Ultimately, all these gestures by Obama pay off in a way. Consider how his promise of "bi-partisanship" has gone; Obama invites Republicans to engage with him on putting together the stimulus package and negotiating the budget. The fact that no Republicans voted for either one is irrelevant; the public perceives that Obama is trying and thus, is fulfilling his promise.

Similarly, there have been few critics on the left as consistently against Obama as Krugman. Simply by inviting him over to propound his ideas shows both that Obama is willing to listen to contrary opinions, and that he is not afraid to confront his critics. This is a sign of strength, confidence, and openness.

So whether or not Krugman and Stiglitz change their minds, the gesture itself makes the meeting a success. (In my myopic view, anyway.)

Heck, given that he's my Senator and I know quite a bit about him, if I were a Republican, I might want to disavow the NRSC simply because the chair of the committee is an incompetent nitwit. But that's just me.

OK, so there's no good Republican opponent, but what about the chances of getting a decent progressive Democrat to toss this spineless, perpetually-compromising bozo out on his ear?

Well, you can always go the Debra Dickerson route (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/22/obama/index.html), and simply say that Obama isn't "really" Black. Just sayin'.

Not that I think they took anything more than the slightest notice, but I canceled my subscription to TNR online the day that article appeared, and told them that that was why I was doing so.

That's not the only area where Limbaugh's staggeringly-boneheaded analogy breaks down. He sez the Republican party

shuts up. It doesn't cross bridges, it doesn't run into the Bull Connors of the Democrat Party, it is afraid of the fire hoses and the dogs, it's compliant.

Which raises the obvious question: has he been living in a hole? He must have a completely different definition of "compliant" than the one most folks operate under. In my book, if Republicans were "compliant," we would be seeing near-unanimous "Aye!" votes in the House and Senate on Obama's proposals. We wouldn't have experienced a whisper campaign in opposition to Judge Sotomajor weeks before her nomination was announced. We wouldn't be listening to Texas bonehead Rep. Burton ask stupid questions of a Nobel Laureate, or be subjected to threats of filibusters and the slow-walking (and double-secret holds) of nominees.

No, the Republicans are most certainly not compliant, nor will they, in any way, shut up. If only. Once again, the blather that comes pouring out of Limbaugh's mouth has only the faintest, passing resemblance to reality. Way to go, Rushbo.

Salon editorial folks: I've been reading the Wingnut's columns, waiting (and hoping) to read something other than standard, right-wing talking points. I was honestly hoping that, by being anonymous, your "longtime conservative political operative" would feel free to engage in actual dialog, rather than just re-iterating the same old tired, redundant, and (often) demonstrably wrong talking points that we have been hearing from the right wing since the early 80s. Such a dialog would be interesting, and perhaps even edifying.

Alas, that's not what we have here.

Wingnut opened this weeks column by expressing "surprise" to the reaction about his column lauding Ronald Reagan. This didn't bode well; how an open-minded conservative can be "surprised" that the progressive folks still find Reagan's policies appalling, the continuing attempt to lionize him aggravating, and the omissions of his record anger-inducing is, well, shocking. (It didn't help that he didn't answer the question. And in answer to him, no, we don't continue to talk about FDR, Truman, and JFK to nearly the same extent. We're not trying to put Truman on the $5 bill, are we?)

Similarly, this weeks column is just another reiteration of rightie talking points. Peggy asked an excellent question, in that it's very hard to believe that people on the right really have problems Sotomajor's record (especially given the attacks they have lobbed at her, e.g. "racist!"). Instead of engaging with her or, God forbid, admitting that the level of discourse has been disingenuous, we were instead treated to the usual litany: "liberal record," "judicial activist," and of course her comment about a "wise Latina woman."

Please, Mr. Walken. All that stuff is, at best, thin, and at worst spectacularly disingenuous. Roberts was treated as a "rock star" when Bush nominated him. Alito, despite some bumps and an obvious and lengthy conservative record (which he has amply demonstrated on the court), went through fairly easily. Sotomajor, in contrast, has been viciously, and in a lot of cases, ad hominemly attacked. The cases are basically non-comparable.

Therefore, Peggy's question remains: why are conservatives really resisting Sotomajor? When the same people who called filibusters for their nominees "unConstitutional" are threatening filibusters of Sotomajor, it's clear that something else is going on.

So again, Salon editors: we're not getting dialog; we're getting reiterations of right-wing talking points. Which we can get 'most anywhere. Can you either encourage Mr. Walken to either really engage, or drop him in favor of some conservative who actually will? Because otherwise, you should just give someone else his space; right now, it's just a waste.

Oh, and I think robsalk is absolutely right; it's not that conservatives hate "activist" judges. It's just that they want right-wing activist judges. Scalia, the supposed "strict constructionist", is absolutely fine with enforcing his own personal moral code on cases (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, or Bush v. Gore), yet I never hear conservatives complaining about that.

Admit it, "wingnut;" you just don't want liberal activist judges. Because denying that you're perfectly fine with right-wing activist judges is not only disingenuous, it's hypocritical and, to be blunt, a lie.