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

* Not again: "An offshore oil production platform caught fire Thursday in the Gulf of Mexico, forcing 13 workers into the water and triggering an emergency response to rescue them, the U.S. Coast Guard said. Coast Guard officials said one of the 13 was hurt and that the incident left a mile-long oil sheen on the water."

* Later, the Coast Guard revised its original assessment, and said there is no oil sheen.

* Off to a reasonably good start: "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton formally reopened direct peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on Thursday, acknowledging that 'we've been here before, and we know how difficult the road ahead will be,' but expressing confidence that the core disputes separating the two sides can be resolved within a year. In one small but hopeful early sign, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority agreed to meet in the Middle East on Sept. 14-15, and then to hold talks every two weeks thereafter."

* So much for that idea: "President Obama's economic team is looking for ways to accelerate the agonizingly slow economic recovery, but the top White House spokesman on Thursday said a large spending measure is not being considered."

* Beating expectations, first-time filers for unemployment insurance fell for the second week in a row. The totals are still far too high, of course, but I'll take good news where I can get it.

* Hurricane Earl inches closer to the East coast.

* Is this right? "In hindsight, if BP had removed the 5,000-foot-long tangle of riser pipe from its damaged Gulf well in the early days of the spill, a new blowout preventer or cap could have been installed, shutting down the well perhaps within weeks instead of months, according to both the federal incident commander and petroleum engineers."

* Elizabeth Warren was scheduled to teach contract law at Harvard Law School this semester. Now she isn't. Hmm.

* House Dems will not get on board with Social Security cuts.

* Did New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) lie about his administration's massive education-funding screw-up? It sure looks like it.

* Keeping a focus on the economy: "President Obama, seeking to pivot from foreign affairs to the economy, will kick off the campaign season next week with trips to Milwaukee and Cleveland, followed by a White House news conference."

* Should be interesting: "Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been sued by the Department of Justice because he has not given federal investigators documents needed for their probe into allegations the lawman's department discriminates against Hispanics."

* Sounds like a tough guarantee to keep: "A small college in Michigan has taken the remarkable step of guaranteeing that its students will get jobs if they finish school. And not just any jobs, good jobs."

* Reflecting on Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's (R) bizarre debate performance last night, John Cole responds, "It's the Palinization of politics. Sharon Angle, Jan Brewer, just go down the list. Ignorant know-nothings who spew the right-wing talking points, refuse to take questions from the press, and when off-script, are seen for the train-wreck that they are. Yet half the country embraces these clowns. It's terrifying."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

POLITICS, PEOPLE, AND PAWLENTY'S PRIORITIES.... Following up on an item from yesterday, 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.

It's worth emphasizing that the decision isn't exactly going over well in the North Star State. Consider this Star-Tribune editorial, asking exactly how much money Minnesota will lose to other states as a result of Pawlenty's silly, petty game.

The ticker clicked another $1 million on Wednesday, the deadline for Minnesota's application for a grant to help fund the establishment of an exchange at which people can shop for affordable health insurance.

That's chump change compared with the money he has already turned down, to the detriment of sick and needy Minnesotans and the professionals who treat them. The Republican governor has already spurned early enrollment of the state's poorest adults in the state-federal Medicaid program. DFL legislators say it would bring an additional $1.4 billion to the state's health care industry through 2013 and fund an estimated 22,000 private-sector health care jobs.

Also on Pawlenty's rejection list: $68 million to bring a federal high-risk insurance pool to Minnesota (a justifiable choice, since Minnesota's own pool is less expensive for most people than the federal one); $1 million for premium rate reviews, and $850,000 for teen-pregnancy prevention -- though Pawlenty did apply for a $500,000 abstinence-only sex ed grant. The latter program will cost the state an additional $350,000 and offers weaker evidence of effectiveness. Pawlenty must have been persuaded by something other than cost and results.

The lost-opportunity tally is bound to grow -- and with it, the negative impact on Minnesota lives.

Presidential aspirants tend to be pretty popular in their home states when they run -- Obama was popular in Illinois, Bush in Texas, Clinton in Arkansas, etc. It makes sense, of course, since candidates seeking national office can't expect to do well everywhere if their own constituents disapprove of their performance.

Pawlenty will only be governor for a few more months, but to serve the insatiable right-wing appetites of Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire, he seems willing to sacrifice his own standing in his own state -- as well as the needs of his constituents who would benefit from federal health care grants that will now go elsewhere.

I should also note that Pawlenty has said he will seek and accept health funding from the federal government, just so long as the money is part of other programs, unconnected to the Affordable Care Act. Referring to upcoming Medicaid funds, the governor said, "We'll likely take that money. It's not Obamacare."

To my mind, that makes matters worse -- this petty little ideologue is willing to apply for money that will help his state, but only if it comes from laws signed by other presidents, not the current president. Instead of evaluating funding on the merits, Pawlenty considers funding based on which law was signed by which president.

It's the kind of childish game that not only hurts real people who count on their governor to be responsible, but should also discredit Pawlenty as a national figure.

MITCH MCCONNELL'S ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.... Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) chatted with ABC News today, and talked about his expectations for the near future.

"I think if we have a larger number of Republicans [after the midterm elections], it will hopefully move him to the political center, which is the way he ran in '08, but not the way he's governed since then. And hopefully, if he moves to the center or the right of center, we can to do business."

I wish I could understand why McConnell perceives President Obama as being more liberal than Candidate Obama. I honestly can't think of a single issue in which this is true, making McConnell's complaints that much more bizarre.

But let's also not forget how McConnell defines "moving to the center" -- every idea considered by the Senate "is going to have to be center-right."

McConnell went on to say a policy that allows tax cuts for the wealthy to expire -- the way the plan was devised by Republicans including Mitch McConnell -- would hurt small businesses, which is demonstrably false.

But that, of course, raises the obvious question: if McConnell is so concerned about small businesses, why doesn't he allow a vote on a small-business-incentives bill?

McConnell said the small-business jobs bill the president is pushing for "may" pass later this month, but cautioned that "it shouldn't be oversold."

"There is a little itty-bitty small business bill that no one thinks will have much of an impact on the economy, because they want to stick into it a too-big-to-fail provision and did stick it in. But the larger question is that business is sitting there, hoarding cash because they are concerned of the health care taxes, the health care mandates, the tax increases that are coming in September potentially."

I'll concede that McConnell's point about the scope of the small-business bill isn't unreasonable -- it's a fairly modest bill. Of course, if it's just a "little itty-bitty" piece of legislation, McConnell a) shouldn't fight so hard to kill it; b) could let the Senate actually vote on it; and c) should work with Dems to make it bigger and more ambitious -- a step McConnell refuses to consider.

But the rest of his analysis is nonsense. Businesses aren't "sitting there" because of health care; they're sitting there waiting for the Senate to actually pass legislation that helps them. Indeed, McConnell has it backwards -- new reports continue to prove that the Affordable Care Act will help, not hurt, employers, especially small businesses.

The Senate is a dysfunctional mess now; I shudder to think what the institution would be like if the Confused Kentuckian were the Majority Leader.

HOUSE GOP LEADER GOES OFF-MESSAGE, PRAISES STIMULUS.... Almost immediately after the stimulus became law last year, congressional Republicans have run into some rhetorical trouble -- there's a consistency problem with their message.

On the one hand, the GOP insists that the Recovery Act was an awful idea and a terrible failure, which actually hurt the economy. On the other, the GOP seeks out Recovery Act funding for their states and districts, explaining that stimulus money will create jobs and spur economic growth. The Republican "Highway Hypocrites" -- bash the recovery initiative, except when you're at the ribbon-cutting ceremony -- just have to hope voters don't notice the contradiction.

It creates plenty of examples like these.

California Rep. David Dreier, the top Republican on the House Rules Committee, signed his name to an Aug. 2 letter to the president, inviting him to attend a celebration ceremony for a stimulus project that will take place Friday in Pomona. The letter stated that the stimulus project has created "good-paying, high-quality jobs."

The letter, signed by Dreier and three other Democrats, went on to say that the unveiling of "the world's first rapidly recharging, battery-powered electric bus," dubbed the "Ecoliner," would be a "unique opportunity to highlight some of the administration's most important objectives and accomplishments."

Just so we're clear, that's a leading House Republican praising a Democratic stimulus-package program for creating "good-paying, high-quality jobs."

Asked for a comment, a Dreier spokesperson said the conservative congressman "in no way endorses the stimulus as a success." Perish the thought.

A similar story also popped up recently in Texas, where Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) not only requested stimulus funds for NASA, but also showed up to celebrate the groundbreaking for a health clinic in his district, made possible by a $250,000 investment from the Recovery Act. (The same clinic will also benefit from the Affordable Care Act, which Barton also hates.)

At the ribbon-cutting ceremony, Barton, who sought and received funding through the stimulus bill he fought to kill, justified his position by saying the clinic "is a worthy project that deserves our support."

I don't doubt that's true, but a) that project wouldn't exist if Barton had his way; and b) there are all kinds of similarly worthy projects funded nationwide thanks to a stimulus bill that helped prevent an economic catastrophe.

THE TOP OF PENCE'S PRIORITY LIST.... We don't know if or when congressional Republicans will release an actual policy agenda. For that matter, we don't know just how successful Republicans will be in the midterm elections.

We do know, however, exactly what they consider their top priority.

House Republicans' first move in the majority would be to extend tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (Ind.) suggested Wednesday evening.

Pence, the third-ranking Republican in the House, said that House Republicans would look to extend the tax cuts they helped President George W. Bush pass in 2001 and 2003, which are set to expire at the end of the year.

"Well, we're going to stay focused on Election Day. But I think before that, we're going to continue to demand that this administration and this Congress make it clear that no American will see a tax increase in January of next year," Pence said during an appearance on CNBC.

Pence went on to say that congressional Republicans "also want to look at the kind of across-the-board tax relief ... that will encourage capital formation" if they're in the majority.

There are a few things to consider here. The first is that Pence made no effort to explain how his party would pay for these massive, expensive tax breaks. For a year and a half, Pence and his ilk said deficit reduction was the key priority -- won't someone please think of the children? -- and two months before the midterms, Republicans are already abandoning their alleged principles. Presumably, Tea Party activists called to action because of fears about the deficit would be outraged by Pence's rhetoric -- except they're confused and unprincipled, too.

Second, note that Pence and those who agree with him have learned literally nothing in recent years. Bush/Cheney slashed taxes, increased the deficit, and failed spectacularly to improve the economy. Asked about his party's priorities, Pence insists his top goal is renewing a policy that we already know didn't work.

And third, it's probably worth noting that Pence's tax policy isn't especially popular. The latest Newsweek poll found only 38% of the country wants to extend all of the Bush-era tax rates. A recent CBS News poll put the figure even lower, at 36%.

So, Mike Pence's top goal would increase the deficit, fail to help the economy, and run counter to public demands. If only this guy knew what he was talking about, it'd be easier to watch him without laughing.

NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME.... We talked earlier Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's (R) remarkable opening statement in a gubernatorial debate last night, in which the far-right incumbent appeared deeply confused about what she was trying to say. In the minute-long opening statement, there was a nine-second stretch in which a stumped Brewer said literally nothing.

Several alert readers emailed to let me know, however, that the debate actually got more entertaining from there -- with perhaps the most striking moment coming after the event.

During an exchange on the economy, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, noted that it doesn't help the state when its governor tells the nation that Arizona is a dangerous place, unsafe for tourists and investors. He was referencing an incident in which Brewer insisted that immigrants entering the U.S. illegally are responsible for "beheadings" in the Arizona desert. The governor appears to have just made the claim up out of whole cloth, as part of a larger attempt at shameless demagoguery.

During the debate, Brewer refused to comment on her own allegations, so after the event, reporters followed up. The frighteningly unprepared governor, unable to think of a response, froze, said nothing, and then literally fled.

I don't know what Arizona Democrats plan to do with this, or if Dems even have a credible chance in this race, but these videos have a "chicken for checkups" quality to them. Indeed, it's hard to imagine voters watching Brewer's performance and having confidence in her ability to be a capable chief executive.

In related news, a local CBS affiliate in Arizona aired an investigative report about Brewer possibly having a conflict of interest regarding private prison giant Corrections Corporation of America, and its connection to the state's anti-immigrant law. Brewer responded, not with a defense, but by punishing the affiliate by pulling her campaign ads from the network.

Recent polling shows Brewer cruising to a win in November. We'll see if the polls change in light of last night's fiasco.

VOTE FIRST, ANSWER QUESTIONS LATER.... The most common phenomenon in American politics is Republican candidates promising to cut spending. As a matter of economics, it's a dubious idea -- when an economy is struggling, deliberately taking money out of the system, usually to the detriment of struggling families, is backwards.

But the entertainment comes when these same GOP candidates are asked to tell voters what, exactly, they'd like to see cut. Linda McMahon, a wrestling company executive who won the Republican Senate nomination in Connecticut, has made vague spending cuts the centerpiece of her platform. But note what happens when she's asked, for example, to talk about her approach to entitlements that represent 40% of the federal budget.

"I can certainly tell you I'm not adverse [sic] to talking in the right time or forum about what we need to do relative to our entitlements," McMahon said in an interview. "I mean, Social Security is going to go bankrupt. Clearly, we have to strengthen that.... I just don't believe that the campaign trail is the right place to talk about that."

It isn't? Candidates seeking statewide office shouldn't tell voters about their priorities and ideas before the election? Given that McMahon is obviously deeply confused about the policy -- Social Security is not, in reality, going bankrupt -- the need for her to talk publicly about her intentions is all the more acute.

As Kevin Drum noted, "After all, people might not vote for you if they knew what you actually thought."

I'm curious, if the campaign trail is the wrong place for candidates to discuss public policy, what, exactly, does McMahon consider the right place?

THURSDAY'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.

* As was rumored yesterday, Bud Chiles ended his independent gubernatorial campaign in Florida today, and threw his support to state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink (D).

* How worried is Rep. Mike Castle about his Republican Senate primary in Delaware? Castle, assumed to be the overwhelming favorite, purchased $113,000 worth of pre-primary airtime yesterday, suggesting Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell has the frontrunner awfully nervous.

* Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) and failed former HP CEO Carly Fiorina (R) had their first debate last night. The two don't appear to get along especially well.

* For the first time in a long while, Democrats were awfully pleased with a Rasmussen poll yesterday. The GOP-friendly pollster found Joe Miller (R) leading Scott McAdams (D) in Alaska's Senate race by just six points, 50% to 44%.

* In Ohio, Public Policy Polling shows former Rep. John Kasich (R) leading incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D), 50% to 40%. PPP also shows former Bush budget director Rob Portman (R) leading Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D) in this year's Senate race, 45% to 38%.

* The Republican Governors Association was hit this week with a $2 million penalty after campaign finance violations in Texas' 2006 gubernatorial campaign.

* As if there weren't enough controversies surrounding Sen. David Vitter (R)*, FEC documents now show him receiving campaign donations from a woman who died last year.

* And in 2012 news, John Bolton, the Bush/Cheney administration's controversial right-wing U.N. ambassador, continues to flirt with the idea of a presidential campaign.

*Corrected. Vitter is a Republican.

BREWER'S PAINFULLY LONG PAUSES.... I've seen politicians freeze on the air when confronted with a tough question for which they're unprepared, but going blank during a debate's opening statement? This is a new one.

Ben Smith reported, "Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's opening statement in last night's debate reflects either an amazing lack of preparation, or sheer panic."

It really is bizarre, and kind of painful to watch. An opening statement is the easy part -- a quick introduction, highlight a few talking points, something about getting stuff done, ask for support, and move on. It's the part of a debate in which folks tend to memorize a short spiel so they come across as competent and set a good impression for the rest of the debate.

Brewer just had a breakdown of sorts. Worse, she seems to be referring to notes in front of her -- which would seemingly tell her what to say if she forgets -- but which didn't help.

By my count, there's a full nine seconds in which a stumped Brewer says literally nothing. That may not sound like a long time, but on the air, during a debate, it's an eternity.

Brewer is, by the way, the sitting governor. She's not some fringe candidate included in the debate as a courtesy -- Brewer is currently the chief executive of Arizona, and has been on the campaign trail for months.

I kind of doubt this will have a huge impact on the polls -- Brewer may be an unprepared right-wing dolt, but she's the strong favorite in November -- but this minute-long video will serve as a reminder for campaigns for quite a while.

Update: But wait, there's more. When the subject turned to Brewer's bogus claims about "beheadings," she got even more confused.

BARBOUR EXPLAINS THE SOUTH WITH BASELESS, REVISIONIST HISTORY.... For much of the 20th century, America's Southeast, now the Republicans' strongest region, was closely aligned with Democratic politics. The shift began quickly after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, culminating in the Republican stronghold we see today.

As far as likely presidential candidate Haley Barbour of Mississippi, the corporate-lobbyist-turned governor, is concerned, the transition can be explained as a matter of generational change. Barbour's version of events, though, is so wildly ridiculous, it bears no resemblance to reality.

Barbour has invented his own sanitized, suburb-friendly version of history -- an account that paints the South's shift to the GOP as the product of young, racially inclusive conservatives who had reasons completely separate and apart from racial politics for abandoning their forebears' partisan allegiances. In an interview with Human Events that was posted on Wednesday, Barbour insists that "the people who led the change of parties in the South ... was my generation. My generation who went to integrated schools. I went to integrated college -- never thought twice about it." Segregationists in the South, in his telling, were "old Democrats," but "by my time, people realized that was the past, it was indefensible, it wasn't gonna be that way anymore. So the people who really changed the South from Democrat to Republican was a different generation from those who fought integration."

This is utter nonsense.

This comes up from time to time, especially when Republicans are feeling defensive about race (or when right-wing Mississippi governors prepare to run against the nation's first African-American president), so let's set the record straight.

The Democratic Party, in the first half of the 20th century, was home to competing constituencies -- southern conservative whites with abhorrent views on race, and white progressives and African Americans in the north, who sought to advance the cause of civil rights. The party struggled, ultimately siding with an inclusive, liberal agenda.

It wasn't easy. As Steve Kornacki reminds us, "When the party ratified a civil rights plank at its 1948 convention, Southern Democrats staged a walkout and lined up behind Strom Thurmond, South Carolina's governor and (like all Southern Democrats of the time) an arch-segregationist. Running under the Dixiecrat banner, Thurmond won four Deep South states that fall."

As the party shifted, the Democratic mainstream embraced its new role. Republicans, meanwhile, also changed.

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

MARK KIRK SYNDROME SPREADS TO OTHER GOP CANDIDATES.... When it comes to candidates with an almost pathological tendency to exaggerate their backgrounds, Illinois Senate candidate Mark Kirk (R) is obviously in a league of his own. But there are others who are at least competitive in the category.

In Colorado, for example, gubernatorial hopeful Dan Maes has told some fascinating tales about his work in law enforcement in Kansas in the 1980s. As he tells it, Maes was a hero, fighting against a corrupt local system.

Maes had previously said he was fired from the police department in Liberal, a community of 21,000, because he got too close to higher-ups. In a letter to supporters in August, he went further, saying that he was placed undercover by the [Kansas Bureau of Investigation] to gather information inside a bookmaking ring that was allegedly selling drugs. [...]

"I got too close to some significant people in the community who were involved in these activities and abruptly was dismissed from my position. I was blindsided and stunned to say the least. I am proud to say that I never participated in any illegal activity while undercover," Maes said in the letter, which was briefly posted on his Web site.

Maes called it a chapter in his life "where I fought the machine." He refused to elaborate, saying that "many who were involved in this situation are still alive and in new places in their lives and I want to protect them."

In reality, Maes never worked for the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, and the agency did not send Maes undercover. He did work for the local police department for about a year and a half, but it's unclear exactly why his tenure ended.

Asked this week about his claims of working undercover, Maes conceded "those comments might have been incorrect comments." Pressed further about the stories published on his campaign website, Maes added, "Whoever typed it, typed it. That's all I've got to say."

Maes, up until now, is best known for his concerns that a bike-riding program in Denver may be part of a nefarious scheme hatched by the United Nations.

I have no idea where the Republican Party finds these guys, or why they keep winning GOP primaries.

THE WISDOM OF A LIBERATED REPUBLICAN, CONT'D.... This week, congressional Republican leaders did their best to downplay the end of combat operations in Iraq, insisting President Obama was wrong and that President Bush deserves credit for recent progress. It was, even by GOP standards, a sad display.

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) -- liberated in the wake of a primary defeat -- continues to embrace his new-found freedom. Yesterday, that meant blasting his party's leaders for politicizing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Inglis called criticism lobbed at President Obama by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) "offensive to me," and encouraged members of his party to "unite" behind the president. [...]

"What I'd say back to [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell and whoever is this is really not a time to play politics," Inglis told South Carolina's Spartanburg Herald-Journal. "It represents really the worst in politics, to politicize a war. America's at war. And America's best are serving right now in some very dangerous places."

This is, oddly enough, similar to the message Republicans gave from 2003 to 2008, in response to Democratic criticism of Bush/Cheney. The rhetoric of the time was that wars are not campaign props to be exploited, and in a time of crisis, politicians shouldn't be trying to divide the country.

Inglis just happens to be saying it now under a Democratic administration.

Given how far he's strayed from his party lately, is there any chance the Democratic leadership may reach out to him for an 11th-hour party switch? Since Inglis is leaving Congress anyway, the practical implications would be minimal, but it could serve as an election-season reminder that the Republican Party may be moving too far in unhealthy directions.

GEORGE WILL'S BAD HABIT.... Over the last several months, George Will has written a series of columns about some of the most extreme politicians in Republican politics. In each instance, he seems to go out of his way to ignore what makes them radical, and offers an implicit defense of each.

Last fall, for example, Will had a column about Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), following a series of humiliating moments for the unhinged Minnesota Republican. Instead of highlighting Bachmann as one of Congress' more painful embarrassments, Will was impressed with her, writing, "Some of her supposed excesses are, however, not merely defensible, they are admirable." (His examples were baseless.)

A few months ago, Will was at it again, defending Nevada's Sharron Angle (R). The conservative columnist was slightly derisive of Angle's campaign organization -- he called it "unready for prime time" -- but was untroubled by the candidate's record of radicalism. (The column was fairly characterized as "rank intellectual dishonesty.")

Today, Will turns his attention to Ken Buck, the Republican Senate hopeful in Colorado, and one of the year's more radical statewide candidates. After praising Buck's background -- he apparently worked blue-collar jobs while getting a degree at Princeton -- and noting Buck's tryout as a punter for the New York Giants, Will soft pedals the qualities that make Buck so contentious.

Buck identifies with candidates such as Rubio, Paul and Pat Toomey (former congressman, now Republican Senate nominee in Pennsylvania). An admirer of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Buck would start over on health-care reform, stressing health savings accounts, medical malpractice tort reform and portability of insurance coverage. [...]

Coloradans, Buck says, now are "50-50 about Obama" but "80-20 against Washington." His one campaign stumble may actually have helped him. It occurred after an event where someone questioned whether Obama is an American citizen. Speaking within range of a tape recorder belonging to a Democratic worker who was following Buck around, Buck laughingly said to someone, "Will you tell those dumb asses at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera?"

Reading this, one may be led to believe Buck is somehow at odds with Tea Partiers, and is a mainstream candidate. But that's just not the case. Buck's "one campaign stumble" came, not because he's dismissive of birther nonsense, but because he doesn't want to get caught talking about the issue. Indeed, Buck told supporters in June, "If you're asking me, the answer is yes. I would support legislation that would require a birth certificate and you know the other things.... I think that is fair legislation and common sense legislation."

Just as importantly, if we're looking for actual "stumbles," Will might have mentioned instances in which Buck said he wants to privatize Social Security, suggested Social Security itself might be unconstitutional, called for the end of the Department of Education, spoke out against student loans to help families send kids to college, talked about banning forms of birth control, and calling for the elimination of abortion rights, even in cases of rape or incest

Did Will not notice any of this?

ADL STEPS AWAY FROM MESS IT HELPED CREATE.... The controversy surrounding the Park51 project in lower Manhattan has been disheartening, but perhaps no moment was as disappointing as the Anti-Defamation League's statement in late July. The organization committed to combating bigotry and promoting respect for all people made the arguement that converting a clothing store into a community center would be "counterproductive to the healing process." The Muslim American developers enjoy First Amendment protections, ADL added, but these are "unique circumstances."

The organization's position served to empower conservatives, who used ADL's statement for cover. The debate quickly snowballed, and next weekend, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, right-wing activists will host a protest to denounce the Park51 proposal. Organizers have invited Geert Wilders, a notorious Dutch racist/politician/activist, to participate in the event.

ADL Director Abe Foxman told Adam Serwer yesterday that he disapproves of the protest, denounced Wilders, and expressed concern about the state of the discourse.

"The debate surrounding the Ground Zero mosque has surfaced, first, a campaign which is in many places directed against building mosques, and it also has focused attention on the anti-Muslim bigotry that exists in this country. It's not new. It has been there. Part of the landscape, unfortunately, of America is that we're not immune to bigotry, to racism, to anti-Semitism. And part of what's out there is a bigotry to immigrants. Jews experienced it, Irish experienced it. Part of our history is there was opposition to building Catholic churches and Jewish synagogues. Now there's opposition to build mosques, and there is, in our landscape, bigotry.

"Some of it is beneath the surface, and some of it in moments of crisis explodes. That's what we're seeing now. There seems to be a legitimacy that it's okay now to speak out and act out against Islam, and that's why this rally, on this very tragic day for Americans, but most tragic for those who lost their families, to use it and abuse it as a platform for bigotry, is not only tragic, it's un-American."

It's a welcome sentiment -- though it's well past time to retire the phrase "Ground Zero mosque," since it doesn't make any sense -- and I'm glad to see ADL re-claim its traditional role, taking a firm stand against hatred and discrimination.

But I also hope that Foxman and other ADL leaders appreciate the fact that they helped contribute to this toxic climate by announcing their opposition to the Park51 proposal in the first place. The ADL position emboldened the right, and contributed to this fiasco in exceedingly unhelpful ways.

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

* The first peace talks in nearly two years: "President Obama on Wednesday began the arduous process of coaxing and pressing the main Middle East participants to define and embrace a comprehensive peace settlement. But he had to begin by joining Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in strongly condemning a fatal attack on the West Bank and declaring solemnly, 'We've got a lot of work to do.'"

* Manufacturing numbers here and purchasing data in China offered some of the best economic news in a while.

* Neil Irwin says there are "some reasons for at least modest optimism" on the economy, and said we're "likely" to see "a slow-and-steady recovery."

* On a related note, Christina Romer, the departing chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, offered a farewell speech to her team today, taking pride in helping the United States steer clear of "a second Great Depression."

* Some nut is holding hostages at the Discovery Communications building in a Maryland suburb of D.C.

* For the first time in 20 years, we're seeing the number of immigrants entering the country illegally decline. A weak economy and increased enforcement were cited as the main factors.

* In North Carolina, the first evacuations in anticipation of a strengthening Hurricane Earl began today.

* New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) wants to "move on" after his monumental screw up over education funding and demonstrably false criticism of the Obama administration. I'm sure he does, but that may be easier said than done.

* Ethics probes advance in controversies related to Reps. John Campbell (R-Calif.), Tom Price (R-Ga.), and Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.).

* New and improved federal financial aid for college students.

* Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon gets the far-right Washington Times back.

* And Glenn Beck assured his followers that he went to the National Archives and held George Washington's hand-written first inaugural. That's not even close to true.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.