In news that is sure to warm the hearts of every American, the Charlotte Observer has a report today about Sarah Palin's meeting with Billy Graham and his son, Franklin.

"He's followed her career and likes her strong stand on faith," said son Franklin Graham, who was present for the 2 1/2-hour get-together. "Daddy feels God was using her to wake America up."

As if that were not dreary enough:

She quizzed him on the presidents he's known and wanted his take on what the Bible says about Israel, Iran and Iraq, Franklin Graham reported.

None of this is the least bit surprising, but it was depressing to read the following:

Graham's son also confirmed his father got a call Nov. 12 from President Obama, a Democrat, who was phoning from Air Force One as he jetted to Asia. "He said he wanted to come by and meet my father sometime," Franklin Graham said. Obama also wished the evangelist belated birthday wishes - he turned 91 on Nov. 7. Graham told the president he'd be happy to meet with him and then shared a verse from Proverbs, his son said.

In this charming spirit of bipartisanship, let us not forget another conversation Graham once had with an American president:

Nixon: No... Well, the thing that you've really got to emphasize to him though, Billy, is that this anti-Semitism is stronger than we think, you know - they just... it's unfortunate, but this has happened to the Jews, it happened in Spain, it's happened in Germany, it's happening... and now it's going to happen in America if these people don't start behaving.

Graham: Well, you know, I told you one time that the Bible talks about two kinds of Jews. One is called "the synagogue of Satan." They're the ones putting out the pornographic literature, they're the ones putting out these obscene films.

Congressional Quarterly's Shira Toeplitz has a good rundown on all the ways in which presumptive Pennsylvania GOP Senate nominee Pat Toomey has moved to the center ever since Arlen Specter bolted for the Democratic Party. Which makes me again wonder whether it was a mistake for Obama to encourage Specter's defection.**

If Obama hadn't welcomed Specter with open arms and Specter had been forced to stay in the GOP, he almost certainly would have lost the Republican primary to Toomey, who planned to run to Specter's right. Even though Toomey would have pivoted to the middle for the general election, the pivot wouldn't have worked terribly well, because he would have already spent months running as an archconservative and would be known to many Pennsylvania voters as such. In other words, the Democratic nominee would have been running against an out-of-the-mainstream-for-Pennsylvania Republican. But now that Toomey's been able to begin his move to the center early, he'll likely be viewed by many general election voters as a legitimate moderate.

Meanwhile, the Democratic primary is shaping up to be a bloody battle between Specter and Joe Sestak. And the idea that, as Politico reports, "Democrats are buoyed by polling that suggests either candidate would run competitively against presumptive Republican nominee Pat Toomey" isn't exactly comforting, when you consider that the only reason Toomey is a formidable candidate is because he didn't have to run as a right-winger in order to win his primary. It's enough to make you think that if Obama had simply taken a hands-off policy toward this race, Democrats would have had a better shot at picking up that Pennsylvania Senate seat in 2010.

**- Of course, Specter's defection has paid short-term benefits for Obama, especially on health care. So, if that was Obama's calculation in encouraging Specter's switch, it was a smart move.

Ross Douthat's column in today's New York Times makes the perfectly sensible point that Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee have decided to use their fame to become bigger celebrities, rather than more policy-oriented, serious public figures. Huckabee hosts a (perversely enjoyable) television show on Fox News, and Palin has a new book out (or so I've heard). Douthat writes:

 For Palin, the serious path required at least serving out her term as governor before returning to the national stage. For Huckabee, it could have involved anything from starting a think tank to running for the Senate in 2010. For both, it would have meant wedding their political identity to ideas as well as attitudes.So far, they’ve chosen celebrity instead...

But they were the wrong moves if either wanted to become president someday. Huckabee’s gabfest is a weekly reaffirmation of the rap that he’s too lightweight for the Oval Office. Palin has sealed her identity as a culture-war lightning rod: she can inspire hysteria from liberals (ably catalogued in Matthew Continetti’s “Persecution of Sarah Palin”) and adulation from conservatives (visible at every stop along her book tour), but she’s unlikely to persuade anyone in the middle to trust her with the reins of government.

Douthat then contrasts them to Obama, who did not allow his celebrity status to get in the way of his wonkishness and seriousness.

The first problem with this argument is that, er, Palin is unlikely to become a policy wonk because she is not very smart. What's more, Douthat's argument is tautological. Sure, it would be nice for the GOP if Palin and Huckabee were interested in policy. But if they were interested in policy, then they would not be so appealing to the GOP base. In other words, the problem is that a large part of the right has no interest in a policy wonk, and sneers at intellectuals and elites and the types of people Douthat would like to see running the party. A candidate who was interested in learning the ins and outs of the welfare state and health care policy is unlikely to ever achieve Palin/Huckabee levels of popularity with the grassroots. 

One of the most fascinating aspects of the health-care reform debate are the creative, highly targeted arguments that outside groups are marshalling to try and kill it. My current favorite is from the Gun Owners of America. (If you think the NRA is a bunch of accommodationist wusses, this group's for you.) Saturday, the organization issued a warning to its members, featuring this motivational bit:

Of course, all this increased spending – and taxes – means that you will have less money to spend on pursuing your real passions:  like providing for your family and purchasing guns and ammunition!

The mandates in the legislation will most likely dump your gun-related health data into a government database that was created in section 13001 of the stimulus bill.  This includes any firearms-related information your doctor has gleaned... or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude you from owning firearms.

And, the special "wellness and prevention" programs (inserted by Section 1001 of the bill as part of a new Section 2717 in the Public Health Services Act) would allow the government to offer lower premiums to employers who bribe their employees to live healthier lifestyles – and nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius from decreeing that "no guns" is somehow healthier.

(Please note that the ellipses in the second paragraph are theirs, not mine. Far be it from me to leave out any of these rhetorical nuggets.)

Let's break this call to arms down into its two primary parts:

1. GOA pulls the common stunt of dragging an outlandish hypothetical straight from the fevered dreams of Ron Paul and spinning it as a perfectly reasonable, intended outcome of reform. Yes, there is (to my knowledge) nothing in this bill that specifically prohibits Sebelius from declaring non-gun-ownership to be an indicator of good health. There is also nothing in the bill that specifically prohibits her from donning a diamond tiara and declaring herself Queen of Festivus. Of the two, however, only the no-guns-equal-wellness maneuver would be tantamount to political suicide for Sebelius's entire party.

2. GOA is also apoplectic over the possibility that, post-reform, the government's health-care database will "most likely" make it easier to prevent people with grave psychological problems from owning firearms.

Let's set aside for a moment whether this kind of mass-scale coordination is remotely feasible, much less "likely," and just allow GOA's basic objection to sink in: As the group sees it, that whole seriously-mentally-ill-people-shouldn't-own-guns crap is precisely the sort of jack-booted thuggery that threatens the very fiber of this great nation. The only thing that makes such fascism currently palatable is that the existing system is so easy to game. (Let's hear it for the gun-show loophole, people!) But if Obamacare passes, look out.

Say what you will about the level of public discourse in this debate; it's providing an illuminating glimpse into the psyches of some of reform's more colorful opponents.

 Last week, the Republican Governors Association held a conference outside Austin where the group predicted that the ideas-oriented campaigns of Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell would serve as harbingers of the 37 gubernatorial races next year--an issue I touched upon in a piece a few weeks ago. While Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, the chairman of the committee, is coming out as the public face of the RGA, the real brains behind the group seems to be executive director Nick Ayers. Click here to read about how he is angling the RGA to lead the Republican comeback.

Les Gelb thinks Obama's trip to Asia was a flop, and that the time would have been better spent on a Hawaii vacation. He also wonders whether, after a couple of foreign trips with little to show for them, Obama's foreign policy team is serving him well:

First, the trip’s limited value per day of presidential effort suggests a disturbing amateurishness in managing America’s power. On top of the inexcusably clumsy review of Afghan policy and the fumbling of Mideast negotiations, the message for Mr. Obama should be clear: He should stare hard at the skills of his foreign-policy team and, more so, at his own dominant role in decision-making. Something is awry somewhere, and he’s got to fix it.

I don't agree that Obama should be castigated for the Asia trip's lack of "deliverables." I do think the Afghanistan policy review and Middle East diplomacy have left a lot to be desired. Just whose fault that is remains unclear. Different people have different theories and it's probably not fair to name names based on speculation. But to some degree, Obama inherited an incredibly lousy hand on foreign policy, and turning things around was never going to be simple and happy-making.

It's worth noting, finally, that we've already seen two minor shakeups. The veteran Middle East (and, more recently, Iran) guru Dennis Ross moved from the State Department to the national security council. And Obama's longtime foreign policy aide Mark Lippert recent departed the NSC, for reasons unclear, to return to the Navy.

If you liked it, then you shoulda put a ring on it:

(via Andrew Sullivan)

Charlie Baker is a moderate Republican businessman who's running for Massachusetts Governor. In other words, he's got a lot in common with Mitt Romney--or at least the version of Mitt Romney who existed before he thought he needed to be a lot more conservative in order to win the GOP's presidential nomination. But today, Baker struck the sort of bold stance that not even a chameleon like Romney could distance himself from: He picked as his running mate Richard Tisei, a State Senator who last week announced that he's gay. Baker's got a long way to go before he gets the top job on Beacon Hill: he not only has to beat a millionaire gadfly in the GOP primary, but he'll have to defeat Deval Patrick, who, despite his poor poll numbers, is still the incumbent. Still, when you consider all the talk about how the GOP is now looking to its governors as the model for future national candidates, it's nice to think that Baker could set an example the rest of the party might one day follow.

Another day, another example of Sarah Palin going out of her way to trash the father of her grandson, Levi Johnston. In response to a People magazine reader's question, "How is your daughter Bristol doing as a young mother," the former governor explains:

She's spectacular. She's amazing. Still doesn't get a lot of sleep because Tripp is a light sleeper through the night and Bristol's got him all the time. But she's going to college, she's working and taking care of the baby. She's got her hands full. But very, very strong, very optimistic. She teaches me good lessons through all of this, too. She keeps things in perspective. She is realizing that her good decisions today will bear fruit, perhaps years down the road, but she's seeing now that it's worth it to take the high road when it comes to the [custody] controversy with Levi [Johnston] and him doing his porn stuff [posing for Playgirl]. It's all about the baby, it's all about what he is going to grow up with, and she knows she has to pull even more weight to make sure Tripp has a good upbringing.

Palin's inability to leave a grievance un-aired is quickly becoming the stuff of legend. But the feud with Johnston is one of the more egregious, and ongoing, self-inflicted political injuries I can ever recall seeing. (The irony of her applauding her daughter's decision to "take the high road" in the same sentence in which she throws her "porn" dig is almost too much.)

The obvious, immensely easy play here would be for her to make up publicly with the boy. But even if that's too much--as it obviously is--you'd think she could manage some high-road blather when asked about Johnston ("We've had our disagreements, as you all know, but he's  good kid and I hope it all works out for him in the end") and could avoid bringing him up altogether when she's asked about something else, as in this case. But, no, she somehow seems to believe--and no one close to her can evidently dissuade her--that if she can win a war of words with a semi-employed, 19-year-old high-school dropout, it will amount to an actual victory for her.

The swap--1,000 Palestinians for the young Israeli soldier captured in 2006 could be a minor breakthrough in the intractable Gaza standoff--and also support for the recent claim that the two sides have been secretly talking.

The fate of Obamacare now rests with the Senate, and it will pivot on Harry Reid's ability to overcome one measure in particular: the filibuster. It wasn't always so easy to block legislation using this tactic, since senators no longer have to remain on the floor and read out loud until their wills--or their bladders--give out. Click through this TNR slideshow to see some of the most memorable filibusters in congressional history.

• Does Obama Still Have the Support of the People? by Jonathan Chait
• Why Liberals Should Be Excited About the Senate Health Care Bill by Jonathan Cohn
• Can the US and India Play Nice on Climate Change? by Jesse Zwick
• Republican Hypocrisy on Health Care Sinks to New Lows by Harold Pollack
• In Support of a Third Way in Afghanistan by E.J. Dionne Jr.
• Capping Wall Street Pay Won't Solve Our Problems--But Breaking Up the Banks Might by The Editors
• Why Our Economic Recovery Is Far From 'Mission Accomplished' by Mark Muro and Kenan Fikri
• The Final Descent of John McCain by Jonathan Chait

As always, be sure to check out economic news on The Stash, environment and energy coverage on The Vine, the latest on health care at The Treatment, metro policy debate on The Avenue, and Marty Peretz's The Spine. Also be sure to take a look at TNR's new blogs by William Galston, Simon Johnson, Ed Kilgore, Damon Linker, and John McWhorter.