Fascinating trendlines on religion in America via USA Today. I'm intrigued by the finding that between 1990 and 2008, five of the top seven states experiencing the biggest increase those citing "no religion" are in the Northeast.  Is that a result of the region's increasingly liberal political orientation or fallout from the disastrous revelations of the Catholic church (4 of the top 6 states experiencing a decline in Catholics are in the Northeast as well). Most likely it's a combination of the two.

So much for changing the smallness of our politics. In the New York Times this morning Jeff Zeleny confirms what we already know, which is that David Axelrod approved of the strategy of having the White House engage with Rush Limbaugh:

The recent back-and-forth with Rush Limbaugh, for example, was explicitly authorized by Mr. Axelrod, who told aides that it was not a moment to sit quietly after Mr. Limbaugh said he hoped that Mr. Obama would “fail.”

I heard James Carville justify the White House's strategy last week by saying that Rush Limbaugh "started it." That's a true - though utterly juvenile - response.

The whole point is that while Limbaugh's statement is legitimate grist for Democratic National Committee and liberal groups around the country to beat Republicans over the head with, the White House should be above the fray of engaging in direct attacks on its critics, particularly unelected individuals.

And, of course, it's especially hypocritical of Barack Obama who campaigned for two years on the promise of getting past the "smallness" of our politics and who just a few weeks ago lectured the nation on the importance of putting aside "childish things" to focus on the important tasks facing the country.

(Yes, another tired pun on the word "rush.")

What do I think on the great debate about Rush Limbaugh and the GOP?  I don't think there's any way in which it can be good for the Republican Party to be seen as in thrall to The Mouth That Roared, any more than it would be good for the Democrats to be seen as in thrall to their big fat idiot.  (I will say that I don't think the DNC chairman wouldn't call Michael Moore's rhetoric "incendiary" and "ugly" for fear of alienating his fan base, but I also doubt that Moore would be the star speaker at a gathering of liberal activists.)

Jonah Goldberg defends El Rushbo here.  Among other things, Jonah asks why it's wrong for Rush or any other conservative to say that he or she wants Obama to fail, considering that Obama's agenda -- to "remake America as a European welfare state" -- is one that conservatives naturally oppose.  But there are many ways to say the same thing.  I, for instance, would say that I hope Obama succeeds in turning the economy around, but fails in foisting upon us the big-government programs he is seeking to enact.   Surely, Rush Limbaugh is smart enough to figure out something like this.

Jonah also asks: (more...)

It may be only days before the Seattle Post-Intelligencer goes the way of the Rocky Mountain News. Its parent Hearst Corporation has set a March 10 deadline to find a buyer or it may shut down the paper.

While no serious buyer has emerged, word is that Hearst may be planning to extend the P-I's existence by making it an online-only entity. A number of P-I's staffers have been offered to stay on to work for the web site.

One reporter who turned down the offer said it came with some strings attached - it would increase his health insurance cost, cut his salary by an unspecified amount, match his 401(k) contributions, require him to forgo his P-I severance pay, reduce his vacation accrual to zero and require him to give up overtime. But Hector Castro said the reason he rejected the deal is because he finds working online "too tech-oriented."

Meanwhile, some of the newly unemployed Rocky Mountain News journalists have already found a way back on the web. Tracy Ringolsby, one of the most respected baseball writers who also co-founded Baseball America, has launched a baseball site along with fellow ex-Rocky baseball writer Jack Etkin and editor Steve Foster. It didn't take Colorado Rockies fans long to discover InsidetheRockies.com, which got around 2,100 hits the first day and climbing ever since.

(Cross posted at RCP's Media Watch.)

A motion to freeze federal government spending at 2008 levels through the rest of this fiscal year failed in the House today, shortly before the House passed a continuing resolution, which will fund the government at 2008 levels through next Wednesday.

Such a move would not have been necessary had Senate Democrats come up with 60 votes to pass the omnibus appropriations bill, which Republican leadership opposes because of its increased spending levels and 8,000-plus earmarks (though some of the earmarks were added on by Republicans). However, today's deadline for action on funding the federal government through Sept. 30 forced Democrats to buy Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a few more days to come up with the votes.

The temporary continuing resolution passed 328-50, with 2 Democrats and 48 Republicans voting against it. The Senate then agreed to it on a unanimous voice vote. The spending freeze, offered by House Republicans, failed on a 160-218 vote, with all 152 Republicans and eight Democrats voting for the measure.

"Let's show the American taxpayers that we get it," House Minority Leader John Boehner said from the House floor shortly before the spending freeze vote. "Let's show investors in our American economy that we get it. Because clearly the bill that's been under consideration both here in the House and now in the Senate has a $30 billion increase over last year's spending, and includes nearly 9,000 earmarks. And the way to put all of this to a stop is to just have a spending freeze."

(Cross posted at RCP's Politics Nation.)

My column on the brouhaha about Obama as a "socialist" appears on RealClearPolitics.com (and on Reason.com) this week.   Short answer: Yes, Obama's proposals advance and enhance the welfare state and government involvement in the economy (and yes, I think this is a bad thing); no, this is not any sort of radical departure from the existing system (as my Reason colleague Veronique de Rugy has noted, Obama's budget "simply expands the Bush policies of bigger government and increased centralization"); and to compare this to Communism by invoking, as Mike Huckabee and others have done, the decrepit ghosts of Lenin and Stalin verges on obscenity.

Now, we have a debate between my friend Ron Radosh and The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg on whether Obama's policies are leading us toward "fascism American style."    Rick thinks Ron has "lost his marbles" for merely entertaining the idea.  Ron responds that "Hertzberg's understanding of the term fascism shows little historical knowledge."  He writes that the analogy has a respectable provenance on the left: (more...)

A new Newsweek Poll (March 4-5, 1203 A, MoE +/- 3.5%) finds 58% of Americans approving of the way President Obama is handling his job, with 72% holding a favorable opinion of him.

On Republicans, 58% -- including 42% of Republicans surveyed -- believe that those in the party that oppose Obama's economic plans have no plan of their own for turning around the economy.

Seven out of ten believe Obama has made a reasonable effort to work with congressional Republicans, while Americans are split on whether congressional Democrats have done the same -- 45% say they have, 45% say they haven't.

Unemployment jumps to 8.1%, the highest rate since December 1983.

UPDATE: Here's the jump put in historical perspective:

From Steven Stark today. First is his weekly column, in which he argues that President Obama's ubiquity poses serious political risk. Second is this short blog post, in which he points out that Obama is facing his first true political dilemma on whether to bailout the auto industry because not only do a majority of Americans disapprove of the idea, but it will ignite a simmering schism in the Democratic party.

If you've got 10 minutes to kill, here's a cool story of the wartime history of Rolls-Royce.