* Perhaps taking a cue from her most rogueish guest, Oprah Winfrey has decided she will no longer be shackled behind her talk show.

* The Senate takes up its version of the health care bill tomorrow morning. Harry Reid needs 60 votes just to proceed with debate, because the Republicans do not want to deal with this thing at all. If they filibuster, let us hope they forgo the phonebooks and pledge allegiance to the flag for twelve hours straight. (Eat your heart out, Todd Akin!)

* Said health care bill is 2,074 pages long. Tony Perkins and his fightin' evangelicals have released something called "The Manhattan Declaration," which manages to cover "the sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious liberty" in just 4,700 words.

* President Obama will make a decision about Afghanistan troop levels after Thanksgiving, assuming he's not in a food coma.

Conservatives must be salivating over this new Gallup poll…

Since September, Obama's approval rating had been holding in the low 50s and, although it has reached 50% numerous times, it had never dropped below 50% until now.

Of the post-World War II presidents, Obama now is the fourth fastest to drop below the majority approval level, doing so in his 10th month on the job. Gerald Ford dropped below 50% approval during his third month in office, and Bill Clinton did so in his fourth month. Ronald Reagan, like Obama, also dropped below 50% in his 10th month in office, though Reagan's drop occurred a few days sooner in that month (Nov. 13-16, 1981) than did Obama's (Nov. 17-19, 2009).

…I mean, they love anything that mentions Ronald Reagan.

"It really doesn't matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war has been lost," Thompson said on his radio show today.

(Barack Obama has a secret Afghan baby??!!?!??)

Ahem. Now, if Fred Thompson had heard Fred Thompson saying that the war has been lost, Fred Thompson would have been outrageously outraged to an outrageous degree. Because here's what Fred Thompson told Sean Hannity in 2007 when Harry Reid suggested that the war in Iraq had been lost…

I [Fred Thompson] asked [a former Army captain] what she thought about this. She said, "How in the world can anyone, any one of our leaders, declare war, declare that the war has been lost when we've got troops in the field? My friends are over there in the field. I know what they think about this."

And, of course, it's just like all other Americans think. The very idea that they would do this and undercut our efforts over there is unprecedented. And it's not only unprecedented; it's awful politics.

But this is different, you see, in so many ways.

When Fred Thompson tells us that the war in Afghanistan has been lost, he's making a legitimate if controversial criticism of specific decisions being made (or not made) by the Obama administration.

Whereas when Harry Reid did that, he was being a Democrat.

TIM GEITHNER: That's not true. Everybody hates the economic crisis, which is what I'm trying to fix.

REP. KEVIN BRADY: No. In the last nine months you, personally, have fired millions of people from their jobs. I think you need a hobby. One that does not involve singlehandedly destroying our economy. If you like numbers, perhaps you should try Sudoku.

TIM GEITHNER: Do you not even remember the past eight years?

REP. KEVIN BRADY: Maybe I'd have more time to remember things if I didn't have to spend all my time worrying about you destroying our economy.

TIM GEITHNER: Jesus fucking Christ.

REP. KEVIN BRADY: I demand that you resign, right now. Give me the keys to your office. And your tie.

TIM GEITHNER: Are you serious?

REP. DARRELL ISSA (R-CA): Kevin! You stole my line!

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): Hey, can we talk about Chinese currency manipulation for a sec?

TIM GEITHNER: Yes, fine, I'll get on that, Chuck, but ISN'T IT INTERESTING that I can singlehandedly destroy the economy yet I have to ask all these other people before I can impose a few simple trade sanctions on China? Isn't that INTERESTING, Rep. Brady?

REP. KEVIN BRADY: I CAN'T HEAR YOU. I'M SHOUTING TOO LOUD.

The End! (Except, you know, not.)

Right?

The poll asked this question: "Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?" The overall top-line is legitimately won 62%, ACORN stole it 26%.

Among Republicans, however, only 27% say Obama actually won the race, with 52% — an outright majority — saying that ACORN stole it, and 21% are undecided.

Yep, 52% of Republicans think ACORN stole the 2008 presidential election, using nothing but their patented stupidity to secure 53% of the popular vote for Obama. Another 21% of Republicans think, well, maybe. Yeah. That certainly sounds plausible, but… hmm, who can say for sure?

After all, if there's one thing we know about ACORN, it's that they're masters of getting away with illegal activity without anybody ever noticing.

Anyway, the Senate has a health care bill, it runs 2,074 pages, and that is a source of great consternation. Why is this bill so long? Look at it! Why does it have all those words and numbers? Can't they just overhaul the American health care system with a Facebook note, like normal people? What outrageous things are the Democrats trying to hide with their writing and publishing?

How about this?

To raise money for the health overhaul, Democrats are proposing a new 5% tax on elective cosmetic procedures. The tax was a surprise addition to the sweeping 2,074-page bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled late Wednesday. It generates $5 billion over a decade for the plan, which is expected to cost $849 billion over a decade.

The tax would fall on the individuals who undergo the procedures. If they don't pay it when they’re billed for their surgery, then it falls to the provider who performed the procedure.

Outrage-o-meter says… 3. Maybe 4, max. Fun fact: since 2004, New Jersey has been the only state with its own cosmetic surgery tax law on the books.

Yet if you've ever gone down the shore in July, you'll notice that it's had zero impact in terms of putting bureaucracy, or even common sense, between patients and their plastic surgeons.

^{Aww, NJ, you know I love you. Next time I'm in Belmar, the pork roll-egg-and-cheese is on me.}

2. Sarah Palin, the person who posed for this picture in the first place, is angered. The photo was meant to be "all about health and fitness," she Facebooked, and Newsweek's "sexist and oh-so-expected" re-use of the image "shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin." She cannot name any books that have genders or skin (but then, who can?). Nor does she explain what the Blackberries have to do with "health and fitness."

3. Various people around the internet agree with Palin that the cover is sexist. Other people disagree. Some of us remember the last time Newsweek caused a controversy with its cover image of Sarah Palin.

4. An Indecision blogger and her editor spend almost an hour instant messaging about the Sarah Palin Newsweek cover. At one point your blogger's editor asks her to 'role play' a hypothetical meeting in the Newsweek editorial department.

5. We all know that Sarah Palin leaps at any chance to play the victim (it's cardio), even when she's invited the scrutiny, prompted the inquiry or posed for the photo. Also, any time a major political figure agrees to be photographed in an unusual setting, wearing anything less than a power suit, and those pictures are made public, they will be seen and published and republished. In public.

6. Yet here we have a political-type lady wearing shorts, on the cover of a national news magazine. That seems sexist.

6a. Or not.

7. All this discussion, and still no definitive answer to the big question: Did this photograph of Sarah Palin violate flag protocol?

So, good news, it looks like we're getting a few extra innings. Rep. Bachmann may have violated a number of Congressional ethics rules in organizing the anti-health care reform rally, prompting a watchdog group to call for investigation…

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington contends that Rep. Bachmann misused her official congressional website by urging people to come to the Capitol to protest the legislation despite House rules restricting members from using their websites to engage in "grassroots lobbying or solicit support for a Member’s position."

CREW also asked the Office of Congressional Ethics to determine if Rep. Bachmann and other members violated House rules by failing to acquire a permit for the Nov. 5 rally and by falsely calling the event a "press conference," though no questions were asked by the media.

To be fair, questions were asked by the news media a few days later.

Fake news media, but still.

So last night Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) had a couple questions for Hizzoner, including this one: "Mayor, how are you going to feel when it's your daughter that's kidnapped at school by a terrorist?"

Gotta admit, I don't understand where Shadegg's going with this.

I mean, if anybody can afford to pay a couple kidnap ransoms, it's Mike Bloomberg.

Palin may have dodged the 2012 question during yesterday's Oprah interview, but with all that grassroots support growin' across Real America, she can't dodge for long. Check out this new ABC/Post poll…

Fifty-three percent [of voters] say they definitely would not vote for Palin if she were to run for president in 2012; that compares with 9 percent who say they'd definitely support her, while the rest, 37 percent, would consider it.

Palin moreover fails a basic hurdle on the road to the White House, were she to choose to take it: Just 38 percent of Americans see her as qualified to serve as president; 60 percent think she's not qualified for the job.

Well, I don't know when "being qualified for the job" became such a qualification for leading this country. Weren't the Founding Fathers just a bunch of farmers and shoeshine boys?

Seventy-six percent of Republicans view her favorably, but that dives to 45 percent of independents and just 21 percent of Democrats. Palin's rated favorably by more men, 48 percent, than women, 39 percent; one reason is that women are more apt to be Democrats. She’s also notably less popular with young adults – just 37 percent of those under age 30 see her favorably, compared with 49 percent of seniors.

Aha! Do you see what's happening here? Do you understand, with your mind? Sarah Palin's millions — if not billions — of supporters are lying low for now. They're keeping quiet. They're not telling the pollsters the truth because the pollsters can't handle the truth. They're waiting to reveal themselves at a more opportune time, perhaps the release date of Going Rogue II: The Wrath of Trig.

Trust me. It's all going according to plan.