THE BOGUS NARRATIVE THAT WILL ONLY GET MORE UBIQUITOUS.... Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) thinks he knows exactly what would improve President Obama's political fortunes. Take a wild guess what he suggests.

"The only way the president could possibly survive is come back to the middle," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press." [...]

Graham accused Obama as running as a centrist but governing "from the left," acquiescing to the politics and agenda of the House.

The South Carolinian added that the White House's agenda has been the "most liberal agenda of modern times."

To prove his point, Graham noted that the administration has prepared to try terrorists in criminal courts on American soil. Of course, the Bush/Cheney administration did the exact same thing, without complaint from Republicans like Graham, but it's "tone-deaf" liberalism now because, well, Graham says so. He added that the president is "certainly tone deaf on the economy," though he didn't say why.

It's an absolute, guaranteed, mortal lock that if Republicans make huge gains in the midterms, as seems likely, Graham's rhetoric will be the accepted conventional wisdom, if it isn't already. Pundits, politicians, and the establishment in general will simply accept as fact that Dems would have fared far better if only they hadn't governed "from the left." Obama, we'll hear, has no choice but to go "to the middle."

And every time this nonsense is repeated, an angel will lose its wings.

Look, obviously the GOP has all the momentum, at least for now, going into the midterms. The economy is struggling, and frustrated voters are prepared to punish the party in power, even if the mess was created by the party that's about to reap the rewards. Complicating matters, Democratic voters are feeling disillusioned, and may sit on their hands this fall, even if that means sweeping successes for the most radicalized Republican Party in generations.

But Graham's entire narrative is fundamentally wrong. Obama already is and has been in "the middle." It's what led to a smaller and less effective stimulus; it's what led to a more moderate health care reform bill; it's what produced a less ambitious Wall Street reform package. The president has sought to compromise, over and over again, with a comically right-wing GOP that's not only refused to meet him half-way on literally anything, but at times seems intent on undermining national progress purely for partisan gain.

Lindsey Graham wants Obama to "come back to the middle"? Here's a silly question for Graham: when might your party "come back to the middle"? When was the last time congressional Republicans offered a centrist compromise on literally any policy dispute? When was the last time Graham's Senate caucus allowed the Senate to vote up or down on meaningful legislation without a filibuster, a hold, or both? When was the last time the GOP mainstream responded to White House outreach with a single idea where the parties could work together?

The conventional wisdom will be that liberalism did Democrats in, despite all evidence to the contrary, and despite the fact that liberals were right, especially about the economy. And we'll be reminded again as to why the accepted political truths are often neither conventional nor wise.

BUDGET CUTS LEAD TO 'CRASH TAXES'.... For all the popularity for vague "budget cuts" -- it's apparently one of those phrases that every politician is supposed to say this year -- there's been some solid coverage lately of what these cuts mean in the real world.

A month ago, the New York Times reported that cash-strapped states and municipalities are resorting to "major life-changing cuts in core services." This includes four-day weeks for public schools, local bus systems being shut down, and turning off streetlights in Colorado Springs. The report came on the heels of a Wall Street Journal piece about several state governments cutting back on paved roads, because they can only afford gravel. More recently, we learned that struggling public schools, finding their budgets slashed, used to simply require students to bring in glue, scissors, and crayons. They're now demanding that families provide everything from paper towels to garbage bags to liquid soap. In one instance, children are asked to even bring in toilet paper.

Today the NYT reports on "a nascent budget-balancing trend in municipal government: police and fire departments have begun to charge accident victims as a way to offset budget cuts."

Ambulance charges have long been common and are usually paid by health insurance, but fees for other responders are relatively new. The charge is variously called a "crash tax" or "resource recovery," depending on one's point of view. In either case, motorists are billed for services they may have thought were covered by taxpayers.

Sometimes the victim's insurer pays. But if it declines, motorists may face threats from a collection agency if they don't pay.

The AAA opposes such fees, said Jill Ingrassia, managing director for government relations and traffic safety advocacy. "Generally, we see that public safety services are a core government function that should be properly budgeted for with general taxes and not addressed by fees after the fact," she said.

Ms. Ingrassia says such charges can place an "undue burden on motorists who can't choose the size or duration of an emergency response," which means they cannot control the size of the bill they may get. "We also really don't want to discourage any motorist involved in a crash from calling for police or rescue services if they fear they are going to be billed for it," she said.

I can certainly understand the larger budget dynamic -- tax increases have been deemed wholly unacceptable, and Republicans won't let Congress vote on additional state aid. The result leaves states having no choice but to resort to new fees, such as these.

But that last point from Ingrassia seems pretty persuasive. If there's an incident, it seems problematic for folks to hesitate to contact fire/rescue, for example, because they can't afford an expensive bill from the municipal government.

Regardless, it's just another example of the glorious "budget cuts" that are apparently popular these days.

IF IT'S SUNDAY.... I was beginning to think they'd forgotten about him.

The producers/bookers of the Sunday morning public affairs shows went the entire month of July without having Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on at all. It was tempting to think maybe the Sunday shows had begun to realize that their near-obsession with the failed presidential candidate was a bad idea.

Alas, the streak ended this morning.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sunday called a series of tax breaks to be proposed by the White House this week "a deathbed conversion" and slammed Democrats for wanting to let tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans expire.

"They're just flailing around," McCain said on "Fox News Sunday." "We always like to see deathbed conversions... but it isn't going to resolve this incredible uncertainty out there." [...]

"Let's get the old class warfare out there, let's attack the rich," McCain said dismissively, before claiming all of the Bush era tax credits should be extended.

And just think what our discourse would be missing if we didn't have these brilliant insights on the airwaves. "Class warfare"? How clever and fresh. The Bush tax cuts that McCain voted against now need to be extended? How compelling.

For those keeping score -- and you know I am -- this was McCain's 24th appearance on a Sunday morning talk show since President Obama's inauguration. That's an average of more than an appearance a month, every month -- more than any other public official in the country.

Since the president took office 21 months ago, McCain has been on CNN's "State of the Union" four times (1.10.10, 10.11.09, 8.2.09, and 2.15.09), CBS's "Face the Nation" five times (1.24.10, 10.25.09, 8.30.09, 4.26.09, and 2.8.09), NBC's "Meet the Press" five times (6.27.10, 2.28.10, 12.6.09, 7.12.09, and 3.29.09), and ABC's "This Week" four times (7.4.10, 9.27.09, 8.23.09, and 5.10.09). His appearance on "Fox News Sunday" this morning is his sixth since Obama's inauguration (9.5.10, 4.18.10, 12.20.09, 7.2.09, 3.8.09, and 1.25.09)

McCain lost a presidential election; he's not in the GOP leadership; he's not especially influential with anyone; he's not playing an active role in shaping any legislation; his re-election appears secure; and he doesn't appear to have any expertise in any area of public policy. The Sunday shows seem to book him out of habit. It remains farcical.

IT'S A CONTEST OF ONE EXTREME, NOT TWO.... David Broder's column today reports from Pennsylvania, home to a tough Senate race pitting Rep. Joe Sestak, who defeated Sen. Arlen Specter in a Democratic primary this year, against former Rep. Pat Toomey (R). Broder, as is his wont, wants the candidates to be centrists.

...Toomey and Sestak are squaring off for a showdown that presents the clearest of choices but leaves thousands of independent-minded voters wondering where to go. [...]

Sestak and Toomey are on opposite sides on most big issues. Sestak campaigned against the war in Iraq; supported Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination; voted with President Obama on the stimulus bill, health care and the cap-and-trade energy bill; and has perfect voting score from the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Toomey argues for extending all the Bush tax cuts; opposes the three main Obama initiatives; is pro-life and against gay marriage; and wants to eliminate the estate tax and reduce several business levies. He has a lifetime approval rating of 97 percent from the American Conservative Union.

Pennsylvanians, Broder concludes, can expect "two months of ads arguing that the other guy is the extremist." Perhaps. Call me old fashioned, but I think it matters whether one, both, or neither are correct when making the allegation.

To hear Broder tell it, Sestak, a decorated Navy veteran, is a liberal, while Toomey, a veteran of Wall Street and the right-wing Club for Growth, is a conservative. For those in "the middle" who don't consider themselves ideologues, the two candidates are appealing exclusively to the party bases.

But that's a deeply flawed look at these candidates. Toomey, for example, is extremely conservative. One recent statistical analysis found that Toomey, based on his voting record, is "considerably" more conservative than Rick Santorum was during his tenure, and had a record in Congress more ideologically in tune with notorious North Carolinian Jesse Helms. One of the more important issues in the campaign is Toomey's desire to privatize Social Security, an idea that isn't exactly mainstream.

Is Sestak the mirror image, as liberal as Toomey is conservative? Not even close. According to the VoteView scores, Sestak's voting record puts him about in the middle of the House Democratic caucus. There's a House Progressive Caucus for the chamber's most liberal lawmakers, and Sestak isn't a member. On the campaign trail recently, Sestak has boasted of his endorsements, not from liberal Dems, but from NYC's independent mayor, Michael Bloomberg, and former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

"Independent-minded voters" are left "wondering where to go"? This is a race that leaves "the middle" feeling left out?

I find this line of analysis deeply odd. Given Broder's general inclinations, it seems he should be going out of his way to praise Sestak for running a mainstream campaign in a diverse state against a knee-jerk ideologue. Instead, Broder is more inclined to put a pox on both houses, when only one deserves it.

BREWER QUIETLY FESSES UP.... Just to put a coda on one of the week's more peculiar stories, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) conceded she was wrong about immigrants committing beheadings -- but she waited until late Friday afternoon on a holiday weekend to fess up.

If you're just joining us, the odd, far-right governor recently insisted that anti-immigrant legislation in Arizona is necessary, in part because of widespread violence. More specifically, Brewer alleged that immigrants entering the U.S. illegally are responsible for "beheadings" in the Arizona desert, a claim that the governor appears to have just made up out of whole cloth.

State Attorney General Terry Goddard (D), during a debate this week, urged Brewer to admit she was wrong, explaining that the governor wasn't doing Arizona any favors by lying about crimes that didn't occur. Brewer refused. After the event, reporters pressed the governor on the point, prompting her to run away.

Late on Friday, Brewer chatted with the AP.

"That was an error, if I said that," the Republican told The Associated Press on Friday. "I misspoke, but you know, let me be clear, I am concerned about the border region because it continues to be reported in Mexico that there's a lot of violence going on and we don't want that going into Arizona."

First, "if I said that"? She said that.

Second, trying to connect crime to immigration problems is still a losing proposition.

And third, note that Brewer waited until late on a Friday -- on Labor Day weekend -- to acknowledge the fact that she made up a bogus claim that made her state look bad.

I don't imagine Arizona voters have heard the last of this.

NO ONE SHOULD BE SURPRISED BY THE SHUTDOWN.... Josh Marshall had an item yesterday that I suspect represents the way many observers consider reports of a government shutdown next year: "When I first heard this talk of another 'government shutdown' in 2011, I figured it was just Democrats whipping it up as a cudgel for the election. Then I heard Republicans talking about it too. But I still figured it was just a way of ratcheting up their own core voters -- who of course loved the first one too."

Two months ago, when I first put the odds of a government shutdown, in the event of a GOP majority, at over 50%, I heard this, too -- it's just a lot of talk; it'll blow over; and cooler heads will prevail.

But Josh started reconsidering his take when he considered in detail how the funding fight over health care is likely to play out if Republicans take the House (and/or the Senate). Christina Bellantoni reported yesterday on the right-wing plan to "defund" health care policy, effectively holding the government hostage unless President Obama agrees to go along.

GOP leadership is on board with defunding health care and it's the most popular idea on the America Speaking Out voter forum run by the House Republicans and is included on the tea party's version of a Contract with America.

"Since we would need 60 senators to stop a filibuster, defunding is really our only option," said Alex Cortes of DeFundIt.org.

While some GOPers suggest they could cut funding entirely, there is only $150 billion in the reform law that's discretionary and not self-executing. Those funds are to help the Department of Health and Human Services and the IRS implement the new law, and Republicans believe, "If we exclude those funds, they can't institute the program," Cortes said.

"I don't think a shutdown would eventually happen," Cortes said. "We'd ultimately win the PR battle if we did it. We won the battle in the 90s because we stood on principle."

Conservatives who think the shutdown(s) made Republicans look good probably need a quick refresher of the politics of 1995.

Regardless, the talk of inviting a government shutdown is getting harder to miss, and Republicans haven't even won anything yet. The GOP won't be able to repeal the health care law, so this is widely seen as the next best thing, despite the severe consequences.

The next question is whether it's likely Republicans would go through with it.

—Steve Benen 11:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (56)

CLINTON CALLS FOR MORE TIME.... Sam Seder came upon an important realization yesterday: "Now we know -- it takes 8 years of GOP control to totally f**k up our economy and only 18 months to blame Dems for it."

As it turns out, just a few hours later, former President Bill Clinton campaigned for Rep. Mike McMahon (D-N.Y.) yesterday, and emphasized a similar point: Dems just need more time to clean up the mess Republicans left behind.

"The Republicans say you have to throw all the Democrats out because of the economy," Clinton told a crowd of 1,600 at Wagner College. "We knew we could not get out of the hole in 21 months." [...]

McMahon's Republican challengers may criticize him for supporting President Obama's economic stimulus package, Clinton said, but the bill "gave money to state and local governments so they wouldn't have to lay off a million teachers and health care workers or turn around and raise taxes on you to keep them working, which would have been a disaster in this economy."

Clinton cautioned against a repeat of the years after he left the White House, when Republicans turned his budget surplus into the biggest deficit in the nation's history.

"We can't let them do it again," Clinton railed.

"We need individuals who think and do what's right for you," he added. "You've got to have people who think, not ideologues. Republicans are utterly impervious to evidence."

The message has the added benefit of being true -- if Dems had more time, they might have more success addressing the disasters they inherited from Republicans -- but it seems unlikely to resonate. Voters seem to have very short memories, and are more than a little impatient. If that means rewarding the party that created our current predicaments, and which fought tooth and nail for 21 months to prevent things from getting better, so be it.

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a good example of the larger dynamic among political conservatives this year, with competing contingents split between secular economic issues and religious culture-war issues. For much of the right, the emphasis on issues like taxes and health care should remain the focus, especially in the midterm elections, but as we saw last week, self-proclaimed moralists also have a religious war in mind.

It's leading some Republican officials to shape campaign messages built around notions of "righteousness."

The head of the Hawaii Republican Party is calling GOP Lt. Gov. James "Duke" Aiona the only "righteous" gubernatorial candidate while urging pastors to bar Democrat Mufi Hannemann from campaigning in their churches.

In an undated e-mail that came to light Sunday in three Hawaii political blogs, Jonah Kaauwai also wrote that a vote for Hannemann or Democrat Neil Abercrombie is "succumbing to fear and advancing unrighteousness."

The e-mail frequently cites Bible verses and uses other religious language to allege that Hannemann deceptively wants to visit church services to boost his support in the Sept. 18 Democratic primary.

"Duke will win because the church has been behind him the entire time operating in the POWER and the AUTHORITY of the NAME OF JESUS!" stated Kaauwai's lengthy e-mail. [emphasis in the original]

Kaauwai added that Hannemann does not deserve voters' support because he's shown "no signs" of being "controlled by the Holy Spirit." He also described the Republican candidate's campaign as "Christ's opportunity."

Just to be clear, the letter wasn't written by some odd televangelist, but rather, the head of a statewide Republican Party -- who apparently believes in some kind of evangelical religious test for public office.

If the GOP's right-wing base takes on a more moralistic crusade, these kinds of religio-political messages will likely become more common. It's something to look out for in the coming months.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* As if the Roman Catholic Church's scandal involving the sexual abuse of children couldn't get worse, it gets worse: "The former leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium urged a victim of serial sexual abuse by a bishop to keep silent for a year, until the bishop -- the victim's own uncle -- could retire, according to tapes made by the victim last April and published over the weekend in two Belgian newspapers." (thanks to D.J. for the tip)

* Right-wing radio host Michael Medved insisted this week that if the Christian God were a registered voter in the United States, "[He] would cast his all-important ballot for Republicans." And if Medved thinks so, it must be true, right?

* Focus on the Family foists "abstinence-only" education on China. This will not end well.

* Legendary physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," making the role of the supernatural unnecessary. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going," Hawking writes. The argument is causing consternation among religious leaders in Britain, who are pushing back publicly against the new book.

* And in Afghanistan this week, U.S. Army chaplain Capt. Dale Goetz was killed, along with four other U.S. soldiers, when the convoy he was traveling in was struck by an I.E.D. Goetz, a husband and father of three, is the first American military chaplain to be killed in action since the war in Vietnam.

KEN BUCK PRETENDS TO UNDERSTAND EDUCATION.... There are real drawbacks to major parties nominating candidates for key offices who approach policy debates with all the sophistication of a drunk guy yelling at the TV from the end of the bar.

Take Colorado's Ken Buck, the Republican Senate candidate this year. He's already known for being one of 2010's nuttiest candidates -- he wants to eliminate Social Security, scrap student loans, ban forms of birth control, eliminate all abortions under all circumstances, etc. -- and this week, Buck showed off his policy depth by trying to talk about education.

"In the 1950s, we had the best schools in the world. And the United States government decided to get more involved in federal education. Where are we now, after all those years of federal involvement, are we better or are we worse? So what's the federal government's answer? Well since we've made education worse, we're gonna even get more involved. And what's gonna be the result? It's kinda like health care. We've screwed up health care -- Medicare -- we've screwed up all kinds of other things, so what are we gonna do? We're gonna get even more involved in health care. What are we going to do? We're gonna get more involved in education."

Well, we can probably scratch Buck from the list of "policy wonk" candidates.

As a substantive matter, it's hard to know what Buck is even trying to say here. Federal involvement in local schools began in the 1950s? That's only true to the extent that federal officials mandated the end of segregation. If Buck thinks this made "education worse," he should probably elaborate on the subject. (If he was referring to the creation of the U.S. Department of Education, Buck was off by three decades -- it wasn't created until 1980.)

As for the notion that we've "screwed up health care," I still don't know what Buck is even trying to say. There was some passing reference to Medicare, but it was vague and meaningless. Is he saying the status quo in the health care system doesn't work? Looking at the system, pre-ACA, I agree, but it wasn't government intervention that caused the trouble. Indeed, that's backwards.

The whole rant is just bizarre, blindly and haphazardly blaming government in ways that don't even make sense. The larger point seems to be that schools were great in the 1950s, but they're lousy now. Ian Millhiser explained that even this doesn't make sense.

...Buck's claim that American schools are worse now than they were in the 1950s is laughably wrong. In 1957, less than half of white Americans and fewer than one in five African-Americans graduated from high school. By 2002, however, almost nine in ten white children and eight in ten black children earned their diploma. Likewise, college graduation rates more than tripled during the same time period for both racial groups. Our country has a long way to go before we build the education system Americans deserve, but Buck is simply wrong to claim that American schools haven't made massive strides since the 1950s.

But all of this is lost on Buck, just as reason is lost on the drunk guy shouting at the TV at the end of the bar. Government bad, schools bad, health care bad ... voting for angry loudmouth good. Who can take this seriously?

JOE 'YOU LIE' WILSON'S ETHICS PROBLEM.... Rep. Joe Wilson, a right-wing South Carolinian best known for heckling President Obama during a speech to Congress last year, acknowledged this week that he's under investigation by the House ethics committee. At first blush, the allegations didn't seem especially serious, and were largely overlooked.

But Wilson may actually have a real problem on his hands.

The congressional ethics investigation of Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., is broader than previously disclosed and goes well beyond his use of $12 in per diem expense money to buy six decorative goblets in Afghanistan last year.

Congressional staff members with detailed knowledge of the probe said ethics investigators are examining Wilson's unusually high number of foreign trips -- at least 30 in the past eight years -- and his use of per diem expense money while traveling abroad.

The original controversy was over six marble goblets Wilson bought for $12. The congressman claims to have given the goblets to U.S. troops as gifts, and the whole story didn't seem especially interesting.

But the ethics probe now appears to be far more expansive, with investigators looking into $100,000 in itemized expenses -- which we pay for -- during Wilson's frequent overseas travels. (The costs don't include the taxpayer-financed expense of sending him abroad in the first place.)

This is unlikely to affect his re-election -- Wilson is running for re-election in a pretty conservative district -- but it's a controversy worth watching. Especially if Republicans take the House majority, and Wilson is in a more influential role on the Armed Services committee, it'd be good to know why he racked up so many expenses, and asked us to pick up the tab.

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT.... There was a front-page piece in the New York Times yesterday, which seemed to suggest that Democrats, on top of all their other election-season troubles, are losing one of the party's key group of supporters: young people. Relying on research from the Pew Research Center, the NYT reported that "fewer younger voters see themselves as Democrats."

The college vote is up for grabs this year — to an extent that would have seemed unlikely two years ago, when a generation of young people seemed to swoon over Barack Obama.

Though many students are liberals on social issues, the economic reality of a weak job market has taken a toll on their loyalties: far fewer 18- to 29-year-olds now identify themselves as Democrats compared with 2008.

As it turns out, it depends on how one defines "far."

Way down in the story, the NYT gets to the data: younger voters' identification with Dems "peaked at 62 percent in July 2008." The newest data puts the number at 57 percent.

Paul Waldman's reaction seemed like the sensible one.

Well now. That doesn't seem so dramatic anymore, does it? In the heart of a presidential campaign in which the Democrat, a dynamic young candidate, would go on to whip the Republican, a crotchety old candidate, the proportion of young people identifying as Democrats peaked at 62 percent. And now, with the economy in the toilet, the president's approval ratings in the 40s, and Democrats facing huge losses in November, that number has plummeted all the way to ... 57 percent.

What's more, party I.D. notwithstanding, the same data shows younger voters are more socially progressive and less anti-government than other age groups. That's not a sign of trouble for Dems; it's the opposite.

Now all Democrats have to do is figure out how to get these younger voters to care about the midterm elections.

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

* Terror in Pakistan: "A suicide bombing at a Shiite demonstration in the western Pakistani city of Quetta left at least 55 people dead Friday, triggering fears of an outbreak of sectarian violence as the nation continues to struggle with ruinous floods. The strike followed a suicide attack that killed at least two people in northwest Pakistan at a mosque of the Ahmedi sect, another religious minority whose members are the frequent victims of Islamist extremists. On Wednesday, suicide bombers struck a Shiite march in the city of Lahore, killing at least 30 and sparking riots."

* Hurricane Earl swipes North Carolina, heads towards New England a little worse for wear. Early reports suggest damage in North Carolina was not as bad as feared.

* Earthquake in New Zealand: "Authorities said Saturday that a major earthquake near New Zealand's second-largest city, Christchurch, caused extensive damage and scores of minor injuries but no major casualties."

* President Obama addressed the monthly jobs report at a press availability this morning, and before wrapping up, mentioned, "I will be addressing a broader package of ideas next week."

* Why is long-term unemployment declining?

* I was going to say "nice try," but it wasn't even that: "A judge on Thursday denied a request for President Barack Obama to testify at a court martial for a U.S. Army flight surgeon who refused to deploy to Afghanistan until he saw proof that Obama was born in the United States."

* Former OMB Director Peter Orszag is getting a New York Times column. It should be interesting.

* Daniel Luzer: Paying for college with retirement money.

* The NRCC embezzlement scandal leads to a guilty plea.

* Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), currently the subject of criminal and ethics investigations stemming from his sex/corruption scandal, told constituents this week, "If you don't hold us accountable, we'll do some real bad things in Washington, D.C." He was trying to talk about the economy, but I nevertheless found his lack of self-awareness hilarious.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

CONSERVATIVES MUST NOT UNDERSTAND RON WYDEN.... This week, Sen. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon moved forward on a provision he put in the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, Wyden is looking to exempt his state from some of the reform law's new mandates, as part of a measure that gives states leeway, so long as they meet certain federal standards.

The right seems awfully excited about this as evidence of ... something. The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page argued with glee this morning, "Most Democrats have come to understand that they can't run on ObamaCare, but few have the temerity of Ron Wyden. The Oregon Senator is the first to break with the policy underpinnings of the bill he voted for.... On ObamaCare, Democrats are having the first political second thoughts, at least in this election season. Mr. Wyden is essentially saying that what his party passed is not acceptable."

The Weekly Standard runs with the same line, arguing that Wyden's position is "a strong indication of how well his support for that legislation is playing out on the Oregon campaign trail."

I really wish the conservatives would just stay away from subjects they don't understand. Wyden isn't having trouble "on the Oregon campaign trail"; he's cruising to re-election, running as a leading progressive voice on health care. The senator also isn't having "second thoughts" or "breaking with" the Affordable Care Act; he's following through on the idea he personally inserted into the legislation.

Wyden's move this week is not, in other words, evidence of splintering Democrats. As anyone who followed the debate understands, this is evidence of Wyden acting on the plan he intended to pursue all along. This is anything but a surprise -- the only news here is that Wyden is trying to move up the timetable for Oregon's experimentation.

And why is he doing that? Dave Weigel notes:

Does this mean that Oregon can try its own coverage plan that's even more comprehensive than the federal plan? Does it mean it can try a public option? Yes, and it frees Democratic candidate for governor John Kitzhaber, who's having surprising trouble reclaiming the office he held for eight years against Republican candidate Chris Dudley, to promise that. On the narrow political question, yes, Wyden is proving that the mandate is unpopular. On the larger policy question, though, he's proving that "Obamacare" is all about moving the universal coverage ball down the field -- and universal coverage is popular. (So is Wyden, who's up 20 points, which scotches any theory that he's doing this out of panic.)

I'd also just take this opportunity to note that for all the kvetching from Republican media about the scourge of the individual mandate, the individual mandate was a Republican idea, embraced during the ACA debate by leading Republicans.

Somehow, they always seem to forget that.

PAUL RYAN DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE TAX FAIRY.... A couple of months ago, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) got the ball rolling on a mind-numbing discussion. He insisted that tax cuts don't have to be paid for, because they necessarily pay for themselves -- an idea so ridiculous that no credible economist takes it seriously. Kyl added, however, that his absurd position is endorsed by "most of the people in my party," a claim that proved to be true.

To his credit, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the man poised to take over the House Budget Committee next year if there's a GOP majority, noted on CNBC this morning, "Look, I'm not one of these people who says that all tax cuts pay for themselves." Good for him. As far as I can tell, he's literally the only leading Republican in Washington who's been willing to say this on the record.

What's more, I'm also inclined to give Paul at least some credit for saying that Republicans are committed to fighting for Bush-era rates for the very wealthy, but that the GOP should try to pay for its policy.

That's the good news. The bad news comes when contemplating how Paul intends to go about doing this.

There's "plenty of the room" in the federal budget to cut $700 billion in spending to pay for extending high-end tax cuts, a top Republican said Friday.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, said he'd be happy to draft a budget to make cuts in spending to offset the budget gap that would be created by extending tax cuts for the wealthiest households, which are set to expire at the end of the year.

"[W]e can cut spending to pay for it," said Ryan, who would likely take over the Budget Committee if Republicans win control of the House this fall, on CNBC.... "There's plenty of spending to cut to accommodate that," he explained. "So I'm more than happy to draft legislation to cut $700 billion dollars."

Great, let's see it. Let's get a good long look -- before the election -- at the Republican plan to pay for their massive tax breaks for America's very wealthy. There's $700 billion of unnecessary spending lying around, all of which should be devoted not to deficit reduction, not to economic recovery, but to tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires?

I'm all ears. Let's have the debate, letting voters know exactly what the GOP's priorities are.

BREWER TO ARIZONA: NO MORE DEBATES FOR YOU.... Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) became something of a national laughingstock yesterday, as news of her debate performance made the rounds. So, any chance Brewer will be better prepared for the next debate? No, because there won't be any more debates.

Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has put the kibosh on all future debates with her Arizona gubernatorial opponent Terry Goddard (D), after her rather embarrassing display at Wednesday's debate. [...]

According to the Arizona Daily Star, Brewer says she only partook in the debate to try qualify for the $1.7 million-plus public funds for her campaign.

Also note, local reporters took an interest in Brewer's wildly ridiculous allegations -- over the summer, not during the debate -- that immigrants entering the U.S. illegally are responsible for "beheadings" in the Arizona desert, a claim that the governor appears to have just made up out of whole cloth.

During the debate, state Attorney General Terry Goddard (D) raised this as an issue -- he fairly noted that tourists and investors may avoid a state where crazed immigrants chop off people's heads -- and Brewer dodged the issue. After the debate, the governor literally fled to avoid reporters' questions on the subject.

Today, Brewer followed up, explaining why she ran away rather than defending her own claims.

"All you guys were doing and talking were beheadings, beheadings, beheadings," Brewer told the Daily Star. "That is something that has stuck with you all for so long, and I just felt we needed to move on."

Got that? Brewer made a ridiculous claim, refused to acknowledge her mistake, refused to answer questions about her own claims during the debate, and refused to respond to journalists' inquiries after the debate. And now that she's been caught lying about a key issue, she's decided it's time to "move on." How convenient.

On a related note, reader A.K. emailed me this morning, asking how someone with Brewer's issues could end up as the chief executive of a state. It's worth remembering that Brewer never sought statewide office -- she became governor when Janet Napolitano left the governor's office to join the Obama administration (there is no lieutenant governor in Arizona).

Brewer, in other words, kind of fell into a job she was unprepared for. She was not expected to do well in seeking a full term, right up until she became a right-wing hero after signing Arizona's anti-immigrant law.