PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES.... The Monthly's annual fundraising drive is almost over. Our most sincere thanks to those of you who have already contributed. For those who haven't, here's a reminder that your tax-deductible donation can make a big difference.

The Monthly is a nonprofit organization. We have print and online ads, but this only covers a small part of our expenses, which means that we depend on contributions from readers to stay up and humming. So, I hope we can count on your support. In honor of the Monthly's 40th anniversary, the magazine is asking for $40 donations, but any amount is welcome. If every "Political Animal" reader chipped in just $1, we'd surpass our fundraising goal.

Just click here to help out. You can donate online, through PayPal, or through the mail.

Thanks.

TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* He didn't sound pleased: "President Obama on Tuesday blamed a 'systemic failure' in the nation's security apparatus for the attempted bombing of a passenger jet on Christmas Day and vowed to identify the problems and 'deal with them immediately.'"

* Preliminary reports point to very dangerous materials: "A dangerous explosive allegedly concealed by Nigerian student Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in his underwear could have blown a hole in the side of his Detroit-bound aircraft if it had been detonated, according to two federal sources briefed on the investigation."

* Tehran: "Iranian security forces made a wave of new arrests Tuesday, including Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi's sister and a relative of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, pressing forward with a broadening crackdown on the reformist movement in the wake of deadly protests this week."

* North Korea claims to have an American citizen in custody who, N.K. officials say, entered the country illegally from China.

* Good economic news: consumer confidence is climbing and many hiring managers expect to add full-time workers in 2010.

* Less good economic news: "Home prices rose modestly in October but beneath the apparent good news were some disquieting signs of deterioration. Analysts expect prices this winter to resume their descent, putting fresh pressure on the fragile economy."

* Kabul: "As the U.S. and its allies try to overcome logistical hurdles and rush some 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan in 2010, intelligence officials are warning that the Taliban-led insurgency is expanding and that 'time is running out' for the U.S.-led coalition to prove that its strategy can succeed."

* Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has blocked a vote on the nominee to hear the Transportation Security Administration, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to force a vote on Erroll Southers when the Senate reconvenes in January.

* The Obama administration seems pretty concerned about the new Japanese leadership.

* Bob Herbert tackles the excise tax intended to finance health care reform. Ezra Klein responds.

* Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), a champion of abortion rights, seems largely satisfied with the compromise funding language in the Senate bill.

* Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) will be the subject of an ethics probe, though no one seems to know why.

* This certainly doesn't sound good: "The political action committee behind the Tea Party Express (TPE) -- which already has been slammed as inauthentic and corporate-controlled by rival factions in the Tea Party movement -- directed around two thirds of its spending during a recent reporting period back to the Republican consulting firm that created the PAC in the first place."

* And apparently, words like "alleged" are a little too sophisticated for Fox News.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

DAN BURTON STRIKES AGAIN.... Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security released reports, requested by Bush administration officials, on the threats posed by potentially violence radical extremists -- on the right and left. By late April, several House Republicans had called on DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to resign because of the reports.

The demands didn't make any sense; the White House ignored the right-wing lawmakers' tantrum; and in time, conservatives found new toys to play with. The political world moved on.

Eight months later, at least one House Republican has decided to kick off a new round of calls for Napolitano's resignation.

Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) on Tuesday became the first lawmaker to call on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to resign after the recent attempted airline bombing.

The veteran member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee called for Napolitano's ouster in the wake of the attack on the Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day.

Now, the details matter here. Did Burton call for Napolitano's resignation because of a problem with the no-fly list? No. Did Burton call for Napolitano's resignation because of Adbulmutallab's visa to enter the United States? No. Did Burton call for Napolitano's resignation because of a TSA breakdown? No.

Barton called for Napolitano's ouster because, as he sees it, her comment on Sunday that "the system worked" means Americans may no longer have "confidence" in her abilities.

Think about that. A high-ranking cabinet official should quit, Barton believes, because of a three-word phrase that was entirely reasonable in context. A so-called "gaffe" is more important, the argument goes, than actual on-the-job performance.

This is terribly nutty. Then again, we are talking about Dan Burton -- a man who used his role as chairman of the House Government Reform Committee back in the '90s to fire a bullet into a "head-like object" (reportedly a melon) in his backyard to test whether former White House counsel Vince Foster was murdered.

Americans have every reason to have lost confidence in Barton. Maybe he should resign?

HOEKSTRA TAKES HEAT OVER CRAVEN SOLICITATION.... Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee and a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Michigan, sent out a fundraising appeal this week, hoping to exploit the Abdulmutallab terrorist plot for financial gain. Even by the standards of House Republicans, it was an ugly, craven move.

Dems are starting to pounce. Hari Sevugan, the DNC's national press secretary, issued this statement this afternoon.

"It was shameful that Republicans like Mr. Hoekstra would attempt to play politics with our national security at all, but raising money off it is beyond the pale. Republicans are playing politics with issues of national security and terrorism, and that they would use this incident as an opportunity to fan partisan flames and raise money for political campaigns tells you all you need to know about how far the Republican party has fallen and how out of step with the American people they have become.

"The American people simply will not tolerate the likes of Mr. Hoekstra and the Republican Party playing politics with the serious issues of national security and terrorism -- especially after the mess they left this country in both domestically and on national security after eight years of failed leadership."

Around the same time, Ryan Rudominer, the DCCC's national press secretary, also took a swing.

"Time and again, Congressional Republicans refuse to back up their tough talk about national security with a vote to actually keep Americans safe. Instead of shamelessly trying to raise campaign cash off the plot to blow up a plane and kill innocent Americans on Christmas, Ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee Pete Hoekstra should look in the mirror and ask why he and 107 of his House Republican colleagues recently voted against strengthening airport security."

Also this afternoon, a spokesperson for Michigan Republican Rick Snyder, a Hoekstra rival for the state's gubernatorial nomination, said, "It is extremely disappointing that [Hoekstra] would us a potentially tragic incident to raise money for his political campaign. In these troubling times, words can't describe how sad it is to see an attempt to politically capitalize on a failed terrorist attack just three days after it happened."

In general, lines of decency and mainstream norms don't really apply to House Republicans. If Hoekstra actually pays a price for his genuinely pathetic display, I'll be very impressed. There are certain things politicians just shouldn't do. Try to raise money off the attempted murder of hundreds of innocent Americans should be one of them.

IF THEY REALLY WANT TO POLITICIZE NATIONAL SECURITY.... A variety of congressional Republicans seem awfully anxious to play partisan games with the terrorist threat, and exploit the Abdulmutallab plot for electoral gain. The risk, of course, is that by starting the fight, the GOP attack dogs may be confronted with issues they're unprepared to deal with.

There is, for example, the fact that the nominated head of the TSA can't get confirmed because of Republican obstructionism. Then there's the fact that congressional Republicans also opposed funding for the TSA, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems.

And then there's this unpleasant tidbit.

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.

American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia, where they entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.

As Ron Chusid put it, "Just imagine the Republican response if Barack Obama or Bill Clinton had released prisoners to enter an 'art therapy rehabilitation program.' This sounds almost as silly as an American president sitting and reading a children's book while the country is under attack."

Now, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting Bush/Cheney are indirectly responsible for the attempted attack on Christmas. Sure, the Bush/Cheney administration released some of the alleged terrorists who plotted the attack into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" in Saudi Arabia, only to see them become terrorist leaders in Yemen. And sure, it was the Bush administration that gave Abdulmutallab a visa to enter the United States in the first place. But there was almost certainly no way for the former administration to know what would happen.

Let's be honest -- if Obama had released the attack's plotters into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" in Saudi Arabia, we would never hear the end of it. This would be the lead story on Fox News every day until the end of time. "Art therapy rehabilitation program" would become President Obama's middle name(s).

If Republicans really want to turn the attempted terrorist attack into a partisan fight, Democrats should welcome the opportunity.

MAYBE THEY FORGOT ABOUT RICHARD REID.... Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) doesn't want Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to face criminal charge in a federal court. Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge doesn't want Abdulmutallab to have legal rights.

I had the same thought Josh Marshall had about the search for elusive consistency.

Remember, the AbdulMutallab case is virtually identical to the Richard Reid "Shoe Bomber" case from December 2001 -- to an uncanny degree. Same explosive, (PETN), same MO (blowing up an airliner bound for the US), same failed attempt.

It's really about as close to identical cases and you get. And, of course, Reid was tried in civilian courts and is now serving a life sentence. Seemed to work fine in his case. And unless I'm misremembering, I don't remember anybody criticizing this approach at the time.

Most of the criticisms we're hearing are pretty silly. But that's where the buck stops. It happened. Obama's president. It's natural that the political opposition will try to pin it on him. But can we at least get some demagoguing that isn't so transparently ridiculous and easily refuted by pointing out the policy the accuser followed when they were in charge?

Right. The Reid and Abdulmutallab cases offer nearly identical circumstances -- same chemical, same target, same intended consequence, same month of the year, same twisted ideology. Reid was charged, convicted, sentenced, and locked up for life. Neither conservatives nor liberals whined about it. But if the Obama administration subjects Abdulmutallab to an identical process, Republicans are outraged? Either they're idiots or they think we are.

But let's take this one step further. In December 2001, Reid tried to blow up an airplane en route to the United States, intending to murder the Americans on board. In December 2009, Abdulmutallab tried to blow up an airplane en route to the United States, intending to murder the Americans on board. To hear several prominent far-right Republicans tell it, Abdulmutallab's attempt must be President Obama's fault -- as they see it, the suspected terrorist wouldn't have tried to commit mass murder were it not for the administration's policies. Failed attempt or not, the effort itself, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said, is evidence of the White House's "approach" being wrong.

For any grown-up, that's obviously insane. But taken at face value, doesn't that necessarily mean that Bush/Cheney policies were equally responsible for Reid's nearly identical terrorist plot? If Abdulmutallab's attempt is evidence of Obama's national security strategy being misguided, wouldn't Reid's attempt also be evidence of the Bush/Cheney strategy being equally misguided?

What's more, is there any evidence -- any at all -- that congressional Democrats attacked Bush/Cheney for Reid's failed attempt? I suspect there isn't, which is why it seems like the two parties simply aren't playing the same game.

THE TALKING POINTS NO ONE'S REPEATING.... When it comes to the debate over national security and counter-terrorism, this White House prefers the high road. President Obama didn't mention Republicans or their recent attacks yesterday, instead declaring, "As Americans, we will never give into fear and division."

Bill Burton, the White House's deputy press secretary said the administration is committed to keeping national security issues out of the partisan realm. "The president doesn't think we should play politics with issues like these. He hasn't. His response has been fact-based and appropriate and will continue to be as such," Burton told reporters.

It's a reminder that when it comes to the nation's partisan divide, the two sides are playing different games.

Republicans have wasted no time in attacking Democrats on intelligence and screening failures leading up to the failed Christmas Day bombing of Flight 253 -- a significant departure from the calibrated, less partisan responses that have followed other recent terrorist activity.

Not too long ago, blaming America's leaders for attempted terrorist attacks was considered borderline treasonous. There was an expectation that when enemies of the United States tried to commit mass murder of Americans, all of us should close ranks, join together, and put patriotism over party. That, it turns out, only applies to Republican presidents.

It stands to reason that the White House doesn't want the president getting into a petty pissing match with right-wing members of Congress like Pete Hoekstra and Jim DeMint, but congressional Democrats aren't stepping up to respond at all. As Avi Zenilman put it, "Why are Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, and other Democratic national security voices keeping quiet? What are they scared of?"

I could vaguely understand if Dems were remaining silent because they felt like this is a policy fight they can't win, but that's backwards -- the talking points Democrats aren't repeating are obvious and rather devastating for Republicans.

—Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

GIVE US WHAT WE WANT AND THEN WE'LL NEGOTIATE.... The idea of some kind of bipartisan budget commission is misguided, but the underlying goal is not entirely ridiculous. There are limited options when it comes reducing the government's long-term deficit: collect more money, spend less money, or some combination of the two.

The commission would ostensibly create the conditions for some kind of grand bargain -- Democrats would have to accept spending cuts they would otherwise oppose, and Republicans would accept tax increases they would otherwise oppose. Spread the pain around and everyone gets some political cover.

The Wall Street Journal's right-wing editorial page has a suggestion for Republicans in how they approach these talks, should they occur.

A budget deficit commission is nothing more than a time-tested ploy to get Republicans to raise taxes. [...]

The Democrats will use a tax-and-spend commission to confront Republicans with the false choice between huge tax increases or fiscal disaster. Republicans should respond with their own choice: They'll agree to a deficit commission only if it takes tax increases off the table....

In other words, as far as the WSJ is concerned, a grand bargain can be considered just as long as one side gets what everything it wants in advance of the negotiations. Yeah, that'll work.

In our reality, thanks to Republican policies championed by the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, there's a serious long-term budget shortfall. Closing that shortfall without tax increases is impossible, whether the GOP and its mouthpieces like it or not.

Update: Looks like others were thinking along the same lines.

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) is poised to formally announce a gubernatorial campaign in Rhode Island. Chafee parted ways with the Republican Party after his 2006 defeat, and it's unclear what party affiliation he'll use in next year's campaign.

* In a setback for DCCC recruiting, Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks (D) announced that he will not run for Congress next year, and will instead continue his gubernatorial campaign. Party leaders hoped to see Sparks run against Rep. Park Griffith, who became a Republican last week.

* Rep. Mark Kirk (R) is the leading Republican candidate in Illinois' 2010 Senate race, prompting some desperation from his primary challenger, Andy Martin. This week, Martin, a right-wing lawyer, launched a radio ad speculating as to whether Kirk "is a homosexual." Subtle.

* Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) isn't up for re-election until 2012, but if Gov. Dave Heineman (R) decides to challenge him, a new Rasmussen poll suggests Nelson would be a big underdog.

* In Maryland, former state lawmaker George W. Owings III is poised to challenge incumbent Gov. Martin O'Malley in a Democratic gubernatorial primary. Owings, perhaps best known for his work in former Gov. Bob Ehrlich's Republican administration, apparently intends to challenge O'Malley from the right.

* Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal (D) would appear ineligible for a third term -- the state has a term-limits law -- but he's apparently commissioned a poll to "assess his political standing as he considers whether to challenge a state law that prohibits governors from serving three terms." If Freudenthal decides to step down after eight years in office, he'll likely throw his support to state Sen. Mike Massie (D).

ABSTAINING FROM MAKING SENSE.... If there's one thing conservatives claim to hate, it's wasteful federal spending on programs that have been proven not to work.

Unless we're talking about funding for abstinence programs, in which case conservatives love wasteful federal spending on programs that have been proven not to work.

Proponents of sex education classes that focus on encouraging teenagers to remain virgins until marriage are hoping that the rescue plan for the nation's health-care system will also save their programs, which are facing extinction because of a cutoff of federal funding.

The health-care reform legislation pending in the Senate includes $50 million for programs that states could use to try to reduce pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease among adolescents by teaching to them to delay when they start having sex.

Under the federal budget signed by President Obama, such programs would no longer have funds targeted for them.

"We're optimistic," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association, which is lobbying to maintain funding for the programs. "Nothing is certain, but we're hopeful."

Bush/Cheney spent about $150 million a year on abstinence programs that failed miserably. Obama's budget directs funds to "teenage pregnancy prevention" for programs that have been "proven effective through rigorous evaluation." The right objected, arguing that limiting funding to effective programs would exclude their preferred initiatives. Obama didn't budge.

But abstinence proponents believe health care reform might offer new opportunities, in large part because Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) pushed a measure to provide $50 million to states to use for abstinence programs. It was approved in committee thanks to the support of a couple of conservative Democrats, and for some reason, the provision ended up as part of the legislation passed by the Senate. (Hatch described himself as being "as surprised as anyone" to see the provision remain in the bill.)

Reality has been stubborn on the question of abstinence effectiveness, and policymakers shaping the final health care bill would be wise to acknowledge it. The nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that abstinence programs do not affect teenager sexual behavior. A congressionally-mandated study, which was not only comprehensive but also included long-term follow-up, found the exact same thing. Researchers keep conducting studies, and the results are always the same.

This isn't complicated. Simply telling teenagers not to have sex doesn't affect behavior, doesn't prevent unwanted pregnancies, and doesn't stop the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. Teens who receive comprehensive lessons of sexual health, with reliable, accurate information, are more likely to engage in safer, more responsible behavior.

That this is still even an argument reflects poorly on the seriousness with which lawmakers consider reason and evidence in shaping public policy.

THE HEIGHT OF CRAVENNESS.... Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee and a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Michigan, has been desperately trying to exploit the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas for political gain. But even by Hoekstra's low standards, this is one of the more craven displays of any politician this year.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) is now jumping upon the Northwest Airlines attack -- and using it to raise money for his gubernatorial campaign, the Grand Rapids Press reports.

In the letter, Hoekstra denounces the Obama administration on a whole range of national security issues -- ranging from Flight 253 itself to Guantanamo Bay, investigation of the interrogation techniques used during the Bush administration, and what Hoekstra calls Obama policies that "impress the 'Blame America First' crowd at home and his thousands of fans overseas."

First, when a Republican's first instinct in the wake of an attempted attack is to blame the president and U.S. officials for the terrorist's actions, he's more or less joined the "Blame America First" crowd.

Second, as a substantive matter, Pete Hoekstra is completely, demonstrably wrong about every aspect of national security policy.

And third, just how pathetic does a politician have to be to try to raise money off the attempted murder of hundreds of innocent Americans? Just how desperate does that politician have to be to see a plot to blow up an airplane over American soil and think, "You know, maybe I can exploit this to pick up a few checks."

Looking back over the last several years, Hoekstra has long been an embarrassing buffoon, especially on matters of national security. But he didn't go quite this far -- blaming the president for a terrorist's actions, trying to use attempted murder to fill his campaign bank account -- until very recently. It seems as if Pete Hoekstra is anxious to make the transition from hapless clown to pernicious hack.

HEALTH CARE REFORM TALKS QUIETLY GET UNDERWAY.... The House returns from its winter break until Jan. 12, and the Senate reconvenes six days later. If the goal is to get health care reform finished and sent to the president's desk before the State of the Union address -- a tall order, to be sure -- policy talks will have to begin long before lawmakers return to the Hill.

Apparently, the discussions quietly got underway yesterday.

Congressional aides began laying the groundwork Monday for Democratic leaders in the House and Senate to negotiate competing health care reform bills into legislation that can be signed by President Barack Obama, a senior Senate aide confirmed. [...]

"Everything happening this week is happening behind the scenes," the Senate aide said of preparations to reconcile the House and Senate bills. "Staff is taking the week to review documents. Informal staff meetings may happen, but nothing is scheduled just yet."

There's still a very real possibility that policymakers will skip a formal conference committee, and instead hold informal talks between White House and congressional leaders. After they agreed to a final package, the theory goes, the House would approve it before sending it, "ping-pong" style, back to the Senate, which would then pass it en route to the president. A decision on whether to pursue a formal conference or not may come as early as next week.

Time will tell whether the House-Senate negotiations will go smoothly, but in recent days, Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House Majority Whip, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the chairman of the DCCC, have signaled the likelihood of House support for the Senate's version.

Update: Paul Waldman puts together the 10 "things to watch" as efforts to merge the House and Senate bills continue. "It's not just about abortion and the public option," he reminds us.

DEMINT BLOCKS TSA NOMINEE.... A few weeks ago, there was a mildly embarrassing dust-up over the Transportation Security Administration posting materials online that, if manipulated, revealed sensitive security information. When "The Daily Show" did a segment on this, Jon Stewart highlighted the fact that the TSA doesn't actually have an administrator.

What Stewart didn't mention is why.

An attempt to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day would be all-consuming for the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration -- if there were one.

Instead, the post remains vacant because Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has held up President Barack Obama's nominee in an effort to prevent TSA workers from joining a labor union.

President Obama nominated Erroll Southers, a former FBI special agent and a counterterrorism expert, to head the TSA a few months ago. Southers is the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department assistant chief for homeland security and intelligence, and the associate director of the University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events. Two Senate committees considered the nomination, and easily approved Southers with bipartisan support.

But the Senate hasn't been able to vote on the nomination because DeMint hates unions, and isn't sure if Southers might allow TSA workers to organize. Without that guarantee, DeMint not only opposes Southers' nomination, but prefers to leave the Transportation Security Administration without a permanent administrator.

This realization, in the wake of the attempted terrorism on Christmas, should make DeMint back down. It hasn't -- he still supports blocking Southers' nomination until he knows TSA workers won't unionize. The terrorist threat is bad, but the threat of collective bargaining is the real danger.

Also note, congressional Republicans also opposed funding for the TSA, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems.

The GOP is desperate to politicize the attempted terrorism. That's probably not a good idea.

PAWLENTY'S DREADFUL IDEA.... One year ago, as the global economy teetered on the brink of collapse, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) said he knew exactly what the United States should do to address the crisis and prevent a depression: approve a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Seriously.

As Pawlenty saw it in December 2008, the economic crisis was the result of excessive debt. Right off the bat, that didn't make any sense. Nevertheless, the governor proceeded to argue that balancing the budget in the midst of a financial crisis represented "common sense, kitchen table logic."

The argument may have helped Pawlenty in his bid to become the poster child of Neo-Hooverism, but fortunately, his truly insane recommendation was ignored by those with actual responsibilities.

A year later, and with his unannounced presidential campaign already in gear, Pawlenty is still at it.

Mr. Pawlenty has proposed an amendment to the Minnesota constitution that would limit spending during any two-year budget period to the amount of revenue collected during the previous budget cycle. At a Republican fund-raiser in New Hampshire on Dec. 16, the governor also pushed the idea of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would force Congress to pass, and the president to sign, a balanced budget.

You'll remember that this little gimmick was popular with the Gingrich crowd 15 years ago, before sane people realized it didn't make any sense -- sometimes, the government should run deficits to address crises, such as wars and deep recessions. You know, like the stuff Obama inherited.

It's hard to know whether Pawlenty seriously believes his own nonsense (in which case he's a fool), or if he's just spouting this to score cheap points with the Republican base, which he assumes doesn't know better (in which case he's a hack). Either way, this kind of talk should, in a reasonable political world, effectively end Pawlenty's efforts to become a credible national figure.

OUR BROKEN SENATE.... Senate Republicans have engaged in unprecedented abuse of the chamber's filibuster rules, but the problems is exacerbated by the unprecedented abuse of Senate "holds."

Of the 200 or so Obama nominations pending, some 75 have gotten through committee but were being held up for various reasons in the Senate, administration officials and Congressional staff members said. During their last gasps of official business after the health care vote on Thursday morning, senators cleared 35 nominees by unanimous consent -- far short of the 60 that administration officials had been hoping to get through by the end of the year.

One of those finally approved was Miriam Sapiro, who had become the Obama administration's prime example of stalled nominations since being chosen in April to be a deputy United States trade representative. Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, put a hold on the confirmation of Ms. Sapiro, an Internet policy consultant, to try to pressure the trade representative's office to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization against Canada over a law that bans cigarettes with candy flavors.

Think about that. A government office remained vacant for months, and a qualified nominee was stuck in limbo, because some far-right senator was worried about Canadians' ability to buy candy-flavored cigarettes.

That would be mind-numbing enough if it were an isolated incident, but inane Senate holds on qualified nominees have become painfully routine. The General Services Administration has been without an administrator because Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) blocked the president's nominee -- he wanted more funding for a federal office building in downtown Kansas City. The president's nominee for the U.S. ambassador to Spain faced a hold because Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wanted more information about the dismissal of AmeriCorps' inspector general.

The nominee to head the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission faces a hold. Judicial nominees have been subjected to holds for no apparent reason. Dawn Johnsen was nominated to head the Office of Legal Counsel, but she's spent nine months in procedural limbo. Patricia Smith is prepared to be the Department of Labor's Solicitor, responsible for enforcing workplace protections, but there's a hold on her, too.

There isn't even anyone in charge of the TSA right now, because of another Republican hold. (More on that later.)

Put simply, the failed and discredited Republican minority is effectively breaking the United States Senate.