HALF NELSON.... Yesterday, Sen. Judd Gregg (R) of New Hampshire announced his support for Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination yesterday, bringing the total number of Republicans backing confirmation to five (and counting). For Democrats who might be looking for bipartisan cover, there's plenty here.

But for Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), it's apparently not good enough.

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska announced Friday that he will not vote to confirm Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, becoming the first Democrat to oppose the president's nominee.

"I have heard concerns from Nebraskans regarding Ms. Kagan, and her lack of a judicial record makes it difficult for me to discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that these concerns are unfounded," he said in a statement. "Therefore, I will not vote to confirm Ms. Kagan's nomination."

But Mr. Nelson said that he would not join Republicans if they attempt a filibuster.

"In my view, this nominee deserves an up or down vote in the Senate."

Yes, let's all marvel at Nelson's graciousness.

This is all rather hard to believe. It seems unlikely Nelson's office lines have been burning up with anti-Kagan calls, and even if the senator has heard from some constituents on this, he should probably realize that organized right-wing activists aren't going to vote for him anyway, so there's no real point trying to impress them.

But note the specific rationale -- Nelson's heard from opponents of the Kagan nomination, which he's struggled with because of her inexperience as a judge. I'm not even sure what this means, exactly. He would "discount" far-right complaints if Kagan had been a judge? What does one have to do with the other?

For the record, the "lack of a judicial record" canard is still weak.

Kagan's legal experience is comparable to that of conservative justices, and experts agree that she is qualified for the Supreme Court. The American Bar Association gave Kagan its highest rating: well qualified. Justice Antonin Scalia reportedly said that he was "happy to see that this latest nominee" is "not a judge at all." Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said it didn't matter that Kagan had not been a judge. In addition, other legal experts and prominent conservatives reject claims that Kagan isn't qualified. At least 38 justices -- including two of the past four chief justices -- had no judicial experience when they were first nominated for the Supreme Court. And Kagan's legal experience is comparable to that of several recent conservative justices at the time of their nominations: William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts.

The Kagan confirmation vote will likely occur on Tuesday. Whether Nelson will switch parties won't be clear until January.

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

* Afghanistan: "Three U.S. troops died in blasts in Afghanistan, bringing the death toll for July to at least 63 and surpassing the previous month's record as the deadliest for American forces in the nearly 9-year-old war."

* The Bush Recession was even worse than we realized: "The worst U.S. recession since the 1930s was even deeper than previously estimated, reflecting bigger slumps in consumer spending and housing, according to revised figures."

* Federal court judge Susan Bolton, recommended for the bench by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), blocked the implementation yesterday of several provisions of Arizona's anti-immigrant bill. Now, she's facing death threats.

* Rangel's reprimand? "The subcommittee that investigated Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has recommended that the embattled lawmaker face just a 'reprimand,' a mild form of punishment similar to that given to Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) when he was rebuked in 1997."

* Keep standing up for yourself, EPA.

* Happy Anniversary, Medicare. Here's hoping the next Congress doesn't try to subject you to a death panel.

* Something to keep an eye on: "The world's first authorized test in people of a treatment derived from human embryonic stem cells has been cleared to begin by the Food and Drug Administration. The trial will test cells developed by Geron Corporation and the University of California, Irvine in patients with new spinal cord injuries."

* Unacceptable: "Someone accused of killing a white person in North Carolina is nearly three times as likely to get the death penalty than someone accused of killing a black person, according to a study released Thursday by two researchers who looked at death sentences over a 28-year period."

* Rumor has it that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is one of the sharper members of the House Republican caucus, but when one considers his actual ideas, Ryan is still "stone-cold ignorant."

* Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) will vote to confirm Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. He's the fifth Republican senator to announce his support for the nomination.

* Even Robert Kagan, a bona fide neocon, supports ratification of New START. It just needs eight Republicans.

* Newt Gingrich is deeply confused, but so is his spokesperson.

* The GAO offers more support for those who believe there's money to be saved in the Pentagon budget.

* Sorry to see True/Slant close its virtual doors.

* There are no credible defenses for crack/powder sentencing disparities, but Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) gives it a shot (and fails miserably).

* Fixing California's higher education problems is harder than it looks.

* If it never occurred to you to connect "The Simpsons" to Weather Underground and '60s-era radicalism, then you're probably not watching Glenn Beck.

* And Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner continues to make a name for himself, this week suggesting it's time for Arizona to consider secession. He seems quite serious about it.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

A TEST FOR THE SENATE GOP 'MODERATES'.... It's been pretty unpleasant watching the Senate lately. The DISCLOSE Act came up, and every single Senate Republican joined together to block the bill from even getting a vote. A package of incentives and tax breaks for small businesses looked to be in good shape, but every single Senate Republican joined together to knock that down, too. Twenty obviously qualified judicial nominees were brought forward, and the GOP blocked votes on all of them. Medical care for 9/11 victims came up, and Republicans prevented it from passing, too.

And these are just developments since Tuesday.

But early next week, the chamber will have another important opportunity to pass a critical piece of legislation. Annie Lowrey reported:

[Thursday night], Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) attached an amendment with funding to preserve teachers' jobs and to provide much-needed Medicaid funding to states to a Federal Aviation Administration bill. The amendment is fully paid-for, and the FAA bill is just a vehicle. Reid filed cloture, meaning the Senate will vote on the provisions on Monday.

The amendment includes $10 billion in funding for teachers' jobs and $16.1 billion in funding for the Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, or FMAP, program, which provides Medicaid funding to states. For offsets, it closes foreign tax credit loopholes to raise $9 billion; it also cuts $2 billion from Medicaid drug pricing, $8.4 billion in rescissions and $6.7 billion from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.

There were no further details released at the time. At first blush, cutting food stamps to pay for Medicaid -- both problems aid the most economically distressed Americans -- and teachers' jobs seems like a hard compromise to swallow, though it is unclear when the cuts will take effect and what portions will be cut.

Paying for this through food stamp offsets is rough, but it may not quite as bad as it appears. A source close to the talks told me this afternoon that the $6.7 billion from SNAP won't go into effect until 2014 and the money comes from an increase that came through the Recovery Act. For Democrats, it seems like a reasonable trade-off -- they get to save a lot of jobs and bolster Medicaid in the short term, while having three years to replenish the extra funds for food stamps.

But what about for Republicans? What kind of resistance should Democrats expect when this comes up on Monday night?

I don't doubt they'll come up with something, but Republicans -- especially Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine -- really don't have any excuses here. This bill will help states, save jobs, and improve the economy ... without adding a penny to the deficit.

On Monday, Snowe and Collins specifically endorsed a Medicaid funding extension, but said they didn't want to vote for a bill that wasn't paid for. Well, this bill is paid for. Collins said the job-saving state aid should phase down over time. Well, to accomodate her concerns, this bill does exactly that.

So, Republican moderates, what's it going to be? Are you willing to take "yes" for an answer?

SPARE US THE ETHICS LECTURE, FRED.... Last week, Republican pundit Fred Barnes did his very best to pretend to be outraged about the existence of Journolist -- the former listserv featuring left-of-center media professionals, scholars, and wonks (including, for the record, me).

"If there's a team, no one has asked me to join," Barnes said in a Wall Street Journal piece. "As a conservative, I normally write more favorably about Republicans than Democrats and I routinely treat conservative ideas as superior to liberal ones. But I've never been part of a discussion with conservative writers about how we could most help the Republican or the conservative team." Barnes added that he's pained by the betrayal of "traditional journalism."

The layers of misjudgment are numerous, especially coming from a shamelessly partisan Fox News contributor publishing an item on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal.

But Joe Conason takes this further, and notes that Barnes is very much part of "a team," which is evident every time Barnes helps Republican fundraising efforts and accepts tens of thousands of dollars from GOP organizations.

* In February 2006, Barnes was paid $10,000 plus travel expenses by Oregon's Lane County Republican Central Committee to deliver the keynote address at the annual Lincoln Day Dinner. (Thanks to Carla Axtman for research assistance.) These payments, recorded in filings with the Oregon secretary of state, were evidently made through the Premier Speakers Bureau of Franklin, Tenn., which represents other Fox personalities including Sean Hannity, Dick Morris and Mike Huckabee. Barnes is no longer listed on the Premier website, but the company did not respond to phone or e-mail inquiries about its relationship with him.

* In February 2007, Barnes spoke at the annual Lincoln-Reagan Dinner held by the Republican Party of Fort Bend County, Texas -- home of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who purchased a ticket to the event. The party organization's filing with the Texas Ethics Commission shows two payments of $5,000 each on April 26, 2007, to Premiere Speakers Bureau (with the notation "LRD 2007 Speaker - Fred Barnes") and travel expenses of $1,823. Photos of a smiling Barnes with various local dignitaries at the event, which netted a reported $70,000 for the party, can be viewed here.

* In early March 2008, Barnes served as the keynote speaker for the Republican Party of Palm Beach County at its annual Lincoln Day Dinner. Whether he received the customary $10,000 is not clear because the party's filing with the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections show only a single payment of $5,500 to Premiere Speakers Bureau on Feb. 18. The committee reported net $120,000 in net proceeds from the event.

Tell us again, Fred, about your unwavering commitment to the standards of "traditional journalism," and your independence from any "team."

And while you're at it, Fred, tell us how an online discussion group with media professionals is more offensive than your Republican fundraising efforts.

ADL'S MOST MISGUIDED MOMENT.... When I heard that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) had issued a statement on the proposed Islamic Center near Ground Zero in Manhattan, I was relieved. Finally, I thought, a sensible, credible voice committed to combating bigotry and prejudice could remind the right-wing about the importance of respect, freedom, and how there are no second-class faith traditions here in the United States.

And then I read the statement, and my relief disappeared.

The ADL's statement started off really well. It reiterated its commitment to religious liberty, "categorically" rejected the "appeals to bigotry," and condemned those "whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry."

But then the ADL went badly off course.

"The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found."

What? That doesn't make any sense. The right manufactures a controversy, motivated by nothing but bigotry, so the facility should be built elsewhere? Why, to reward the bigots? And how many blocks away would be necessary to satisfy these demands?

"Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain -- unnecessarily -- and that is not right."

This is genuinely incoherent, and a statement I suspect the ADL will one day look back on with regret and embarrassment.

What the Anti-Defamation League is arguing is that the sensitivities of bigots are more important than the religious liberty of American Muslims. The ADL believes faith communities should be free to build buildings, unless it might bother those who hate those faith communities.

The ADL seems to acknowledge and fully appreciate the fact that opponents of the Cordoba House are motivated by bigotry, but inexplicably calls for the accommodation of that bigotry.

As Adam Serwer concluded:

Let's be clear. This is not about the proposed Islamic Center. There is already a masjid in the neighborhood, and it's been there for decades. This is about giving political cover to right-wing politicians using anti-Muslim bigotry as a political weapon and a fundraising tool. By doing this, the ADL is increasingly eroding its already weakened credibility as a nonpartisan organization.

I learned a very important lesson in Hebrew School that I have retained my entire life. If they can deny freedom to a single individual because of who they are, they can do it to anyone. Someone at the ADL needs to go back to Hebrew School.

APPROPRIATELY NAMED BROTHERS.... It's almost enough to make me believe in karma.

Samuel and Charles Wyly, the billionaire brothers from Dallas who are large donors to philanthropies and to conservative causes, were charged Thursday with conducting an extensive securities fraud that the Securities and Exchange Commission said reaped $550 million in undisclosed gains.

The brothers, who founded Sterling Software, a business software and services company that they sold for $4 billion in stock to the software company CA in 2000, were also charged with insider trading violations from which they profited by more than $31 million, the S.E.C. said.

And who are the Wyly brothers? You may not recognize their names right away, but you no doubt know their friends -- the Wylys have given more than just about everyone else to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas), and former House Republican leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), in addition to generous support for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R).

The Wyly brothers were also "substantial contributors" to the Swiftboat liars who smeared Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) military service in the 2004 presidential race.

Perhaps my favorite story involving the Wylys and politics relates to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). In 2000, the Wyly brothers created a front group called Republicans for Clean Air, whose sole purpose was to attack McCain in order to help then-Gov. George W. Bush's presidential campaign.

McCain accused the Wyly brothers of being corrupt, and having spent "dirty money" to "hijack" a presidential election. McCain even filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law. Six years later, McCain changed his mind, and begged the brothers for campaign donations.

And now these two find themselves with a serious SEC problem. What goes around comes around, I guess.

For the record, I think it's a mistake to condemn politicians for the actions of those who've raised money for them. Officials and candidates can hardly be expected to keep up on the shenanigans of every high-dollar donor, bundler, and financier, so I'm not suggesting these Republican candidates did something wrong by taking the Wylys' money (though in McCain's case, it was rather ridiculous).

I'm just saying, in light of their efforts, it's kind of nice to see the Wyly brothers run into some trouble.

FRIDAY'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.

* In Florida's closely-watched Senate race, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Gov. Charlie Crist (I) still out in front, enjoying 37% support, followed by Marco Rubio (R) at 32%, and Jeff Greene (D) third with 17%. With Rep. Kendrick Meek as the Democratic nominee, Crist's and Rubio's numbers are a little higher, but the margins are about the same.

* On a related note, Quinnipiac also polled Florida's open gubernatorial race, and found an even more competitive contest. With Rick Scott as the GOP nominee, he leads with 29%, just two points ahead of state CFO Alex Sink (D) at 27%, and Bud Chiles (I) with 14%. If Bill McCollum wins the Republican primary, he's ahead 27% to 26% over Sink.

* In Nevada, a new Mason-Dixon poll shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) leading former state Rep. Sharron Angle (R) by just one point, 43% to 42%. The last Mason-Dixon poll showed Reid with a larger lead.

* Speaking of Reid, Kentucky Senate hopeful Jack Conway (D) has been under pressure from right-wing candidate Rand Paul (R) about whether he'd support Reid for Majority Leader if elected. This week, pressed on the issue, Conway hedged, suggesting Reid might still lose his re-election bid.

* We're just days away from Michigan's GOP gubernatorial primary, and a new EPIC/MRA poll shows a very competitive three-way contest. Rick Snyder is ahead in the poll with 26% support, followed by Mike Cox at 24%, and Pete Hoekstra at 23%. Among Democrats, Virg Bernero leads Andy Dillon by eight, 40% to 32%.

* If you're inclined to believe Rasmussen, right-wing businessman Ron Johnson (R) is leading Sen. Russ Feingold (D) in Wisconsin, 48% to 46%.

* In Nevada, Rasmussen shows Brian Sandoval (R) leading the gubernatorial race over Rory Reid (D), but Sandoval's lead is down to 10 points, and the poll was taken before Sandoval's controversial comments about Arizona's anti-immigrant policy.

* In Pennsylvania, Rasmussen shows former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) leading Rep. Joe Sestak (D) by six, 45% to 39%.

* And in the state of Washington, Rasmussen shows Sen. Patty Murray (D) leading GOP frontrunner Dino Rossi by two, 49% to 47%.

IF SESSIONS WANTS TO COMPARE, WE CAN COMPARE.... Yesterday, Senate Democrats tried to win confirmation for 20 pending judicial nominees, nearly all of whom enjoyed bipartisan support at the committee level, and all of whom have run into needless Republican obstructionism. How many of the 20 were approved yesterday? None -- Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) blocked all of them.

"President Obama's nominees are moving considerably faster ... than President Bush's nominees," the right-wing Alabaman said on the floor. Senate Dems put together this fact-checking video, which makes plain that Sessions either doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's deliberately trying to deceive, hoping those listening don't know the difference between fact and fiction.

The White House has faced some criticism, much of it deserved, for not being more aggressive in sending judicial nominees for consideration. But it's certainly not the administration's fault that the Senate confirmation process is effectively broken, with Republicans using filibusters and holds to block votes on qualified would-be jurists.

The Center for American Progress released a report this morning, and the results are both striking and irrefutable. Even district court nominees, whose confirmations used to be routine, are being blocked in record numbers, thanks to Republican tactics that have never even been tried in the Senate.

From the report: "Such tactics are completely unprecedented, and so are their results. Fewer than 43 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have so far been confirmed, while past presidents have enjoyed confirmation rates as high as 93 percent. And President Obama's nominees have been confirmed at a much slower rate than those of his predecessor -- nearly 87 percent of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees were confirmed."

The report added, "It is easy to manipulate the Senate rules to create a crisis. If a minority of senators broadly object to the Senate's entire agenda, then it is literally impossible to confirm more than a fraction of the hundreds of judges, executive branch officials, ambassadors, and other nominees that each president has a responsibility to appoint, even if the Senate shuts down all other legislative business to do so."

This political paralysis is unsustainable, and it's going to get even worse if the Senate Republican caucus grows in the next Congress, as seems extremely likely.

It's ridiculous to think of a judiciary filled with recess appointments, but it may come to that.

A COMEBACK STORY AMERICANS (EVEN THE GOP) SHOULD LOVE.... The U.S. Chamber of Commerce gets a lot of things wrong, for a lot of wrong reasons. But of particular interest today was Steven Pearlstein's sweeping rejection of Chamber politics, most notably, how wrong it and its president, Tom Donahue, were about President Obama's rescue of the U.S. auto industry.

Perhaps none was more controversial than the decision to rescue Chrysler and General Motors, using $86 billion in taxpayer funds and an expedited bankruptcy process that wiped out shareholders, brought in new executives and directors, forced creditors to take a financial haircut, closed dealerships and factories and imposed painful cuts in wages and benefits on unionized workers. It was an extraordinary and heavy-handed government intervention into the market economy that left the Treasury owning a majority of both companies. As one participant recalls, public opinion was divided among those who believed that the companies should have been allowed to die, those who believed they would never survive bankruptcy and those who believed the government would inevitably screw things up. Among the most vocal skeptics: the Chamber's Donohue.

A year later, the auto bailout is an unqualified success. The government used its leverage to force the companies to make the painful changes they should have made years before, and then backed off and let the companies run themselves without any noticeable interference.

The results, which President Obama will tout on a visit to Michigan on Friday: For the first time since 2004, GM and Chrysler, along with Ford, all reported operating profits in their U.S. businesses last quarter. The domestic auto industry added 55,000 jobs last year, ending a decade-long string of declines. Auto sector exports are up 57 percent so far this year and, thanks largely to new government regulations, the industry is moving quickly to introduce more fuel-efficient vehicles. Most surprising of all, GM and Chrysler have already repaid more than $8 billion in government loans, while GM is preparing for an initial stock offering later this year that would allow the government to recoup most, if not all, of its investment.

There was a time, not long ago, when real business leaders encouraged these kind of public-private partnerships.

It's worth noting that the administration's auto industry bailout not only worked, it exceeded expectations. Just as importantly, it fit comfortably into an existing model -- every time the federal government bails out key national industries, the results are encouraging.

A year ago, the Monthly's Phillip Longman argued that "any honest reading of history suggests that the federal government has quite an impressive record of rescuing institutions considered too big to fail." Quite right. When the government bailed out Lockheed in 1971, the company thrived and taxpayers profited. The government bailed out Chrysler in 1980, and saw similar results. The government bailed out the railroad industry, and saw it flourish.

In each case, the government spent lots of taxpayer money, used bureaucrats to engineer the revival of an industry, recouped the money, and produced a success story. Conservatives howled in every instance, but as is usually the case, their complaints and dire predictions were wrong.

After Obama intervened to rescue auto manufacturers a year ago, the right insisted it was an example of his purported desire to be a communist dictator. A year later, his efforts look pretty smart, and his detractors' apoplexy looks pretty foolish.

For that matter, the conservative theme of the year is that government spending is the single most odious phenomenon in the known universe. And yet, it was government spending that prevented a depression, and it was government spending that rescued the American auto industry.
Maybe the right can pick something else to complain about? This talking point isn't working out well for them.

When the president takes a victory lap (so to speak) at a GM plant this morning, it will be well deserved. We can all be very thankful Obama didn't listen to conservatives, that there wasn't a conservative in the Oval Office, and that this industry was spared a looming catastrophe.

A DEMOCRAT'S ETHICS PROBE VS. A REPUBLICAN'S CRIMINAL PROBE.... If the accounts from major media outlets are any indication, the political world is awfully excited about the ethics allegations against Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.). To be sure, the interest is warranted -- the allegations against the former Ways and Means Committee chairman are serious; Republicans are thrilled; and the controversy has literally become front-page, above-the-fold news.

There may be some rule that I'm not aware of, prohibiting coverage of Republican scandals, but while a House Democrat's ethics problems intensify, a sitting Republican senator is still the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation, which is also getting more serious.

The Senate on Thursday night quietly approved a resolution that will allow Sen. John Ensign's aides to testify to a federal grand jury investigating the aftermath of the Nevada Republican's extramarital affair with a former campaign aide.

By voice vote, the Senate approved the resolution that would authorize employees of the Senate to give testimony to a grand jury in Washington.

Senate aides said that the resolution was necessary because Senate rules would prohibit employees from testifying outside of the halls of Congress.

Politico added that the move, which nearly every major outlet ignored, "is the latest sign that the investigation ... continues to move swiftly."

This development comes just a week after Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a former Ensign housemate, announced that he'd agreed to cooperate with the federal criminal investigation surrounding the conservative Nevadan. Coburn turned over more than 1,200 pages of documents to the Justice Department, including emails from Ensign.

And that development came on the heels of news that Ensign's aides have told investigators that the senator knew he was violating ethics rules on lobbying restrictions, but did it anyway.

As a rule, when a high-profile U.S. senator is facing a criminal investigation, the media shows at least some interest. When that investigation involves sex, the media tends to show quite a bit of interest.

But for reasons I still can't explain the Republican Nevadan is getting a pass. Here we have John Ensign, a "family values" conservative Republican, who had an extra-marital sexual relationship with his friend's wife, while condemning others' moral failings. Ensign's parents offered to pay hush-money. He ignored ethics laws and tried to use his office to arrange lobbying jobs for his mistress' husband. The likelihood of Ensign being indicted seems fairly high.

And yet, there's no media frenzy. No reporters staked out in front of Ensign's home. No op-eds speculating about the need for Ensign to resign in disgrace. Instead, the media's fascinated with Charlie Rangel.

Rangel is facing a probe from the House ethics committee, while Ensign is under scrutiny from the FBI.

Is this just the IOKIYAR rule taken to the extreme? Was there some kind of memo stating that only Democratic scandals deserve media attention in an election year?

ECONOMY STILL GROWING, BUT NOT VERY WELL.... The good news is, the economy is still growing, and has grown for four consecutive quarters for the first time in three years. The bad news is, the growth in the most recent quarter -- April through June -- was weak and far short of what the country needs.

The recovery lost momentum in the second quarter as growth slowed to a 2.4 percent pace, its most sluggish showing in nearly a year and too weak to drive down unemployment.

Weaker spending by consumers, less growth coming from companies restocking shrunken stockpiles and a bigger drag from the nation's trade deficits were the main factors behind the second quarter's slowdown.

Economic forecasters were expecting that the GDP would grow in the second quarter at a rate of 2 to 2.5 percent, so the results are largely in line with expectations, but that doesn't change the fact that such sluggish growth isn't enough.

It's cold comfort, but it's worth noting that first quarter growth was revised upwards quite a bit. A month ago, growth from January to March was estimated at 2.7, but the Bureau of Economic Analysis this morning put the number at 3.7.

In the bigger picture, it's tempting to think weak growth like this would encourage policymakers to act, but all evidence suggests that's impossible. Republicans in Congress oppose any and all stimulus efforts, and won't let Democrats vote on any additional recovery initiatives. The GOP will, however, fight with everything they've got for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, which we've already seen fail as a measure of generating economic growth.

And with that, here's another home-made chart, showing GDP numbers by quarter since the Great Recession began in late 2007.

HOUSE GOP KILLS MEDICAL FUNDING FOR 9/11 VICTIMS.... Following up on an item from yesterday, it appears Republican reverence for all things related to the 9/11 attacks is officially over.

Congress turned thumbs down on the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act on Thursday night, raising doubts it will ever pass.

Most Republicans refused to back the measure, calling it a "slush fund," and saying it was another example of Democratic overreach and an "insatiable" appetite for taxpayers' money.

The bill would spend $3.2 billion on health care over the next 10 years for people sickened from their exposure to the toxic smoke and debris of the shattered World Trade Center. It would spend another $4.2 billion to compensate victims over that span, and make another $4.2 billion in compensation available for the next 11 years.

So, as Republicans see it, we can afford tax breaks for billionaires. But care for 9/11 victims, not so much.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), perhaps best known for his apology to BP after the company's oil spill, "said the rest of the country should not bear the brunt of helping New Yorkers cope with the aftermath of the terror attacks." [Update: To clarify, this is a paraphrase from the New York Daily News, not a direct quote of Barton.]

How could House Republicans kill the bill in a majority-rule chamber? As it turns out, Dems brought the measure to the floor as a "suspension bill," because they didn't want the GOP to try to gut the legislation with poison-pill amendments. But this strategy meant the bill needed a two-thirds majority to pass. The final vote was 255 to 159 -- far short of the two-thirds threshold -- with 155 Republicans in opposition, many of them saying they would consider supporting the bill, but only if the GOP were allowed to push unrelated amendments intended to embarrass the majority.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y), whose constituents include many directly affected by this legislation, wasn't especially impressed with the Republican argument:

WHAT NOW ON SMALL BUSINESS AID?.... Going into yesterday, hopes were relatively high that the Senate would make progress on a package to aid small businesses, including tax breaks, new incentives, and an attempt to expand credit through a lending program that utilizes local banks. Hopes were dashed when Republicans, throwing a bit of a tantrum over the number of amendments they were allowed to consider, voted unanimously to block the chamber from voting on the bill.

There's no real mystery about the partisan gamesmanship on display.

Senate Republicans on Thursday rejected a bill to aid small businesses with expanded loan programs and tax breaks, in a procedural blockade that underscored how fiercely determined the party's leaders are to deny Democrats any further legislative accomplishments ahead of November's midterm elections.

The measure, championed by Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, had the backing of some of the Republican Party's most reliable business allies, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business. Several Republican lawmakers also helped write it.

But Republican leaders filibustered after fighting for days with Democrats over the number of amendments they would be able to offer.

So, the bill with 59 supporters and 41 opponents is at least temporarily stuck. What now? The Senate leadership is moving forward on a separate measure to help states avoid teacher layoffs and cover Medicaid costs (EduJobs and FMAP), but there's still talk that aid for small businesses can survive.

At issue are Republican demands that they be able to offer amendments to the small-business package that have nothing to do with small businesses -- including border security and Bush tax cuts. They don't really expect the amendments to pass, but GOP leaders hope (a) that the votes put Dems in an awkward spot; and (b) the process of considering them will take up more floor time, and make it impossible to consider other legislation this year.

As it currently stands, after yesterday's nonsense, the earliest the Senate would approve the small-business package is September. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who's taken the lead on this bill, noted that for struggling businesses, that's not nearly soon enough. Republicans, in effect, replied that the number of amendments they'd be allowed to consider was more important than whether those businesses might fail.

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

* In Battle Creek, Michigan, federal regulators told Enbridge Energy Partners, a Canadian company, that its "monitoring of corrosion in the pipeline was insufficient." That pipeline has now spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into a major river in southern Michigan.

* Manhunt ends on the outskirts of Kabul: "The second U.S. sailor who went missing in eastern Afghanistan last week has been found dead and his body recovered."

* Despite some talk earlier today of a possible settlement, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) is now facing 13 charges of House rules violations.

* This afternoon, President Obama signed the Tribal Law and Order Act, giving tribes the right and resources to "investigate and prosecute rapes perpetrated by non-Natives on tribal lands."

* Is it really that hard to get a warrant? "The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation."

* The president maps out a defense of his education reform agenda.

* Better, but still too high: "The number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment insurance fell to 457,000 last week, a figure that signals the labor market will be slow to improve even as the economy grows."

* Citigroup settles with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

* Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee want a hearing on the New Black Panther Party. They're not going to get one.

* And the media rejoices: Shirley Sherrod intends to sue right-wing hatchet-man Andrew Breitbart.

* Congress is considering lifting a ban on Internet gambling, originally imposed by Republicans in 2006.

* Jonathan Cohn considers the "stupidity of liberal apathy."

* Brendan Nyhan considers the persistence of the death panels myth.

* Michelle Cottle watches Obama on "The View" so I don't have to.

* The End of Sallie Mae?

* If there's one thing the right-wing loves, it's selective editing.

* And Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) reminds us why he's definitely a #1 seed in the brackets for Most Conspicuously Unintelligent House Member contest.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

SCHLAFLY DOES IT AGAIN.... In Michigan's 9th congressional district, Republicans hope to take down freshman Rep. Gary Peters (D) in what has historically been a relatively "red" area. One of the leading GOP candidates is Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski, who apparently thought it'd be a good idea to prove his right-wing bona fides by campaigning with Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the far-right Eagle Forum.

What could possibly go wrong? Well, for one thing, Schlafly could start sharing some of her radical beliefs in public. (via Melissa McEwan)

During her speech at a Saturday fundraiser at the American Polish Cultural Center in Troy for Oakland County congressional candidate Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski, Schlafly compared unmarried women to welfare recipients.

The conservative commentator is under fire from many women's rights groups for her comments.

"Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for Obama," Schlafly said in her speech. "And this is because when you kick your husband out, you gotta have Big Brother government to be your provider."

Schlafly went on to note that President Obama was elected thanks to support from "the blacks," before lamenting all the babies born "illegitimately" in the U.S. The Obama administration, she added, "wants to continue to subsidize this group because they know they are Democratic votes."

As for comment, Raczkowski said Schlafly's remarks did not "reflect" his "personal beliefs."

How big of him. Raczkowski has not yet apologized, however, for bringing his unhinged special guest to the area to spew her crazy nonsense.

It hasn't been a good year for Republicans and women's issues -- see Vitter, David among others -- but the ugliness and misogyny on display in Michigan are a reminder that matters might yet get worse.

Update: There are 75 Republican congressional candidates running this year who enjoy the Eagle Forum's endorsement, financial support, or both. One wonders whether they're comfortable with Schlafly's comments -- and her campaign contribution.