...from 28 years ago:

Consider this first sentence from a Washington Post story dated November 25, 1981: "Americans enter the 1981 holiday season with gloomy expectations for themselves and increasingly critical views of Ronald Reagan's handling of the economy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll." Sound familiar?

At the time, the country had just plunged into a recession. Unemployment in November '81 stood at 8.3 percent - nearly a full point jump from Reagan's inauguration - and it was clear that things would get far worse before they improved.

Reagan had, months earlier, pushed his massive tax cut program through Congress, but voters were increasingly tuning out his pleadings that - given enough time - it would help combat the economic downturn.

Having forced myself to relive the Reagan presidency over the course of 2008 and then watching Obama in real time, I -- like the author of this piece in the New York Observer -- have been struck by the amazing similarities in the story arc between the two presidencies, despite the fairly radical differences in philosophy. If the past is prologue, the Democrats will suffer in the short term -- i.e., next year's mid-term elections -- but Obama can prosper politically when (OK, maybe the word is "if") the job market rebounds. That economic turnaround may have little to do with Obama's policies (the stimulus?...that's probably only what's keeping unemployment from hitting 11 or 12 percent right now).

But that would be a parallel to Reagan as well -- as I wrote in "Tear Down This Myth," the economic surge of the mid-1980s was more a factor of things outside the Gipper's control, including the business cycle, a worldwide plunge in oil prices and the inflation-killing tight money policies of then-Fed chairman Paul Volcker, an appointment and a policy that was launched under Jimmy Carter. Reagan's big 1981 tax cut didn't have a huge impact on the broader. short-term economy, although it did kick off the massive shift of wealth in America from the middle class to the upper 1 or 2 percent. Meanwhile, whether it's 1984 or 2010, Americans tend to vote the result (the current unemployment rate), not the actual policy.

Also, Obama may realize that -- just like it turned out for Reagan -- that he'll never have as much support in Congress as his first year, which probably explains why he's pushed so hard this year for healthcare reform. So if all this pattern holds, we can only hope that Obama won't trade arms for hostages with Iran and then forget about it during his second term.  

Help me figure it out:

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

Is it possible for the answer to be "both"? (h/t to occasional Attytood Reader JB)

It's gotten so bad in the newspaper business that EVEN THE MAFIA can't boost our circulation.

That's why this is probably good news.

Warning: Posting may be extremely light for the next day or so.

Here's two things that might cause your head to explode:

1. If you read my book, "Tear Down This Myth" (and who didn't? :-) ), then you know that the villain of the story is actually not so much Ronald Reagan (although he has his moments) as Grover Norquist, founder of the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project and leader of the warped "Reaganism" movement of endless tax cuts and knee-jerk militarism. That's why you may be as stunned as I was that when it comes to trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 suspects in a civilian court in New York, we're on the same side:

All the cowering from conservatives embarrassed former conservative Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, Libertarian presidential candidate David Keene and Grover Norquist, chairman of the American Conservative Union. They issued a statement saying, "The scaremongering about these issues should stop," and "civilian courts are the proper forum for terrorism cases."

2. Did you ever think you'd live to see the day that the liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America criticized a mainstream media outlet for being too hard on...Sarah Palin? Me neither, but I think they're right on the money in ripping Newsweek for a string of sexist -- and bizarrely so -- photos that illustrate its new cover story on the woman who was nearly our vice president. I've posted the controversial cover up top but you need to click through and see two really weird pictures from inside the mag.

You think newspapers have problems in the Internet age? Weekly newsmagazines are flopping around like a dying mackerel, and this week's Newsweek is Exhibit A.

I see that President Obama is talking about jobs...a little late. Showing that his knowledge of the issue may come from Billy Joel albums the president bought when he was back at Columbia, Obama is off to Allentown (why not also Bethlehem, where they're "filling out forms, standing in line..?") Nancy Pelosi is also focused on jobs, suddenly. Why this hasn't been the No. 1 priority since 1/20/09 is mindboggling.

Don't they listen to arguably the world's best economist, Dr. Doom, a.k.a., Nouriel Roubini?

Usually, I end up not regretting the blog posts that I don't write, usually because of lack of time or whatever; this time, it's different. I had meant to say something back in October about the Eagles' Brian Westbrook and his concussions, the idea being that everyone seemed a little too focused on the question of how quickly the Birds were going to get their star running back back out on the playing field, and not focused enough on the issue of keeping Westbrook healthy for a long and productive life after the NFL. Unfortunately, like a lot of us, the sports compartment of my brain back then was 100 percent filled with the Phillies in the World Series and I never got around to writing about it. Of course, what happened next was sad but unsurprising. Westbrook did return quickly, almost immediately suffered a second concussion, and now everyone is talking about whether he should retire.

Sam Donnellon thinks so, and I agree:

I am not a neurologist, nor do I play one in print or on television. But if "the No. 1 thing is Brian's health," as Andy Reid said yesterday, then there really is only one thing for Brian Westbrook to do:

Retire. Immediately.

Yep. For the last few weeks there was a striking disconnent between the real world where the NFL is doing a terrible job of explaining its problems with head injuries and the high rates of early dementia, depression, suicide, and other related problems for some players after they retire, and Philadelphia, where that story was downplayed even as the question of how quickly could the concussion-afflicted Westbrook could play again was the main (non-Phillies) sports story in town, night after night.

Donnellon helps bring us up to speed:

Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., played a TV interview of [Dr. Ira] Casson [the NFL's paid expert] during the hearings in which he denied evidence of a link between multiple head injuries in NFL players with brain disorders such as dementia and Alzheimer's. She likened it to tobacco companies denying a link between smoking and health damage in the 1990s.

Ultimately, the decision is Westbrook's, as it should be. We don't -- and shouldn't -- live in a world where we simply shut down any kind of risky behavior; we're always going to have auto racers and mountain climbers and thrill seekers [like Steve Irwin, for example] who know there's a significant element of danger in what they do, but do it because it's part of their reason for living in the first place. In the case of Westbrook, he deserves the best medical care and the best -- and most realistic -- advice on earth, so he can make an informed decision.

But Westbrook has already accomplished great things on a football field that we merely mortals could only dream of, scoring a touchdown in the Super Bowl and peeling off some of the greatest plays in Eagles' history. It's time for him -- and for Philadelphia -- to start focusing on what comes next.

It's come down to this. I swear to God, this is what Rick Sanchez said on CNN earlier this afternoon: "Does Sarah Palin going on 'Oprah" signal the start of the 2012 presidential campaign?" Somehow I missed that article of the U.S. Constitution -- is it before or after the section about the electoral college?

Anyway, I wasn't able to watch the Palin-Oprah gabfest, so I can't really comment on her style or much of the substance. I do know, from the endless news accounts and dissections on talk radio, that these are some of the things that were aked and talked about during this supposed opening salvo in picking a possible 45th president of the United States. The questions included several about the wayward father of Palin's grandson, Levi Johnston, and his appearance in Playgirl, what it was like being interviewed by Katie Couric, a lot of inside-baseball, backstage machinations with the McCain campaign, work-life balance, even the state of her marriage -- anything, apparently, that wasn't the State of the Union.

Some of the responsibility falls on Oprah Winfrey, obviously, as the interviewer -- although in fairness to Oprah I'd note that a) she was giving her daytime, apolitical audience the gossipy red meat it tuned in to hear and more importantly b) she asked Palin questions that were substance-free because ever since the last imploding days of her campaign for vice president, Palin herself has been pretty substance-free, walking away from a governor's job that could have been an incubator -- albeit a risky one -- for new policy ideas and then writing a book that certainly isn't making news for any new ideas for making America a better place for its citizens.

It wasn't always this way. Check out the topics the first time that a presidential candidate appeared on an entertainment-oriented TV show, when John F. Kennedy went on NBC's "Tonight Show" with Jack Parr in June 1960, as recounted by Frank Rich:

 On June 16, 1960, Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy, in a natty suit, sat next to the brilliant and much-mourned Jack Paar on NBC's ''Tonight Show'' and fielded more than 30 minutes' worth of questions from his host, the droll comedian Peggy Cass and the New York studio audience. The subjects were the U-2 incident, the failed Soviet summit, Cuba and ''the Catholic question.'' Mr. Paar tried to elicit a laugh only once, asking the senator to recall amusing anecdotes from the primary campaign trail. Kennedy was stumped, and when his one example (''I was made an honorary Indian'') landed with a thud, the two men scampered back for safety to the cold war.

Is it a slam dunk that things were so much better in the good old days? Not totally; as Rich points out, the interview went too far to the other extreme of dullness and earnestness, and the format allowed JFK -- who was eager to prove his policy heft to a nation that was worried he was too young for the White House -- to offer dry, canned answers. Still, you'd like to think there's a middle ground here in 2009, that there'd be some room in an hour-long interview for at least a little chatter about the nation and the world, and less about this endless soap opera that could be entitled "Palin Place."

Unless maybe this really wasn't the kickoff of the 2012 presidential campaign, after all.

Rudy Giuliani -- from "Winston Churchill" to quivering Jello-like mass of fear in just eight short years. Maybe it's domestic bliss? It was just a few short years ago -- during the Bush years, if I'n not mistaken -- that Giuliani was happy to testify at the domestic criminal trial of a foreign-born al-Qaeda plotter, Zacarias Moussaoui. Wonder what changed?

Legal expert Andrew Cohen had a must-read piece in the Washington Post about some of the myths about trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York. He notes:

Trying Mohammed in New York will significantly raise the risk of another terrorist attack there. Fact: No one can determine how big that increased risk would be. But New York has long been able to safely host trials of terrorism suspects -- including the trial that followed the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center -- and its security systems are among the world's finest. I have seen, during the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, just how intense security can be in terrorism cases. It's awe-inspiring.

Rudy should go. He might learn something. He could also listen to Pat Perry:

Pat Perry, whose son was a police offer killed on 9/11, says she would rather see the Guantánamo detainees who have been held without charge “appear in open court where we can all sift out what we feel is really the truth and the judges can make a decision based on our Constitution.”

These 9/11 family members all say they agree that holding detainees without charge in Guantánamo is a betrayal of American values and they look forward to true justice being served in federal court.  

“My son gave his life to save those trapped in the Twin Towers,” Welty says, “and it does not honor him that we violate our Constitution in retaliation for what happened on September 11.”

Rep. Bob Brady is a man who wears many hats around Philadelphia. The one that gets the most hype locally is his longtime role as boss of the Democratic machine that has controlled city politics for nearly six decades. But we also see Brady around here as a staunch pro-union guy, a labor peacemaker, even recently in a failed bid as a mayoral candidate. The only Brady job that we don't pay too much attention to here is his "day job," as one of 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

It's time to start paying more attention to that.

There was a great piece of investigative reporting in the New York Times this morning. It turns out that during the recent House debate on healthcare reform -- you know, only the most significant congressional topic of 2009 -- a number of represenatives either gave speeches on the floor of the Capitol or entered statements into the Congressional Record with oddly similar language. The reason for that, the Times found out, is because the members and their staffers had received the wording in an email.

From lobbyists.

In fact, the email was from the lobbying team related to a major biomedical research firm, Genentech, a company whose lobbyists have made campaign contributions to many House members in recent years. In a sign of how the buying and selling of the U.S. Congress knows no ideology at all, the Genentech lobbyists had almost equal success in peddling its language to Democrats and Republicans, despite that fact that the GOP voted uniformly against the bill and Democrats were largely for it.

One of the Democrats snared in this Times article was Philly's own Brady:

In the standard Democratic statement, Representative Robert A. Brady of Pennsylvania said: “Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. This bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in health care delivery, technology and research in the United States.”

Mr. Brady’s chief of staff, Stanley V. White, said he had received the draft statement from a lobbyist for Genentech’s parent company, Roche.

“We were approached by the lobbyist, who asked if we would be willing to enter a statement in the Congressional Record,” Mr. White said. “I asked him for a draft. I tweaked a couple of words. There’s not much reason to reinvent the wheel on a Congressional Record entry.”

Frankly, I was a bit surprised to read of this. Surprised that a Philadelphia congressman was echoing a lobbyist? No, surprised that Brady had even gone to the effort of putting something out on an important national healthcare debate. In his 11 years in Congress, Brady -- by his own admission not a silver-tongued public speaker -- has been the ultimate back-bencher, much more focused on local issues than on the big national matters affecting his constituents in one of the nation's more poverty-plagued congressional districts. His lead role these days during his time in D.C. is as chairman of the Committee on House Administration, which deals with weighty issues like office space for members of Congress.

So apparently Brady -- so busy with those Philly responsibilities like mediating the recent SEPTA stike -- simply phoned it in, or emailed it in, on health care. What's more, this isn't the only incident. Earlier this year, the Sunlight Foundation reported that Brady used language that aped one of his largest campaign donors, the Philadelphia-based behemoth Comcast Corp., in opposing net neutrality, the current system that allows everyone to cruise the Internet equally.

Of the 72 lawmakers who signed onto the letter, Brady is the leading recipient of campaign contributions from telecom companies -- since 2007 alone he's received $91,650 just from Comcast, which is based in his district of Philadelphia.

Comcast, which has played an aggressive role in the debate over net neutrality, spent $3 million on lobbying in the third quarter of the year, according to disclosure reports.

Not surprisingly, Brady has a long history of supporting Comcast's policies. And the letter sent to FCC bears a striking resemblance to Comcast's announcement on net neutrality.

At least on healthcare reform, Brady ended up voting for a bill that would benefit his mostly poor and working class constituents. On net neutrality, Brady's pro-Comcast stance places him in support of a big corporation against the interests of Pennsylvania's 1st District, since proposed changes could allow companies like Comcast to create levels of tiered service that could be unduly restrictive to lower-income Internet users.

But perhaps more importantly, taxpayers are providing Brady with some big bucks -- $169,300 a year, plus all the other perks -- to do his job, not copy his homework off some K Street lobbyist. If Brady is a little overtaxed from dealing with ward leaders and union chiefs up here in Philly, maybe it's time he should think about taking one of those many hats off.