Riding tonight's Diary Rescue streetcar are Rexymeteorite, ItsJessMe, HoosierDeb, dopper0189, srkp23, and BentLiberal, with YatPundit at the controls, on an always-hopeful New Orleans evening.

Diary Rescue is all about recognizing quality writing that's off the beaten path of the rec list. Be sure to read, tip, and comment!

• Unitary Moonbat offers a thorough and stunningly comprehensive History for Kossacks: The Imperialist Era's BP. (ItsJessMe)
• Ojibwa continues her series on Native American culture in Indians 101: Oklahoma Statehood & Indian Nations. (dopper0189)
• possum serves up an appetizing platter of Science Tidbits. (srkp23)
• In the last week, tens of thousands of blogs and forums have been shut down via a gag order that seems like a National Security Letter. breakingranks provides some facts, history and context, in UPDATED: Under the Colors of Patriotism: What Can't Happen Here is Happening Here (w/ Poll). (ItsJessMe)
• ethnografix reminds us that it wasn't just migrants 1000 years ago who crossed The Desert to the East. (ItsJessMe)
• A Siegel fills us in on Solar Decathlon: News from Europe ... News from DC .. (ItsJessMe)
• JDWolverton brings us a prime example of conservatives being their own worst enemy where it comes to Health Insurance Reform in I Just Got the Most Aggravating Phone Call. (rexymeteorite)
• wheatdogg explains why he's Starting year 3 as an ex-pat teacher. (ItsJessMe)
• Beginning by declaring, "My name is Mohammad ... and I am an undocumented immigrant," a student pleads for passage of the The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act in kyledeb's DREAM Now Letters: Mohammad Abdollahi. (BentLiberal)
• Here Is A Topic I Get Real Emotional About: Watching Louis Oosthuizen win the British Open, webranding thought about what is needed to find the next hidden genius or talent in an impoverished area. (ItsJessMe)
• Thutmose V knocks down the Right Wing argument that "big government is bad!" and points out that It's not how much government, but which government. (rexymeteorite)
• Cartwheels are supposed to be childhood fun, but Clytemnestra describes a time when they were for a far darker purpose. (ItsJessMe)
• A Siegel argues that Front Page Quotes Village Truthiness ... need to look behind the curtain. (srkp23)

jotter has High Impact Diaries: July 18, 2010.

virgomusic brings us Top Comments: Reply To All Edition.

Please join the Rescue Ranger krewe this evening by suggesting our own picks in this Open Thread.

T-minus two days and counting before the Singiser family truckster heads up Interstate 15 and makes a beeline for Vegas, baby! If you aren't going to Netroots Nation 2010, why the hell aren't you?

While you mull over your decision to go (which, really, should only take you around 10-12 seconds), you can occupy yourself with a pretty super-sized edition of the Monday Wrap. Lots of data, especially in the one high-profile race that goes to the polls tomorrow, and one vanquished Democrat is really working hard to be the biggest a-hole of the campaign cycle.

All that (and more!) on the Monday edition of the Wrap....

THE U.S. SENATE

AR-Sen: Boozman has huge lead in Talk Business Poll
A new poll out today from Talk Business, conducted by the pollsters at Zata3, seems to imply that Blanche Lincoln has virtually no shot at keeping her seat in November. The poll has Republican Congressman John Boozman leading Lincoln by twenty-five points (57-32). Lincoln, obviously feeling some heat from publication of this poll, countered by sending around one of their own internal polls from late last month. That internal poll, for what it's worth, had Lincoln trailing by nine points (45-36) to Boozman.

NH-Sen: Is it bad when your opponent praises your endorsements?
This is a fun one: Sarah Palin took to Facebook yet again to offer her latest in a string of endorsements. This time, her recipient was none other than New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte. This will undoubtedly tick off candidates like Ovide Lamontagne, who has tried to corner the teabagger market, but it actually earned praise from a surprising source--the campaign of Democrat Paul Hodes:

Each broke her promise to the people of her state and resigned to advance her political ambitions...They're both more interested in catering to the far-right special interests than standing up for New Hampshire.

So do we hope Sarah Palin comes to campaign for Kelly Ayotte? You betcha.

PA-Sen: Toomey questions Obama patriotism before veterans
So much for that whole idea that Pennsylvania GOP Senate nominee Patrick Toomey was endeavoring to reinvent himself as a moderate in advance of the November elections. Late last week in Harrisburg, Patrick Toomey told The American Legion that "there are some in Washington who don't really believe in American exceptional-ism." In case anyone missed his nuance-filled comment there, he later confirmed that he was referring to President Obama.

THE U.S. HOUSE

ID-01: Lone teabagger-endorsed Dem repudiates endorsement
Interesting: conservative Democratic freshman Rep. Walt Minnick, who represents devoutly GOP territory in western Idaho, has rejected the endorsement of the Tea Party Express. Minnick, one of the five Democrats most likely to buck the party, cited the behavior of TPE leader Mark Williams as the reason for his decision to decline the group's endorsement.

MI-13: Another incumbent in serious primary peril?
Polls are starting to converge around a central theme in the Detroit area--longtime Democratic incumbent Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick is in serious trouble. A new poll taken for the Detroit News and WDIV-TV shows the incumbent trailing the leading Democratic primary challenger Hansen Clarke 38-30. This comes on the heels of an EPIC-MRA poll that showed Clarke up by an even slightly larger margin. Cheeks-Kilpatrick has clearly been wounded by the legal travails of her son, the former mayor of Detroit.

NV-03: When a toss-up is actually decent news for a Democrat
Democratic freshman Dina Titus has one hell of a race in her hands in the Vegas suburbs, as attested by a new poll out today from Mason Dixon. The poll has Titus leading Republican challenger Joe Heck by two points (42-40). This actually has to be considered reasonably good news for the incumbent, however. The last time M-D polled there, in April, Heck actually enjoyed a five-point lead. M-D did offer a few new options, including a Nevada-centric option known as "none of the above" (yes, it's actually on the ballot there).

OH-13: DCCC levels aim at self-funding GOP candidate
You can alternately read this as something to cheer or something to be concerned about. The DCCC blasted Ohio Republican candidate Tom Ganley, accusing the former car dealer of trying to buy his way into the United States Congress. The merits of the case are pretty unimpeachable: Ganley has self-funded his campaign to the tune of $6.5 million. And it is always welcome to see the Democrats get after a Republican rival. But one has to wonder if it is a bit unnerving to see the Democrats targeting a seat where Barack Obama easily carried the district, and incumbent Betty Sutton has scored two easy wins since 2006.

WI-07: Was Obey pushed into retirement by bad polling?
The details of this story are certainly curious, and certainly more than a little difficult to easily explain away. The site Wispolitics is reporting that newly retired Congressman David Obey's FEC reports show that he paid for polling less than two weeks prior to his retirement announcement in early May. Did Obey decide to leave on his own terms, rather than being ushered out of office in a rough election cycle? It is hard to envision a scenario by which Obey polled, got great polling news, and then elected to retire, anyway. While that is possible, of course, it doesn't feel quite as plausible.

THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES

AL-Gov: About that Artur Davis endorsement...
When state Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks soundly defeated Congressman Artur Davis in their Democratic primary for Governor in June, Davis told his supporters to unite behind the nominee. He might do well to adhere to his own advice. In the wake of Robert Bentley's claiming of the Republican nomination last week, Davis is opening his yap, offering fulsome praise for Bentley and burping up some right-wing talking points on Sparks, including that he was the candidate of "activist, liberal Democratic voters."

AR-Gov: Is Beebe only up single digits? One pollster says "yes"
The same Talk Business Poll that showed a huge gulf between Boozman and Lincoln in the Senate race also had a gubernatorial result that might put a little tinge of skepticism into the whole survey. The poll has Democratic Governor Mike Beebe leading Republican Jim Keet, as all other pollsters have done. This poll, however, had the race in single digits (49-40). Even Rasmussen, by comparison, had the race as a 24-point Beebe lead as recently as last month.

GA-Gov: Trio of polls show Handel as clear leader, Oxendine fading
On the eve of the Republican Primary in the Peach State, three separate independent polls all have common themes: Secretary of State Karen Handel has established herself as a clear frontrunner, while longtime frontrunner John Oxendine's numbers are fading noticeably. Mason Dixon has not been in the state in a while, but they have Handel leading with 29% of the vote, well ahead of Oxendine (22%), Congressman Nathan Deal (20%), and former state legislator Eric Johnson (13%). Worse news for Oxendine can be found in the new polls by Magellan Strategies and Insider Advantage, both of whom have him in fourth place. Both polls have Handel with double-digit leads over Deal. The top two candidates will continue onward to a runoff in early August, unless Handel can somehow can manage to make it to a majority.

MI-Gov: GOP primary poll shows coin flip with two weeks to go
With thirteen days until primary day, there are still a trio of Republican candidates with a legitimate shot at the nomination, according to a new poll taken for the Detroit News. Both Attorney General Mike Cox and Congressman Peter Hoekstra run up front, with 26% of the vote. Businessman Rick Snyder is now clearly in third, notching 20% of the vote. Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard is running a distant fourth with 12% of the vote. In other Michigan gubernatorial news, Rick Snyder's campaign to target moderates in his own party got a boost from an endorsement of one of the leading moderate voices in the Michigan GOP: former Republican Congressman Joe Schwarz.

NE-Gov: Dems find candidate to claim ballot line in gov's race
I suppose this qualifies as good news for the Democrats in Nebraska: they were able to find a candidate willing to take the Democratic nomination for Governor. Mike Meister, an attorney who has run statewide previously, has agreed to take the nomination. He faces incumbent Republican Dave Heineman, who will be overwhelmingly favored to earn re-election in November.

THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA

After having some results that were actually in line with other pollsters, the House of Ras starts this week by being Ras, again. Republicans cleaning house, literally from Alaska to Maine. Can't keep Ras from being Ras, can you?

AK-Gov: Gov. Sean Parnell (R) 53%, Ethan Berkowitz (D) 34%
AK-Gov: Gov. Sean Parnell (R) 57%, Hollis French (D) 29%
AK-Gov: Ralph Samuels (R) 48%, Ethan Berkowitz (D) 36%
AK-Gov: Ralph Samuels (R) 49%, Hollis French (D) 30%
AK-Gov: Bill Walker (R) 46%, Ethan Berkowitz (D) 38%
AK-Gov: Bill Walker (R) 50%, Ethan Berkowitz (D) 32%
ME-Gov: Paul LePage (R) 39%, Libby Mitchell (D) 31%, Elliot Cutler (I) 15%
PA-Sen: Patrick Toomey (R) 45%, Joe Sestak (D) 38%

Want to see the benefits of having President Obama on offense rather than seeking bipartisanship? Look at the Republican reactionto the President's Rose Garden barrage:

“The President knows that Republicans support extending unemployment insurance, and doing it in a fiscally-responsible way by cutting spending elsewhere in the $3 trillion federal budget," said House Minority Leader John Boehner.

"Everyone agrees on extending the additional unemployment insurance, but the Democrat way is to insist we add it to the national debt at the same time—while blocking Republican efforts to pass the same extension without the debt," said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

You see that? That is called a crouching, defensive posture. The President shut down their talk about unemployment benefits making people lazy, which is what the Republican base wants to hear. Instead, Boehner is forced into saying he agrees with the President, but that his objections are about cutting spending elsewhere. That is exactly the position you want Boehner in before you start by cutting the Recovery Act spending in Boehner's backyard.

The problem with the President's offensive is that it comes at the point when the political mileage to be gleaned from it is...well, gone. The 60th vote is now in place, so the bill will pass with little fanfare. In other words, it's plenty easy to go on the offensive when you've already won. The way you get political benefit out of this is when you don't have the votes, but are certain of eventual victory. The time to launch this attack was three weeks ago, where sustained effort would have the GOP disappointing their radical base for a few weeks rather than just 24 hours.

Still, I much prefer the fit, fighting President Obama using the bully pulpit effectively than the other one who doesn't. If today's offensive is going to be indicative of what we will see going into the fall, the Republicans are going to have a fight on their hands.

Let's hope the White House realizes that you can fight toward political victories rather than grabbing the Marshal's baton at the end of the parade.

Want to see the benefits of having President Obama on offense rather than seeking bipartisanship? Look at the Republican reactionto the President's Rose Garden barrage:

“The President knows that Republicans support extending unemployment insurance, and doing it in a fiscally-responsible way by cutting spending elsewhere in the $3 trillion federal budget," said House Minority Leader John Boehner.

"Everyone agrees on extending the additional unemployment insurance, but the Democrat way is to insist we add it to the national debt at the same time—while blocking Republican efforts to pass the same extension without the debt," said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

You see that? That is called a crouching, defensive posture. The President shut down their talk about unemployment benefits making people lazy, which is what the Republican base wants to hear. Instead, Boehner is forced into saying he agrees with the President, but that his objections are about cutting spending elsewhere. That is exactly the position you want Boehner in before you start by cutting the Recovery Act spending in Boehner's backyard.

The problem with the President's offensive is that it comes at the point when the political mileage to be gleaned from it is...well, gone. The 60th vote is now in place, so the bill will pass with little fanfare. In other words, it's plenty easy to go on the offensive when you've already won. The way you get political benefit out of this is when you don't have the votes, but are certain of eventual victory. The time to launch this attack was three weeks ago, where sustained effort would have the GOP disappointing their radical base for a few weeks rather than just 24 hours.

Still, I much prefer the fit, fighting President Obama using the bully pulpit effectively than the other one who doesn't. If today's offensive is going to be indicative of what we will see going into the fall, the Republicans are going to have a fight on their hands.

Let's hope the White House realizes that you can fight toward political victories rather than grabbing the Marshal's baton at the end of the parade.

In the last hour, a deal has been struck in order to provide for a special election this year in order to replace the late Democratic Senator Robert Byrd. Voting on the compromise bill occurred within the last hour, with a nearly unanimous vote in the House and a unanimous 29-0 vote in the Senate.

What is most curious about the deal is that the Republicans seem to have gotten everything they could have ever wanted in the bargain, despite a Democratic Governor and an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature:

Under the draft agreement lawmakers were shown at about 5 p.m., voters would go to the polls for an Aug. 28 for a primary to choose party nominees and then again Nov. 2 for a general election. Candidates who have already filed for an office would be allowed to run in the special Senate election.

That last provision could only exist for one purpose and one purpose alone: to aid the only viable Republican challenger, 2nd district Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito.

So, to recap: Democrats were originally going to wait until 2012 to have the election to replace Byrd. The Democrats reversed that position, in part because of pressure from Republicans over the long lag time between the vacancy and the election.

Now, the Democrats have not only given the Republicans an election at the time at which they desired, they have also hand-delivered the Republicans a gift which will allow the only Republican with a snowballs chance in Hades of being able to run, while simultaneously giving her the lifeboat of a guaranteed House victory if the Senate campaign does not end to her liking.

In other words, the Democrats struck a deal to exponentially increase the chances of their most formidable challenger getting into the race.

Brilliant.

(hat tip: James L. at Swing State Project)

Today's Washington Post has an article by Shailagh Murray about establishment Republican's concern about the tea party:

Republican lawmakers see plenty of good in the tea party, but they also see reasons to worry. The movement, which has ignited passion among conservative voters and pushed big government to the forefront of the 2010 election debate, has also stirred quite a bit of controversy. Voters who don't want to privatize Social Security or withdraw from the United Nations could begin to see the tea party and the Republican Party as one and the same.

Oh no! People might begin to confuse the rightwingnuttia of the tea party with the rightwingnuttia of the Republican Party.

Because of course this concern is completely misplaced given that:

All told, nearly 80 percent of tea party supporters describe themselves as Republicans, while 15 percent say they are Democrats and just six percent are, in their own minds, "pure independents."

... which Ms. Murray would have known had she read the Washington Post. But relying on things like facts would upset the narrative that the tea party is some new, powerful political force, so ...

Richard Haass, a Republican of the "realist" (opposed to "neoconservative") school of foreign policy thought, has joined those who say Afghanistan is not winnable and strategy should be adjusted accordingly. Haass, who was appointed to ad hoc government posts by both Presidents Bush and was a close adviser to Colin Powell at the time of the run-up to the Iraq War, is now president of the Council on Foreign Relations. His commentary - We’re Not Winning. It’s Not Worth It - was published Sunday in the on-line edition of Newsweek. He calls what's happening "very much Barack Obama’s war of choice, a point that the president underscored recently by picking Gen. David Petraeus to lead an intensified counterinsurgency effort there."

Today the counterinsurgency strategy that demanded all those troops is clearly not working. The August 2009 election that gave Karzai a second term as president was marred by pervasive fraud and left him with less legitimacy than ever. While the surge of U.S. forces has pushed back the Taliban in certain districts, the Karzai government has been unable to fill the vacuum with effective governance and security forces that could prevent the Taliban’s return. So far the Obama administration is sticking with its strategy; indeed, the president went to great lengths to underscore this when he turned to Petraeus to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Kabul. No course change is likely until at least December, when the president will find himself enmeshed in yet another review of his Afghan policy.

This will be Obama’s third chance to decide what kind of war he wants to fight in Afghanistan, and he will have several options to choose from, even if none is terribly promising. The first is to stay the course: to spend the next year attacking the Taliban and training the Afghan Army and police, and to begin reducing the number of U.S. troops in July 2011 only to the extent that conditions on the ground allow. Presumably, if conditions are not conducive, Petraeus will try to limit any reduction in the number of U.S. troops and their role to a minimum.

This approach is hugely expensive, however, and is highly unlikely to succeed. The Afghan government shows little sign of being prepared to deliver either clean administration or effective security at the local level. While a small number of Taliban might choose to “reintegrate”—i.e., opt out of the fight—the vast majority will not. And why should they? The Taliban are resilient and enjoy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, whose government tends to view the militants as an instrument for influencing Afghanistan’s future (something Pakistan cares a great deal about, given its fear of Indian designs there). ...

The war the United States is now fighting in Afghanistan is not succeeding and is not worth waging in this way. The time has come to scale back U.S. objectives and sharply reduce U.S. involvement on the ground. Afghanistan is claiming too many American lives, requiring too much attention, and absorbing too many resources. The sooner we accept that Afghanistan is less a problem to be fixed than a situation to be managed, the better.

Haass outlines the advantages and disadvantages of a number of alternative approaches, including one he calls a de facto partition of Afghanistan, which would allow Taliban control of the Pashtun-dominated southern part of the country as long as it keeps Al Qaeda out. But none of the options would eliminate a strong U.S. military presence, and Haass makes no case for nation-building there, something he advised Bush to avoid except marginally, although his scenarios do call for continuing development aid at some unspecified level. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in Afghanistan today to talk about development aid and the "civilian surge" that is part of the administration's counterinsurgency policy.

A recent Washington Post poll shows that the percentage of Americans who still think the war is worth fighting has dropped to 43 percent from 52 percent last December when President Obama announced the second of two surges that have added 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan since he came to office. So far, this year, 243 of those troops, plus 135 NATO troops, have been killed in stepped-up fighting.

Richard Haass, a Republican of the "realist" (opposed to "neoconservative") school of foreign policy thought, has joined those who say Afghanistan is not winnable and strategy should be adjusted accordingly. Haass, who was appointed to ad hoc government posts by both Presidents Bush and was a close adviser to Colin Powell at the time of the run-up to the Iraq War, is now president of the Council on Foreign Relations. His commentary - We’re Not Winning. It’s Not Worth It - was published Sunday in the on-line edition of Newsweek. He calls what's happening "very much Barack Obama’s war of choice, a point that the president underscored recently by picking Gen. David Petraeus to lead an intensified counterinsurgency effort there."

Today the counterinsurgency strategy that demanded all those troops is clearly not working. The August 2009 election that gave Karzai a second term as president was marred by pervasive fraud and left him with less legitimacy than ever. While the surge of U.S. forces has pushed back the Taliban in certain districts, the Karzai government has been unable to fill the vacuum with effective governance and security forces that could prevent the Taliban’s return. So far the Obama administration is sticking with its strategy; indeed, the president went to great lengths to underscore this when he turned to Petraeus to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Kabul. No course change is likely until at least December, when the president will find himself enmeshed in yet another review of his Afghan policy.

This will be Obama’s third chance to decide what kind of war he wants to fight in Afghanistan, and he will have several options to choose from, even if none is terribly promising. The first is to stay the course: to spend the next year attacking the Taliban and training the Afghan Army and police, and to begin reducing the number of U.S. troops in July 2011 only to the extent that conditions on the ground allow. Presumably, if conditions are not conducive, Petraeus will try to limit any reduction in the number of U.S. troops and their role to a minimum.

This approach is hugely expensive, however, and is highly unlikely to succeed. The Afghan government shows little sign of being prepared to deliver either clean administration or effective security at the local level. While a small number of Taliban might choose to “reintegrate”—i.e., opt out of the fight—the vast majority will not. And why should they? The Taliban are resilient and enjoy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, whose government tends to view the militants as an instrument for influencing Afghanistan’s future (something Pakistan cares a great deal about, given its fear of Indian designs there). ...

The war the United States is now fighting in Afghanistan is not succeeding and is not worth waging in this way. The time has come to scale back U.S. objectives and sharply reduce U.S. involvement on the ground. Afghanistan is claiming too many American lives, requiring too much attention, and absorbing too many resources. The sooner we accept that Afghanistan is less a problem to be fixed than a situation to be managed, the better.

Haass outlines the advantages and disadvantages of a number of alternative approaches, including one he calls a de facto partition of Afghanistan, which would allow Taliban control of the Pashtun-dominated southern part of the country as long as it keeps Al Qaeda out. But none of the options would eliminate a strong U.S. military presence, and Haass makes no case for nation-building there, something he advised Bush to avoid except marginally, although his scenarios do call for continuing development aid at some unspecified level. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in Afghanistan today to talk about development aid and the "civilian surge" that is part of the administration's counterinsurgency policy.

A recent Washington Post poll shows that the percentage of Americans who still think the war is worth fighting has dropped to 43 percent from 52 percent last December when President Obama announced the second of two surges that have added 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan since he came to office. So far, this year, 243 of those troops, plus 135 NATO troops, have been killed in stepped-up fighting.

At one point, Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel was seen as the moderate/reasonable alternative in the competitive multi-candidate Republican primary to succeed Sonny Perdue as the governor of Georgia.

Then she received the Twitter anointment of a certain former half-term governor from Alaska, and everything changed. But not necessarily because of Palin (although that is how it will likely get played), but because of the fallout of said endorsement.

One of her chief rivals, archconservative Congressman Nathan Deal (himself the recipient of a pretty mean endorsement in his own right--that of former House Speaker and Georgian Newt Gingrich), was somewhat infuriated.

It’s disappointing that Sarah Palin has chosen to back the most liberal Republican in this race.

In past races, Karen Handel endorsed taxpayer-funded domestic partner benefits and gay adoption — and she’s been caught lying about it.

Deal should not have worried, of course. Having exposed a potential soft underbelly of the Handel campaign, and in a high-profile setting (everyone was writing about the Palin endorsement, so Deal's smackdown got big play), Handel was going to backpedal. Furiously.

But even jaundiced eyes to politics had to be somewhat startled to see the speed and the ferocity with which Handel sprinted from her past.

Consider the interview she gave less than 48 hours after getting the nod from Palin. In it, she backpedalled furiously on the gay rights' thing, ever mindful that she would have to face Georgia primary voters before she could endeavor to be the state's next Governor:

This week, Georgia GOP gubernatorial candidate and former congressman Nathan Deal slammed his opponent, former secretary of state Karen Handel, for her past support of “taxpayer-funded domestic partner benefits and gay adoption” and membership in the Log Cabin Republicans. Concerned about shoring up support for next week’s primary, Handel has been denying and backtracking on those positions.

But in 2003, the Georgia Log Cabin Republicans said it supported Handel’s candidacy for county commission chair because she “demonstrated in her last run that she was supportive of domestic partner benefits” and “supported same-sex adoptions on the basis of the best interest of the child.” Handel is now calling the quote inaccurate, even though “she never asked Southern Voice for a correction or retraction.”

In an interview yesterday, Handel made her new-found feelings clear. Speaking with Doug Richards of Georgia’s 11 Alive, she uncomfortably tried to define her new opposition to gay rights and became exasperated when Richards pushed her to explain herself.

The exasperation is worth clicking the link--especially her testy response when asked why she now believes that gays cannot be suitable parents ("because I don't").

Former President Harry Truman, back in the day, made the famous observation that the Republican Party either corrupts their liberals or expels them. Moderates have now joined liberals in that regard.

Handel's metamorphosis on gay rights, therefore, was wholly and entirely predictable.

And, sadly, it was also effective. Once in a pack of GOP contenders, Handel holds a seven point lead over former frontrunner John Oxendine, according to a Mason Dixon poll released today.

Most media reports of this poll are laying it at the doorstep of Palin, predictably. But when Handel sails into the runoff tomorrow, probably in the lead, it will be her repudiation of one of the few moderate positions in her issue profile that likely shoved her across the line. That, in itself, is quite telling.

At one point, Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel was seen as the moderate/reasonable alternative in the competitive multi-candidate Republican primary to succeed Sonny Perdue as the governor of Georgia.

Then she received the Twitter anointment of a certain former half-term governor from Alaska, and everything changed. But not necessarily because of Palin (although that is how it will likely get played), but because of the fallout of said endorsement.

One of her chief rivals, archconservative Congressman Nathan Deal (himself the recipient of a pretty mean endorsement in his own right--that of former House Speaker and Georgian Newt Gingrich), was somewhat infuriated.

It’s disappointing that Sarah Palin has chosen to back the most liberal Republican in this race.

In past races, Karen Handel endorsed taxpayer-funded domestic partner benefits and gay adoption — and she’s been caught lying about it.

Deal should not have worried, of course. Having exposed a potential soft underbelly of the Handel campaign, and in a high-profile setting (everyone was writing about the Palin endorsement, so Deal's smackdown got big play), Handel was going to backpedal. Furiously.

But even jaundiced eyes to politics had to be somewhat startled to see the speed and the ferocity with which Handel sprinted from her past.

Consider the interview she gave less than 48 hours after getting the nod from Palin. In it, she backpedalled furiously on the gay rights' thing, ever mindful that she would have to face Georgia primary voters before she could endeavor to be the state's next Governor:

This week, Georgia GOP gubernatorial candidate and former congressman Nathan Deal slammed his opponent, former secretary of state Karen Handel, for her past support of “taxpayer-funded domestic partner benefits and gay adoption” and membership in the Log Cabin Republicans. Concerned about shoring up support for next week’s primary, Handel has been denying and backtracking on those positions.

But in 2003, the Georgia Log Cabin Republicans said it supported Handel’s candidacy for county commission chair because she “demonstrated in her last run that she was supportive of domestic partner benefits” and “supported same-sex adoptions on the basis of the best interest of the child.” Handel is now calling the quote inaccurate, even though “she never asked Southern Voice for a correction or retraction.”

In an interview yesterday, Handel made her new-found feelings clear. Speaking with Doug Richards of Georgia’s 11 Alive, she uncomfortably tried to define her new opposition to gay rights and became exasperated when Richards pushed her to explain herself.

The exasperation is worth clicking the link--especially her testy response when asked why she now believes that gays cannot be suitable parents ("because I don't").

Former President Harry Truman, back in the day, made the famous observation that the Republican Party either corrupts their liberals or expels them. Moderates have now joined liberals in that regard.

Handel's metamorphosis on gay rights, therefore, was wholly and entirely predictable.

And, sadly, it was also effective. Once in a pack of GOP contenders, Handel holds a seven point lead over former frontrunner John Oxendine, according to a Mason Dixon poll released today.

Most media reports of this poll are laying it at the doorstep of Palin, predictably. But when Handel sails into the runoff tomorrow, probably in the lead, it will be her repudiation of one of the few moderate positions in her issue profile that likely shoved her across the line. That, in itself, is quite telling.