Rep. Anthony Weiner has some advice for Dems:

"We've got to get out of our defensive crouch here, and start to talk about some of the things that were accomplished," Weiner said on "Imus in the Morning" on the Fox Business Network. "And realize that, look, we're going to have a choice in November: [The] Republican Party has basically said they're going to repeal a lot of these things."

....

Weiner, who'd led a bloc of liberal Democrats during the pivotal healthcare reform battle earlier this year, acknowledged that he was "worried" about the health of Democrats' majorities going into November's elections.

"It takes a great man to build a barn, but any jackass can kick it down," Weiner said.

Good advice, even though his choice of venue sucks, and probably won't reach a lot of Dem ears. He's right in that Dems need to fight, and to show the nation that they've got a very stark choice to make.

But, respectfully, Weiner needs to offer more than just advice to his fellow Dems, as good as it is. He's one of those safe House Dems who is significantly behind in paying his DCCC dues.

It'd have been nice if WINO (waverer in name only, back from the magical September days of fighting Iraq War funding) Sen. George Voinovich had had a spine injection 17 months sooner, but better late than never. He's breaking the logjam that will finally allow this bill to pass.

Retiring Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said he plans to help push a package of small-business incentives through the Senate next week, a move that would give President Obama and congressional Democrats a key victory on the economy in the final weeks before the November midterm elections.

In an interview, Voinovich said he could no longer support efforts by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to delay the measure in hopes of winning the right to offer additional GOP amendments. Most of the proposed amendments "didn't have anything to do with the bill" anyway, Voinovich said, and amounted merely to partisan "messaging."

"We don't have time for messaging. We don't have time anymore. This country is really hurting," Voinovich said. If a single amendment to reduce paperwork for business owners is considered on the floor, Voinovich said he told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he would add his vote to that of 59 Democrats. That would give the majority party the 60 votes needed to overcome possible a GOP filibuster and move the package to final passage when Congress returns to Washington next week.

This small business bill is the best chance at getting any kind of jobs initiative, however modest, through before the election, so good for Voinovich for doing it. I guess that's the luxury of being on your way out, by choice. Hopefully he'll also line up to support the infrastructure bill which could give more leverage to leadership in forcing a recalcitrant Michael Bennet to toe the line.

Don't miss Drdemocrat's diary for much more discussion.

The first shots of the coming civil war.

The Republican Party of Delaware has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission, accusing one of its own Senate candidates of illegally collaborating with the Tea Party Express.

Sad to say, Phil Davison wasn't chosen to run as the Republican candidate for Stark County's (Ohio) treasurer, but he did deliver the funniest -- and by funny, I mean insane -- political speech ever.

Enjoy.

NYT:

GAINESVILLE, Fla. - The pastor planning a burning of the Koran on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks said Thursday he would not go forward with the event, adding he plans to meet with the imam planning to build an Islamic center near ground zero.

Terry Jones, the pastor from Gainesville, Fla., said at a press conference, "We have agreed to cancel the event."

The pastor's announcement came after a growing chorus of demands, from President Obama to religious leaders, American generals and others, that he cancel the event planned for Saturday because of the potential imact on Christian-Muslim relations and the effect a Koran burning would have on American troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But details of the pastor's planned meeting with the Imam, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, remained elusive. Mr. Jones did say he got a promise to move the New York mosque, although such an agreement could not be independently confirmed.

"I have agreed to meet with him," Mr. Jones said in reference to the Imam.

"We have at this time no regrets," he said. "We feel we have accomplished our goal. We are very very happy with the outcome."

It's not surprising that Jones is trying to link his crusade to burn the Koran with the planned Park51 Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, but it's important to point out that there's no evidence to support Jones' claim that Park51 agreed to move in exchange for his decision to stand down. Indeed, Park51 is saying that it has not changed its plans at all. That's a good thing, becase these are two completely unrelated and non-equivalent issues. As Gail Collins wrote:

The Koran-burning has been equated, in some circles, with the fabled ground zero mosque. This is under the theory that both are constitutionally protected bad ideas. In fact, they’re very different. Muslims building a community center in their neighborhood on one hand. Deliberate attempt to insult a religion that is dear to about 1.5 billion souls around the globe on the other.

That being said, if Pastor Jones and Imam Rauf decide that a joint meeting can enhance mutual understanding, they should definitely meet. That's totally cool. But at the same time, it's important to be clear about this fact: there's no link at all between Park51 and burning Korans. None at all.

Join the discussion in marabout40's recommended diary, BREAKING: Hatemonger Pastor Terry Jones Cancels "Int'l Qu'ran Burning Day".

Update: This has to burn -- Whacko Pastor Jones' web hosting provider kicked Jones off its servers, citing violations of its hate speech policies. Good news for Jones: it's a free country. Find a company willing to peddle hate and he'll be back in business.

Good news from the federal judiciary:

President Barack Obama’s administration can fund embryonic stem-cell research while it appeals a decision banning government support for any activity using cells taken from human embryos, an appeals court said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today put on hold a ruling by District Judge Royce Lamberth during its review of the ban. The Justice Department argued that the judge’s decision would cause irreparable harm to researchers, taxpayers and scientific progress....

“The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the emergency motion for stay and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion,” the appeals court wrote in its decision....

“Disruption of ongoing research will result in irreparable setbacks and, in many cases, may destroy a project altogether,” attorneys for the U.S. wrote.

Researchers are unsure how to proceed after the appeals court ruling, said Ted Dawson, the co-director at Johns Hopkins University’s Institute for Cell Engineering in Baltimore.

“We’re very happy with the decision but we’re in limbo,” Dawson said. Scientists working in this area are asking themselves, “Is this something I want to continue to stake my career on?” he said.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins and other institutions are continuing their work using federal dollars they already have, in addition to money from state agencies and philanthropies, Dawson said. Because of the ruling, “we have a little bit of time to make contingency plans,” he said.

The limbo still exists, but researchers at least now have legal standing to continue their work. The court set a deadline of Sept. 14 for the plaintiffs, two adult stem cell researchers, to file their response to the government's emergency motion and Sept. 20 for the government to reply to that response.

NRO's Andy McCarthy has a bone to pick:

According to Obama, Jones’s “stunt” (a fair description) is already “a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda.” That’s absurd. No sensible person joins a terrorist organization dedicated to mass murder simply because somebody torches a Koran.

Okay, I'll bite. Just what kind of "sensible person" does Mr. McCarthy believe would join "a terrorist organization dedicated to mass murder"?

The GOP primary in Delaware is this coming Tuesday. Here's the bottom line: if Rep. Mike Castle wins, he's the favorite heading into November (though his numbers in general election matchups have dipped below 50 percent). If teabagger Christine O'Donnell wins, Democrat Chris Coons will be heavily favored.

Smart Republicans are pushing hard for Castle. They want to win the seat. Just a few minutes ago:

Here's a question for political strategists: What's the best way to defend extending Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy?

If you answered "Lie about it," then you're onto something -- and are apparently on the same page as Louisiana's Republican Senator, Diaper Dandy David Vitter. TPM:

Vitter: 'Virtually Everybody' Would Get Hit If Tax Cuts For The Rich Expire

At a public forum hosted by the Chamber of Commerce in Crowley, Louisiana, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) attacked his Democratic opponent Charlie Melancon for calling for the top income brackets to pay higher taxes. But in doing so he implied that "virtually everybody" in attendance would see their taxes raised.

"I hate to tell you, by Washington's definitions that [Melancon]'s using, virtually everybody in this audience is the wealthy."

Of course, the truth is that extending Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy would benefit just 2% of taxpayers while adding $835 billion to our national debt. In other words, to benefit people making over $250,000 per year, "virtually everybody" would end up shouldering the burden of larger deficits and more national debt. So you can see exactly why Vitter would lie.

• What Atrios says:

  So the "centrist" Dems who are usually given lots of friendly ink over the endless kvetching about the deficit are going to prove, for the trillionth time, that they don't actually care about the deficit but instead only care about marginal tax rates for rich people.

  That won't stop reporters from writing about their "deficit concerns."

• Yeah, Obama's popularity isn't exactly plummeting.
• The Rand Paul campaign has a liar in their midsts, and they're still protecting him. Diarist TheCavist has put an end to any doubt about Thomas Kubica's sockpuppeting on Daily Kos, and even included a handy chart!
• A blogger tweets about last night's Democratic primary debate in NH-02:

  Friend from South Carolina just looked over my shoulder to watch debate. Pointed to Swett, asked if she is a Republican.

  -- Laura Clawson

• Mark Halperin is still an idiot. And don't forget, he's the "senior political analyst" at the supposedly liberal MSNBC.
• In case you haven't gotten enough Glenn Beck.
• The American Taliban, in action. I swear, they confirm my thesis every single day.
• Notice how the anti-Craigslist hysteria is being fueled by newspapers -- the same newspapers still smarting over the loss of their classifieds business.
• How can this be true if everyone hates the Dallas Cowboys?

  In a first-of-its-kind study performed this summer, Nielsen Co., the media-research firm, developed a system for ranking the popularity of NFL teams based on each team's local and national TV rankings, how often they're mentioned on the Internet and how many visitors they attract to their official websites [...]

  Not surprisingly, the survey confirms that America's team is, in fact, "America's Team," as in the Dallas Cowboys. In the final ranking, they were a stunning 23% more popular than the No. 2 team, their old rivals the Pittsburgh Steelers. The Giants were next, followed by three of the four teams in the NFC's North division: the Chicago Bears, the Green Bay Packers and the Vikings.

  I think it's obvious that the Cowboys are also the most hated team. After that? I'll say the Packers. But I'm a Bears fan, so perhaps I'm a little biased.

• Another micro-site pops up about space exploration. I don't know who built it, but it's a slick looking website:

  NASA is at its best when exploring the frontiers beyond Earth orbit, but the House bill HR 5781 actually delays new exploration ...The President’s plan and the Senate bill both call for immediate development of heavy-lift to take humans places they have never been before, like an asteroid. [DS]

You can file this one under Sarah Palin wants to eliminate the Department of Education and doesn't believe birth control/sex education should receive any public funding.

Lawmakers From States With Deteriorating Infrastructure Oppose Obama’s Infrastructure Investment

Several Republican lawmakers are trying to claim that Obama’s $50 billion plan to invest in infrastructure is too expensive, at the same time that they’re pushing for an $830 billion tax cut for the richest two percent of Americans. If these lawmakers succeed in blocking the investment, they’ll definitively prove their deficit peacockery, while also perpetuating an ongoing neglect of the country’s infrastructure, which is rapidly deteriorating.

According to the Army Corps of Engineers, it would take a $2.2 trillion investment to get America’s infrastructure into good condition, including $930 billion for roads and bridges and another $160 billion for schools. Here is the situation in some of the states where lawmakers have been resistant to Obama’s plan:

Think Progress details seven states in which GOP opposition to the infrastructure plan would rob their home state of much-needed improvements, proving yet again that Republicans really do like cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Do you approve of the way the President of the United States Barack Obama is doing his job?

Do you approve of the way Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is doing his job?

Do you approve of the way House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing her job?

Do you approve of the way Democratic Party Chairman Tim Kaine is doing his job?

In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, President Obama expressed concern about Florida pastor Terry Jones' plan to publicly burn Korans on 9/11, calling it a "destructive act" that would be "completely contrary to our values of Americans":

One of the notable things about President Obama's remarks is that he didn't merely speak out against the plan to burn Korans -- he also reaffirmed his view that while Pastor Jones might be engaging in an "offensive" action, such actions represent exercises of free speech that are protected by the very same Constitution that protects religious liberty.

You know, part of this country's history is people doing destructive or offensive or harmful things. And yet, we still have to make sure that we're following the laws. And that's part of what I love about this country.

So while President Obama might not like what Pastor Jones plans to do, he also defends Jones' right to do it -- in the process delivering a perfect example American ideals in action.

By the way, on a hilarious side note, Pastor Jones says he wants a phone call from Pres. Obama to discuss his Koran burning plans. Somehow I doubt that will happen. Maybe instead Jones could read Sarah Palin's Facebook page...where he'd learn that she believes he's every bit as bad as those scary Muslims who plan to build a mosque at Ground Zero. (Of course. as Greg Sargent notes, there is no Ground Zero Mosque, but who needs facts when you're Sarah Palin...)

Full transcript below the fold.

Join the discussion in BruinKid's recommended diary, Jon Stewart takes on Koran-burning pastor.

TPM's Brian Beutler has done some great background work on the catfood commission, including this look at how heavily weighted it is with conservative commissioners who have a history of promoting cuts to Social Security. Today he looks at how the dynamics are playing out in the Medicare discussions.

[T]he ideological conservatism of the Republicans on the commission -- and, indeed, of the commission as a whole  -- combined with Democratic fatigue over health care reform mean that the center of gravity of discussions is tilted to the right.

"[B]asically you've got some Dems saying they don't want to jump back in the [health care reform] pool, so you've mainly got Republicans swimming in there on their own," says one source familiar with the commission's proceedings....

That leaves rigid conservatives like David Camp and Paul Ryan -- the GOP's top budget guy and author of a plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program -- at the top of the rhetorical heap. As a result, according to the second source, the commission's focus reflects their priorities much more than progressive ones.

"There have been some discussions about cost-sharing. There have been some discussions about Medi-gap policies," the source says.

At a staff level, this source says, the feeling is that "there needs to be more skin in the game and people need to pay more...the whole argument that people don't understand how much health care costs and are wasteful."

"A lot of discussion on the commission has been that people need to get better price signals and be smarter shoppers," the second source said. "And that is very, very worrisome."

In other words, more talk about how greedy seniors are milking the system to get more than their fair share. That's an easier solution to grasp than dealing with the systemic problems--and taking on the powerful interests of PhRMA and medical device manufacturers and hospitals and all the rest of the corporate interests conservatives want to protect. Telling seniors that they have to be "smarter shoppers" in a marketplace that's stacked against them isn't an answer to bringing down Medicare costs for the government.

A "fiscal" commission that doesn't grasp the very basic idea that the health care system is the major part of the cost problem, and not the individual consumers within it, isn't qualified to make policy on the issue.

The Colorado governor's race: the gift that just keeps on giving.

Tancredo’s third-party candidacy is garnering him anything but love from the conservative base. Immediately after announcing his entry, Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams and 21 state Tea Party leaders pummeled Tancredo for siphoning votes away from a potential GOP victory. Constitutional conservatives of the Vail Valley 9.12 Project in Colorado later joined in decrying Tancredo for pursuing the type of candidacy that “guarantees the re-election of liberals” and demanded that he “drop out of the race and come back to the conservative party.”

Fed up with his obstinacy, two Colorado Republican voters upped the ante yesterday by filing suit in Denver District court to prevent Tancredo from being placed on the November ballot. The lawsuit, filed by Colorado Republican Party treasurer Richard Westfall on their behalf, states that both Tancredo and his running-mate Pat Miller switched their party affiliation from the GOP to the American Constitution Party too late, violating state and party bylaws and rules....

Colorado law says that a nominee cannot be “registered as a member of a major political party for at least twelve months prior to the date of the nomination” unless the ACP bylaws indicate otherwise. Tancredo switched in July and Miller switched in August and nothing in the ACP bylaws supersede Colorado law, according to the lawsuit.

Tancredo’s campaign manager Bay Buchanan pointed out that the Secretary of State Bernie Buescher (D) already certified the general election ballot last Friday. In a statement to the Denver Daily News, Buchanan said, “Our attorneys have reviewed the recent complaint by a disgruntled Maes voter related to this certification and are confident that the courts will find no grounds on which to overturn the decision by the one individual with authority to make such decisions.”

The Colorado GOP is screwed for the moment. The RGA has signaled that they'll do nothing for Dan Maes. The ballot has gone to print in many counties already, with both Maes and Tancredo on them. State Republicans might still be hoping for a Hail Mary in which they can get Maes (and now Tancredo, too) bounced out of the race and defeated Senate candidate Lt. Gov Jane Norton into the race, which would give them the ghost of a chance, but at this point she'd probably have to run as a write-in candidate. Fun times.

Lest we all enjoy this too much, though, there's a potential wrinkle for Dems--base turnout. If Hickenlooper is running away with it, the base may be somewhat less inclined to feel the need to get out and vote. They're certainly not going to be inspired to make the effort for Sen. Michael Bennet if he keeps doing things like opposing Obama's infrastructure initiative. He shouldn't be taking Hickenlooper's coattails for granted.

Great catch from the Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo on Lamar Alexander and tax cuts for the rich.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has taken the tax absurdity to new heights, claiming that extending the Bush tax cuts is free, but President Obama’s latest proposal to cut business taxes by permanently extending the research and development tax credit may cost too much money:

Alexander, the chairman of the Senate Republican Caucus, said GOP lawmakers will consider Obama’s latest proposal to provide a research and development tax credit for businesses. But such a tax credit should come only after the White House agrees to extend the Bush tax cuts, including those on those earning more than $250,000 a year.

“The first thing we need to do is to make sure that we don’t raise taxes (by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of the year),” Alexander said. “That is going to take most of September. Then we can turn our attention to seeing if we have money to reduce taxes.”

There are two problems with this. First, Alexander is clearly willing to hold the R&D credit hostage until he gets hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the rich (since Obama and the Democrats have already made it clear that they plan to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class). But second, why do we have to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy before deciding whether or not we can afford the business tax credit?

Yes, as Garofalo says, Alexander is saying that the Bush tax cuts are free, but Obama's tax cuts cost money. He could honestly believe that, and hence be really dumb (and I don't think anyone has ever accused his bulb of being the brightest in the Senate) or he's phenomenally dishonest. Of course, there's no ruling out that he's both.

The Republicans, and too many ConservaDems and Blue Dogs, care more about the nation's very rich than pretty much anything else. The fight over extending the tax cuts to the rich over next few months will prove just that, which makes it a pretty smart fight for Dems to pick leading up to November 2.

Leave it to somebody from the American Enterprise Institute to figure out what's really wrong with the economy. Kevin Hassett, AEI's director of economic-policy studies, was an adviser to John McCain in his bid for the presidency. He writes, Your Fat Paycheck Keeps Your Neighbor Unemployed:

So here comes the leap into ice-cold water: The biggest problem with the labor market right now is that wages are too high. As Washington again turns to government spending as a cure for unemployment, some against-the-grain thinking is in order.

Economics teaches that full employment would be reached if wages adjust downward, to a level that better reflects current circumstances. At lower wages, employers would desire more workers. Labor markets generate persistent unemployment only if wages are sticky, failing to fall as demand declines.

So why aren't American workers eagerly joining this race to the bottom, according to Hassett? Because of the minimum wage. Because of the damned unions. Because of extended unemployment benefits. Because of an unwillingness to pull up stakes and move. And, besides not understanding Economics 101, all those silly people have psychological issues:

...the natural reluctance of workers to accept lower pay is amplified by how their wage helps define their identity. A $60,000-a-year office worker might have an extra-hard time coming to terms with becoming a $40,000-a-year worker.

Hassett fails to point out how many workers have already taken pay-cuts, often in the guise of furloughs. Nor is he volunteering to take a one-third cut in his pay. Nor, you'll notice, does he have anything to say about big-time CEOs or others among the top 10 percent taking a hit on their paychecks at a time when income inequality has given the United States a rich-poor ratio of a banana republic. No surprise. As a colonel in the class war, providing philosophical protection for the top tier is in his job description. No matter how disastrous actually carrying out his prescription would be.

As Tom Petruno at the Los Angeles Times points out, the plan would lead to deflation with consumers buying less than before at the very time that small businesses note that their biggest problem is weak sales. Which is why they're not hiring.

Does Hassett actually want to worsen the vicious circle? Who knows. At least he's not proposing another tax cut for the rich as a solution to the deficit. Gotta save that for next week's column.