Another Radical Centrist speaks:

Why, then, should the Democrats hold back? Because, we’re told, the country needs less divisiveness. And I, too, would like to see a return to kinder, gentler politics. But that’s not something Democrats can achieve with a group hug and a chorus of “Kumbaya.”

The reason we have so much bitter partisanship these days is that that’s the way the radicals who have taken over the Republican Party want it. . . .

As long as polarization is integral to the G.O.P.’s strategy, Democrats can’t do much.

The president's brother Neil is peddling portable learning centers (he calls them COWs for Curriculum on Wheels) at $3,800 apiece. Neil says they help disadvantaged kids achieve higher test scores, an objective that might have motivated 13 school districts to use No Child Left Behind money to purchase the learning centers. But No Child Left Behind focuses on reading and math, while Neil's company, Ignite! Learning, doesn't offer reading instruction, and the COWs won't teach math until next year.

Why, then, would school districts want to buy from the president's brother? Follow the money:

Most of Ignite's business has been obtained through sole-source contracts without competitive bidding. Neil Bush has been directly involved in marketing the product.

In addition to federal or state funds, foundations and corporations have helped buy Ignite products. The Washington Times Foundation, backed by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, head of the South Korea-based Unification Church, has peppered classrooms throughout Virginia with Ignite's COWs under a $1-million grant.

Oil companies and Middle East interests with long political ties to the Bush family have made similar bequests. Aramco Services Co., an arm of the Saudi-owned oil company, has donated COWs to schools, as have Apache Corp., BP and Shell Oil Co.

The statement today by Barack Obama that he is mulling a run for the Presidency has brought intense focus on how the Senator has practiced his politics the last two years.

My particular criticism of Barack Obama is not at all directed at his stupendous political talent, intelligence or even commitment to a progressive agenda. It is directed at his disdain for politics. Yes politics. Because, whether for selfish image conscious reasons or for idealistic reasons, Obama has decided that Democrats need to find common ground with the Religious Right, look to compromise bipartisan solutions with Republicans and not engage in the political battle.

These pretty thoughts make David Broder and Joe Klein smile, but they are bad politics and since bad Democratic politics lead to Republican governance, bad policy. I'll explain on the flip side.

Frank Rich fancies himself a wizened cynic, awake to all the ills of Democratic spinelessness. But Obama weaved his spell, to the point that Rich rips Hillary for the exact positions Obama himself holds, while getting his facts wrong in the process. Too funny:

That’s why it’s important to remember that on one true test for his party, Iraq, he was consistent from the start. On the long trail to a hotly competitive senatorial primary in Illinois, he repeatedly questioned the rationale for the war before it began, finally to protest it at a large rally in Chicago on the eve of the invasion [Since Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, it is hard to see how Obama could have been doing that]. He judged Saddam to pose no immediate threat to America and argued for containment over a war he would soon label “dumb” and “political-driven.” He hasn’t changed. In his new book, he gives a specific date (the end of this year) for beginning “a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops” and doesn’t seem to care who calls it “cut and run.” Contrast this with Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, who last week said that failed American policy in Iraq should be revisited if there’s no improvement in “maybe 60 to 90 days.” This might qualify as leadership, even at this late date, if only John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, hadn’t proposed exactly the same time frame for a re-evaluation of the war almost a week before she did.

Obama's position on Iraq today is precisely Hillary Clinton's position - the Levin Amendment's no set date withdrawal resolution. But Frank Rich is intent on lionizing Obama, damn the facts.

Professor Cass Sunstein tries to forward this Obama bipartisan silliness, and rewrites history in the process. He now pretends that FDR and Abraham Lincoln were NOT politicians. Just silly:

At crucial moments, [FDR] offered large and contentious claims, attacking the beliefs of (for example) those who were committed to laissez-faire and to isolationism. On the other hand, FDR was also committed to a principle of mutual respect. And consider these words from Lincoln's Second Inaugural: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right...."

This is so ahistorical as to be incredible that a brilliant man like Sunstein could have even written those words. FDR was always at loggerheads with the Republicans, demonizing and being demonized. As for Lincoln, sure in 1865 after having won the election and the Civil War (or shortly to), he was all magnaminity. During the election? And of course, his Cooper Union address, which I have written about at length, is the very epitome of negative branding. Sunstein simply is writing nonsense.

I asked myself what I would have liked to discuss with Clinton. I thought of this issue most of all - 'does Clinton think his Third Way/New Democrat approach, that worked so well for him (did it work for the Dem Party?) in the 90s (of course since he is the best politician of his generation it is not clear that using of other approaches would not have worked for him) is the right political approach in today's hyperpartisan age of Bush Republicanism?'

In the past month, Bill Clinton has provided his answer:

Former President Bill Clinton rallied Iowa Democrats Saturday with a blistering attack on the Republican leadership in Washington . . . Republicans, who control the White House and Congress, have alienated rank-and-file voters by working for the interests of the wealthy and painting opposing viewpoints as unpatriotic, Clinton said in his 45-minute speech at Hy-Vee Hall in Des Moines.

I can name on two hands over a half century the number of Democrats we have endorsed for public office. This year, we will do something different. . . . So, what in the world has happened? The Republican Party has changed, and it has changed monumentally.

You almost cannot be a victorious traditional Republican candidate with mainstream values in Johnson County or in Kansas anymore, because these candidates never get on the ballot in the general election.

Extremism should be a brand Democrats have stamped on the Republican Party for some time. That they have not is a frustration for me.

(From Big Tent Democrat)

Steve Gilliard writes an interesting post that, in my view, is right in some things and wrong in others. One thing definitely wrong is this:

Ok, let's say that the Dems were ambushed in 2000 and got seriously sh*tty advice on how to fight the ballot issues. The Dems were listening to bullsh*t about continuity of government and trust in elections. So they shrunk from the fight. Stolen? Yeah, in the time honored tradition of intimidation and rules lawyering. If you look at who showed up in Florida, like John Bolton and other future White House staffers, the GOP brought their A game and Gore thought they were playing by the rules of the past. Ooops.

In a word, nonsense. Gore brought the best lawyer (in my opinion) in America, David Boies, to this gunfight, and but for a lawless U.S. Supreme Court, Gore wins.

Other things right and wrong in Gilliard's piece on the other side.

The Los Angeles Times reports on a new book by former White House aide David Kuh in which he reports that while Bush aides publicly endorsed evangelical positions, privately they referred to them disparagingly.

In the book, Kuo, who quit the White House in 2003, accuses Karl Rove's political staff of cynically hijacking the faith-based initiatives idea for electoral gain. It assails Bush for failing to live up to his promises of boosting the role of religious organizations in delivering social services.

White House strategists "knew 'the nuts' were politically invaluable, but that was the extent of their usefulness," Kuo writes, according to the cable channel MSNBC, which obtained an advance copy.

Uh-oh. The Feds are investigating Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) for allegations of inappropiate conduct with pages on a camping trip he took ten years ago.

A spokesman for the Justice Department in Washington said that the U.S. attorney in Arizona has started a "preliminary assessment" of the trip, after an unidentified source made allegations about the congressman's behavior on the expedition. "The U.S. attorney is looking into allegations about the congressman taking a trip with the two pages," the spokesman said.

Count me underwhelmed on this one. I'm not buying it.

The Wall St. Journal (free link) reports that the latest Harris Interactive Poll shows that President Bush's approval rating dropped four points this month, from 38% to 34%.

Sixty-four percent of U.S. adults now have a negative view of Mr. Bush's job performance, compared with 61% who ranked him "only fair" or "poor" in a similar poll last month. The drop follows a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that showed the president's job approval rating fell to 39% from 42% earlier in October.

With less than a month to go before the midterm congressional elections, 47% of registered voters said they would vote for a Democratic candidate, compared with 35% who said they would pick a Republican candidate. When asked about recent Capitol Hill scandals involving charges of corruption and sexual improprieties, 64% said they believed those activities were the just the "tip of the iceberg," compared with 25% who believed they were "isolated incidents."

This coming Sunday, the New York Times will feature a q and a with former Attorney General John Ashcroft. Among the suprising revelations: He makes barbed-wire sculputures in his spare time. Other nuggets:

Ashcroft also suggests the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the Patriot Act partly to make money and add members.

.... Ashcroft, a leading evangelical, admits he is a sinner, explaining, "I'm unkind on occasion, and I am selfish." He's an active Christian "because I am not good, because I need help."

Ask about specific "sins," Ashcroft says he has "never had a mixed drink," never smoked a cigarette, and if tempted by another woman he would immediately call "my wife."

[Hat tip reader Scribe]