During failed presidential candidate John McCain's latest attack against President Obama, McCain laid out a winning strategy for Afghanistan:

The senior senator from Arizona added that the U.S. will not find success, "if our President doesn't say that our withdrawal will be based on conditions."

Yes indeed. After all, George Bush said it for eight years, so we know that is the recipe for success in what is now America's longest running war.

It should be noted that McCain also called the President "small-minded" during the same interview, but it is assumed that it was simply the petty, sore loser attitude that McCain has maintained since Obama crushed him in 2008, and not a part of his overall strategy for victory.

Somebody isn't too eager to talk about his party's agenda:

McConnell: GOP will detail election-year agenda in late September

Republicans will look to lay out their election-year platform in late September, GOP leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said Tuesday.

McConnell said that Republicans would definitely be laying out a formal set of proposals to take to voters this fall, but declined to get specific as to what the agenda might include.

"I think we clearly do need to make sure Americans know what we would do, and we're going to make that announcement in late September," McConnell said during an interview on Bloomberg television. The top Senate Republican refused to get specific, though, explaining: "I think I won't scoop myself."

I'll bet you anything McConnell figures out a way to weasel out of stating the GOP agenda in September. He desperately wants to run out the clock on the election without ever talking about what Republicans are for. And who can blame him? It hasn't even been two years since Bush left office, and we're still cleaning up the mess Republicans made during those eight years.

Despite the candidacy of a few high-profile teabaggers (many if not most of whom are going to lose in November), if Republicans recapture Congress their leadership will consist of the same old guys, and they'll follow the same old policies, and we'll get the same old results.

So the the last thing GOPers want to talk about is what they'll do if they get put back in charge, because everybody knows that they'll end up doing the exact same thing that they did last time around -- and nobody wants that to happen.

This is unlikely to sway the entrenched, obstructionist Republican Senators, hellbent on making the economy as bad as possible before the midterm election in November in hopes that it will bring them some electoral success. But here's what their opposition to the modest health and education funding bill will mean to their states. The Wonk Room's Pat Garofolo writes:

[W]ith nearly every state in the country facing a budget crunch, and massive cuts to education funding already having occurred, this money is critical to preserve jobs and keep classroom size to a semi-reasonable level. Democrats will need at least one Republican vote — and possibly two, since Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) is non-committal on the bill — to move the funding forward, but so far no GOP votes have materialized. So here are eleven Republican senators whose states are facing at least 2,000 teacher layoffs for the 2010 school year, and therefore should be especially supportive of the funding:

More than 5,000 Layoffs	2,000-5,000 Layoffs
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)	Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)	Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
	Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
	Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
	Sens. Richard Lugar (R-IN)
	Sens. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
	Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
	Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL)
	Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA)

As Sean at LearnBoost pointed out, every state in the country is facing a teacher shortage in at least one subject area, and five (Arizona, New York, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Maryland) "desperately need teachers of any subject in some cities and counties." "Politicians and administrators are behaving as if good teachers are as expendable as the pink slips they’ve been placing on their desks," he wrote.

Almost every state is going to face layoffs, even Nebraska, which could lose as many as 500 jobs (hear that, Ben Nelson?). But the thousands and thousands of jobs represented just in Garofalo's chart alone should make even a Republican reconsider. It won't, but it should.

John McCain really doesn't want to talk about the 14th Amendment.

In the final moments of a morning press conference about the stimulus, cohosted by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), McCain asked for one final question from reporters...which happened to be about the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship. McCain abruptly ended the press conference.

"We're talking about the stimulus right now," McCain said, before darting off to the elevators down the hall from the Senate studio, where he again declined to take a question. Reporters eventually caught up with McCain in the basement of the Capitol, where he was walking toward to the man-operated train connecting the Senate with the Russell office building.

TPMDC asked, "Do you support the Minority Leader's push for hearings into the repeal of birthright citizenship?"

"Sure, why not?" McCain said briefly.

"Do you support the idea itself?"

"I support the idea of having hearings," McCain said.

"Do you have a problem with the 14th amendment?" another reporter asked.

"You're changing the constitution of the United States," McCain said. "I support the concept of holding hearings."

"I support the concept of holding hearings," McCain repeated, turning to the rail car conductor.

"Let's go!" he snapped.

"I don't have anything to add to that."

As opposed to his colleague, Tom Coburn:

"If you go back to the history of the 14th amendment, why was it passed, why did we take away from states the right to give citizenship and give it to the federal government, it was because we were worried states would disenfranchise newly freed slaves," Coburn told reporters. "There was never an intent by our founders, nor if you take the readings, that just because you were here and you have a child born here and you were here not as a resident, that your child would become a citizen. So, I think it's an interesting thing to look at I'm not sure I'm going to embrace it but might. I think we need to look at it."

Ah, intent of the founders. Or, in this case the Supreme Court that decided Dred Scott. Here's BTD:

To refresh our memories, let's look at the first line of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is what Republicans are focused on now (they hate the whole thing of course):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in July 1868, by the Reconstruction Congress, and the the line quoted above was intended to overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision which decided this question:

The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen?

The Dred Scott Court answered that no, "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves" could not become citizens of the United States even though they were born in the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment overturned Dred Scott.

Today, the GOP wishes to revisit the question, reformulating the question as follows:

The question is simply this: Can a person whose ancestors were not in the country legally become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen?

The GOP would, like the Dred Scott court, answer in the negative. That the status of the parents is determinative of whether someone born in the United States could be a citizen.

So yeah, let's have those hearings, and have the Republicans argue yet again for taking us back to 1868. That would certainly be politically productive for the Dems.

PPP (PDF). 7/27-31. Likely voters. MoE 3.9% (6/26-27 results)

The pollster, Tom Jensen:

The North Carolina Senate race continues to look very competitive, with Richard Burr's approval numbers hitting a record low and Elaine Marshall pulling within 2 points. Burr's at 39% to 37% for Marshall and 7% for Libertarian Michael Beitler.

The main thing that's changed since the last poll, when Burr led by 5, is that Marshall is shoring up her support from within the party. 65% of Democrats say they'll vote for her, up from 57% a month ago. Burr continues to lead because of a 44-25 advantage with independents and because with 73% Republican support his party is more unified around him than Marshall's is around her.

There's not much doubt the closeness of this race is more an indictment of Burr than a reflection of Marshall's popularity. The Democratic challenger continues to be largely an unknown to North Carolina voters with 58% saying they have no opinion of her. Among those who do 23% see her favorably and 19% unfavorably. But what's really changed since February when Burr held a ten point lead is perceptions of the incumbent. At that time voters split evenly on his job performance with 35% approving of him and 35% disapproving. Now just 32% approve with 44% disapproving.

And then there's this:

The race is closer at this point than the Kay Hagan/Elizabeth Dole race was at the same point two years ago. PPP's late July poll of that contest found Dole leading Hagan 49-40. By late August Hagan took a lead she would never give back, but that was after a large amount of outside advertising attacking Dole over the course of that month. It does not seem likely that will be replicated this year, at least not at this early a stage.

This is the cursed Senate seat which hasn't been held by an incumbent since 1968. Burr (with Marshall's help) is doing his dardnest to keep that streak alive.

With Rasmussen:

Without Rasmussen:

• I remember when Dick Wadhams was Rove's heir apparent, despite his unfortunate (though appropriate) name. He managed John Thune's campaign that booted Tom Daschle from the Senate, as well as several winning efforts in Colorado, his native state. There was a big frenzy from the 2008 GOP field to grab him, and the winner was then-Sen. George Allen, then also considered the front-runner to the GOP nomination.

  Then Jim Webb happened, and with a dose of Macaca, that was that. Wadhams slunk back to Colorado, where he took the helm of the state GOP and ran Bob Schaffer's unsuccessful Senate bid against Democrat Mark Udall. Apparently, screaming "Boulder Liberal" 17.5 million times wasn't enough to win the race.

  Now, he's watching his state party self-destruct before his eyes, with all of its statewide candidates imploding in hilarious (and spectacular) fashion, giving Democrats a near lock on the governor's mansion and improving our chances of holding on to the Senate seat.

  In any case, some Colorado GOPers are finally tiring of Wadhams' incompetence, and have launched an effort to oust him.

• Joe Trippi, Fox News Democrat, took a further PR beating by signing on to the Senate campaign of Jeff Greene, the Florida scumbag trying to buy the Democratic nomination.

  And it was all for naught. Trippi was fired.

• There was a time when the Republican National Committee was a feared political organization.

  Then Michael Steele happened.

• Howard Kurtz is still obnoxious.
• Glenn Beck loses another sponsor.

  That's probably why he clings to his gold scam.

• Karl Rove still has his math. Unfortunately, it's incompatible with real math.
• Newsweek is a mess.

  Revenue dropped 38 percent between 2007 and 2009, to $165 million. Newsweek's negligible operating loss (not including certain pension and early retirement changes) of $3 million in 2007 turned into a bloodbath: the business lost $32 million in 2008 and $39.5 million in 2009. Even after reducing headcount by 33 percent, and slashing the number of issues printed and distributed to readers each week, from 2.6 million to 1.5 million, the 2010 operating loss is still forecast at $20 million.

  The magazine has general administrative costs of $55 million per year, which is astronomical  and well out of kilter with its size. New owner Sidney Harman apparently has no plan to turn the magazine around, buying the company for $1 and the assuming of all liabilities. Not that it matters, because there's nothing that would turn the magazine around. It's dead man walking, along with the also failing Time.

• Tom Shales, asshole.
• Conservatives really do hate our Constitution.
• Ground Zero mosque critics have an ally ... in Osama Bin Laden.

The NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission (it's as powerful as it sounds) voted unanimously to not landmark the building that is standing in the way of the proposed mosque. From their standpoint, the building in question is not notable for any particular reason, therefore did not deserve protection.

The LPC was not about to damage it's credibility by landmarking a building just to satisfy a bunch of wingnut pundits on Fox News and their internet skinhead followers. They are there to determine if a building is worthy of distinction. It is a power that must be used carefully because once the LPC landmarks a building, you can't so much as replace the carpeting without their permission. For them to bow to political pressure would have been a travesty.

The vote was received with loud applause from New Yorkers, as reported in the Daily News. As Laurence Lewis noted yesterday:

Muslim New Yorkers are every bit as innocent of the crimes of 9/11 as are all other New Yorkers. Muslim New Yorkers suffered and continue to suffer as did and do all other New Yorkers. They have the same rights and responsibilities as do all other New Yorkers.

Initially, New Yorkers reacted to this "issue" with our "whatsit gotta do wit me?" reaction to things in general. The outcry came from the usual suspects of rural right wingers ginned up by Fox News. New Yorkers are simply too busy to worry about who is building what in Downtown Manhattan. In fact, union men from the building trades in Brooklyn will be happy to hear there is more work coming. New Yorkers are simply unfazed by Islamophobia. I've told this story over the years: On the morning of 9/11 I walked across the Brooklyn Bridge covered in debris. That same evening I ate at an Afghan restaurant on the Upper West Side. It was full.

New York City will not be stopped. Not by terrorists, not by teabaggers.

While the Landmarks Commission may have been dealing with the narrow concerns of real estate history and architectural aesthetics, the cheers that erupted after the verdict sends a clear message to intolerant non-New Yorkers like Palin: If you don't like if you don't like our religious tolerance, if you don't like our racial diversity, if you don't what we build in our city, don't come here. But don't for one second think you can tell us what we can and cannot build.

See Bensonola's recommended diary for more discussion.

Josh Marshall calls Mitch McConnell's support of hearings into whether the U.S. Constitution grants citizenship to persons born in the United States "another sign of the darkening political horizon in the country."

Evidence that he's absolutely right comes from an unlikely source: Lou Dobbs.

. . . The idea that anchor babies somehow require changing the 14th amendment, I part ways with the Senators on that because I believe the 14th amendment, particularly in its due process and equal protection clauses, is so important. It lays the foundation for the entire Bill of Rights being applied to the states.

Even Lou Dobbs--as anti-immigrant as he is, witness his use of "anchor babies"--doesn't want to amend the Constitution to end birthright citizenship. That's how far off the deep end McConnell, Kyl, and Graham (that so-called moderate) are willing to go to mollify the most extremes of their base.

Just how low is Rep. Alan Grayson's Republican opponent willing to go?

Florida Republican Kurt Kelly is slamming Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson, suggesting that his absence during a war-funding vote might mean the freshman lawmaker actually wants American troops to die. [...]

“He missed the vote. He took a walk on the vote to provide supplemental funding for our soldiers,” Kelly said in the interview, which Kelly’s campaign advertised on its YouTube page Monday. “He put our soldiers, our men and women in the military, in harm’s way and, in fact, maybe he wants them to die.”

Pretty low. But instead of pearl clutching outrage and demands for an apology from the Grayson campaign, Grayson's spokesman simply said:

Kurt Kelly thinks the stupider he sounds, the more Republican votes he'll get.

A perfect response. No taking their crap and no attempt to pander to voters who will never vote for him.

These numbers (from a Pew Research poll conducted July 29 - August 1) shouldn't surprise anybody, but given what passes for conventional wisdom these days, they could very well be a shock:

If you look at the net impact of each hypothetical on a liklihood of support (in other words, subtracting the less likely number from the more likely number), you get, in order:

1. Government projects: +39%

2. Barack Obama: -1%

3. Candidate is neither Dem nor GOP: -6%

4. Tea party: -9%

5. Sarah Palin: -20%

So it turns out that the tea party's austerity message is a lead balloon for the GOP. Instead, voters want somebody representing them who will deliver the goods for their district. Even among Republicans, voters are just as likely to support a candidate who delivers government projects and money to their district as one who has the backing of the tea party.

Moreover, it turns out the election really isn't about any one national figure, but if it were, it would be Sarah Palin that was a detriment -- not President Obama.

The more you see numbers like this, the clearer it becomes that vulnerable members of Congress shouldn't spend their time running from programs like the recovery act. Instead, they should be touting the benefits of what the stimulus has delivered to their districts. And they should be running on a platform of doing even more of it to get the economy going. As the numbers show, it's not a close call.

It's ironic given how broken the Senate is, and how afraid its Democrats have been of using their majority, but they will likely come out far better this November than their House colleagues.

And the picture for Senate Dems is improving.

If you simply look at the national trends Democrats are in pretty bad shape right now. Barack Obama's approval numbers are hitting record lows in a lot of polling and the balance of the generic ballot surveys show Republicans in the lead.

If you look at the trends in the actual races though things are getting sunnier for the Democrats. In June and July PPP polled eight Senate match ups that we had a previous poll to compare to- in all eight the Democratic candidate improved his/her position, by an average of 4.25 points.

The chart above also shows how Dems are actually playing some serious offense this cycle -- Ohio, New Hampshire, Louisiana, North Carolina and Kentucky are all pickup opportunities. Throw in Missouri and Florida (with independent Charlie Crist), and you've got seven legitimate pickup opportunities to offset the guaranteed GOP pickups in North Dakota and Arkansas, plus tough contests in Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, as well as potentially tough races in California, Washington and Wisconsin.

Throw in fading GOP challengers in Nevada and Illinois, and we've got something approaching parity heading into November. As Gov. Brian Schweitzer said at Netroots Nation, sometimes it's better to be lucky than good, and so far, luck is keeping Democrats in the game.

Ezra has a good point for critics of providing state aid, including in the form of Medicaid and teacher assistance.

States had record rainy-day reserves in the run-up to the crisis. That's pretty fiscally responsible. It's just that the crisis is the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. You wouldn't want states budgeting for once-every-80-years economic storms. That'd mean keeping a lot of cash sitting around that could be more productively used for other things. And we don't want states deficit spending, or at least we seem to not want that.

But that means they need some help from the federal government -- which does have the tools to survive these storms -- when these crises do strike. We've started to walk away from that responsibility by using the long-run problems of state pension funds to decide that this is all their fault, but it really isn't. You can hardly blame Nevada and Florida for not managing global capital flows and Wall Street's risk-load. And the fact that pretty much all of the states fell apart at once -- save for a few that rely heavily on energy industries -- suggests this isn't a governance problem. It's a global economy problem.

To say the situation in most states is dire is an understatement. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported on the scope of the crisis at the end of June, before the new fiscal year began.

The states’ cumulative budget shortfall will likely reach $140 billion in the coming year, the largest shortfall yet in a string of huge annual gaps that date back to the beginning of the recession. Closing it will have severe effects on services and jobs.

In many states, the new fiscal year will bring immediate cuts to programs and services that are facing unprecedented demand. As of July 1, 10,000 families in Arizona will lose eligibility for temporary cash assistance; Georgia will lay off as many as 284 workers who help low-income families enroll for food stamp, Medicaid and TANF benefits; and Kansas will cut off nearly 2,800 individuals with a disability from independent living services. Education, health care, and other priority areas will also face new cuts in the coming fiscal year — on top of extensive cuts that at least 45 states have enacted over the last two years.

States are raising taxes as well for 2011. Effective July 1, Kansas and New Mexico increase their sales taxes; Hawaii, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, and Utah increase their tax on tobacco products; Washington begins taxing soda, and Oklahoma is temporarily suspending various business and energy tax credits. Other changes have already taken effect or will take effect later in fiscal year 2011. Since 2008, more than 30 states have raised taxes or tax-like fees.

The $26 billion in the current bill, whittled down in the face of opposition from Republicans and Ben Nelson, wouldn't solve the crisis, but it would at least stanch the bleeding.

Senate Republicans have given up on even pretending that they're interested in being part of a real, functioning American government.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) officially supports a review of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which grants children of undocumented immigrants status as U.S. citizens, his office confirmed to the Huffington Post on Monday.

A spokesman said that the Kentucky Republican believes that "we should hold hearings" on the matter. McConnell had not previously commented on the issue before, the spokesman confirmed.

He joins Kyl and Graham in a desire to eviscerate the Constitution (and this whole quaint idea of what American means) for the purposes of playing to an increasingly extreme base. Not all Republicans are so keen to get out the constitutional erasers, though.

In the House of Representatives, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) has introduced the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009, which would attempt to deny children of illegal immigrants U.S. citizenship through statute rather than a constitutional amendment (thereby lowering the vote threshold). He has 93 co-sponsors for that effort including Rep. Nathan Deal, the Georgia Republican who is in a runoff to be the party's candidate for governor.

Presumably, all of their forefathers came across with the Virginia Company, or perhaps on the Mayflower. It's a pretty damned safe bet that few have ancestors that preceded that white invasion.

It's entirely likely that the only accomplishment the Senate will have this week, the last one before taking the remainder of August off to campaign back home, will be confirming Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. The debate begins today, with a vote expected on Thursday or Friday. It's also likely to be the only real defeat the NRA experiences this Congress.

In a call to supporters to urge senators to vote no, the NRA compares Kagan to President Obama's last court pick, Sonia Sotomayor, who seemed to back the Second Amendment in confirmation hearings but who later voted against it in a test case. "Last year, Sonia Sotomayor deliberately misled the American people by claiming she believed it was 'settled law' that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms. This year, she proved she never really believed that by ruling against the Second Amendment in McDonald v. City of Chicago," says the gun lobby. "Now, Elena Kagan has used the same phrases—'settled law' and 'precedent'—to describe her view of the Second Amendment in the hearings. It is critical that the members of the U.S. Senate not fall for the same trick twice!"

They're a bit late, though they might have gotten to Ben Nelson, who has vague "concerns" that his constituents back home are "concerned" about Kagan. Thus far, Nelson is the only Democrat to announce his opposition to her. Five Republicans (Collins, Graham, Gregg, Lugar, Snowe) have announced their support.

How will this compare to the most recent SCOTUS confirmation votes? The NYT Caucus Blog reviews just that.

Ms. Kagan, the solicitor general, is expected to be confirmed by a slightly narrower margin than Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose nomination was approved last year by a vote of 68 to 31....

While nine Senate Republicans voted for Ms. Sotomayor, only five have said they plan to support Ms. Kagan so far. And while Democrats were unanimous in supporting Ms. Sotomayor, Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, has said he will vote against Ms. Kagan.

That leaves Ms. Kagan likely to win confirmation with more support than Justice Samuel A. Alito, who was confirmed 58 to 42, and Justice Clarence Thomas, who was confirmed 52 to 48, but less than everyone else on the high court.

The toxic political environment, and the election just a few months away, a higher vote threshold is unlikely. That vote count shouldn't be a reflection on Kagan's qualifications, or--as was the case of Thomas and Alito--Senators' real concern with her ideological extremity. She's very unlikely to be as far to the left as Thomas and Alito are to the right.

The House is not in session this week. They're recessed for the month of August and are due to return the week of September 13th.

In the Senate, courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader:

Convenes: 9:30am

The Senate will convene at 9:30am and immediately proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination of Elena Kagan to by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The Senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15pm to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Debate time on the Kagan nomination will be controlled as follows:

• Chairman Leahy –first 30 minutes
• Ranking Member Sessions—next 30 minutes
• 10:30 until 11am equally divided and controlled between the Leaders, or their designees
• 11-12:30pm equally divided and controlled, with the Majority controlling the first 45 minutes;
• 2:15pm-8:15pm divided in one hour alternating blocks, with the Majority controlling the first block
• 8:15pm and beyond continuing to be divided in one hour alternating blocks of time.

Well, uh... hmm. What do you really want me to tell you about this?

The only thing even remotely insightful about Senate proceedings that I had to tell you was already covered by Joan yesterday. You should read about that.

I really don't have a lot to tell you. They're not giving me a lot to work with, not that what they are doing isn't important. Seriously. But I'm kind of glad about that. I'm supposed to be on vacation.

There are some committee hearings, though. You wanna read about them? They're below the fold.

I'm out!

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

Worth Revisiting

From the August 3, 2005 edition of The Daily Show comes this stark reminder of what Republican leadership looks like:

Jon Stewart: Oh, Oil!!  Giver of power, corrupter of governments, non-sticker of surfaces! Must you taunt us with your slick, non-renewable goodness?

Yes, energy is clearly an important topic with Americans. That's why, before going on recess, Congress broke a 4-year impasse by approving a massive energy bill. And while it did nothing to address our dependence on foreign oil, or fuel efficiency, or in any way simplify the strategic nature of our relationship with the Middle East, it does give oil and gas industries 500 million dollars for research and 2.7 billion dollars in tax breaks, even though a company like Exxon-Mobil made 7.6 billion dollars in pure profit just this last quarter...

Now, you might find the idea of the government using billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize the oil companies as the antithesis of private, free-market capitalism.  You are wrong:

Clip of Republican Representative Joe Barton of Texas: This bill is based on the premise that we believe in private, free-market capitalism to develop the resources of this land in a cost-efficient manner.

Stewart: Oh my god, we have a winner!  Congratulations, Representative Joe Barton! You have achieved a lie-to-word ratio of one-to-one!

Barton would later apologize to BP for allowing our icky gulf waters to come in contact with the oil giant's precious light, sweet crude.

Meanwhile, before cutting to commercials, Stewart showed this clip from George W. Bush's 2005 State of the Union address:

"America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government.  I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline."

Really.

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

Your one stop pundit shop.

Eugene Robinson:

In Afghanistan, momentum has become a substitute for logic. We're not fighting because we have a clear set of achievable goals. We're at war, apparently, because we're at war.

No other conclusion can be drawn from the circular, contradictory, confusing statements that the war's commanders and supporters keep making. President Obama, in an interview with CBS taped last Friday, said it is "important for our national security to finish the job in Afghanistan." But as the war's deadliest month for U.S. troops came to an end, Obama was far from definitive about just what this job might be.

Richard Cohen:

Newt Gingrich, his doctorate notwithstanding, has offered us an illogical and ahistorical context to the ugly dispute about building an Islamic cultural center and mosque near Manhattan's Ground Zero ...

This mosque and Islamic center were approved by the local neighborhood advisory board and have the backing of the mayor. To an alarming extent, the opponents are mostly Republican politicians -- Palin, Lazio, Gingrich and even congressional candidates in other states. They pretend to have the courage of their convictions, but the truth is otherwise. When it comes to convictions, they have none at all.

Anne Applebaum:

Alas, historical amnesia appears to have affected some readers, many of whom are under the impression that President Bush actually believed in small government and that recent Republican congressional leaders actually opposed federal spending. [...]

Parties, of course, can change; politicians can see the light; lessons can be learned; and perhaps some Republicans have learned them. But you cannot start from scratch. You cannot forget history. You cannot pretend that the Republican Party has not supported big and wasteful spending programs -- energy subsidies, farm subsidies, unnecessary homeland security projects, profligate defense contracts, you name it -- for the past decade. Before the GOP can have credibility on any spending issues whatsoever, Republican leaders need to speak frankly about the mistakes of the past.

They also must be extremely specific about which policies and programs they are planning to cut. What will it be? Social Security or the military budget? Medicare or the Transportation Security Administration? Vague "anti-government" rhetoric doesn't cut it anymore: If you want a smaller government, you have to tell us how you will create one.

Bob Herbert:

As if there is not enough that has gone tragically wrong in this era of endless warfare, the military is facing an epidemic of suicides. In the year that ended Sept. 30, 2009, 160 active duty soldiers took their own lives — a record for the Army. The Marines set their own tragic record in 2009 with 52 suicides. And this past June, another record was set — 32 military suicides in just one month.

War is a meat grinder for service members and their families. It grinds people up without mercy, killing them and inflicting the worst kinds of wounds imaginable, physical and psychological. The Pentagon is trying to cope with the surge in suicides, but it is holding a bad hand: the desperate shortage of troops has forced military officials to lower the bar for enlistment, thus letting in people whose drug and alcohol abuse or other behavioral problems would previously have kept them out. And the multiple deployments (four, five and six tours in the war zones) have jacked up stress levels to the point where many just can’t take it.

Peter Skerry:

Last week's decision by a federal judge in Arizona to block parts of the recent state measure targeting illegal immigrants may be good law. It is definitely good politics, especially for Democrats but even for Republicans. But it is also bad policy.  [...]

This decision was engineered by the Obama administration to placate immigrant advocates angered by its unwillingness to invest political capital in any version of "comprehensive immigration reform.’’ In addition, advocates are aroused by the relatively high levels of workplace enforcement and deportations that Obama has achieved by pursing subtler, more targeted policies than his predecessor.

But don’t blame the advocates for the ruling. Blame the administration for pandering to them, which is not the same as giving them what they want: minimal enforcement and amnesty for as many illegal immigrants as possible.

Derrick Z. Jackson:

For all that the Republicans have done to kill and dilute legislation on climate change, health care, and financial reform, there is one issue that Americans want President Obama and the Democratic majority to buck up on: repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the rich.

A Pew Research Center/National Journal Congressional Connection poll last week found that 27 percent of Americans think the cuts, passed in 2001 and 2003, should be allowed to expire as scheduled this year for individuals making $200,000 a year or more and households making $250,000 a year or more. Another 31 percent said all the cuts should be allowed to expire. That combined 58 percent compares to only 30 percent who think they should be extended. Along with the overwhelming percentage of Democrats who support ending the tax cut, even 40 percent of Republicans also favored ending them either for the wealthy or altogether.

Yet top Republicans want to keep the tax cuts. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says if the tax cuts expire, "the people you hit the hardest at $250,000 are small businesses. The people who hire the most people in America are small businesses . . . What they say everywhere I go is, ‘We’re not hiring anybody because between the health bill, the tax bill, and the energy bill, we don’t trust this administration.’"