TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* This really is scandalous, and it's created real emergencies throughout the judiciary: "A determined Republican stall campaign in the Senate has sidetracked so many of the men and women nominated by President Barack Obama for judgeships that he has put fewer people on the bench than any president since Richard Nixon at a similar point in his first term 40 years ago."

* On a related note, the judiciary is becoming so politicized that Justice Clarence Thomas will only accept clerks who've worked in the offices of judges appointed by Republican presidents. It's unheard of on the modern court.

* NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is the latest leader to denounce the fringe right-wing church in Florida planning an event this week to burn copies of the Quran. "I strongly condemn that. I think it's a disrespectful action and in general I really urge people to respect other people's faith and behave respectfully. I think such actions are in strong contradiction with all the values we stand for and fight for," Rasmussen said.

* In his first-ever column, former OMB Director Peter Orzag calls for keeping all of the Bush-era tax rates in place for two more years, and then scrapping all of them at the end of 2012. Jon Chait isn't fond of the idea.

* Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) very quietly backed off her ridiculous "beheadings" claim, but she has plenty more to apologize for.

* Marty Peretz's contempt for Muslims isn't new, but it's getting uglier. Now he isn't sure if Muslim Americans are "worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment"? Seriously?

* Are American colleges like American car companies?

* I read and thoroughly enjoyed "Heads in the Sand," and can say with certainty that Jonah Goldberg's criticism of the book makes no sense at all.

* I'll look forward to Hannity, Beck, and other Fox News personalities condemning News Corp's indirect investments in North Korea.

* Tom Toles has a unique talent for capturing an important phenomenon in just one powerful frame. He does this frequently, but some days stand out. Today is one of those days.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

'82 WASN'T A MIDTERM 'TRIUMPH'.... The Third Way's Jim Kessler argued over the weekend that President Obama and congressional Democrats, just eight weeks before the midterms, can salvage the cycle. It'd help, Kessler said, if they followed the "model" of "Ronald Reagan's triumph in 1982."

As Kessler sees it, Reagan offered a forward-looking vision and "rallied Americans behind his optimism.... Things might look bleak today, he told voters, but blue skies lie ahead." Kessler noted that one of Reagan's standard lines at the time was, "Don't let anyone tell you that America's best days are behind her."

This strikes me as odd advice for two reasons. First, Obama is already doing this. Check out the speech the president delivered yesterday, for example, and you'll notice all kinds of optimism and assurances about blue skies ahead. That's the whole point of the Democratic message -- we're turning a corner, so let's not turn back to the policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

Second, Reagan had a midterm "triumph in 1982"? Since when?

Steve Kornacki, as he's done before, offers a helpful walk down memory lane.

The "triumph" that Kessler describes involved a loss of 26 House seats for the GOP. Yes, 26 is probably fewer than Obama's Democrats will lose this year -- but the GOP only had 191 total seats heading into the '82 midterms, 64 fewer than Democrats have today. The GOP also lost seven governorships, giving Democrats control of a total of 34, and nearly a dozen state legislative chambers. And while it's true that they did break even in Senate races, maintaining their majority, this was not the momentous development Kessler describes. Instead, it was a tribute to the GOP's (now pretty much extinct) liberal wing: Without left-of-center Republicans like Lowell Weicker and John Chafee, thorns in Reagan's side both, hanging on in their liberal states, the Senate would have been lost for the GOP. [...]

I've written before about the harsh political realities Reagan faced after his '82 triumph: an approval rating that declined even further, well below 40 percent; open exhortations from conservatives (many of whom accused him of betraying their cause) not to run for reelection in '84; open calls from some on the right for a primary challenge if Reagan refused to stand down (Jack Kemp, Jesse Helms and William Armstrong were all mentioned); and even primary flirtations from Bob Packwood, a leader of the GOP 's dying left-wing. Polls consistently showed Reagan trailing the 1984 Democratic pack.

I don't think there's ever been a presidential p.r. operation as impressive as the conservative campaign to manufacture Reagan greatness. It really is a sight to behold. Nevertheless, to suggest that the '82 midterms offer a template for Dems to follow seems pretty silly -- they were a massive setback for the White House at the time.

If the economy improves, Obama's and Dems' fortunes will improve. Though the economic circumstances were different, the same was true of Reagan three decades ago. There's no reason to pretend "optimism," from Reagan or anyone else, offers a magical electoral cure.

PAWLENTY'S TIRESOME HEALTH CARE GAMES.... Last week, Minnesota, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), desperate to pander to the party's base in advance of his presidential campaign, issued an order to state officials this week, demanding that they not seek grants through Affordable Care, even if the funding would help Minnesotans.

Today, however, Pawlenty announced he'll seek Medicaid funding, approved in a recently-passed jobs bill. This isn't exactly a reversal -- though he did condemn the legislation that included the Medicaid funding the governor now wants -- because the governor only said he'd refuse funding from the health care reform law, and this money comes from a different law.

But this, of course, once again raises the question as to why Pawlenty would be so irresponsible in the first place. Indeed, the governor's line -- he'll accept some, but not all, federal health care funding -- is increasingly incoherent. This petty little ideologue is willing to apply for money that will help his state, but only if it comes from laws signed by presidents other than Obama.

Minnesota's largest newspaper slammed the governor's recklessness last week, explaining that his politically-motivated game will deny the state much-needed funds and have a "negative impact on Minnesota lives." Rochester's Post-Bulletin, which is generally very friendly towards Pawlenty, also let him have it over the weekend.

Now, it seems, Pawlenty is much more interested in broadening his national profile and traveling to Republican fundraisers in places like Iowa and New Hampshire than he is in pursuing what's best for Rochester, Mayo Clinic or, for that matter, the entire state of Minnesota.

This political metamorphosis from parochial governor to grandstanding political attention-seeker was evident this week when the governor ordered state agencies to not apply for grants available through the new federal health care law.

The Mayo Clinic, Minnesota's largest private employer, is unhappy with the consequences of Pawlenty's partisan games. The heads of Minnesota's most influential medical associations -- which nearly always keep political matters at arms' length -- also issued a sharp rebuke. "The governor's decision just doesn't make sense for Minnesotans," the Minnesota Council of Health Plans, the Minnesota Hospital Association and the Minnesota Medical Association said in a joint statement late Tuesday.

Even Minnesota's Chamber of Commerce thinks Pawlenty should reconsider at least some of this decision.

I don't doubt the governor will get a nice little talking point out of this, which may even impress GOP activists in Iowa and New Hampshire. But I wonder if Pawlenty knows or cares about the real-world effects of turning down health care funding in his state. As the Post-Bulletin editorial board asked, "[H]ow does diverting millions, and perhaps billions, of federal money away from the state of Minnesota help us out of our state's economic troubles, improve health care accessibility and move the state forward?"

It doesn't, but since Pawlenty will be a former governor in about four months, he apparently doesn't care.

THE GOP HEARTS CHINA.... In Wisconsin, far-right Senate candidate Ron Johnson (R) is perhaps best known for his bizarre ideas about global warming, and the embarrassing instances in which he's sought and received federal aid for his business enterprises, despite basing his campaign on opposition to government intervention in private industry.

But Johnson is also raising eyebrows for suggesting communist China is better for businesses than the United States.

U.S. Senate candidate Ron Johnson was on the Wisconsin Radio Network Monday, chatting about jobs and the economy. But after the host asked him about his free market philosophy, Johnson ended up kind-of praising communist China instead.

Johnson talked about creating an attractive environment for business and job creation. And he talked about how more Wisconsin youths could benefit from getting out there and working on farms.

But then Johnson veered onto the topic of China, and how casino entrepreneur Steve Wynn has already started building businesses in Macau.

"He's also creating resorts in Macau in China, communist China. And his point is, the level of uncertainty, the climate for business investment is far more certain in communist China then it is in the U.S. here," Johnson said.

The "uncertainty" is lazy nonsense, without foundation in reality. Those who repeat the talking point should generally be considered tired hacks.

But putting that aside, it's truly strange to have reached a point at which far-right statewide candidates criticize the United States while praising China. I knew Johnson was out there, but I didn't expect him to argue publicly that a communist country might be better for business than his own country.

Also note, we've been hearing quite a bit of this from the right lately. National Review recently ran an item arguing that China is setting a fine economic model to be emulated. And that came on the heelsof disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich telling the Young Americans for Freedom, "You want to create jobs as rapidly as China? The Chinese pay zero capital-gains tax. If we had zero capital-gains tax in the United States ... we'd be dramatically better off."

As Jon Stewart recently explained, "So that's the Republican plan -- to fight socialism, we must become communists."

I shudder to think what would happen in the political discourse if prominent Democrats ran around urging Republicans to adopt policies more in line with China's.

ONE OF THE MOST ANNOYING WORDS IN POLITICS.... This Washington Post headline features one of the most annoying words in politics: "Early on, Obama was more polarizing than we knew."

Would it be too much to propose an indefinite moratorium on the "p" word? When everything and everyone in politics is "polarizing," the word has lost its value and relevance.

Consider the pitch of the piece:

One of the puzzling questions about Barack Obama's presidency is how the post-partisan candidate of 2008 became the polarizing chief executive of 2010. The answer may be surprising. He was far more polarizing from the start than many recognized. His choices in office and his opponents' responses have only hardened that divide.

During the campaign, Candidate Obama talked about the need to put the partisan divisions of the past behind. His victory fostered discussion about whether the country had turned a corner after years of bitter partisanship. In the glow of his inauguration, some people heralded a new era in American politics.

Such notions appear badly off the mark at this point in his presidency.

With due respect to Dan Balz, this line of analysis seems badly off the mark.

Apparently, President Obama is "polarizing" because he has a significant number of critics who disapprove of him, often vehemently, if not hysterically. But that's a poor standard for polarization -- all modern presidents would necessarily get the same label, as would most of Congress and nearly every issue of debate.

I suppose the point is that Obama wasn't supposed to be polarizing, and Balz's piece seems to suggest that it's the president's fault he ended up this way. That strikes me as deeply misguided -- Obama took office in a time of unprecedented challenges, and was forced to make some difficult choices. With each decision, there were opponents who disapproved, but that's why they're called "difficult choices."

The article suggests Obama, before getting elected, was more committed to putting partisan divisions behind us. As far as I can tell, though, Obama was equally committed to this after getting elected, but ran into a Republican Party more intent on destroying Obama than working with him. Balz blames, at least in part, the president's "choices in office." But haven't those choices been both moderate and consistent with the platform he ran on in 2008? The result was a president willing to compromise on just about every possible issue, and a GOP that refused to even consider a constructive role in policymaking.

We could have "put the partisan divisions of the past behind," and could have "turned a corner after years of bitter partisanship," but by any reasonable measure, Republicans slapped away the president's outstretched hand, preferring a scorched-earth campaign.

Indeed, the GOP began 2009 with a spirited debate about rooting for the president to fail. It's gone downhill since, and as the public's economic anxieties have intensified, more Americans are susceptible to right-wing appeals to fear, cynicism, and hatred.

By this measure, Obama deserves to be criticized as "polarizing" if Republicans can convince a significant number of people not to like him. And if that's the case, it's time to retire the "p" word.

WHEN REPUBLICANS DISCOVER A REASON TO CARE ABOUT THE HOMELESS.... As a rule, when Americans slip between the cracks and end up homeless, conservative Republicans aren't especially troubled. If a problem can't be fixed with a tax cut, they figure, then it's probably not worth worrying about.

But in Arizona, conservative Republicans have suddenly taken a great interest in a few people who live on the streets -- who can be exploited in a partisan campaign scheme.

[D]rifters and homeless people were recruited onto the Green Party ballot by a Republican political operative who freely admits that their candidacies may siphon some support from the Democrats. Arizona's Democratic Party has filed a formal complaint with local, state and federal prosecutors in an effort to have the candidates removed from the ballot, and the Green Party has urged its supporters to steer clear of the rogue candidates.

"These are people who are not serious and who were recruited as part of a cynical manipulation of the process," said Paul Eckstein, a lawyer representing the Democrats. "They don't know Green from red."

In one example, Republican operative Steve May recruited Benjamin Pearcy to run for a seat on the Arizona Corporation Commission, which oversees public utilities, railroad safety and securities regulation. Pearcy strums a guitar on the street in the hopes passersby might chip in.

In another, May recruited Thomas Meadows to run for state treasurer. Meadows has less than a dollar to his name, spends his days reading tarot cards.

The NYT noted, "Complaints about spurious candidates have cropped up often before, though never involving an entire roster of candidates drawn from a group of street people."

Bob Cesca raises a very good point about all of this: "My question is: Why? If the climate is so batshit crazy that Jan Brewer will likely be re-elected, why in the world would they need to engage in this sort of thing?"

Quite right. Arizona is a "red" state where Republicans are supposed to do awfully well this year. If some GOP scam artist is having to recruit drifters and the homeless to run for key offices, are Republicans in Arizona feeling less confident about November than they're letting on?

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* In case Alaska's U.S. Senate race couldn't get weirder, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, after narrowly losing in a GOP primary, may try to get on the ballot through the Alaska Libertarian Party. A decision would have to come fairly quickly -- the deadline is a week from tomorrow.

* In Colorado, far-right Senate candidate Ken Buck (R) has announced that he cannot support far-right gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes (R). It appears to be part of a larger Republican effort to get Maes to quit the race.

* For his part, Maes, who won the Republican gubernatorial primary just last month, announced late Friday that he is staying in the race, whether his party likes it or not.

* In the Senate race in the state of Washington, GOP Senate nominee Dino Rossi still hasn't received an endorsement from Clint Didier, his former primary foe.

* In apparent attempt to make Republicans look completely classless, John Raese's (R) Senate campaign in West Virginia has a new television ad that's generating some attention. Raese, desperate to attach Gov. Joe Manchin (D) to President Obama, shows a photo of the two together. The photo, however, was taken at the late Sen. Robert Byrd's (D) funeral, and the Byrd family isn't happy about it.

* In Ohio, the latest poll from the Columbus Dispatch shows former Bush budget director Rob Portman (R) and former Rep. John Kasich (R) with double-digit leads in this year's Senate and gubernatorial races, respectively.

* In New Hampshire's Republican Senate primary, former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte leads the field, but not by the margins she'd like. A Magellan Strategies poll shows Ayotte with 34% support, followed by former state Board of Education chairman Ovide Lamontagne at 21%. Businessman Bill Binnie is a close third with 17%, followed by businessman Jim Bender with 13%.

* And looking ahead, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R), both of Utah, are having an interesting spat. Hatch claims that Chaffetz pledged not to take on the incumbent senator in 2012, while Chaffetz denies anything of the sort. "I have no idea what he's thinking about," Chaffetz said of Hatch.

ONLY IF 'MAINSTREAM' HAS NO MEANING.... The comparisons can be tricky, but for my money, Nevada's Sharron Angle remains the nuttiest of nutty for 2010. There's some tough competition, but from top to bottom, no one can match this Senate candidate's record of abject madness.

Of course, Angle doesn't quite see it this way.

Nevada Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle just might be the Tea Party's biggest gamble yet. A staunch conservative with a history of making bold and sometimes controversial comments, Angle insists she's been taken out of context in her campaign to oust Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and told CNN in a rare interview, "I'll be a mainstream Senator."

Look, I realize that labels like "mainstream" can be subjective, and very few candidates for statewide office are inclined to run around asking for votes while characterizing themselves as extremists.

But there's just nothing even remotely "mainstream" about Sharron Angle. Her policy positions -- eliminate Social Security and Medicare, eliminate cabinet agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency -- are bizarre. Her ideology -- talk of an armed insurrection against the U.S. government, condemning the unemployed for being lazy, considering those who disagree her as enemies of the country -- is twisted. Her theocratic tendencies -- condemning a safety net as being inconsistent with the Ten Commandments -- are kind of frightening.

All told, Angle remains the most radical major party nominee to seek statewide office since Louisiana Republicans nominated David Duke in 1991.

She'll be "a mainstream senator"? Angle wasn't even a mainstream state senator. Her colleagues considered her a loon; votes of "44 to Angle" were routine since she was even further to the right than literally everyone else in the legislative body; and Las Vegas' conservative newspaper labeled Angle the worst lawmaker in Nevada -- twice.

If she's "mainstream" in 21st-century America, the word has lost all meaning.

MAYBE HE HAS A PROBLEM WITH THE PROSTITUTES.... Sen. David Vitter (R) is seeking re-election in Louisiana, despite his numerous scandals and humiliating questions about his character, and appears likely to win another term. Not surprisingly, the GOP establishment has rallied behind him -- Vitter remains a Republican in good standing no matter how many prostitutes he's hired, or how many violent criminals are on his staff.

But there's one GOP leader in particular who has held back and kept Vitter at arm's length: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Vitter faced a couple of primary challengers, who were dispatched easily, but Jindal declined to endorse the incumbent.

And now that the race has turned to the general election, Jindal has an opportunity to side with his far-right ally in the Republican Party -- but he hasn't.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has finally answered a questioned asked of him for months: Will he endorse embattled Republican Sen. David Vitter's reelection bid?

The answer is no.

"Voters can make up their own minds," the Louisiana governor and fellow Republican told local television station WDSU.

Jindal added he doesn't like to get involved in federal races, though the station reports he has backed federal-office seekers in the past.

What's especially interesting about this is that Jindal's support for Vitter was assumed. Had the governor not said a word, the default position was a Jindal endorsement. But eight weeks before the election, the governor apparently isn't quite ready to be associated with his scandal-plagued ally, who'll face Rep. Charlie Melancon (D) in November.

Speaking of Vitter, Louisiana Democrats released a fairly devastating "Forgotten Crimes" video late last week, telling the story of the senator's multiple sex scandals in the form of a documentary-style video. It not only features quotes from a variety of locals, but it even includes a reenactment of Vitter's misconduct, including quotes from one of his prostitutes.

It's too long for television -- it runs over five minutes -- but the state party hopes to raise funds to get the video on the air, perhaps in a truncated form.

There's no doubt that Louisiana Dems consider this Vitter's Achilles' Heel -- when a right-wing senator runs on a family-values platform and gets caught with hookers, that's not surprising -- and perhaps Jindal's reluctance to endorse Vitter may renew questions about whether conservatives can tolerate questions about the senator's character.

AMERICAN EXTREMISM DOESN'T HAPPEN IN A VACUUM.... Chances are, you've heard about the radical Florida church that plans to "celebrate" the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by organizing a Quran-burning ceremony in Gainesville.

The problem is, you're not the only one who's caught wind of the story. International news outlets have reported on the Dove World Outreach Center's plans, fueling anti-American outrage, especially in the Middle East.

It prompted Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, to suggest that the radical Christian church is directly undermining American national security interests and putting U.S. troops' lives in even greater danger.

"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort," Gen. Petraeus said in an interview. "It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community." [...]

Other senior military leaders echoed Gen. Petraeus comments Monday. Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, who oversees the effort to train Afghan security forces said he was informed of the planned Florida protests several days ago by a senior minister in the Afghan government.

Gen. Caldwell said many Afghans do not understand either the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment or the fact that President Barack Obama can't simply issue a decree to stop Mr. Jones from his demonstration. Military officials said they were not trying to deny Mr. Jones his right to free speech, but feared he was not thinking about the consequences of his actions.

"There is no question about First Amendment rights; that is not the issue," Gen. Caldwell said. "The question is: What is the implication over here? It is going to jeopardize the men and women serving in Afghanistan."

Just yesterday, hundreds of Afghans rallied in Kabul to protest the Florida church's scheduled event, and military leads fear protests will spread as news of the book-burning spreads. There were also reports that thousands of Muslims protested in Jakarta, Indonesia, after learning of the plan.

As a matter of principle, I feel a twinge of discomfort about military leaders criticizing a protest held by a U.S. church, even if that church is hopelessly insane and run by crazed bigots. That said, military leaders have troops to look out for, and this disgusting church is making that job far more difficult. I don't love the criticism, but I can appreciate why Petraeus and others feel compelled to speak out.

What I find especially interesting, though, is to see the rhetorical shift. Throughout much of the Bush/Cheney era, the right would incessantly accuse the left of undermining American national security by criticizing the administration. Terrorists have access to modern media, conservatives would remind us, and every time the left questioned the administration, it signaled weakness and American division to the world, necessarily undermining the war effort.

A few years later, it seems a crazed right-wing preacher is doing exactly what conservatives accused liberals of doing.

QUANTIFYING THE ENTHUSIASM GAP, CONT'D.... Reader J.B. reminded me last night of an item from July about the "enthusiasm gap" that remains relevant. As is obvious by now, Republican voters are chomping at the bit, counting the days until the midterms, while Democratic voters are feeling listless and uninspired.

But two months ago, the Pew Research Center found that part of the problem was that rank-and-file Dems just weren't aware of the impending threat. Less than a fifth of self-identified Democratic voters (18%) expected 2010 to be a worse-than-usual year for their party's candidates. About half (48%) thought this year would be about the same, while 29% of Dems, apparently living in some kind of fantasy world, actually thought the Democratic majorities are likely to get bigger this year.

So, in case there are still some doubts among grassroots Dems, let's make this really clear.

Among all registered voters ... both parties are tied on the generic ballot, 43 percent to 43 percent, suggesting that Democrats could potentially blunt GOP gains in November with high turnout at the polls.

But right now, according to the poll, the interest level in the midterms is down among Democrats, African-Americans and younger Americans compared to 2006, when the Democratic Party won control of both the House and Senate.

If Democrats lose control of Congress, Hart argues, it's "because they didn't vote."

The CNN poll shows Republicans with a narrow lead among registered voters, but a big lead among likely voters. The ABC poll shows the same thing -- a 2-point GOP lead among registered voters becomes a 13-point lead among likely voters. The NBC poll shows the parties tied among all voters, but Dems trailing by nine among likely voters.

The enthusiasm gap, then, is likely the difference between a majority and a minority. I can only wonder how many Democrats will wake the day after Election Day with a feeling of deep regret.

OBAMA FIRES UP LABORFEST CROWD.... Reading Bob Herbert's columns lately, it's been hard not to notice that he wants to see more fire in the belly from President Obama. It was a good sign, then, that the New York Times columnist watched the president's remarks at Milwaukee's Laborfest yesterday, and came away impressed.

Calling the speech "rousing, inspirational and, at times, quite funny," Herbert explained that Obama "linked the nation's desperate need for jobs to the sorry state of the national infrastructure in a tone that conveyed both passion and empathy, and left me wondering, 'Where has this guy been for the past year and a half?'"

In fairness to the president, we do see flashes of this kind of passion from time to time, but I'd agree that yesterday offered the most fired-up-ready-to-go Obama I've seen in a while.

Most of the speech had to do with the economy, the middle class, and the road ahead. He also offered a spirited defense of the historic accomplishments of the last 20 months.

But then the president turned his attention to the opposition, and straying at times from his prepared remarks, Obama actually seemed to enjoy going on the offensive against those "folks in Washington who see things differently."

"These guys, they just don't want to give up on that economic philosophy that they have been peddling for most of the last decade. You know that philosophy -- you cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires; you cut all the rules and regulations for special interests; and then you just cut working folks loose -- you cut them loose to fend for themselves.

"You remember they called it the ownership society, but what it really boiled down to was, if you couldn't find a job, you couldn't afford college, you were born poor, your insurance company dropped you even though your kid was sick, that you were on your own.

"Well, you know what, that philosophy didn't work out so well for middle-class families all across America. It didn't work out so well for our country. All it did was rack up record deficits and result in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. I mean, think about it, we have tried what they're peddling. We did it for 10 years. We ended up with the worst economy since the 1930s and record deficits to boot. It's not like we haven't tried what they're trying to sell us.

"Now, I'm bringing this up not because I'm trying to re-litigate the past; I'm bringing it up because I don't want to re-live the past.

"It'd be one thing, Milwaukee, if Republicans in Washington had some new ideas, if they had said, 'You know what, we really screwed up, and we've learned from our mistakes; we're going to do things differently this time.' That's not what they're doing.

When the leader of their campaign committee was asked on national television what Republicans would do if they took over Congress, you know what he said? He said, 'We'll do exactly the same thing we did the last time.' That's what he said. It's on tape.

So basically, here's what this election comes down to. They're betting that between now and November, you're going to come down with amnesia. They figure you're going to forget what their agenda did to this country."

By most measures, that amnesia not only exists, it's actually spreading. But if Democrats are going to salvage the cycle, they could do a whole lot worse than the president's message yesterday.

It's hard to say whether voters are even willing to listen anymore, but the more Obama reaches the public with speeches like this one, the better the Dems' odds in November.

ENTERING THE FINAL STRETCH, AN UGLY FINISH LINE AWAITS.... Traditionally, Labor Day marks the unofficial kickoff the election season. Summer vacations end, kids head back to school, and candidates focus their efforts on connecting with voters, buckling down for the two-month stretch that leads to Election Day.

And with this calendar in mind, three national polls have been released over the last 24 hours. To say that they all offer bleak news for Democrats would be a dramatic understatement.

Last week, I was dismissive of Gallup's erratic generic-ballot poll showing the GOP with a 10-point edge. It's impossible, however, to dismiss the obvious trend evident in the latest data.

CNN/Opinion Research

It's the kind of data that has to drive Democrats batty -- the CNN poll shows an unpopular Republican Party, which voters blame for the nation's economic problems. The same poll shows Republicans leading on the generic ballot by seven, 52% to 45%, up from a three-point edge a month ago.

Washington Post/ABC News

Respondents in this poll prefer Democrats to Republicans to handle the nation's problems, believe Democrats are more in line with their personal values, and consider Democrats more interested in the concerns of people like them. Like the CNN poll, this survey also shows the public blaming Republicans more than Democrats for the state of the economy.

And yet, on the generic ballot, among likely voters, Republicans have an enormous 53% to 40% lead.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal

As with the other results, this poll shows an unpopular Republican Party pushing unpopular ideas. And yet, on the generic ballot, among likely voters, the GOP edge is now up to nine points, 49% to 40%.

I realize that results like these don't make a lot of sense. Given a choice between the party that created the mess and the party cleaning it up, voters are prepared to side with the former in large numbers. It's irrational and counter-productive, but it's happening anyway -- voters are angry and frustrated, so they intend to punish the majority, even if it works against their interests; even though it's not the majority's fault; even if makes things worse.

Democrats have eight weeks to make a strong closing argument, and figure out a way to get Democratic voters to show up and prevent a disaster.

MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Iran: "Three months after the United Nations Security Council enacted its harshest sanctions yet against Iran, global nuclear inspectors reported Monday that the country has dug in its heels, refusing to provide inspectors with information and access they need to determine whether the real purpose of Tehran's program is to produce weapons."

* Tolerating corruption in Afghanistan: "U.S. commanders in southern Afghanistan are adopting a strategy that increasingly places the priority on fighting the Taliban even if that means tolerating some corruption."

* On a related note, this is an important setback: "A quarter-billion dollar program to lure low-level Taliban fighters away from the insurgency has foundered, with Afghans bickering over who should run it, and international donors slow to put up the money they had promised."

* A revised price-tag for the war in Iraq: $3 trillion.

* I don't know what kind of changes to Social Security his deficit commission might propose, but President Obama isn't about to let privatization move forward.

* In one of the dumber media exchanges in a long while, Fox News' Chris Wallace noted that President Obama recently characterized his "central mission" as "restoring the economy." Wallace said, "[I]s it unfair to say that this a president whose heart doesn't seem to be into winning the war on terror, no matter what it costs?" The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes replied, "No, I don't think that's at all unfair." No wonder the network's poor viewers are so darned confused.

* And in honor of Labor Day, be sure to check out E.J. Dionne's column today: "When unions mattered, prosperity was shared."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

GOP ATTACKS ON INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT ALREADY UNDERWAY.... I really wish I could understand the way John Boehner's mind works.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio Monday criticized President Barack Obama's proposal to boost infrastructure investment as more stimulus spending doomed to fail. "As the American people, facing near double-digit unemployment, mark Labor Day by asking, where are the jobs, the White House has chosen to double-down on more of the same failed 'stimulus' spending," Boehner said in a prepared statement.

Republicans have targeted an unemployment rate that continues to hover above 9 percent despite last year's economic stimulus plan. "If we've learned anything from the past 18 months, it's that we can't spend our way to prosperity," Boehner said.

Now, I realize that Boehner's depth of policy knowledge is frighteningly limited, and that the poll-tested buzz words of his press releases might resonate, even if the conservative Ohioan doesn't understand what he's saying.

But it'd be fascinating to see Boehner think this through. Indeed, he's already shown some inkling of thought on the subject -- a year ago, when the stimulus boosted construction projects in Ohio, Boehner said the money was responsible for creating "much-needed jobs."

Is it really so hard for him to comprehend the notion of creating a lot more "much-needed jobs"?

Even GOP leaders should be able to get this. By investing in infrastructure -- roads, rail, airports -- it pumps money into the economy, spurs a variety of industries, and does work Americans need to have done anyway. Infrastructure spending not only hires people to do the work, it helps with manufacturing, materials, and transport, and once the projects are done, the rebuilt and improved transportation networks help improve commerce.

The problem with Boehner's response isn't just that it's dumb -- though it is -- the problem is its transparent superficiality. Spending is bad ... because it's spending ... which is bad.

There's just no thought here. It's knee-jerk conservatism, opposing effective ideas because the guy recommending them has a "D" after his name.

I'm well aware of the fact that Boehner is likely to be the House Speaker next year, but the last time I saw an adult this incapable of a leadership role was Jan. 21, 2001.