Pseudo-historian David Barton shared some fascinating insights this week on religion in public schools.

For those who can’t watch clips online, Barton argued, “You go back to the Founding Fathers, as far as they were concerned, they’d already had the entire debate on creation-evolution. And you get Thomas Paine, who was the least religious Founding Father, saying you’ve got to teach creation science in the public school classroom. The scientific method demands that. Now, we’re opposite today.”

It’s hard to know where to start with such an argument. One could note, for example, that the scope of political leaders’ scientific knowledge towards the end of the 18th century isn’t especially relevant right now.

Or perhaps one should point out that Darwin didn’t write On The Origin of Species until 1859, making it unlikely that the Founding Fathers had “already had the entire debate on creation-evolution” nearly a century earlier.

Nevertheless, Barton is one of the most influential activists in Republican politics, and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) recently called on Barton to “teach” members of Congress about how they should interpret the Constitution.

When I talk about the intellectual bankruptcy of contemporary Republicans, Barton helps prove the point.

Democratic congressional leaders have called for an ethics investigation into Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), following revelations that he shared lewd content with women he met online and lied about it. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said that’s not good enough and he wants Weiner to resign.

“Do we really need an ethics investigation to determine whether this guy is a creep or not? I mean, really?” Priebus told reporters this morning. “We need to investigate — use taxpayer dollars — to make a determination?”

Now, Priebus is the RNC chairman, so this is pretty much what he’s supposed to say. A Democrat gets caught up in an embarrassing scandal? Call for his resignation. It’s the obvious thing for a party chief to do.

Priebus’ problem, though, is that the more he pushes this, the more he gets asked that other question.

He declined to comment on previous Republican sex scandals, including one involving Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, who remained in office and was re-elected after he acknowledged in 2007 that he committed “a serious sin” in soliciting the services of a prostitute. Mr. Priebus said that he was not the party chairman at the time and had no authority to weigh in on the matter.

“Everyone wants to talk about David Vitter,” Mr. Priebus said. “I’m not going to re-litigate David Vitter. I think it’s wrong, too, but I’m not going to re-litigate David Vitter. We are in the moment now.”

What a clever little phrase. “We are in the moment now.” It has a vaguely metaphysical quality.

But that doesn’t make it persuasive. Priebus wants us to think Weiner is “a creep.” Given the last two weeks, that’s an argument that will likely resonate with a lot of folks. But there are lots of creeps in Congress, and the head of the Republican National Committee isn’t calling on all of them to resign.

In fact, one creep in particular is of interest. Weiner had explicit communications with women he met online, but he didn’t break any laws and didn’t even commit adultery. David Vitter, a right-wing family-values lawmaker, hired prostitutes more than once. In at least one instance, he communicated with a madam about hiring a hooker while he was on the floor of the House. We don’t know if Vitter used taxpayer resources for any of his trysts, or anything about the women he paid to have sex with him.

Which of these two men appear to have committed a more serious transgression? I’ll give you a hint: it’s the one Priebus doesn’t want to talk about.

“We are in the moment now”? Fine. David Vitter is in the Senate right now. If Anthony Weiner has disgraced himself so severely that he must give up his office, why should Vitter remain? Hell, even former RNC Chairman Michael Steele isn’t buying Priebus’ line.

For that matter, note that while Nancy Pelosi called for an investigation into the Weiner matter, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made no comparable call about Vitter.

So, what’s it going to be, Reince? Are we holding lawmakers to the highest of standards or aren’t we?

On CNN yesterday, Republican campaign strategist Ed Rollins, who recently joined Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-Minn..) team, defended the likely GOP presidential candidate’s credentials.

“…I think the key thing here is she — if she does become a candidate, which I think she will, she will have a good team around her and will basically make sure that everything is fact checked and obviously she’s smart, she’s on the intelligence committee, you know, so she can talk about a lot of different things.”

Republicans realize that being on the Intelligence Committee does not make someone intelligent, right? They know “intelligence,” in this committee context, relates to reviewing materials and documents related to national security, don’t they?

Regardless, now that the right-wing Minnesotan is poised to actually go through with this plan for a presidential campaign, there’s renewed discussion about whether Bachmann has a legitimate shot at the nomination. Jon Chait has been making the case for a while that it’s a mistake to dismiss her chances entirely.

Chait’s not the only credible observer making the argument. Paul Waldman said Bachmann brings ideas that “are radical nearly to the point of being nuts,” but added she’ll probably be surprisingly “formidable” in the Republican primaries.

If all you knew about her was the Saturday Night Live caricature, you might think she was just an incompetent airhead. But Bachmann does some important things very well. She may not be all that eloquent, but she is extremely articulate — she can get up and without notes give a seamless extemporaneous speech that tickles every conservative tender spot, with anti-government bromides, shots at European social democracy, and shout-outs to the Declaration of Independence (that’s the one that mentions a Creator, don’cha know). […]

It’s true that Bachmann’s hard-right ideology and her immersion in the Tea Party’s particular blend of tics and peeves narrow her appeal to those already on the right. But she can work that wing like few others…. Bachmann is no policy genius, but she knows how to read a crowd, and she understands the conservative voters all the candidates are trying desperately to woo.

Suzy Khimm is thinking along the same lines.

For what it’s worth, Waldman’s case is entirely sound, as are Khimm’s and Chait’s. But I still can’t bring myself to see Bachmann as anything but a joke who would struggle badly to compete nationwide.

Her principal problem is, to put it gently, she’s stark raving mad. Even in a radicalized party and the most extreme House majority caucus in generations, Bachmann stands out as one of Congress’ most loony-tunes members.

I won’t deny that this is likely to help Bachmann with many equally-unhinged Republican voters, but I also believe the party desperately wants to win in 2012. Even the most wild-eyed Tea Party fanatic understands, at a certain level, that the American mainstream is far more likely to laugh at Michele Bachmann than vote for her.

Regardless, she’s clearly running, and we’ll see soon enough whether the Republican base is really that far gone.

Maybe the airline figured its reputation isn’t all that important.

Delta Air Lines is facing intense criticism after charging 34 U.S. soldiers returning from Afghanistan $2,800 in baggage fees. […]

“We showed up and found out we had too many bags,” said Army Staff Sgt. Robert O’Hair in the video, which was shot on their flight. “We had four bags, and Delta Air Lines only allows three bags. Anything over three bags you have to pay for, even though there’s a contract between the United States government and Delta Air Lines: When returning from Afghanistan on military orders, you’re authorized up to four bags.”

O’Hair added that all the soldiers with a fourth bag had to pay $200 out-of-pocket. The total for the 34 soldiers was more than $2,800. O’Hair’s fourth piece of luggage was his weapons case, carrying the tools he used, in his words, to “protect myself and Afghan citizens while I was deployed in the country.”

A Delta representative has since apologized and vowed to reach out to the soldiers personally, but the damage appears to have been done.

A spokesperson for the Veterans of Foreign Wars said in a statement, “A $200 bill for extra baggage by a government-contracted airline is the worst welcome home any soldier could receive. We know this is a business issue and that the troops will be reimbursed if they are authorized additional baggage in their orders, but the shock of even being charged is enough to make most servicemen and women simply shake their heads and wonder who or what it is they are protecting.”

The chairman of VoteVets.org added, “Our troops are deployed to war for months at a time — they aren’t packing light for a weekend on the beach. Delta shouldn’t be sending the signal that it puts profits ahead of the men and women in uniform.”

Keep in mind, this comes on the heels of Delta engaging in some outrageous anti-union activities, which didn’t exactly bolster the airline’s reputation.

Update: In addition to the public apology, Delta has now updated its baggage policy for “U.S. military personnel traveling on orders.”

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that won’t necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* A new Quinnipiac poll shows Mitt Romney well ahead in the race of the Republican presidential nomination, leading the pack with 25% support. Sarah Palin is second with 15%, followed by Herman Cain with 9%.

* The same Quinnipiac poll, by the way, shows President Obama leading Romney nationwide, 47% to 41%. This will get a small fraction of the attention yesterday’s WaPo/ABC poll received.

* Responding to Republican demands, Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) is donating to charity the $1,000 she received from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). The money will now go to a shelter for homeless women and a nonprofit for American veterans. Sutton is the first to reject Weiner’s money.

* There were widespread hopes that Sen. Scott Brown’s (R) recent buffoonery would undermine his re-election prospects. Apparently, that’s not the case — a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows the incumbent with big leads over all of his potential Democratic rivals.

* In the state of Washington, state Attorney General Rob McKenna (R) will kick off his gubernatorial campaign today, and will immediately become the favorite for the GOP nomination. Incumbent Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) is not expected to seek a third term, and Rep. Jay Inslee (D) will likely be the Democratic frontrunner.

* There are two Republicans competing in Miami’s mayoral race, and both are distancing themselves from Florida’s wildly unpopular governor, Rick Scott (R).

* In Utah, Rep. Jason Chaffetz continues to take steps towards challenging Sen. Orrin Hatch in a Republican primary next year. I have increasing clarity and I’m leaning towards doing it,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

* And in Oklahoma, Rep. Dan Boren, the only Democrat in the state’s congressional delegation and arguably Congress’ most conservative Dem, announced yesterday that he will not seek re-election next year. The seat will almost certainly shift from “blue” to “red.”

Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty unveiled economic plan yesterday, about which nothing good can be said. It’s genuinely laughable and the sort of agenda that should, if substance mattered in politics, force Pawlenty from polite company for a long while.

But before it’s forgotten, there’s one last element I wanted to focus on.

As Pawlenty sees it, the domestic goal should be economic growth at 5%. As for the former Minnesota governor argued yesterday, “It’s been done before: Between 1983 and 1987, the Reagan recovery grew at 4.9 percent annually. Between 1996 and 1999, under President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress, the economy grew at around 4.7 percent annually.”

Now, there’s quite a bit wrong with this. For example, Pawlenty is saying we’ve achieved 5% GDP growth before, and then points to two examples of the U.S. falling short of 5% GDP growth. It doesn’t speak well of Pawlenty’s reading comprehension skills. For that matter, I don’t doubt President Obama would love 5% growth, but reaching such a goal so soon after the most brutal recession in generations is impossible without a massive stimulus package.

But the most notable angle to keep in mind has to do with taxes. As Pawlenty sees it, $7.8 trillion in tax cuts ought to work wonders. But look again at what he considers the best recent examples of growth: the mid-80s and mid-to-late-90s.

Matt Yglesias posted this chart that helps highlight what Pawlenty is talking about:

What Pawlenty doesn’t seem to realize his ideal periods of growth followed tax increases. Indeed, this is terribly inconvenient for Republicans, but (a) the weakest period of growth in recent decades came after the Bush tax cuts, and (b) Reagan and Clinton oversaw higher tax rates than Obama’s.

So why is it, exactly, that Pawlenty believes more massive tax breaks would magically produce extraordinary growth? Perhaps because he has no idea what he’s talking about?

Ed Kilgore added, “It says a lot about today’s GOP that the purveyor of this economic nonsense is usually regarded as a safe, semi-moderate, and above all tediously conventional pol.”

It does, indeed.

In a few too many cases, we appear to be moving towards a new kind of political correctness: Americans should be careful not to say or do things that might hurt conservatives’ feelings.

A few months into the Obama presidency, the Department of Homeland Security released reports about ideological extremists, alerting officials to potentially violent groups and organizations. Republicans and conservative activists threw quite a tantrum — even though the report was commissioned by the Bush administration, conservatives decided concerns about violent radicals attacking Americans may have been referencing them.

The right’s hysterics looked pretty silly when there were a series of violent incidents involving home-grown extremists, suggesting DHS was correct to issue the reports. But the response from Republicans and their allies was so intense — some unhinged GOP lawmakers even called for Janet Napolitano’s resignation — there’s now less scrutiny of domestic threats.

The Department of Homeland Security has stepped back for the past two years from conducting its own intelligence and analysis of home-grown extremism, according to current and former department officials, even though law enforcement and civil rights experts have warned of rising extremist threats.

The department has cut the number of personnel studying domestic terrorism unrelated to Islam, canceled numerous state and local law enforcement briefings, and held up dissemination of nearly a dozen reports on extremist groups, the officials and others said.

So, let me get this straight. There are growing numbers of home-grown extremists who may commit acts of violence against Americans, but officials are deliberately steering away from investigations because Republicans threw a tantrum in 2009 and the Department of Homeland Security is being deferential to conservatives’ fragile egos.

Indeed, it appears that the DHS unit responsible for the 2009 report has been “effectively eviscerated,” and much of its work related to white supremacists and “the sovereign citizens movement” has been “blocked.” We’re now at the point at which DHS has “not reported in depth on any domestic extremist groups” in two years — in large part because of Republicans throwing a ridiculous fit.

It’s not uncommon for conservatives to complain that political correctness might make the United States less safe. The irony of the complaints is rich.

Congressional Republicans have faced all kinds of heat recently for their misguided campaign to end Medicare and replace it with a privatized voucher system. It’s tempting to think the GOP would not only back away from this crusade, but would also learn a valuable lesson about Americans’ appreciation for bedrock domestic social programs.

Alas, that’s not the case. A few days ago, Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, a member of the House Republican leadership, unveiled the “Savings Account For Every American Act,” which would allow Americans to withdraw from the Social Security system and opt into a privatized system.

Of course, with Social Security functioning as a pay-as-you-go program, if workers “opt out” of the system, Social Security would either (a) crumble with insufficient funds; or (b) need Congress to spend more money to make up the difference. How would Sessions address this? By all appearances, he hasn’t thought that far ahead.

Democrats, not surprisingly, were only too pleased yesterday to go on the offensive.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday predicted that House Republican plans to let workers opt out of Social Security would fail as voters realize how it will threaten their retirement.

“Seniors who have paid into Social Security through a lifetime of hard work shouldn’t end up in a risky privatization scheme to gamble their retirement on Wall Street,” Israel said. “The public has rejected this kind of Social Security privatization in the past and will again.”

Israel accused Republicans of looking to resolve the government’s fiscal crisis by scaling back Medicare and Social Security, while ignoring higher corporate taxes.

In fairness, I should note that “Savings Account For Every American Act” (or, “SAFE Act”) isn’t exactly on a fast track to the House floor. After being introduced late last week the bill, H.R.2109, has an underwhelming six co-sponsors. That’ll likely increase, but Social Security’s supporters probably don’t need to leap into action to defeat the bill just yet.

Still, there’s something truly amazing about the fact that any Republican officials would pursue this at all. The American mainstream has shown, over and over again, that Social Security privatization is a non-starter. The very idea pushed Bush’s presidency into a downward trajectory in 2005, and it never recovered. Even Paul Ryan, when shaping the radical House GOP budget plan, left Social Security out of the equation.

For that matter, after the economy crashed in 2008, I assumed it’d be a long while until Republicans started talking up Social Security privatization again.

Perhaps Pete Sessions and his cohorts are slow learners?

I suppose the real fun would be putting the Republican presidential field on the spot. “Mr. Romney, a member of the House Republican leadership is pushing legislation to privatize Social Security. If such a bill reached your desk as president, would you sign it?”

Inquiring minds want to know.

Update: One of the six co-sponsors is Republican Caucus Chairman Jeb Hensarling of Texas. This is relevant because it means two members of the GOP leadership are on board with this proposal.

Last week, President Obama nominated John Bryson, a California utility and energy executive, to be his new Cabinet secretary. Bryson has extensive experience in the private and public sectors, is an expert on energy policy, and early in his career, helped create the national environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council. He seems like a wise choice.

Republicans, however, have apparently decided Bryson is a radical extremist whose nomination cannot stand.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) … gave fellow Republicans a one-pager at their policy lunch Tuesday — with the heading “Mismatched: John Bryson & the Commerce Department” — citing his founding of the “extreme environmental organization” the Natural Resources Defense Council and his support of the cap-and-trade bill House Democrats passed in 2009.

“Instead of appointing a truly an economic leader, he has appointed an environmental extremist,” Barrasso told reporters after the lunch.

As evidence, Barrasso pointed to remarks Bryson made about the 2009 cap-and-trade bill approved by the House and killed by the Senate. Bryson called it a “moderate, but acceptable bill.”

I guess we should be thankful Barrasso has not yet called for Bryson to be burned at the stake.

We could point out that Republicans have traditionally supported cap-and-trade plans — it was even part of the McCain/Palin agenda as recently as 2008 — but these pesky details probably don’t matter to the GOP anymore.

I mention this, though, because the smear campaign appears to be just now taking shape, and it’s bound to get worse.

Just over the last several days, Fox News’ Eric Bolling has referred to Bryson as an “eco-terrorist,” and prominent right-wing blogs have called him a “radical green activist,” a “raving socialist,” and a “global warming fanatic.”

The fact that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports Bryson’s nomination generally goes unnoticed.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke spoke yesterday at the International Monetary Conference in Atlanta, and generally stuck to a predictable script. He realizes the recovery is “frustratingly slow”; he doesn’t intend to do anything about it; and he expects stronger growth in the second half of 2011, as Japan recovers and gas prices come down.

But it seems many of the reports on Bernanke’s remarks buried the lede.

The Fed chairman stressed the importance of putting “the federal government’s finances on a sustainable trajectory,” but quickly added that “a sharp fiscal consolidation focused on the very near term could be self-defeating,” and would likely “undercut the still-fragile recovery.”

In other words, Bernanke would like to see cuts, but he doesn’t want them now. Indeed, here we have a Republican Fed chairman effectively arguing that the congressional Republican agenda is putting the economy in jeopardy. As Michael Grunwald put it, Bernanke “may be a Republican, but he’s no Tea Party Republican.”

He didn’t quite come out and say that Washington’s current mania for short-term deficit reduction makes no sense — his job description doesn’t call for much come-out-and-saying — but he came close. […]

[Bernanke] showed his Keynesian colors on Tuesday, noting that spending cuts and layoffs by cash-strapped state and local governments are holding back the recovery, while the bipartisan payroll tax cuts passed in December 2010 are helping. He also said the economic “impetus” provided by President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package is waning as the spending peters out.

This is not to say I loved Bernanke’s remarks. He rejected the notion of additional Fed intervention, and made no effort to urge Congress to consider another stimulus.

But I was nevertheless glad the Fed chairman stuck up for sanity and made clear that pulling money out of the economy when it’s struggling to recover — the entire GOP agenda in a nutshell — is a spectacularly bad idea.

We are, however, in 2011 — a period in which a radicalized Republican Party dismisses wise warnings from a Fed chairman of their own party. It’s also worth noting that Bernanke’s remarks come just a few days after former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan announced he thinks his party is wrong about taxes, and he’d like to see a return to Clinton-era tax rates for everyone.

The GOP’s descent into extremism has gone so far, Bernanke and Greenspan are seen by their fellow Republicans as center-left.

A month ago, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who is participating in the White House’s debt-reduction talks, said Republicans would expect $6 trillion in cuts over the next decade in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. The demand was laughably insane.

Yesterday, Kyl floated a new number.

The Senate’s No. 2 Republican on Tuesday spelled out GOP leaders’ conditions in the negotiations over reducing the federal deficit, offering the most specific outline of the party’s demands thus far.

Minority Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) told reporters that Republicans want $2.5 trillion in budget savings in exchange for voting to raise the country’s $14.3 trillion borrowing limit through the end of next year.

“You’d have to do about $2.4 trillion in debt ceiling,” Kyl said, “which means you’d have to be about $2 1/2 trillion — at a minimum — in savings.”

Oddly enough, there are a few reasons to actually be mildly encouraged by this. For one thing, $2.5 trillion is not quite as preposterous as $6 trillion. For another, Kyl specifically used the word “savings.” In fact, in talking to reporters, he said the word more than once. Back in early May, the Senate Minority Whip was talking about trillions in “spending cuts,” and by referencing “savings,” the implication is that some of the debt-reduction effort can come through additional revenue, which would be a step in the right direction.

And perhaps most importantly, last month Kyl put a timeline on all of this — he wanted massive cuts over the next 10 years. Yesterday, the conservative senator said he wants trillions, but didn’t say how many years this could be stretched over.

That’s the good news. The bad news is, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said a month ago he expected about $2 trillion in exchange for doing the right thing. Yesterday, Kyl said $2.5 trillion. To this extent, we appear to be moving in the wrong direction.

It was also discouraging to hear Kyl say he expected to wrap up talks sometime in July. Boehner and President Obama signaled an agreement last week to complete this process by the Fourth of July in order to prevent panic in global markets. If the Senate Republican leader intends to blow off this deadline and push talks even further into July, it may prove to be very dangerous for all of us.

Of course, there’s also the problem Kyl is reinforcing the Republican Party’s hostage strategy, making clear that the GOP will cause a recession, on purpose, unless Democrats give Republicans massive spending cuts.

And then there’s the small matter of actually trying to find $2.5 trillion in budget savings that will satisfy Republicans enough that they won’t shoot their hostage.

Today’s edition of quick hits:

* Escalation in Libya: “In a sudden, sharp escalation of NATO’s air campaign over Libya, warplanes dropped more than 50 bombs on targets in Tripoli on Tuesday, obliterating large areas of Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi’s Bab al-Aziziya command compound.”

* Congress won’t act, and the Fed doesn’t want to: “Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke conceded that the economic recovery is ‘frustratingly slow’ for millions of unemployed Americans, but threw cold water on the notion that the central bank can be a cure-all for the economy’s ills.”

* On the other hand, Bernanke expects stronger growth in the second half of 2011, as Japan recovers and gas prices come down.

* President Obama believes the economy has to “accelerate,” but he rejected the notion of a double-dip recession.

* Pelosi wants an investigation into the Weiner controversy: “In a letter to Ethics Committee Chairman Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) and Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, Pelosi (D-Calif.) said an investigation of Weiner is needed due to ‘inappropriate’ conduct. “

* I hope this doesn’t mean the end of the White House White Board: “Austan Goolsbee, a longtime adviser to President Obama and the only economist left on his core economic team, plans to leave as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers by September after a year in the job to return to the University of Chicago.”

* The story of the Catherine Ferguson Academy in Detroit, which is now closing, is just heartbreaking. Austerity in America.

* The Washington Post fact-checker said President Obama exaggerated a bit in his recent remarks about the auto industry. Given the details, I’m glad the White House fact-checked the fact-checker.

* Figuring out how much college costs should be much easier.

* Andy Sabl has a smart post about why the right offers mixed messages on Europe: “It’s all about the secularism.”

* Yes, Lieberman can get even worse: “Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) plans to attend a Glenn Beck rally in Jerusalem.”

* On a related note, Glenn Beck plans to charge his minions $5 to $10 a month to watch his online network, which will be the exclusive home of his talk show. Prediction: this will end badly.

* And George W. Bush’s $2.5 trillion in tax cuts were launched exactly 10 years ago today. One of these days, they’re bound to deliver the rewards Republicans promised at the time, right?

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

The Koch Brothers’ attack operation is all class.

The state director of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity offered no apologies today for papering homes in Detroit’s Delray district Monday with fake eviction notices.

Bearing the words “Eviction Notice” in large type, the bogus notices told homeowners their properties could be taken by the Michigan Department of Transportation to make way for the New International Trade Crossing bridge project.

Apparently, if this bridge project goes forward, it’s likely to draw traffic and toll revenue away from a nearly privately-owned bridge. So, Americans for Prosperity is lobbying heavily against the state project, and the Koch-financed group’s campaign now includes fake eviction notices.

AFP said the flyers were intended to get local residents’ attention. To that extent, the stunt worked — it caused panic among many families in struggling communities who thought they were losing their homes.

Atrios asked, “What is wrong with these people?”

I wonder the same thing every day. I’m left with the impression that right-wing attack dogs like those with Americans for Prosperity have no sense of limits and no concept of integrity.

A Washington Post poll released this morning showed President Obama leading most of Republican challengers in hypothetical match-ups, but Mitt Romney fared much better. Among registered voters, the president and the former governor were tied in the poll, and among likely voters, Romney led Obama by three, 49% to 46%.

This caused quite a stir in some circles — it was Mark Halperin’s lead story for much of the day — so let’s again pause to note some additional context.

In July 1995, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found Bill Clinton and Bob Dole tied at 48% each among registered voters. In June 1995, a Newsweek poll showed Dole leading Clinton by nine, 49% to 40%,

In August 1995, a New York Times/CBS News poll found voter frustrations at some of their highest levels “in modern American history,” and reported these results about the 1996 cycle:

[T]he Republicans at this stage have a more favorable image as a party, with 54 percent of respondents approving and 37 percent disapproving, compared with a roughly even split for the Democrats, 47 percent positive and 45 percent negative.

A trial heat between a generic “Republican candidate” and Mr. Clinton gave the Republican 28 percent and the President 22 percent, with 45 percent undecided. Especially at this very early stage, such questions can be only broadly indicative, but the results certainly suggest Democratic problems.

With Mr. Dole as the Republican candidate, the poll showed 48 percent for the Senator and 42 percent for the President.

At roughly this point in 1983, Reagan was in deep trouble, too. (At this point in 1991, meanwhile, George H. W. Bush was a shoo-in for re-election.)

To be sure, the point isn’t that Obama will be fine because Clinton and Reagan fared well despite trailing at this stage in their respective races. Rather, the point is that horse-race polls a year and a half before an election just don’t tell us much, and have little predictive value.

They’re worth keeping an eye on just to get a sense of the broader trends, but there’s no reason for anyone on either side to get worked up about this. Over the next year and a half, a stronger economy will bolster Obama’s standing and make him a safe bet for a second term. A weaker economy will put the president’s career in jeopardy. This isn’t rocket science.