of her compatriots over at MSNBC, like Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz!

MSNBC’s personalities were largely ranked as unknown by respondents: 70 percent said they had never heard of Ed Schultz, 55 percent said they had never heard of Rachel Maddow and 42 percent said they had never heard of Keith Olbermann.

What do you think--does the Politico poll have it right? Does O'Reilly deserve the number one spot?

First Velma Hart, now Shepard Fairey.

These are just two outspoken Democrats who have prominently announced, and not at a worst time, that they are losing hope in who they thought would be their messiah, President Barack Obama.

Hart, a middle class African American woman, told the president at a town hall in Washington DC last week:

I'm one of your middle-class Americans. And quite frankly, I'm exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I've been told that I voted for a man who was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I'm one of those people, sir, and I'm waiting. And I don't feel it yet.

And on Friday, Shepard Fairey, the famed artist behind the Obama "Hope" poster--which tea partiers have appropriated for their own use--told the National Journal, in an exclusive interview, that he too is losing hope in the president.

Fairey told the National Journal:

There's a lot of stuff completely out of Obama's control or any of the Democrats' control...But I think there's something a little deeper in terms of the optimism of the younger voter that's happening. They wanted somebody who was going to fight against the status quo, and I don't think that Obama has done that.

It looks like the tea partiers are not the only disillusioned ones.

As a television writer and producer, I love reruns. Each time, for instance, a rerun of one of my episodes of Cheers hits the airwaves, I get a small check. A very small check. Still, it's a nice feeling to get paid for work you've already been paid for.

So, someone in the Obama media world needs to pay someone in the Clinton media world something, because in his increasingly shrill and desperate attempt to hold off disaster in November, Obama is trotting out all of the old material. Here he is talking about the years before he took office:

It was not any accident during this same period a very specific philosophy reigned in Washington: You cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires; you cut regulations for special interests; you cut back on investments in education and clean energy, in research and technology. The idea was if we put blind faith in the market, if we let corporations play by their own rules, if we left everybody to fend for themselves, America would grow and America would prosper.

Okay, this is pretty much the boilerplate Democratic pitch. Trouble is, as Matt Welch describes over at Reason, it's all a lie:

Between 2001 and 2009 George W. Bush did not "cut back on investments in education," he increased them by 58 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars. Regulations? "The Bush team has spent more taxpayer money on issuing and enforcing regulations than any previous administration in U.S. history," Reason columnist Veronique de Rugy wrote in January 2009, in a piece that should be distributed to every audience member before an Obama speech.

And that's the trouble with reruns. They're never really as lucrative as the new stuff. Over time, as an episode is run and rerun, the checks get tinier and tinier. My latest check for a Cheers rerun was somewhere around $6.00.

And that's a great show business lesson for our president: you can't live on reruns.

May we all pause for a moment to appreciate Václav Klaus? I'm often asked which politician strikes me as Margaret Thatcher's heir. He's top of my list. Sadly, he's not eligible to run for president.

A selection of recent great Klaus moments, for your pleasure:

Klaus to UN: Butt Out

"This is the time for international organizations, including the United Nations, to reduce their expenditures, make their administrations thinner, and leave the solutions to the governments of member states."

Klaus on Global Governance: "Total Leftist Cosmopolitan Nonsense"

"I am in favour of accepting anyone in the EU."

Klaus on Global Warming: Socialist Claptrap

"There are huge material (very pecuniary) and even bigger psychological incentives for politicians and their bureaucratic fellow-travellers to support environmentalism. It gives them power. This is exactly what they are searching for. It gives them power to organise, regulate, manipulate the rest of us. There is nothing altruistic in their environmentalist stances."

Klaus on Barack Obama: Not Much of a Beer Man

"But he might drink those, how do you say? ... piña coladas.”

Think we can write him in?

Tuesday last, as I slept fitfully prior to an early morning journey to Latrobe, Pennsylvania to speak on Montesquieu and the present discontents at St. Vincent’s College, Peter Robinson posted a piece entitled Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office – in which he reported on a conversation that he had had with “a distinguished political scientist here at Stanford, a friend who's a lot more conservative than not.”

When asked whether we were “witnessing a realignment? A decisive rejection of the welfare state?” Peter’s friend “simply stared” at him, “wide-eyed with disbelief. ‘Of course not,’ he replied. ‘What we're seeing is a simple reassertion of the great American center.’ Voters didn't want a lurch to the right under Bush, he explained, so they punished Republicans in the midterm election of 2006. In the presidential election of 2008, voters threw their support behind Barack Obama not because he was a man of the left but because he seemed, in the midst of the economic crisis, calmer and more competent than John McCain. Now that voters have discovered Obama isn't a post-partisan figure but an ideologue after all, they're preparing to punish him in November by electing Republicans. ‘Voters don't want a conservative revolution,’ my friend said. ‘They just want Washington to adopt a pragmatic, moderate, problem-solving approach.’”

When I read Peter’s post late Wednesday afternoon, I was on the verge of going off to attend a dinner and deliver my talk, so I posted a brief comment and went on my way. When I made it back to Hillsdale, I had a lot of catching up to do. So I left it at that.

The question posed retains its interest, however. And so, as briefly as I can, I will respond. Better late, than never.

Peter’s friend has a point. For the most part, we Americans outsource politics. Ours is a representative democracy. Most of the time, we ignore what is going on and leave governance to the officials we elect. The center of our lives lies in the private sphere. As long as we are left alone, we are to a considerable degree content. We don’t like lurching left or right. That having been said, Peter’s friend misses the point.

To begin with, there was no “lurch to the right” under George W. Bush. In domestic affairs, there was a gentle drift to the left. Witness No Child Left Behind and the prescription-drug benefit. Witness the attempt made by Margaret Spellings at the Department of Education to use the accrediting agencies as an instrument for dictating the curricula of our colleges and universities. There was considerable discontent with Bush, to be sure. It had to do with an occupation of Iraq grossly mismanaged, and it took a shellacking of his party at the polls in 2006 to get Bush back on track.

But, to be fair, this is a side issue. Peter’s friend is correct that, in 2008, the voters had more faith in Obama than in McCain. This was partly due to the economic crisis and the fact that a Republican was President at the time of the crash; it was partly due to tactical brilliance on the part of Obama and his campaign team; and it was partly due to the fact that Bush had to a considerable degree alienated his base, to the fact that those angry at Bush had even greater reason to distrust McCain, and to the obvious ineptitude of the Arizona Senator.

All of this is true, and all of it is irrelevant today. The heart of the matter now is that Obama has not left us alone. He has upset our apple cart – both with the so-called “stimulus” bill, the massive expansion of the federal bureaucracy, and the gigantic increase in the federal debt – and with Obamacare, which has left nearly all of us fearful as to what our situation will be when the bureaucrats have worked out all of the details. Whether we are at this point employed or not (and far too many of us are not), our lives have been disrupted – and when we have expressed our misgivings, we have been denounced as Astroturf, Nazis, teabaggers, racists, and fools. And now we are hopping mad – and when folks get hopping mad, they really are ready for a revolution of sorts.

On Sunday, I posted on BigGovernment.com a piece entitled Can We Trust the Polls? In it, I question whether even Rasmussen has the numbers right. No one, I point out, predicted that Joe Miller and Christine O’Donnell would defeat Lisa Mukowski and Mike Castle. No pollster thought either race close. And yet both insurgents won handily: one might even say decisively. The old formulas – based on prior elections – seem no longer to apply, which suggests that the Republicans will do considerably better than the polls suggest.

Furthermore, I noted, a recent survey run by Glenn Bolger of Public Opinion Strategies suggests that, in the 66 House districts classified as a tossup in the Cook Report when he did the survey, the Republicans have a decisive lead in the generic ballot. My guess is that the Republicans will retain every seat they currently hold and that they will gain somewhere between 70 and 100 seats now occupied by the Democrats. If this sounds optimistic, ask yourself this: Who imagined, before January 2009, that Scott Brown would win Ted Kennedy’s seat in the Senate?

Here is the heart of the matter. Over the last eighteen months, Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have taught the American people a lesson – and that lesson is that, if there is not a conservative revolution, they will not be left to their own devices. It will take a revolution of sorts to force a repeal of Obamacare, an extension of the Bush tax cuts, and a balancing of the federal budget. It will take a revolution of sorts to prevent a collapse in states like Illinois, New York, and California where unfunded pension and medical obligations threaten states with bankruptcy. It will take a conservative revolution to secure the passage of entitlement reforms capable of bringing Social Security and Medicare obligations into line with revenues. I could go on and on, but you get the point.

I have nothing against political scientists. Some of my best friends are political scientists. But Peter’s friend, like nearly all political scientists, operates on the presumption that the near-term future will resemble the recent past. Most of the time this is a reasonable presumption. But it is good to remember that no Sovietologist predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. It took men sensitive to the fact that, in politics, critical moments eventually come – men with historical sense, such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Amalrik, Richard Pipes, and Ronald Reagan – to recognize the extent of the rot. The welfare state is on the verge of bankruptcy – not just here, but in Europe as well – and we are on the cusp of something really big.

Last week a reporter at a fairly large newspaper in Texas tweeted that there was no difference between Democrats inviting Stephen Colbert to testify in character and the Republican Party's Pledge document outlining policy goals. They were both stunts, you see. I thought the suggestion was stupid but I think that his views are representative of a typical mainstream media reporter.

My better half wrote a column noting how many in the media dismissed the Tea Party in similar fashion -- saying that they were not serious. Journalist Marc Ambinder, now covering the White House for National Journal, actually said he wasn't going to bother covering the GOP any more because:

“My Republican friends keep asking me when I'll take the GOP seriously again and why I've stopped writing about ticky-tak political gamesmanship and GOP consultant tricks. When they're a serious party with serious ideas, then we can talk.”

My husband notes that on Monday of last week, Lady Gaga held a rally in Maine to try to convince that state's senators to rescind "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." On Tuesday, the chairman of the Democratic Party in Ohio -- where the GOP is poised to gain the governorship, a Senate seat and as many as five congressional seats -- dropped the "F-bomb" on Tea Party folks and refused to apologize. On Wednesday, President Obama used his faith-based office to call religious leaders and ask them to talk up his unpopular health care legislation. On Thursday, Democrats announced they wouldn't vote on extending tax cuts. And then on Friday there was the Colbert stunt, which Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi described as "appropriate." He ends:

By contrast, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, refused to attend Colbert’s testimony. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, retorted to Colbert that he respects workers who “prefer the aroma of fresh dirt to the sewage of American elitists.”

Maybe when Democrats are a serious party with serious ideas, voters will take them seriously again. It’s a safe bet that won’t happen before November.

So I just watched the 60 Minutes report on the proposed mosque near Ground Zero tonight and it was laughably bad. Perhaps the producers were under the impression that if you just one more time suggest Americans who oppose the mosque are bigots, they'll totally change their minds.

I actually am not opposed to the mosque near Ground Zero, which I suppose I should mention up front. But I really can't stand the way the media has decided to advocate instead of report the story. And this broadcast show is a prime example. It began with a puffy look at how awesome the developer of the mosque is. Then they noted how distant the mosque was from Ground Zero by showing that you had to walk all the way to the corner of the block before you could see the gaping hole left when Muslim extremists committed the worst act of terrorism against America by commandeering planes and crashing them into the World Trade Center towers. Then they ran a hostile interview of bogeyman Pamela Geller. They accused her of "moving" the mosque to Ground Zero and being the first person to do so in December of last year by emphasizing its proximity in her blog.

But I'm pretty sure the New York Times was first with the Dec. 8, 2009 story "Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground Zero." The whole story was about why the group behind the mosque wanted to build so close to Ground Zero and why they were happy to have found a building that had been struck by debris from the terrorist attack.

Anyway, the story wrapped up with a look at how awesome Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is.

I'm all for asking tough questions of Geller, but I'm pretty sure that 60 Minutes could commit journalism by also asking some tough questions of the folks who want to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero, too.

A graduate of the Queen's University in Belfast has taken the university to court, claiming that he's entitled to a better class of degree. The class of degree is based entirely on the results of examinations, but the student argues tht if only he had received better supervision from the faculty, he'd have done better on his exams. (h/t Overlawyered).

Disgruntled students have been known to litigate in this country, too. A few years back, the father of a Wisconsin high school student argued that it was unconstitutional for the school to assign summer math homework to his son! (He lost).

So as a Sunday-afternoon, back-to-school special, let me ask: any good stories of student litigation you'd like to share?

Name that publication:

The incumbent, Democrat Barbara Boxer, has failed to distinguish herself during her 18 years in office. There is no reason to believe that another six-year term would bring anything but more of the same uninspired representation. [...]

Boxer, first elected in 1992, would not rate on anyone's list of most influential senators. Her most famous moments on Capitol Hill have not been ones of legislative accomplishment, but of delivering partisan shots. Although she is chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is telling that leadership on the most pressing issue before it - climate change - was shifted to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., because the bill had become so polarized under her wing.

For some Californians, Boxer's reliably liberal voting record may be reason enough to give her another six years in office. But we believe Californians deserve [...] a senator who is accessible, effective and willing and able to reach across party lines to achieve progress on the great issues of our times. Boxer falls short on those counts.

Boxer's campaign, playing to resentment over Fiorina's wealth, is not only an example of the personalized pettiness that has infected too much of modern politics, it is also a clear sign of desperation.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the San Francisco Chronicle. Having dispatched Barbara Boxer -- or, rather, having counted the ways in which Boxer dispatched herself -- they make the endorsement that defines the Dems' election season: no endorsement at all.

I'm sure that's not what they're going to call the rally, but that's what I'm calling it.

This Saturday, on the Mall in Washington, the empire strikes back. From the indispensable Byron York in the Washington Examiner:

Stung by political setbacks and scrambling to avoid a repudiation of Democrats at the polls this November, a coalition of labor unions and liberal activist organizations is planning what it calls "the biggest progressive demonstration in decades" at the Lincoln Memorial next Saturday, October 2.

The march, called "One Nation Working Together," is sponsored by the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, the Service Employees International Union, La Raza, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the American Federation of Teachers, the Rainbow Push Coalition, the Campaign for America's Future, and several other activist groups. The event is also being promoted by Organizing for America, the permanent wing of the Obama presidential campaign, which is sending out email notices to members asking that they travel to Washington to take part.

I wish I could go to this. As a professional, I mean. Events like the Glenn Beck rally -- where thousands of people gather in genial association -- just aren't that interesting from a screenwriter's point of view. I'd rather be among the desperate, the delusional, and the doomed.

All you need to know about this rally is the guest list:

In addition to the main organizers, participants will also include left-wing fringe groups like International ANSWER, Code Pink, and the Communist Party USA. The leaders of those groups are known for loud, confrontational demonstrations, which virtually assures that anyone looking for extremist elements in the One Nation gathering will be able to find them.

Of course, no one will be looking for extremist elements in that crowd. At least, no one in the media. They're probably exhausted from looking for all of those racist hate-mongers at all of those Tea Party events. And also: this rally is all about energizing the base, which includes most journalists.

Read the list of organizers again, and the guest list. It all seems so tired. So old. So yesterday. How did Obama get so stale, so fast?

Maybe he was never fresh. Maybe he was always 1970's leftovers.

The New York Times has a story this morning about the efforts of a number of Republican activists, notably Karl Rove, to raise money and provide organizational support for the GOP. The Times being the Times, it makes only glancing mention of the massive efforts that the Democrats were the first to organize—after Democrats outspent Republicans in the last couple of election cycles, the GOP is playing catch-up—while straining to make the venture sound sinister:

[Rove] has had a major hand in helping to summon the old coalition of millionaires and billionaires who supported Mr. Bush and have huge financial stakes in regulatory and tax policy….

Millionaires and billionaires and lions and tigers and bears. Oh, my!

The Times also does its best to suggest some kind of civil war within the GOP.

But if Mr. Rove and his colleagues remain prime movers of the Republican establishment, it is less clear that their influence extends into — and will not be diminished by — the grass-roots conservative movement that has energized and somewhat reordered the party this year.

In re all of this, a couple of thoughts.

The Tea Party could have wreaked havoc this year by registering third-party candidates instead of competing in Republican primaries. It didn’t. Are the Tea Party and the Republican “establishment” at war? Scarcely. In all the hundreds of races for the House, Senate, and governorships taking place this autumn, a truly serious dispute arose concerning only one race, the Delaware Senate contest between the liberal Republican Mike Castle and the Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell. When O’Donnell won, establishment figures such as Karl Rove and Mike Murphy felt sore about it for a couple of days, and that was that. Is the establishment backing Tea Party candidate Rand Paul’s Senate candidacy in Kentucky now that he has won the primary? Indeed. Is it supporting Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle in her Senate race against Harry Reid in Nevada now that she, too, has won the GOP nomination? Once again, indeed—and massively, having poured millions of dollars into Nevada media to keep Angle competitive. How did the establishment behave when the Tea Party candidate, Joe Miller, defeated incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska GOP primary? Well, Sen. Murkowski herself threw a fit, announcing that she would continue her candidacy as a write-in candidate. And then? Then her Republican colleagues in the Senate made their support for Joe Miller unambiguous by immediately voting to strip her Murkowski of her seniority.

The “civil war” within the Republican Party, in other words, concerned just one race—exactly one—and lasted for all of 48 hours. Contrast that with dissension among Democrats. Over the last two weeks, more than 30 Democrats defied the President and Speaker, refusing—flatly refusing—to vote on the Obama-Pelosi tax hike. That’s civil war.

The real story here—the big story, the story of historic importance—isn’t about the GOP's committing suicide. To the contrary. It’s about the rebirth of the GOP. Less than two years ago, when George W. Bush left office, the Republican Party appeared moribund. By embracing vast new domestic spending, it had betrayed its own principles. It had suffered a series of scandals. And the President himself had supported the TARP program, the first of the giant bailouts.

But today? In the Tea Party movement, a truly popular revolt has emerged, leaderless and amorphous but utterly compelling—and merged seamlessly with the GOP. Figures such as Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie, and Ricochet’s own Gov. Haley Barbour have simultaneously activated established Republican donors, raising tens of millions of dollars, while creating a new, supple, and dynamic organizational framework for supporting Republican candidates. All this--this work of political resurrection--in the space, again, of less than two years.

As the late Jeanne Kirkpatrick once remarked, “We must learn to bear the truth about ourselves, no matter how good it might be.”

Welcome back to the Sunday news shows post, which went on hiatus for a couple of weeks as I was moving first, then going coastal for work.

The main theme of the Sunday shows this week was Republicans dodging the political cow-pies the media wants them to stumble into: the longed-for conflict between those unhinged Tea Partiers and the entrenched Republican establishment.

But first a quick digression. Steny Hoyer appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning where he rendered his “judgment” on Class-clown, Stephen Colbert, and his expert testimony before the immigration subcommittee on the Hill. “I think his testimony was not appropriate … it was an embarrassment for Stephen Colbert”—what about for the House Democrats, who called him to the Hill? Hoyer deflected. “It was inappropriate…that's just a personal opinion.”

Digression over. Back to the GOP and the tea party. On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked John Boehner—the potential speaker of the House next year—whether his plan as the speaker-in-waiting would be to block the Obama agenda (in News-speak: The Party of No!) or to compromise with the Democrats (News-speak: desert the Tea Party).

Here’s Boehner: “I think the American people want us to work together to address the concerns facing us every day….I think with this document [the Pledge to America], we make pretty clear where we’re going.”

Boehner was trying to avoid the conflict the media would foist upon him between the Tea Party—which wants him to give the big-foot to the Obama agenda--and the Republican party—which when last in power might better be recalled as a big spending party.

Boehner: “I get it, I understand what’s going on in America.” Does he? Boehner recently took some heat for suggesting that he’d sign on to the Obama tax cut plan—that is, extending tax cuts for the middle class, but not those making above $250,000: the “wealthy.”

Christiane Amanpour hosted Mitch McConnell on This Week, where she finally seemed to be more at ease in her role as host—perhaps because she seemed to be feeling her partisan mojo as she went after McConnell. Much like Chris Wallace, she was beating the drum over Republicans compromising on tax cuts.

McConnell held his ground. “Raising taxes in the middle of a recession …. Is a particularly bad idea.”

Amanpour: “Will the middle class be held hostage [on tax cuts] …. Would you compromise on that?”

McConnell: “What might happen down the road is not the subject today … the subject today is do we raise taxes in the middle of the recession.” The answer, of course, being no.

Amanpour then turned to the tea party. Will the tea party, in the form of Republican candidates like Delaware’s eccentric Senate hopeful, Christine O’Donnell, and Nevada’s sharp-edged, Sharron Angel, ruin the GOP's chance to take power in November?

McConnell, displaying his inimitable flair for the obvious, calculated: “The Delaware candidate was interesting. New candidate, fresh face, I think she’s got a chance of winning.”

When Amanpour questioned McConnell on what she and her colleagues refer to as the extreme views and rhetoric of Angel and O’Donnell, McConnell shot back, “What most Americans think is extreme is …. what’s been happening here [in Washington] for the last year and a half….I don’t think the people of Nevada should be attacked for the choice they made in the primary.”

The Pledge to America, which was unrolled last week by Republicans, was of course a major news item on the shows. Republicans right now are afraid of being cast as the monosyllabic party of “no” heading into the home-stretch of the campaign season—which is in part why they felt compelled to produce something to show that they are worth being taken seriously, something substantial and more than the negative advantage of not being a Democrat.

Thus, the Pledge to America, a positive policy platform, which certain tea partiers think doesn’t go far enough, and some conservatives have even called milquetoast. Bill Kristol, speaking on the Fox News panel, said that the pledge was a “step toward boldness….they’re being bold in a reasonable way,” when asked if the Pledge was “bold”—the litmus test word for “tea party approved.”

Bold in a reasonable way? The Pledge does not mention earmarks or entitlements, which is why conservatives, including Brit Hume on Fox News today, said the Pledge is “not serious.” Matthew Dowd, a former Bush strategist featured as a guest on This Week, gave the Pledge the ultimate smack-down declaring it will have no effect on the election--rendering it meaningless boilerplate. And so it is.

Are the pundits right? Where do you come down?

The Democrats have a strategy for the up-coming midterms.

It's to run as Republicans.

From the Daily Caller:

Aware that their stock has taken the same tumble as home values, Congress’ most vulnerable Democrats are declaring their independence from their party’s agenda in Facebook profiles, television advertisements, news interviews and campaign websites leading up to the Nov. 2 election. That’s when Republicans hope to retake control of the House they lost four years ago...

The rebranders include Democratic Reps. Betsy Markey and John Salazar in Colorado, Zack Space in Ohio, Jason Altmire in Pennsylvania, Glenn Nye in Virginia and Joe Donnelly in Indiana. In Texas, Rep. Chet Edwards, once promoted as a potential running mate for Barack Obama, has become a vocal critic of his party’s policies.

And of course Nancy Pelosi is a problem for a lot of vulnerable House Democrats. Although some of them have a pretty interesting way of dealing with the problem:

In Alabama, Rep. Bobby Bright begged off a question about whether he would vote for Pelosi as speaker by pointing out that “she may get sick and die.”

That's what's known, in politics, as making lemonade out of lemons.

When Rush mentioned this on the air on Friday, I could scarcely believe it. It took me a while to dig into the story--on Saturday I had kids playing both Pop Warner and high school football games, and then I found myself glued for a couple of hours to replays of the Dartmouth's narrow victory over Sacred Heart University and Stanford's astoundingly big win over Notre Dame; and I remain, even in this election season, just sane enough to recognize that football comes ahead of politics--but sure enough, Rush was right. The poll he quoted may have been taken three years ago, but it said just what Rush claimed: over a third of Democrats believed President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they took place.

From Rasmussen Reports of May 4, 2007:

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.

As of three years ago, I repeat, over a third of Democrats believed President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they took place.

Contrast this with the poll earlier this summer showing that 18 percent of Americans believe President Obama is Muslim.

Ordinary Americans--the people with jobs to do, bills to pay, and kids to get through their homework before they can devote any time to reading up on the life of our chief executive--ordinary Americans have very good reasons for being confused about Barack Obama's religious beliefs. He was raised in part in Indonesia, a Muslim country. He has given speech after speech about the respect due to Islam. When introduced to the King of Saudi Arabia, he bowed. And his middle name--has the entire mainstream press forgotten this?--is, after all, "Hussein," a name, Wikipedia informs us, that "is commonly given as a male given name among Muslims."

But does anyone have any good reason for supposing that President Bush knew about the terrorist attacks in advance? Has anyone ever brought forward the merest shrewd of evidence? No. Never. Not once. Not in any way whatsoever. Zero, zip, zilch, rien, nada.

Now a couple of questions.

How many times this past summer did we hear members of the mainstream media quote, in smug, disapproving, mock-disbelief the poll showing that something under one American in five made an easy-to-understand mistake about President Obama's religion? Dozens and dozens and dozens. But how often do you recall hearing anyone in the mainstream media note that more than one Democrat in three subscribed to the utterly insane view that President Bush knew about 9/11 before it took place? Did the media trumpet the poll when it appeared three years ago? Have you heard it quoted in the mainstream media at any time since? If you're like me, you heard about the poll for the first time from the lips of Mr. Limbaugh.

Why go into all this?

Because it's good to remind ourselves every once in awhile that we're not the crazy ones.

Karl Rove -- the anti-tea partier?

The landscape has changed, with Mr. Rove at times clashing with potent new Tea Party-style activists, some of whom view him as a face of the old party establishment they want to upend.

Already a prominent presence as an analyst on Fox News Channel and a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Rove is also playing a leading role in building [political action groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS] what amounts to a shadow Republican Party, a network of donors and operatives that is among the most aggressive in the Republican effort to capture control of the House and the Senate.

Well, first, let me say: let a thousand shadows bloom. Anyone making up for Michael Steele is probably doing something right. There's a reason why "there's no money" going to the RNC, as Mary Cheney puts it. But I confess I'm even more sympathetic to folks on the right who are making up for Karl Rove.

Richard Viguerie, a longtime conservative strategist who has allied with Tea Party activists, said, “We’re all on the same page until the polls close Nov. 2.”

But, referring to Mr. Rove and Mr. Gillespie as part of the “ruling class,” he added, “Then a massive, almost historic battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party begins.”

I'd like for that to be an exaggeration -- I have a hat, a shirt, and a few bumper stickers reading No Purges -- but it's true: given no other choice, I'd rather be governed by someone plucked at random from the Tea Party rolls than be ruled by Karl Rove. The trouble with Massive Historic Battles, in this case, is that they raise the stakes so high, and polarize alternatives so powerfully, that they push well-intentioned people to cast their last resorts as dreams come true. Just as I'd expect someone to look around for other options when given the choice between ME and KARL ROVE, I'd expect Rove and Company to understand that their moment at the helm is good and gone and gone for good -- and, perhaps even more importantly, to understand why.

Last night my wife and I attended a fundraiser at the governor's mansion in New Jersey, Drumthwacket, where the First Lady was honored for her work for children with Down Syndrome. Specifically, the event was held for a private group, Research Down Syndrome. This group focuses on improving the cognitive abilities of people with Down; they have done it with private money; and they are about a year away from clinical trials. The audience was filled with people who have children with Down, and there wasn't a sad sack there: this was about life and hope.

I can't claim to know the Christies, though their daughter is in my daughter's class at a local Catholic high school. But I will say that the more America gets to know this people, the more they will love them. This is a family utterly without pretense -- they don't even live at the governor's mansion -- and awed by the responsibility they have been given. YouTube has made the governor a star over his various confrontations with hecklers. When you see the man up close, you're going to come away even more impressed.

Now all I have to do is make sure the rest of you outside NJ don't draft him for national politics before he's finished cleaning up the mess here!

Ahmadinejad may speak at the UN and say anything he damn well pleases, but not everyone's allowed to listen.

The Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit desk at the United Nations, dispensing with any ambiguity and taking orders directly from the Iranian delegation, forcibly evicted a Jerusalem Post reporter and another journalist who had the temerity to attempt to hear Ahmadinejad's post-General Assembly-harangue press conference.

“We have every right to stay,” Dave said. “This is the United Nations. This is America.”

But this isn’t really America, I thought, as the thuggy guy, hands on his hips, breathed heavily in my face.

This is not America. This is the basement of a multinational complex, where a staggeringly high level of deference is being paid to the whims and fancies of a man being protested against by hundreds outside. This is a place where the regular rules don’t matter, and where regulations and standards are easily trumped by fear and cowardice. This is an underworld.

The woman came over. “I’m sorry,” she said to me. “They know who you are, and you have to leave.”

That’s the problem, I thought as I was escorted out. We all know who we are. We just don’t agree on who has to leave.

I tried. I tried to think up some contrarian reason why, actually, Democrats should be thrilled with their new branding. Well, okay, pleased. Satisfied? Untroubled. At least. At a bare minimum, untroubled.

But I couldn't. Maybe you can. Ready? Go:

There's something both creepy and moving about reading someone else's diary. (Reading your own diary is just plain creepy....)

The Martha's Vineyard Museum has a fascinating on-line exhibit: they've scanned the diary of Laura Jernegan, a 6 year-old girl who set out on a three-year whaling trip with her family in 1868.

It's here, and it's really amazing.

You see her handwriting change as she gets older, and her tone shifts, too. Less wonder, more wariness, which I suppose happens to all of us. There are boat sketches, whaling tales, glimpses of nineteenth century Hawaii, some adventure, and even a mutiny.

It's a quietly heartbreaking picture of family and childhood -- or, should I say, of a truncated childhood and a complicated family, in an unforgiving environment and a dangerous world.

A few weeks ago, I noted with disgust the cover of Time magazine, headlined Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace. I suggested that their editorial line had of late become so frankly hostile to Israel that it would be worthwhile to ask who their advertisers were.

An old friend of mine, with whom I've been arguing about politics literally since I was fifteen years old, wrote to me to object. I'll call him "Red Sean." Red Sean felt my suggestion was analogous to precisely the kind of ugly conspiracy theory I would usually deplore:

My dear friend, I don't think it's wise to question the motives of every news organization that disagrees with you. Take it at face value and dispute it on its merit. Otherwise it gets ugly. It is usually my Jewish friends who get uncomfortable at the mention of the close connection of various individuals in government and media with Israel. Those who point out the close ties are deemed anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. We can't have it both ways.

A fair point. I generally agree that we'd all be well-advised to begin by arguing with an article's facts, not with the ethnicity or nationality of the newspaper's advertisers. In the case of the article in question, there are more than enough facts with which to argue.

That said, media consumers have every reason to ask who's funding the newspaper they're reading or the television show they're watching. News magazines run on advertising, and of course publishers gear content toward the advertisers' preferences, both consciously and unconsciously. This is why you'll never see a fashion magazine running an article titled, "Actually, all that makeup just makes you look shallow, garish and phony."

Is it anti-Semitic to intimate that Jews control the American media? Yes, because they don't. Jews are statistically over-represented in journalism, as they are in all the professions. They're still very much the minority. Most of the major media (what's left of it) is now owned by publicly traded international corporations, who answer to institutional investors and advertisers. They follow the money, not the dictates of the International Zionist Conspiracy, because they have no choice.

Is it anti-Arab to note that the Gulf States are significant advertisers in this media? No, it is not. That's a fact, not a prejudice. Is it anti-Arab to note that the Gulf States have a lot more money for advertising than Israel or other businesses and entities associated with Jews? No, it is not. Again, this is a fact, not a prejudice. The GDP of Saudi Arabia alone is more than twice that of Israel. Financially, the Gulf States have vastly more clout than all the world's Jews put together.

Time Inc. is partnered with ad buyer Starcom MediaVest Group. Among their clients are Coca-Cola, GM, and Emirates Airline. In Starcom's own words:

A wholly owned subsidiary of Paris based Publicis Groupe Media, SMG MENA is present in eight offices spanning the Arab world, from Dubai to Morocco, and is backed by a global network of 110 offices in 67 countries. Its client roster boasts many leading local, regional and multinational companies. SMG MENA focuses on delivering connections that captivate by inventing and mastering engaging touch points, and creating and activating transformative ideas that connect brands to consumers.

The network has enjoyed annual double-digit growth since it launched in 2000. Among its wins in 2008/2009 are Emirates Business, Fox Movies, Hermes, Nakheel, Samsung and Masdar.

SMG MENA has been named the top media shop in the MENA region in terms of billings by RECMA, the leading independent global monitoring and ranking source.

At roughly the time this "win" was announced, this article appeared in Time. I'd say this piece is verging on what in the trade is called "advertorial."

This doesn't mean the Emirates are dictating Time's editorial line, censoring its articles, or controlling the world's media agenda. It just means that Time is a business. These are very rough days for news magazines. Newsweek was just sold for a dollar. Time's editors obviously know they're holding on to their jobs by a thread, and they're human. This has got to make them just that little bit less likely to risk biting the hand that feeds them by running big cover-stories titled "Why the Palestinians Don't Want Peace," or "Is America Anti-Semitic?"

It's neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Arab to ask the question, "What influences trends in media coverage?" But it is anti-Semitic to conclude, "a sinister conspiracy of Jews," if in fact the evidence points right in the other direction.

You feel me, Red Sean?

Attention, Gulf States: I welcome you to prove me wrong. Just put me on your payroll. If you keep the spigot open and let me write whatever I please, I'll take it all back.

I think running an ad like this is a good sign that your campaign is in trouble. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) is known for his cautious and subtle rhetoric (e.g. "Republicans want you to die quickly."). He's a first-term congressman in an exceedingly tough race against Daniel Webster. In fact, I think Webster has the edge.

In the ad above, Grayson accuses Webster of refusing the call to military service six times. It pulls out all of these emotional stops -- an old soldier's voice cracks as Taps is played ruefully on a bugle. Only problem is that nothing in the ad is true, apparently. Webster served in the ROTC during college and reported immediately after he graduated -- only to be disqualified for medical reasons. And then the unidentified narrator says that Webster "doesn't love this country."

But other than that, "draft dodger" is a great ad. Oh, and what about Grayson's military career?

He didn't serve a single day.

John Kerry (he of "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot" fame) is at it again. He's figured out why his party is in such trouble. You'll never guess who's at fault.

Here is a question that needs an answer. Who is the greater buffoon -- Stephen Colbert who brought Comedy Central to the halls of Congress to the glee of Nancy Pelosi and her minions, or Joe Biden, who promises that the Democrats will retain their majority in both houses of Congress?

El Diario de Juarez, the main newspaper in Cuidad Juarez, has published an editorial asking the local drug lords just what, exactly, they need to do to stop getting killed:

What do you want from us?

Gentlemen of the different organizations that are fighting for the Ciudad Juarez plaza, the loss of two reporters of this news organization represents an irreparable breakdown for all of us who work here, and in particular, for our families.

We'd like you to know that we're communicators, not psychics. As such, as information workers, we ask that you explain what it is you want from us, what you'd intend for us to publish or to not publish, so that we know what is expected of us.

You are at this time the de facto authorities in this city because the legal authorities have not been able to stop our colleagues from falling, despite the fact that we've repeatedly demanded it from them. Because of this, before this undeniable reality, we direct ourselves to you with these questions, because the last thing we want is that another one of our colleagues falls victim to your bullets.

This is happening just across the border from El Paso. You know, I can see why Americans in that region aren't so eager to throw that border wide open.

Optimists say that it's always darkest just before the dawn. Having watched a fair number of sunrises, however, I've concluded that it's always darkest just before it's pitch black.

It's been a rough week on the road, beginning with the midnight ride of the "Cranky Cajun" (my CB handle), from Memphis to Missouri. The circadian rhythm does not lend itself easily to syncopation, so a bit of downtime was necessary to recover from the nightshift before The Beast and I traveled to Wisconsin, where the weather was cool and I succumbed to whatever flu-like bug is currently making the rounds.

Two very hard days' drive ensued, as I left Wisconsin on Tuesday and arrived in Louisiana the very next day. The final eight hours of that grueling trip were taken exclusively on rural roads that wound and snaked through an endless supply of small towns, decorated with a traffic light or stop sign every 10 yards or so, and a number of local cops waiting to solicit donations to the municipal fund. My left leg, which spent so much time mashing that heavy clutch, is now severely over-developed causing me to walk in circles. Walking from the truck to the truck stop takes longer now and makes me dizzy.

By the time the delivery was made on Wednesday evening, I had run out of hours to legally drive to a truck stop. So I spent that night parked in the dirt on the roadside, and enjoyed a Denti-Moore meal as if it were filet mignon while reminding myself that this too shall pass. But everything has a purpose, as the saying goes. How best to appreciate laughter if you've never cried? How best to appreciate indoor plumbing if you've never spent an evening parked on the roadside? How best to appreciate Texas barbecue if you haven't had Denti-Moore cold?

Friday, I found my reward. On I-20, just north of Tyler, Texas, sits the Texas Best Smokehouse travel center. I just stopped for coffee, but once inside the place, I found a feast for the senses. A large dining area, appointed with large rustic looking tables and chairs, hard wood floors, paintings and animal heads adorned the walls. The unmistakable aroma of hickory smoked food permeated the place as people lined up to place their orders. I couldn't resist so I made my way, in overlapping circles, toward the line. I was ready to order as large a chunk of beef as possible when I noticed a forlorn looking long horn bull perched on the wall. It boggles the mind how a taxidermist could create a look of such complete dejection on a confounded bull, right down to the sulking ears, but it worked. So I ordered chicken instead.

While enjoying the meal, I checked the latest headlines on the magic phone. Steven Colbert testifying before Congress; a DOJ official exposes apparent racial bias in the New Black Panther case; Iran's goofy little dinner jacket is on his annual pilgrimage to New York where he disgraces pretty much everything; unemployment creeps upward while the administration vilifies job creators; and the Commander in Chief demonstrates his commitment to national security by saying that we can absorb another terrorist attack. There seems to be a growing back-log of insults to our intelligence and assaults on our liberty.

The good news is that like a great many other things, this too shall pass. And the voters shall begin administering the elixir in November.

Two related items on two different coasts:

Item: Bedbug infestations are soaring in New York City. It is now the most bedbug-infested city in the United States. But, wait, we're talking about bedbugs? In 2010? Isn't that a little retro?

Item: There's a whooping cough epidemic in Los Angeles. Nine infants have died already this year. But, wait, we're talking about whooping cough? In 2010? Isn't that a little retro?

There's a way, of course, to eradicate bedbugs:

Bedbugs, a common household pest for centuries, all but vanished in the 1940s and '50s with the widespread use of DDT. But DDT was banned in 1972 as too toxic to wildlife, especially birds. Since then, the bugs have developed resistance to chemicals that replaced DDT.

Also, exterminators have fewer weapons in their arsenal than they did just a few years ago because of a 1996 Clinton-era law that requires older pesticides to be re-evaluated based on more stringent health standards. The re-evaluations led to the restrictions on propoxur and other pesticides.

And there's a way, of course, to immunize your children agains whooping cough:

The only way to break that cycle is to vaccinate everyone of all ages, said Dr. James Cherry, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Some doctors relate this recent rise in cases to the parents who have shied away from vaccinating children due to fears, albeit unfounded, that there is a connection between vaccines and autism. Dr. Jennifer Shu, a pediatrician at Children's Medical Group in Atlanta, Georgia, thinks this is a primary factor in the resurgence of whooping cough.

A 2009 study in Pediatrics found that parental refusal of whooping cough vaccination was associated with children's risk of pertussis infection. Previous research had shown a steady increase of parents who refuse immunization in the last decade.

Clusters of unvaccinated people contribute to outbreaks, but in the case of whooping cough, the cycles will continue until a much greater number of people of all ages are immunized, Cherry said.

So we don't use DDT anymore, even though its use would eradicate bedbugs and save hundreds of thousands of lives in Africa. And we don't immunize our children -- at least in Los Angeles -- even though whooping cough vaccine is safe, and a whooping cough epidemic is deadly.

Hey, what's the problem with real world consequences to your bad ideas when you're a smug, snarky, sanctimonious ideologue? Nothing! If you've just killed the kids-only insurance market, that must be the insurance companies' fault - because apparently their assets are a bottomless public good, meant to be dispersed with Santa-like abandon. Oh, wait a minute - if Santa were an insurer, Naughty would be an undeniable pre-existing condition.

Time to remember the wisdom of CS Lewis: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

What I loathe most about the left is how fundamentally immoral they are, and how willing to sacrifice real human beings on the altar of their pretentions.