I like it when the White House makes smart decisions.

President Obama will promote his jobs bill at a bridge important to House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) district next week, the White House announced Thursday.

The White House said that Obama would visit the Brent Spence Bridge in Ohio on Sept. 22 in order to highlight the “urgent need” for infrastructure improvements, one of the ideas included in his bill.

Although the bridge is located very near Boehner’s district, Obama has not spoken to the Speaker since he gave his speech introducing the bill to a joint session of Congress last week, and White House press secretary Jay Carney did not know Thursday whether Boehner had been notified.

Carney said the bridge was chosen because it is “relatively easy to get to from Washington.”

Carney was being coy, and that’s fine. There’s no great mystery about the political angle of the president’s appearance.

And, really, there shouldn’t be. The Brent Spence Bridge is a double-decker inter-state bridge that spans the Ohio River between Ohio and Kentucky. Officials in both states consider the bridge “functionally obsolete,” and believe the Brent Spence Bridge should either be replaced or bolstered with significant repairs. If the president is eager to talk about worthwhile infrastructure priorities, this certainly fits the bill.

Then there’s the political symbolism — that the bridge starts in Ohio’s 8th congressional district (home to House Speaker John Boehner) and ends in Kentucky (home to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell) makes it a nearly perfect example. By making infrastructure investments — investments that used to enjoy bipartisan support before the GOP slipped into madness — the Obama administration can repair the Brent Spence Bridge, putting locals back to work, and improving local transportation and commercial needs.

Both Boehner and McConnell are against such investments because, well, I’m not entirely sure why. It seems to have something to do with a child-like understanding of economics (“spending = bad”) and a knee-jerk opposition to anything the president considers a good idea.

That Obama will travel directly to Boehner’s district to help drive this point home takes a little chutzpah. Good for him.

On a related note, we’ve also been keeping an eye on the Sherman Minton Bridge, which links Kentucky and Indiana. Cracks in the bridge has forced its closure last week, diverting tens of thousands of cars onto a nearby bridge, which also wasn’t designed to accommodate that kind of traffic. A solution, under the best of circumstances, is still months away.

But there’s Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell, who doesn’t see the need for infrastructure investments.

Lehman Brothers collapsed on Sept. 15, 2008, effectively kicking off the most severe global financial crisis since the Great Depression, and in the process, taking what was a fairly mild recession and creating a prolonged economic nightmare.

One need not be an industry expert to know that the crisis was created, in large part, by deregulation — there was no cop on the beat to prevent systemic recklessness, incompetence, and fraud.

And exactly three years later, Republicans who championed deregulation going into the Lehman Brothers collapse are still fighting for more deregulation. Pat Garofalo notes today:

Despite the ongoing pain still being felt by the American people — with the foreclosure rate continuing to climb — congressional Republicans have been fighting the implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law tooth and nail. Earlier this week, the GOP’s presidential candidates even called for the law’s full repeal, in order to “free up” Wall Street. […]

When the GOP first won its House majority, now House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) explained that, in his view, Washington’s rile is “to serve the banks.” And at the moment, Wall Street banks are pulling in record profits.

The Center for Public Integrity has found that “the Street and other financial institutions engaged about 3,000 lobbyists to fight Dodd-Frank — more than five lobbyists for every member of Congress — and have hired almost the same number to delay, weaken, or otherwise prevent its implementation.” And when it comes to the GOP, that investment appears to be paying off.

If American politics made any sense, Republicans would be terrified of positions like these. Wall Street nearly destroyed the global economic system, then survived thanks to a very generous bailout from, you know, us. This did not stop Wall Street from fighting tooth and nail to prevent new safeguards and layers of accountability, approved by Democrats over Republican objections, and continuing to demand more freedom to go back to the system the way it was three years ago.

Remarkably, Republicans — in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail — have no qualms about pushing an agenda that would do exactly as the financial industry requests. What should be an automatic deal-breaker for a voter with a pulse has become a standard GOP talking point: vote for Republicans so they can go easy on Wall Street again.

Voters in the 2010 midterms didn’t seem to mind any of this. Congressional Republicans literally coordinated with lobbyists from hedge funds and bailed out banks to kill Wall Street reform. They failed, but Americans rewarded Republicans with a House majority anyway. A year later, GOP leaders are not only blocking reform measures and trying to repeal the law, they’re using this as part of a national platform.

Republicans are awfully lucky most Americans don’t follow politics closely. If the public was better informed, I suspect GOP candidates would struggle to win any races at all.

For eight years, just about every time George W. Bush was in the same room as someone with a post-graduate degree, the failed former president would tell the same joke: “I remind people that, like when I’m with Condi I say, she’s the Ph.D. and I’m the C-student, and just look at who’s the president and who’s the advisor.”

Republican crowds always cheered the line, reinforcing the anti-intellectual attitudes that too often dominate conservative thought. The man who succeeded Bush in Austin, and hopes to succeed Bush as the next Republican president, is cut from the same cloth.

As a child, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas was dead set on being a veterinarian. “That was my heart’s content. It’s what I always wanted to do,” he said.

Then came a day of reckoning, during the second semester of his sophomore year at Texas A&M; University, when he went to see the dean of the veterinary school. His advice: switch to an easier major.

“He said, `Son, I’m looking at your transcript,’” Mr. Perry said. “‘You want to be an animal science major.’”

Perry made the joke during a speech yesterday at Liberty University, a school founded by crazed televangelist Jerry Falwell. The Texas governor didn’t say much about politics, but he spent a fair amount of time talking about what a lousy student he was.

Perry noted, for example, that at his small high school, “I graduated in the top 10 of my graduating class — of 13.” The crowd laughed and applauded.

Jennifer Rubin, a conservative writer at the Washington Post, said Perry’s speech “was, at least in part, a celebration of ignorance.” She added, “Yes, he was trying to be self-deprecating, but it’s disturbing to see that he thinks being a rotten student and a know-nothing gives one street cred in the GOP.”

I don’t agree with Rubin on much of anything, but on this, I think she’s on the right track. In Republican politics, there is an anti-intellectual streak. Perry expected to get laughter and applause for doing poorly in school — just as Bush did — and his audience didn’t disappoint.

If this were only a matter of politicians with bad grades decades earlier, it would hardly be worth mentioning. It doesn’t exactly set a good example for young people — “don’t worry too much about working hard in school; you can still reach powerful leadership positions thanks to fundraising, consultants, and attack ads” — but I really don’t much care about Perry’s transcripts.

What matters is what this tells us about anti-intellectualism in Republican politics today, and the fact that the Perry and Bush jokes always generate applause from conservative audiences.

Three years ago, Paul Krugman wrote a memorable column identifying the GOP as “the party of stupid.” The columnist explained, “What I mean … is that know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: ‘Real men don’t think things through.’”

That was in August 2008. Is there any doubt that the criticism seems even truer today? We see it constantly from congressional Republicans, who seem to have an allergy to reason and evidence, and we’re seeing it more and more at the presidential level. Indeed, Perry isn’t just celebrating anti-intellectualism; he’s living it. He doesn’t care what biologists, climate scientists, economists, historians, or dictionaries have to offer; Perry already has all the information he needs.

The fact that so many millions of voters find this appealing is disconcerting, isn’t it?

Most of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act don’t kick in for a few years, but in the meantime, we’re already seeing indications that the law is working as intended.

We talked yesterday about the fact that the number of young adults — those between the ages of 19 and 25 — with health care coverage has gone up considerably, thanks to the new law’s consumer protection reforms. It comes on the heels of reports that the Affordable Care Act is a positive impact on slowing the growth in Medicare spending — a priority Republicans pretend to care about — as hospitals transition to a greater focus on value and efficiency, required under the ACA.

It turns out these aren’t the only signs of progress. Among the many arguments Republicans pushed during the health care debate was the notion that the ACA would crush Medicare Advantage. We can now add this to the (extremely long) list of arguments the GOP got wrong.

Medicare Advantage is the program that gives seniors the option of enrolling in private insurance rather than the traditional, government-run program. The government pays the insurers a flat fee, per enrollee; in return, the insurers provide coverage, sometimes including benefits that traditional Medicare does not. Overall, about one in four seniors belongs to such plans.

The policy rationale for Medicare Advantage is two-fold: To give seniors more options and to introduce some private-sector competition. The idea is that private insurers might be able to be more innovative or offer certain combinations of services that some seniors would prefer. But, for much of its history, the program (formerly known as Medicare-plus-choice) was also a form of corporate welfare. Non-partisan studies, by the likes of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, suggested that the government was paying the insurers too much.

The architects of the Affordable Care Act decided, quite sensibly, to reduce those extra subsidies and use the money to offset part of the law’s cost. That’s when the Republicans, and their allies, pounced. Taking money away from the insurers, they claimed, would force insurers to charge more, limit their offerings, or pull out of the market altogether.

As of this morning, it looks like Republicans flubbed this one, too. After reviewing new data from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which found premiums going down and enrollment going up, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters, “On average, Medicare Advantage premiums will go down next year and seniors will enjoy more free benefits and cheaper prescription drugs.”

We were paying too much for Medicare Advantage, so we’ve cut costs. The program is, however, still profitable and attractive for private insurers.

In fairness, we’ll need more time to see if this trend holds. It may not. What’s more, not all of the news regarding the law has been positive, as evidenced by an AP report today on cost concerns about the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program (CLASS).

But overall, most of the initial evidence — on expanding access and coverage, on keeping costs down, etc. — suggests the Affordable Care Act is working. The right doesn’t want to hear that, but it’s true.

In his speech to Congress last week, President Obama briefly touched on the issue of debt reduction, urging the so-called super-committee to be even more ambitious in its goals in order to cover “the full cost of the American Jobs Act.” He added, “[A] week from Monday [Sept. 19], I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan — a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run.”

One could hear an audible “uh oh” from much of the left, which was left to wonder what such a plan might entail.

The concerns about how far Obama might go — and just how much he’d give up — were more than reasonable. As part of an effort to strike a “Grand Bargain” with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in July, the president was prepared to go way too far with concessions on entitlements. Fortunately for all of us, too much wasn’t good enough for House Republicans, and the offer was rejected.

But now that the president is prepared to present his own “ambitious” deficit-reduction plan, how nervous should the left be? As it turns out, there’s actually some cause for optimism.

Jilted by Republican leadership during the deficit-reduction talks that accompanied the debt ceiling debate, the Obama administration is now pulling back an offer to put Social Security reform on the negotiating table.

The president will not include changes to that program in the series of deficit reduction measures that he will offer to the congressional super committee next Monday, administration officials confirm.

In July, Obama considered a plan to change the inflation formula of Social Security to chained consumer price index, which would have reduced benefits. With Republicans unwilling to accept the overly-generous offer, the CPI measure is apparently off the table.

White House Spokesperson Amy Brundage told Sam Stein the president’s plan “will not include any changes to Social Security because, as the president has consistently said, he does not believe that Social Security is a driver of our near and medium term deficits.” In case that wasn’t clear enough, she added, “There will be no Social Security in the recommendations.”

This is, to be sure, very good news.

And what about the possibility that the president might recommend raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67? Both the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal report today that the White House doesn’t intend to recommend this, either. It’s more likely Obama’s plan will call for cuts to providers and/or higher premiums for wealthier recipients.

In other words, President Obama, burned by Republicans who rejected his outreach, apparently intends to keep up the fighting spirit we saw last week with the introduction of the American Jobs Act. If the reports today are accurate, the White House’s debt-reduction plan will be largely in line with what much of the left has wanted him to do all along.

Oddly enough, perhaps the most important progressive victory of the summer came when House Republicans turned Obama’s Grand Bargain offer down. Nevertheless, it appears the president learned a lesson from the ordeal, and isn’t inclined to make the mistake again.

There’s an interesting story brewing in Wisconsin, where top aides to Gov. Scott Walker (R) are abruptly resigning and finding FBI agents going through their homes.

About a dozen law enforcement officers, including FBI agents, raided the home of a former top aide to Gov. Scott Walker on Wednesday as part of a growing investigation into whether county employees did political work while at their jobs.

The home on Madison’s east side is owned by Cynthia A. Archer, who until recently was deputy administration secretary to the Republican governor. Archer, 52, now holds a different state job but is on paid sick leave, records show.

The probe is reportedly reviewing corruption allegations in which top Walker aides have been accused of using public resources for partisan political gain.

Archer, described as one of Walker’s “most trusted allies,” quit unexpectedly last month from her well-paid job overseeing state contracts. It came on the heels of another abrupt resignation from Tom Nardelli, Walker’s former chief of staff.

There’s also this tidbit of news.

There was no comment Wednesday from Governor Walker, who has retained legal counsel, although he claims not to have been personally contacted by federal agents.

Now, there may be nothing to this, but when a sitting governor retains outside counsel as part of a growing corruption investigation, and FBI agents are paying visits to his former top aides, it would appear Scott Walker has a bit of a problem.

It’s worth emphasizing that the allegations, according to local media accounts, are focused on potential misdeeds committed before Walker became governor — the accusations focus on whether county staffers did political work for Walker when they were supposed to be doing official work for the public — but the controversy can still do some real damage.

Walker, best known for picking a huge fight over stripping state workers of their collective bargaining rights, is already unpopular in his home state, and the threat of a recall election still looms on the horizon. It makes this story something to keep an eye on.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that won’t necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* The new Bloomberg National Poll shows Rick Perry leading Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican nomination, 26% to 22%. No other candidate reaches double digits. Both of the leading GOP candidates trailed President Obama in the poll in hypothetical match-ups.

* On a related note, the latest national survey from Public Policy Polling shows Perry leading Romney, 31% to 18%. In a two-way contest, with the rest of the Republican field excluded, Perry tops Romney, 49% to 37%,

* The latest Ipsos/Reuters poll also shows the president leading both Romney and Perry nationwide, by margins of six and eight points, respectively.

* After four terms, New Hampshire’s popular incumbent governor, Democrat John Lynch, announced this morning he won’t seek re-election next year.

* At the state level, Romney leads Perry in California by eight points among Republican primary voters, while Perry leads Romney in Virginia by six points.

* Speaking of Virginia, a new Quinnipiac poll shows former Sen. George Allen (R) with a narrow lead over former Gov. Tim Kaine (D) in next year’s Senate race, 45% to 44%.

* In Missouri, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows incumbent Gov. Jay Nixon (D) cruising past Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder (R) in a potential match-up, 50% to 31%.

* In Wisconsin, Rep. Ron Kind (D) announced this morning he won’t run for the Senate, helping clear the way for Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D) to win the party’s nomination.

* In Indiana, state Sen. Mike Delph (R) has decided not to run for the Senate. The significance of this is that it sets up a two-way GOP primary next year between incumbent Sen. Dick Lugar and Richard Mourdock.

* Herman Cain’s Republican presidential campaign apparently tried to hide a top adviser who is gay.

Rick Perry brought his Republican presidential campaign to Virginia yesterday, and continued to take aim at the Obama administration’s economic policies.

“I know Americans don’t view food stamps as stimulus,” Perry said. “This administration calls food stamps an economic stimulus. I think food stamps are a symptom of the problem. They’re not the solution.”

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), around the same time, appeared on Fox Business with the same message: “You don’t hand people more food stamps and think it stimulates the economy. That’s the FDR/Keynesian/Obama economics approach.”

Perry seems certain the public doesn’t “view food stamps as stimulus” — how he knows this is unclear — but I’m more concerned with reality than public perceptions. And in this case, even he and King should be able to understand that food stamps are an excellent stimulus.

When it comes to bang for the buck — the amount of economic activity generated for every public dollar spent — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program is arguably one of the single most effective forms of government stimulus available, and is vastly more beneficial than tax cuts.

This isn’t just some pie-in-the-sky liberal rhetoric; this has been repeatedly documented. A March analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained, “SNAP benefits are one of the fastest, most effective forms of economic stimulus because they get money into the economy quickly.” The director of the Congressional Budget Office agrees.

It just requires a little thought. People who receive food stamps aren’t sticking the money in a mattress or a money-market fund; they’re spending it and doing so immediately because — you guessed it — they want to eat. This injects demand and capital into the economy quickly, helping the beneficiaries and stimulating the economy.

As for Perry’s assertion that food stamps are “a symptom of the problem,” I couldn’t agree more. The “problem,” in this case, is chronic and widespread poverty.

Pennsylvania’s Republican governor, Tom Corbett, and GOP leaders in the state legislature have cooked up an ugly election scheme, hoping to help rig the 2012 presidential election. As Keystone State Republicans see it, if they change how Pennsylvania doles out electoral votes — awarding by district, rather than winner-take-all — they can conceivably deny President Obama at least 10 electoral votes next year.

Yesterday, however, as the Pennsylvania plan became more controversial, an unexpected group of opponents emerged: other in-state Republicans.

[T]o several Republicans in marginal [congressional] districts, the plan has a catch: they’re worried that Democrats will move dollars and ground troops from solid blue districts to battlegrounds in pursuit of electoral votes — and in the process, knock off the Republicans currently in the seats.

Suburban Philadelphia Reps. Jim Gerlach, Pat Meehan and Mike Fitzpatrick have the most at stake, since all represent districts Democrats won in the last two presidential elections. They and the rest of the Republicans in the delegation are joining with National Republican Congressional Committee officials to respond and mobilize against the change. […]

State GOP chairman Rob Gleason is also opposed to the plan.

“We would no longer be a battleground state with all the benefits that come with that,” he said. “It would affect us all the way down ticket. We’re gonna win the presidency here anyway, so why we would do this now when we’re at the top of the heap is beyond me.”

At this point, Pennsylvania Republicans, including the governor, don’t seem to care whether congressional Republicans like the idea or not. We’ll see soon enough whether that changes.

In the meantime, with voters giving Republicans the state House, the state Senate, and the governor’s office in Pennsylvania, there’s not much Democrats can do.

As Dave Weigel explained, “Democrats who want to stop this must place their hopes in other Republicans … who oppose this for picayune local political reasons, or are willing to bet it all on Republicans winning the state for the first time since they crushed Dukakis. If Democrats find six Republican to oppose it in the Senate, or 11 in the House, they can stop it. Otherwise, it’s splitsville.”

If the 2012 presidential race is close, as it’s very likely to be, the outcome of this fight may very well have a huge impact on who takes the oath office on Inauguration Day 2013.

In far-right circles, it’s practically a verbal tic — policies conservatives consider liberal are immediately and reflexively labeled “socialist.” It doesn’t matter if this is incoherent; it’s simply standard GOP rhetoric.

Republican presidential frontrunner Rick Perry, for example, sat down with Time magazine for this week’s cover story. This exchange, in particular, stood out for me.

TIME: Now that you’ve been in the race for while, do you feel pressure to temper some of your rhetoric, like calling the Obama administration socialist?

PERRY: No, I still believe they are socialist. Their policies prove that almost daily. Look, when all the answers emanate from Washington D.C., one size fits all, whether it’s education policy or whether it’s healthcare policy, that is, on its face, socialism.

I realize that the Texas governor’s intellectual capacities are, shall we say, limited, but his comments here are strikingly dumb.

As a substantive matter, the Obama administration isn’t pushing top-down, one-size-fits-all policies in education or health care — Perry seems to have just made that up — but even if we put that aside, the more significant problem is that the GOP’s presidential frontrunner has no idea what “socialism” is.

It’s frustrating that, in many interviews, politicians are asked what they think, rather than why they think it, but the obvious follow-up is, “Governor, what do you think the word ‘socialism’ means?” When Democrats in Washington start talking about public ownership over the means of production, I’ll gladly concede the point. Until then, this is just idiocy.

“Socialism” is not a synonym for “stuff Republicans don’t like.”

Aside from Obama’s advances on gay rights and reproductive rights, there’s just not much in this White House’s agenda that moderate Republicans wouldn’t have found tolerable a decade or two ago. The Affordable Care Act largely relies on private insurers, rather than socialized medicine. Cap and trade was a Republican idea. Keynesian stimulus has been the basis for U.S. economic policy for both parties for eight decades. Investments in infrastructure and education have traditionally been bipartisan priorities.

So what on earth is Rick Perry talking about? By his reasoning, nearly every liberal democracy on the planet — in East Asia, in Europe, in North America, etc. — are fallen dominoes, overtaken by socialists. Presidential candidates, especially those likely to win, shouldn’t be quite this unintelligent.

Also note the rhetorical transition. Exactly two years ago this week, then-House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) appeared on “Meet the Press,” soon after the RNC condemned Democrats of a “socialist power grab,” which caused a bit of a stir at the time. Host David Gregory asked the future Speaker, “Do you think the President is a socialist?” Boehner replied, “No!” as if the question were somehow foolish. Gregory said, “Okay, because the head of the Republican Party is calling him that.” Boehner added, “Listen, I didn’t call him that, and I’m not going to call him that.”

Two years later, the Republican presidential frontrunner is engaged in a red scare, throwing around ridiculous rhetoric as if it were somehow routine.

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign is pretty invested in going after Rick Perry over Social Security. The Texas governor has been scathing in his criticism of the landmark program — he thinks it’s an unconstitutional “Ponzi scheme” — and the former Massachusetts governor wants GOP voters to believe that’s a disqualifier in a general election.

The problem, as we discussed last week, is that there are competing audiences to consider. Perry is saying what rank-and-file conservatives want to hear, while Romney is telling them to think about what the American mainstream wants to hear. There’s not a lot of overlap.

It’s a tough pitch when so many Republicans agree with Perry, not Romney, on the substance. Consider the new Bloomberg National Poll.

The most publicized campaign issue focusing on Perry — his characterization of Social Security as a “Ponzi Scheme” — has Americans divided. Among all respondents, 46 percent said they agree with the remark, while 50 percent said they disagree.

Among Republicans, 65 percent agree with Perry’s statements about Social Security, while 33 percent disagree. Independents are nearly equally split.

It’s only one poll, of course, but if these numbers are accurate, it’s obviously a problem for Romney. Nearly two-thirds of self-identified Republicans agree with Perry about Social Security? That’s pretty one-sided.

At this week’s debate for GOP presidential candidates, Romney told Perry, “[T]he term ‘Ponzi scheme’ I think is over the top.” To the general public, that’s probably true.

But does Romney fully appreciate just how right-wing Republican voters really are?

If you read conservative bloggers regularly, you know many high-profile, far-right sites are pretty worked up this week about one of the dumbest flaps I’ve ever seen.

Before today, when the right-wing media made up quotations to attack progressives, they at least had some audio to misinterpret. But now, they are reduced to lip-reading.

The Washington Times’ senior editorial writer for foreign affairs James Robbins and right-wing bloggers are claiming that Michelle Obama likely disparaged the American flag during a ceremony commemorating the 9/11 attacks.

There’s a video of the First Lady whispering briefly in President Obama’s ear during the ceremony. We see the president turn a little, smile, and nod in agreement. What did Michelle Obama say? I haven’t the foggiest idea; there’s no audio. But a whole lot of far-right bloggers believe they can read the First Lady’s lips — even though the video shows her mouth partially obscured behind a partition.

No matter, the right says. They know Michelle Obama took this precise moment, during a ceremony commemorating the 9/11 attacks, to condemn the American flag.

And these bloggers aren’t kidding.

Enough conservatives threw a fit that Kristina Schake, the communications director for Michelle Obama, issued a statement explaining, “The words, meaning and context in these claims are all wildly off the mark. The First Lady was commenting to the President on how moving and powerful it always is to watch all that America’s firefighters and police officers do to honor the flag. It was an emotional moment on a powerful day and she was awed by the ceremony and all that the flag symbolizes.”

I mention this for two reasons, other than the general amazement about just how deranged the Obamas’ detractors really are. First, the right should probably remember the story about the boy who cried wolf. If conservatives were a little more selective, and a little more grounded, when they raise a point of concern about the White House, it’d be easier to take it seriously. But if they get hysterical over nothing, they just look like loons.

Second, just two years ago, editors at the Washington Post and the New York Times agreed that major media outlets should make an effort to take right-wing blog content seriously. If these conservative writers/activists are pushing a story — ACORN, Van Jones, etc. — establishment media should take heed and follow up on these “bubbling controversies.”

This garbage about the First Lady offers a reminder: taking these bloggers seriously is a mistake.

Steve M. concluded, “This is the GOP base. This is the heart of the modern Republican Party…. Kill one crackpot theory — birtherism — and they will breed a hundred more. And you’ll never persuade them that what they believe is delusional.”

When it comes to advancing a jobs agenda, the White House seemed to be doing nearly everything right. President Obama delivered a very effective speech to a joint session of Congress; the DNC got involved with a coordinated message; and the president hit the road and was well received in key battleground states. Polls show the American Jobs Act is off to a fairly strong start and congressional Republicans have not yet formed an opposition strategy.

So what’s the problem? Near the top of the list, apparently, is congressional Democrats.

President Obama anticipated Republican resistance to his jobs program, but he is now meeting increasing pushback from his own party. Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.

Some Democratic lawmakers think the bill is too big; some think it’s too small. Some don’t like the financing; some don’t like the spending. Some are afraid of the word “stimulus,” and some are upset the plan includes tax cuts.

I don’t want to overstate the intensity of the Democratic hand-wringing. At a certain level, this is just what Democrats do whenever any idea is put on the table — they start complaining. This has happened before, even under this president, as something akin to a throat-clearing exercise. Democratic lawmakers responded quite well to Obama’s speech last week, and it’d be a mistake to assume Dems “oppose” the Americans Jobs Act.

That said, there are three things congressional Democrats should keep in mind.

First, party unity matters. Obama is tackling the single most important issue on the minds of the American mainstream, and Republicans are feeling a little antsy. For Dems on the Hill to give the GOP cover by whining about an ambitious White House jobs bill, undermining the president on the issue voters care about most, is political suicide.

Second, Republican lawmakers hardly ever treat Republican presidents this way.

And third, whether congressional Dems realize this or not, their fate is tied to Obama’s fate. He remains the most popular elected official in Washington — by a wide margin — and the better he does, the better his party will do. The more Obama falters, the more congressional Democrats will suffer, too.

Especially after this week’s special elections in New York and Nevada, plenty of Dems are feeling nervous. That’s understandable. But undermining their own leader and helping defeat a popular jobs bill in the midst of a jobs crisis will not improve their odds of electoral survival.

As for the left in general, let this be the latest in a series of reminders — it’s easy to get frustrated with President Obama at times, but he’d be in a far better position if he had more reliable congressional allies to partner with.

Just a reminder, the Washington Monthly is helping spearhead an interesting event this morning. Here are the details from the editors, including information on how you can watch a live webcast:

Barack Obama has done a remarkable amount to protect college students from corporate abuse — by cracking down on predatory for-profit colleges and kicking banks out of the student loan business (and using the savings to boost Pell grants). But these achievements, impressive as they are, won’t do enough to help America regain the world lead in college graduation by 2020, a goal Obama himself has set. To reach that target, the president and Congress will have to do something considerably harder: take on entrenched interests in the traditional public and nonprofit higher education sector and get them to do more on behalf of students and the public. Does Washington have the will, and the ideas, to do so?

Please join the Washington Monthly magazine and Education Sector for a lively debate about the next stage of higher education reform. This event, built around the 2011 Washington Monthly College Guide, will feature a top administration policymaker and higher education leaders whose innovative institutions are posing direct challenges to the status quo.

Panelists for this event include:

Zakiya Smith, Senior Advisor for Education, White House Domestic Policy Council;

A. Craig Powell, CEO, ConnectEDU;

Robert W. Mendenhall, President, Western Governors University;

Kevin Carey, Policy Director, Education Sector;

Paul Glastris, Editor, Washington Monthly (as moderator);

with introductory remarks by Jamie Merisotis, President, Lumina Foundation for Education.

Can’t attend in person? View the Live Webcast from 9:00AM to 11:30AM (EDT) on Thursday. 9/15.

Education Sector and Washington Monthly thank the Lumina Foundation for its support of this event.

Seats Still Available

Information and Registration