A few things jumped out at me in this review...

to upend the conventional wisdom that seizing worldly power requires compromising spiritual principles. He doesn't want "adapters who bend to the will of the mainstream," Rosin asserts, but "shape-shifters who can move between two worlds with their essential natures intact."

1) Conventional wisdom? How about them contravening biblical wisdom -- "render unto caesar the things that are caesar's..." -- by trying to seize worldly power, they are entirely compromising whatever spiritual principles they claim to hold.

You can be a good Christian, or a good politician, but not both at once. And let's not pretend otherwise -- the politician embodies the worldly; only in America do people think they can have it both ways -- pious AND corrupt; holy AND venal; righteous AND ruthless; sacred AND profane -- that's exactly why the Founding Fathers wanted a separation of church and state, not the unification of it. On one hand, you end up with a corrupt, autocratic official Church resulting in a morally bankrupt religion; on the other hand, you end up with a zealous, theocratic State ala Oliver Cromwell, lining up society's heretics and executing them;

2) Shape-shifters, eh? Creepy way to put it, makes me think they're breeding elite little lycanthropes at Patrick Henry College, or else pod people. The real moral of their story is that, Christianist or not, it's nice to be an elite in America -- clearly these little Pharisees are being groomed to wield the lash, not feel the brunt of it. Nice to see the GOP tending to their next generation of theocrats, schooling the little shape-shifters in the art of rulership ("honest AND deceitful," "merciful AND cruel");

3) I hate that they named themselves after Patrick Henry, who was an anti-federalist and who would be aghast at the drive for concentrated, unchallenged state power that is at the heart of the reactionary movement -- Henry was instrumental in pressing for the adoption of the Bill of Rights, that pesky little document that the GOP considers a stumbling block to its drive for unchecked power.

Even though the GOP is reeling at the moment, their ongoing ideological crusade (see also "Culture War") to take over the government and the country will continue, even when they're out of power. If anything, that'll do miracles for them, by removing the burden of administration, accountability, and responsibility from them, will let them focus on fire and brimstone and shape-shifting their next platform to hoodwink new generations.

I couldn't overlook today's (9/6) NYT headline...

Democrats Try to Woo G.O.P. on Iraq Policy

By CARL HULSE

Senate Democrats are showing a new openness to compromise as they try to force at least modest troop withdrawals from Iraq.

A new openness to compromise? You mean they've been in some other position besides prone before this administration??

They're like Artie Fufkin in This is Spinal Tap -- "Do me a favor. Just kick my ass, okay? ... Kick my ass. Enjoy. Come on. I'm not asking, I'm telling with this. Kick my ass."

2009. The Republicans, now fully a minority party after being thoroughly spanked in the 2008 elections, immediately begin howling about the failure of the Democrats to bring victory in Iraq, and vehemently insisting on tangible benchmarks and strategies for victory. All talk of supporting the leadership and giving things time will cease in favor of a drumbeat across various media channels about the Democrats "losing Iraq." Some people will point out that they did a 180 on their stance, and the GOP will decry the partisan atmosphere, and urge a policy of tax cuts, Christianist morality, and strong defense to make America great again. And so on.

Obama's sharp and one thing I like about him is his willingness to actually answer questions asked of him, and to offer thoughtful, honest responses. He comes across as earnest and cool, something Clinton just can't manage -- the other day she was asked some softball question on a talk show about who does the housework, her or Bill, and she gave a stilted, uncomfortable response and said he helped, but that they had help to do it. But her unnaturalness was really apparent, made me cringe. I feel like Obama could've smoothly answered that question, and turned it into a policy issue without breaking a sweat, while at the same time making people think about things they hadn't thought about before. He inspires and he leads.

Speaking of talk shows, Let's hope Oprah's support for Obama gives him a chance to make a dent in the Clinton mom votes. I think he will.

But those lost jobs weren't in the media industry, right? So I imagine the mainstream media will continue to play the President's tune about the strong economy, measured in record rates of return at the highest levels (including, of course, the assorted broadcast newspeople who bring this happy news and ignore the reality at the street level -- stagnant real wages, diminishing benefits, gaping holes in health care coverage, precarious employment, increasing bankruptcies, and so on).

When they triumphantly trotted out the high American productivity information the other day, it was irritating to me, because it just means that the majority Americans are working harder than ever for less money. Productivity is bullshit -- it's just how fast you can run on the hamster wheel, and for how long; to me, it points out Third Worldish our economy is getting, versus something to be praised. What matters for Americans who aren't in the top 5% are real increases in wages, better employment and benefits, and universal health care coverage (and not that bogus Massachusetts you gotta pay-to-play approach).