Good job, Jared Bernstein, Chief Economic Advisor to the Vice President.

John Boehner wants a lot of people to lose their jobs.

We were awfully surprised to hear Rep. Boehner come out for killing jobs en masse in his own state and district by stopping the Recovery Act on last Sunday’s news shows.

Though we’re sure he didn’t know it, the Congressman is advocating to kill the expansion of the Butler County Community Health Center and bring some of the twenty-five highway projects across the district to a grinding halt.  Across the state of Ohio, he said that approximately 4 million working families should get an unexpected cut in their paycheck as the Making Work Pay tax credit disappears, unemployed workers should go without unemployment benefits, and major Ohio road projects like the US-33 Nelsonville Bypass project and the Cleveland Innerbelt Modernization project should be stalled or stopped.  Oh, and some of the more than 100 clean energy Recovery projects employing workers across the state should be shut down....

[W]when critics like Rep. Boehner talk about stopping the spending, they’re essentially talking about taking away middle class tax cuts, leaving unemployed workers unexpectedly high and dry without an unemployment check, halting road and bridge projects and leaving them unfinished, leaving contractors unpaid for the work they’ve already done and more.

So when it comes right down to, is Rep. Boehner really ready to tell Ohioans they’d better off if we stopped the Recovery Act?

Of course, Boehner doesn't particularly care about Ohio at this point. His, and his colleagues', constituents have long since been the K Street and Wall Street. This is the guy who just spent a week railing about teachers and firefighters as special interests and aid to states as a bailout.

Good for the White House for pointing that out.

It's been a crazy two years of Palin-mania, hasn't it? I was reminiscing the other day about all the crazy she's given us, and began debating her best moment. So much good material to judge!

After some deliberation, I decided this was my favorite:

First, this:

Then, just three months later, this:

Palin had announced on Twitter that she would be running the 5k race organized by the Benton-Franklin Chapter of the Red Cross.

She didn't finish the race, opting to leave the course early to avoid more crowds at the end. About 40 minutes into the run, word started trickling out to people gathered at the finish line that she was gone.

But here's why I love this --

Palin is an attention monger, selling herself as a big runner with a splashy magazine layout in a premier running magazine. Yet given the chance to actually, you know, run, she couldn't even finish a measly 5K run.

Is there a better anecdote to illustrate the essence of Sarah?

So watch, she'll make noise about running for president in 2012, but when push comes to shove, she doesn't have the work ethic to actually campaign. She'll bask in the attention, sell lots of books, and get $100K per speech.

But the second it becomes hard work, she'll call it quits.

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Democracy Corps, and Campaign for Amerca's Future released a new poll this morning on the economy with a press call featuring pollster Stan Greenberg, Campaign For America's Future's Robert Borosage and MoveOn.org's Nita Chaudhary.

The most salient result from the polling, said Greenberg is that it reflected that the electorate is "remarkably sophisticated about the economic crisis and its causes" and hold the firm belief that the only way to address the deficit long term is with investment in the economy. The survey of 1,000 people who voted in 2008 was conducted at the end of July. Here are the key findings:

• 68 percent said they would oppose making major spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, while 28 percent said they would favor cutting those programs. That included 61 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents.
• Strong majorities support progressive solutions for addressing the federal deficit: 63 percent back lifting the Social Security cap on incomes higher than $107,000 a year; 64 percent would favor eliminating tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs; 62 percent would support a tax on excessive Wall Street bank profits.
• Strong majorities also oppose common conservative proposals for addressing the budget deficit: 65 percent oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to 70; 65 percent oppose replacing Medicare with a private sector voucher; 62 percent oppose a 3 percent federal sales tax; 60 percent oppose raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67.
• More people support a message that embraces the need for both investments in our future and reduce the deficit over time (52 percent) than a message that only stresses cuts in spending (42 percent). Also, almost equal percentages of respondents were favorable toward “a plan to invest in new industries and rebuild the country over the next five years” (60 percent) and “a plan to dramatically reduce the deficit over five years” (61 percent).
• 62 percent of respondents support more federal to states once they understand that the aid comes in the context of states laying off teachers, first responders and other essential workers due to the recession. That includes 55 percent of independents and 48 percent of Republicans.
• 60 percent of those surveyed responded positively to an economic message that said that “we have a budget deficit, but ... we also have a massive public investment deficit” that requires us to “rebuild the infrastructure that is vital to our economy” and to the economic growth that will “generate revenues to help pay down the budget deficit.” This message tests better than any other progressive message on investment as well as more conservative messages focused on spending cuts.

Here's what that looks like:

Click the image to enlarge.

Note two of the hot political debates at the moment: letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire polls at 54 percent, while raising the retirement age to 70 nets 33 percent.

As Bob Borosage said on the call, "Republicans are getting this exactly wrong" politically and in terms of policy when they argue the way out of economic ruin is to slash spending, turn Medicare into a voucher program (Paul Ryan's big "roadmap" idea) and cut Social Security benefits or raise the retirement age. These are highly unpopular. And the average American voter is a lot smarter than the average Republican in Congress, because they understand that the only way to grow out of this economic crisis is with aggressive investment in jobs and infrastructure, and that that is necessary to reduce deficits.

CNN has a new poll revealing that 68% of Americans oppose the "Ground Zero Mosque" -- including 54% of Democrats, 45% of liberals, 72% of whites and 58% of non-whites.

But this is a case where you have to look at the question to understand what the poll means. The question:

As you may know, a group of Muslims in the U.S. plan to build a mosque two blocks from the site in New York City where the World Trade Center used to stand. Do you favor or oppose this plan?

When you ask the question with those words, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that you're going to find a lot of opposition. It's not just that it frames the issue in the same way that Republican have framed it, it's also that it completely sidesteps questions of tolerance and religious freedom.

The question didn't even explicitly ask whether people believed the government should intervene to outlaw the mosque; it merely asked whether people supported plans by American Muslims to build it. Those two questions are not synonymous.

CNN also didn't ask people whether they felt government should ban Muslims from choosing their own place of worship, nor did they ask whether all religious groups in America, even unpopular ones, deserve the same level of protection from the first amendment.

I'd have liked to see the answer to these questions:

Do you believe the New York City government should forbid American Muslims from building a private house of worship anywhere in the vicinity of where the World Trade Center used to stand?

And:

Do you believe that every religious group, including the American Muslims building a house of worship two blocks from where the World Trade Center used to stand, deserves the same protection from the First Amendment's protection of religious liberty?

Or, even succinctly:

Should the government control who builds houses of worship and where they're located?

Those questions (or questions worded similarly) get at the core question which is whether or not government ought to ban American Muslims from practicing freedom of religion. You don't need to be an active proponent of building the mosque to also believe that the government shouldn't ban it. And assuming you don't believe government should ban it, it's not hard to see that the only motive for opposing the mosque is bigotry. And that then raises the next obvious question I'd love to hear people answer: do you support the Republican Party's bigoted attacks on people of the Islamic faith?

Deductible me:

'bout time.

After years of deliberate neglect, the Justice Department is finally beginning to enforce the federal law requiring states to provide voter registration at welfare and food stamp offices. The effort not only promises to bring hundreds of thousands of hard-to-reach voters into the electorate, but it could also reduce the impact of advocacy organizations whose role in registering voters caused such a furor in 2008.
Related

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, better known as the motor-voter law, is well-known for making it possible to register to vote at state motor vehicle offices. However, the law also required states to allow registration at offices that administer food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, disability assistance and child health programs. States were enthusiastic about the motor-vehicle section of the law, and millions of new voters got on the rolls while getting a driver’s license. But registration at public assistance offices proved far less popular.

In part, that was because of additional paperwork at those offices, but in many states, Republican officials did not want to provide easy entry to the voting rolls for low-income people whom they considered more likely to vote Democratic. The Bush administration devoted its attention to seeking out tiny examples of voter fraud and purging people from the rolls in swing states. It did little to enforce the motor-voter law despite years of complaints from civic groups and Democratic lawmakers.

Republicans don't want to expand the voter pool. The fewer people vote, the better they do.

Roy Blunt offered up a big target, and Robin Carnahan has come out swinging in her first television ad of the cycle.

In a nice touch, the ad is paired with a Carnahan-centric web video making clear the contrast between the two candidates.

For further discussion, see TomP's recommended diary.

Mason-Dixon. 8/9-11. Likely voters. MoE 4% (5/5 results)

Here are the trends:

On the minus side, Alex hasn't gained much against McCollum since M-D's last poll. On the plus side, McCollum has cratered, gazillionaire teabagger Rick Scott is running far behind, and Chiles seems to be pulling votes from the GOP side.

Also on the negative side -- this is the first poll in a while that has McCollum leading Scott in the primary, but really, with a gazillion undecided:

McCollum is ahead of Scott by a 34-30 percent margin -- a huge shift from just a week ago, when Scott led 37-31, according to the latest survey from Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.

Pollster Brad Coker said both candidates' reputations are taking a hit as they sling tens of millions of dollars' worth of negative ads against each other heading into the Aug. 24 primary election.

"Democratic candidate Alex Sink is the clear winner from all of this,'' said Coker.

We're obviously rooting for Scott to win, but he's been hit with revelations that his firm engaged in massive Medicare fraud -- paying out a total of $1.7 billion in fines and claims.

The primary is in two weeks, August 24.

Nothing has changed. The GOP is still a Southern regional white people party. From the latest NBC/WSJ poll:

The GOP has a HUGE generic-ballot edge in the South (52%-31%), but it doesn’t lead anywhere else. In the Northeast, Dems have a 55%-30% edge; in the Midwest, they lead 49%-38%; and in the West, it’s 44%-43%.

And there's this:

Consider: 60% believe the current Congress is either below average or among the worst, an all-time high in the survey; the percentage viewing the GOP favorably (24%-46% fav/unfav) is at an all-time low; the numbers for the Democratic Party aren’t much better (33%-44%, and the "very negative" for the Dems matches an all-time high); nearly six in 10 say the country is headed in the wrong direction; and 64% think the U.S. economy hasn’t yet hit rock bottom (“Recovery Summer," anyone?).

Everyone hates everyone in DC, but they still hate Republicans the most. Of course, this doesn't mean we're out of the woods in November. There are plenty of congressional districts in the midwest and west that look more like Alabama than Minneapolis.

But for conservatives expecting the sweeping tidal wave, their own personal unpopularity still could get in the way.

And beyond this November, that unpopularity will team up with their demographic challenges (losing the brown and young votes) to create serious long-term challenges. Republicans don't currently have a viable path toward majority status, and doubling down on their teabagger-fueled nuttery isn't going to turn those things around.

It may be enough to make some decent gains in November, but again, it's a long-term loser.

Another hurdle crossed:

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker (N.D. Cal.), who struck down Proposition 8’s ban on gay marriage in California, has denied a motion to stay his judgment pending appeal. This means that same-sex marriages in California can start immediately.

Let the marriages begin!

Update: The ban will be lifted effective August 18th.

Update II: From the Los Angeles Times:

A federal judge today refused to permanently stay his ruling overturning Proposition 8's ban of gay marriage but extended a temporary hold to give supporters time to appeal the historic ruling.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who overturned the measure on Aug. 4, agreed to give its sponsors until Aug. 18 to appeal his ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. No new marriages can take place until then.

Walker said the sponsors of Proposition 8 do not have legal standing to appeal his order because they were not directly affected by it.

Walker’s decision came after supporters of the marriage ban warned they would take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to ensure that Walker’s ruling did not take effect.

Adam B will have an in-depth look at the ruling later today.

Update III:

Adam B adds: The important part of Judge Walker's order -- even beyond allowing marriages to resume within the week so long as the Ninth Circuit doesn't intervene -- is what it portends regarding the standing issue on any appeal of his opinion.

The court provided proponents with an opportunity to identify a harm they would face “if an injunction against Proposition 8 is issued.”  Proponents replied that they have an interest in defending Proposition 8 but failed to articulate even one specific harm they may suffer as a consequence of the injunction….

If [] no state defendant appeals, proponents will need to show standing in the court of appeals. See Arizonans for Official English, 520 US at 67. Proponents’ intervention in the district court does not provide them with standing to appeal. Diamond, 476 US at 68 (holding that “Diamond’s status as an intervenor below, whether permissive or as of right, does not confer standing to keep the case alive in the absence of the State on this appeal”); see also Associated Builders & Contractors v Perry, 16 F3d 688, 690 (6th Cir 1994) (“The standing requirement * * * may bar an appeal even though a litigant had standing before the district court.”). The Supreme Court has expressed “grave doubts” whether initiative proponents have independent Article III standing to defend the constitutionality of the initiative. Arizonans for Official English, 520 US at 67.

Nor do the Prop 8 proponents suffer any harms in the interim, because none of them "seek to wed a same-sex spouse," and "the court considers only whether the party seeking a stay faces harm, yet proponents do not identify a harm to them that would result from denial of their motion to stay."  Finally, that neither Governor Schwarzenegger nor Attorney General Brown (the actual defendants) requested a stay weighed heavily on the Court.

This now goes up to the Ninth Circuit, where Prof. Rick Hasen has noted that this month's Motions Panel (where the request for stay will be heard) is a fairly liberal one.  If they deny the request for stay, it can be appealed to the Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has jurisdiction over emergency appeals from the Ninth Circuit, and he can rule on it himself and/or refer it to the full nine.

• Alterman:

  It turns out that Obama, advised primarily by Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, was so committed to his strategy of bipartisan governance that he insisted on pursuing it, not only at the expense of his campaign promises, but also of his own (and his party's) popularity. Holding his own ideologically disparate party together was difficult enough. But bringing along enough Republicans to demonstrate a good-faith effort—whether they ended up supporting him in the end or not—resulted in legislation that however historic, was so watered down by compromise with corporate lobbyists that it pissed off almost everyone and satisfied pretty much nobody.

  Meanwhile, unnamed administration sources—at least according to Politico—have begun to lash out at the president's liberal base for being insufficiently enthusiastic about its accomplishments [...]

  This is rather rich. It wasn't so long ago, that liberals were being called "f------ retards" by Rahm Emanuel for refusing to get behind the president's compromises on health care. When they finally did, they were chastised for insufficient enthusiasm for a bill that they were instructed to hold their noses and support. Ditto financial regulation, which, in many respects, is a gift to Wall Street, not Main Street. And environmentalists, labor, and feminists have all received not merely nothing, but genuinely regressive rulings by the administration and told to take it and like it.

• Peter Daou examines the Obama paradox:

  In recent days, what has emerged from this cacophony is a seemingly contradictory amalgam of positions, dubbed the "Obama Paradox," that portrays the president as a successful failure.

  Don't freak out -- the "failure" in this case refers to Obama's and the Democrats' falling popularity. In other words, how can an administration and Congress that has accomplished so much on the legislative side, still be facing a disaster in November?

• FL-Sen: Marco Rubio can't figure out how to deal with Florida AG and Guv candidate Bill McCollum's election-season brown-hating bill.

  Florida GOP Senate candidate Marco Rubio on Thursday declined to take a firm stance on a newly proposed bill in the state that would require immigrants to carry identification or face a 20-day jail sentence.

  Armando/BTD:

  It's tough be a Latino Republican - you can't endorse hating yourself, but you can't really reject it either.

• Why does Rush Limbaugh hate all church employees and pastors?
• Once again, the GOP is out-of-step with America:

  A poll released Wednesday shows that 60 percent of Americans back the $26 billion state aid bill for which the House reconvened to pass this week.

  Sixty percent favor its passage compared to 38 percent who oppose it, according to the CNN/Opinion Research survey.

  Democrats in Congress argued its passage was essential to saving the jobs of teachers, police officers and firefighters whose jobs were in danger because of deep deficits in state budgets [...]

  Doug Thornell, a spokesman for Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), claimed that support for the aid could be even higher had the survey mentioned it was funded.

  "The question doesn’t mention that the bill is fully paid for and support is still at 60 percent," he said.

• When it comes to Latino voters, immigration tops list of concerns.
• Sen. Jon Tester gets some props.
• Pity the GOP establishment.

  Less than a year ago, top Republican Party officials boasted of an all-star lineup of experienced candidates poised to breeze through their Senate primary elections and put the hurt on vulnerable Democrats in November. The roster included Charlie Crist in Florida, Jane Norton in Colorado, Trey Grayson in Kentucky, Rob Simmons in Connecticut and Sue Lowden in Nevada.

  After Tuesday's primary votes, not one member of the dream team will be the Republican nominee in November.

  Instead of rolling to victory, the GOP's well-groomed recruits have been sideswiped by insurgents, unknowns and dark horses, challengers whose failure to win the party's seal of approval was suddenly viewed by voters as a plus.

  Thanks for the gifts, teabaggers!

• Daily Kos alum Page Van Der Linden (Plutonium Page) discusses nukes over at Foreign Policy Magazine.

  The U.S. moratorium on nuclear testing was a major turning point for the nuclear weapons complex. It meant that, without the ability to conduct nuclear tests, the labs would still have to be able to answer the questions: Will it work? How well will it work? What sorts of programs do we have to ensure that it will work? These questions form the nexus of the nuclear warhead "modernization" debate, which is now becoming a point of contention in the political battle over the ratification of President Barack Obama's new strategic arms treaty with Russia, known as New START. As we'll see, the treaty's opponents have created the false impression that Obama isn't doing enough to maintain America's fearsome nuclear arsenal, when in fact he's throwing billions into the effort -- even, arguably, expanding it despite his pledge to work toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney basically wrote the blueprint for health care reform bill signed into law by President Obama this past March.

Now, as a likely contender for his party's presidential nomination in 2012, he's leading the field, according to the most recent Clarus Group survey conducted last month. Romney gets 26% of the GOP vote compared to 21% for Mike Huckabee. Newt Gingrich is at 14% and Sarah Palin as at 12%.

The cognitive dissonance is deafening: GOPers have declared the health insurance mandate public enemy number one, but more of them support the guy who helped make them become reality than any other candidate. Sure, Romney now tries to pretend he hates the mandate, but he passed into law as governor, embraced it during the 2008 primary campaign, and he wouldn't be able to walk away from it in 2012.

In March, the DNC put together this highlight reel of Mitt Romney explaining -- in 2008 -- why he supports a health insurance mandate:

Pretty damn impossible for him to walk away from that, eh? I still believe Romney's support for mandates will ultimately cost him the nomination, but if he somehow gets the nod, it would be hilarious indeed given his full-throated endorsement of the GOP's most-hated aspect of health care reform.

Here we go again. Why Dem Senator Patty Murray raises such violent tendencies, and in teabagger women in particular, is hard to explain. First there was the woman who said she wanted to hang Patty Murray and now we have one who says "She ought to be shot."

Rossi has met privately with tea-party groups around the state, and has signed the tea party's Contract From America. But Dann Selle, a tea-party leader in Spokane, says Rossi retains the "stink of establishment. Didier doesn't. Didier comes across as down to earth."

The partisan anger that Didier has tapped was heard at a business round-table lunch in Spokane.

One woman, the owner of two gyms and a temporary-employment agency, was venting about a pro-union bill supported by Murray when she blurted out: "She ought to be shot. Murray and (Sen. Maria) Cantwell ought to be shot."

Rossi quickly pointed out a reporter in the room, and then said, "That's not really what you meant." The businesswoman quickly agreed: "I didn't mean that."

Interesting response from Rossi. Not "that's unacceptable, there's no place for violence in politics" or a similar rebuke, but to point out that's not something you say when there's a reporter in the room. Good for Rossi for not letting the comment stand at least, but all of these Republicans who refuse to outright disavow and condemn violent, extremist rhetoric allows it to perpetuate. Remember this event when Rossi becomes the "moderate" again after next week's primary.

Didn't know the House had filibusters, did you? Well, as per this TPM piece, they don't, at least not since "the early years of Congress."

But that didn't stop Toomey from leading one, at least on CNN (at the 5:30 mark.)

Now, when I was in the House, I -- frankly I opposed my party very often. I opposed President Bush when he wanted to expand and create a new entitlement program. I opposed that. I personally led a filibuster on the House floor against my own party because I thought they were intending to bust the budget and spend too much money. The record is very clear.

What is it about politicians that make them exaggerators? Toomey has a record to run on from Congress, such as it is. Stick to it and leave the filibustering for the Senate. It's bad enough to have it there.

h/t Megan Carpentier, TPMDC

In a recent "issues" poll, CNN asked (.pdf) about some hot button issues such as the Ground Zero mosque (68% of the public opposes it, which is why there is a Bill of Rights in the Constitution), the 14th amendment controversy (only conservatives and Republicans think it's a good idea to alter the Constitution to fit their prejudices), and gay marriage. They also asked about the bill for state aid to support teachers and Medicaid (60% support it.)

The gay marriage question was really interesting. They asked in two different ways (formatting and poll wording from pollster.com): is there a constitutional right to gay marriage, and should there be a constitutional right to gay marriage?

Do you think gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?
49% Yes, 51% No

Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?
52% Yes, 46% No

So, on the question of what's the right thing to do, a majority of the public are supportive.

Nate helpfully supplies some context:

If it feels like a corner turned, it is. Even if the next poll shows a few points swing backwards, it doesn't matter. After all, as David Madland and Ruy Teixeira has pointed out, the millennials have no use for this issue:

Almost two-thirds agree that religious faith should focus more on promoting tolerance, social justice, and peace in society, and less on opposing abortion or gay rights.

While cynics like Peter King (bigot-Long Island) think the GOP is better off going after illegals, the fact is that the future belongs to equality.

But don't plan on convincing seniors any time soon. Talk to them about death panels, instead.

"People are still afraid that there are death panels ... or that Medicare is going to go away," says Cheryl Matheis of AARP, the nation's largest seniors organization. "We have an obligation to get the information out there.

Indeed. In fact, one of the outstanding comments on the gay marriage issue came from David Boies, one of the lawyers (with Ted Olson) that prepared for and won this case in CA. Boies noted that as proven in a court of law after exhaustive fact finding, there's no basis for continuing discrimination. No posturing allowed, just the facts.

The same has happened with autism and vaccines and evolution v creationism and intelligent design. Jason Rosenhouse:

It also occurred to me that there are a lot of similarities between this decision and the decision in the Dover evolution case. Hard-core right-wingers live in a fantasy world of their own creation. It is a world in which creationism and ID are legitimate science and evolution is not. It is also a world in which gay couples pose some sort of threat to heterosexual marriage, or are too morally suspect to raise children. When thundered from a stage or a pulpit to a generally supportive audience, such notions play very well. But put them in a forum with rules of evidence and a sober, nonemotional tone, and they crumble. Judge Walker in this case was absolutely scathing towards the defense, just as Judge Jones was in the Dover case. When forced to defend their ideas rationally, the right-wingers always come off looking like fools.

Too bad we can't put "death panels" on trial.

Maybe it is a mistake to accuse the current GOP of being a carbon copy of the Bush Administration. But if they aren't a replica, then they are worse.

The latest: they are attacking the Obama Administration for including the "Ground Zero Mosque" Imam ("scare" quotes courtesy of the wingnuts) in a speaking tour in the Middle East. Only one problem: the Bush Administration did the exact same thing with the exact same Imam.

Today's bigoted Republican freakshow ought to travel back in time to September 26, 2001 and listen to the words of then-President George W. Bush, making an appearance with American Muslim leaders in the wake of the 9/11 attack:

     THE PRESIDENT:  It's my honor to welcome to the White House my fellow Americans, Arab Americans, Americans who are Muslim by faith, to discuss about the current issues that took place, the aftermath of the incident, and what our country is going to do to make sure that everybody who is an American is respected.

    I have told the nation more than once that ours is a war against evil, against extremists, that the teachings of Islam are the teachings of peace and good, and the al Qaeda organization is not an organization of good, an organization of peace.  It's an organization based upon hate and evil.

    I also want to assure my fellow Americans that when you pledge allegiance to the flag, with your hand on your heart, you pledge just as hard to the flag as I do; that the outpouring of support for our country has come from all corners of the country, including many members of the Muslim faith.  And for that I am grateful.

    I appreciate the contributions of time, the contributions of blood to help our fellow Americans who have been injured.  And I'm proud of the Muslim leaders across America who have risen up and who have not only insisted that America be strong, but that America keep the values intact that have made us so unique and different -- the values of respect, the values of freedom to worship the way we see fit.  And I also appreciate the prayers to the universal God.

    And so, thank you all for coming.  I don't know if you all remember the Imam led the service at the National Cathedral -- he did a heck of a good job, and we were proud to have him there.  And I want to thank you very much for the gift you gave me, Imam, the Koran.  It's a very thoughtful gift.  I said thank you very much for the gift.  He said, it's the best gift I could give you, Mr. President.  I appreciate that very much.

Can you imagine if President Obama had allowed an Imam to lead a service of any sort, let alone one as grave as the service following the 9/11 attacks? And can you imagine the right-wing Foxrage at him then thanking the Imam for offering him a Koran?

So it's true. When 2010's crop of Republican candidates say they aren't just like Bush, they're right. They are worse. Far worse. And even more dangerous.

Free Press's Craig Aaron had some time to digest the Googe/Verizon proposal for carving up the Internet, and found much to be alarmed by.

Real Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers can't discriminate between different kinds of online content and applications. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. It's what makes sure the next Google, out there in a garage somewhere, has just as good a chance as any giant corporate behemoth to find its audience and thrive online.

What Google and Verizon are proposing is fake Net Neutrality. You can read their framework for yourself here or go here to see Google twisting itself in knots about this suddenly "thorny issue." But here are the basics of what the two companies are proposing:

1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless networks -- meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and applications to pay-for-priority treatment.

2. Their proposed standard for "non-discrimination" on wired networks is so weak that actions like Comcast's widely denounced blocking of BitTorrent would be allowed.

3. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. That's not the way the Internet has ever worked, and it threatens to close the door on tomorrow's innovative applications. (If RealPlayer had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten YouTube?)

4. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two pipes" -- one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a pay-for-play platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

5. The pact proposes to turn the Federal Communications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing consumer complaints but unable to make rules of its own. Instead, it would leave it up to unaccountable (and almost surely industry-controlled) third parties to decide what the rules should be.

If there's a silver lining in this whole fiasco it's that, last I checked anyway, it wasn't up to Google and Verizon to write the rules. That's why we have Congress and the FCC.

That is the good news, but only if the FCC and Congress actually write the rules to keep the Internet open, vibrant, and the engine of entrepreneurism and innovation that it's proven to be. Call the White House at 202-456-1111, and also please call Speaker Pelosi (202-225-0100) and Leader Reid (202-224-3542) as well as your own representatives and Senators. Give them the message that the Google/Verizon proposal is not real net neutrality.