The juicy bit is at 1:12...

Appearing as a guest on Tuesday’s Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter repeatedly characterized the conservative wing of the Republican party as "radical" and "extreme" as he and host Maddow discussed the possibility that conservative talk radio host Bill Cunningham would broadcast his radio show from House Minority Leader John Boehner’s office on Election Day. Alter asserted that the Republican party became radical in 1994, and soon advised "progressives" that they "need to learn a little bit about what the stakes are" because Republicans currently have a "radical agenda." Alter:

You know, it began in 1994. That was where we got radical Republican leadership for the first time. The reason that they succeeded was that the moderate Republican leadership of the old days had failed to regain control of the House of Representatives. So the lesson after ‘94 was: Be radical and maybe you can come back into power. ... so the message is not really for other Republicans. The message is for Democrats and how much do Democrats care about turning over a branch of our government to extremists, to radicals.

He soon concluded:

I do think it's a challenge for progressives, who are saying, ‘Oh, I'm not, you know, I'm disappointed in Obama. I'm not that excited, you know. I'm not going to work the way I did the last time.’ Well, they need to learn a little bit about what the stakes are. So an incident like this reminds us that we're talking about a different crowd with a radical agenda that they want to impose on our country.

It is no wonder that Alter would find the views of conservatives "radical," since last November, as he recounted that conservatives like former Congressman Bob Barr, Grover Norquist and David Keene are "principled conservatives" as they disagreed with Rudy Giuliani on the trying of terrorist suspects in civilian courts, Alter admitted to disagreeing with conservatives 98 percent of the time. Alter: "But, you know, they are principled conservative – even if you disagree, as I do with, you know, 98 percent of what they stand for."

On the cusp of what is trending toward a significant Republican victory in November, the current GOP congressional leadership has yet to make a compelling case that they're ready to lead a majority party. They appear satisfied to run as "Not Democrats." That may be enough to win, and maybe win big, but will it be enough to keep winning in 2012 and beyond? 

The current GOP leadership would be wise to heed the lesson of Joe Miller's victory over Senator Lisa Murkowski in the GOP primary in Alaska and announce that they'll step aside if Republicans gain a majority in one or both Houses of Congress. Congressman John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell do not represent the leadership of a GOP with a longer-term future. They are the generals of the last political war, where they lost. And their party, if it wins, will have done so mostly because the Democrats lost support.

You've heard the axiom that generals prepare to fight the next war as they fought the last.

Follow the 'via' link to go to the source and get the rest of the story...

It was known yesterday already that President Obama was going to call President George W. Bush in advance of tonight's speech on the end of combat operations in Iraq. What we were left wondering was what type of "tip of the hat" he'd give W. Here it is:

 I am mindful that the Iraq War has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it is time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I have said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq’s future.

What exactly, was the point of this "shout out?" Ahead of this passage Obama essentially touts the benefits of American victory (without ever calling it that) in Iraq. It's a victory that wouldn't have happened had then-Senator Obama got his way and the Bush surge of 2007 didn't happen. If you're not going to admit that Bush was right and you were wrong, why do this at all? It's downright condescending and an (unintended???) insult to Bush for Obama to feel HE has to set the record straight and let the country know that Bush supported the troops, loves his country and is committed to our security. Another try to please everybody moment gone awry. Deep down he knows he was wrong and Bush was right on the surge. But he certainly can't bring himself to say THAT, but probably figured he had to say SOMETHING about Bush.

As is often the case with Obama, more is a lot less. As Keith Olberman once implored President Bush: "sir, SHUT UP!"