THE OTHER REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS.... Congressional Republicans oppose the Obama administration's economic stimulus package. Media Republicans oppose the Obama administration's economic stimulus package. But then there are those other Republicans who actually have to govern during this economic crisis.

Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama's economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care.

Their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama's spending priorities.

The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, planned to meet in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state's share of the package.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist worked the phones last week with members of his state's congressional delegation, including House Republicans. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, the Republican vice chairman of the National Governors Association, planned to be in Washington on Monday to urge the Senate to approve the plan.

"As the executive of a state experiencing budget challenges, Gov. Douglas has a different perspective on the situation than congressional Republicans," said Douglas' deputy chief of staff, Dennise Casey.

You don't say. States facing unprecedented budget crunches and mounting healthcare, education, and transportation costs support the idea of a federal rescue package. Who knew?

Gov. Jodi Rell (R) of Connecticut called up Democratic Rep. Jim Himes to ask, "What can I do, who can I call to make sure this passes?"

Even South Carolina's Mark Sanford, perhaps the most reactionary of the Republican govenors' neo-Hooverite caucus, is facing such severe pressure from South Carolina mayors and even Republicans in the state legislature that he's officially "undecided" about Obama's plan.

It's doubtful that congressional Republicans will pay much attention to what governors -- even governors in their own party -- have to say about this. But it's just one more example of far-right lawmakers being isolated, whether that matters to them or not.

WE CAN'T WAGE A WAR AGAINST A TACTIC ANYWAY.... The AP reports today the "war on terror," as a phrase, seems to be on its way out.

The catchphrase burned into the American lexicon hours after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is fading away, slowly if not deliberately being replaced by a new administration bent on repairing the U.S. image among Muslim nations.

Since taking office less than two weeks ago, President Barack Obama has talked broadly of the "enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism." Another time it was an "ongoing struggle."

He has pledged to "go after" extremists and "win this fight." There even was an oblique reference to a "twilight struggle" as the U.S. relentlessly pursues those who threaten the country.

But only once since his Jan. 20 inauguration has Obama publicly strung those three words together into the explosive phrase that coalesced the country during its most terrifying time and eventually came to define the Bush administration.

Now, this may or may not have been a deliberate shift on the part of the president. He's been addressing the economic crisis quite a bit, and he was only inaugurated last week. Perhaps Obama will use "war on terror" moving forward, perhaps not.

But if he chooses to stop using it, the end of the rhetoric won't be a huge loss. As Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the AP, the "war on terror" has "became associated in the minds of many people outside the Unites States and particularly in places where the countries are largely Islamic and Arab, as being anti-Islam and anti-Arab."

And before our friends on the right suggest that U.S. officials ignore how rhetoric is perceived, let's not forget that the Bush administration, just last year, insisted otherwise. Indeed, the Bush administration issued guidelines, entitled "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication," urging officials to stop describing extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen," and to drop "Islamo-fascism" altogether. "It's not what you say but what they hear," the memo said in bold italic lettering.

A shift from "war on terror" would be part of the same realization.

I'd just add, by the way, that more than a few top officials have supported this kind of rhetorical shift for quite a while. None other than Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, banned the use of the phrase "Global War on Terror," according to instructions from his office last October.

Before the right attacks Obama for dropping the phrase, I wonder if they'll be equally anxious to go after Adm. Mullen.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, LIBERAL.... Interesting concession from the MSNBC on-air talent.

Tonight on Hardball, Chris Matthews admitted to John Heilemann and Michael Scherer that he voted for newly-minted RNC Chairman Michael Steele when Steele ran for the U.S. Senate seat in Maryland against Ben Cardin in 2006.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. Steele's enjoyed broader-than-average appeal throughout his political career, and media people, like everyone else, have to vote for someone.

Still, is it not notable that Matthews just nonchalantly tossed out that he had voted for the new chairman of the Republican Party? Would he not draw a fresh round of castigation from the right if he just up and talked about voting for Obama?

Matthews is, of course, considered by his conservative detractors as a Democratic partisan, making it odd for him to publicly declare that he supported a woefully-unqualified conservative Republican Senate candidate as recently as 2006. Indeed, Matthews thought the new RNC Chair would make a "good" senator despite having run the most shallow of campaigns, which included paying homeless people to lie to voters.

Also consider the context: in 2006, partisan control of the Senate was very much up in the air. Matthews, the "liberal," still voted for Steele.

How odd.

THE JUDD GREGG CATCH.... Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) confirmed yesterday that he is under consideration to join the Obama administration cabinet as Commerce Secretary. And what about the prospect of Gregg's departure giving Senate Democrats a 60-seat caucus? There might be a catch.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) won't accept a position as President Obama's secretary of Commerce unless he is guaranteed his Senate seat remains in GOP hands, said two Republicans who know Gregg well.

Departing the Senate without one could give Democrats 60 members and a filibuster-proof majority.

"Gregg would never allow his seat to go to a Democrat, the only way he would allow it is if he died," said a Republican close to Gregg. "He would consider it to be a breach of trust to people who elected it."

In other words, Gregg would want to strike a deal -- he joins the cabinet, New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) would choose a Republican to replace him -- before accepting an offer from the president. In fact, rumors were common yesterday that Lynch had his eye on former Gov. Walter Peterson, a liberal Republican, as a leading candidate to succeed Lynch.

I'm curious, though: if Gregg sticks to this, what's the incentive for Obama to select him? Gregg considers himself an expert on economic and fiscal issues, but he's still a Republican who backed all of Bush's economic policies. The president might get some credit for having added a third Republican to his cabinet, but all evidence suggests the congressional GOP isn't going to negotiate with the White House in good faith anyway, no matter how many gestures Obama makes.

I suppose one possible advantage is a slightly more reliable Republican ally for Obama in the Senate -- trading one relatively moderate GOP senator for a dependably moderate GOP senator who'll step down in 2010 anyway.

Still, all things being equal, if Gregg is applying this condition, the appeal of his nomination goes down considerably.

'RESPECTING' THE OFFICE.... Former Bush White House chief of staff Andrew Card complained to right-wing talk-show host Michael Medved that President Obama is insufficiently respectful of the presidency. Apparently, one demonstrates respect for the presidency by their choice of attire:

"...I found that Ronald Reagan and both President Bushes treated the Oval Office with tremendous respect. They treated the Office of the Presidency with tremendous respect. And some of that respect was reflected in how they expected people to behave, how they expected them to dress when they walked into the symbol of freedom for the world, the Oval Office. And yes, I'm disappointed to see the casual, laissez faire, short sleeves, no shirt and tie, no jacket, kind of locker room experience that seems to be taking place in this White House and the Oval Office."

"Locker-room experience." Card wasn't kidding.

I think there are two general angles to this. The first is that Obama isn't especially concerned about the formality of one's clothing. He was photographed at his desk wearing a shirt and tie, and some of the political establishment gasped because he was seen sans jacket. (Obama, a Hawaii native, reportedly prefers a warm office. David Axelrod said, "You could grow orchids in there.") Suits are common on weekdays, but the president issued an informal edict for "business casual" on weekends. That, apparently, means slacks and a buttoned-down shirt.

Traditionalists may not approve of Obama's easy-going style, but we're a long way from a "laissez faire locker-room experience." A frat house it isn't.

The other thing to consider here is exactly how one "respects" the presidency. For Card and others who served with Bush, it's about choice of clothing. For those who serve with Obama, it's about honoring institutional limits and the rule of law.

Or, put another way, where exactly does a loyal Bushie get off talking about "respecting" the presidency? Did George W. Bush always wear a coat and tie? Sure. Good for him. But while he was wearing nice clothes and demanding that his staff do the same, he also oversaw a scandal-plagued White House that trashed constitutional norms and routinely ignored the laws that the president twice swore to faithfully execute.

One respects the office by honoring its place in a constitutional system, not by wearing a suit.

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is an interesting report from Gallup, measuring religiosity on a state-by-state basis.

There are a number of ways to measure the relative religiosity of population segments. For the current ranking, Gallup uses the responses to a straightforward question that asks: "Is religion an important part of your daily life?" The rankings are based on the percentage of each state's adult (18 and older) population that answers in the affirmative.

The United States is generally a religious nation, although the degree of this religiosity varies across states and regions of the country. A robust 65% of all Americans (across the entire U.S. population) reported in 2008 that religion was important in their daily lives.

Looking at the results, the top 10 most religious states are all in the South, with Mississippi the most religious (85% of state residents said religion is an important part of their daily lives). Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arkansas were close behind. Rounding out the rest of the top 10 were Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Texas.

On the other end of the spectrum, the least religious state in the nation is Vermont, with 42% of state residents saying religion is an important part of their daily lives. Indeed, every state in New England offered similar results, with New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts rounding out the top four for least religious states. Rhode Island and Connecticut weren't far behind, and Pacific-coast states -- Oregon, Washington, and Alaska -- were also in the mix.

Analyzing the results, Gallup noted, among other things, "differing 'state cultures' that are themselves associated with life approaches that give varying degrees of credence to religion as a guiding force."

Also from the God Machine this week:

* A California appeals court ruled this week that a private Christian high school can expel students based on nothing but sexual orientation. I wonder what would have happened if the school accepted public funds through a voucher program.

* Speaking of California, federal authorities launched an investigation this week into the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles to see whether leading church officials "tried to cover up the sexual abuse of minors by priests." The Wall Street Journal added, "The investigation is still in its early, fact-gathering stage, and it isn't known whether any criminal charges will result."

* And speaking of Roman Catholicism, Pope Benedict XVI has caused a bit of an uproar this week: "Pope Benedict XVI has lifted the excommunications of four traditionalist bishops, including that of a Holocaust denier whose rehabilitation sparked outrage among Jewish groups. The four bishops were excommunicated 20 years ago after they were consecrated by the late ultraconservative Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre without papal consent -- a move the Vatican said at the time was an act of schism."

* Yes, it is possible for Ted Haggard's sex scandal(s) to get even worse.

* President Obama named Joshua DuBois, a 26-year-old Pentecostal pastor and political strategist who handled religious outreach for the presidential campaign, to head the revamped and reorganized White House Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

* Focus on the Family hired a new D.C. lobbyist this week, picking up Timothy Goeglein, who is best known for having served as the Bush's White House's liaison to the religious right community. Goeglein was forced to resign after getting caught regularly plagiarizing material for a newspaper column he used to write.

BECK TACKLES CALIFORNIA.... David Neiwert reports that Fox News' Glenn Beck told his national television audience yesterday that wants to remove California from the United States. It was quite a tirade:

"OK, there's something driving me to the edge of insanity, makes blood shoot right out my eyes, and that is California.

"California today, they voted against offshore drilling. Not on their land, or their shore, no. They also voted last week to raise emissions standards because it's too smoggy there and they care about the trees. Also, uh, in the stimulus, we found out today, it appears as though Hollywood can get a, um, bailout, from you and me, because nobody's going to see their movies. Hmmph! You'd think maybe they should just make better movies, and then we'd all go. But no no, let's bail them all out.

"The Civil War taught us that, apparently, U.S. states can't secede from the Union. I'd like to test that one again maybe sometime. But what I'd like to know is if the Union has the right to kick out states. Because if so, I'd like to take a star right out of our flag, and California is it.

"From eco-warriors running the state and ruining it to Hollywood projecting their family values and politics on the U.S., and illegal immigration driving them into bankruptcy, the Golden State drives me out of my mind, and I don't think I'm alone."

So, Beck is finally willing to concede that he's on "the edge of insanity," and has been driven "out of his mind." He blames California for his condition; I blame the fact that he's a radical loon.

In either case, I'd just add that Beck's anti-California crusade has been going on for quite a while. In October 2007, the state had to deal with a series of devastating wildfires that burned 420,000 acres and destroyed nearly 1,200 homes. Beck, at the time with CNN, told his viewing audience that Americans shouldn't feel too bad for the victims, because those affected by the fires aren't patriotic enough for him: "I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today."

But yesterday's rant was just about as offensive. There's a political mainstream in this country, and those who call for the elimination of entire states from the Union usually fall just outside that mainstream.

BIZARRO WORLD.... The headline from The Hill says congressional Republicans are "losing patience" with President Obama. Seriously.

Republicans wrapped up their retreat Friday by signaling they are losing patience with President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) criticized the new administration on Friday, saying it had promised to reach out to Republicans on the Capitol Hill, but then offered an economic recovery package that included few, if any, proposals from the minority party. [...]

Earlier in the day, House Minority leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) ... noted he made it clear to Obama after the vote that Republicans would remain united if the final stimulus bill did not include tax relief increases and cut down on government spending.

OK, let me see if I make this plain.

1. Obama has bent over backwards to engage congressional Republicans -- up to and including watering down his own stimulus bill -- but they've had nothing constructive to offer, and have demonstrated no interest in cooperation.

2. When Republicans were in charge, their ideas failed on a catastrophic level. Now, as Obama tries to clean up the GOP's mess, they're demanding that Democrats embrace their failed ideas.

3. Voters saw the results of the Republican economic agenda, and handed the GOP a series of devastating national defeats. The failed, losing side usually doesn't get to drive the national policy agenda.

4. When Republicans define "bipartisanship," they describe a process in which they get what they want, reality be damned.

5. Republican arguments throughout the stimulus debate have fallen far short of coherence. GOP lawmakers have effectively substituted solipsism for lucidity, with arguments such as the Democratic drive to "turn the United States into France," and the notion that Bush's economic policies were a sterling success until Democrats took over Congress.

And yet, when Republicans get together to tell one another how right they are, they conclude that they're "losing patience" with Obama.

I wonder what the weather's like in Republicans' reality.

DASCHLE'S TAX TROUBLES.... Tim Geithner's tax "issues" were relatively minor, and easy to overlook. Tom Daschle's are more problematic.

ABC News has learned that the nomination of former Senator Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., to be President Obama's secretary of health and human services has hit a traffic snarl on its way through the Senate Finance Committee.

The controversy deals with a car and driver lent to Daschle by a wealthy Democratic friend -- a chauffeur service the former senator used for years without declaring it on his taxes.

It remains an open question as to whether this is a "speed bump," as a Democratic Senate ally of Daschle put it, or something more damaging.

During the vetting process, Daschle paid back taxes in excess of $100,000, including interest and penalties, after his accountant discovered some errors. What kind of errors? "[U]nreported consulting fees, questionable charitable contributions, and a car and driver provided by a private equity firm run by entrepreneur and longtime Democratic Party donor Leo J. Hindery Jr."

Ouch.

Daschle spokeswoman Jenny Backus told reporters that Daschle made no effort to hide the error. The former Senate Majority Leader "expressed his regret, he knew he made a mistake and he was fully responsible for it. He fixed it to the nth degree by filing all these amended returns. He is embarrassed. He fixed it and answered all these questions about it." She added, "It is a stupid mistake."

As for what happens next, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration is "confident the committee is going to schedule a hearing for him very soon and he will be confirmed." Likewise, Harry Reid's office is similarly "confident" about Daschle's eventual confirmation. Senate Republicans are, however, predicting Daschle's withdrawal.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, Daschle's tax mistakes were jaw-droppingly foolish. On the other hand, he has an exceptional career, he's admitted wrongdoing, he's corrected his error, and he's probably the single most important person in government right now when it comes to a historic overhaul of the American healthcare system.

We'll see what happens.

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

* Another rough day on Wall Street, with the major indexes closing down about 2% each.

* Following the news about $18 billion in Wall Street bonuses last year, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) suggested a salary cap for employees of any company that accepts federal bailout money. "We have a bunch of idiots on Wall Street that are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer," McCaskill said on the Senate floor. "They don't get it. These people are idiots."

* Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) believes the stimulus package will get 60 votes, though conservative Democrats continue to cause heartburn.

* Nice soundbite: new Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn vows to "fumigate state government."

* Despite the economic crisis, ExxonMobil reported an annual profit last year of $45.2 billion. It's the biggest profit any American company has ever had.

* Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) publicly confirmed today that he's under consideration to be the next Commerce Secretary.

* On a related note, Senate Republicans are really desperate to keep Gregg around. National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn was asked today what he'd offer Gregg to stay in the Senate. "I would say whatever it is, name it," Cornyn replied.

* Judd Legum has five interesting facts about newly-elected RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

* Why do House Republicans oppose tax cuts in the Democratic plan, and support tax increases in the GOP plan?

* I'm delighted to see Howard Kurtz take my side against Mark Halperin's argument about Obama and the stimulus.

* New EFCA ads have the media in mind.

* The Bush/Rove "executive privilege" claim isn't exactly compelling.

* Glenn Beck's ratings on CNN Headline News were so weak, his largely-unknown replacement is already generating better numbers.

* Interesting article about the new president's personal style in the White House.

* And finally, a "large sculpture of one of the shoes thrown at President Bush last December by an Iraqi journalist was unveiled this week just outside an orphanage in Tikrit, Iraq -- Saddam Hussein's hometown." The status was intended to honor the "heroic action" of Muntadhar al-Zeidi. Not surprisingly, government officials made the orphanage director take it down.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

CHAIRMAN STEELE.... It took six ballots, but former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele edged out South Carolina GOP Chairman Katon Dawson, 91 votes to 77, to become the new chairman of the Republican National Committee. Steele is the first African American to hold the post.

Steele's victory also marks a decision by some GOP leaders that to elect a man associated with an all-white country club -- when America just elected a black president, and the GOP itself runs a risk of being branded an all-white club -- was too big a risk to run.

Steele ran in large part on his ability to rebrand the party and to do battle on cable news. Though he is, in fact, quite conservative for the spectrum of American politics, he wasn't the conservative choice, and his win marks a real defeat for elements of the party's conservative wing. For younger Republicans and those seeking a dramatic break from the past, he was the choice, and his win suggests that the party is emerging from the phase of denying that, in the wake of its 2008 rout, it has a problem.

This was Steele's second attempt at the RNC gig, after a failed campaign in 2006, scuttled in part by Karl Rove, who was rumored to have questioned Steele's competence.

I suspect most Democrats didn't necessarily have a "favorite" among the RNC contenders, but Steele probably won't strike fear in the hearts of DNC members. We are, after all, talking about a man who got caught hiring homeless people to lie to voters, and nevertheless lost in a landslide.

Indeed, whenever I see Steele, I immediately think of the editorial the Washington Post ran on his U.S. Senate candidacy in 2006, which described Steele as a man of "no achievement, no record, no evidence and certainly no command of the issues." Noting his four-year tenure as Maryland's lieutenant governor, the Post added, "Steele had at best a marginal impact, even on his handpicked projects."

While Dems may be pleased with Steele's new position, the religious right movement is no doubt frustrated, again. After the Dobson crowd exerted no influence at all over the Republican presidential nominating fight a year ago, the religious right took a stand against Steele, noting his one-time association with the centrist Republican Leadership Council. Their opposition was meaningless.

As for the racial aspect of this, Florida Republican Chairman Jim Greer noted a few weeks ago, "There certainly is an advantage of a credible message of inclusion if you have a minority as chairman."

That may be true, but I'm skeptical. The modern Republican Party's problems with race are systemic, and won't be resolved by the race of its national party chair. For that matter, the GOP's structural problems -- its ideas are unpopular, its policies have failed, and its agenda is out of sync with the nation's needs -- are so deep, "historical resonance" is largely inconsequential.

And perhaps most importantly, no one should exaggerate the significance of the RNC chair. A couple of years ago, Bush tapped Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, a Cuban-American, as chairman of the RNC. Refresh my memory: did that have any impact whatsoever on outreach to Latino voters? Did it make the party seem more inclusive and diverse? I don't think so.

DUNCAN'S DONE.... For those jonesing for some kind of election-related activity, today's balloting for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee is, well, at least mildly interesting.

After the first ballot, the hand-picked-by-Bush incumbent, Mike Duncan, was in the lead with 52 votes. Michael Steele was a close second with 46, followed by South Carolina GOP chair Katon Dawson with 28. On the second ballot, Duncan and Steele were tied at 48, with Dawson in third with 29. On the third ballot, Steele pulled ahead with 51 votes, while Duncan slipped to second with 44, and Dawson holding on with 34.

And at that point, Duncan decided to call it a day, withdrawing from consideration.

"Obviously the winds of change are blowing at the RNC," Duncan said, adding that he trusts the "vision" of his fellow members. "I understand what's going on."

"At this time, I wish to withdraw my name from nomination as chairman as the RNC," he said, to a standing ovation.

The low profile Duncan served through the Republican collapse of the late Bush term, and received little blame for GOP defeats, but had little record of success to point to.

That Duncan was a top contender at all says something odd about the Republican Party. He was chairman for the 2006 and 2008 cycles, during which his party lost 10 Senate seats, 50 House seats, and the White House. It's hard to run for another term under these circumstances, especially when one realizes that Duncan got the job from a failed former president.

As for where Duncan's votes will go, and who's going to win this contest, stay tuned.

WHO PICKED A FIGHT?.... On Fox News this morning, John McCain was asked about President Obama having mentioned Rush Limbaugh by name, encouraging congressional Republicans not to take marching orders from the right-wing host.

"I don't know why [Obama] would do that," McCain said. "Mr. Limbaugh is the voice of a significant portion of the Conservative movement in America. He has a very wide viewing audience. He is entitled to his views. People listen very carefully to him. I don't know why the President would take him on. He's part of the political landscape and he plays a role."

Similarly, Kathleen Parker's column today argued that the president had been "baited by none other than the Master Fisherman." She urged Obama to remember some simple rules:

Never start a land war with Asia. Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel (or who owns the patent on the microchip). Never let rabble-rousers get under your skin -- especially those whose popularity in some circles compares favorably with your own and whose earnings make bailed-out bank presidents envious.

While we're at it, tread very carefully around the implication that conservatives cling to their talk-show hosts out of anger and frustration.

That may be true, but the backfire Obama felt in West Virginia was a gentle zephyr compared to the blowback that can be bellowed by El Rushbo.

I think there are a few angles to this. First, it's certainly possible that the White House (and Democrats in general) find it useful to make a right-wing loudmouth/drug-addict the public face of the Republican Party in 2009. The GOP is facing a leadership vacuum, and it seems plausible to me that Democrats want to fill it with a far-right clown who's publicly rooting for the nation's leadership to fail.

Second, like DougJ, I'm skeptical that Limbaugh's bellowing blowback is as severe as advertised. He has a large audience of conservative followers, and he can make some House Republicans perform like trained seals, but his electoral power, as a practical matter, is quite limited. As I recall, Limbaugh invested quite a bit of energy criticizing John McCain a year ago, imploring GOP voters not to give him the party's presidential nomination. How'd that work out?

And third, this notion that Obama "went after" Limbaugh has been wildly exaggerated. The president, speaking to Republican lawmakers behind closed doors, apparently said, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." The point wasn't to go after Limbaugh specifically, but rather to note that if the White House is going to have a productive, cooperative working relationship with the minority party in Congress, it's better for everyone if GOP lawmakers don't rely on right-wing shock-jocks for wisdom and legislative strategies.

That's not picking a fight; that's just good advice.

Update: Amanda Terkel has the video of McCain's comments, and notes how odd they are.

LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD FOR LABOR.... President Obama nominated a terrific lawmaker, Hinda Solis, to be Labor Secretary, but her nomination has languished in the face of Republican opposition. Obama has expressed his support for the Employee Free Choice Act, but it's not yet on the legislative radar screen. Some union leaders and activists have started to feel forgotten.

The president took steps to change that today at the White House.

President Barack Obama signed a series of executive orders Friday that he said should "level the playing field" for labor unions in their struggles with management.

Obama also used the occasion at the White House to announce formally a new White House task force on the problems of middle-class Americans. He named Vice President Joe Biden as its chairman.

Union officials say the new orders by Obama will undo Bush administration policies that favored employers over workers.

Specifically, Obama's new executive orders will "require federal contractors (holding contracts above $100,000) to post a balanced notice of their employees' rights under the National Labor Relations Act;" "require federal service contractors providing services to federal buildings to offer a right of first refusal to the nonsupervisory, nonmanagerial employees of the predecessor contractor for positions for which they were qualified;" and "prevent federal contractors from being reimbursed for expenditures intended to support or deter their employees' exercise of their right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining."

At the signing ceremony today, Obama said, "I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem. To me, it's part of the solution. You cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement."

Greg Sargent noted yesterday, in advance of the event, that today's gathering is "being seen as a big deal by organized labor officials, because it will affirm Obama's commitment to the unions at a critical moment."

And to drive that point home, Teamsters President James Hoffa told reporters after the ceremony, "It's a new day for workers. We finally have a White House that is dedicated to working with us to rebuild our middle class. Hope for the American Dream is being restored."

BRINGING POWER INTO THE FOLD.... In November, Obama brought on Samantha Power to advise his team on transition matters relating to the State Department. Given that Hillary Clinton had been named the next Secretary of State, and there was some unpleasantness between Clinton and Power during the campaign, this raised questions about possible "awkwardness."

I've long believed this was overblown. Looking at Power's overall career and accomplishments, but emphasizing on one stray campaign comment, is a ridiculous mistake. We're talking about a Pulitzer-prize winning scholar who has spent most of her professional life combating genocide and raising awareness of human rights abuses and global humanitarian issues.

With that in mind, I'm delighted to see Power will be joining the White House team, and will have a role working closely with the Secretary of State.

Samantha Power, the Harvard University professor and Pulitzer Prize-winning author who earned notoriety for calling Hillary Rodham Clinton a "monster" while working to elect Barack Obama president, will take a senior foreign policy job at the White House, The Associated Press has learned.

Officials familiar with the decision say Obama has tapped Power to be senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, a job that will require close contact and potential travel with Clinton, who is now secretary of state. NSC staffers often accompany the secretary of state on foreign trips.

Yes, 10 months ago, Power said something intemperate. She'd hoped it would be off the record, and when it wasn't, Power apologized immediately and profusely, before resigning a few hours later. But here's the thing to remember: Americans are better off if Power has a prominent and active role in public service. That officials are prepared to move on, despite the brief incident, is a sign of some badly-needed political maturity.

On a related note, Ben Smith has a very sharp observation about the styles of Obama administration officials: "It occurs to me that Obama's broader national security apparatus now includes quite a few people who say the lesson they learned from the Bush and Clinton years is precisely not to be silent. From Power and Susan Rice, who were shaped by the failure to intervene in Rwanda, to the lawyers at OLC who have written that their job is to resign in some circumstances if their advice is ignored, Obama has chosen to hire a number of people explicitly committed to not being good team players on politically tricky questions of human rights and intervention in particular."

Good. In this sense, among others, Obama is the exact opposite of the recent president who equated "disagreement with disloyalty."

HERDING CATS.... After the economic stimulus plan drew 100% opposition in the House, the question quickly became whether any Senate Republicans would be willing the rescue plan. The political world apparently forgot to consider the conservative Democrats.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska is officially "undecided" about the legislation. He appeared on Fox News this morning and was asked if knows if any Senate Republicans who are prepared to support the package.

"I don't know, I don't even know how many Democrats will vote for it as it stands today because a lot of my colleagues are not decided. They're undecided on the bill as it is right now. Fortunately, we don't have to take the vote on it right now. We have an opportunity to make some improvements."

As far as Nelson is concerned, "improvements" would include cutting research projects at the National Institutes of Health and about $13 billion for Pell grants, both of which Nelson sees as having a "marginal" stimulative impact. As Matt Corley noted, Nelson is mistaken about both the NIH and helping students pay for college.

Nevertheless, Nelson is reportedly meeting with some "centrist" senators, exploring ways to "improve" the bill. This probably can't end well.

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.

* The newly-created Organizing for America, an outgrowth of the Obama presidential campaign, is taking on its first project: rallying support for the president's economic stimulus package.

* The process of picking the next chairman of the Republican National Committee is already underway in D.C. With several top-tier candidates, and a minimum number of 85 votes to win, there will likely be several hours of balloting.

* One candidate who won't be in the mix is Chip Saltsman, the former Tennessee Republican chairman and former campaign manager for Mike Huckabee. Saltsman, who gained national notoriety for distributing a holiday CD featuring "Barack the Magic Negro," withdrew from consideration yesterday.

* Former Rep. Bill Sali lost his re-election bid last year, despite running in one of the most conservative districts in the country. The notion that he appears to be stark raving mad seemed to factor into his defeat. Yesterday, Sali filed for a re-match, hoping to once again take on Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho). Sali will likely face a few primary opponents.

* Despite rumors to the contrary, Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.) announced yesterday that he's not running for governor next year.

* If Judd Gregg leaves the Senate to join Obama's cabinet, who would New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) choose to replace him? There's some talk that former Gov. Walter Peterson, a liberal Republican, would be among the leading candidates, though he probably wouldn't seek re-election.

RECOMMENDED READING FOR OBAMA.... The Washington Monthly has a feature in our new issue with book recommendations for the new president, with suggestions from some of our favorite writers and thinkers. We're covering the recommendations in an ongoing series of posts, and here are the next two from our list.

George Pelecanos:

I would recommend that President Obama read Lost in the City, by Edward P. Jones. It's a short-story collection that brilliantly illuminates the humanity and struggles of everyday Washingtonians. Despite the phony Washington bashing during the campaign, D.C. is as Main Street as any place in America, and just as deserving of federal attention. The District could be a model for reform. A leader with Barack Obama's intelligence and enthusiasm has the ability to make that happen.

Jim Pinkerton:

I realize that President Obama will be busy, and he won't have much time to kick back with a whole book. So I will merely suggest that he read The Pretense of Knowledge, by Friedrich Hayek, a 1974 lecture delivered after the Austrian-born economist accepted the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Hayek's argument was that social science, including the dismal science of economics, has built up the pretense -- and it is only a pretense -- that it is possible to gain "scientific" mastery over complicated social problems. Such intellectual ambition is inherently Icarus-like, he argued. It is "the fatal conceit," as he entitled one of his books (available, if 44 is curious, on Amazon).

It seems that every president feels called upon to undertake some enormous challenge -- a task worthy of his own ego -- and usually that challenge defeats him. For Bill Clinton, it was health care. For George W. Bush, it was Iraq. Of course, sometimes a president succeeds -- so it was with FDR, victor in World War II, and Ronald Reagan, who won the Cold War.

So what will it be for Obama? That's an open question right now, but a little Hayekian humility could save him from the grievous mistakes that other presidents have made as a result of overconfidence and underpreparation.

NAF EVENT.... The new issue of the Washington Monthly covers the right and wrong way to spend $1 trillion on the economy, featuring a story from Phillip Longman on freight rail that's already sparked some good discussion.

To that end, the New America Foundation is hosting an event this afternoon to explore this and other infrastructure issues in more detail. Longman will be joined by the Millennium Institute's Alan Drake and Andrea Bassi, former Delaware Transportation Secretary Anne P. Canby, and John Gray, an executive at the Association of American Railroads. The panel discussion will be hosted by Washington Monthly Editor-in-Chief Paul Glastris.

If you're in D.C. and want to attend, the event will start in about a half-hour at the NAF offices at 1630 Connecticut Avenue. If you're not in D.C. and want to watch, I'm embedding a video feed below.

Broadcasting Live with Ustream.TV

REMEMBER LAURIE MYLROIE?.... For all of the well-known Bush administration officials who were frightening in their handling of U.S. policy towards Iraq, sometimes it's the lesser-known officials who are truly jaw-dropping. Justin Elliott reports:

It's a truism that neoconservatives have a talent for failing upward: for repeatedly getting important things wrong and not seeing their careers suffer -- for, in fact, being handed new opportunities to pursue their work (see, e.g., Kristol, Bill; and Hayes, Stephen).

Today we can add another name to that list: Laurie Mylroie, the quintessential conspiracy theorist of the Iraq War era, wrote reports about Iraq for the Pentagon as recently as Fall 2007, years after she was discredited, according to documents obtained by TPMmuckraker.

Mylroie is the author of two studies -- "Saddam's Strategic Concepts: Dealing With UNSCOM," dated Feb. 1, 2007, and "Saddam's Foreign Intelligence Service," dated Sept. 24, 2007 -- on a list of reports from the Pentagon's Office Of Net Assessment [ONA], obtained by TPMmuckraker through the Freedom Of Information Act. The ONA is the Defense Department's internal think tank, once described by the Washington Post as "obscure but highly influential."

Steve Clemons said he was "shocked" to hear that Mylroie was still doing taxpayer-financed work for Bush's Pentagon in 2007. Jacob Heilbrunn added, "It's kind of astonishing that the ONA would come even within a mile of her."

And why are they astonished? Because Laurie Mylroie has a rather "unique" perspective on world events. In 2003, the Washington Monthly ran a must-read piece on Mylroie, explaining why she's the "neocons' favorite conspiracy theorist." In the article, Peter Bergen explained:

...Mylroie became enamored of her theory that Saddam was the mastermind of a vast anti-U.S. terrorist conspiracy in the face of virtually all evidence and expert opinion to the contrary. In what amounts to the discovery of a unified field theory of terrorism, Mylroie believes that Saddam was not only behind the '93 Trade Center attack, but also every anti-American terrorist incident of the past decade, from the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to the leveling of the federal building in Oklahoma City to September 11 itself. She is, in short, a crackpot, which would not be significant if she were merely advising say, Lyndon LaRouche. But her neocon friends who went on to run the war in Iraq believed her theories....

Now we learn that even after Mylroie had been discredited, those same neocon friends elevated her to an influential position, writing about Iraq policy matters for the Pentagon's in-house think tank.

GETTING FAMILY PLANNING BACK ON TRACK.... It was unfortunate that family-planning aid to states was pulled from the economic stimulus package at Republicans' behest. Fortunately, though, it may have been a temporary move. Elana Schor reports:

A source present at today's White House signing ceremony for the Lilly Ledbetter bill tells me that President Obama gave assurances that the family planning aid would be done soon -- perhaps as soon as next week, when the House is set to take up a spending bill that would keep the government funded until October.

Obama emphasized that the family-planning aid is "makes the budget look better, it's a money saver," the source said. In fact, removing the need for Medicaid waivers for family planning saves states an estimated $700 million over 10 years.

There was an impression in some circles that Obama's willingness to scuttle the family-planning funds was evidence of a lack of commitment on the issue. For the president, however, it seems this was about when to advance funding on the issue, not whether. Obama wasn't giving up on access to Medicaid-covered family planning services, he was just delaying it a little to help advance the stimulus plan.

On a related note, Time's Amy Sullivan (a Monthly alum) has a helpful item on this, taking a look at what the provision would have actually done if passed: "The provision would have allowed states to cover family planning services -- but not abortion -- that they already cover for low-income women who don't otherwise qualify for Medicaid, just without first requiring states to obtain a waiver from the federal government. That's it."

Also, with the White House prepared to move on this soon, consider a good point E.J. Graff raised the other day about the new administration "showing incredible savvy in making controversial changes about women's health." In less than two weeks, this includes repealing the global gag rule and restoring investment in the United Nations Population Fund.

Noting the withdrawal of the family-planning provision from the stimulus legislation, Graff said on Tuesday, "I'm guessing that the Obamamites are being savvy -- taking this fight out of the public eye so that they can handle it in a better way." That appears to be exactly right.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FOREVER.... Earlier this week, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) let Karl Rove know -- by way of a subpoena -- that he still has a few questions about the Bush administration's Justice Department scandals. So, might Rove stop by the Hill to answer lawmakers' questions? Not if the former president and his lawyers have anything to do with it.

Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into alleged misconduct during his administration.

On Jan. 16, 2009, then White House Counsel Fred Fielding sent a letter (.pdf) to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin. The message: should his client receive any future subpoenas, Rove "should not appear before Congress" or turn over any documents relating to his time in the White House. The letter told Rove that President Bush was continuing to assert executive privilege over any testimony by Rove -- even after he leaves office.

A nearly identical letter (.pdf) was also sent by Fielding the day before to a lawyer for former White House counsel Harriet Miers, instructing her not to appear for a scheduled deposition with the House Judiciary Committee. That letter reasserted the White House position that Miers has "absolute immunity" from testifying before Congress about anything she did while she worked at the White House -- a far-reaching claim that is being vigorously disputed by lawyers for the House of Representatives in court.

Rove relied on an executive-privilege claim to ignore the subpoena the last time -- the matter is still pending in the courts -- but it's far less clear if a former president can assert executive privilege after he's left office.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, believes that former presidents still retain executive privilege on matters relating to their time in office, and with Bush having ordered Rove not to talk to Congress, Rove feels he has to comply.

"To my knowledge, these [letters] are unprecedented," said Peter Shane, an Ohio State University law professor who specializes in executive-privilege issues. "I'm aware of no sitting president that has tried to give an insurance policy to a former employee in regard to post-administration testimony." Shane likened the letter to Rove as an attempt to give his former aide a 'get-out-of-contempt-free card'."

Everyone seems to be waiting to see what Obama's White House counsel, Greg Craig, thinks about all of this. Stay tuned.

AN ECONOMIC 'TRAIN WRECK'.... We knew the numbers would be bad, and they are.

The United States economy shrank at its fastest pace in 26 years from October through December, the government reported on Friday, in the broadest accounting yet of the toll of the credit crisis. Consumer spending and business investment all but disappeared, and economists said the painful contraction was likely to continue at an alarming pace well into the summer.

The gross domestic product -- a crucial measure of economic performance -- shrank at an annual rate of 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 as the credit crisis deepened the recession. The contraction was significantly better than many economists had expected, but raised the possibility that the economy had not yet hit bottom.

"It was basically a train wreck for the economy in the fourth quarter," said Alan D. Levenson, chief economist at T. Rowe Price.

There were some expectations that the economic contraction would be even worse -- some were predicting a 5.5% drop -- but that's cold comfort. Jobs were cut, business investments were curtailed, trade fell, demand fell, and consumers spent less. And there's no evidence this is the bottom.

In light of all of this, maybe policy makers in Washington can, at their earliest convenience, invest in some kind of large stimulus package.

COMMERCE SECRETARY GREGG?.... Since Bill Richardson withdrew from consideration to head the Commerce Department, it's remained the only hole in the Obama cabinet. Oddly enough, this hasn't made much of a difference.

That may soon change.

The Obama administration has been floating the idea of naming Republican Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.) to be Commerce Secretary, several Senate sources said Thursday.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Gregg's nomination was far from a done deal, but remains a serious possibility. Reached by phone, Gregg, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said he had no comment on whether he has been in talks with the White House about the post.

Roll Call isn't the only outlet with the story. Democratic Senate aides told the Huffington Post that there is "a strong possibility" that Obama would extend the offer to Gregg; the Politico offers a similar report; and the New York Times notes that the White House has already "approached" Gregg about the cabinet job. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) acknowledged that he'd "heard" that Gregg was being considered seriously.

This would, of course, shake up the political world quite a bit should it come together. If Gregg leaves the Senate, his successor would be named by New Hampshire's Democratic governor, John Lynch. This, coupled with Norm Coleman eventually giving up in Minnesota, would give Senate Democrats a 60-vote caucus -- the number of votes needed to end GOP filibusters. Obama would also get at least nominal bipartisan credibility for having three Republicans -- Gregg, LaHood, and Gates -- in his cabinet.

What's in for Gregg? I would imagine that job security is a consideration. Gregg's up for re-election next year in New Hampshire, a state that's trending very "blue," and he'd likely face a major challenge from Rep. Paul Hodes (D). Gregg would probably be the favorite, but he might see Obama's cabinet as an attractive alternative to a possible defeat. For that matter, Gregg, a relative moderate by modern GOP standards, may also see the writing on the wall -- it's less fun being in the Senate when you're part of a small minority that's getting smaller. And if Gregg sees the congressional Republican caucus falling off a far-right cliff, he may decide it's time to break free.

If this moves forward, expect to see the Republican establishment put intense pressure on Gregg to turn down Obama's offer, if one is extended. The Senate GOP wants that 41st vote badly, and will no doubt beg, plead, and bribe Gregg to stay right where he is.

S-CHIP CLEARS SENATE.... It's long overdue, and it was vetoed twice by former President Bush, but we're finally poised to expand healthcare for low-income children.

The Senate passed a bill on Thursday to provide health insurance to more than four million uninsured children, as a newly empowered Democratic majority brushed aside Republican objections.

The vote was 66 to 32, with nine Republicans joining Democrats to support the bill. [...]

The Senate debate showed the outlines of what promises to be a much larger political fight over universal coverage. While Democrats championed expansion of the child health program, many Republicans, including Senator John McCain of Arizona, said they worried that it was part of a long-term effort to replace private health insurance with government programs.

The House passed a nearly identical bill two weeks ago, by a vote of 289 to 139, with 40 Republicans joining nearly all Democrats in support of the measure. [...]

The Congressional Budget Office said the bill would enable states to cover more than four million uninsured children by 2013, while continuing coverage for seven million youngsters.

To pay for the expansion, which is expected to cost about $32 billion over four and a half years, Congress is raising cigarette taxes to $1 a pack.

The final roll-call is online. Note that 32 of the Senate's 41 Republicans opposed the measure.

Just to add some historical context, it's worth remembering that S-CHIP was created under a Republican Congress 12 years ago. It's enjoyed broad support, and should have been approved without any real controversy. I recall a Washington Post report from July 2007 that noted, "If anything looked like a sure thing in the new Congress, it was that lawmakers would renew, and probably expand, the popular, decade-old State Children's Health Insurance Program before it expires this year." It was a no-brainer -- who was going to balk at an established, successful program that offers health insurance for kids? Especially on a bill that enjoys support from governors in both parties, the medical community, and children's advocates?

And yet, the legislation nevertheless sparked a two-year conflict.

The House and Senate versions differ slightly, but the bill should be on Obama's desk by early next week.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) concluded, "It's my sincere hope that passage of this legislation will be the beginning of a major overhaul of American health care, which ultimately will provide coverage to all Americans."

That'd be nice.

WELCOME, GOV. QUINN.... Rod Blagojevich spoke at some length to the Illinois Senate today, imploring state lawmakers not to remove him from office. He was not, apparently, persuasive.

The Illinois State Senate on Thursday convicted Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich on a sprawling article of impeachment that charged him with abusing his power. The vote prompted the governor's immediate and permanent ouster, and ended nearly two months of political spectacle in which he sought unsuccessfully to salvage his reputation and career here and across the country. [...]

Mr. Blagojevich, a two-term Democrat who rose from the ranks of Chicago ward politics on the strength of his charisma and family connections, is the first governor in the state's history to be impeached. The senators voted 59 to zero in favor of removing him after a four-day trial; a dramatic, 45-minute speech by Mr. Blagojevich in which he declared his innocence; and about two hours of deliberation.

Blagojevich was also barred from ever running for any public office in Illinois. Democrat Pat Quinn, up until a couple of hours ago the lieutenant governor, has already been sworn in as Illinois' new governor.

Blagojevich, sounding a bit like Helen Lovejoy, said his only wrongdoing was caring for the children.

For what it's worth, he can now devote all of his time to his criminal defense.

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

* The President signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law today, the first measure to get his signature.

* The president ripped Wall Street for $18 billion in bonuses last year in the midst of a market collapse. Obama called it "the height of irresponsibility" and "shameful."

* Multiple corporations announced thousands of additional layoffs today. The news comes as more Americans receive unemployment benefits than at any time since the government started keeping track in 1967.

* It was a rough day on Wall Street, with the major indexes falling about 3% each.

* Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) made his case to state senators today, asking them not to remove him from office.

* Blackwater will no longer be welcome in Iraq.

* The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced yesterday that union membership "rose last year by the largest amount in a quarter-century, a gain of 428,000 members."

* John Yoo continues to embarrass himself.

* The suicide rate among U.S. troops keeps getting worse.

* Dennis Blair was confirmed last night by unanimous consent as the new Director of National Intelligence.

* O'Reilly and Dennis Miller think torture is hilarious. No wonder Miller has been kicked out of so many jobs.

* The truth about food stamps matters.

* And the president goes out on a limb and picks a favorite for the Super Bowl.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

BIPARTISANSHIP.... Noting the conduct of House Republicans during the debate over an economic stimulus, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said, "It's almost 'Alice in Wonderland.' You'd never know there was a major election with a huge shift and a clear mandate for a different direction."

That's plainly true. Congressional Republicans aren't acting like a chastened minority with the smallest caucuses in a generation; they're acting like, well, pretty much as they've acted for years. The election results have had no discernable effect -- the rank-and-file GOP believes the way to recover as a party is to be more rigidly conservative, not less.

The key difference: now they love the notion of "bipartisanship."

The problem, of course, is how they define the word. On Tuesday, Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Ensign, the fourth-ranking Republican in the chamber, held up Bush's push for tax cuts in 2001 as the example of "bipartisanship" Obama and Democrats should be following. Likewise, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell believes Bush tried to privatize Social Security in 2005 in a "bipartisan" way.

Today, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) offered his understanding of the word.

"[If the Ledbetter and SCHIP bills] are any indication, we'll get votes on amendments, they'll all lose, and the bill will then pass, and we end up with a totally partisan package. I don't think that's what the president had in mind when he talked about putting legislation together in a bipartisan way."

So, the appropriate way to put together legislation is for Democrats to vote for Republican amendments. If GOP measures win, it's bipartisan. If not, it's antithetical to Obama's approach. Got it.

The president and Democratic lawmakers can obviously speak for themselves about how they interpret a "bipartisan" approach to governing, but my sense is, it's built around the notion of an open process. Republicans may have failed spectacularly at governing, and may have been handed devastating electoral defeats that left them as a regional party, but the White House and the Democratic majority are nevertheless willing to hear them out. Their ideas are welcome. Their amendments will be considered. The president is willing to engage them directly, and make some policy concessions to address their concerns. There has been and will be an exchange of ideas, in good faith, and proposals with merit will advance, no matter which party recommended them.

That's what's happened, and that's what Republicans don't believe is good enough. As Kevin Drum noted last night, the GOP apparently "really has decided to blindly stonewall everything Obama wants, no matter what."

The president pledged to work with everyone with a sense of common purpose, and he's demonstrated a commitment to the principle. But politics is adversarial, and Republicans reject the direction Democrats want to take the country. That is, of course, fine. It's what the loyal opposition is supposed to do.

But for this minority, "bipartisan" necessarily means getting their way. And that's not going to happen.

What's that phrase? "Elections have consequences."

TAKING BACK THE CONCESSIONS.... As far as some House Democrats are concerned, when it came to the economic stimulus package, Republicans wouldn't take "yes" for an answer. The GOP wanted tax cuts, and Democrats offered them tax cuts. The GOP howled at some specific spending measures, and Democrats removed them from the legislation. It didn't affect the outcome.

Amanda Marcotte argued today that House Republicans "can't be dealt with like reasonable people." Not surprisingly, some Democrats who did deal with the GOP as if they were reasonable want to reverse the concessions they gave up.

Rank-and-file Congressional Democrats had been willing to give Republicans the business tax cuts and other provisions they wanted in the stimulus. That is, up until every single one voted against the bill on the House floor Wednesday.

Now, in both the House and the Senate, angry members are lobbying Democratic leaders to yank those tax breaks back.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was asked Thursday by the Huffington Post why the business tax cuts, whose purpose was to garner Republican support, would be left in the bill if no Republicans supported it regardless.

"That's what my members ask me," said Pelosi. "It wasn't something that was suggested [by Democrats]. It was a heavy lift for our members, but they understood that it has a benefit and were willing to support it."

So far, she said, she has been resistant to removing the cuts from the package. "It's something that we can live with," she said. "I can't answer why they wouldn't vote for this even though their main net-operating-loss carry-back suggestion was part of the tax cuts."

Indeed, David Weigel noted that he "literally cannot remember a time when the entire Republican conference in either house voted against tax cuts."

So, are the business tax breaks going to be yanked from the bill? No, at least not yet. Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, "We haven't reached that point," he said. "In fact, Republican senators I've spoken to today said, 'Don't give up on us. We still want to work with you.'"

We'll see how that goes.

CONTRA CLYBURN, WAXMAN EXPRESSES OPTIMISM.... House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) struck a very discouraging note this week when he said he doesn't expect Congress to tackle healthcare this year. "I would much rather see it done that way, incrementally, than to go out and just bite something you can't chew," Clyburn said on C-SPAN. "We've been down that road. I still remember 1994."

And while Clyburn is obviously an influential Democratic leader, Jonathan Cohn notes that another high-profile Democrat stepped up today with a very different message.

Barack Obama has said he wants to pursue major health care reform this year. Two key committee chairmen in the Senate, Max Baucus and Ted Kennedy, have said they want to pursue health care this year. But what about the House? [...]

A few minutes ago, Congressman Henry Waxman made his feelings known -- and did so with no ambiguity. Speaking at the annual Health Action conference, sponsored by the health care advocacy group FamiliesUSA, Waxman announced, "This is our time.... We need to get this job accomplished this year and get a bill to the president."

Waxman is not in the House leadership, of course. But he is very close with Speaker Pelosi and, no less important, he is chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee -- the committee that will likely take the lead on writing and then pushing health reform legislation.

Cohn adds that Waxman knows about as much as anyone about how to get bills through Congress, and he "doesn't tend to pick fights he can't win."

At this point, I can only hope Democrats don't let fear and the scars of the 103rd Congress get in the way of progress in 2008. As Digby explained the other day, this isn't 1994: "The Republicans are on the decline not the ascent. Democrats were just given the task of saving the country. The health care crisis, which was already awful, is getting worse with every lay-off and every job lost -- and the state governments are going broke and can't take up the slack. How many uninsured to we have to have before they realize that this crisis can't just be kicked down the road until they get over their trauma of 1994?"

THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING.... Long-time readers may recall that I've had an ongoing discussion with a friend of mine who goes by the name of Zeitgeist, about who is the single most ridiculous member of the U.S. House. He's tried to convince me the honor goes to Rep. Steve King of Iowa who, to be sure, is stark raving mad. I've pushed back, however, insisting Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota is more deserving.

I'm starting to hedge on whether I was too hasty.

Consider this comment from King, which is almost too ridiculous to believe.

"Let's just say that, that, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, is brought to the United States to be tried in a federal court in the United States, under a federal judge, and we know what some of those judges do, and on a technicality, such as, let's just say he wasn't read his Miranda rights.... He is released into the streets of America. Walks over and steps up into a US embassy and applies for asylum for fear that he can't go back home cause he spilled the beans on al Qaeda. What happens then if another judge grants him asylum in the United States and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is on a path to citizenship."

John Cole describes this "the dumbest thing said by anyone in the last 20 years." That's a perfectly reasonable assessment.

And in case there's any doubt about whether King really did say this, out loud and in public, here's the segment from "The Daily Show" that featured an audio recording of King's comments.

ABOUT THAT TERRORIST WORLDVIEW.... When Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter get together for an interview on Fox News, I realize there's no point in fact-checking their discussion. The madness-per-syllable ratio is just too daunting to bother.

But Media Matters noted that Coulter argued that liberals "would like to live with the terrorists. They agree about America." While this is obviously blisteringly stupid, it's probably worth noting how backwards this is.

I've followed this for a quite a while, because I've always been fascinated by the extent to which far-right criticism of Americans runs parallel to terrorists' criticism of Americans.

Dinesh D'Souza, for example, wrote an entire book devoted to arguing that terrorists are right about the problems with the culture in the United States. Osama bin Laden and other dangerous Islamic radicals believe the U.S. is too secular, too permissive, too diverse, too free, and too tolerant -- and D'Souza concluded that they're absolutely correct. Indeed, D'Souza went so far as to argue that liberal Americans are to blame for 9/11 -- the left invited the attacks by reinforcing the beliefs al Qaeda had about the United States.

In one particularly memorable episode of "The Colbert Report," D'Souza conceded that he finds some of the critiques from radical, anti-American extremists persuasive.

Glenn Beck, at the time with CNN, came to the same conclusion:

"More and more Muslims now hate us all across the world, and it really has not a lot to do with anything other than our morals.

"The things that they were saying about us were true. Our morals are just out the window. We're a society on the verge of moral collapse. And our promiscuity is off the charts.

"Now I don't think that we should fly airplanes into buildings or behead people because of it, but that's the prevailing feeling of Muslims in the Middle East. And you know what? They're right."

And a few months later, the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan also seemed to agree with our enemies about America: "We make it too easy for those who want to hate us to hate us. We make ourselves look bad in our media, which helps future jihadists think that they must, by hating us, be good."

So when Coulter argues that liberals "would like to live with the terrorists" because we "agree about America," it's hard not to notice that it's not the left that finds the violent extremists' worldview compelling.

GOP ECONOMICS 101.... It's hard to negotiate on economic policy with a caucus where this kind of thinking is common.

Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, said that former President George Bush's signature tax cuts in 2001 had created years of growth but that the nation's problems started when Democrats regained majorities in Congress in the 2006 elections.

Noam Scheiber tries to use reason, asking, "So the Democrats came into office and a housing bubble retroactively inflated and began to pop? Mortgage-backed assets worth trillions less than their stated value just magically appeared on bank balance sheets and in hedge fund portfolios?"

The problem, of course, is that reason is irrelevant. A whole lot of people in the Republican caucus believe crazy things. One can present them with evidence, but since reality has a well-known liberal bias, facts merely get in the way.

It makes substantive dialog exceedingly difficult.

SOMETHING TO REMEMBER IN 2012.... Last year, Ohio's Joe Deters was the regional chairman of the McCain/Palin campaign, and was also a prosecutor in Hamilton County. Like a lot of Republican activists, he became convinced that there was widespread voter fraud underway in Ohio.

A special prosecutor looked into Deters' claims and reviewed 600 accusations of fraud. Take a wild guess what the investigation turned up. (via Mark Kleiman)

Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said he had allegations last fall of widespread voter fraud -- allegations a special prosecutor reported Tuesday were wrong, noting the only voter fraud found was from a Connecticut man who told on himself.

"Ultimately," Special Prosecutor Michael O'Neill wrote in a report, "the investigators discovered 'get-out-the-vote' practices, sponsored by community organizations, which took full advantage of this unique absentee-voting period, but no evidence these practices violated Ohio law."

"Told ya so," Tim Burke, chairman of the Hamilton County Democratic Party as well as chairman of the Hamilton County Board of Elections, said with glee of O'Neill's report. "Do I think (Deters) was playing politics? Damned right."

Deters had claimed concrete evidence of widespread wrongdoing. It apparently wasn't as concrete as he'd hoped.

And what about the one guy O'Neill found committed actual fraud? It seems a young man from Connecticut was in town to visit his sister, and went to the University of Cincinnati where he registered to vote and voted on the same day. A week later, the man felt guilty, called county elections officials, explained what he'd done, and asked that his vote not be counted. It wasn't.

What's more, for those who are curious, the special prosecutor who investigated the matter is himself a Republican.

Something to keep in mind the next time conservatives get hysterical about "voter fraud" claims.

THURSDAY'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.

* Sarah Palin said her new leadership PAC shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as the first step towards a presidential campaign.

* In Florida, Rep. Allen Boyd (D) announced that he won't run for the Senate next year. In a bit of a surprise, state Attorney General Bill McCollum (R), who's run for the Senate twice, also said yesterday he'd skip the open-seat contest.

* Brian Moran's (D) gubernatorial campaign in Virginia got a boost yesterday with an endorsement from Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones, former chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus.

* Rep. Peter King (R) plans to run for the Senate in New York next year, but according to a new Marist poll, he'll start as a serious underdog to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D).

* NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas) really doesn't want Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) to seek re-election next year.

* Might Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) be gearing up for a Senate campaign against Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) next year? Maybe.

* There are some caveats to the data, but Gallup's latest report on 2008 has to be discouraging for the GOP: "[J]ust five states, collectively containing about 2 percent of the American population, have statistically significant pluralities of adults identifying themselves as Republicans. These are the 'Mormon Belt' states of Utah, Idaho and Wyoming, plus Nebraska, plus Alaska. By contrast, 35 states are plurality Democratic, and 10 states are too close to call."

RECOMMENDED READING FOR OBAMA.... The Washington Monthly has a feature in our new issue with book recommendations for the new president, with suggestions from some of our favorite writers and thinkers. We're covering the recommendations in an ongoing series of posts, and here are the next two from our list.

Rachel Maddow:

The new president should read The Edge of Disaster, by Stephen Flynn, despite its generic Chicken Little title. Flynn has the politics and the strategy exactly right for the two big business-of-government tasks facing the new administration: (1) annulling the previous politics of "homeland security" and getting it right this time; and (2) massively upscaling our investment in infrastructure. It's hard to be rational and rigorous and constructive when thinking about catastrophe -- but that's exactly what we need.

Joe Nocera:

"I can't believe some of this stuff is legal," a high-ranking government official said to me a few months ago, right around the time that all hell was truly breaking loose. It was when Lehman was going bankrupt, and AIG was teetering on the brink, and Merrill Lynch was being sold, and Morgan Stanley and even mighty Goldman Sachs were rumored to be in serious trouble. And "this stuff" the official was referring to were some of the more exotic, complex, and fiendishly hard-to-value derivative securities that were imploding like dynamite sticks, bringing down the financial system with them.

Barack Obama has so many things he wants to accomplish, in health care, education, the environment, and so on, but none of them will get done if he doesn't first get his hands around the financial crisis. We all know he's been brushing up on FDR's first 100 days, and that's all to the good. Saving the auto industry, getting banks to lend again, creating the kind of mega-stimulus package to get the economy back on its feet -- these are all things he is going to tackle early on.

But then he is going to have to figure out how to fix the financial system filled with "that stuff." And to do so he is going to have to build a new regulatory apparatus, because the old one has clearly broken down. That's where my two book recommendations come in.

The first is A Demon of Our Own Design, by Richard Bookstaber, a memoir with a point by a Wall Street veteran. Bookstaber, a risk manager, chronicles the rising complexity of Wall Street, through the prism of his own experience. Taking us through such traumatic events as the crash of 1987 and the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management in the late 1990s, he makes a powerful case that "these breakdowns come about not in spite of our efforts at improving market design but because of them. The structural risk in the financial markets is a direct result of our attempts to improve the state of the financial markets; its origins are in what we would generally chalk up as progress. The steps we have taken to make the markets more attuned to our investment desires ... have exaggerated the pace of activity and the complexity of financial instruments that makes crisis inevitable. Complexity cloaks catastrophe." And so it has. Figuring out how to either make the system less complex or the risks more transparent to all will be a key part of any new system of financial regulation.

My second recommendation is that the incoming president read some of the writings of Warren Buffett, in particular the annual reports of Berkshire Hathaway, his holding company. Happily, they are collected in a book, The Essays of Warren Buffett: Lessons for Corporate America. Actually, they include lessons for everyone, not just corporate executives. It was Buffett who wrote in his annual report several years ago that derivatives were "financial weapons of mass destruction." But the main lesson he teaches is that the best kind of investing has a value system attached to it. Buffett buys companies, not stocks. He thinks about the long term, not the short term. He became very rich by not trying to get rich quick. He has tackled the problems with stock options, and with executive compensation. (Believe it or not, Buffett's executives at Berkshire Hathaway don't get any options; he doesn't believe in them.) In many ways, his rules for investing are rules to live by, and Obama could do worse than use his bully pulpit to preach them to the rest of us.

HOW TO BROWN-NOSE THE BOSS.... On Tuesday, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) subtly criticized Rush Limbaugh for finding it "easy" to "throw bricks" at the Republican leadership from the outside. Less than a day later, Gingrey, in a surprisingly pathetic move, apologized profusely to the right-wing host, both in writing and on the phone.

But how far are congressional Republicans prepared to go with their unyielding support of the talk-show host? Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) offered a helpful example yesterday.

Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, appeared on MSNBC, and was asked by Norah O'Donnell whether he's willing to denounce some of Limbaugh's recent comments. Specifically, she noted Limbaugh announcing that he hopes Obama fails, and his argument that the nation is being forced to "bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever" because Obama's "father was black, because this is the first black president."

Under the circumstances, one might expect Pence to offer some gentle chiding. Maybe he could say Limbaugh engaged in some "rhetorical excesses" or something. But, no, Pence said, "I cherish his voice in the public debate" and then accused O'Donnell of accusing Limbaugh of "racism."

And with that, Pence won't have to follow Gingrey's example. Pence defended obvious lunacy, but at least he won't have to apologize to Limbaugh today. Since the radio host seems to be calling the shots for the GOP, Pence probably assumes it's better to rationalize madness than possibly offend Limbaugh. And he's probably right.

As DougJ noted, "The mistake the Republicans are making here is a basic one: now they've admitted that they take orders from Rush, they're on the hook for all the crazy ass things he says on the show. And that's not a good place to be."

That's true, but I'd just add that Pence is not just some random Republican -- he's the #3 leader in the House GOP caucus. As Matt Yglesias explained, that leads to an even more significant problem: "The larger issue, however, is that Mike Pence is a moron, and any movement that would hold the guy up as a hero is bankrupt... He has no grasp, whatsoever, of public policy issues. And yet I can only gather from the fact that his colleagues have elevated him to a leadership post, that a large faction of them are actually so much stupider than Pence that they don't realize how dumb he is. But it's really staggering."

It's quite a caucus the House Republicans have.

HALPERIN BLAMES OBAMA.... President Obama went to great lengths to reach out to House Republicans, trying to get them to support an economic stimulus in the midst of an economic crisis. The president not only offered them more tax cuts than seemed necessary, he also acted swiftly to remove spending provisions -- family planning, National Mall renovations -- that they mocked.

The entire Republican caucus, we now know, balked anyway. Time's Mark Halperin, naturally, is blaming Obama. From this morning's appearance on MSNBC:

"This is a really bad sign for Barack Obama to try to change Washington.... He needs bipartisan solutions. They went for it and they came up with zero.... [This] does not bode well for a future that is supposed to be post-partisan. [...]

"[Obama] could have gone for centrist compromises. You can say to your own party, 'Sorry, some of you liberals aren't going to like it, but I am going to change this legislation radically to get a big centrist majority rather than an all-Democratic vote.' He chose not to do that, that's the exact path that George Bush took for most of his presidency with disastrous consequences for bipartisanship and solving big problems."

It's hard to overstate how foolish this analysis is.

Halperin believes, for reasons that are unclear, that the paramount goal was to win the support of lawmakers who were wrong and who were advocating bad ideas. It's not about what works, or what would actually improve the economy in the midst of a serious recession. What really matters is "bipartisan solutions." Why? Because Mark Halperin says so. Merit be damned -- if Democrats liked the legislation and Republicans didn't, it's necessarily flawed.

In our reality, Obama did make "centrist compromises," and liberals in the Democratic Party didn't like it. Obama did the opposite of Bush's style of governing -- he engaged the congressional minority, listened to their ideas, and weakened his own bill to garner a larger majority. House Republicans insisted on a worse bill, Democrats wouldn't give them one, so the GOP voted against it. Halperin inexplicably believes that's Obama's fault.

I'm trying to wrap my head around Halperin's logic here. By his reasoning, the only appropriate thing for Obama to do was let Republicans -- who failed at governing, and who've been rejected by voters -- shape the bill, addressing the crisis they helped create. If the far-right House GOP caucus was unsatisfied, it was Obama's responsibility to make them happy. Why? Because Mark Halperin says so.

This is absurd.

VOTES HAVE CONSEQUENCES.... The White House has invested quite a bit of time and energy reaching out to congressional Republicans. Late yesterday, the president's efforts were rewarded with exactly zero GOP votes on an economic stimulus plan. As the Politico reported when Republicans announced their opposition, the minority party "slapped" Obama's "outstretched hand," as part of a "coordinated effort to embarrass" the president.

We're starting to get a sense of how the White House plans to respond.

Pushing back against the unanimous House Republican vote against President Obama's stimulus plan, the White House plans to release state-by-state job figures "so we can put a number on what folks voted for and against," an administration aide said.

"It's clear the Republicans who voted against the stimulus represent constituents who will be stunned to learn their member of Congress voted against [saving or] creating 4 million jobs," the aide said.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the lawmakers will have to answer to their constituents. And a Democratic official added: "We will run campaigns in their districts."

What's more, Greg Sargent reports that a coalition of groups and unions, including Americans United for Change, MoveOn.org Political Action, AFSCME, and SEIU, are launching a new television ad "targeting Republican Senators and pressuring them to vote for President Obama's stimulus package."

The spot shows some arresting images of the recession -- chained up factories, empty warehouses -- and features Obama talking about our dire economic times and his economic package, an effort to harness Obama's popularity to push the plan at a time when Republicans are training their fire on House Dems, rather than the White House.

The ad is set to air in four states, targeting Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Judd Gregg (New Hampshire), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Olympia Snowe (Maine). Three of the five -- Grassley, Gregg, and Murkowski -- are up for re-election next year.

IRONY IS DEAD.... Have I mentioned lately how entertaining Karl Rove's Wall Street Journal op-eds are? Take today's, for example.

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama criticized Washington for being "obsessed with the perpetual campaign." As president he is the first occupant of the Oval Office to give his director of political affairs -- who coordinates the president's involvement with his party and other campaign related activities -- an office in the West Wing.

Many Americans may assume that the president's entire staff is in the West Wing. It's not. The West Wing is actually a very small place, so the vast number of people who work "at the White House" actually have offices across the street at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB).

Under Mr. Obama, the political director won't be in the EEOB, where other presidents have placed him. He'll occupy a West Wing office usually given to the head of presidential personnel. That's a sign of the importance of politics for Team Obama.

So, to summarize, Karl Rove is accusing someone else of emphasizing politics too much in the White House.

Keep 'em coming, Karl. You're a laugh-riot.

NO LIBERALS ON THE TEEVEE.... If you watched the debate over the economic stimulus plan unfold on the cable networks this week, you may have noticed a certain imbalance. Digby asked the other day, "Can someone explain to me why I'm seeing Republican after Republican on television advising Americans on the right way to run the economy?" It was not an uncommon question.

As it turns out, this was not just a figment of progressives' imagination. ThinkProgress researched the issue and found that "the five cable news networks -- CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business and CNBC -- have hosted more Republican lawmakers to discuss the plan than Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio this week." From 6 AM on Monday to 4 PM on Wednesday, the "networks have hosted Republican lawmakers 51 times and Democratic lawmakers only 24 times." The chart helps drive the point home.

Let's also not lose sight of the context. House Republicans dominated the networks' airtime, despite the fact that they were making absurd demands, despite the fact that they had no intention of voting for the legislation, and despite the fact that their small caucus lacked the votes to defeat the bill anyway.

Josh Marshall noted on Monday the "continuing Republican tilt of much of the capital press corps. Not in ideological terms perhaps, but in terms of whose opinions carry weight, whose matter and whose do not." The ThinkProgress piece highlights this dynamic quite clearly.

I'd just add that even when the interviews were over, and Republican officials weren't on screen, the on-air media kept talking about the stimulus debate from a decidedly Republican perspective.

When Republicans were in the majority, and controlled the White House, Senate, and House, it was important to air the GOP perspective. Now that Democrats are in control, it's still apparently paramount to let Americans know what Republicans are thinking.

Now, it's possible Republicans have been more aggressive in reaching out to network producers and bookers. Maybe Democrats haven't been as efficient in making themselves available for interviews. I'm not privy to the Dems' media strategy, and for all I know, it needs some "tweaking."

That said, I know there are plenty of camera-hungry Democrats in Congress, who'd just love to talk about a popular spending bill proposed by a popular president on national television. The kind of inequity ThinkProgress found is a symptom of a larger problem.

YOU DON'T KNOW DICK.... Many have come to expect a certain standard for decorum and decency from prominent Republican voices -- that is to say, a very low standard -- but former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) showed just how far those norms have slipped yesterday.

Appearing on "Hardball" and debating Salon's editor-in-chief Joan Walsh, Armey offered the usual palaver about government economic policy and "income redistributonists" who ruined Bush's tax cuts. When Walsh tried to speak, Armey scoffed and growled at every word, interrupting with condescension like, "Give it a rest."

By the time Walsh highlighted the inconvenient fact about Obama's electoral mandate, Armey responded, "I'm so damn glad you can never be my wife 'cause I surely wouldn't have to listen to that prattle from you every day."

Once in a while, a politician drops the pretense and lets his true colors come through. In this brief interview, Dick Armey, perhaps best known for calling his then-colleague Barney Frank "Barney Fag," showed just what he's made of, before a national television audience.

Keep in mind, Armey isn't just some random nut from right-wing radio. He's a former Majority Leader, and as Digby noted, Armey is also "one of the foremost conservative economic gurus in the land and is one of the guys they turn to for serious policy advice. I'm not kidding."

For what it's worth, the New York Times' Bob Herbert appeared on the same program, and accurately described Armey's comments as "sexist," adding, "He owes Joan Walsh and your viewers an apology." For his part, Matthews said, "Dick Armey ... I like the guy but I think he went way overboard going after Joan."

Will Armey's on-air misogyny affect his chances of being invited back to "Hardball"? I seriously doubt it.

STIMULUS PASSES HOUSE WITH ZERO GOP VOTES.... After all the outreach to House Republicans, all the concessions, all of the reports about the economic crisis, all of the evidence showing the stimulative effects of the plan, not a single GOP lawmaker in the chamber voted for the economic rescue package.

The House voted, 244-188, on Wednesday evening for President Obama's package of federal tax cuts and spending worth $819 billion and meant to jump-start the economy out of its worst crisis in decades.

Although the president's legislative victory was no surprise, given the Democrats' 255-to-178 advantage in the House, the lack of any Republican support was a disappointment for Mr. Obama. The vote came hours after Mr. Obama declared that "we don't have a moment to spare" just after conferring with business leaders at the White House.

If the House Republican caucus, en masse, isn't willing to support a stimulus package in the midst of a global economic crisis, it's hard to imagine when, exactly, GOP lawmakers are going to work with the majority party in a constructive way.

After lengthy debate, Republicans weren't swayed by the evidence, or the polls, or the president. They came into this in united opposition, and with Democrats unwilling to give them more of Bush economic policies, that's the way they stayed.

This isn't exactly a surprise. I suspect the Republican Party looked at this as a pragmatic political test -- if the stimulus plan works, and the economy improves, Obama and Democrats will claim credit and reap the political rewards, whether the GOP supported the proposal or not. If the stimulus plan falls short, and the economic effects are limited, Republicans want to be able to say, "We told you so." Given this dynamic, there really wasn't much of an incentive for the GOP to do the right thing.

Of course, the last time we saw a vote like this one was probably the 1993 vote on Clinton's first budget -- every single Republican in the chamber voted against it, hoping to prove, once and for all, that they were right about economics and Democrats were wrong. If memory serves, that budget was the first step towards the longest economic expansion on record, the creation of 22 million jobs, and the total elimination of the federal budget deficit.

In any case, the stimulus package now goes to the Senate, where passage is likely to overcome Republican obstructionism, and then to House-Senate negotiations, which are likely to be more than a little awkward.

Update: Here's the official roll call, and here's the roll call by congressional district.

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

* Al Gore warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today that the planet is facing a "grave danger."

* The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Eric Holder's nomination, 17 to 2. Only Sens. Coburn and Cornyn voted against him.

* Speaking of Holder, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Holder assured him that he wouldn't prosecute Bush administration officials who committed acts of torture. No one seems to think Bond is telling the truth.

* For a change, it was a good day on Wall Street.

* Don't be too surprised if mail delivery on Saturdays becomes a thing of the past.

* Funding for repairs to the Washington Mall were stripped from the stimulus bill to make Republicans happy. They'll vote against the bill anyway, though.

* On a related note, despite the concessions, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has plenty to like about the final House bill.

* Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is looking for a U.S. "apology." He'll be waiting for a while.

* The American Society of Civil Engineers have a pretty scary new report: "More than a quarter of the nation's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Leaky pipes lose an estimated seven billion gallons of clean drinking water every day. And aging sewage systems send billions of gallons of untreated wastewater cascading into the nation's waterways each year."

* Education is likely to get a huge boost from the stimulus.

* Have I mentioned lately how impressed I am with the new Justice Department team? It keeps getting better.

* In case this afternoon's written apology wasn't quite pathetic enough, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) called Limbaugh personally this afternoon to express his regrets -- on the air -- for subtly criticizing him yesterday.

* Speaking of Limbaugh, here's Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), responding to some of the blowhard's latest nonsense: "Limbaugh actually was more lucid when he was a drug addict. If America ever did 1% of what he wanted us to do, then we'd all need pain killers."

* So long, Washington Post "Book World" section.

* And finally, President Obama gave his new hometown of D.C. some good-natured ribbing this afternoon for practically shutting down every time a winter storm comes through: "We are going to have to apply some toughness to this town." As someone who moved from D.C. to Vermont, I can only agree enthusiastically.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

HOW WE GOT IN THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.... Josh Marshall is listening to congressional Republicans give speeches this afternoon on the House floor, explaining their opposition to an economic stimulus package in the midst of a deep recession. He seems rather pained.

It may not be advisable for anyone to actually listen to the arguments House Republicans are actually making on the House floor. We're just listening again to Rep. [Jeff] Flake (R) who appears to have himself outdone himself in militant statements of economic nonsense. Earlier today we heard Flake claiming that tax cuts have no stimulus effect if they go to low-income earners who pay payroll taxes and not income taxes.

Now he's explaining how capital spending on AMTRAK is also not stimulus because AMTRAK doesn't run a profit. Again, total non-sequitur. I think rail is something we should be spending a lot more on. But you can certainly disagree with that on policy terms. But you can't claim that that capital spending on rail stock and rail upgrades doesn't provide jobs. Of course it provides jobs. And whether Amtrak is profitable or not is completely beside the point.

Where did they get this guy?

I can appreciate Josh's frustration. Listening to House Republicans talk about the economy is not only tedious, it's a striking reminder that these guys don't know what they're talking about.

I mean that, literally. They're clueless. There are coherent arguments against the stimulus plan, even from a conservative perspective, but actual GOP policy makers apparently aren't familiar with them. Their arguments about the CBO are wrong. Their arguments about tax credits are wrong. Their arguments about aid to states are wrong. Their arguments about the stimulative benefits of tax cuts are wrong. Their arguments about corporate tax rates are wrong. Their arguments about housing are wrong. Even their arguments about allocation are wrong.*

There's probably some entertainment value in considering the "stupid vs. dishonest" dynamic -- maybe Republicans know their arguments are wrong, and are repeating them anyway -- but the end result is always the same. It's hard to get through a single speech without searching frantically for the Maalox.

It reached the point today that Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), a member of the leadership, said Democrats are acting like ... wait for it ... former Republican president Herbert Hoover. I suppose, by Ensign's formulation, that makes Mitch McConnell FDR?

And perhaps the single most frustrating part of listening to the Republicans' nonsense is the painful realization that it's their misguided worldview that got us into this mess in the first place. It's the same misguided worldview that opposed a stimulus last fall, which would have made this bigger stimulus less necessary now.

Congressional Republicans, in other words, still believe they have credibility on matters of the economy, and they demand that everyone respect their authority. It's quite odd.

* edited slightly for clarity

O'REILLY, ALBA, AND SWEDEN.... I ordinarily avoid celebrity news at all costs, but let's make an exception.

Jessica Alba is setting the record straight: Sweden was neutral during World War II.

Alba and Fox TV show host Bill O'Reilly traded punches last week after the presidential inauguration. After Alba told a Fox reporter that O'Reilly was "kind of an a-hole;" he retaliated by calling her a "pinhead" for telling a reporter to "be Sweden about it," assuming she meant Switzerland.

"I want to clear some things up that have been bothering me lately," Alba blogged on MySpace Celebrity. "Last week, Mr. Bill O'Reilly and some really classy sites (i.e.TMZ) insinuated I was dumb by claiming Sweden was a neutral country. I appreciate the fact that he is a news anchor and that gossip sites are inundated with intelligent reporting, but seriously people... it's so sad to me that you think the only neutral country during WWII was Switzerland."

Although Switzerland is more frequently cited as an example of neutrality, Sweden did indeed follow a policy of neutrality during World War II. History point to Alba.

Reader J.O. reminds me that O'Reilly isn't the only high-profile conservative who finds Sweden confusing.

In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

ALL SEX, ALL THE TIME.... Republicans were apoplectic over a stimulus measure that would have saved money on preventing unwanted pregnancies, so it was removed from the economic recovery plan. Today, GOP lawmakers, proving once again that they take sex really seriously, have found a related spending provision to get excited about.

To be fair, they had some help. Drudge got worked up today with a story about the bill funding the Center for Disease Control, most notably STD education and prevention programs. Soon after, the Republican establishment was on the case.

The NRCC is banging the good old culture wars drum today, sending out a raft of press releases asking if rookie Dems from conservative districts back the inclusion of anti-sexually transmitted disease programs.

The title of the release: Do Freshmen Dems Support $335 Million for STD Prevention in "Stimulus"?

On Byron York's advice, my friend Alex Koppelman took a closer look at the part of the bill that has conservatives all excited.

First of all, the money that goes to these programs will mean new jobs. There are the additional people who'll be needed for administration, of course, as well as additional doctors and researchers. There will also be, to borrow a phrase, a trickle-down effect: Money for vaccinating uninsured children, for instance, means more vaccinations will be produced, which means there'll be more jobs producing and distributing the vaccines. [...]

As for that $335 million for STD prevention, that number sort of pales when you consider the direct medical cost of STDs every year, which one 2000 study found was $6.5 billion. That same study notes that, for HIV patients at least, the government already assumes a large share of the burden; one group of researchers found that 47 percent of people receiving treatment for HIV were covered by Medicare, and 20 percent were uninsured.

Of course, the merit of the argument is secondary. At the end of the day, conservative Republicans just seem to like talking about, complaining about, and campaigning on sex.

Update: Amanda Terkel fact-checks the new complaint in some additional detail. Drudge and the GOP, still wrong.

DRIVING THE WEDGE.... MSNBC's "First Read" asks today: "[A]re House Republicans trying to drive a wedge between Nancy Pelosi and President Obama?"

Of course they are. I thought that was obvious.

[J]ust because Obama has so far been able to disarm them doesn't mean Republicans are about to surrender. On the contrary, many Republicans are simply focusing their fire on a much softer target, hoping to drive a wedge between the President and his party at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. "If you have an opponent with a 70% approval rating and one with a 20% approval rating, you're going to go after the one with a 20% approval rating," a House GOP leadership aide said, referring to the Democratically controlled Congress' dismal approval ratings.

So while House Republicans praised Obama in their first breath on Tuesday, in their second breath they slammed Pelosi. [...]

Sowing the seeds of discontent between Obama and Pelosi is a no-lose proposition for the GOP: If Obama wins they get a bigger seat at the table, and if Pelosi gets her way, it's a blow to Obama's promises of inclusiveness and bipartisanship. "If he's willing to kick [the Democratic leaders], we're willing to applaud, we'll take it," another GOP leadership aide said. "Am I trying to stir up trouble between him and his party? Of course I am."

It's shaped Republican rhetoric throughout the process. The GOP minority doesn't see any real value in launching attacks against a popular president, so they're attacking Democrats in Congress (who are, by the way, more popular than Republicans in Congress). As a result, Republican lawmakers have praised Obama's outreach and willingness to compromise, while bashing Pelosi & Co. for not being cooperative -- or "bipartisan" -- enough.

"First Read" asked, "The question is, of course, how long will Speaker Pelosi put up with the idea that Republicans have the president to whine to when they are not getting their way?"

Actually, I'm not sure Pelosi cares. If the Speaker and the President are playing good-cop/bad-cop with Republicans, she'll draw the GOP's ire, Obama will make some temporary concessions and lend Republicans a sympathetic ear, and Democrats will still get the bill they want signed into law.

Republicans think they'll gain an advantage if they balk at the House bill, because it will undermine "Obama's promises of inclusiveness and bipartisanship." Maybe, but I doubt it. The president has spent quite a bit of energy reaching out to the GOP, going to great lengths to hear them out. If Republicans are hoping to convince the public that the White House hasn't been "inclusive" enough, it's going to be a tough sell.

THE LINE REPUBLICANS CAN'T CROSS.... On Monday, Rush Limbaugh took a few shots at Republican leaders in Congress, saying they're not doing enough to "frighten" President Obama. Yesterday, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R) defended the party leadership, and dismissed the right-wing talk-show host for finding it "easy" to "throw bricks" from the outside.

Gingrey added that Limbaugh and others like him "don't have to try to do what's best for your people and your party. You know you're just on these talk shows and you're living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn't be or wouldn't be good leaders, they're not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell."

And just how long did it take before Gingrey was forced to back down and grovel for forgiveness after saying something sensible? About a half-day.

Turns out that Gingrey's measured remarks provoked such a violent outcry that he has now been forced to apologize.

"Because of the high volume of phone calls and correspondence received by my office since the Politico article ran, I wanted to take a moment to speak directly to grassroots conservatives," Gingrey said in a new statement released by his office. "Let me assure you, I am one of you."

"I never told Rush to back off," Gingrey continued. "I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives -- that was not my intent ... Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement's conscience."

Gingrey went on to say, "I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh," adding that he's among millions of Americans "inspired" by Limbaugh.

Note, Gingrey hadn't said anything especially controversial yesterday. It is easy for political observers on the outside to criticize, as compared to keeping a party together. But Gingrey not only faced a swift rebuke for daring to question Leader Limbaugh, but apologized, in writing, and in an embarrassingly meek tone.

The Republican Party is suffering something of a leadership vacuum. It's pretty obvious who's calling the shots.

REPUBLICANS HEART IRISH TAX RATES.... While pushing back against the economic stimulus plan, Republicans have, of course, been demanding more tax cuts. But what kind of tax cuts are we talking about? Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Ensign, the fourth-ranking Republican in the chamber, argued yesterday:

"You know, we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. Microsoft, which is a great American company, has zero exports from the United States. They have a lot of exports from Ireland, because, guess what, Ireland has a 12.5 percent corporate tax rate; we have a 35 percent corporate tax rate."

Are we back to this again? John McCain relied on this talking point quite a bit last year. In the first presidential debate, the Republican nominee said: "Right now, the United States of American business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent. Now, if you're a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it's 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you're going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, et cetera."

I'd hoped we were past this, but so long as congressional Republicans want to re-litigate this as part of the stimulus debate, we might as well set the record straight. Igor Volsky explained that the Republican argument is "full of so many other holes, you can drain spaghetti with it."

* America's Effective Tax Rate Is Comparable To Other G7 Nations: According to a recent U.S. Treasury report, the effective tax rate on equipment financed by equity is 24 percent, the same as the G-7 average. The rate on equipment financed by debt is minus 46 percent, meaning that the government actually subsidizes these investments rather than taxing them.

* America Is The Number One Country To Do Business: The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report for 2007-2008 concluded that the United States is most business friendly, followed by Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Finland and Singapore. Ireland came in at number 22.

* Two-Thirds Of Corporations Did Not Pay Taxes: According to last month's Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, between 1998 and 2005 "about two-thirds of corporations operating in the United States did not pay taxes" because of a variety of corporate tax loopholes.

* US Raises Less Taxes From Corporations Than Ireland: In the United States, corporate revenues as a percentage of GDP was about 2.2 percent; Ireland raised close to 4 percent.

Yglesias added a while back, "Ireland really could be a model for successful reform in the United States; reform that would be aimed at growing the tax base by closing loopholes and, in exchange, lowering the rate. That would, if calibrated correctly, both boost economic growth and efficiency somewhat and also increase tax revenues. But a simple across-the-board rate cut would accomplish nothing of the sort."

Someone really ought to let the GOP caucus know about this. I'm sure they'll want to update their talking points.

WEDNESDAY'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.

* Let's just say Norm Coleman's legal strategy is off to a very bad start in the latest court hearings in Minnesota.

* Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) went after his Kentucky colleague, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, yesterday. On a conference call with in-state reporters, Bunning blasted McConnell for having said he's unsure whether Bunning will seek re-election.

* Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) realizes that his new colleague, Kirsten Gillibrand, is known for having a record that's pretty conservative for a Democrat, but he's confident that "her views will evolve" as a senator.

* Speaking of Gillibrand, her 2010 ambitions got a boost this morning when she was endorsed by EMILY's List, a move that may discourage a primary challenge from Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.

* In the race to replace Gillibrand, Republicans will run New York Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco, a decision made yesterday by 10 Republican county chairs in the district.

* Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio (D) is considering a run for the Senate in 2010.

* The National Republican Senatorial Committee has already started advertising against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada.

* Rep. Jerry Moran (R) appears to be the frontrunner in Kansas' open-seat Senate race next year. A poll from Public Opinion Strategies shows him leading fellow Rep. Todd Tiahrt in a GOP primary, 41% to 25%.

* Republicans have suffered quite a bit at the ballot box lately, but the party is nevertheless optimistic about 2010 redistricting.

RECOMMENDED READING FOR OBAMA.... The Washington Monthly has a feature in our new issue with book recommendations for the new president, with suggestions from some of our favorite writers and thinkers. We're covering the recommendations in an ongoing series of posts, and here are the next two from our list.

David Ignatius:

I recommend the new president read (or reread) The Quiet American, by Graham Greene. He should do so to remind himself, when the clever, idealistic briefer comes to tell him about the "third way" that will produce a breakthrough in America's tangled relations with the world, that we've been down this road again, and again, and again.

John B. Judis:

I would like to think of something soothing and medicinal, but here's my dour choice: The Iron Wall, Avi Shlaim's revisionist history of Israel and the Arab world, which appeared in 2001. President Obama is going to want to focus on reviving the American and world economy, but he is not going to be able to ignore the Middle East. And he would be wise to train his attention not just on Iraq and Iran, but on the continuing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Shlaim's book makes a good case for an old lesson: that a balanced, evenhanded approach to the conflict, far from being "anti-Israel," holds out the only hope for resolving the conflict, and that such a resolution is in the interests of the United States, the Palestinians, and the Israelis themselves.

REPUBLICANS DEFINE 'BIPARTISANSHIP'.... Congressional Republicans, with their smallest House caucus in nearly two decades, and their smallest Senate caucus in nearly three decades, are outraged that they aren't able to shape the economic stimulus bill to their liking. GOP leaders are accusing Democrats of acting like they won sweeping election victories three months ago, when they should be acting in a "bipartisan" fashion.

And what, pray tell, would a "bipartisan" approach to governing look like? Yesterday, Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Ensign, the fourth-ranking Republican in the chamber, held up Bush's push for tax cuts in 2001 as the example Obama and Democrats should be following.

"There was very much Democrat, leading up to, it was working together. It got partisan as the process went along, but it was very much bipartisan going into it. And that's what we need to do -- at least start in a bipartisan fashion."

He wasn't kidding.

Likewise, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also offered a prime example of "bipartisanship" for Democrats to follow.

"President Bush, newly re-elected and with expanded Republican majorities in Congress, had the courage to put Social Security reform on the agenda. When he asked for bipartisan help, not one Democrat in Congress stepped forward. Every single one of them turned his or her back, reflexively choosing politics over governing -- and the nation lost out on an opportunity to fix a crucial program in desperate need of reform."

So, as far as Republican leaders are concerned, the country not only needs more of Bush's economic policies, we also need more of Bush's style of bipartisan lawmaking.

This is, of course, delusional. But if folks like McConnell and Ensign are serious, and they think Democrats should pursue policy goals the way Bush did, the White House should pretty much stop returning Republicans' phone calls and start pretending the minority party doesn't exist.

LAPSING INTO PAGANISM.... The National Review's Michael Novak assesses Barack Obama's first six days in office, and is concerned about the implications of the president's decisions.

From these announcements we learn that President Obama recognizes no difference between the Jewish-Christian covenant between a woman and a man (a covenant that they will have and nurture children, if they are so blessed), and a civil contract between two persons of any sex, in order to set up a household of affection and sexual favors.

This is a relapse into paganism.

Got that? Because the president believes in treating people equally, he's not just wrong, he's leading the nation towards paganism.

Isaac Chotiner notes, "The real surprise here, at least for those of us who have long followed Novak's career, is his apparent belief that America had not 'relapsed' into paganism a long time ago. Who knew that he had previously been so sanguine?"

Indeed, while Novak's argument is mind-numbing on its face, I'm also struck by his use of the word "relapse." The new president, after just six days in the Oval Office, and years after he expressed his support for legal recognition of gay couples, has brought on a "relapse into paganism."

As Damon Linker put it, "I'd heard Obama was a talented politician, but this is truly impressive. Just think of all that we pagan-Americans will be able to accomplish over the next four years!"

I'll be especially curious to see if this becomes a new trend for far-right rhetoric. Last month, WorldNetDaily ran a piece equating liberalism with "Baal worship." Now, we're sliding into "paganism."

I can't wait to see what we'll be called next.

STIMULUS PUSHBACK -- FROM THE OTHER DIRECTION.... As the debate and negotiations over the stimulus have unfolded, we've heard plenty about conservatives' opposition, and quite a bit about efforts to make the right happy. It's encouraging, then, to see at least some attention directed towards those who worry that the stimulus package is missing an opportunity to go much further.

For some House Democrats, the problem is less a matter of balancing the short and long term than a shortage of focus and will on the part of the administration. Their disappointment centers on the relatively small amount devoted to long-lasting infrastructure investments in favor of spending on a long list of government programs. While each serves a purpose, the critics say, they add up to less than the sum of their parts, and fall far short of the transformative New Deal-like vision many of them had entertained.

The bill to be voted on today includes $30 billion for roads and bridges, $9 billion for public transit and $1 billion for inter-city rail -- less than 5 percent of the package's total spending. Administration officials have said they did not push for more infrastructure spending because of concerns about how many projects are "shovel ready" -- a view that House members say is held most strongly by Lawrence H. Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser.

Even though most House Democrats say they will back the plan, many reject the administration's argument, saying that infrastructure projects could easily be expedited, that the economy will need additional infusions for years to come and that the real reason for shunning infrastructure was to make room for tax cuts. Obama, with a public mandate to do something big, is missing a rare opportunity to rebuild the country, they say.

"Every penny of the $825 billion is borrowed against the future of our kids and grandkids, and so the question is: What benefit are we providing them? What are we doing for the country? It's the difference between real investment that will serve the nation for 30, 50 years and tax cuts, and that's a very poor tradeoff," said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.). "I go to my district and people say, 'Yeah, I can use 10 extra bucks a week, but I would rather see more substantial investment.' We've gone through a couple bubbles that were borrowing and consumer-driven. We want a recovery that's solid and based in investment and productivity, and that points us at building things that will serve us decades to come."

Administration officials reportedly see the stimulus package as something of a down payment on the president's broader priorities, with more investment to come in subsequent spending bills. This specific rescue proposal may be a unique opportunity, which may not come up again, but we'll see.

But this piece is a reminder of just how odd the debate has been at times. The most common areas of political discussion have been about what additional taxes can be cut, and what additional spending programs can be eliminated.

Though the more progressive arguments have received far less attention, it's encouraging to see at least some pressure coming from the other direction.

JUAN WILLIAMS TARGETS MICHELLE OBAMA.... The things one learns watching Fox News.

During the January 26 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, NPR news analyst and Fox News political contributor Juan Williams again baselessly attacked first lady Michelle Obama, claiming that "her instinct is to start with this 'blame America' ... stuff." Williams asserted that "[i]f you think about liabilities for President [Barack] Obama that are close to him -- [Vice President] Joe Biden's up there -- but Michelle Obama's right there."

Williams continued: "[S]he's got this Stokely Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going. If she starts talking, as [Townhall Magazine contributor and Weekly Standard contributing blogger] Mary Katharine [Ham] suggested, her instinct is to start with this 'blame America,' you know, 'I'm the victim.' If that stuff starts to come out, people will go bananas, and she'll go from being the new Jackie O to being something of an albatross."

In context, there was no reason for Juan Williams to launch into this nonsense. His comments weren't just baseless and cheap, they were also gratuitous. Michelle Obama hadn't said anything specific or done anything specific to draw Williams' ire, but O'Reilly was talking about the scrutiny she'll face in the national spotlight, and Williams thought it appropriate to use the opportunity to tie the First Lady to black nationalism and the politics of victimization -- just because he felt like it.

Naturally, Williams didn't (and couldn't) offer any evidence to back up his accusations against Michelle Obama. Worse, it's part of a pattern with him -- Williams has accused the First Lady of using "militant anger" before.

Ta-Nehisi Coates, who has a fascinating piece on Michelle Obama in the latest issue of the Atlantic, added a brief message to Williams: "It's a dangerous, dangerous thing to make a living running your mouth."

And Adam Serwer also had a very sharp item on this, noting, "Williams' statement makes me angry not because it's about Michelle, but because it's so manifestly not about her, but about black women in general."

We're way past the point at which it's reasonable to expect Fox News personalities to apologize to those they smear, but a) Juan Williams probably shouldn't expect any White House exclusives anytime soon, and b) the Obamas' "honeymoon" apparently never actually started, at least as far as the Republicans' news network is concerned.

SHE JUST WON'T GO AWAY.... A couple of weeks ago, Michael Tomasky summarized exactly why so many see Sarah Palin as an offensive political figure: "Never in my adult lifetime has one politician so perfectly embodied everything that is malign about my country: the proto-fascist nativism, the know-nothingism, the utterly cavalier lack of knowledge about the actual principles on which the country was founded."

Those who find this description compelling will probably be disappointed to learn that Palin now has a leadership PAC that will likely expand her political reach and influence.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has started a federal political action committee -- called Sarahpac -- that will allow her to raise money for and donate cash to candidates for office over the coming years, a move that should be seen as a precursor to a run for president in 2012.

The PAC has a website and a post office box in Arlington, Virginia but has not yet formally filed its incorporation papers with the Federal Election Commission. A call to the PAC was not returned.

Sarahpac is "dedicated to building America's future, supporting fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation," according to a statement on the PAC's website.

Leadership PACs aren't uncommon, especially for likely presidential candidates -- Huckabee and Romney already launched theirs -- and are used to raise money, travel, and make campaign contributions to strategically-important, like-minded candidates.

If I were a voter in Alaska, I might wonder if my governor is focused exclusively on her state-wide duties. Between shopping for a book deal, traveling for Republican candidates, doing interviews with national media, and setting up a political action committee in Virginia, Palin's interests seem to lie elsewhere.

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

* The "truce" in Gaza is already looking shaky, in light of a Palestinian roadside bomb that killed an Israeli today, which sparked an Israeli "airstrike that wounded a Hamas militant."

* No brainer: "The Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, announced on Tuesday that he would crack down on lobbying to influence the $700 billion financial bailout program by the companies that are receiving billions in taxpayer funds."

* Speaking of which, Geithner was confirmed late yesterday, following a 60-34 vote. Threee Democrats (Harkin, Feingold, and Byrd) voted against him, as did one of the independents (Sanders) caucusing with the Dems.

* Climate researcher Susan Solomon, of the NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory, believes "many damaging effects of climate change are already largely irreversible." Solomon explained, "People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that's not true."

* The Lily Ledbetter measure is headed to the White House for the president's signature.

* Al-Arabiya's Hisham Melhem thinks it makes sense for al Qaeda to be "nervous" about Barack Obama.

* Surprise, House Republicans not only fail to negotiate in good faith, but they also fail to maintain any kind of ideological consistency.

* Thanks to still more Republican objections, progress on S-CHIP has stalled once again.

* CNN's Ed Henry is confused about why the CBO incomplete "report" on the stimulus became controversial.

* The digital TV deadline has been extended to the summer.

* Congressional Republicans may not like Obama, but they do want their picture taken with him.

* Defense Secretary Bob Gates sets the record straight on Guantanamo detainee recidivism numbers.

* Is the far-right still repeating ACORN nonsense? Yep.

* Fox News' ridiculous "report" in Murtha's district on Guantanamo detainees was wrong on so many levels.

* Glenn Greenwald 1, Richard Cohen 0.

* R.I.P., John Updike.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

PULLING A SPECTER.... This guy is hard to figure out sometimes.

It may be time to coin the phrase "pulling a Specter," because Sen. Arlen Specter (PA), the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, just did it again. After making a huge fuss questioning the independence of Eric Holder, Specter just caved and said he'll support the attorney general nominee.

"I can say with some confidence that there won't be a successful filibuster," Specter told reporters at a press conference gathered to share his thoughts on Holder in advance of tomorrow's Judiciary panel vote on the nominee.

Specter has been fighting, resisting, and complaining about Holder's nomination for more than seven full weeks. Specter questioned Holder's "character" and his "courage." He compared Holder to Alberto Gonzales, for crying out loud. Specter told a committee room full of people that he questioned Holder's "fitness for the job."

Specter felt it necessary to talk endlessly about the Marc Rich pardon, the Elian Gonzalez controversy, Gore's fundraising efforts in the 1996 presidential campaign, the 1993 federal siege in Waco, the espionage investigation involving Wen Ho Lee, and the 1999 clemency for members of a Puerto Rican militant nationalist group. More recently, Specter sought some kind of guarantee that Holder wouldn't prosecute Bush administration officials who committed acts of torture.

But as of today, Holder's fine and will enjoy Specter's support when his nomination comes to the floor.

It's tempting to wonder why Specter bothered with delays, attacks, and weeks of complaining, if he was going to turn around and vote for Holder anyway. The answer, I suspect, is that Specter enjoyed the attention, found his own grandstanding entertaining, and saw utility in pushing Obama's team around for a while. Now that he's had his say, I suppose Specter is prepared to act like a senator again.

THE NATION'S FOUNDING PRINCIPLES.... The National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing an item for the National Catholic Register, reflects on the Obama inauguration. (via Sullivan)

Rick Warren reminded us why all eyes were on the Capitol steps that Tuesday afternoon: "in His name."

We're a nation not just where you are free to believe or not to believe; we're a nation founded for Him -- so we could praise Him, so we could do His will.

Well, not exactly. Actually, not at all.

To be sure, those who want "praise Him" and "do His will" are certainly free to do so. It's a founding principle of our government -- people have the right to freely exercise their spiritual beliefs, or not, based on the dictates of one's conscience.

But to argue that the United States was founded "for Him" (emphasis in the original) just isn't supported by the facts. Long-time readers may recall that I used to work for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, so this is an issue that I've had an interest in for quite a while. I'll spare you a lengthy First Amendment diatribe, but I will say that the nation was founded on secular principles, which led to a secular government, based on the structures of a secular Constitution. The right may not like it, and wish they could change it, but the separation of church and state is real, and it's one of the founders' great contributions to Western governmental traditions.

Reasonable people can debate constitutional interpretation, but to argue that the country was formed specifically as a celebration of and testament to one faith tradition's deity is simply wrong.

CBO PESSIMISTIC, FINDS NEED FOR STIMULUS.... A bleak forecast.

The nation's current recession is likely to be the longest since World War II, and by some measures could be the worst since the Great Depression, a new Congressional Budget Office forecast said Tuesday.

Without a major economic stimulus plan, "the shortfall in the nation's output relative to its potential would be the largest -- in terms of both length and depth -- since the Depression of the 1930s," said new CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf in testimony prepared for the House Budget Committee.

The analysis is sure to add important momentum to the effort to enact an $825 billion stimulus by mid-February.

Well, one would certainly like to think so.

Elmendorf added that the stimulus proposal "would provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years relative to what would occur without any legislation."

There's been quite a bit of interest lately in the CBO's analysis of the stimulus package and the economy. What do you suppose the chances are that Republican lawmakers will be as enthusiastic about today's CBO forecast as they were about a preliminary report based on a partial look at an out-of-date stimulus proposal?

OBAMA WON'T GIVE THE GOP MORE TAX CUTS.... President Obama was on the Hill today, meeting with House Republicans on the economic stimulus package. When asked if the president was winning any GOP votes, one conservative House Republican who was in the room told the Politico, "Nope," adding that Obama "won't compromise on more tax cuts."

I'm not sure what definition of "compromise" the lawmaker was using, but the bottom line remains the same: the president's efforts to garner Republican support aren't working.

Obama seemed ready for the House Republicans to pounce, reportedly telling the gathered GOP lawmakers: "feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part [tax cuts]," according to two sources in the room.

That's basically what they did, hitting Obama for more than 30 minutes with questions about deficits, taxes and spending. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), won applause from his GOP colleagues when he asked the president whether he would promise that the stimulus would not be an excuse to raise taxes or increase spending.

Obama responded, according to sources in the room, that he was worried about the deficit and debt, and promised that his fiscal 2010 budget -- coming out next month -- would make hard choices in terms of spending cuts in an effort to reduce the deficit.

The Politico report noted that the "out of power minority party" seems to be "finding its voice as a stout opposition party instead of the party of compromise." Perhaps, but I'm not entirely sure when, exactly, House Republicans were ever positioned as the "party of compromise."

What's more, the article added that Republicans "slapped" Obama's "outstretched hand," as part of a "coordinated effort to embarrass" the president.

I suspect Obama isn't feeling especially embarrassed. Frustrated, maybe. Like he's wasting his time, probably. But the institutional dynamic hasn't changed. House Democrats still enjoy a 77-seat advantage over the minority, Obama is still a very popular president, and Republicans (and their ideas) still enjoy little public support. The stimulus is still likely to pass, especially in the House.

Whether the House GOP is enjoying itself more now than last week is largely inconsequential.

GOLDFARB REFLECTS.... Michael Goldfarb, who did communications/blogging work for the McCain campaign before returning to the Weekly Standard, sat down for an interesting interview with CJR's Kate Klonick about his campaign experiences.

The interview covers quite a bit of ground, and even makes some news -- Goldfarb notes that the campaign was, at one point, poised "to throw The New York Times off the plane," which I hadn't heard about before.

Goldfarb also notes that he was hired to "attack the press"; he boasted that he was "good at ... pissing off the media"; and he "thought from the beginning" that McCain would lose. Goldfarb still thinks Palin was a wise addition to the ticket, and compared The New Yorker covering her selection to having Jane Goodall "writing about fu**ing apes mating in the jungle."

He added that campaign aides really did go after Palin after the campaign ended, and Goldfarb believes these staffers "are going to pay a real steep price in the long run."

But what struck me as especially interesting was Goldfarb responding to a question about McCain's reluctance to go after Obama over Jeremiah Wright. Goldfarb responded:

It's not for me to second guess how the candidate felt about any particular issue. There are obvious mistakes that were made throughout the campaign. The Rev. Wright issue is of some concern. It was frustrating, because if McCain never mentioned it, the media was going to act like it didn't exist.

That's not how I remember it. First, plenty of far-right voices who supported McCain/Palin used the attack throughout the campaign season. Second, the media not only kept talking about Wright, news outlets ran plenty of stories about McCain's strategy regarding Jeremiah Wright, in the process, talking about Jeremiah Wright.

"If McCain never mentioned it, the media was going to act like it didn't exist"? I'm afraid Goldfarb has it backwards.

CONFUSION OVER KRISTOL.... Perhaps the only thing more frustrating that Bill Kristol's endless stream of jobs in the mainstream media is confusion over why this is frustrating.

After getting fired from Time, Kristol was hired by the New York Times. After getting fired from the New York Times, Kristol was hired by the Washington Post. Today, Fred Hiatt, the Post's editorial page editor, defended the move.

Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt called Kristol "very smart and very plugged in," saying Kristol would be an influential voice in the coming debate over redefining the Republican Party. "It seems to me there were a lot of Times readers who felt the Times shouldn't hire someone who supported the Iraq war," said Hiatt, adding that he wants "a diverse range of opinions" on his page.

I don't doubt that many Times readers disagreed with Kristol about Bush's Iraq policy, but that wasn't the problem. Rather, Kristol had spent much of Bush's presidency not only touting neocon nonsense, but also becoming what Jonathan Chait described as a "thug" -- directing baseless, ridiculous attacks against anyone who disagreed with him.

Around the time Kristol was hired by the NYT, A.L. published a greatest-hits package of outrageous Kristol columns; ThinkProgress had a collection of Kristol's recent "lies, distortions, and hawkish proposals"; and Media Matters assembled a list of Kristol observations -- on matters ranging from foreign policy to campaign politics -- all of which are obviously, demonstrably wrong. In most professions, repeated failures on this scale are not rewarded with promotions at some of the nation's most prestigious news outlets.

And all of this came before Kristol even started his New York Times column.

Matt Yglesias, who once described Kristol's writing as "dangerous," noted today:

[Hiatt] doesn't say Kristol's column is good! Doesn't call it insightful, doesn't call it informative, doesn't call it well-written. He just says that Kristol is "plugged-in" and influential. Which no doubt he is. But as a consumer of media, I prefer to take in well-written informative commentary that's entertaining or enlightening. Being deliberately misled by influence-peddlers or wannabe influence-peddlers doesn't rank high on my priority list. But to Hiatt it's the very model of a modern major political pundit.

I suspect that Hiatt, like Andy Rosenthal before him, considers these complaints petty. He probably assumes that liberal bloggers are just whining about Kristol because he's a conservative. "Everyone knows" that Kristol is "very smart," so critics must be wild-eyed ideologues, not to be taken seriously.

The reality, though, is far more mundane. Kristol writes predictable twaddle, riddled with routine factual errors, misguided predictions, and radical, bellicose ideas. He's also well dressed, soft spoken, and a lively dinner companion, which gives him media credibility, influence, and career opportunities he hasn't earned.

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.

* Norm Coleman's lawsuit got off to a bad start yesterday in Minnesota: "It's not a good day when the court throws out your evidence and tells your legal team to submit it all over again."

* The race for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee is getting increasingly ugly. Some anonymous activists sent around a parodied USA Today cover, mocking the reactions if South Carolina GOP chair Katon Dawson wins the contest. One grammatically-challenged headline read, "RNC Chooses White's Only Chairman." Dawson rival Michael Steele, meanwhile, is under attack from the religious right.

* As expected, Florida state senator Dan Gelber (D) announced yesterday that he will run for the U.S. Senate in 2010. He's the second Democrat to enter the open-seat contest, following Rep. Kendrick Meek.

* Despite pressure from his Republican colleagues to retire, Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning (R) said yesterday that he intends to run for re-election. In the same conversation, Bunning had no idea that Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo (D) had already announced his campaign against him, saying, "I've been very busy."

* Former President Bill Clinton hosted a fundraiser last week for Terry McAuliffe's gubernatorial campaign in Virginia.

* Colorado Attorney General John Suthers (R) was widely expected to be a leading candidate for the Senate in 2010, but he announced yesterday that he's not running. Former Rep. Scott McInnis (R) will also skip the race, though he's likely to run for governor.

* Kirsten Gillibrand will be sworn in as New York's junior senator in about a half-hour. She has already begun campaigning for her 2010 race.

RECOMMENDED READING FOR OBAMA.... The Washington Monthly has a feature in our new issue with book recommendations for the new president, with suggestions from some of our favorite writers and thinkers. We're covering the recommendations in an ongoing series of posts, and here are the next two from our list.

Nathan Glazer:

In view of how well read the new president is, from the press reports on his reading on presidential transitions and current crises, it is not easy to think of what else one might suggest to him. But one book that his advisers may not have thought of is India After Gandhi, by Ramachandra Guha, an excellent history of India since independence. India will have to concern the president on occasion; China will undoubtedly concern him more often, but in view of its closed political system no equivalent book could be written on China. Unlike many current books on India, Guha's is scholarly, well written, and remarkably balanced in judging the enormous problems India faces -- its poverty, some long-sustained internal insurrections, ineffectiveness of government in many respects -- against its recent economic vibrancy and in particular its success in maintaining its democracy over these sixty years.

Jeff Greenfield:

Barack Obama is no doubt acutely conscious of the "blind into Baghdad" mentality that afflicted Bush and many of his advisers. He has also, it is safe to assume, already read The Best and the Brightest, by David Halberstam. So let me recommend Halberstam's last book, The Coldest Winter, for it is yet another reminder of the danger that every decisionmaker faces: the arrogant refusal to consider that his or her assumptions may be fatally flawed. The book is about Korea, where General Douglas MacArthur, from his perch in Japan, adamantly ignored warnings that his push north toward the Yalu River would bring the Chinese into the war. Indeed, when dead Chinese soldiers were found on the battlefield, MacArthur and his aides confidently asserted that they were North Koreans in Chinese army uniforms. The subsequent invasion by the Chinese cost thousands of lives and nearly led to the conquest of South Korea.

I'd also suggest he find a copy of an unjustly ignored novel about Washington: The Floating Island, by Garrett Epps. Published in 1985 and (apparently) set in the last years of the Carter administration, the novel gleefully skewers careerists, Establishment icons, self-proclaimed Washington power brokers, think tanks, and just about anything else the capital has to offer. Apart from providing any number of cautionary tales, the book is gut-bustingly funny -- and I suspect it won't be long before Obama finds he could use a good laugh.

MAYBE WE CAN MAKE AN EVEN BETTER BILL NOW.... I suppose President Obama deserves credit for trying. He made a good faith effort to earn support from conservative Republican House members for an economic stimulus package. Obama negotiated with them, compromised with them, and even included a whole lot of tax cuts to win them over.

But just as the president was poised to work with the House GOP even further, the caucus leader announces it's too late.

President Barack Obama is coming to the Capitol later today in a bid to curry favor with congressional Republicans. But it appears GOP leaders have already made up their minds to oppose his $825 billion stimulus plan.

House Republican Leader John A. Boehner and his No. 2, Whip Eric Cantor, told their rank-and-file members Tuesday morning during a closed-door meeting to oppose the bill when it comes to the floor Wednesday, according to an aide familiar with the discussion.

This should dampen the mood for an early afternoon meeting with the president, who is making the trek to hear Republicans' input on the legislation before Wednesday's vote.

This isn't a surprise. As discussions progressed, Boehner had a habit of "zeroing in like a laser on the least-defensible possible position," including opposition to state aid and Medicaid expansion. For that matter, Boehner apparently rejects the very idea of an economic stimulus, hoping a combination of tax cuts and time will get the economy moving again.

Given this, of course he opposes the proposed rescue package. It's antithetical to all of his beliefs about government and the economy -- beliefs that, incidentally, helped create the crisis in the first place. That Obama was willing to engage them directly and honestly was gracious, and evidence of a leader sincere about changing the way business is done, but his efforts were bound to be in vain.

Once again, the relationship between Lucy and Charlie Brown keeps coming to mind.

Nevertheless, I have one relevant question: since the House GOP isn't interested in passing the bill any more, can Democrats make it even better now? The White House has been willing to make all kinds of concessions to win over Republican support, but it's not enough. Since the GOP is going to vote "no" anyway, why not make the bill as effective and progressive as possible? If there's no point in the majority party offering unwelcome enticements to those who'll remain obstinate anyway, then pull the enticements and let the majority party do the right thing.

THIESSEN CAN'T HELP HIMSELF.... Marc Thiessen, up until recently George W. Bush's chief speechwriter, has been on a roll lately. It's almost as if he perceives an opening for a new generation of outrageous right-wing commentators, and wants to stake his claim to the leadership.

Last week, Thiessen argued that if Barack Obama changes Bush's national-security apparatus in anyway, he'll invite domestic terrorism and will shoulder the blame for American deaths. Also last week, Thiessen argued in a print column that Obama "is already proving to be the most dangerous man ever to occupy the Oval Office."

Yesterday, Thiessen kept the madness going, praising the torture of Abu Zubaydah and heralding those Bush administration officials who did the torturing.

"They're not torturers. They're heroes.... And the thought that we're sitting here discussing whether these people should be prosecuted or investigated is just outrageous. These people are American heroes who saved lives and stopped the next Sept. 11."

First, Zubaydah was never the terrorist mastermind the Bushies made him out to be, and torturing him led, predictably, to a lot of bogus intelligence. Second, the evidence supporting Thiessen's arguments about torture helping prevent "the next Sept. 11" is literally unbelievable. And third, calling those who commit acts of torture "heroes" is just twisted.

As for Marc Thiessen, I have to admit, I'd barely heard of the guy before he started railing against Obama. Being Bush's chief speechwriter in 2008 was a fairly low-profile gig. So, what's his background?

Apparently, he was a spokesperson for Jesse Helms from 1995 to 2001, where he, among other things, declared the International Criminal Court "the the most dangerous threat to sovereignty since the League of Nations."

As Steve M. noted, "[I]f there's an unneutered-pitbull quality to Thiessen's rhetoric, well, he apprenticed with a master."

CONYERS STILL HAS A FEW QUESTIONS FOR ROVE.... Well, this ought to be interesting.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) issued a new subpoena yesterday to former Bush White House aide Karl Rove, months after Rove deflected an earlier effort to compel his testimony about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and other political disputes that swirled around the Justice Department.

Conyers's committee subpoenaed Rove on May 22, calling on him to testify about his contacts with department officials in the Bush era. But Rove rebuffed the summons, saying he was barred from testifying because of executive privilege.

Yesterday's subpoena may test the limits of that power for the first time since George W. Bush left office, legal experts said. Some Democratic lawyers have suggested that an executive order issued by President Obama last week governing presidential records could make it easier for citizens and lawmakers to gather information about Bush administration controversies.

"Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it," Conyers said. "After two years of stonewalling, it's time for him to talk."

Rove relied on an executive-privilege claim to ignore the subpoena the last time -- the matter is still pending in the courts -- but Bush obviously isn't president anymore. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, argued that former presidents still retain executive privilege on matters relating to their time in office, but the current White House counsel may not agree. If so, Luskin assumes that "the matter will be resolved among the courts, the president and the former president."

We don't yet know how Obama's legal team will respond, but it's worth noting that the president has called the "absolute immunity" claims of the Bush administration "completely misguided."

Conyers has called for Rove's testimony on February 2, so this should move fairly quickly. Stay tuned.

HEARTS AND MINDS.... Yesterday, the president dispatched George Mitchell, Obama's newly named special envoy to the Middle East, to the region, only four days after taking the job. It coincided with the president's first post-inaugural media interview, which was held with al-Arabiya, the "Dubai-based satellite network that is one of the largest English-language TV outlets aimed at Arab audiences."

Obama's emphasis on improving the nation's standing in the Middle East is obvious. And while concrete policy steps -- beginning a withdrawal policy in Iraq, closing the detention facility at Guantanamo -- matter, Obama's interview with al-Arabiya will also help deliver a message likely to resonate.

In one of his first interviews since taking office, President Barack Obama struck a conciliatory tone toward the Islamic world, saying he wanted to persuade Muslims that "the Americans are not your enemy" and adding that "the moment is ripe for both sides" to negotiate in the Middle East.

His remarks, recorded in Washington on Monday night, signaled a shift -- in style and manner at least -- from the Bush administration, offering a dialogue with Iran and what he depicted as a new readiness to listen rather than dictate. [...]

Mr. Obama said he believed "the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away" and that he had told his envoy to "start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating."

"Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions," Mr. Obama said. "But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that, instead, it's time to return to the negotiating table."

Obama added that his message to the Muslim world is straightforward: "We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task'"

The president also went to considerable lengths to drew a distinction between "extremist organizations" committed to violence and "people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop."

He added that his personal background -- "I have Muslim members of my family; I have lived in Muslim countries" -- helps shape his perspective on the region.

And following up on recent reporting regarding al Qaeda's panicky rhetoric, Obama conceded that the terrorist leaders "seem nervous" in the wake of Bush's departure, which is, of course, true.

We'll see, in time, whether public diplomacy like this has a lasting effect, but it appears that Obama is getting off on the right foot, with exactly the right message.

AN ACTUAL CBO REPORT ON STIMULUS.... The report from the Congressional Budget Office, purportedly showing that the Democrats' stimulus proposal would be ineffective, did not actually exist. A more reliable document really was released by the CBO late yesterday, however, and the results are far more encouraging. Indeed, the CBO found that implementing the stimulus plan "would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years."

Kevin Drum took a closer look at the numbers and came away with a positive impression.

Specifically, they estimate that in the spending portion of the bill, $477 billion out of $604 billion would be disbursed either this fiscal year or in the next two fiscal years. That's 79% of the total.

I guess opinions can vary on this, but that strikes me as pretty good. What's more, most of the spending that comes in FY2012 or later is either for projects that simply take more than two years to complete (highways, school repairs) or infrastructure improvements that have long-term paybacks (renewable energy programs). There are a few other items in the out years that are more arguable, but they add up to a pretty small portion of the bill.

Overall, then, it looks like the spending part of the bill is maybe 90% clean as short-term stimulus. And on the supply side, nearly 100% of the tax cuts are allocated during the next 18 months. Given the realities of the appropriations process, I'm not sure the White House could have done much better than this.

While Kevin's analysis rings true, the number we're likely to hear most is "two-thirds" -- as in, "Approximately two-thirds of the spending and tax cuts contained in an economic stimulus package crafted by House Democrats would flow into the economy by the end of fiscal 2010."

As for the "slowest" parts of the package, the CBO analysis notes a variety of factors, including "seasonal" concerns -- school renovations are better over the summer, and highway construction in the north over the winter is inherently tricky.

What's more, I'm also reminded of something Paul Krugman noted over the weekend: those portions of the stimulus plan that'll kick in later might help, too, since the economy will need ongoing boosts. "[W]e're looking at a situation where even if some of the projects are continuing to add spending two years out, two-and-a half, even three years out, that's not such a bad thing," Krugman explained.

The original CBO "report" got all kinds of attention, not just from Republican officials and conservative activists: "ThinkProgress has found that since the AP's report last Tuesday, the CBO report has been cited at least 81 times on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, the Sunday shows and the network newscasts in order raise questions about Obama's recovery plan."

Will the actual report get this kind of attention?

LATHER, RINSE, REPEAT.... The right howls, the media blares, Democrats decide it's not worth the bother. As Atrios noted, it's as "predictable as the rising sun."

House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income from an $825 billion economic stimulus bill, officials said late Monday, following a personal appeal from President Barack Obama at a time the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation.

Several officials said a final decision was expected on Tuesday, coinciding with Obama's scheduled visit to the Capitol for separate meetings with House and Senate Republicans.

The provision has emerged as a point of contention among Republicans, who criticize it as an example of wasteful spending that would neither create jobs nor otherwise improve the economy.

Under the provision, states no longer would be required to obtain federal permission to offer family planning services -- including contraceptives -- under Medicaid, the health program for the low-income.

I can appreciate the political dynamic here. The Obama White House wants to get at least some bipartisan support for an economic stimulus package, and GOP lawmakers, Fox News, right-wing blogs and talk-radio, and even media figures like Chris Matthews and Jack Cafferty, are telling Americans the policy proposal is right out of the Little Red Book. It's become a distraction, so it's understandable that Democratic leaders prefer to just make the irritation go away.

But it's nevertheless frustrating. The public actually supports family-planning programs; states have been screwed over on this for years; it's an easy and straightforward approach to preventative, cost-saving healthcare; and as it turns out, it's actually a pretty good stimulus.

By scrapping a good idea, it only reinforces the notion that Republican hissy fits will continue to dictate governing decisions, even when -- especially when -- the minority party is wrong.

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

* Brutal news on the job market today, with six major corporations announcing combined layoffs of over 68,000 people.

* Two military helicopters crashed in Iraq today, killing four U.S. service members.

* Congress is poised to give the Federal Reserve significant new powers to regulate the financial system.

* Roadside bomb attacks in Afghanistan hit a record in 2008, and increased 45% over the year before. The result was 161 fatalities among coalition troops -- double 2007.

* This is Fox News at its most destructive and irresponsible.

* Drew Westen makes the case for a new narrative to replace the "government is the problem" meme. (thanks to R.K. for the heads-up)

* Obama still intends to ban weapons in space. (via Blue Girl)

* On Google Maps, the Vice President's home will no longer be blurred.

* Althouse has a habit of writing very silly things.

* Robert Reich doesn't like it when the usual right-wing blowhards lie about his beliefs.

* It's very cool that Lisa Heinzerling is joining the EPA to advise Lisa Jackson on climate change.

* I'm sorry to see Dr. Larry Altman retire.

* The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt believes Bill Kristol is a "very smart" person who "wrote a good column" for the New York Times. Maybe he's thinking of a different Bill Kristol.

* Putting Guantanamo Bay detainees in Alcatraz is a very bad idea.

* When Bill Bennett starts disagreeing with him publicly, you know Rush Limbaugh has gone completely over the edge.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

FREDO FEELS SECURE.... Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales knows soon-to-be-A.G. Eric Holder considers waterboarding torture, and that torture is illegal, and that Gonzales signed off on torture during his tenure.

But is he worried about being prosecuted? Not so much.

On the question of prosecuting officers who employed any of the "extreme tactics'' that the Bush administration has acknowledged, without admitting to any "torture'' of detainees: "I don't think that there's going to be a prosecution, quite frankly.'' Gonzales said. "Because again, these activities.... They were authorized, they were supported by legal opinions at the Department of Justice.''

When Holder is confirmed -- with a vote expected Wednesday -- he "will have to make a decision as to whether or not move forward with an investigation or a prosecution,'' Gonzales said. "But under those circumstances, I find it hard to believe...

Gonzales added that he believes Holder should not have made "a blanket pronouncement" that torture is torture, because it might undermine "morale" among some intelligence officials and lawyers. (The full context of Holder's answer was: "If you look at the history of the use of that technique, used by the Khmer Rouge, used in the Inquisition, used by the Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crimes. We prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, waterboarding is torture." Gonzales considers this a "blanket pronouncement" to be avoided.)

Gonzales added that he finds the very discussion "extremely discouraging," because intelligence officials who may be engaging in "controversial" interrogation techniques are now worried they might be investigated.

Sigh.

'DIRECT DIPLOMACY' WITH IRAN.... Ambassador Rice gets the diplomatic ball rolling.

President Barack Obama's administration will engage in "direct diplomacy" with Iran, the newly installed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Monday.

Not since before the 1979 Iranian revolution are U.S. officials believed to have conducted wide-ranging direct diplomacy with Iranian officials. But U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice warned that Iran must meet U.N. Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment before any talks on its nuclear program.

"The dialogue and diplomacy must go hand in hand with a very firm message from the United States and the international community that Iran needs to meet its obligations as defined by the Security Council. And its continuing refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase," she told reporters during a brief question-and-answer session.

Specifically, Rice said the U.S. remains "deeply concerned about the threat that Iran's nuclear program poses to the region, indeed to the United States and the entire international community." She added, "We look forward to engaging in vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy with Iran, as well as continued collaboration and partnership" with members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany.

Rice's comments caused a bit of a stir, but when asked about the remarks earlier, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Rice was merely restating Obama's policy on Iran.

On a related note, Laura Rozen has heard that, last week's envoy event notwithstanding, former Middle East peace negotiator Dennis Ross will, in fact, be a special U.S. envoy to Iran for the Obama administration.

Obama has made some comments about Iran's nuclear program that have raised questions about how much different his policy will be from Bush's. So far, though, there's ample evidence of a very significant shift.

CLYBURN HITTING THE BRAKES ON HEALTHCARE.... House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) disappointed many yesterday, when he said he prefers an incremental approach to healthcare reform. "I would much rather see it done that way, incrementally, than to go out and just bite something you can't chew," Clyburn said on C-SPAN. "We've been down that road. I still remember 1994."

The Hill said Clyburn's comments "could represent a major shift in the House Democrats' strategy of dealing with the uninsured." Perhaps not: Clyburn has preferred a take-it-slow, incrementalist approach for quite a while, and there's no reason to think he was necessarily speaking on behalf of the party's leadership yesterday.

Either way, Clyburn's take is discouraging for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, his skittishness based on a 15-year-old fight reflects a lack of imagination. As Digby explained very well, this isn't 1994: "The Republicans are on the decline not the ascent. Democrats were just given the task of saving the country. The health care crisis, which was already awful, is getting worse with every lay-off and every job lost -- and the state governments are going broke and can't take up the slack. How many uninsured to we have to have before they realize that this crisis can't just be kicked down the road until they get over their trauma of 1994?"

What's more, it's disappointing hearing Clyburn's take because it's the opposite of what we've heard from the administration. Obama and Daschle have suggested they're impatient about tackling the issue, and Rahm Emanuel recently said an incrementalist approach won't do, stressing that the new administration would "throw long and deep."

Igor Volsky said he can understand Clyburn's reluctance, but he should do it anyway.

Since we can't fix the economy without addressing skyrocketing health care costs or lower rising costs without bringing everyone into the system, a broad approach to health care reform is the only politically viable option.

To lower the health care costs of his constituents, Clyburn would have to bring everyone into the system. "In 2002, uninsured South Carolinians cost the system $1,936 per uninsured individual" and without extending coverage to the 16 percent of South Carolinians lacking health insurance or reversing South Carolina's dubious and costly distinction of falling into the top ten unhealthiest states for eleven years in a row, Clyburn is wasting his voters' money.

Pushing for big health reform is politically rewarding precisely because it will ultimately save the government and American taxpayers money and help restore the economy. In fact, rather than serving as a deterrent to comprehensive reform -- as Clyburn suggests -- the consequences of failing to achieve reform in 1994 are a stark warning against incrementalism, or worse, inaction.

Clyburn certainly understands and appreciates the facts, statistics, and economic arguments -- he just doesn't think that it's politically feasible. But given the intimate connection between the economy and health care costs and general popularity of taking a "bite" out of the health care crisis, comprehensive reform seems not only politically possible, but absolutely essential.

Here's hoping someone gave Clyburn a call today, explaining the need to get with the program.

WHY BOEHNER REJECTS STATE AID.... Congressional Republicans have reportedly "taken issue with the large chunk of funding in the stimulus package -- some $300 billion all told -- that will go to shore up the budgets of states." Matt Yglesias notes how ridiculous this is.

I'm pretty impressed with John Boehner's ability to zero in like a laser on the least-defensible possible position.... In the serious-people universe, [assisting with state budgets] is the least controversial form of federal outlay. The idea is merely to prevent overall public spending from dropping too precipitously at a time when state budget cuts would have a contractionary impact. [...]

One of the privileges of opposition, of course, is that you don't really need to take responsibility for the consequences of your views. So if Boehner wants to take this line, nothing will really stop him or pull him back to planet earth. But it should be seen for what it is.

Quite right. But how, exactly, did Republicans end up taking this position? I suspect a poll told them they could get away with it.

Gallup recently conducted a survey gauging support for various stimulus proposals. The single most popular idea was creating new jobs with "major new government spending on the nation's infrastructure," which found 78% support. The least popular idea was "providing federal money to state governments that are facing budget shortfalls," which generated 49% support.

Much of the public appears to be wrong on this, but Americans haven't heard much as of yet on why aid to states matters. Boehner & Co., however, don't really have an excuse.

It seems as if their goal is to find a politically palatable way to oppose an economic rescue plan in the midst of a deep recession. They are, in other words, looking for credible excuse to say, "No." If Gallup says the public is cold on state aid, then it offers the GOP cover to oppose the most "unpopular" part of the plan, whether it's a good idea or not.

STIMULUS AND CONTRACEPTIVES.... House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) appeared on "Meet the Press" yesterday, complaining about a proposed stimulus package. He noted, in particular, a proposal to spend "over $200 million for contraceptives." He asked, "How will this fix an ailing economy?"

Apparently, the contraceptives proposal has become quite an issue for conservatives. It was the lead story on Drudge this morning, far-right blogs are all worked up, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quizzed on the spending on ABC yesterday.

What's this all about? Are Democrats trying to spend "over $200 million" on condoms? What's the story?

As you might have guessed, it's not quite as scandalous as conservatives would have you believe.

[T]he family-planning program that Pelosi supports expanding in the stimulus bill was created in 1972 under the leadership of Republican president Richard Nixon.

What's being proposed is an expansion in the number of states that can use Medicaid money, with a federal match, to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies. Of the 26 states that already have Medicaid waivers for family planning, eight are led by Republican governors (AL, FL, MS, SC, CA, LA, MN and RI -- a ninth, MO, had a GOP governor until this past November). If this policy is truly a taxpayer gift to "the abortion industry," as John Boehner and House Republicans claim, where are the GOP governors promising to end the program in their states?

Additionally, the process of obtaining a waiver for Medicaid family-planning coverage is extremely cumbersome. A letter written by Wisconsin health regulators in 2007 noted that some states have had to wait for as long as two years before their request was approved. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that eliminating the waiver requirement would save states $400 million over 10 years.

It's likely that Boehner, Drudge, and others hope that they can simply say, "Democrats want to spend $200 million of your money on contraceptives" and the howls will be so loud, the money will be stripped from the spending bill. As is too often the case, they're assuming the public won't hear, or care about, the details.

NIMBY.... There was bound to be some pushback against Barack Obama's decision to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, but this isn't the one I was expecting.

Fox News personalities argued last week that the Obama would bring dangerous terrorists "to our soil, right here." Karl Rove argued over the weekend that Obama will change his mind about Gitmo because "there will be an uproar in the U.S." about detaining suspects on American soil. John McCain told Fox News yesterday, "I don't know of a state in America that wants them in their state. You think Yucca Mountain is a NIMBY problem? Wait till you see this one."

Elana Schor reports that the most likely facility is the military's maximum-security prison in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas -- which, by the way, is where Candidate McCain wanted to send the detainees when he endorsed closing Gitmo -- but that's facing resistance, too. Sen. Sam Brownback (R) and three House Republicans are pushing a measure that would prohibit the transfer of any suspects from Cuba to Kansas. (We're seeing a similar response from Republicans in South Carolina over the Charleston Naval Brig and Republicans in California over Camp Pendleton.)

I can appreciate the discomfort one might feel in the proximity of a psychotic religious fanatic, but as the Not-In-My-Backyard phenomenon goes, this is pretty silly.

As Glenn Greenwald explained the other day, there are already all kinds of suspected terrorists, including those associated with the 9/11 attacks, in federal detention right here on U.S. soil. As far as I can tell, no one much cares, and there have been no protests from conservative commentators, lawmakers, or activists about moving them out of the country.

I'm not even sure what the complaining is about, exactly. That the Gitmo detainees might break out of incarceration? If conservatives trust federal officials to administer a system of indefinite detention in Cuba, they should probably trust federal officials to keep the bad guys locked up effectively.

Some, meanwhile, have gone so far as to suggest that terrorists could be freed if their allies "crashed a plane into the prison to faciliate [sic] an escape."

Hilzoy's words of wisdom from the weekend deserve another look:

Curiously, no jihadists have flown planes into prisons to facilitate the escapes of any of these terrorists. Maybe they're waiting until we have been lulled into a false sense of security. Since the blind Sheikh has been in prison for over a decade, they are showing a lot of patience. Maybe, on the other hand, Jim Geraghty and the Repubicans in Congress just have hyperactive imaginations.

Moreover, it's not as though terrorists are the only dangerous people with associates who would be prepared to do a lot to spring them. Consider drug kingpins, for instance: they generally have lots of money and large organizations, and while I'm not sure they would fly planes into prisons (??), they could probably think of less lurid ways to spring people.

And yet the United States, under George W. Bush, actually sought to have these dangerous people extradited to the United States, exposing our citizens to danger! Not only that, we succeeded! For instance, Francisco Javier Arellano Felix, the head of the Tijuana cartel, is now locked up in San Diego. We are seeking the extradition of his brother Eduardo, and have several other high-ranking members the cartel in custody. OMG!! Americans are at risk!!! What shall we do???

I suggest chilling out. We are talking about maximum security prisons, which are designed to keep very dangerous people locked up. If our government decides that extra resources are needed to keep terrorists safely behind bars, it has very capable people who could be deployed for that purpose.

Good advice. As Atrios noted the other day, we're not talking about "actual supervillains with special powers."

MONDAY'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.

* A trial will kick off in St. Paul today, with a three-judge panel hearing Norm Coleman's (R) latest complaint challenging his defeat in Minnesota.

* A Quinnipiac poll in New York shows that most voters in the state aren't especially familiar with newly-appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D).

* Four years ago, then-state Sen. Daniel Mongiardo (D) nearly defeated U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning (R) in Kentucky. In 2010, now-Lt. Gov. Mongiardo wants a rematch, and announced his Senate campaign this morning.

* Former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe unveiled his first television ad this morning, as part of his gubernatorial campaign in Virginia. It uses the word "job" a lot.

* Club for Growth president Pat Toomey, who challenged Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) in a GOP primary four years ago, will not seek a re-match in 2010. That's no doubt good news for Specter, but that doesn't mean he won't face some other Republican opponent.

* There's already a big field of candidates hoping to fill the vacancy in Sen. Gillibrand's House seat. Republican officials expect it to be an easy pick-up.

* It's mostly behind the scenes, but some Republicans are already positioning themselves for the 2012 presidential race. The latest is former Idaho governor and senator Dirk Kempthorne, who has reportedly "begun to reach out to allies gauge their opinion about whether he should run for President in 2012."

RECOMMENDED READING FOR OBAMA.... The Washington Monthly has a feature in our new issue with book recommendations for the new president, with suggestions from some of our favorite writers and thinkers. We're covering the recommendations in an ongoing series of posts, and here are the next two from our list.

James Fallows:

We all know the areas in which Barack Obama's experience, instincts, and long-stated positions make him his own policy expert. Rule-of-law questions, plus management of racial frictions, are the two most obvious illustrations. I assume he is getting a crash education on economic and energy policy from a very strong team, and I bet he quickly shows a good natural feel for dealing with foreign leaders.

The place to worry is about defense policy. Obama said next to nothing about it during the campaign. Of course, he emphasized getting out of Iraq and focusing more on Afghanistan and about the limits of military-firepower answers to complex economic and ethnic questions. But about the cost and nature of America's defense establishment, the training and nature of the officer corps, the relative roles of the services, and a hundred similar issues Obama has been hazy at best. This is a problem not just because the issues are so important but also because Democratic leaders can so easily be mau-maued into thinking that they must be resolutely "pro-military" -- which in practice means never questioning budgets -- to hold off attacks from the right. Clearest recent case study: Hillary Clinton's eight-year role on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

What would make me feel best about Obama on this front? News that he had actually, himself, read America's Defense Meltdown, by an all-star array of truly expert authors. There is no better, terser, more comprehensive or authoritative introduction to an independent, realistic perspective on the Pentagon -- complete with the facts, details, and nuance to give Obama confidence in these views. Plus, it's free -- at this site.

Joel Garreau:

When you campaign on change we can believe in, and suddenly you're facing change we can't believe is happening, here are two books for you, Mr. President.

One is The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World, by Peter Schwartz. It's still the most accessible guide to thinking rationally, systematically, and strategically about futures you can't possibly predict. Scenario planning is the antidote to the kind of futures bravado that caused us to roll into Iraq thinking there was no other possibility but that they'd throw rose petals at our feet. As change accelerates, you've got a lot more strange stuff coming at you, Mr. President. This is the conceptual guide on how to prepare.

The other is Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. It's the greatest long-view provider -- ever -- of fresh reminders why you cared. Cared about these perverse, ornery, unpredictable, cussed people you chose to lead. It never lets you forget that in the face of unprecedented threats, the ragged human convoy of divergent perceptions, piqued honor, posturing, insecurity, and humor will wend its way to glory.

IT STILL DOESN'T EXIST.... In an apparent effort to appear even more foolish, the Wall Street Journal editorial board rails against a proposed economic stimulus package today, relying on support from the Congressional Budget Office.

The stimulus bill currently steaming through Congress looks like a legislative freight train, but given last week's analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, it is more accurate to think of it as a time machine. That may be the only way to explain how spending on public works in 2011 and beyond will help the economy today.

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, a mere $26 billion of the House stimulus bill's $355 billion in new spending would actually be spent in the current fiscal year, and just $110 billion would be spent by the end of 2010. This is highly embarrassing given that Congress's justification for passing this bill so urgently is to help the economy right now, if not sooner.

And the red Congressional faces must be very red indeed, because CBO's analysis has since vanished into thin air after having been posted early last week on the Appropriations Committee Web site.

The Washington Times' Donald Lambro does the same, pointing to the CBO report as proof that the stimulus plan won't improve the economy.

The problem, for those who were away from their computers over the weekend, is that the CBO report conservatives are relying on doesn't exist. As both The American Prospect's Tim Fernholz and the Huffington Post's Ryan Grim reported, the CBO "ran a small portion of an earlier version of the stimulus plan" to see how quickly the proposal's expenditures would be spent. It not only didn't include large chunks of the stimulus plan, it also didn't include more recent changes to the rescue package.

The WSJ editorial board describes the non-existent CBO report as "highly embarrassing" for Democrats. The irony is rich.

JOB SECURITY FOR THE PERPETUALLY WRONG.... We learned this morning that the New York Times is finally letting go of Bill Kristol, who wrote his final column for the paper today. What we didn't know is where Kristol is headed.

Keep his career trajectory in mind. Kristol, in 2007, wrote misguided, predictable, and dull columns for Time magazine. When Time fired him, the New York Times decided he'd be a great addition to its stable of columnists. Now, after a year of misguided, predictable, and dull columns, the New York Times has fired him, and ... wait for it ... the Washington Post is ready to pick him up.

By way of Ben Armbruster, we see that the Politico's Mike Allen reports:

Progressives will delight when they get to the italic note at the end of Bill Kristol's column in The Times today say, "This is William Kristol's last column." His one-year contract was up. Sources tell Playbook that he's now beginning a monthly column in THE WASHINGTON POST.

It's extraordinary to see the job security someone like Kristol enjoys, beyond his already-prominent roles running the Weekly Standard and serving as an analyst for Fox News.

In any other field, outside of conservative political commentary, Kristol's record would be nothing short of humiliating. He's been wrong, not only in his predictions -- you'll notice, for example, that John McCain was not inaugurated last week -- but in his analysis of most policy issues. And perhaps more importantly, as we discussed this morning, Kristol has a nasty habit of publishing columns with demonstrable, easy-to-notice factual errors, which the NYT had to run a series of corrections to address.

In what universe does the nation's second most prominent newspaper decide it wants to pay and publish the failed cast-off of its chief rival?

In most careers, falling up isn't this easy. If you keep getting fired for poor performance, it's usually difficult to find new companies willing to pay you to do the same job.

Kristol has obviously developed quite a racket. Nice work if you can get it.

Update: Kristol confirms to Michael Calderone that he will, in fact, be an "occasional contributor" to a Washington Post feature called,"Post Partisan."

THE REST OF THE STORY ON VOUCHERS.... The Washington Post editorial board, which has supported public funding of private school tuition for quite some time, has yet another item today urging Democratic lawmakers to invest federal funds in the D.C. voucher system.

The Post notes a survey that shows parents of students who receive vouchers are, among other things, pleased with "the freedom to choose where their children go to school."

We hope that, despite his stated reservations about vouchers, President Obama includes money in his upcoming budget to safeguard the interests of children in this important local program and to preserve an unusually rigorous research study. Mr. Obama and his education secretary, Arne Duncan, say they eschew ideology in favor of what serves the interests of children. Here's a chance to help 1,716 of them.

What the Post piece neglected to mention is that the D.C. voucher program that the editorial board is so fond of is a complete mess.

In October 2007 we learned that after Congress handed over tax dollars to unregulated private schools in D.C. without conditions, taxpayers ended up financing unaccredited schools, "unsuitable learning environments," schools with no operating permits, and schools where teachers didn't even have bachelor's degrees. Worse yet, a report from the Bush administration released in June 2008 found that students in D.C. who received vouchers didn't do any better academically, either.

Of course, it's not just Washington, D.C. As Greg Anrig recently explained in a terrific piece for the Washington Monthly, voucher "experiments" have failed to deliver the results proponents expected, and as a result, a lot of conservative activists are slowly but surely giving up on the idea altogether.

But not the conservatives on the Washington Post editorial board.

Post Script: As for the notion that parents of students with vouchers like "the freedom to choose where their children go to school," this may be true. Of course, these parents already have this "freedom," but can't afford to pay private school tuition.

I'm looking forward to Post editorials, though, in support of these parents having the "freedom" to choose federally-funded healthcare for their families, federally-funded housing for their families, federally-funded nutrition for their families, federally-funded transportation for their families, etc.

A STEP FORWARD ON EMISSIONS STANDARDS.... Hilzoy had a great item on this overnight, but I didn't want the news to get lost in the shuffle. It's a pretty big deal.

About a year ago, California and 13 other states petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency for a waiver to regulate greenhouse gas emissions more forcefully than the federal government. EPA scientists and policy experts agreed that the states qualified for the waivers, but at the 11th hour, then-EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, one of the Bush administration's more humiliating hacks, intervened, rejected guidance from his own staff, and denied the states' request.

There was some question as to whether the White House was involved with the EPA administration's decision to ignore the advice of the EPA. In response to questions, Johnson has stonewalled, delayed, and did everything possible to avoid cooperating with oversight, until the Bush gang ultimately claimed executive privilege.

Today, the Obama White House will do what Johnson and Bush declined to do: put the authority back in the hands of EPA experts and let states strictly regulate emissions.

President Obama will direct federal regulators on Monday to move swiftly on an application by California and 13 other states to set strict automobile emission and fuel efficiency standards, two administration officials said Sunday.

The directive makes good on an Obama campaign pledge and signifies a sharp reversal of Bush administration policy. Granting California and the other states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions would be one of the most emphatic actions Mr. Obama could take to quickly put his stamp on environmental policy.

Mr. Obama's presidential memorandum will order the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration's past rejection of the California application. While it stops short of flatly ordering the Bush decision reversed, the agency's regulators are now widely expected to do so after completing a formal review process.

What's more, the Washington Post reports that Obama, as part of today's emphasis on the environment and energy, will also "order the Transportation Department to issue guidelines that will ensure that the nation's auto fleet reaches an average fuel efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, if not earlier."

As Hilzoy noted, "It's a whole new world, and I like it."

BLAGOJEVICH HAS A WAY WITH ANALOGIES.... With his impeachment trial in the state Senate poised to begin, Illinois' Governor-for-now Rod Blagojevich (D) has launched something of a public-relations campaign, sitting down for chats with various news outlets. Unfortunately for Blago, the p.r. offensive is just offensive.

On Friday, Blagojevich said he believes his arrest is analogous to the attacks on Pearl Harbor. He also compared himself to a cowboy about to be lynched.

His choices for comparisons are getting worse.

Impeached Gov. Blagojevich, on the first leg of his media blitz timed to the start of his impeachment trial, in an NBC interview broadcast on The Today Show Sunday compared himself to human rights heros [sic] Nelson Mandela, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.

On the press offensive, Blagojevich has lined up national interviews -- NBC, ABC, "The View" to run as his impeachment trail [sic] starts Monday before the Illinois state senate in Springfield.

As Dec. 9 unfolded, Blagojevich told NBC, "I thought about Mandela, Dr. King and Gandhi and tried to put some perspective to all this and that is what I am doing now."

He didn't appear to be kidding.

Blagojevich could be in Springfield, Ill., to present a defense -- his lawyers have already quit -- but the governor is instead launching this media tour. In addition to NBC and ABC, Blagojevich will be on CNN's "Larry King Live" this evening.

Michael Calderone noted, "Blagojevich is skipping his impeachment trial on Monday, perhaps assuming he'll have better luck in the court of public opinion." Perhaps, but it's hard to imagine how this will help him improve his political and legal standing. For one thing, the public still hates him. For another, after hearing the governor compare himself to Mandela, King, and Gandhi, voters will probably hate him more, not less.

Post Script: Blagojevich reportedly told ABC's Diane Sawyer this morning that he considered Oprah Winfrey for the Senate vacancy, but he was worried it might "look like a gimmick." Imagine that.

KRISTOL LEAVES THE TIMES.... At the end of an otherwise uninteresting New York Times column from Bill Kristol, there are six heartening words:

This is William Kristol's last column.

There's been some question as to whether Kristol's one-year contract with the paper of record would get an extension, and today, we get our answer: he's done. Whether the Times showed him the door or Kristol quit is unclear, but the result is the same.

It's hard to overstate what an embarrassment this was from the start. Not only was Kristol's writing pedestrian and predictable, but he had an unfortunate habit of making obvious factual mistakes, which necessitated frequent corrections. Indeed, at last count, Kristol prompted four corrections in one year -- though, if you want to get picky about it, one of the four included two separate factual errors in the same column, which would bring the total to five.

And that's just counting the demonstrable errors of fact. Errors of judgment were found in practically every piece.

Back in May, Glenn Greenwald had an item on the "sloppy, error-plagued and incomparably hackish columns" Kristol has produced. Regrettably, the next seven months worth of content was no better.

For reasons that have never made sense, the Times' publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., decided in late 2007 that it was time to add another Republican columnist to the paper's op-ed page, and the decision early on was to find a "lightning-rod conservative." But Kristol didn't spend the year generating electricity, he spent a year embarrassing the nation's most prestigious news outlet, wasting space on the most valuable media real estate in the country. His columns combined the three worst qualities a columnist can have: Kristol's work was wrong, predictable, and boring.

A Times staffer said last year, "Having a robust conservative voice on the page is a good idea. But you want quality." Instead, the paper wanted Kristol. That is, it used to want Kristol.

And so, the search is on for a new Times columnist. No matter who the paper chooses, he or she is bound to be an improvement.

GO NUCLEAR?.... When it comes to the nation's energy future, it's understandable that nuclear power would, after a generation on the outs, get a second look. In light of the climate crisis, nuclear offers an alternative with very low carbon emissions. There were controversies over safety in years past, but industry engineers are confident that technology has improved greatly. Best of all, the industry says, design improvements have made nuclear power plants easier and cheaper to build. None other than Barack Obama promised to maintain an open mind on the issue during the Democratic primaries, despite opposition from his chief rivals.

Given all of this, you might think it's a good time to reconsider opposition to nuclear power. In the new issue of the Washington Monthly, editor Mariah Blake explains why that would be a mistake.

In the United States, there are thirty-five reactors on the drawing board, with licensing applications for twenty-six of them already under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) -- the first batch the agency has seen since 1978. These projects enjoy a broad public backing that would have been unthinkable a decade ago: a recent poll by Zogby Interactive found that two-thirds of all Americans support the construction of new reactors on U.S. soil. And this support cuts across political lines, with half of all Democrats favoring more nuclear power. Liberal opinion makers, such as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, have also endorsed the nuclear option. Wired magazine has repeatedly urged readers to "Go Nuclear." Even a few longtime foes of atomic energy, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, now argue it "has to be on the table." As for President Barack Obama, both he and his energy secretary, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu, have offered at least qualified support for expanding the use of nuclear power in the United States.

What's behind this dramatic reversal? The short answer is that climate change has shuffled priorities. Nuclear power may have some unsavory side effects, like radioactive waste and the risk of meltdowns. But no other energy source can deliver vast quantities of low- or zero-carbon energy at a price that rivals natural gas and coal, as the industry has promised the new breed of reactors will do. With this in mind, many people who once dismissed atomic power out of hand have come to view it as a vital, if imperfect, tool in the struggle to salvage our warming planet.

But as Finland's experience shows, the reality may be far messier than the industry lets on: a growing body of evidence suggests that new nuclear construction projects are prone to the same setbacks as those undertaken a generation ago, when lengthy delays and multibillion-dollar cost overruns were commonplace. This raises serious questions about the potential of nuclear power as a front-line solution in the battle against climate change.

The issue is guaranteed to be a major part of the energy-policy discussion in the coming years, making Blake's piece a must-read. Take a look.

MCCAIN AND THE STIMULUS.... The lead story on MSNBC's site right now reports, in a rather large, bold font: "McCain: Won't vote for stimulus as it stands."

Sen. John McCain says it will take some big changes before he would vote for the Obama administration's stimulus package.

The Arizona Republican, who calls himself a member of the loyal opposition, says he can't vote for the proposal as it is now written. For one, he doesn't think it would do enough to put people back to work.

The former GOP president nominee also says he will push to make permanent the Bush tax cuts, which helped high-earning people. Those cuts expire next year, and President Barack Obama has said he would not seek to renew them.

McCain spoke on "Fox News Sunday."

Now, I suppose McCain's intended vote is of some interest, in light of his recent run as the Republican presidential candidate. For that matter, Obama and his team have done some outreach to McCain of late, perhaps hoping to see some of the McCain circa Spring 2001 -- the persona that voted against the Bush tax cuts he now wants to make permanent.

But let's not put too much emphasis on McCain's perspective. The news, apparently, can by summarized this way: "Conservative Republican still embraces conservative Republican economic agenda." It's not exactly a stop-the-presses revelation. Of course McCain opposes an economic stimulus -- he thinks the economy is "fundamentally strong." He just spent six months telling 300 million people about his ideas on how to improve the economy, and investment in infrastructure, healthcare, schools, and energy is pretty much the opposite of McCain's worldview.

It would, in other words, be a far more significant story if McCain had said anything else this morning.

But with all due respect to the senator, he's one conservative voice in a 41-seat caucus. McCain won't sway any Democratic votes, and his influence in the Republican caucus is limited. Obama would no doubt like his vote on an economic rescue plan, but McCain's comments this morning don't really affect the landscape much.

Update: McCain, in the same interview, also apparently explained his opposition to a plan to expand internet access to rural communities. During his presidential bid, McCain held the opposite position.

COUNTRY FIRST.... About a week ago, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, now seeking the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, explained his opposition to an economic stimulus bill. "[I]t could create a major electoral advantage for Democrats at taxpayer expense," Blackwell said. "That would be unacceptable."

Rush Limbaugh is apparently thinking along the same lines. (via memeorandum)

Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat [sic] Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat [sic] rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward.... Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat [sic] Party....

All of this is reminiscent of the memo Bill Kristol wrote for congressional Republicans in 1993, when he insisted that the GOP had to block any efforts to reform healthcare, because if Clinton and Democrats were successful, it would "give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote." What helps Americans is nice, but the real concern is blocking any policies that they perceive might give Democrats an edge.

Remember that Republican slogan from not too long ago? "Country first"?

THIS EXPLAINS A LOT.... Hilzoy reported on this overnight, but I don't want the news to get lost in the shuffle. It's one of those breathtaking stories that is almost too painful to believe.

Upon announcing his plan to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Barack Obama also began a process that would review the case files for every detainee. The problem for the new administration, however, is that there are no files.

President Obama's plans to expeditiously determine the fates of about 245 terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and quickly close the military prison there were set back last week when incoming legal and national security officials -- barred until the inauguration from examining classified material on the detainees -- discovered that there were no comprehensive case files on many of them.

Instead, they found that information on individual prisoners is "scattered throughout the executive branch," a senior administration official said. The executive order Obama signed Thursday orders the prison closed within one year, and a Cabinet-level panel named to review each case separately will have to spend its initial weeks and perhaps months scouring the corners of the federal government in search of relevant material.

Several former Bush administration officials agreed that the files are incomplete and that no single government entity was charged with pulling together all the facts and the range of options for each prisoner. They said that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were reluctant to share information, and that the Bush administration's focus on detention and interrogation made preparation of viable prosecutions a far lower priority.

I mention this, in part to help resolve some lingering confusion. On the one hand, the Bush administration released some detainees who apparently turned out to be pretty dangerous. On the other, the Bush administration refused to release other detainees who weren't dangerous at all, and were actually U.S. allies.

How could this happen? In light of these revelations about the lack of files, it starts to make a lot more sense.

But to put this in an even larger context, consider just how big a mess Bush has left for Obama here. The previous administration a) tortured detainees, making it harder to prosecute dangerous terrorists; b) released bad guys while detaining good guys; and c) neglected to keep comprehensive files on possible terrorists who've been in U.S. custody for several years. As if the fiasco at Gitmo weren't hard enough to clean up.

I'm reminded of something John Cole said the other day: "The moral of this story is not the danger for Obama going forward with his Gitmo decommissioning, the moral is that when venal, shallow, small men are given unfettered power and authority, they do incompetent, stupid, and evil things."

A GROWING GAP.... Gallup has published some interesting data over the last few days, including Barack Obama's 68% approval rating during his first few days in office (only 12% disapprove). While some polling numbers, including CNN's, show Obama with even higher support, it's not a bad way to start a presidency. The last president to score this high, this early, was JFK 48 years ago.

But the numbers I found even more interesting were released Friday, measuring party identification. Based on all 2008 polling, 36% of Americans describe themselves as Democrats, while 28% identify as Republicans. The eight-point gap is "the largest for the Democratic Party since Gallup began regularly conducting its polls by telephone in 1988."

When the poll includes those who "lean" toward one party or the other, the gap is even larger: 52% back Democrats, 40% back Republicans. This is not only the third consecutive year in which Democrats held a majority, but it's also the "best showing for the Democrats -- in terms of both the percentage of Democratic supporters and their advantage over Republicans -- since Gallup began regularly tracking this measure of party support in 1991."

Obviously, the only appropriate conclusion one should draw from this is that the United States is a center-right nation, and Democrats have to govern in a more conservative fashion if they expect to stay in office.

AL QAEDA'S LOSING HAND.... Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism coordinator for the National Security Council, explained in October that the last thing al Qaeda would want is an Obama presidency, in large part because the terrorist network wouldn't want a U.S. president who enjoys respect and support on the world stage.

Three months later, Obama is the president, and as predicted, the terrorist network is feeling a little panicky.

Soon after the November election, al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader took stock of America's new president-elect and dismissed him with an insulting epithet. "A house Negro," Ayman al-Zawahiri said.

That was just a warm-up. In the weeks since, the terrorist group has unleashed a stream of verbal tirades against Barack Obama, each more venomous than the last. Obama has been called a "hypocrite," a "killer" of innocents, an "enemy of Muslims." He was even blamed for the Israeli military assault on Gaza, which began and ended before he took office.

"He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection," an al-Qaeda spokesman declared in a grainy Internet video this month.

The torrent of hateful words is part of what terrorism experts now believe is a deliberate, even desperate, propaganda campaign against a president who appears to have gotten under al-Qaeda's skin. The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group.

"They're highly uncertain about what they're getting in this new adversary," said Paul Pillar, a former CIA counterterrorism official. "For al-Qaeda, as a matter of image and tone, George W. Bush had been a near-perfect foil."

And now Obama's messing up their plans in a big way. Not only do polls show widespread support for the new U.S. president throughout the Muslim world, but Obama has taken additional steps in office that generate even more support, including beginning the process of closing the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and ending the war in Iraq.

The more Obama makes decisions that curry favor in the Middle East, the more al Qaeda feels desperate to shift public opinion. The Post noted that the "verbal attacks have become sharper, more frequent and more clearly aimed at Muslim audiences," as Obama moves away from Bush's policies.

Rita Katz, who created the Site Intelligence Group, a private company that monitors jihadist communications, said the terrorist's hysterical rants against the president show "just how much al-Qaeda is intimidated by Obama."

BOEHNER.... In the first weekly Republican radio address under the new administration, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) touted the GOP's vision for an economic recovery.

"Our plan is rooted in the philosophy that we cannot borrow and spend our way back to prosperity," Boehner stated.

The minority leader said the package authored by congressional Democrats was "chock-full of government programs and projects," noting a Congressional Budget Office report that projected less than half of the $355 billion that House Democrats would spend to create jobs through infrastructure programs and other efforts is likely to be used before the end of fiscal 2010.

Let's see, where to start. First, the CBO report Boehner is so fond of doesn't really exist. Second, Boehner has supported nothing but "borrow and spend" policies since the moment he arrived in Congress, which helps explain his votes in support of budgets that produced the largest deficits in American history.

Third, if the administration and the congressional majority listened to Boehner and relied on weak-stimulus tax cuts to improve the economy, isn't that necessarily a "borrow and spend" policy? And if tax cuts were the magic bullet, and Bush and Boehner cut taxes over the last eight years, shouldn't the economy be in great shape? (Indeed, it's this thinking that led the National Republican Congressional Committee to argue, as recently as yesterday, "Thanks to Republican economic policies, the U.S. economy is robust and job creation is strong.")

And fourth, of course the Democratic plan is "chock-full of government programs and projects." That's the point.

MATTHEWS ON PALIN BOOK.... Now that Sarah Palin is "just" the chief executive of a state, she'll apparently find the time to write a book about, well, it's not quite clear what she wants to write about. The governor has, however, retained high-powered Washington super-attorney Robert Barnett, who's negotiated some very lucrative book deals for some very high-profile clients, to help secure her a deal. Rumor has it Palin's looking for about $11 million.

Chris Matthews, meanwhile, has a few impertinent questions about the governor's skills.

MSNBC host Chris Matthews suggested Friday that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) may not have the reading or writing ability needed to complete the book she is reportedly shopping.

The Los Angeles Times reported Friday that Palin is seeking an $11 million advance for her memoir and has hired high-powered Washington attorney Robert Barnett to broker the deal.

Teasing a segment on the book during his show "Hardball," Matthews said: "If she can read, if she can write, she'll make some money."

Matthews repeated his suggestion that Palin could not write the book later in the show. "The question is who actually will write the Palin book," he said. "The only politician I know who can write is Barack Obama."

Putting Matthews' questions aside, I do think Palin's book -- unlike George W. Bush's or Karl Rove's -- would sell well. For many far-right activists, Palin is the future of the conservative movement, logic and reason notwithstanding. Plus, she wants to maintain a high profile in advance of 2012, and a book, whether she turns it over to a ghost-writer or not, would help.

That said, if Palin pursues this, I suspect Matthews' questions, while obviously impolite, will be fairly common.

THEIR HERO.... Most Republicans have spent quite a bit of time and effort keeping their distance from George W. Bush. It's the natural result of a president who left office as an unpopular failure.

But Amanda Terkel notes that this is not a universal sentiment within the party. Several far-right lawmakers took to the House floor this week, to praise and pay tribute to the 43rd president.

Note that these Republicans not only adore Bush, but Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) feels so strongly about his affection for the former president, that he literally chokes up talking about the "more hopeful" future Bush has left his children.

There's sycophancy, and then there's this kind of sycophancy.

For some reason, watching the clip, I kept thinking of a scene from "Anchorman" in which Champ tells Ron, "I need you. I'm a mess without you. I miss you so damn much. I miss being with you, I miss being near you. I miss your laugh. I miss your scent; I miss your musk."

As I recall, Brian Fantana responded, "Why don't you sit this next one out, stop talking for a while."

PEOPLE FOR REPUBLICANS TO IGNORE.... A week ago, Rush Limbaugh conceded on the air, "I hope Obama fails," adding, "Somebody's gotta say it." On Wednesday, Limbaugh added, "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president."

It's hard to say with certainty that the New York Post's reporting is reliable, but apparently, the president told congressional Republicans yesterday that they may not want to take marching orders from this loudmouth clown.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

I suspect the point wasn't to go after Limbaugh specifically, but rather to note that if the White House is going to have a productive, cooperative working relationship with congressional Republicans, it's better for everyone if GOP lawmakers don't rely on right-wing shock-jocks for wisdom and legislative strategies, especially those who root against America. Sounds like good advice.

And while we're at it, perhaps congressional Republicans can stop listening to Grover Norquist, too.

This week, Norquist praised the work of the House Republicans.

"We should not treat Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, the way that the Bush administration treated Iran-'You're a bad person and we don't want to talk to you,'" said Norquist. "We engage the Democrats by being cheerful and pleasant and open to conversation. They say they want 10 ideas? OK, here are 10 ideas. The next time they say they want 10 ideas, we say that they asked before, and, just for the record, they rejected our ideas. When you get to May, who's the obstructionist and who's the collaborator?"

Where do Republicans find these guys?

IT NEVER ENDS.... The National Review's Michael G. Franc's latest item begins with the headline: "Will Obama Revive the Fairness Doctrine?"

Sigh.

Apparently, during Eric Holder's confirmation hearing, both Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (remember, he's supposed to be one of the Republican caucus' more sensible members) and Jeff Sessions of Alabama peppered the Attorney General-designate on his position on the Fairness Doctrine. Holder conceded he didn't know much about the policy, saying he would need to "know more about it before I could intelligently respond to the question."

Later, Holder responded to Specter and Sessions in writing, explaining that if Congress acted on the Fairness Doctrine, he would review its legality and be "fair and impartial" about its application. In other words, Holder doesn't much care, and the issue isn't on his radar screen. Given that he'll be at the Justce Department, the issue isn't really up to him anyway.

The National Review's Franc, without noting for his readers that Obama has already said he opposes reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, believes Holder's "evasive responses" offer a "hint" that the new Obama administration may "re-open" the Fairness Doctrine issue. Franc concludes:

The bottom line is beware -- and stay tuned to your favorite talk radio host for further details!

It's like reading dispatches from a parallel universe.

For the record, TNR's Marin Cogan recently wrote a great piece, noting that she couldn't find anyone on the left who was serious about reinstating the policy. Cogan explained, "The prospect of being in the opposition often brings out the worst in conservatives -- paranoia and self-pity."

And as Matt Yglesias recent put it, "I've never heard of anything like the current conservative mania for blocking a particular legislative provision that nobody is trying to enact."

I suppose it's better to have far-right voices obsessing over a problem that doesn't exist -- as opposed to, say, bothering us with input on actual policy disputes -- but conservatives' obsession with this sure is tiresome.

(thanks to Ron Chusid for letting me know about Franc's item)