From today's Milbank column:

He spoke of his party affiliation as though it were a congenital defect rather than a choice. "It's an impediment. It's a hurdle I have to overcome," he said. "I've got an 'R' here, a scarlet letter."

That left the candidate in a difficult spot. "For me to pretend I'm not a Republican would be a lie," he reasoned. But to run as a proud Republican? "That's going to be tough, it's going to be tough to do," he said. "If this race is about Republicans and Democrats, I lose."

From E. J. Dionne's column today:

There's probably no way congressional Republicans can lose this fall, no matter how unpopular President Bush is or how unhappy the voters are with the war in Iraq. That's the prevailing view in Washington today.

But it's wrong.

That's how Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute begins a pursuasive argument for the Dems' chances this November which first appeared in the Post on July 16.  

I'd specifically call your attention to the first and third questions.  As you can see by following the link, on the question, "Which party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- comes closer to representing the values that you, yourself, hold important?", Democrats lead Republicans 44 to 36.  That's something we haven't seen in a while.  On the third question, "Which of these two parties you feel is better at handling the following issues? Which party do you think can do a better job handling the major problems facing the country?", they have a 43 to 27% lead.  

Cheers all around.

BTW, the Indigo Girls rocked last night.

The other day I went to see "An Inconvenient Truth," which turned out to be surprisingly moving.  I was stunned when the form Veep discussed the disparity between the consensus of the academic community and its portrayal in the media.  In a sample of 10% of the published material on global warming in academic journals, there was no dissent whatsoever from the consensus that it was occurring, while a similar sample of the media had 53% offering dissenting accounts.

Today I logged on to Brad Delong's site and found this depressing post.  Add it to the shoddy reporting that went into the TNR-DailyKos dust up, and you really have a hard time avoiding the conclusion that the crisis of political discourse in our country has less to due with our elected officials and those that elect them, and a lot more to do those that cover them.  Why does it seem that professionals in this country--with the significant exception of the academic community (who could do a lot better job, btw, of conveying their views to a public that desparately needs them)--why have professionals become so lazy and indifferent to the consequences of their words and actions?

Digby wrote this today:

I have to a dirty little secret.  I still think Christopher Hitchens is the man.  My first exposure to Hitchens was during the early days of my political involvement in the late nineties, reading his sterling book reviews for The Atlantic and his commentary in The Nation and at OpenDemocracy.com.  Reading him was like a kind of birth for me.  An understanding that there was an entire panoramic to the world of politics.  

This month's Atlantic had a feature by Washington Monthly writer Joshua Green focused on the growing influence within radical christian right circles of former Alabama supreme court chief justice Roy Moore.  While it is chiefly a fine profile of a rising Republican demegogue, it is at the same time a startling example of the political extremism that now rules the Evangelical wing of Christianity in America, a fanaticism that--and I use this equivilence consiously--is freighteningly similar to the Nazi party in its absolutism and irrationality, though lacking its potential for mass popularity.

Growing up in an Evangelical family, its sometimes hard to convey just how twisted and fanatical the Evangelical culture has become.  Green catchs some priceless moments during some of the talks Moore gives his christian supporters.  I've reprinted two of them:

Yesterday Paul Krugman gave perhaps the best commentary I've read so far on why conservatives are incapable of governing: