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

* Iran: "Brushing aside international calls for stricter sanctions against it, Iran said Tuesday it had begun enriching uranium for use in a medical reactor to a higher level of purity, raising the stakes again in its dispute with the United States and other countries over its nuclear program. The United States responded by saying it would seek United Nations backing for new sanctions within weeks."

* More Iran: "In recent weeks, Iranian security officials have unleashed a wave of arrests across the country in an effort to neutralize the political opposition, silence critical voices and head off widespread protests when the nation marks the anniversary of the revolution on Thursday, Iran analysts inside and outside the country said."

* If the AP report is accurate, the Senate "jobs bill" is poised to be exceedingly disappointing.

* Hopes of a rescue for Greece seem to improve.

* China's pollution problem is pretty extraordinary: "China's government on Tuesday unveiled its most detailed survey ever of the pollution plaguing the country, revealing that water pollution in 2007 was more than twice as severe as official figures that had long omitted agricultural waste."

* President Obama stops by the press briefing room. (Will they stop complaining about the lack of press conferences for a while?)

* Despite the bluster, the House Republican leadership isn't going to blow off the invitation to the White House summit on health care reform.

* In light of the weather and next week's recess, the House has scrapped its legislative schedule until the 22nd. Among other things, that means a delay on a bill stripping health insurers of their anti-trust exemption.

* Direct student lending to create American jobs.

* White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has a little fun at former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's (R) expense.

* OFA isn't done with its efforts to pass health care reform.

* Countering the Luntz memo on financial reform.

* And the Senate rejected Craig Becker's nomination to the National Labor Relations Board this afternoon. A majority supported the nomination, which in the American system in the 21st century, means the nomination fails.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

YOU FIRST, KIT.... It must be a day that ends in "y" -- a clownish far-right lawmaker is calling for another administration official to resign.

Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) called on Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan's resignation on Tuesday.

Bond said Brennan, with whom he's tangled publicly over the Obama administration's handling of the attempted bombing of a flight on Christmas, to resign.

Brennan "needs to go," Bond said in an interview with National Review Online, a stance that was confirmed later by a spokeswoman.

I can appreciate why Bond is annoyed. The Republican senator has been blatantly lying about most aspects of national security policy quite a bit lately, and Brennan has had the audacity to explain reality to the public. Imagine that.

But when Republicans wonder why it's impossible to take them seriously on matters of public policy, they should remember that the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee has called on the president's senior counterterrorism adviser to resign for having committed the awful crime of being correct.

There have to be some grown-up Republicans hiding somewhere, feeling embarrassed by what's become of their colleagues. Do they dare stand up, act like statesmen, and tell fools like Bond to enjoy a little quiet time?

THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS IN 2010.... In theory, this should be a straightforward exercise. Unemployment is painfully high, and threatens a fragile economic recovery. The stimulus package approved last year has made a considerable difference in improving the jobs landscape, but it's pretty obvious policymakers need to take additional steps.

So, President Obama presented a plan, the House passed a strong bill, and given that it's a 59-41 split in the Senate, finishing the effort should be easy. Except, Republicans will filibuster any bill they don't like -- thanks again, Massachusetts -- and they don't like any bill that might actually put more Americans back to work.

It leads to a painful process. Derek Thompson makes a prediction about how all of this will play out in the very near future. (via Ezra)

Republicans will ask if Obama's willing to consider an across-the-board tax cut. He'll say no, because he doesn't think it will create jobs and he knows it will add significantly to the deficit. Then Republicans will say they couldn't reach a deal, Obama will have to build a job creation bill with Democrats only, and Republicans will counter every proposal with: "This is more of the same old failed policies from Democrats, who are spending our way into a bottomless hole and tragically burdening on our children with debt without doing a thing create jobs."

That will re-dig the trenches. Mainstream news will describe Congress as a partisan pit, and public opinion will begin to turn against the bill because they think Democrats are forcing legislation through, and the bill is taking too long to come together, and they don't think it will work, anyway because the press surrounding the bill will be mostly negative. Moderate Democrats will get nervous and ask to pare down the bill, which will probably make it less effective, and months later, if Democrats actually pass the weak-sauce law, it will necessarily lose Republicans, alienate independents and frustrate liberals.

I know why the White House is trying to create a jobs bill that enjoys bipartisan support, beyond public appearances -- it doesn't have much of a choice. The package needs to pass the broken and dysfunctional Senate, and Republicans are not above filibustering a jobs bill in the midst of an unemployment crisis. Thanks to unprecedented obstructionism, a bill with "only" majority support necessarily fails.

So, we're left with this. Good legislation that enjoys majority support can't get a floor vote because Republicans act like children. Worse legislation that might enjoy some bipartisan support can get a floor vote -- but won't do enough to actually create jobs, which ostensibly is the purpose of a jobs bill.

The state of the legislative process is untenable.

BRENNAN MAKES IT PLAIN....John Brennan, President Obama's senior counterterrorism adviser, has, as Adam Serwer noted this morning, "become the point man for the administration's pushback against GOP criticism on national security. " That appears to be a good move -- Brennan does not suffer fools gladly.

The former CIA official was forceful and persuasive on the Sunday shows over the weekend, and has a brief-but-compelling op-ed in USA Today. It's not quite 400 words, but Brennan's piece identifies the main Republican complaints of late, and then explains how wrong they are.

For example, the GOP insists Abdulmutallab was only interrogated for 50 minutes, during which time he provided nothing of value. The administration, Republicans argue, should have coordinated with other agencies outside the Justice Department. Brennan explains:

Immediately after the failed Christmas Day attack, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly interrogated and provided important information. Senior counterterrorism officials from the White House, the intelligence community and the military were all actively discussing this case before he was Mirandized and supported the decision to charge him in criminal court.

The GOP is outraged that Abdulmutallab was read his rights, when he should have been labeled an enemy combatant and headed off to the military. Brennan explains:

The most important breakthrough occurred after Abdulmutallab was read his rights, which the FBI made standard policy under Michael Mukasey, President Bush's attorney general. The critics who want the FBI to ignore this long-established practice also ignore the lessons we have learned in waging this war: Terrorists such as Jose Padilla and Saleh al-Mari did not cooperate when transferred to military custody, which can harden one's determination to resist cooperation.

It's naive to think that transferring Abdulmutallab to military custody would have caused an outpouring of information. There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical.

Would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid was read his Miranda rights five minutes after being taken off a plane he tried to blow up. The same people who criticize the president today were silent back then.

The GOP believes military courts are more effective for terrorism cases. Brennan explains:

Cries to try terrorists only in military courts lack foundation. There have been three convictions of terrorists in the military tribunal system since 9/11, and hundreds in the criminal justice system -- including high-profile terrorists such as Reid and 9/11 plotter Zacarius Moussaoui.

The GOP is convinced the Obama administration isn't being effective or aggressive enough on counter-terrorism. Brennan explains:

This administration's efforts have disrupted dozens of terrorist plots against the homeland and been responsible for killing and capturing hundreds of hard-core terrorists, including senior leaders in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond -- far more than in 2008. We need no lectures about the fact that this nation is at war.

The GOP perceives terrorists as Super Villains with Super Powers. Brennan explains:

Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill. They will, however, be dismantled and destroyed, by our military, our intelligence services and our law enforcement community. And the notion that America's counterterrorism professionals and America's system of justice are unable to handle these murderous miscreants is absurd.

Good stuff.

STEELE REDISCOVERS THE 'RACE CARD'.... Michael Steele's first year as chairman of the Republican National Committee has not gone well. There have been controversies surrounding his gaffes, his budget, his lucrative side deals, his mismanagement, and his tantrums. Talk of his ouster has been quite common, especially after Democrats went five-for-five in winning congressional special elections in 2009.

But in the new issue of the Washingtonian, Steele suggests his problems are not of his own making, but rather, are the result of racism.

Steele acknowledges that at times he has a tendency to take things too far. "And I get checked on that, just as when I was a young boy and I pushed the envelope too far and my Mama was there to check me."

But there's an edge to his voice when he talks about a double standard that he believes has been applied by his critics, and he posits racism as the cause: "I don't see stories about the internal operations of the DNC that I see about this operation. Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?"

It's unclear exactly who Steele is accusing of racism. As Greg Sargent noted, "Either Steele is suggesting the media gives more ink to the RNC's inner workings because a black man is chairman, or he's suggesting that fellow Republicans are leaking damaging info about the RNC because a black man is chairman."

That's right, and the difference matters. Either the RNC chairman is lashing out at the media for being racist, or lashing out at his own Republican colleagues for being racist. It'd be interesting to know which. Indeed, if Steele believes his own RNC team is engaged in race-based leaking, he should say so.

Either way, Steele's comments are curious. For one thing, he's generated more attention because he's always screwing up in some very high-profile way. If Tim Kaine had the same kind of self-destructive tendencies as the RNC chairman, he'd probably be in the news a lot, too. If memory serves, Howard Dean's tenure at the DNC sparked all kinds of media coverage when Dean would push the rhetorical envelope a bit.

For another, Steele has said, repeatedly, that he's offended by attempts to play the "race card." Is that no longer operative?

THE CASH-AND-TRASH STORY GETS MORE HUMILIATING.... In one of the more entertaining moments of President Obama's recent chat with House Republicans, the president offered a spirited defense of the stimulus package that rescued the economy. Obama noted a certain inconsistency in the GOP rhetoric: "[A] lot of you have gone to ribbon cuttings for the same projects that you voted against. I say all this not to re-litigate the past, but it's simply to state, the component parts of the recovery act are consistent with what many of you say are important things to do."

In some circles, it's come to be known as the "cash-and-trash" strategy -- Republicans hate the stimulus package and "trash" it at every available opportunity, but love the stimulus package and grab the "cash" when it comes to creating jobs in their own states/districts. It's been going on for a year, but the phenomenon keeps spreading.

And becoming even more humiliating.

Sen. Christopher S. Bond regularly railed against President Obama's economic stimulus plan as irresponsible spending that would drive up the national debt. But behind the scenes, the Missouri Republican quietly sought more than $50 million from a federal agency for two projects in his state.

Mr. Bond was not alone. More than a dozen Republican lawmakers, while denouncing the stimulus to the media and their constituents, privately sent letters to just one of the federal government's many agencies seeking stimulus money for home-state pork projects.

The letters to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, expose the gulf between lawmakers' public criticism of the overall stimulus package and their private lobbying for projects close to home.

"It's not illegal to talk out of both sides of your mouth, but it does seem to be a level of dishonesty troubling to the American public," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

This report is pretty astounding. More than a dozen GOP lawmakers who said the recovery package is simply incapable of creating jobs and generating economic growth pleaded with the Agriculture Department to spend stimulus dollars in their areas to "create jobs" and "spur economic opportunities." In several instances, far-right lawmakers would publicly condemn the very idea of economic stimulus efforts and request stimulus dollars within a few days of each other.

And remember, this is just one agency of the administration. It's very likely that many more Republican lawmakers who opposed the recovery package also reached out to other agencies, convinced that the money would do wonders in their state/district.

DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse said this morning that "this is a new hypocritical low." He added, "Republicans who opposed the recovery act and then requested money from it or attended ribbon cuttings for projects in their states are either admitting that they were wrong about the legislation from the beginning, that they were simply playing politics with their vote or that they are hypocrites -- take your pick."

Those lawmakers who insisted the stimulus wouldn't work, and that federal spending couldn't possibly be good for the economy, can send their apologies to: President Obama, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue....

ABOUT THOSE PROSECUTION STATISTICS.... As baseless Republican criticism of administration counter-terrorism policies has intensified, the president's team has come up with some pretty straightforward defenses. When the GOP gets hysterical over trying accused terrorists in the U.S. justice system, Obama administration officials remind folks that more than 300 terrorists have already gone through this exact same system -- with nary a complaint from Republicans.

In response, instead of adapting their argument to reality, GOP attack dogs have decided that the "more than 300" number has to be a trumped up number and the result of Obama administration deception.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the Judiciary Committee's top Republican, called the number "unsubstantiated" and questioned its validity. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) called the number "disingenuous." National Review called the figure "bogus." Dana Perino concluded, "The 300 number is as false as false gets."

So, who's right? Newsweek's Mark Hosenball sets the record straight.

Maybe it's time to stop some of the name calling over counter-terrorism policy and start checking the facts....

[I]t turns out that the Administration's claims do appear to be well-documented -- assuming that an official budget request sent to Congress by Bush's last attorney general was truthful itself.

Yes, the figure Republicans insist was manufactured by the Obama administration was actually published in the budget released by Bush's Justice Department. The document put the exact number of terrorists convicted through the civilian courts since 2001 at 319.

Indeed, George W. Bush actually used to boast about these numbers, delivering a speech in 2003 explaining that "more than 260 suspected terrorists have been charged in the United States courts, [and] more than 140 have already been convicted."

Of course, the point here isn't just to mock Republicans for being wrong about the nature of the data. That's amusing, but it's not enough.

The more meaningful angle here is that Bush/Cheney tried hundreds of terrorists in civilian American courts -- without incident -- and then imprisoned these terrorists on American soil. No one complained, no one freaked out, no one got hysterical. But now that Obama is keeping the same practice in place, it's the subject of a huge debate, and the same policy that was considered perfectly acceptable as part of a "war on terror" is now perceived as proof of weakness.

The question, then, for Republicans isn't, "Will you concede that the 300 figure is legit?" but rather, "Will you start being consistent in how you assess the exact same policy?"

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.

* Any chance Illinois State Comptroller Dan Hynes, who narrowly lost to Gov. Pat Quinn in a Democratic gubernatorial primary last week, would replace Scott Lee Cohen as Quinn's running mate? Hynes apparently isn't interested.

* Speaking of Illinois, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D), arguably the most popular statewide officeholder in the state, will serve as chairman of Alexi Giannoulias's (D) Senate campaign.

* Former Sen. Dan Coats (R) has shaken up the Senate race in Indiana, but if he follows through on his plans, he won't have a direct shot at Sen. Evan Bayh (D) -- former Rep. John Hostettler (R) has vowed to stay in the race and compete against Coats in a primary.

* Keep an eye on Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), this year's chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. The DCCC believes Sessions really is vulnerable this year.

* Speaking of Texas, the latest Public Policy Polling survey shows a competitive three-way race in the Republican gubernatorial primary. Incumbent Gov. Rick Perry leads with 39% support, followed by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison at 28%, and novice/right-wing activist Debra Medina close behind with 24%. If no candidate receives 50%, there will be a run-off.

* Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who seems oddly serious about running for president in 2012, endorsed Marco Rubio's Senate campaign in Florida yesterday. It's become something of a litmus test in far-right circles -- if you don't back Rubio, the GOP base won't trust you.

* In South Carolina, state Rep. Tim Scott (R) was running for lieutenant governor, but ended his campaign yesterday to run for Congress. If elected, Scott would be the first African-American Republican in the House since J.C. Watts, who left Congress nearly eight years ago.

* And in Mississippi, former Fox News commentator and Tea Party activist Angela McGlowan (R) announced yesterday that she's running for Congress in Mississippi's 1st district. McGlowan hopes to take on Rep. Travis Childers (D), but will join a crowded GOP primary.

TOO WEAK AND TOO TOUGH AT THE SAME TIME.... I suppose it was only a matter of time before far-right voices started criticizing President Obama for having too much success killing terrorists. Here's former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, writing, "Dead Terrorists Tell No Tales."

The CIA reportedly succeeded in killing the head of the Pakistani Taliban -- the most recent in a flurry of drone attacks the agency has launched in South Asia and the Middle East. Another strike in Pakistan reportedly took out one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists; another in Pakistan took out a master bomb-maker for the al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines, Abu Sayyaf; and a strike in Yemen targeted a senior military leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the group behind the Christmas Day attack (his fate has yet to be determined).

President Barack Obama's escalation of drone strikes is one area in the counterterrorism fight where he has earned plaudits from even his most vocal critics on the right. Hold the applause. Obama's escalation of the "Predator War" comes at the very same time he has eliminated the CIA's capability to capture senior terrorist leaders alive and interrogate them for information on new attacks.

I see. The conservative line for the better part of a year is that President Obama isn't doing enough to go after terrorists. Reality shows the exact opposite is true, but for the right, this is an inconvenient detail best ignored.

If Thiessen's piece is any indication, however, the argument is now shifting. President Obama is doing too much to go after terrorists, and is taking out too many bad guys before they can be captured and tortured.

I can see the campaign slogans now: "Vote GOP: Obama kills too many terrorists."

Matt Yglesias, who's been doing a fine job making Thiessen look painfully foolish of late, added, "[Thiessen] thinks torture is an excellent thing, and like the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition he thinks it's morally obligatory for the government to torture people. From inside this twisted mental space, the notion that killing terrorists is too soft on terror starts to make sense. After all, in Thiessenland it's better to let four terrorists go free if that lets you torture a fifth. That's just how awesome he thinks torture is. But he won't write the word 'torture' or say clearly 'the problem with Obama killing these terrorists is that he should be torturing them.'"

Post Script: Just as an aside, Thiessen noted the president has "earned plaudits" from the right for striking at terrorists. He disagrees with the praise, but stated as fact that conservatives have lauded Obama's efforts. I'm not at all sure that's true. Has there been a spate of praise for the administration's counter-terrorism efforts that has snuck quietly under the radar? Where have these conservative "plaudits" been hiding the past year?

EVEN DUMBER THAN WE THOUGHT.... Former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) once claimed to have valuable foreign policy insights to offer because Vladimir Putin had flown over her state. She wasn't kidding.

Nevertheless, Palin still feels comfortable talking about foreign policy, and even giving advice to the president. Over the weekend, for example, Palin said President Obama would be in much better shape if only he'd initiate a war against Iran. Another U.S. invasion of a Middle Eastern country, she seriously argued, would ensure the president's re-election.

"Say [the president] played, and I got this from [Pat] Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. [...]

"I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today."

Palin "got this" from "reading" one of Pat Buchanan's columns -- apparently this one, headlined, "Will Obama Play The War Card?"

The problem, of course, is that Palin didn't get quite past the headline. Buchanan argued against going to war with Iran. While Daniel Pipes said invading Iran would be a boon to Obama's presidency, Buchanan argued the opposite.

It's a shame mildly-sophisticated foreign policy ideas -- such as who supports which war -- can't fit on the palm of a hand.

Sarah Palin's capacity to be a constant embarrassment to herself is limitless.

GOP'S WALL STREET OUTREACH HAVING AN EFFECT.... It didn't generate nearly as much attention as Democrats had hoped, but the WSJ ran a provocative item late last week about Republicans trying to solidify their relationships with Wall Street.

As the article explained, Democrats are trying to bring new levels of oversight and accountability to Wall Street, which in turn has prompted the GOP to "step up their campaign" to win campaign contributions from the financial industry. As Republicans make the case, if Wall Street gives the GOP cash, Republicans stand a better chance of making things easier on those who nearly brought down the global financial system.

It was almost comical to read. More importantly, though, the efforts appear to be working.

While [JPMorgan Chase] has contributed to some individual Democrats and state organizations, it has rebuffed solicitations from the national Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. Instead, it gave $30,000 to their Republican counterparts.

The shift reflects the hard political edge to the industry's campaign to thwart Mr. Obama's proposals for tighter financial regulations.

So, let me get this straight. The financial industry took truly insane risks with the global economy, and their irresponsible misconduct brought about economic collapse. Democrats are, with varying degrees of urgency, trying to bring some levels of common sense and accountability to the system, in order to prevent future catastrophes.

And as a result, Wall Street, its corporate lobbyists, and congressional Republicans have teamed up to block reform and prevent new rules from becoming law, and the GOP is being rewarded with huge campaign checks.

Conservatives, who somehow claim to be economic populists, are on board with all of this, and the electorate, which is presumably livid with Wall Street, is poised to reward the political party that stands with those who brought the global system to the brink of collapse, and reject efforts to prevent another crisis.

It's quite a system we have here.

SHELBY SHAKEDOWN SHUTDOWN?.... It was one of the more audacious gambits of the 111th Congress -- Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) placed a blanket hold on several dozen administration nominees, holding them hostage until the senator was paid off in earmarked pork.

Yesterday, Shelby backed off -- for the most part.

Senator Richard Shelby, the Republican from Alabama, today lifted many of his holds on nominations to administration posts by President Obama that require Senate confirmation.

The move may temper a threat by Democratic leaders in the Senate -- and even the White House -- that the administration would make recess appointments during next week's Presidents' Day break, bucking any notion of senators' approval.

Or it may not. Shelby released his blanket hold on all pending nominees, but he's still blocking President Obama's choices for the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force; Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and Under Secretary of the Air Force.

The Pentagon needs those offices filled, and can't wait for a far-right senator -- who claims to want less government spending -- to get paid off in pork. The White House would certainly be justified in filling those vacancies in the face of unprecedented Republican obstructionism, with Congress breaking for a brief recess this weekend.

As for the larger context, Shelby's office said the conservative senator pulled this stunt "to get the White House's attention." I suppose that was effective -- the scheme was hard to miss -- but ultimately futile. Shelby dropped most of his holds in exchange for nothing, and in the process, became the poster child of Republican excess and corruption of the political process.

That he backed down at all just a few days after launching his stunt suggests Dems were at least somewhat effective in embarrassing Shelby. With that in mind, the majority party should keep up its efforts to shine a light on GOP tactics that have gone out of control.

NELSON'S LOVE OF OBSTRUCTIONISM.... President Obama last year nominated Craig Becker to serve on the National Labor Relations Board. There can be no doubt about Becker's qualifications -- he's been an associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Union since 1990, has served as counsel for the AFL-CIO, and has spent his adult life working to protect the interests of America's workers.

Last year, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) blocked a Senate vote on Becker's nomination. So, the president re-nominated him last month. After Massachusetts' special election, the nomination was in peril, but late yesterday, the Democrats' most conservative senator crushed any hopes of overcoming Republican obstructionism.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) announced Monday evening that he will support a Republican-led filibuster over President Barack Obama's nominee to serve on the National Labor Relations Board.

The move is likely to infuriate labor groups who have fought hard for Craig Becker's nomination to serve on the five-member NLRB -- and will likely give Republicans enough support to sustain a filibuster Tuesday.

Nelson, in a statement, accused Becker of wanting to "take an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB." As a result, Nelson not only decided to oppose Becker's nomination, but insists on preventing the Senate from even having a vote on the nomination.

As frustrating as this is, also keep in mind that Nelson is actually taking a harder line on Obama's nominees than Bush's. Sam Stein reminds us of this report from May.

During the Bush/Cheney era, Nelson decried obstructionism, found filibusters against George W. Bush's nominees offensive, and routinely voted with Republicans to cut off Democratic efforts. He explained that he believed Bush's nominees "deserve an up-or-down vote," even when the person in question "isn't popular with the special-interest groups in Washington."

So, when Democrats raised concerns about John Bolton's U.N. nomination and Alberto Gonzales's Attorney General nomination, for example, Nelson sided with Republicans against filibusters. Now, however, there's a Democratic president, and Nelson is siding with Republicans in support of filibusters.

In other words, a senator who claims to be a Democrat will not let a Democratic Senate vote, up or down, on some of a Democratic president's nominees. It's not enough to vote against them, Nelson wants to prevent his own Democratic colleagues from voting on them at all.

This from a man who claims to oppose "obstructionism."

WILLING TO TALK -- WITH PRECONDITIONS.... When President Obama announced on Sunday that he would host bipartisan talks on health care reform in two weeks, he offered congressional Republicans something of an opportunity. If the GOP wanted a chance to make a substantive contribution to the debate, air their concerns about the Democratic plan, present their ideas, and add openness and transparency to the process, here's their chance.

By late yesterday afternoon, however, Republican leaders were weighing whether to show up for the summit at all.

Leading House Republicans raised the prospect Monday night that they may decline to participate in President Obama's proposed health-care summit if the White House chooses not to scrap the existing reform bills and start over.

In a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) expressed frustration about reports that Obama intends to put the Democratic bills on the table for discussion at the summit, which would be held Feb. 25.

Republicans are effectively arguing that the only way to talk about the health care reform proposal is to ensure that there is no health care reform proposal. The plan that was crafted over months of debate, hearings, analysis, and scrutiny -- the one endorsed by the American Medical Association, American Nurses Association, American Cancer Society, and the AARP -- has to be thrown in the trash immediately or Republicans aren't interested in having a conversation.

This was especially rich.

In their letter, Boehner and Cantor called on Obama to take reconciliation off the table as a "show good faith" to the GOP.

"Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people," the letter said.

I see. Republicans would be more willing to talk about health care reform if the president agrees in advance to give Republicans the opportunity to kill health care reform.

Tell you what, GOP. You take the filibuster off the table as a "show of good faith" and I'm sure Democrats would be willing to take reconciliation off the table as a "show of good faith." What do you say?

For its part, the White House seems unimpressed by the Boehner/Cantor letter, and does not appear inclined to meet the GOP's demands for "ground rules."

In the larger context, it's a reminder that the summit invitation puts Republicans in an awkward spot. If they participate, they'll very likely lose the policy debate. If they reject the invitation, they'll look petty and small (even more so than usual), giving Dems ammunition to further characterize the GOP as knee-jerk partisans, unwilling to even have an open and bipartisan conversation.

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

* Iran: "Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency on Monday that it will start producing higher-grade enriched uranium, prompting the United States and France to call for tougher U.N. sanctions against the country."

* Tehran fails to impress: "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Saturday played down assertions by Iran that it is ready to reach a deal on its nuclear program, saying Tehran's overall response to overtures from the Obama administration has been 'quite disappointing.'"

* Anthem Blue Cross in California is jacking up its health care premiums by as much as 39% next month. The Obama administration wants "a detailed justification for these rate increases to the public."

* Ukraine: "The opposition leader Viktor F. Yanukovich appeared on Monday to have won a narrow victory in Ukraine's presidential election, according to nearly complete results, giving him an unlikely comeback from his humiliating defeat in the 2004 Orange Revolution, when he was shunned as a bumbling Kremlin sidekick."

* Why the European debt crisis matters to the United States.

* After the explosion at the Kleen Energy Systems: "All workers at a Connecticut power plant that exploded have been accounted for, leaving the death toll at five and the number of injured at 12, the mayor of Middletown said on Monday."

* Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was asked if the U.S. is at risk of losing its triple-A bond rating. "Absolutely not," he replied. "And that will never happen to this country. When people were most worried about the stability of the world, they still found safety in the Treasuries and the dollar. That is a very, very important sign of basic confidence in our capacity as a country to work together to fix these problems."

* Matt Yglesias explains why President Obama is having far more success than the conventional wisdom suggests.

* Getting a sense of what and whether college students actually learned after four years.

* Retired Col. David Hunt, a Fox News military analyst, is generally pretty conservative. But he supports the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and criticized John McCain on the air over the issue.

* Fact checking the Sunday shows.

* No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

* Remember that awful Reuters report about the Obama budget and "backdoor" taxes that don't exist in reality? The reporter who wrote it is no longer at Reuters.

* I tend to think Sarah Palin writing her beliefs on her palm is a fun little side story, but it never occurred to me the defense that Fox News would come up with. Gretchen Carlson "suggested that it was a brilliantly clever plot to draw attention to Obama's use of a teleprompter." Oh my.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.