HAPPY 4TH OF JULY.... The president's weekly multimedia addresses aren't usually worth noting, but in light of the holiday, I kind of like today's edition.

After addressing education, health care, and energy policy, the Obama said, "These are some of the challenges that our generation has been called to meet. And yet, there are those who would have us try what has already failed; who would defend the status quo. They argue that our health care system is fine the way it is and that a clean energy economy can wait. They say we are trying to do too much, that we are moving too quickly, and that we all ought to just take a deep breath and scale back our goals.

"These naysayers have short memories. They forget that we, as a people, did not get here by standing pat in a time of change. We did not get here by doing what was easy. That is not how a cluster of 13 colonies became the United States of America.

"We are not a people who fear the future. We are a people who make it. And on this July 4th, we need to summon that spirit once more. We need to summon the same spirit that inhabited Independence Hall two hundred and thirty-three years ago today.

"That is how this generation of Americans will make its mark on history. That is how we will make the most of this extraordinary moment. And that is how we will write the next chapter in the great American story."

I hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable holiday. Happy Birthday, America.

THE SEQUELS ARE RARELY AS GOOD AS THE ORIGINAL.... The lasting impact of the "Tea Parties" in April has been minimal. A few months later, it's still not clear what the point was, or what organizers hoped to accomplish. In mid-May, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and the Republican Governors Association organized something organizers called "Tea Party 2.0," but it was a flop.

Apparently, today is supposed to be the third round of Tea Parties. We know this, of course, because Fox News told us so. Steve Doocy, always a font of useful information, told viewers on Tuesday, "This weekend, of course the 4th of July, Americans are gearing up for a second round of tea parties to protest massive government spending." Some of the same lobbyist-run groups that helped push April's far-right gatherings are apparently at it again.

David Weigel reports that there are nationwide events scheduled for today, but the excitement, publicity, and notoriety are all but gone.

[T]he collaboration between the official Republican establishment and the Tea Parties has not lasted into June. The RNC has no plans to get involved with any Tea Parties. A spokesman for Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), who jaunted around northern California to attend several Tea Parties, said that his holiday plans were private but would probably not include Tea Parties. Gingrich will not attend any of the Tea Parties, although he recorded video messages for events in Birmingham and Nashville "at the request of the respective organizers," according to spokesman Dan Kotman.

Media coverage has also gotten a little bit more scarce. Coverage on Fox News has largely been limited to interviews with Tea Party organizers on the network's morning shows. While sources at Fox would not discuss their plans for covering the weekend events, they confirmed that no anchors would be attending and that the attendance and news value of the events looked to be lower than that of the April rallies. Tea Party organizers are counting, instead, on local news coverage and on distributed reporting such as the conservative news site PajamasTV, which hosts an "American Tea Party" show and has asked readers to submit their own videos from their rallies.

"There are legitimate journalistic reasons for why there's less coverage this time around," said Seton Motley, a spokesman for the conservative Media Research Center -- a group that blasted CNN and MSNBC personalities for joking about the April 15 Tea Parties. "There aren't as many rallies this time, and there was a novelty last time that isn't there now. Also, if you're talking about the networks that made light of the Tea Parties back in April, they might have realized that opposite of love isn't hate. It's indifference."

In other words, expect lower attendance today than in April.

Of course, I'm guessing some Tea Baggers will try to attach their rallies to the usual, non-political July 4th gatherings, made up of families who just want to enjoy a picnic and some fireworks.

Note to conservatives: when counting heads for today's Tea Parties, those folks shouldn't be included.

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is an angle to the debate over health care reform that shouldn't go overlooked: some religiously-motivated activists are weighing in heavily on the side of reform.

Liberal-leaning religious groups are launching radio ads in five states this week in which local pastors urge senators to back efforts to overhaul the nation's health care system.

In the ads, the religious leaders discuss the moral reasons for making health care more affordable. They are being sponsored by national and local groups including Faith in Public Life, Faithful America, the PICO National Network and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

While participants said they are not focusing on specific policies, they said they wanted legislation that would provide federal subsidies for people who cannot afford adequate care. The Senate Finance Committee, working behind closed doors on a bill it hopes to unveil after this week's congressional recess, has been reducing those subsidies to make its package less expensive.

"It's morally unacceptable in this country," the Rev. Cory Sparks of Lafayette, La., said of the current health system's problems in a conference call held by leaders of the effort Tuesday with reporters.

The ads are geared specifically for Christian audiences and are intended to coincide with lawmakers' trips home during the July 4 recess. What's more, conservatives are starting to feel anxious about the burgeoning "religious left" getting more involved.

Randy Brinson, a conservative political consultant in Alabama, has been fielding anxious calls for weeks from business interests across the South.

Their concern is massive ad blitz on Christian and country-music stations across 10 states. The ads, funded by a left-leaning coalition, urge support for congressional legislation to curb greenhouse-gas emissions -- by framing the issue as an urgent matter of Biblical morality.

"As our seas rise, crops wither and rivers run dry, God's creation cries out for relief," begins one ad, narrated by an evangelical megachurch pastor. Another opens with a reference to the Gospel of John, slams energy interests for fighting the bill, and concludes: "Please join the faithful in speaking out against the powerful."

Dr. Brinson tells his clients they are right to be worried. Such an aggressive political campaign by the religious left is unexpected, he says, and could prove powerful. "This is the first time I've seen a moderate group of evangelicals come together and do a coordinated campaign," said Dr. Brinson. He is warning clients: "You're going to hear a lot more of this."

For the last few decades, religio-political activism has been the hallmark of the right. That's changing quickly.

Also from the God Machine:

* Time magazine's Amy Sullivan reports that the Obama family has chosen Evergreen Chapel, the nondenominational church at Camp David, as their primary place of worship. White House officials insist this is not the case, and that the First Family "continues to look for a church home."

* Last week's bring-your-gun-to-church day at the New Bethel Church in Louisville was well received by congregants -- 200 people showed up with firearms for worship services.

* And the Vatican has raised a few eyebrows by launching "two sweeping investigations of American nuns, a development that has startled and dismayed nuns who fear they are the targets of a doctrinal inquisition." The "inquisition" may be the result of more and more nuns changing to reflect contemporary cultural norms: "[M]any American nuns stopped wearing religious habits, left convents to live independently and went into new lines of work: academia and other professions, social and political advocacy and grass-roots organizations that serve the poor or promote spirituality. A few nuns have also been active in organizations that advocate changes in the church like ordaining women and married men as priests."

YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE.... Towards the end of her strange speech yesterday, Sarah Palin said, "[I]t hurts to make this choice but I'm doing what's best for Alaska, and I have explained why..... I've given my reasons."

Apparently, she didn't explain it very well, because no one -- friend or foe, Dem or Republican, media or officeholder, in Alaska or in the lower 48 -- seems to have the foggiest idea what she's thinking right now.

There are plenty of possibilities, but very few answers.

1. She wants to run for president.

Being stuck running the executive branch in Alaska wasn't helping her national ambitions, so she's walking away from her duties. Her first trip to Iowa will be announced in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...

2. She's sick of politics.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported yesterday, citing "people very close to Sarah Palin," that outgoing governor has "told her supporters that she is out of politics, period. She is fed up with politics. She doesn't like her life. She feels that she needs to raise her family. She's sick of the commute from Wasilla to the capital. And she really does not want to run for higher office, that this is not a case where she is stepping down in order to clear the way for a presidential run. In fact, she has told some of her biggest backers in the national Republican Party that they are free to choose other candidates for 2012."

3. She's getting out now in advance of a major political scandal.

Palin has only held statewide office for 30 months, but she's already been caught playing fast and loose with state ethics laws. AKMuckraker reports on other Palin-related scandals that may be poised to break.

4. She's running for the Senate.

Notice, one of the harsher Republican criticisms of Palin yesterday came from Alaska's Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who said, "I am deeply disappointed that the Governor has decided to abandon the State and her constituents before her term has concluded." Maybe she sees Palin in her rearview mirror? (Murkowski is seeking re-election next year.)

5. She wants to spend more time with her family.

It's the ultimate in political cliches, but Palin is a mother of five, including a baby with special needs.

6. She has a secret.

A serious medical condition she doesn't want to talk about? A problem on "the Appalachian trail" (if you know what I mean)?

7. She's gone mad.

Josh Marshall speculated, "Either Palin is resigning ahead of some titanic scandal (which should emerge in short order if it exists) or her resignation was triggered by an even more extreme mental instability than we'd previously suspected."

I'm open to suggestion, but for now, I tend to think it's #1. Palin has, I suspect, been given some very bad advice, and has come to believe that she can launch a credible national campaign. Sensible, reasonable people realize how extraordinarily ridiculous this is, but Palin, I'm guessing, has been blinded by a combination of ambition, arrogance, and conspicuous unintelligence.

RUNNING WITHOUT A DAY JOB.... Since Carter and Reagan were able to mount successful presidential campaigns after leaving their governorships behind, many have come to believe the best way to launch a national campaign is to run without a day job.

The argument, at first blush, seems to make some sense. If a candidate has no professional or official responsibilities, he or she can be a full-time candidate without distractions or potentially controversial governing decisions. And if rival candidates do have day jobs, he or she would conceivably have an edge.

In light of Sarah Palin's unexpected resignation, the argument is up front and center. Romney is already a full-time candidate, and if Palin wants to keep up, the thinking goes, she can't spend her time running the executive branch of a state. Logically, then, the sooner she can hit the trail, the better her chances -- even if that means quitting 18 months early, in anticipation of a presidential contest that's 30 months away.

The problem, though, is that the argument doesn't stand up well to real-world scrutiny. Bruce Reed had a good piece on this:

In the last 20 years, perseverers have prospered while quitters withered. Bill Clinton won a fifth term as governor of Arkansas before launching his 1992 campaign. George W. Bush won a second term in Texas two years before running for president in 2000.

Compare that with the dismal track record of strategic quitters. In 1986, Gary Hart chose not to run for a third Senate term and went on to meet Donna Rice. In 2004, John Edwards passed up a second Senate term and went on to meet Rielle Hunter.

Bill Bradley's decision not to seek a fourth term in 1996 helped cost him the Democratic nomination in 2000 to Al Gore, whose slogan was "stand and fight." Bob Dole's spectacular resignation from the Senate after he clinched the Republican nomination in June 1996 earned his campaign a few days of good press. But when his White House bid was over, Dole no longer had the Senate job he had loved.

Time after time, quitting has turned out to be the "worthless, easy path" that Sarah Palin insists it isn't. What makes her sudden resignation especially troubling, though, is not the flawed strategy so much as her jubilation and relief in putting the statehouse in her rear mirror. Palin's resignation is a symptom of what's crippling the Republican Party of late: Governing has become an unwelcome distraction.

In 2008, McCain was a sitting senator while running against a team of unemployed rivals (Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani), and McCain won easily. In 2004, John Kerry faced off against Howard Dean, when Dean didn't have a day job. It didn't help.

The counter-argument is that voters might resent a sitting officeholder who shirks his or her duties to run for president. But when was the last time this actually happened?

THE WRONG METAPHOR FOR THE OCCASION.... One of the more memorable moments in Sarah Palin's ridiculous announcement yesterday came when she compared herself to a point guard.

"Let me go back quickly to a comfortable analogy for me -- sports, basketball. And I use it because you are naive if you don't see a full-court press from the national level picking away right now. A good point guard, here's what she does. She drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her head up because she needs to keep her eye on the basket. And she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can win.

"And that is what I'm doing -- keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities -- you remember they include energy independence and smaller government and national security and freedom! And I know when it's time to pass the ball for victory."

Putting aside the fact that this is pretty awful writing, the comparison comes up short in a couple of important ways. First, as John Weaver, a former senior strategist for John McCain, noted, "Good point guards don't quit and walk off the floor if the going gets tough. Today's move falls further into the weirdness category; people don't like a quitter."

And second, if Palin still has national ambitions, and I think she does, what kind of message is this for a would-be president? The president, facing "a full-court press from the national level," will just "pass the ball" when the heat is on?

For months, I've heard complaints from political professionals that Palin and her team aren't just amateurs, they're too green to even realize they're amateurs. But in this case, the outgoing governor would have been wise to ask a professional to maybe give her speech a once-over.

'ACCOMPLISHMENTS'.... Bill Kristol thinks Sarah Palin's bizarre resignation may be "shrewd," in part because she's "probably accomplished most of what she was going to get done as governor."

Now, perhaps it's unfair to expect Palin to have "accomplished" much. She's only going to serve 30 of her 48 months in her one term, and a few of those 30 were spent traveling the country as a national candidate. Presumably, Palin could spend the next 18 pursuing more of her policy agenda, but by all appearances, she hasn't actually thought of one.

But Kristol's argument -- Palin has already built a record of accomplishments that she "probably" couldn't build on -- leads one to wonder what, exactly, she's done.

The outgoing governor's press office put together a list of Palin "accomplishments," which is quite thin.

Indeed, some of the points aren't really "accomplishments" at all. "Maintained biologically-sound wildlife management" is not an accomplishment. Turning down a pay raise is not an accomplishment. The list boasts that Palin filled vacancies to state positions, but if that's an accomplishment, her administration has lowered the bar pretty low, since that's one of those basic duties for all governors.

My personal favorite was the list's reference to recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings regarding Alaska -- as if the justices' work counts as one of her own personal "accomplishments."

In the non-political world, I think this is known as "shamelessly padding one's resume." I wonder why Kristol would find this impressive?

MAKING SANFORD LOOK SOUND AND REASONABLE BY COMPARISON.... Sarah Palin's decision to resign is difficult to understand, but nearly as interesting as the announcement was the way in which it was made. Or, put another way, have you seen the speech?

Everything about this was hopelessly bizarre. The speech was written by an amateur and delivered by an amateur. It was rambling, petty, and defensive -- for no apparent reason. Palin didn't deliver an announcement so much as she rambled on for about 20 minutes.

And if you watch all the way to the very end of Part II, you'll notice that Palin wasn't actually speaking to the press or a large audience, but rather, about 10 supporters.

The transcript doesn't do it justice, but it makes it easier to notice the near-constant contradictions. She says she's "given my reasons" for quitting, in the same breath as she says she doesn't feel the need to "explain" her decision. She blasts those who take the "quitter's way out," and then quits.

I've never seen anything like it.

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

* Yesterday, U.S. troops faced minimal resistance in Afghanistan. Today was far more difficult: "Taliban insurgents stepped up attacks Friday against U.S. Marines in southern Afghanistan's Helmand River valley, forcing troops in some areas to spend the day fighting instead of carrying out plans to meet with residents and local leaders."

* Don't count on fair trials: "A top Iranian cleric said Friday that some of the detained Iranian staffers of the British Embassy in Tehran will be put on trial, and he accused Britain of a role in instigating widespread protests that erupted over the country's disputed presidential election."

* New round of U.S. attacks along the Afghan border: "U.S. missiles struck a training facility allegedly operated by Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud and a militant hide-out Friday, killing 15 people and wounding 27 others, intelligence officials said."

* Russia has approved a plan to allow American troops to fly over Russian territory as part of military operations in Afghanistan. The agreement is scheduled to be formally announced early next week, when President Obama visits Moscow.

* U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is in Burma today, meeting with the ruling generals about the release of political prisoners. No word on whether there is, or will be, progress on this front.

* World Health Organization head Margaret Chan believes the international spread of the H1N1 virus is now unstoppable, but nevertheless mild.

* Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has been released from a Los Angeles hospital.

* Is the Obama administration nearing a deal with the hospital industry? Maybe.

* Dick Cheney had a hand, behind the scenes, in responding to the Plame scandal? You don't say.

* Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) offered some odd advice to a constituent who wants the same kind of health care options he has: "Just go work for the federal government."

* If a credible news network publicizes the results of an incomplete CBO analysis, it should also let the public know about the more reliable and accurate CBO analysis.

* Paul Krugman ponders exactly what's wrong with the Wall Street Journal.

* And just in time for tomorrow, the case against fireworks displays.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

PALIN TO RESIGN.... Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) decided to shake up an otherwise slow news day with an astounding announcement: not only has she decided to skip a re-election campaign next year, she's also resigning from office altogether later this month.

"Gov. Sarah Palin will resign her office in a few weeks, she said during a news conference at her Wasilla home Friday morning.

Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will be inaugurated at the Governor's Picnic at Pioneer Park in Fairbanks on Saturday, July 25, Palin said.

There was no immediate word as to why she will resign, though speculation has been rampant that the former vice presidential candidate is gearing up for a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Palin is making a terrible mistake. The lure of the national spotlight is strong, and the day-to-day challenges associated with running the executive branch of a state are no doubt difficult. There are probably plenty of far-right activists and donors whispering in Palin's ear, telling her to ignore the naysayers and realize she's ready to lead the nation, but she's listening to the wrong people. Walking away from the governor's office after one term is incredibly foolish -- but walking away from the governor's office after two and a half years in office is stupefying.

Just yesterday, Charles Krauthammer, an unquestionably conservative observer, explained on Fox News, "[Palin] is not a serious candidate for the presidency. She had to go home and study and spend a lot of time on issues in which she was not adept last year, and she hasn't."

Indeed, she's done the opposite. Reihan Salam, a prominent conservative blogger and Republican strategist, defended Palin repeatedly over the last several months, making excuses for her shortcomings, and arguing valiantly that Palin is a credible national figure. Then, in April, Salam reluctantly gave up.

Palin's campaign antics can be forgiven. What can't be forgiven is the ham-handed way she's tried to build her national profile since she returned to Alaska. She's abandoned the bold right-left populism that won over Alaska voters -- and me -- in the first place in favor of an increasingly defensive and harsh partisanship.... One can't help but get the impression that Palin is a clownish, vindictive amateur.... What I'm wondering is: Has Sarah Palin undergone some kind of secret lobotomy?

Salam was arguably understating the case. Indeed, since that item was published, Palin's on-the-job performance has become an even bigger train wreck, with a bizarre fight with the state legislature over economic stimulus, a failed effort to appoint a ridiculous state attorney general, a striking number of public and private feuds, and a series of media interviews in which she's humiliated herself over and over and over and over again. And this doesn't even factor in the allegations of ethics violations.

What's especially curious about all of this is that Palin had a more obvious and productive route, which she's inexplicably chosen to ignore. As Chris Orr recently noted, "Perhaps the most mystifying element of Palin's recent forays into nuttery is that, politically speaking, it would be difficult to come up with stupider way to position herself in the wake of her v.p. run. The base already loves her -- the diehard pro-lifers, the hands-off-mine individualists, the anti-elitist brigades, you name 'em. Where she has (deepening) trouble is with everyone else: moderates, socially liberal libertarians, DC-establishment types, and anyone who places a premium on basic competence."

Palin had an opportunity to prove her critics wrong. She could have returned to Alaska after last year's campaign, studied up on public policy, and built up some kind of record in office, preferably with some achievements. Instead, Palin has become an even more rigid ideologue. Given a chance to prove herself as leader, Palin has decided she'd prefer to walk away, blinded by a combination of ambition and misplaced arrogance.

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada.

Reid says he expects the tactic of gentle persuasion to work best, given the size of his Senate Democratic flock and the political divergences within it. "I don't dictate how people vote," he said in an interview this month. "If it's an important vote, I try to tell them how important it is to the Senate, the country, the president ... But I'm not very good at twisting arms. I try to be more verbal and non-threatening. So there are going to be -- I'm sure -- a number of opportunities for people who have different opinions not to vote the way that I think they should. But that's the way it is. I hold no grudges."

I don't doubt Reid is widely liked and admired within the caucus. But "gentle persuasion" is rarely a recipe for party discipline.

There have been plenty of Senate Majority Leaders in history who members feared and wouldn't dare cross. Reid isn't one of them.

PONDERING RATINGS SUCCESS.... Reader D.R. posed a question via email the other day, and I promised him I'd respond online. He asked:

I detest Fox News (except Shepard Smith) but why are their ratings zooming so high? They are on track to have the best year ever in 2009. For the first time Olbermann has even been knocked out of top 10 prime time shows. Hell, O'Reilly's repeat beats Olbermann's 8pm audience by a wide margin. What can explain this?

D.R. is right that the Republican network's ratings have soared, but I don't think there's too big a mystery about what happened.

Let's consider some recent historical context. In the first quarter of 2008, Fox News, after six years of cable-news ratings dominance, saw itself slip into second place behind CNN in the so-called "money demo" -- viewers in their mid-20s through mid-50s, who advertisers care about most. One year ago this week, the New York Times reported, "The most dominant cable news channel for nearly a decade and a political force in its own right, Fox has seen its once formidable advantage over CNN erode in this presidential election year, as both CNN and MSNBC have added viewers at far more dramatic rates."

In March 2008, Time's James Poniewozik argued the GOP network that saw its ratings plateau as Republican officials in D.C. faltered, was in big trouble in the future. At the time, I argued the opposite. Here's a post I wrote 16 months ago, talking about the road to Fox News' recovery:

[W]ho watches Fox News? Angry, conservative partisans who want a nationalistic network that tells them what they want to hear.... Yes, FNC's ratings have slipped, but consider the landscape -- Bush isn't governing (he's a lame-duck with no policy agenda), Congress isn't up to much (thanks to GOP filibusters and White House vetoes), the war in Iraq continues to be a disaster (Republicans haven't yet found a liberal scapegoat to blame this on), and the economy has come to a halt. There's just not much for Fox News to tell Republican activists. Even the GOP nomination fight turned out to be rather dull.

But then imagine how thrilled they'll be if Dems control the House, Senate, and White House. Fox News and its audience are their most content when they have a target for their rage. These guys want someone to be mad at, and come January 2009, they'll have no shortage of options.

Poniewozik added: "News on Fox looks like a video game, full of bluster, blondes and blaring graphics. Ideology aside, Fox makes the news urgent, even when nothing's going on."

True, but an Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate [in 2009] practically guarantees that plenty will be going on, and Fox News and its loyal Republican audience will be pissed about it.

It might be the best thing to ever happen to the network.

I've had plenty of predictions that didn't pan out, but this one stands up pretty well 16 months later.

The presidential election was a boon to CNN and MSNBC, but that's faded. Now, mainstream news consumers are spread out among a variety of cable and broadcast networks, not to mention print and online outlets. Angry and suddenly-motivated Republican partisans, meanwhile, want one easily-accessible network to tell them how awful the governing party is. Sure, enough, they have a reinvigorated propaganda outlet to turn to, and they're tuning in in large numbers.

RELEVANT FACTS AREN'T 'SMEARS'.... The far-right's obsession with Alan Carlin continues. Today, the Wall Street Journal ran this wildly unpersuasive piece from Kimberley Strassel on the subject.

[Carlin is] a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency.... [Earlier this year], Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend.

Now, for the relevant details. When Strassel describes Carlin as a "senior analyst," she neglects to mention that he's an economist, not a scientist. When Strassel describes Carlin's work as "a 98-page analysis," she neglects to mention that Carlin's work was actually a hobbyist memo, which wasn't requested by anyone at the EPA. The "analysis" has accurately been described as "a hodgepodge of widely discredited pseudoscience," and "a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at."

Better yet, Strassel insists that Carlin is now being subjected to a "smear campaign."

Unable to defend the EPA's actions, the climate-change crew -- led by anonymous EPA officials -- is doing what it does best: trashing Mr. Carlin as a "denier." He is, we are told, "only" an economist (he in fact holds a degree in physics from CalTech). It wasn't his "job" to look at this issue (he in fact works in an office tasked with "informing important policy decisions with sound economics and other sciences.") His study was full of sham science. (The majority of it in fact references peer-reviewed studies.)

Strassel doesn't have any evidence to bolster the argument that EPA officials are "smearing" Carlin, but she says it anyway. Given her rejection of scientific evidence on global warming, evidence probably doesn't matter much to her anyway.

More important, though, notice that what Strassel calls "smears" might also be described as "facts." Carlin really is an economist. Carlin's undergraduate degree in physics really doesn't have any relevance to his anti-climate change hobby. Carlin's memo really was looked over by scientists. The EPA's actions really are easy to defend. It really wasn't Carlin's job to attack the available scientific evidence on global warming. Carlin really did put his memo together in his free time. His hobby really is full of discredited pseudoscience.

Strassel seems to believe putting scare quotes around words she doesn't like somehow makes her argument more compelling. It doesn't change the reality that relevant facts aren't smears, and Strassel's argument doesn't make any sense at all.