Quite a bit of food for thought, but I think you are over-emphasizing the non-partisan nature.

You mention that tax and healthcare issues are among the several issues that this "movement" addresses. Right now, these issues seem to be the primary issues, and the Beck-crowds assembling are very anti taxes and very much on the conservative side of the spectrum. It is basically, despite many of the non-partisan issues that are driving it, a right-wing movement. It makes sense that the Republican Party is trying to engage it.

But the truly frustrating thing is that the right wing has made this bullshit nonsense an issue that needs energy spent on debunking.

Have better luck with women?

Republicans used to be composed of conservatives + moderates and a sprinkling of lingering liberals. They used to win elections that way.

Not any more. Now the hardliners have made it clear that they want the party to be the conservative party, period. Everyone else can go to hell.

for "FRENCH's" mustard. There is no escaping this stupidity.

would Rosen be doing us a favor by shutting up and not writing about it? I wouldn't want him to offend our delicate sensibilities, after all.

Bring on the fight.

Dems have this fear of not being conciliatory enough, which has often backfired big time. Hopefully Obama is learning this lesson.

The fight, if there is one, would be between R Senators emboldened by their party's whackos (which is all that is left) and between the Dem Party, which has attracted moderates and independents quite well lately. Who is more likely to win this fight (if not the battle)? And, as someone pointed out, the fight would be fought by someone who represents the most exlusionary impulses of the Repulican Pary. The racist sentiments of Sessions may get a fresh airing. Considering their white protestant male core demographic constinuency is shrinking, I don't see how this fight helps them at all. It would solidify their image as the xenophobic party of NO.

So yeah, bring it on. Let the country see yet again who is calling the shots in the Republican Party.

I've thought the same thing.

Next they'll be calling people "roaches."

Hate radio stalwarts like Michael Savage are basically skinheads with hair. They hate Mexicans, African Americans, Muslims, gays, liberals...you name it.

It would be interesting to put some of Savage's quotes next to quotes obtained from openly racist websites. I bet there isn't much difference.

I just about spewed coffee through nose!

nails it.

and saw a lot of these nuts as they left the rally, exiting on publicly funded mass transit.

Oh,the irony...

He is also severely understaffed.

To a large degree, he is going at this alone.

Mr. Riech, how do you think you would've fared as a Secretary not having your top deputies appointed at a time of national crisis?

Getting Geithner his staff should be the #1 priority of the Obama Administration.

I agree, but I would add that there has always been an element of Themism in conservatism.

Themism is funamentally a socially conservative impulse. In the old days, Themism was focused on African Americans, Irish, Catholics, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, women, and Japanese. Many of these old prejudices still exist, though it is less blatantly discussed and code-worded as welfare queens, etc. Open Themism seems to be focused on Gays, Muslims and Mexicans (code-worded as illegal immigrants, though many will openly discuss perceived threats to culture posed by Mexican illegal immigrants). These are Michael Savage conservatives.

No wonder Obama gives these folks fits.

This isn't to say that all conservatives believe this. But even the non-Themisim-believing conservatives are in bed with adherents to themism.

I just want to let you know that I've been thoroughly enjoying your blog entries. For an economics dunce like me, your blog has become essential reading.

I agree, please let's stop ceding the language war, and stop calling then "Pro-life."

The not so sublime implication when the term "Pro-life" is used is that folks on the other side of the issue--i.e., pro-choice people like us--are "Pro-Death."

This is wonderful news.

C'mon...

And in other instances, Obama is directing the Federal government to act in accordance with statutes promulgated by Congress and orders from courts.

No, because the executive orders he is issuing are within the authority he was granted by Congress and the Constitution for those particular items.

Now Bush's "signing statements," on the other hand, were an entirely different story.

1. Yes, some terrorists will probably be freed under Obama's plan.

But whose fault is that?

The President who is actually trying to right a wrong and follow the law? Or the President whose bungling and lawless torture will result in a lot of evidence being tossed out, now that we might have real tribunals instead of the kangaroo courts that existed. Funny how our friends on the right usually don't like to discuss this.

2. If I'm not mistaken, their man McCain also proposed closing Guantanamo. If he had been elected and followed through, I suppose he would now be the most dangerous person in America.

Yep, I agree 100%. Nice.

And I would like to add that writers and fans have used stats such as RBIs and batting average to evaluate players almost since the game was created. So now that stats have gotten better, we should ignore that progress and instead utilize methods that are not very good or aren't very revealing, simply for the sake of some kind of mystical baseball statistical traditional purism?

That doesn't make any sense.

Is not whether VORP is good or bad tool or whether more advanced statistics should be used to analyze baseball or enjoy baseball.

The point is that being willfully ignorant about the latest developments in baseball analysis, then bragging about such ignorance is bullshit laziness and stubbornness. The writers are professionals. They have an obligation to their readers, if not themselves, to try to learn something new about the God damned game.