They are calling it the Manhattan Declaration, a 4,700-word manifesto reaching into scripture and signed by 148 Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical leaders. It was released this afternoon at a press conference in Washington, D.C., and is designed to draw a line in the sand across three issues they argue are non-negotiable despite the law: the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage as being between a man and woman, and religious freedom.

Signers of the Declaration pledge to "...not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act,” nor will signers “bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships” or “treat them as marriages.” The list of backers reads like a who’s who of the pro-life movement, and the document essentially argues that supporters of the movement deserve conscience rights.

If it's not Mike Bloomberg, it's his predecessor. The New York Daily News reports that Rudy Giuliani is going to run for the Senate in 2010 and that he may use that as a stepping stone to a presidential run in 2012. Over at The Atlantic Chris Good claims that "Giuliani will make a formidable Senate candidate, should he run—in fact, if he enters the race, he will likely become the frontrunner," noting that he polls ahead of incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand.

Repeat after me, punditariat: the mayoralty of New York is a stepping stone to nothing.

Exhibit A:

Consider, men and women of the jury

The evidence of displaced fury.

Rage flung like a prisoner’s feces

Against the walls.  The human species

Unique in all biology

Kills for ideology.

By Jeremy Herb

Between online gambling and the countless ESPN reruns of the World Series of Poker, poker has become a mainstream "sport." Gambling experts say 10 to 15 million Americans wager $100 billion on the internet each year, and more than 6,000 paid $10,000 to enter this year's World Series main event. The online gambling industry - made up of offshore companies - earns somewhere between $6 and $10 billion in the U.S. annually. But it's a poker game of politics, not cards, that will decide the fate of online gaming in the U.S.

The battle rests on a bill that was passed in the final hours of the 2006 Republican-controlled Congress, when Sen. Bill Frist tacked it onto a port security bill. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) forbids banks from accepting illegal Internet gambling transactions. In essence, it prevents would be players from using their debit or credit cards-a standard for online payments-for Internet gambling. Those who support Internet gambling, led by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, are making a final plea to the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve to push back the law for one year, giving them time to repeal it. In response, Sen. John Kyl and Rep. Spencer Bachus wrote a letter to Geithner and Bernanke urging them to enforce the Dec. 1 deadline. The Treasury and Fed have yet to make a decision, according to a Federal Reserve official.

If President Obama was looking for another way to differentiate himself from President Bush, he just found it. When it comes to sports, you might recall Bush as an avid mountain biker. He also showed off some lightening-quick reflexes that one time that would give him an edge in dodgeball, and certainly fencing. Obama’s forté so far has been shooting hoops. Now add to the list, football. Check out this PSA that will run during several football games on Thanksgiving Day that encourages kids to get more exercise. Between spliced footage of kids running and doing jumping jacks, Obama makes a cameo on the White House lawn, tossing around the old pigskin. An ordinary game of catch, right? Not quite. The whole spot comes off as rather moving, almost epic, but not because of Obama or his receiving skills. Producers slowed down the footage so much that a short-range pass from New Orleans’s Saints quarterback Drew Brees to Obama ends up looking like a Sports Center highlight. Then, add in some dramatic background music and the receiver-in-chief almost looks qualified for a Heisman. Of course that would be premature. First we would need to see his end-zone dance.

As his hopes of winning the congressional election in New York's 23rd district fade, conservative candidate Doug Hoffman is clearly getting desperate. Today he's blaming his loss on "ACORN, the unions, and the Democratic party" who he alleges, without a shred of evidence, tampered with votes to rig the election against him. Never mind that ACORN told David Weigel that they didn't have volunteers in the area, or that it largely operates in poor urban communities, which NY-23 is not. For conservatives, ACORN is shorthand for the evils of the left.

On the heels of that news, Public Policy Polling released this shocking nugget on its blog: "a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately." Say what? More than half of Republican respondents believe the president was elected fraudulently! That's a stunningly high number. It's disturbing, not only as a demonstrable lack of faith in America's democracy but as an expression of wanton ignorance. Worse, it illustrates the effectiveness of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, et al., alongside a well-funded "Stop ACORN" campaign, in creating an atmosphere where unquestioned lies become received wisdom.

Yesterday, political strategist Mark McKinnon made the case that Sarah Palin's popularity could create an opening for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to run for president in 2012. Well, that's original. Too bad it's preposterous. Katie raises two of the correct counterpoints: Bloomberg is uninspiring, and his Wall Street background doesn't seem like such a strong suit these days. But, she says, "McKinnon's argument shouldn't be discounted, and my quibbles aren't insurmountable hurdles for someone like Bloomberg."

Actually, McKinnon's argument should be dismissed out of hand, as there is no rationale for a third-party candidacy on the political, or policy, merits.

While the Senate toned down the House's language on abortion restrictions, it may have ratcheted things up with another controversial reproductive-health issue: abstinence-only education. Sec. 2954 of the Senate health-reform bill, released Wednesday evening, restores funding for abstinence education. 

Their provision would restore a program called Title V, which, since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, has allocated a yearly $50 million in grants to abstinence-only education programs. Obama let the program lapse in June, leaving some abstinence-only groups in dire straits. So in September, Sen. Orrin Hatch offered an amendment to restore Title V via heath-care reform, which (much to the outrage of liberal groups) just squeaked through the Senate Finance Committee with a 12–11 vote. A similar amendment, offered in the House by Rep. Terry Lee from Nebraska, died in committee.

Over at The Daily Beast today, political strategist Mark McKinnon makes a compelling argument for why the 2012 election could be tailor-made for NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. McKinnon is one of the sharpest minds around when it comes to understanding the mood of the electorate. McKinnon knows how to sell winning candidates, which is why I think the case he builds for Bloomberg is a serious one. Bloomberg is a true centrist who has racked up a swag of political achievements in New York—and he has a ton of cash. Dropping $1 billion on a presidential campaign would barely cause a ripple in his ocean of Benjamins. And he appeals to the growing bloc of independent voters. But, after reading McKinnon's analysis, I've got a couple of lingering questions.

First, how will his background in financial services play to an electorate weary of Wall Street misadventures? To be sure, it's been a very long time since Bloomberg was directly involved in trading and banking. Most of his cash piled up when he started offering IT and media services to the financial sector. But Wall Street is already enough of a myth to most voters. They may not have the patience to distinguish between the greedy bankers who broke the economy and the folks that provided the information that helped them carry out the devastating deeds. They may just see a really, really, ridiculously rich guy who made his money on Wall Street.

As Sarah Palin’s book tour kicked off this morning, the debate continues to rage about what exactly she means for America and the Republican Party. This week’s NEWSWEEK takes a look at those questions, exploring the unique challenges posed by a would-be candidate both loved and loathed but almost nothing in between.

Our choice of a cover image this week has also stirred the debate. Yesterday, NEWSWEEK Editor Jon Meacham responded to critics of the photo, explaining the magazine’s policy, which is, and has always been, to choose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover.

This morning, on the Today show, NEWSWEEK Managing Editor Daniel Klaidman further explained the editorial choice. “Since [Sarah Palin] has been on the national stage, there have been these questions about her gravitas and her seriousness. Sarah Palin has cultivated this image of a down-home, folksy, outdoorsy woman. And I'm not suggesting  it's not authentic, but there is a sense in which she understands that it resonates politically,” Klaidman told Today host Matt Lauer. “There are a lot of people who would see that image and say 'that’s Sarah Palin, that’s why she connects with people, there’s that authenticity.' I don’t think this is an image that is taken out of context, especially when you consider what the point of the story was: to raise these questions about her seriousness."

Watch the video here.

Perhaps as an antidote to Sarah Palin's media domination over the last two weeks, frequent Palin critic David Brooks offered on Thursday a different presidential contender for 2012: South Dakota Sen. John Thune. And Tuesday, Washington Post political guru Chris Cillizza picked up the tune. "For months—if not years—the Republican/conservative smart set has been looking for a fresh face on which to hang their hopes and dreams," Cillizza wrote. South Dakota Sen. John Thune may be that person."

Wait, really?

Brooks's rather guileless New York Times column doesn't make a compelling argument that Thune has anything new to offer, but simply that he is reliably conservative, affable, and not likely to say anything dumb:

His positions on the issues are unremarkable. He is down-the-line conservative on social, economic and foreign policy matters. What’s notable is the way he talks about the issues and jumps off from them ... He doesn’t have radical plans to cut the federal leviathan. He just wants to restrain the growth of government to bring deficits down. He doesn’t have ambitions to restructure the tax code. He just wants to lift burdens on small business.

This week, to coincide with the release of Sarah Palin's book Going Rogue, NEWSWEEK's editors decided to print two essays (one by Evan Thomas, the other by Christopher Hitchens) about the former Alaska governor and have her image grace our cover. The photo chosen was from a shoot Palin had participated in for Runner's World magazine.

To note that choosing that particular photograph has ruffled a few feathers is perhaps an understatement. Palin denounced it—and us—to her million-strong Facebook following last night. "The choice of photo for the cover of this week's Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this 'news' magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant," she wrote on her fan page, adding, "The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now." She also told ABC's Barbara Walters that she found the cover "a wee bit degrading." Others, like CBN's David Brody, said our cover was a new low: "biased and sexist at the same time." 

Today, NEWSWEEK's Editor Jon Meacham has responded to critics. "We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do,” Meacham said. "We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."

Another day, another development in the debate over abortion in health-care reform. This time, it’s a swing in favor of the abortion-rights side: pro-life Democrat Sens. Ben Nelson and Bob Casey Jr., both staunch abortion opponents and Stupak-amendment supporters, are toning down their demands.

It was just last week that Nelson was telling Politico he was “sure” he would not support a health-care reform bill without a Stupak amendment. But late last night, CNN put this small item on its political ticker: “Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb…now says he would be satisfied with the less restrictive language approved by the Senate Finance Committee.” Read: no more Stupak.

The Washington Redskins will get to keep their name—for now. For almost two decades a group of Native Americans has been challenging what they allege to be an offensive team name and logo. On Monday, though, the battle finally ran out of steam after the Supreme Court declined to review the case.  Still, football fans shouldn’t take out their jerseys and headdresses to celebrate quite yet. The litigation surrounding the Redskins is set to keep going.

The Supreme Court was being asked to decide whether this case was brought too late, not whether it’s offensive. A group of seven Native Americans initially filed suit back in 1992. By that time, the Washington Redskins had been using the name for more than 25 years. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who ruled in favor of the team in 2003, noted that the youngest plaintiff was almost 36 years old at the time the suit was filed. Judge Kollar-Kotelly insinuated that if the name was truly that offensive, the suit should have been filed earlier. In short, she implied that someone needed to file a suit as soon as they were legally capable; someone who just turned 18 years old. So, in August 2006, a group of Native Americans ranging in age from 18 to 24 filed an identical lawsuit, Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc, to challenge the offensive team name and logo issues without running into any time-limitation challenges. 

Last week, in his Absurdly Premature 2012 Watch Column, erstwhile Stumper Andrew Romano mused about the DNC's treatment of Tim Pawlenty, who is steadily becoming target No. 1 for their oppo researchers. Now it seems that Democrats aren't the only ones considering Pawlenty a major player. The Hotline reports that Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America PAC has purchased links on Google so that folks searching for T-Paw (literally, "T-Paw") will be confronted with links to potential 2012 rival Romney.

As I've written previously, I think Romney and Pawlenty will be competing for votes. The religious and very socially conservative voters will flock to Huckabee or Palin types. Younger voters might be attracted to a Jindal type, leaving Romney and Pawlenty to fight it out for the votes of traditional, limited government, small "c" conservatives.

I've been a little hesitant to weigh in on the debate about what it means that President Obama bowed when he met Japanese Emperor Akhito. It seems that the folks who are outraged by the bow are just seizing on it as yet another outlet for an increasingly unhinged disdain for anything and everything the President does. Those who aren't imbuing the bow with earth shattering meaning don't care enough to offer a passionate defense of it. They're just shrugging their shoulders and moving on.

It’s nothing new when liberal women complain about sexism, but whenconservative men take up the banner, calling Newsweek sexist forportraying Sarah Palin on the cover in her jogging clothes, thatcatches my attention. Why do right-wing men rush to Sarah’s side todefend her? My theory is this is payback time. They’ve been calledsexist and racist, and subjected to media ridicule of their allegedlyretro views. Palin is their way to push back against the elites thathave marginalized them.

In my Newsweek column this week ("Obama's Malpractice: Why the health-care bill isn't reform"), I argued that-contrary to the Administration's claims-none of the various proposals now floating around Congress would reduce future budget deficits or the rapid rise in national health spending. Quite the opposite: the proposals would probably increase both deficits and national health spending. Now comes Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMMS), a federal agency, making the same points with a lot more detail. In a study published after my column was written, Foster estimates that H.R. 3962, which passed the House of Representatives on Nov. 7, would raise national health spending by about $289 billion from 2010 to 2019.  He also casts considerable doubt on whether the "savings" in Medicare that are used to pay for expanded insurance coverage would actually materialize; if not, the expansion of health-care would lead to higher federal budget deficits.

By Foster's estimates, H.R. 3962 would substantially reduce the number of uninsured Americans, from a projected  57 million in 2019 to 23 million. Most of the newly-insured would receive coverage under a liberalized Medicaid, the joint federal-state program aimed at the poor; many others would entitled to federal subsidies to buy insurance on "exchanges" where a number of insurers would offer competing plans. The costs of the expanded coverage would total about $935 billion over the 2010-2019 decade (some other non-insurance provisions would add slightly to costs). Meanwhile, "savings" mainly from Medicare would cover slightly more than half those costs. High taxes, not included in Foster's analysis, would pay for most of the rest. (Though Foster's office is an arm of CMMS, it provides independent analyses of proposals and costs.)

Sarah Palin may be stealing headlines with the release of her memoir this week, but it was two contrasting stories about the original polarizer, Hillary Clinton, which caught my attention this morning. In a lengthy profile for this month's Vogue, Jonathan Van Meter, includes a short anecdote about Clinton's "favorite new colleague, David Miliband, the tall and dashing 44-year-old British foreign secretary." Here's Meter:

When I mentioned to her over lunch that I had spoken with him, she lit up. "Oh, my God!" I joked that I got a crush over the phone in about five seconds partly because of his accent, and she said, "Well, if you saw him it would be a big crush. I mean, he is so vibrant, vital, attractive, smart. He's really a good guy. And he's so young!"

After shadowing Clinton in Africa and at the U.N., Meter's piece is littered with such stories, humanizing moments that lift Clinton out of the sharp, bitchy caricature that has followed her for so long. At various points he calls her "cheerful", "focused" and "indefatigable" and says one of her biggest assets is that "She plays well with others, especially older Republican men." It's a portrait of the Clinton that women around the world, inspired by her impressive achievements, long to see - a complex, sincere and ultimately caring and likable figure. It's also a stark contrast to Michael Crowley's take on Clinton in this week's New Republic.

It's been a week to savor for immigrant advocates. First, there was the news that Lou Dobbs, with his nostril-flaring rants against illegal immigration, was departing CNN. Then there was Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's speech at the Center for American Progress today, in which she declared in no uncertain terms that the administration was intent on pursuing comprehensive immigration reform in early 2010.

For pro-immigrant groups, this was a welcome change of tone from Napolitano. All year, they've been complaining that she and other administration officials seemed concerned with only one thing: cracking down on illegal immigrants. They were incensed, for instance, when Homeland Security announced over the summer that it was expanding a controversial program that allows local police to act as immigration agents. But now it's clear what the administration was up to: it was laying the groundwork for an overhaul of the immigration system, one that would include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. As Napolitano argued today, Congress can now take up immigration reform because the administration has made significant progress in tightening the borders and cracking down on employers who hire illegal workers.

Katie thinks that while President Obama's job summit is sensible on policy grounds it will be a political liability, reinforcing his image as a dithering talker in the face of crisis.

Says Katie, "Is it a good idea? Yes. Having key stakeholders put their heads together, or at least communicate about the problem, will undoubtedly produce some interesting ideas." So, case closed, right? Wrong! "The 'optics' of the summit ...might just work against him," Katie warns. "Obama is undeniably a deliberative president. He shares none of his predecessor's brash decisiveness ... I'm not sure the public finds that tendency comforting anymore."

Katie's premise is correct. Many Americans are reassured by leaders like our erstwhile "decider" in uncertain times. Until, that is, their rash decisions prove disastrous. Then Americans die, deficits mount, and their approval ratings plummet.

So, while Katie's political advice to Obama might be wise in the short term, it strikes me as short-sighted. Good policy is good politics, especially where the economy is concerned. Careful decision making now will pay political dividends later.

By Jerry Adler

Horatio athwart the bridge

The Yanks on Cemetery Ridge

Oprah standing at the fridge—

Were heroes, in their way.

Mandela shackled behind bars,

Odysseus, lashed to the spars,

DeLay, foxtrotting with the stars

Inspire us today.

But it takes a special Joe

To swim upstream against the flow

To stand alone (if not quite tall)

To listen to the urgent call

Of conscience and of indignation

And Meet the Press and Face the Nation,

Defy the media to get ya

And speak out on behalf of Aetna.

And Cigna, of PA.

The Mormon church is supporting gay rights.

Sound a little suspicious? That has been the read around the blogosphere as of late, after the Church of Latter-day Saints announced Wednesday that it would support a Salt Lake City ordinance barring housing and workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Cue cynicism: "The Mormon Church views gays as worthwhile human beings in the workplace, but not in their own bedrooms. Got it," quipped a blogger at gay blog Queerty. Over at Seattle's alt weekly: "No one is fooled: this 'rare' action is an attempt to blunt charges of anti-gay bigotry ... in the wake of Prop 8."

We know the Mormon church does not agree with gay marriage—it adamantly opposes homosexuality. But writing off their support, which probably played some role in this legislation passing, is childish, willfully ignorant of how this law came to be and what it means. Like the fact that leaders of gay-rights groups in Utah have, for the past two months, met secretly with LDS officials regarding the proposition. Or that this will actually make a difference in the lives of gay Salt Lake City residents. The Mormon church could have easily sided with the Sutherland Institute, a local conservative think tank that opposed the measure on the grounds that "each new inclusion in the law of such vague terms as 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' represents a mounting threat to the meaning of marriage." As Andrew Sullivan more thoughtfully writes over at The Atlantic, "Someone has decided to offer an open hand. A civil rights movement should never spurn such a good faith effort."

Every now and then there comes a piece of news so shrouded in the stench of hypocrisy that it renders satire unnecessary, news that exemplifies the twisted logic of the political calculation. With that in mind, I offer you this nugget, masterfully uncovered by the skilled headline-grabbers over at Politico:

The Republican National Committee’s health insurance plan covers elective abortion–a procedure the party’s own platform calls “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.” Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

It barely warrants commentary. Suffice to say, the party, which agitated so strongly to prevent predominantly low-income women from having elective abortions covered by their government-subsidized health insurance, allows their own staff members to have the same procedure covered by their employer-based insurance. Is anyone surprised that Congress has such low approval ratings?

Today, just before jumping on Air Force One for his nine-day trip to Asia, the president announced that he'll convene a "jobs summit" in December. Amid rising joblessness, the summit will ostensibly aim to figure out ways to create new jobs and stem the flow of recession-induced layoffs. The president will invite CEOs, economists, unions, and small-business leaders to meet with administration officials at the White House to discuss the issue. "It's important that we don't make any ill-considered decisions—even with the best intentions—particularly at a time when our resources are so limited. But it's just as important that we are open to any demonstrably good idea to supplement the steps we've already taken to put America back to work. That's what this forum is about," Obama told reporters today.

By Jerry Adler

When Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards addressed a private phone call of bloggers yesterday, she had to apologize for her hoarse voice: "I've spent the last few days yelling at members of Congress."

Richards, alongside other liberal pro-abortion rights groups, has launched an all-out war on the Stupak amendment, the anti-abortion rights provision approved by the House in Saturday's health-care vote. In yesterday's conference call, she described Planned Parenthood's strategy to insure the Stupak amendment's exclusion from the final health-care bill as two-pronged: "Smart lobbying strategies in Washington [and] very robust grassroots engagement."

The grassroots engagement part kicked off nearly overnight. On Tuesday, Planned Parenthood hosted a "standing room only" meeting with "dozens" of progressive groups at its office in Washington. Politico reported that MoveOn.org, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Service Employees International Union were in attendance. They have logged thousands of calls to members of Congress and, last night, launched an online petition. Next week Planned Parenthood will host a meeting with CEOs from reproductive health groups, labor movement, and broader progressive movement.

A very good source tells me that African-American friends of the Obamas in Chicago and Washington are steamed over the editing of the campaign documentary By the People, which aired on HBO last week. The documentary team was granted extraordinary behind-the-scenes access to the Obamas and their staffers and friends.

Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and close friend and informal adviser Marty Nesbitt were interviewed at length for the film but appeared only in the background. (The source wasn't sure whether a third longtime friend of Obamas, Eric Whitaker, was interviewed.) Both were present for critical moments like the Reverend Wright episode and are, of course, extremely close to Obama. But in the film, they came across as extras.

The source said that the filmmakers shot much more tape than they could possibly use and that lots of important people and scenes were left on the cutting-room floor, but the omission distorts history. "For them to exclude her [Valerie] is a false reflection of reality," said the source, a close friend of both Jarrett and the Obamas. "Some of us were almost physically sick watching it."

Seeing as it is Veterans Day, I thought it worth pointing you to a couple of interesting stories concerning veterans:

• Politico reports that Harry Reid has some harsh words for his GOP colleague Tom Coburn, who has put a hold on a bill that calls for funding for veterans' health care and provides for their families and caregivers. According to Politico: “Where was he when we were spending a trillion dollars on the war in Iraq?” Reid asked. “That wasn’t paid for. I didn’t hear him stopping the bill from going forward at that time. I think he should become more logical and understand we have people who are suffering.”
  
• More lawsuits are being filed over the use of "burn pits" to incinerate waste in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plaintiffs are suing military contractor KBR for a host of medical problems—including bronchial complaints, chronic migraines, skin diseases, and renal distress—they believe are related to the burning of chemicals, plastic, and medical waste.
• Obama signed an executive order on Monday launching a new initiative to encourage government agencies to employ veterans. The administration is hoping for the government to become a model employer of veterans.
• The New York Times profiles Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, illustrating the tough task he has in modernizing his agency, and the new challenges of conditions like traumatic brain injury.
• The president today signed the Military Spouses Residency Relief Act, which allows the spouses of active-duty military to maintain residency in a state for tax and voting purposes if they have been forced to relocate to be with their spouse.
  

Written by 2008 NEWSWEEK campaign blogger Andrew (Stumper) Romano, Absurdly Premature 2012 Watch is a weekly column that (in lieu of psychiatric treatment) indulges our collective presidential-election fixation ... even though the next presidential election is still, ahem, three years away.

The vast majority of sane, rational people are probably unaware that Tim Pawlenty, the Republican governor of Minnesota, is doing everything in his power to prepare for a 2012 presidential bid... mostly because 2012 is three years away. Preoccupied with sane, rational concerns─like not dying of swine flu, or searching the Internet for Carrie Prejean's sex tape─they probably haven't heard about Pawlenty's recent speech at a GOP fundraising event in Des Moines, Iowa, where he strode on stage to Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Fortunate Son" and likened President Barack Obama's stimulus plan to "a manure spreader in a wind storm" before a crowd of 700 likely caucusgoers. Nor did they hear about Pawlenty's convenient decision not to run for reelection in Minnesota, or his new PAC/campaign team, or his gratuitous endorsement of ultraconservative insurgent Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 congressional race, or his recent resume-boosting trip to Mexico, or his harsh words for moderate Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe. In fact, most sane, rational people probably don't even know who this Pawlenty character is. 

But the folks at the Democratic National Committee certainly do.

If you want to figure out which of Obama's potential 2012 challengers the Democratic Party is most afraid of, it definitely helps to be political reporter. That's because the DNC is constantly bombarding hacks like me with stories, quips, fact sheets and comebacks designed to influence our coverage of a select group of prominent Republicans─namely, the ones they suspect of harboring 2012 aspirations, like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee. Determine which Republican is inspiring the most hate mail and you probably have a pretty good idea which one the DNC sees as the biggest threat. 

CLICK THROUGH TO FIND OUT WHY...

Here’s more evidence that independents will be the voting bloc to watch ahead of next year’s 2010 midterms: for the first time in seven years—and more important, this election cycle—a new Gallup poll finds Republicans narrowly leading Democrats in the so-called generic congressional ballot. According to Gallup, if the election were held today, 48 percent of registered voters would choose the GOP candidate, compared with 44 percent who would vote Dem. That’s an eight-point gain for Republicans over the last year. Just a month ago, the GOP trailed Democrats 44 percent to 46 percent. The reason for the slight GOP edge: Republicans now have a 22-point lead over Democrats among so-called independent voters. According to Gallup, indies favor Republicans 52 percent to 30 percent—numbers that were literally reversed a year ago. It’s a trend that hasn’t exactly been gradual: In July, Republicans led Dems by 1 percent among independents. Last month, there was a nine-point difference in favor of Republicans. Now, a month later, the GOP’s advantage has doubled. All of this comes a week after a surge of independents helped Republicans clinch governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey.

Last week, I wrote about the GOP’s hope that 2010 would be a repeat of 1994, when the party surged among voters and regained control of Congress. As I noted, there are many differences—not least the GOP’s baggage among voters. Their approval rating is just as low, if not lower, than Democrats' in Congress. Yet this poll would seem to bolster the GOP’s argument that 2010 won’t be about Republicans as much as it will be a referendum on President Obama.

Over at The Vine, Mark Murro and Jonathan Rothwell are considering the locational nature of climate change politics, which is something I have been thinking about for a while. They argue that the average carbon emissions in each state helps determine how Senators will vote on the Boxer-Kerry bill:

[Last week], the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted to report out climate legislation, with ten Democrats voting yes, one Democrat (Montana’s Sen. Baucus) voting no, and all of the Republicans boycotting. If you look at the vote tally (using Project Vulcan data), you find that the states of senators voting "no" emitted 29.4 tonnes of carbon per capita, and the states of "yes" voters emitted 13.3 tonnes per capita, compared with a national average of 20.9 tonnes per capita.

They've got some other data points to back their idea up, but I don't find the regressions particularly convincing. I tend to think the situation is a more complicated combination of philosophical and regional factors. Like Matt Yglesias, I think that ideology plays a role, but only when it comes to consumers. For example, people who live in Massachusetts use a lot of energy to heat their homes. They also more likely to be liberal, and less opposed to legislation that may increase their costs. They're personally or politically invested in combating climate change and may be prepared to fork out a few bucks in their quest to save the planet.

“I could not believe I was hearing that question all weekend. Why did he do it?  Why did a Muslim, in touch with Al-Qaeda, open fire on US military personnel?” asks Rush Limbaugh. “I tell you something, folks, political correctness and a lot of other things are gonna lead to our downfall.” Limbaugh also discusses how the House Judiciary Committee just voted to strip the Patriot Act of a provision allowing the government to spy on people who are not linked to known terrorist groups, i.e. “lone wolves.”

The question of whether Nidal Malik Hasan is a lone wolf madman or a terrorist with links to al Qaeda is driving many commentators up the wall. Last week we reported that many in the conservative media were asking that same question. But that soul searching moment seems to have passed.

Anti-abortion members in the House got a big win Saturday with the passage of the Stupak amendment. The amendment aims to prevent federal funds from being used to procure abortions, following current federal policy that bans Medicaid from offering elective abortions. But Stupak's impact will be broader. It will essentially bar women who purchase insurance through the new insurance exchange (that is, predominantly poor women or those who don't currently have coverage) from procuring abortions through plans they buy on the exchange. It does this by preventing insurers from covering the procedure in any plans that customers purchase using federal subsidies. Because insurers in the exchange can't turn customers away, and because it is virtually impossible to separate the funds coming from women who receive subsidies and those who don't, the Stupak amendment will effectively prevent any insurers who participate in the exchange from covering elective abortions.

Over at The Washington Post, columnist E. J. Dionne notices something almost no one else has: that voters in Maine and Washington state resoundingly rejected ballot initiatives meant to limit taxes and spending. Says Dionne:

In Maine, voters rejected a tax-limitation measure by a walloping 60 percent to 40 percent. In Washington state, a similar measure went down, 57 percent to 43 percent.

They lost in part because opponents of the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights measures (known as TABOR) did something that happens too rarely in the national debate: they made a case for what government does, why it's important, and why cutbacks in public services can be harmful to citizens and the common good.

Last week I wrote that gay marriage is a generational issue. I argued that over time, as generations shift, opposition to gay marriage will become a thing of the past, an anachronistic viewpoint that will one day be as dated as Don Draper's marriage. Today I noticed this handy illustration which bolsters my point (from Lisa Wade, via Matt Yglesias):

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor promised Capitol Hill protesters on Friday that not one Republican would approve the Democrats' health-care bill. But Cantor's vow of unanimity slipped Saturday night when the final vote tally, 220 to 215 in support of the bill, revealed Rep. Anh (Joseph) Cao, a Republican from Louisiana, cast a yes vote.

His reason for being the lone GOP nod? "I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents," he said in a statement quickly released by his office. Earlier in the evening, he also supported a controversial amendment (which also passed) from Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak prohibiting any federal money from funding abortion.

Joe Lieberman angered a lot of liberals recently with his declaration of opposition to Harry Reid's opt-out public-option provision. But liberals who also care about climate-change legislation may want to temper their rage. Lieberman has long championed climate-change legislation in the Senate, and is emerging as a critical player in the current effort. Politico reported back in September that Lieberman had been busy meeting with a bipartisan group to figure out a path forward on climate change. In a recent interview with the National Journal, Lieberman gave some insight into his negotiating strategy.

Lieberman knows they won't get to 60 without concessions on four key areas: nuclear, coal, agriculture, and manufacturing. Satisfying a few senators with interests in each of those industries might be enough to get the bill across the line. It looks as though Lieberman and his pals have found people to champion each issue. Tom Carper from Delaware is working on coal; Debbie Stabenow from Michigan is taking the lead on agriculture; and Sherrod Brown from Ohio is active on manufacturing. It sounds as though Lieberman himself will be central to nuclear negotiations, which makes sense given that he's close to Republicans like Lindsey Graham and John McCain who care deeply about expanding the nuclear sector.

By Jerry Adler

I. Carbon Country

Oh beautiful for spacious skies

Beneath which cows metabolize

All those amber waves of grain

And fill the heavens with methane.

For purple mountain majesties

Whose glaciers melt and lakes won’t freeze

Yes, my country, ‘tis of thee--

Land of private property--

I sing. And of the fruited plains

Which someday soon will sprout plantains.

And coconuts to fill the cargo

Holds of ships that dock in Fargo

When shining sea meets shining sea

In Iowa or Tennessee.

I would add one thing to Holly's post on Charlie Crist yesterday. As she notes, Crist's denials that he ever endorsed President Obama's stimulus package are deeply unconvincing. Today, the St. Petersburg Times's PolitiFact amply documents the many ways Crist has displayed support for the program. The fact-checking crew there delivered a resounding "Pants on Fire" verdict.

But let's assume for a moment that Crist's pants aren't on fire. Let's accept his comment to CNN on Wednesday that "I understood [the bill] was going to pass, and I wanted to be able to utilize it for the benefit of my fellow Floridians." Well, if that was the case, he hasn't done a very good job. As The Miami Herald reported back in August, Florida ranked last among the states for federal stimulus dollars promised per capita. It also ranked last in spending the federal highway stimulus money it had been allotted.

A look at the conservative media this morning shows a variety of approaches to the Fort Hood shooting. While most commentators are interested in addressing the question of Islamic terror, and particularly homegrown Islamism, there's clearly a concern in many quarters to avoid generalizations or overstatements--although others, like Michelle Malkin, have decided to go full-speed ahead. But that caution has not prevented sharp criticism of mainstream media reporting or of President Barack Obama's response to the incident.

Several outlets are counseling caution before jumping to conclusions about alleged shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. The National Review's Corner blog is characteristically prolific but is hewing close to the facts, mostly noting what's being reported about Hasan, much of which deals with his religion. The magazine's Victor Davis Hanson, however, grapples directly with the question of Islam in the case, and argues that Americans' understanding of Islamic terror has not progressed in the last eight years and needs to be updated.

In other words, the narrative after 9/11 largely remains that Americans have given in to illegitimate "fear and mistrust" of Muslims in general. A saner approach would be to acknowledge that there is a small minority of Muslims who channel generic Islamist fantasies, so that we can assume that either formal terrorist plots or individual acts of murder will more or less occur here every three to six months.

Earlier this week Holly wrote a really interesting piece about the electoral parallels between now and 1993—and the fact that the GOP is hoping for a dramatic Democratic defeat in next year's midterms, similar to what happened in 1994. Holly points out several flaws in the analogy: Republicans have more baggage going into next year's elections than they did in' 94, congressional Republicans have exceptionally low approval ratings, the GOP lacks strong national leadership, and there's damaging infighting between conservatives and moderates. But I'd like to add another difference to the list: health-care reform.

Here's an update to an entry I posted last week. As I noted then, the 2010 census has sparked a battle over whether undocumented immigrants should be part of the count and thus included in state tallies used to reapportion congressional seats, as has been the case in past cycles. The opening round of that fight was a proposed amendment sponsored by Republican Sens. David Vitter and Robert Bennett that would have added a question to the census survey asking whether the respondent is a citizen or not. The aim was to later strip out noncitizens when it came time for reapportionment.

Well, the senators lost that round. Earlier today, the amendment was blocked when the Senate voted 60-39 to end debate on an appropriations bill. But don't expect the issue to go away anytime soon. A Vitter spokesman, Joel DiGrado, says the senator will try to find other legislative vehicles for the amendment and will continue to press the matter. He's "not going to just stop talking about the issue," says DiGrado.

Marriage-equality proponents are staring blankly into their coffee mugs today, wondering just what went wrong in Maine. It was supposed to be the place that proved the national tide is turning on gay rights. Yet voters endorsed a proposal to overturn an existing gay-marriage sanction. It's certainly a setback for the movement, but it's not the end. Not even close.

I tend to think of gay rights as a generational issue. Nate Silver, the FiveThirtyEight blogger who builds extraordinarily insightful electoral models, finds that support for banning gay marriage is eroding at a pace of 2 percentage points each year. Young people tend to be more supportive, and over time, I think that view will prevail. In years to come, opposition to gay rights will be as outdated a mindset as denying women the vote seems today.  The train is moving in one direction, and, like many movements before it, young people are driving.

By Jesse Ellison

Yesterday, Mainers turned out in unexpectedly high numbers to vote yes on 1, which actually meant voting no on gay marriage. Voting yes to say no wasn't the only thing that happened that might confound those watching from out of state. Despite making a socially conservative choice on gay marriage, voters made the fairly liberal decision not to limit state government spending, and an almost radical move to expand and regulate the distribution of medical marijuana. Together, it doesn't seem to make much sense.

So what happened? Opponents of same-sex marriage waged essentially the same campaign run last year in California, with endless television ads claiming that not repealing gay marriage, which Democratic Gov. John Baldacci had signed into law in May, would mean that it would be taught in school. One of them showed a forlorn-looking couple from Massachusetts claiming that since their state had legalized same-sex marriage, "our son came home and told us the school taught him that boys can marry other boys.  He's in second grade." In another, a Maine teacher implored voters to "vote yes on Question 1 to prevent homosexual marriage from being taught in Maine schools." The state attorney general publicly disputed the claims, but there's no question that they were effective.

One theme emerging from the post-Election Day chatter is that the results augur well for Marco Rubio, the upstart challenging Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in next year's Senate primary in the Sunshine State. Running as a "true conservative" opposed to Crist's centrism, Rubio has energized some of the same anti-establishment forces that helped elbow aside Dede Scozzafava in New York's 23rd Congressional District. So, the reasoning goes, Rubio just got a fresh jolt of momentum. National conservatives are fired up and turning their attention to Florida. And Rubio is likely to get lots more attention and a fresh infusion of campaign cash. Already, the Club for Growth, which reportedly pumped $1 million into Doug Hoffman's campaign in New York's23rd Congressional District, has signaled its interest in Rubio.

Certainly, this is good news for Rubio, particularly in the short term. But I'd point to some caveats. For starters, conditions are likely to start turning more hostile for him. Until now, he's basically gotten a free ride. The mainstream media has largely covered his campaign in inspirational, David-versus-Goliath terms. That won't last much longer. The race, which has already drawn national attention, will now move more fully into the spotlight. With that will come greater scrutiny—of Rubio's record, of his perceived contradictions, of his tenure as Florida House speaker (which came under plenty of criticism)

Unlike the New York City Mayoral, or the Virginia Governor's race, there is a really bad sign for Democrats out of the East Coast. Via The Times, Republicans made inroads in New York's suburbs. "In Westchester County, where Democrats have a solid advantage in voter registration, a Republican challenger, Rob Astorino, upset the incumbent Democratic County Executive, Andrew Spano, who was seeking his fourth term.... In Nassau County, Republicans recaptured the county legislature, and have come close to unseating the Democratic County Executive, Thomas R. Suozzi, in a race that remained too close to call on Wednesday morning."

Why does this matter so much? Because the New York suburbs epitomize the new Blue America.

Maine should have been an example of strength in numbers for gay marriage proponents, but instead turned into heartache. If you don't count D.C., according to Gary Gates of the Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA's school of law devoted to gay-rights policies, Maine "has the highest number of same-sex couples per 1000 households (so the highest per capita) of any state." So what happened?

With gains on the national front, such as gay marriages being officially counted (with figures released) for the first time in the 2010 census  and the recent passage of hate crimes legislation that includes protection for gays, the movement is seeing more momentum in the past half year than it has in decades.

Maine should have been part of that momentum. The state is known for its moderate, independent electorate, and gay right activists had mounted a sophisticated media campaign in support of same-sex marriage. But movement on the national stage, it seems, is not translating into progress on the state level.

Bush and Koizumi, together again. (Photo by JIJI PRESS/AFP/Getty Images)

Ahhh, to be a former president. While we were all consumed with the outcome of the 2009 elections, George W. Bush was overseas in Tokyo, throwing out the first pitch at Japan’s equivalent of the World Series. At his side: Junichiro Koizumi, the former prime minister of Japan and Elvis Presley superfan who was widely considered one of Bush’s best friends, among foreign leaders anyway. Back in 2006, Bush gave Koizumi a restored 1950s-era jukebox full of Elvis tunes and took him to Graceland. Koizumi gave Bush a mix CD of him singing Elvis’s greatest hits. But your Gaggler suspects their friendship was set for life when Bush indulged Koizumi’s real weakness: Juicy Fruit gum. The former PM spotted it in a candy dish on Marine One—“Juicy Fruit!” he shrieked, according to a former Bush administration official, who recounted the story to me later. Turns out Koizumi used to chew the gum as a kid, when U.S. soldiers passed it out to Japanese citizens on the street in the aftermath of World War II. According to the White House, Bush bought him a case to take back to Japan.

Last week Glenn Beck prophesied that Sarah Palin was on a potential roll with her upcoming book tour, one that might carry her into 2012—as a real rogue. Beck told Bill O’Reilly that her resignation as governor was a smart move, and that “she’s also positioning herself for a third party. By the time this election runs around for the president, I'm sorry, but unless the Republicans and the Democrats wake up, a third party will win,” he said.

Given the Republican victories—and losses in New York—is that idea still alive? We all know that Dede Scozzafava got essentially “ground up in the gears of the Palin machine,” in the words of one Huffington Post blogger, after which Palin told her Facebook fans: "I want to personally thank Republican Dede Scozzafava for acting so selflessly today in the NY District 23 race. Now it's time to cross the finish line with Doug Hoffman so that he can get to work for District 23 and the rest of America."

Whoops.

While gay-rights activists mourn their loss in Maine, they should not discount the projected victory of Referendum 71 in Washington state. If the measure passes, the Evergreen State will be the first to approve gay equality by direct will of the people, rather than the court or legislature.

Nicknamed "Everything But Marriage," Referendum 71 asked voters to reconfirm the state legislature's recent expansion of domestic partnership rights, signed by Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire this past spring. Granted, the bill does not protect gay marriage. But it would recognize the rights of domestic partners "to be equivalent to those of married spouses." There's a week's worth of ballot-counting remaining—Washington is one of two vote-by-mail states—but returns so far look good for gay-rights activists.

I have to partially disagree with my esteemed colleague Howard Fineman. Howard writes that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's surprisingly narrow re-election victory shows that Americans "are still mad at the Big Boys, whether they are in Washington or on Wall Street." He concludes that "this is a warning to the president: you better shake things up—give us real reform—or your presidency may go from coronation to condemnation."

Howard is certainly right that there is a general anti-incumbent, anti-status quo sentiment in the country. The 2006 and 2008 elections were largely about that, and it is indeed possible for the disgust with corporate welfare and public corruption to turn against the Democrats in 2010. That's why Holly Bailey and I have argued before that Democrats in Congress ignore the financial and ethical improprieties of their prominent members at their own peril.

But overall, Hizzoner's narrow escape is not bad news for President Obama. Bill Thompson was the candidate of Obama's party, so his strong showing against Bloomberg can hardly be interpreted as anti-Obama sentiment. Thompson tried to associate himself with Obama: the fliers on my subway stop's steps showed Thompson and Obama shaking hands. And since Thompson, an uninspiring candidate who was outspent almost 10–1, did better than expected, that clearly was not a bad strategy for him. A black Democrat overperforms against a rich white Republican? If you see anything in your 2012 crystal ball because of this, it should not be that this augurs badly for Obama against Mitt Romney or Haley Barbour.

CLICK THROUGH FOR THE REST OF THE STORY...

The Atlantic’s Chris Good has an interesting breakdown on who spent what on New York’s hotly contested 23rd congressional district race. The big news: the Club for Growth spent more than $1 million in support of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. That’s slightly less than the $1.1 million the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chipped in behalf of Democrat Bill Owens. Meanwhile, the National Republican Congressional Committee spent roughly $897,000—mostly on ads directly challenging Owens, as opposed to building up Dede Scozzafava, a moderate Republican who dropped out of the race over the weekend.

With polls set to close around 9 p.m. ET, the big question is whether the Club for Growth’s money and support—along with high-profile endorsements from 2012 hopefuls Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty—was enough to push Hoffmann over the edge. ***UPDATE: We now know it wasn't.** But in Washington, many Republicans are already looking at the bigger picture of what a Hoffman victory might mean for other closely contested GOP races next year. It’s not just about a philosophical war between moderates and conservatives over how the party should move forward. It’s about money and manpower at a time when the NRCC is trying to cut into the Democrats’ majority control of the House. Will independent groups like the Club for Growth try to repeat their methods in other tight GOP contests next year and what does that mean for the NRCC’s own operation, particularly in terms of money? Cash is already tight for House Republicans, who are being outspent and outraised by their Democratic counterparts. The last thing GOP aides say the party needs is an internecine war when Republicans should be focusing their resources in fighting Democrats.

Voting in Pepper Pike, Ohio on Tuesday. Photo by Amy Sancetta/AP

It's Election Day, and although none of the contests has a real national impact, political strategists will be analyzing every minute detail for clues on national trends. As the results come trickling in, here are five things to watch for.

1. In Virginia, things look pretty dour for Creigh Deeds. Although Obama won the state last year, Deeds has few of the traits that excited Democrats to vote for Obama in droves. But Republicans will quickly celebrate a poor showing by Deeds as proof that the president's star power is waning. Watch for the White House to subtly distance itself from the Deeds campaign, likely in the form of blind quotes on Politico or in tomorrow's Washington Post.

For the congenitally sunny Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, these have been dark days. Polls have shown his Republican Senate primary contest against Marco Rubio tightening. County GOP executive committees have continued to hand him overwhelming defeats in straw polls. He's faced withering news reports, like one recently in the Miami Herald, that have fed an image that he's more concerned with his political career than with the people's business.

So Crist could have done without a pair of dispiriting developments over the weekend. First, there was the news that Dede Scozzafava pulled out of the race for New York's 23rd Congressional district. The collapse of her brand of moderate Republicanism will only strengthen a building narrative: that in the battle over the soul of the GOP, the die-hard conservatives are winning. That will surely embolden the ideological purists in Florida who have been gunning for Crist ever since he embraced Obama's stimulus package (and embraced the president himself, in a now-famous man-hug at a rally in Fort Myers). Then there was the release on Sunday of a new poll by the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times showing that Crist's favorability rating, which defied gravity for years, has plummeted to an all-time low. Only 42 percent of Floridians think he's doing a good or excellent job, compared to 55 percent who consider his performance fair or poor. Among GOP voters, he didn't fare much better, with 51 percent of them judging his work fair or poor. On ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, George Will went so far as to predict that Rubio will "absolutely" beat Crist in the Senate primary.