THE ROOT-FOR-FAILURE CAUCUS.... Ever since Rush Limbaugh argued that he hopes President Obama fails in office, there's been some interesting back and forth on whether conservatives should actively and publicly hope for the nation's decline.

It seems to have divided even the most radical of far-right Republicans. On the one hand, we have very conservative leaders like South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) and TV preacher Pat Robertson who reject such talk outright.

On the other, we have a small handful of figures willing to endorse the sentiment. Yesterday, it was former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who, when asked if he agreed with Limbaugh's remarks hoping for presidential failure, said, "Well, exactly right."

Today, ThinkProgress chatted with former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and radio host Mark Levin, who joined the caucus.

TP: What do you think about what Rush said about, I mean, do you hope, should we hope that President Obama fails?

LEVIN: Yes.

TP: Yes?

SANTORUM: If ... absolutely we hope that his policies fail.... I believe his policies will fail, I don't know, but I hope they fail.

It's possible that my memory is off, but I can't recall ever hearing so many prominent political figures hoping for American leaders' failure like this, especially not in the midst of a crisis.

That it's coming from ideologues who believe they have the edge on "patriotism" -- and insist that Bush's liberal critics were guilty of "treason" -- just makes this all the more bizarre.

About a half-century ago, actor John Wayne, who was very conservative, was asked for his thoughts after JFK defeated Richard Nixon in 1960. "I didn't vote for him," Wayne said, "but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

It's the kind of sentiment that seemed obvious up until about, say, a month ago.

MAYBE IT'S NOT SO 'WASTEFUL' AFTER ALL.... On Tuesday night, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) decried the economic stimulus package, insisting that it's "larded with wasteful spending." To bolster his case, the governor pointed to, among other things, "$8 billion for high-speed rail projects."

Some of Jindal's other examples ("something called volcano monitoring") have already been proven worthwhile, and in retrospect, the governor probably should have left out HSR, too.

Louisiana's transportation department plans to request federal dollars for a New Orleans to Baton Rouge passenger rail service from the same pot of railroad money in the president's economic stimulus package that Gov. Bobby Jindal criticized as unnecessary pork on national television Tuesday night.

The high-speed rail line, a topic of discussion for years, would require $110 million to upgrade existing freight lines and terminals to handle a passenger train operation, said Mark Lambert, spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.

Asked about the apparent contradiction, the governor's Chief of Staff complained about the Vegas-to-Anaheim HSR project that wasn't in the stimulus package, and "did not address the Louisiana proposal."

That Jindal speech is just the gift that keeps on giving.

OBAMA TO LOBBYISTS: BRING IT ON.... President Obama made a pitch for his budget proposal in his weekly address, and positioned himself nicely as "a threat to the status quo in Washington." The NYT described the president as casting himself as "a populist crusader willing to do battle with special interests to expand health care, curb pollution and improve education," and that sounds about right.

After touting the virtues of his plan -- on taxes, energy, healthcare, and education -- Obama acknowledged all of the many interests that aren't going to be pleased: "I know that the insurance industry won't like the idea that they'll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that's how we'll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that's how we'll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries."

And then the president's rhetoric took on a more confrontational tone: "...I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: So am I. The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don't. I work for the American people. I didn't come here to do the same thing we've been doing or to take small steps forward, I came to provide the sweeping change that this country demanded when it went to the polls in November."

Works for me.

The "so am I" rhetoric is less than subtle. There's going to be a fight over the direction of the country, and the president is signaling his intention to mix it up a bit. This is a different message than the one preceding the debate over the economic stimulus, and may reflect the White House's judgment that the administration was not as aggressive as it could (should?) have been in mounting a defense.

It also reinforces a subtle point from Obama's address to Congress this week, pre-emptively tackling the arguments likely to come from detractors. By characterizing his opponents -- not Republicans, but special interests -- as agents of the status quo, the president is laying the groundwork for the rest of the debate. When we hear conservative talking heads on the cable channels, we're supposed to see them as "the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business," while Obama and his allies are delivering on much-needed change.

The president seems to like his chances. Stay tuned.

BOEHNER RESENTS THE REPUBLICANS' 'TOUGH JOB'.... House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) chatted with a group of reporters this week, at a lunch hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. We learned a bit more than usual about Boehner's perspective on the political landscape.

The House Minority Leader, for example, feels a little left out of the legislative process, still believes it's a "center-right country," and didn't think Bobby Jindal's speech was all that bad.

But what was especially interesting was Boehner's complaint about the appeal -- or lack thereof -- of the Republican Party's message.

Democratic policies aren't better, they're just easier to market to the American people, House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said today.

"We have a tougher job than our friends across the aisle. They've been offering Americans a free lunch for the last 80 years, rather successfully," he told reporters at a lunch hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "Those of us that believe in a smaller, more accountable government, we have a tougher time making our principles relevant to the American people. But it's our challenge, and we've got to do it."

Someone's going to have to explain this one to me, because Boehner's comments appear to be backwards. Eric Kleefeld noted, for example, "Boehner voted in 2003 for the Medicare drug bill, a mega-expensive expansion of entitlement spending with no method laid out on how to pay for it."

Quite right. Isn't the notion of a "free lunch" the underlying message of the Republican Party for the last generation? The federal government can, we've been told, recklessly cut taxes, spend whatever it wants, rack up huge debts ("deficits don't matter"), put wars on the national charge card, and encourage policies that contribute to global warming. No consequences, no accountability, no questions asked.

This is especially true on the issue of taxes, since a few too many Republican policymakers strongly believe in the Tax Fairy -- the more the government cuts taxes, the more revenue the government collects. That's insane, of course, but it's also a rather obvious example of ... wait for it ... a "free lunch."

As A.L. explained, it's especially misguided for Boehner to make this argument now.

[A]s we're faced with the worst recession in 70 years -- and every reputable economist in the world is telling us to deficit spend in order to stave off disaster -- the Republican party is suddenly suggesting the Democrats are the party of free lunch. And they're doing so while still advocating for additional massive tax cuts.

There are all sorts of fair criticisms that can be leveled against the Democratic party, but the Democrats have at least attempted to grapple with the revenue side of the equation over the years. Even the classic Republican charge that Democrats are "tax and spend liberals" acknowledges this. If the Democrats were the party of free lunch, why on earth would they ever suggest raising taxes? So they can be mercilessly attacked by Republicans?

I suspect Boehner's comments were just a moment of self-pity. If Republicans are losing, it's not the result of failure, but rather, the inherent burdens of the GOP's message of frugality and budget discipline.

The only real surprise was that Boehner was able to say it with a straight face.

MADNESS ISN'T ENOUGH.... On Thursday, Mike Huckabee offered the CPAC faithful the kind of rhetoric they want to hear.

"The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics may be dead," said Huckabee, "but a Union of American Socialist Republics is being born." Democrats, according to Huckabee, were packing 40 years of pet projects like "health care rationing" into spending bills. "Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff."

The estimable Mark Kleiman, noting the bizarre remarks, said Huckabee may be "self-destructing" as a credible national figure.

Yes, yes, the CPAC crowd is the extreme of the extreme. But in the YouTube era you can't go around mouthing this stuff and be taken seriously as a candidate for President.

I'd really love to believe that, but I don't.

A prominent conservative Republican gives a public speech in front of a large audience. He compares the Obama administration to the USSR, lies about a few policy issues, throws around the word "socialist" a bunch of times, and then throws in a reference to Lenin and Stalin. This, by any sensible measure, is absurd. It's reasonable to think candidates for national office can't get away with such pathetic nonsense.

Indeed, I suspect that if a prominent Democratic office holder, in 2005, delivered a speech referring to George W. Bush's agenda as "fascism," comparing his administration to totalitarian regimes, and casually throwing in a reference to Hitler, that Democrat would have a very difficult time being taken seriously by the political establishment moving forward. Presidential ambitions would be largely out of the question.

But I find it very hard to believe Huckabee's future has been imperiled by simply saying crazy things. That's just not how modern conservative politics works. In Republican circles, there's no such thing as excessive rhetoric.

KEEP ON TALKING, RUSH.... When Americans United for Change and AFSCME unveiled its new television ad this week, the groups not only went after congressional Republicans as the "party of 'no,'" they also emphasized an even more potent message: the GOP is beholden to Rush Limbaugh.

As Greg Sargent reported yesterday, we can expect to hear a lot more of this.

Top Democratic operatives are planning a stepped up campaign to promote Rush Limbaugh as the public face of the GOP -- an effort that will include recruiting Dem governors to make this case on talk shows, getting elected officials to pen Op eds arguing it, and running more ads pushing it, a senior Democratic operative says.

Key leadership staff in the House and Senate, and in all the political committees, have been encouraged by senior Dem operatives to push this message wherever possible, the operative says.

Paul Begala told Greg, "I'm encouraging every Democrat, every progressive, to be pointing out this powerful but painful truth: The party of Lincoln is now the Party of Limbaugh," Begala continued. "We should make every Republican answer this: Why do they want our president to fail?"

It's a strategy with all kinds of appeal. Limbaugh is not exactly a respected public figure (drug-addled shock-jock who's actively rooting for America's decline), but Republicans continue to hold him in high regard. With that in mind, Democrats and Limbaugh, oddly enough, have the same goal: convince the general public that he's the ostensible head of the Republican Party.

It's ironic, in a way, that every time Limbaugh makes another disgusting comment -- which happens with some regularity -- Democrats grit their teeth and quietly thank the host for making their job easier.

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a major kerfuffle that broke out after Sen. Sam Brownback (R) of Kansas, who converted to Roman Catholicism while serving in Congress, questioned the religious commitment of prominent Catholic Democrats.

It started with a fundraising letter on the Freedom of Choice Act, printed on an official-looking letterhead that reads "United States Senator Sam Brownback (Republican-Kansas)," and featuring Brownback's signature.

"Real Catholics need a new voice -- not the likes of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi who have campaigned as Catholics while voting to undermine the values we hold most dear," Brownback wrote in a letter on behalf of Catholic Advocate, a project of the conservative Washington-based Morley Institute for Church and Culture.

"The same can be said for the five 'Catholic' senators sponsoring the Freedom of Choice Act, namely John Kerry (D-MA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Patty Murray (D-WA) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA)... You can't be both Catholic and Pro-Abortion!" [scare quotes and emphasis in the original]

For a prominent Catholic lawmaker to question his Catholic colleagues' faith, in writing, was understandably seen as both insulting and offensive. "This is an astonishing breach of the basic norms of civility long honored in the United States Senate," said Stephen Schneck, professor of political science and director of The Catholic University of America's Life Cycle Institute. "Regardless that FOCA is horrible and -- for me -- immoral legislation, an affront like this between senators is unfathomable."

Initially, Brownback's spokesperson claimed that the senator's office "had never seen, heard of, or approved" the letter. Then Brownback's office changed its story, saying that the letter had been approved by an unnamed, since-departed campaign aide. Then the story took another turn when the group that sent out the letter said the screed had been "sanctioned by Brownback."

The heat on Brownback is increasing, and I doubt we've heard the last of it.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* The Vatican's decision to elevate Timothy Dolan as New York's new Archbishop may have a much broader significance.

* The White House really shouldn't be in the business of "vetting" prayers before presidential events.

* It's not too late to book your trip on the Creation Studies Institute's "Ice Age Fossil Adventure."

NEWT GOES OFF-MESSAGE.... Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich received a hero's welcome at the Conservative Political Action Conference in D.C. yesterday, and proceeded to blast "the Bush-Obama big spending program."

It's a phrase Gingrich is clearly very fond of. Indeed, the ethically-challenged former Speaker seems really intent on connecting President Obama's economic policies to George W. Bush's. Two weeks ago, Gingrich had an op-ed in the Washington Times in which he used the phrase "Bush-Obama" four times in four paragraphs.

And while the phrase hasn't caught on as a conservative talking point, ol' Newt isn't giving up on his argument.

...Mr. Gingrich gave voice to the lingering ire many conservatives still harbor over the fiscal policies of the President George W. Bush, tracing the lineage of Mr. Obama's stimulus package and budget back to what he stated flatly were a string of "failed" spending and bailout plans hatched during the final months of the Bush administration.

"The great irony of where we are today is that we had a Bush-Obama big-spending program that was bipartisan in its nature," Mr. Gingrich said....

I understand the point he's trying to get across. Bush increased spending, Obama is increasing spending. Bush's policies were a disaster for the economy, so Obama's policies....

It has a certain child-like appeal, just so long as no one thinks about it too much.

But the reason this isn't a compelling argument -- aside from the fact that it has no relation to reality -- is that Gingrich's point undermines the other Republican talking points. The principal complaint from the right about Obama's spending plans is that they're "radical." The spending is "unprecedented." The agenda represents "socialism."

And despite all of this, Gingrich nevertheless argues that Obama's spending "is more of the Bush-Obama continuity and represents more of the same instead of 'change you can believe in.'"

This just doesn't add up. Either Obama's approach is a radical change or it's Bush's agenda warmed over. It can't be both.

BUNNING THREATENS TO BOLT.... Sen. Jim Bunning (R) of Kentucky hasn't been getting along with his party lately. Convinced that his erratic behavior, bizarre comments, poor fundraising, and weak poll numbers all but guarantee his defeat next year, the Republican Party has been pushing Bunning to retire, and quietly reaching out to other potential GOP candidates.

Bunning has responded with varying degrees of outrage. He's no longer talking to most of his Republican colleagues. He announced this week that he no longer trusts NSRC Chairman John Cornyn. On Tuesday, Bunning talked openly about suing the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

This, however, would represent a whole new level of spite.

Already in conflict with his party's leaders, Sen. Jim Bunning has reportedly said privately that if he is hindered in raising money for his re-election campaign he is ready with a response that would be politically devastating for Senate Republicans: his resignation.

The Kentucky Republican suggested that possible scenario at a campaign fundraiser for him on Capitol Hill earlier this week, according to three sources who asked not to be identified because of the politically sensitive nature of Bunning's remarks.

The implication, they said, was that Bunning would allow Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, to appoint his replacement -- a move that could give Democrats the 60 votes they need to block Republican filibusters in the Senate.

"I would get the last laugh. Don't forget Kentucky has a Democrat governor," one of the sources quoted Bunning as saying.

"The only logical extension of that comment is, '(Make me mad) … enough and I'll resign, and then you've got 60 Democrats,' " said another source who was present at the event.

The Courier-Journal found three sources who corroborated the story, and the Politico also confirmed Bunning's comments. (For what it's worth, yesterday, Bunning denied having made the remarks.)

In the big picture, it's in Bunning's interest for people to believe he really might resign if he deems the support he receives from the party insufficient. He's giving himself quite a bit of leverage -- give me what I want or I'll walk and give the Dems #60. It would destroy his career in Republican politics, but if he's retiring anyway, that may not matter.

It seems like a far-fetched scenario, but given what we've seen from Bunning in recent years, he may be just crazy enough to try it.

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

* Good: "The Obama administration has lost its argument that the state secrets privilege is a good enough reason to stop a lawsuit over the government's warrantless wiretapping program."

* This could have been worse: "The Treasury Department confirmed early Friday that taxpayers could take a 36 percent stake in Citigroup Inc. through a complex swap process designed to shore up the once-grand banking institution."

* California's unemployment rate has hit 10.1%. Ohio's is up to 8.8%.

* President Obama's policy in Iraq is generating positive reviews among Iraqis.

* The lobbying is bound to be intense in opposition, but the White House's budget "aims to foster generic competition for costly biotech drugs used to treat cancer and other intractable ailments."

* Several conservative senators, primarily in the South, are talking about turning down unemployment aid from the stimulus package. Some of the unemployed, oddly enough, aren't happy about it.

* It's a good thing Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) withdrew from cabinet consideration, or his latest scandal might be really damaging.

* This should be interesting: "The Senate Intelligence Committee is preparing to launch an investigation of the CIA's detention and interrogation programs under President George W. Bush, setting the stage for a sweeping examination of some of most secretive and controversial operations in recent agency history."

* Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) argued yesterday, "Every major tax cut we've had in history has created more revenue." It's really annoying how often Republicans repeat this transparent nonsense.

* The good news is, George Will has finally responded to the controversy surrounding his misguided column on global warming. The bad news is, the conservative columnist is still wrong.

* The conservative Washington Times has a headline this morning that reads, "Obama's budget to raise small-business taxes." That's wildly misleading.

* Wanted: Diversity on the WaPo op-ed page.

* Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have no interest in renewing the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004

* I'll never understand what Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose was thinking.

* And for the record, if I had a choice between hanging out with Paul Krugman and Robert Reich or with Rush Limbaugh, I wouldn't have to think twice.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

A FOOL AND HIS MONEY.... Jonah Goldberg explains his opposition to President Obama's economic agenda, and what he wants to do about it.

I just don't want to pay for it. It's not that I don't want government to do nice things for deserving people in certain circumstances. It's not necessarily that I'm hostile to this group of beneficiaries or that (though I am in fact hostile to some). It's that I think most of Obama's ideas will not work, will be a waste of money and will hurt the economy. And, flatly, I don't want to pay for it. I don't want to break the law. I don't want pull a Geithner or a Daschle or anything like that. But I don't want to pay for it. I will look for every means within the boundaries of the law to minimize what I pay in taxes and I make no apologies for that whatsoever.

Goldberg was a little vague as to what "it" is he doesn't like. Infrastructure investment? Student loans? Food stamps?

In any case, I found this interesting, in part because I know some friends who expressed a very similar sentiment a few years ago. It's not that they didn't want the government to have a military; it's that they thought Bush's policy in Iraq would not work, it would be a waste of money, and it would undermine U.S. national security interests. And, flatly, they didn't want to pay for it.

But they did anyway, because they're law-abiding citizens living in the United States. We're not given the option to pick and choose which programs get our tax dollars and which do not. We elect people who make these spending decisions on our behalf, and if we don't like those decisions, we vote for someone else.

Goldberg concludes, however, that he's looking for guidance about how to follow the law while also denying the government funding. The available options are limited, but off the top of my head, and motivated solely by my desire to help Jonah Goldberg, I can think of two alternatives.

First, most of the money Goldberg pays to the government comes by way of income taxes. As such, if he wants to undermine the government's economic policies, he'll need to make less money. In fact, I suspect Goldberg is compensated fairly well, so he'll have to cut back a lot. By writing much less, he'll pay the government much less, and in turn, he'll have far less to do with whatever "it" is he doesn't want the Obama administration to do.

Second, he can leave the country. If an American citizen is really offended by the decisions of the U.S. government, and his or her preferred candidates keep losing elections, he or she can withhold financial support by going to some other country, whose economic policies they find more appealing.

Beyond those options, I'm afraid Goldberg's out of luck. Am I missing any alternatives?

Update: To clarify a good point Atrios raised, when I said Jonah "can leave the country," I should have said, he can "become a citizen of some other country." It's not enough to just move, because Americans working outside the country are still taxed. Goldberg would have to give up his citizenship altogether and find some low-tax, small-government country. I hear New Zealand is a favorite of the tort-reform crowd.

STUDENT-LOAN SILLINESS.... This is one of those strange stories in which Democrats want to spend less money and make a federal system more efficient, and conservatives are livid.

The situation is pretty straightforward. When Clinton was elected, the student-loan system was burdened by a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. Higher-ed students would get a loan from a private lender, but it was effectively a no-risk system -- the federal government would guarantee the loan in the event of default. The industry was getting government subsidies to provide a service the government could perform for less. Clinton wanted to streamline the process and make it cost less -- the government would make the loan, cut out the middleman, and save billions.

Conservatives and loan industry lobbyists went nuts, forcing Clinton to backtrack. The eventual compromise led to two types of student loans -- direct loans and guaranteed loans. Colleges were allowed to choose the system they preferred. (They preferred the direct loans until lenders started bribing college-loan administrators.)

Sixteen years later, the Obama administration wants to save $4 billion a year, end subsidies to lenders, and make the process more efficient. The White House and Department of Education have apparently come to the conclusion that there's no point in laundering loans through lenders, who make a tidy profit, for no reason.

And once again, conservatives are livid. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.) railed against a "government takeover of the private-sector-based student loan program."

Matt Yglesias' response was spot on:

The government is not, however, "taking over" anything. The government already completely controls the industry since its existence is predicated on the existence of federal subsidies. Obama is simply proposing to cut out the middle man and save some money. [...]

The interesting thing here is not just the particulars of the policy, but the bizarre view of the role of government that Howard is espousing. Rather than a debate between progressives who want the government to provide a public service and conservatives who want the service to exist just insofar as it can be supported by the private market, we have a debate where both sides agree that the service ought to exist but the right thinks it's important that it be done in a less efficient more costly manner because doing it that way generates profits for people who in turn give them money in some kind of nutty sense is supposed to preserve the integrity of the private sector.

Republican lawmakers love cutting spending, improving efficiency, and streamlining government programs. Except when they don't.

ABOUT THAT BOAT STORY (PART II).... On Tuesday night, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) told a national audience an interesting anecdote from 2005. Jindal said that "during Katrina," he visited with a New Orleans sheriff, who was yelling into his phone. The sheriff, Jindal said, had organized volunteers in boats to rescue people from rooftops. "Some bureaucrat" forbade it, "unless they had proof of insurance and registration."

Jindal, the story went, defended the sheriff's position, and the sheriff "ignored the bureaucrats and started rescuing people."

Zachary Roth did some digging and found that some of the story didn't quite add up. Jindal couldn't, for example, have seen the sheriff arguing during the crisis, since Jindal wasn't in New Orleans while people were stranded on roofs.

Ben Smith talked to the governor's spokesperson, Melissa Sellers, today, and she clarified some of the details. For example, when Jindal told the nation that he was in the sheriff's office "during Katrina," he didn't mean "during Katrina." Days later, well after the incident with the boats, Jindal visited with the sheriff.

When Jindal said he'd "never seen [the sheriff] so angry" as he "was yelling into the phone" about rescuing people, that wasn't exactly right, either. Jindal heard about the story after the fact.

Zachary Roth, responding to the new information, added:

This is no minor difference. Jindal's presence in Lee's office during the crisis itself was a key element of the story's intended appeal, putting him at the center of the action during the maelstrom. Just as important, Jindal implied that his support for the sheriff helped ensure the rescue went ahead. But it turns out Jindal wasn't there at the key moment, and played no role in making the rescue happen. [...]

[T]he key elements of Jindal's story were that he was in Lee's office during the crisis itself, and that his support for the sheriff helped ensure the rescue went ahead. Neither of those things was true, it now seems.

There was, it seems, an honest way to tell the story. If Jindal wanted to complain, for whatever reason, about the perils of red tape, he could have talked about the New Orleans sheriff who was forced to deal with a burdensome bureaucracy during a crisis. But the governor apparently wanted to add some "flair" to the anecdote.

Ed Kilgore added, "I have no idea how somebody as smart and experienced as Bobby Jindal would let these lines get into a featured place in his first nationally televised appearance, before a vast audience pre-assembled by Barack Obama. But it's not only a gaffe of a high order; it also sears into the popular and media memory Jindal's blunder in bringing up Katrina in the first place. He's digging himself quite a hole here."

Post Script: It's also worth remembering that if the larger story is true -- "some bureaucrat" really did raise questions that could have interfered with rescue efforts -- it's a reminder of the inefficiencies of Bush's FEMA operation, not evidence of the inherent shortcomings of the federal government.

ENDING THE WAR IN IRAQ.... It's going to take some time, but President Obama is bringing the war in Iraq to an end.

In his remarks at Camp Lejeune, N.C., Mr. Obama said, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

"As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security of our troops and civilians in Iraq," he said. "We will proceed carefully, and I will consult closely with my military commanders on the ground and with the Iraqi government. There will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments. But our enemies should be left with no doubt: this plan gives our military the forces and the flexibility they need to support our Iraqi partners, and to succeed."

He added: "Under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned."

After August 2010, a residual force (35,000 to 50,000 troops) -- the administration refers to them as a "transition force" -- would remain in Iraq "to advise and train Iraqi security forces, conduct discrete counterterrorism missions and protect American civilian and military personnel working in the country." The number of U.S. troops in Iraq would then fall to zero by the end of 2011.

As we discussed the other day, military commanders and national security advisers differed on strategies, and responded to the president's request with a series of alternatives. The 16-month withdrawal process was weighed against a 23-month timeline. As Obama is often inclined to do, he reportedly chose a 19-month strategy as a compromise. The result is a withdrawal timeline that reportedly satisfies the concerns "of all of Mr. Obama's national security team," including the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, and Gens. David Petraeus and Ray Odierno.

What's more, after years of passionate opposition to any kind of withdrawal timeline, Republican lawmakers appear to support the Obama policy, which the president presented to lawmakers at a White House meeting last night. John McCain, for example, called the president's plan "reasonable" (though he credited George W. Bush for making it possible). John Boehner also extended his tacit support.

And with that, as Spencer Ackerman explained, "The Iraq debate is over."

Well, at least the debate as we've seen it in the halls of Congress in recent years. Several Democratic leaders have voiced strong concerns about the size of the "transition force." What's more, for all of the success in reducing violence in Iraq, long-term political progress remains elusive, and will have to be a high priority for the administration.

Still, Obama has outlined the beginning of the end. It's about time.

DOBSON RESIGNS.... One of the religious right movement's most powerful and prominent heavyweights is exiting stage right.

The Associated Press has learned that James Dobson has resigned as chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family.

Jim Daly, president and chief executive officer of the Colorado Springs, Colo.-based ministry, said Friday that Dobson will continue to host the organization's flagship radio program and speak out on moral issues.

The departure of the 72-year-old Dobson as board chairman is part of a succession plan. He founded the group in 1977.

Dobson has had some health problems in recent years, so it was only a matter of time before he transitioned from chairman to retirement. He'd already given up his CEO position several years ago.

Dobson's far-right legacy is, of course, hard to ignore. While some televangelists like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell became prominent partisans, Dobson was always more comfortable in the role of radical ideologue. Robertson wanted a seat at the table; Dobson wanted to chair the meeting and bark orders to everyone at the table.

Few modern figures on the political scene hate quite as many people, with quite as much intensity, as James Dobson. Gays, minority faiths, the First Amendment, Girl Scouts, SpongeBob Squarepants ... if you don't think, act, or believe as Dobson does, you're an enemy. (One of my personal favorites is when Dobson insisted that gay marriage "will destroy the Earth." He wasn't kidding.)

Dobson's departure from the Focus on the Family empire he built reinforces the fact that the old guard in the religious right is in need of successors. The fight to fill the vacuum will be interesting to watch.

As for Dobson, his contributions to the discourse and political world have been nothing short of toxic. He's been a force for division and animosity, cloaked in vaguely theocratic terms.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Jim.

IS THIS 'BEYOND CUTTING-EDGE'?.... Following up on Hilzoy's item from earlier, I want to offer the Republican Party some simple and friendly advice: stop trying so hard to be cool. It's backfiring.

The catalyst for all of this is Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) telling RNC Chairman Michael Steele last night, "Michael Steele! You be da man! You be da man."

Of course, this followed Steele's speech to the CPAC banquet, during which he told the far-right crowd:

"What a house tonight. Are there any conservatives in the house tonight?"

"Tonight we tell the American people: We know, in the past, that we did wrong. My bad."

"Young people in the house stand up! Young people in the house stand up!"

This comes a day after Steele told ABC News that he sends "some slum love out to my buddy, Gov. Bobby Jindal." Steele added that Jindal is "doing a friggin' awesome job in his state."

We've heard about "bling, bling." We've been promised a Republican Party that's "off the hook." We've been told the GOP will mount a comeback "with the Twittering." We've seen candidates for the RNC chairmanship argue over who has more Facebook friends. The Republican Party, rumor has it, is going to go "beyond cutting edge."

Enough. This is embarrassing. These guys are making The Daily Show's "Reagraham Lincool" skit look like it was sincere.

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.

* Americans United for Change and AFSCME have a good new television ad out today, hitting congressional Republicans as the "party of 'no'" and beholden to Rush Limbaugh.

* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he's "pretty confident" Al Franken will soon be a senator, and may seat the Minnesota Democrat as soon as early April.

* Speaking of Reid, his re-election prospects in Nevada got a boost yesterday when Sid Rogich, a leading Republican fundraiser in the state, said he's going to support Reid in 2010. Republicans have not yet recruited a top-tier candidate for the race.

* Sen. Robert Bennett (R) appears to be well on his way to winning re-election in Utah next year.

* As far as former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) is concerned, Bobby Jindal's national address this week dooms his presidential aspirations.

* And rumor has it that CNN will release its first 2012 poll today, measuring who Republicans prefer as their next presidential nominee. It's obviously ridiculously early, but in case you're wondering, the poll shows Sarah Palin out in front, with Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney close behind.

THE LONG-AWAITED INTRA-PARTY FRICTION?.... After the 2008 elections, there were some expectations, here and elsewhere, that Republican infighting would be relatively intense. When a party fails that spectacularly, at so many levels, finger-pointing and a fierce fight to fill a leadership vacuum is almost inevitable.

That never came to pass, at least not in earnest. GOP lawmakers kept most of their leadership in place in both chambers; there was very little blame directed at John McCain; and while there was some squabbling in the race to be the next RNC chairman, all of the candidates were effectively offering the same thing.

Just over the last week or so, the fissures have been slightly more evident. Matt Yglesias flagged these comments from Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, a conservative Republican from a conservative Republican state.

Q: In December you talked about people 40 and under having a very different view on the environment. Is there a similar generational gap on gay rights?

A: You hit on the two issues that I think carry more of a generational component than anything else. And I would liken it a bit to the transformation of the Tory Party in the UK.... They went two or three election cycles without recognizing the issues that the younger citizens in the UK really felt strongly about. They were a very narrow party of angry people. And they started branching out through, maybe, taking a second look at the issues of the day, much like we're going to have to do for the Republican Party, to reconnect with the youth, to reconnect with people of color, to reconnect with different geographies that we have lost. [emphasis added]

Huntsman made similar comments to the Washington Times this week.

Now, I've seen quite a few descriptions of the Republican Party of late, but "a very narrow party of angry people" is one of the more apt. Matt also noted that Huntsman's contingent also probably includes Charlie Crist and David Brooks, making up a reformist branch looking for a bigger, more inclusive party.

What's striking, though, is just how small the contingent is. Just a couple of weeks ago, 95% of the Republicans in Congress voted for a stimulus package that didn't include any stimulus. Rush Limbaugh said no one should criticize far-right Republican Bobby Jindal's national address, not because it was good, but because he's a far-right Republican. RNC Chairman Michael Steele is openly discussing the possibility of withholding support from Republican lawmakers who stray from the conservative line. A GOP leader in the House is openly discussing emulating the Taliban, and no one in the party denounced the comments. It's the Palin-Pence-Plumber Party.

Huntsman's perspective stands out in large part because most of the party isn't even willing to consider the possibility of veering from its current course.

If there's a Republican "civil war" for the party's future, Huntsman/Crist/Brooks doesn't stand a chance.

FALLING OFF A CLIFF.... About a month ago, initial estimates showed that the U.S. economy shrank by 3.8% in the fourth quarter of 2008. One analyst, at the time, described it as an economic "train wreck."

If 3.8% was a train wreck, we're going to need a whole new list of adjectives to describe the new numbers.

The fourth-quarter estimate was revised this morning, and as it turns out, the economy shrank by 6.2%. This graph, by way of the Washington Post, helps drive the point home nicely.

It was the worst economic showing in a quarter-century.

There was, alas, no silver lining. The Post reported, "Nearly every segment of the economy contracted sharply during the fourth quarter, the data show. Consumer spending fell 4.3 percent, compared with 3.8 percent in the third quarter. Investment in office buildings, shopping centers and other nonresidential structures sank 5.9 percent, compared with an increase of 9.7 percent in the previous quarter. Real exports of goods and services plummeted 23.6 percent, compared with an increase of 3 percent in the third quarter. As tax revenue plunged, state and local government spending also fell 1.4 percent, after rising 1.3 percent in the period from July through October. For all of 2008, the economy grew 1.1 percent, in contrast to an increase of 2 percent in 2007."

Dean Baker added, "I've been pretty pessimistic all along, but [the numbers] came in worse than I expected and that's pretty bad. You worry this is just a free fall."

I have a hunch a spending freeze and a capital gains tax cut probably won't help.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE PORK PUSHBACK.... For GOP lawmakers anxious to push back against the Obama administration's agenda, the answer isn't to engage in a debate over the role of government. Rather, the Republicans have decided the way to win the broader policy debate is to find individual spending proposals that sound funny.

The strategy hasn't been especially effective. The money for marsh-mouse preservation turned out to be a lie. The money linking Vegas to Disneyland by way of high-speed rail was also non-existent. The volcano-monitoring program turned out to be a pretty good idea.

But now they've got a new one. Republicans, Fox News, the New York Post, and Drudge have found a $200,000 provision in the omnibus spending package for "tattoo removal." How can anyone defend that?

It's actually pretty easy to defend. Greg Sargent looked into it.

[A] little reporting reveals that that this "tattoo removal" program is an anti-crime program in the San Fernando Valley that re-integrates reformed gang members and makes it easier for them to find jobs. Two Los Angeles law enforcement officials I just spoke to -- one who identified himself as a "conservative Republican" -- swore by the program for reducing crime and saving lives.

The chief of San Fernando Police Department told Greg that the program is "important" and "reduces attacks." A local probation officer added, "This program is one of the best life-saving and life-changing programs out here. I am about as right wing a conservative as you would ever find."

In other words, it's another example of the sad spectacle of foolish Republican talking points.

Looking at the big picture, it's amazing the right would choose to be this foolish, on purpose. Conservative David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, recently explained the seriousness and scope of the current crisis, and the fundamental shift the Obama administration is pursuing. He added that Republican obsession over trivial expenditures makes the party look ridiculous: "Could we possibly act more inadequate to the challenge? More futile? More brain dead?"

Apparently not.

A DETOUR ON THE COMEBACK TRAIL.... Yesterday, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, right-wing activist Cliff Kincaid suggested that "President Obama is a communist, then suggested Obama was not born in the United States -- to which the crowd cheered wildly."

It's a reminder that conservatives, anxious to reclaim their forgotten glory, haven't quite adjusted to the current political landscape.

I'm not at CPAC this year, but I've been fascinated by the reports from the convention. It's not just the breathtaking right-wing worldview -- though the ugliness and hatred is interesting -- it's also the fact that a lot of conservatives just aren't ready to face a new day. They liked the old day just fine, thank you very much, are content to stay there, even as the country moves forward.

What was the message on CPAC's first day? Government is still the enemy; Iran still wants to kill us; it's still a conservative country; tax cuts will still solve every problem; Democrats are still radicals; the media is still victimizing the right; and Republicans can still win if they shift from being a conservative party to an extremely conservative party.

Attendees could attend a panel discussion on, "Al Franken and Acorn: How Liberals are Destroying the American Election System," and listen to Samuel Wurzelbacher explain why reparations for African Americans are a bad idea: "[Y]ou can't whine and cry about it these days. I mean, Jews were slaves, but they're not asking for compensation from Egypt."

Jonathan Stein reported:

[Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)] ended by saying, "With CPAC's leadership, we can revitalize this movement." And that's the problem. This year's CPAC is supposed to begin conservatism's comeback. But can rebirth be achieved when the ideas being spouted by Bolton, Ryan, and others are the same as the ones pushed for the last eight years?

Probably not. All the talk last year about "change" has missed this crowd altogether. They don't need change, they demand more of the same (only slightly further to the right, please).

They've stuck their fingers in their ears, and their heads in the sand. For these far-right activists, this isn't a time for introspection and reevaluation; it's time to pretend 2008 and 2009 are mere figments of the reality-based community's imagination.

NYUK, NYUK, NUKE.... What is it about conservatives and their attitudes about attacks on U.S. cities?

A few years ago, TV preacher Pat Robertson said he welcomed a nuclear attack on the State Department, telling a national television audience, "Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up." A couple of years later, Bill O'Reilly welcomed a terrorist attack on San Francisco. The Fox News personality told al Qaeda, "You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

And yesterday, the Bush administration's former U.N. ambassador, John Bolton, generated wild applause joking about a nuclear attack on Chicago.

"The fact is on foreign policy I don't think President Obama thinks it's a priority," Bolton said. "He said during the campaign he thought Iran was a 'tiny' threat. Tiny, tiny depending on how many nuclear weapons they are ultimately able to deliver on target. It's, uh, it's tiny compared to the Soviet Union, but is the loss of one American city -- pick one at random, Chicago -- is that a tiny threat?"

Jonathan Stein noted, "Bolton wasn't the only one who thought this was funny. The room erupted in laughter and applause. Was this conservative catharsis, with rightwingers delightfully imagining the destruction of a city that represents Obama? Or perhaps they were venting vengeance with their laughter."

Either way, it's evidence of a twisted ideology. I find it hard to believe Bolton sincerely wants to see Chicago hit by a nuclear strike, but if the right would stop welcoming cataclysmic attacks on Americans, I'd feel a little better about their seemingly sick psyches. (I also shudder to think what the reaction would be if, say, a prominent official from a Democratic administration appeared at the Take Back America conference and joked about a nuclear attack on an American city.)

Post Script: By the way, Bolton took Obama's "tiny" quote out of context. He's not only joking about domestic terrorism and the death of millions; he's lying about it, too.

YOU SAY YOU WANT A REVOLUTION.... It's probably fair to say that there's been some concern about whether President Obama would be as "audacious" as Candidate Obama. He'd talk about bold and systemic change, but would he be limited by timidity? Would the president prefer slower, incremental change?

The answer has become overwhelmingly clear over the last few days.

We got a very good hint on Tuesday night about where this White House was headed, with an ambitious speech to Congress. But the point was driven home yesterday, with the release of the administration's budget outline, which presents a sea change in the way the federal government would operate in the future.

Looking for change you can believe in? I think we've found it.

The NYT explained that Obama's proposal is "nothing less than an attempt to end a three-decade era of economic policy dominated by the ideas of Ronald Reagan and his supporters." The budget is "a bold, even radical departure from recent history," which would "lay the groundwork for sweeping changes in health care and education," and "reverse the rapid increase in economic inequality over the last 30 years."

The LAT reported, "Not since Lyndon B. Johnson and Franklin D. Roosevelt has a president moved to expand the role of government so much on so many fronts -- and with such a demanding sense of urgency." Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, "It changes the whole paradigm." USA Today described the budget as "unprecedented in size, breathtaking in scope and sure to have a major impact on millions of Americans."

Paul Krugman, who's been less than enthused by the president's vision of late, seems to be thrilled, saying Obama's plan "looks very, very good."

Elections have consequences. President Obama's new budget represents a huge break, not just with the policies of the past eight years, but with policy trends over the past 30 years. If he can get anything like the plan he announced on Thursday through Congress, he will set America on a fundamentally new course.

The budget will, among other things, come as a huge relief to Democrats who were starting to feel a bit of postpartisan depression. The stimulus bill that Congress passed may have been too weak and too focused on tax cuts. The administration's refusal to get tough on the banks may be deeply disappointing. But fears that Mr. Obama would sacrifice progressive priorities in his budget plans, and satisfy himself with fiddling around the edges of the tax system, have now been banished.

Robert Reich added that the budget "represents the biggest redistribution of income from the wealthy to the middle class and poor this nation has seen in more than forty years."

Once in a while, elections really do have consequences.

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

* President Obama unveils his budget and posts it online.

* AP: "New-home sales tumbled to a record-low annual pace in January and there's no relief in sight as mounting damage from the collapsed housing market pushes the country deeper into recession."

* Senate approved a bill this afternoon to give D.C. a vote in the House. It passed 61 to 37, and 36 of the Senate's 41 Republicans voted against it.

* GM lost $30.9 billion in 2008.

* Jobless numbers continue to rise.

* What do you know, Roland Burris' situation can look worse.

* Blue Dogs sure can be tiresome.

* Obama and senior administration officials have begun receiving "a daily CIA report" on the global economic crisis, reinforcing the belief that the economy will have a direct impact on national security.

* Daily Kos, the Service Employees International Union, and some of the best bloggers in the business are teaming up to create Accountability Now.

* As of Friday, the Rocky Mountain News, Colorado's oldest newspaper, will be no more.

* The latest evidence on media bias will not make conservatives happy, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

* Ratings for the president's speech on Tuesday night were pretty impressive.

* Obama staffers are serious about limiting access to lobbyists.

* Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) loves free-market principles, except when he doesn't.

* "False equivalency" stories are the traditional media's most annoying bad habit.

* U.S. News tries to make amends.

* Recessions are "a part of freedom"?

* And Fox has renewed "The Simpsons" for (at least) two more seasons. Next year, it will become the longest running prime-time show in U.S. television history.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE FIGHT REACHES SENATE FLOOR.... Before the Senate can vote on whether to give D.C. residents a voice in Congress, Senate Republican Steering Committee Chairman Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (S.D.) had a not-at-all-related amendment for the chamber to consider.

The Senate voted Thursday in favor of an amendment to the District of Columbia voting-rights bill that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which critics say would decimate conservative talk radio.

The Senate passed the measure 87-11.

So, to review, the Senate today approved an amendment to a bill about D.C. voting rights prohibiting the FCC from bringing back an old broadcast policy that the FCC wasn't considering and which the Obama administration does not support. Congress at its finest.

But since it passed overwhelmingly, at least we won't have to hear the right complain about this anymore, right? If only it were that simple. The measure would still have to be approved by the House, which isn't interested in holding a vote.

In response to the DeMint/Thune measure, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) proposed "a rival amendment that he said essentially reaffirmed existing law, which calls for the FCC to encourage diverse media ownership." It passed 57 to 41. Despite the fact that Durbin's measure simply re-stated current law, every Republican in the Senate voted against it.

DeMint told reporters that Democratic efforts to legally encourage diverse media ownership open a "back door to censorship."

I have no idea what DeMint is talking about. Come to think of it, neither does he.

THE 'IDIOT' STRIKES BACK.... About a month ago, Rush Limbaugh proudly boasted that he hopes President Obama "fails" in office. More recently, Limbaugh added, "I want the stimulus package to fail." This sparked a fair amount of controversy, since it's odd for high-profile Americans to publicly root against the country.

Yesterday, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R), without mentioning Limbaugh's name, said, "Anybody who wants [the president] to fail is an idiot, because it means we're all in trouble."

Today, the "idiot" responded.

"I am told that South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford called me an idiot, not by name. But he said, 'Anybody who wants Obama to fail is an idiot.' Well, I don't know anybody else who said it, so I guess he's talking about [me].... [P]oliticians have different audiences than I do and they've got to say things in different ways. So, after he said, 'Anybody who wants Obama to fail is an idiot,' then went on in his own way to say, 'Gosh, I hope this doesn't work.' ... He just had to say, 'We don't want the president to fail.'

"Hell we don't! We want something to blow up here politically. We want something to not go right.... We're talking about freedom that is under assault!"

Ryan Powers added that Sanford's communications director said the governor wasn't "referring to anyone" in specific when he talked about "idiots," and was not aware of Limbaugh's comments on the issue.

That's certainly possible. The question Sanford was referring to didn't mention Limbaugh by name, and maybe the governor missed the hullabaloo over Limbaugh's anti-American sentiment. As responses go, the rejoinder from Sanford's spokesperson is plausible.

But it does, however, lead to a follow-up question. Now that Sanford knows what Limbaugh has said, and now that Limbaugh has called the governor out on the air, does Sanford still believe those who want Obama to fail are idiots or not?

Inquiring minds want to know.

HOLDER TO END MEDICAL MARIJUANA RAIDS.... Just two days after President Obama's inauguration, the Drug Enforcement Administration raided a medical marijuana dispensary in northern California. The move was at odds with Obama's policy, at least as it was articulated during the campaign.

Today, we received some welcome clarification.

Attorney General Eric Holder said at a press conference Wednesday that the Justice Department will no longer raid medical marijuana clubs that are established legally under state law. His declaration is a fulfillment of a campaign promise by President Barack Obama, and marks a major shift from the previous administration.

After the inauguration, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) continued to carry out such raids, despite Obama's promise. Holder was asked if those raids represented American policy going forward.

"No," he said. "What the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing in law enforcement. He was my boss during the campaign. He is formally and technically and by law my boss now. What he said during the campaign is now American policy."

My friend Alex Koppelman adds some helpful context:

It's a common misperception that, in states like California which have passed measures legalizing it, medical marijuana is completely legal. It's not. Federal law takes precedence, and federal authorities have made no secret of their belief that any user or distributor -- even one authorized by the state -- can be arrested at any time.

That's been the policy for the last three administrations. Not anymore.

PENTAGON CHANGES POLICY ON FLAG-DRAPED COFFINS.... A couple of weeks ago, CNN's Ed Henry asked President Obama about the Defense Department policy banning coverage of flag-draped coffins from coming into Dover Air Force Base: "You've promised unprecedented transparency, openness in your government. Will you overturn that policy, so the American people can see the full human cost of war?"

The president said his administration was "in the process of reviewing those policies." Today, with the review complete, the Pentagon is lifting the ban.

News organizations will be allowed to photograph the homecomings of America's war dead under a new Pentagon policy, defense and congressional officials said Thursday.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has decided to allow photos of flag-draped caskets at Dover Air Force Base, Del., if the families of the fallen troops agree, the officials told The Associated Press.

I can appreciate concerns about privacy, but I think this is the right call. The Bush administration was adamant about this, and while the policy dates back to 1991, Bush 41 and Clinton would make exceptions. Bush 43 would not, and it seems likely that politics helped drive his thinking.

But hiding images of the flag-draped coffins was a mistake. As Kevin Drum recently noted, "These are American soldiers fighting an American war, and the American public has a right to see the price of that war."

It's less clear exactly how the new policy will be implemented. Based on the AP report, it seems as if the Defense Department will make sure that the families of the fallen are comfortable with photographers being present when the caskets arrive home. It may prove difficult, though, if families with loved ones on the same plane disagree.

In either case, though, I'm glad the administration is making a change.

ABOUT THAT BOAT STORY.... There were obviously quite a few problems with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R) speech the other night, but there's one nagging question that hasn't gotten enough attention.

Jindal, hoping to make a point about how awful government is, told an interesting tale:

"During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office I'd never seen him so angry. He was yelling into the phone: 'Well, I'm the Sheriff and if you don't like it you can come and arrest me!' I asked him: 'Sheriff, what's got you so mad?' He told me that he had put out a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were all lined up ready to go -- when some bureaucrat showed up and told them they couldn't go out on the water unless they had proof of insurance and registration.

"I told him, 'Sheriff, that's ridiculous.' And before I knew it, he was yelling into the phone: 'Congressman Jindal is here, and he says you can come and arrest him too!' Harry just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and start rescuing people."

Jindal has told the same story quite a few times.

Now, the governor bringing up Harry Lee is itself problematic, given the former sheriff's controversial background with racism. But then there's that other issue: did any of this actually happen? Was Lee fighting a bureaucracy in the midst of a crisis? Did Jindal come to his aid? Did "some bureaucrat" interfere with a rescue effort?

We can't ask Lee for his version of events; he died in 2007. But there's ample evidence that Jindal has ... how do I put this gently ... taken some liberties.

Zachary Roth did some digging and found some interesting details. First, for example, Lee later acknowledged that he "didn't find out about the license and registration issue until about seven days after the incident." Second, Jindal couldn't have seen Lee arguing during the crisis, since Jindal wasn't in New Orleans while people were stranded on roofs. Third, as Roth documents, details of Jindal's story have "evolved" over time.

Jindal's anecdote is, to be sure, a great story. It'd be even better if it were true.

STRAW MEN.... About three years ago, the AP noted that George W. Bush had a nasty "straw man" habit. He'd start sentences with "some say," the AP noted, omitting "an important nuance" or substituting "an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position." Bush would then "strongly disagree" with the non-existent position of his rival, "conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making."

I thought of this old AP piece this morning when I saw Karl Rove, of all people, complaining that President Obama "routinely" relies on "the lazy rhetorical device of 'straw men.'" He argued, "Everyone resorts to straw men occasionally, but Mr. Obama's persistent use of the device is troubling."

There are two broad angles to this. The first is the hypocrisy. As A.L. noted, "[O]n a hypocrisy scale of 1 to 10, [Rove's column] is about an 842.... Anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to politics over the last eight years knows that straw man argumentation is Karl Rove's specialty. He took the practice to never before seen heights during his years in the White House."

But there's also the specifics of Rove's accusations.

[T]here's Mr. Obama's description of the Bush-era tax cuts. "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy," he explained in his Tuesday speech, after earlier saying, "tax cuts alone can't solve all of our economic problems -- especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few."

The Bush tax cuts were not targeted to "the wealthiest few."

Actually, they were.

In his inaugural address -- which was generally graceful toward the opposition -- Mr. Obama proclaimed, "We have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord." Which Republican ran against him on fear, conflict and discord?

If Rove really doesn't remember, Glenn Greenwald offers a refresher: "How about the people who accused him of 'pallin' around with Terrorists' or who said: 'Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay - he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America - he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?' or who accused him of being a 'Marxist' and a 'Communist' and his wife of being an angry America-hater and who circulated a campaign to convince Americans that he was a secret Muslim and an anti-Semite."

A lot of writers publish misleading and hypocritical columns occasionally, but Mr. Rove's persistent habit of writing drivel is troubling.

WHEN THE GOP GIVES UP ON FEDERALISM.... The residents of the District of Columbia pay federal taxes, but have no voice in Congress. A measure is finally near passage that would, at long last, give D.C. a vote in the House of Representatives.

But before that happens, Senate Republicans want to ignore their professed principles and tinker a bit with the city's governance.

Opponents of a bill that would award the District its first seat in the House of Representatives fought back yesterday with a blitz of amendments in the Senate, including one to repeal the city's gun-control laws that appeared to have significant support. [...]

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) said he was introducing the amendment [to undo the city's gun laws] because the D.C. Council "has continued to enact onerous and unconstitutional firearms regulations" despite the Supreme Court decision last year overturning the city's ban on handguns.

He produced a large chart on the Senate floor that showed the city's murder rate over the years.

"Can you honestly tell me that gun control in D.C. has been effective?" Ensign asked.

Think about that. A lawmaker from Nevada will be gracious enough to let 600,000 American taxpayers have a vote in the House, but only if he approves of their local gun-control laws.

This is absurd. Just as a thought experiment, imagine what Ensign would say if Democrats said, "We'll let Carson City residents have a voice in Congress, but only if they pass stricter gun-control laws." Ensign would be apoplectic, and give impassioned speeches about "local control," "federalism," and Congress intervening on an issue that local representatives can address without federal mandates. And he'd be right.

But Republican principles suddenly disappear when it comes to D.C. As Clay Risen noted, "And Republicans wonder why D.C. votes overwhelmingly Democratic. Maybe it's because for all their talk of states' rights and federalism, when it comes to Washington the GOP is aggressively paternalistic, to the point where a senator from Nevada can, with a straight face, presume to tell Washingtonians the best way to run their city."

If John Ensign wants to shape D.C.'s gun laws, he has another option. He can move to Washington, run for city council, and introduce a proposal to change the city's existing policy.

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.

* Bill Clinton talked to Greg Sargent about Obama, the state of the GOP, Jindal, the economy, and all sorts of other topics.

* The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) gets underway in Washington today. The event is the largest in the nation for the far-right.

* Camp Coleman is talking more and more about asking for a whole new election.

* Kentucky Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo (D) said Sen. Jim Bunning (R) should not seek re-election, calling him an "embarrassment" to the state. Mongiardo is, of course, a likely Democratic opponent for Bunning next year.

* As expected, it appears Republican Assemblyman James Tedisco has the edge against Democrat Scott Murphy in New York's 20th. The special election to replace Kirsten Gillibrand, however, is still more than a month away.

* In the race for Ohio's soon-to-be-open Senate seat, there's already a crowded Democratic field, but it got a little bigger yesterday when State Rep. Tyrone Yates threw his hat into the ring.

* New York Gov. David Paterson (D-N.Y.), his political fortunes in decline, shook up his top political staff yesterday.

* Actor Val Kilmer is moving forward with his plans to run for governor of New Mexico.

SUPREMES DISAPPOINT SUMMUM.... There's been a quirky legal fight out of Pleasant Grove City, Utah, that's been unfolding for several years, and which the Supreme Court wrapped up yesterday. The conclusion is a little unsatisfying, though.

If you're just joining us, a small park across from the town's city hall has about a dozen objects, including a wishing well, a millstone from the city's first flour mill, and a Ten Commandments monument. In 2003, a religious group called the Summum asked the city to let them erect a monument with its Seven Aphorisms in the park. The city rejected the request, and the Summum filed suit.

The not-especially-liberal 10th Circuit ruled with the Summum and gave local officials a choice: allow all faith to erect their own displays in the park, or remove the other monuments. (Conservatives, both in Utah and across the country, who say we need more religion in the public square, refused to come to the Summum's defense. I wonder why.)

Yesterday, the Supreme Court weighed in and reversed the appeals court's ruling.

A public park in Utah that includes a monument to the Ten Commandments need not make room for a similar monument reflecting the beliefs of an unusual religion called Summum, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

Permanent monuments in public parks are not subject to the free speech analysis that applies to speeches and leaflets in public forums, the court ruled. Instead, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for eight justices, such monuments are "best viewed as a form of government speech."

Since the government is free to say what it likes, Justice Alito said, the Summum church's right to free speech under the First Amendment was not violated by the city's rejection of its monument.

The decision was unanimous but fractured. In four concurring opinions, six justices set out sharply contrasting views about the decision's scope and consequences.

It's unsatisfying because the case wasn't even considered on the grounds of religious liberty. I'd hoped the high court would have some thoughts on whether public officials could promote (endorse?) one religion's sacred text, while turning down another faith's "aphorisms." Why let public officials play favorites among faiths on public property?

Alas, the justices didn't address this at all, basing the decision on free-speech grounds. That said, Justice Souter was wise to raise a red flag:

Justice David H. Souter, who joined the court's decision but did not adopt Justice Alito's reasoning, was not so sure. If the Ten Commandments monument is now understood to be government speech, he said, "the specter of violating the Establishment Clause will behoove" the city "to take care to avoid the appearance of a flat-out establishment of religion."

One solution, Justice Souter said, is "safety in numbers, and it will be in the interest of a careful government to accept other monuments."

JOE THE AFTERTHOUGHT.... On the homepage of the Politico right now, there's a headline that reads, "Joe laughs at Obama speech," above a picture of Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher. The headline leads to a story -- and video -- in which we learn the former campaign prop didn't care for President Obama's address to Congress this week.

Apparently, the fact that Wurzelbacher "did not have many nice things to say about Obama's speech" is newsworthy.

It's worth noting, though, that while Wurzelbacher remains important in some circles, his public "following" appears to be dwindling.

Joe the Plumber (no longer a plumber; first name actually Samuel) popped into [Washington, D.C.] yesterday evening to sell his new book and to remind people that he's still a plain and simple guy. Mission accomplished, on at least one of his missions.

About 11 people wandered into the rows of seats set up hopefully in the basement of a downtown Border's bookstore to hear Joe speak. Joe addressed them from behind a lectern and with a microphone, but that seemed unnecessarily formal.

At least a few of the 11 didn't actually show up for Wurzelbacher, but were in the store anyway. One was reading "Dreams From My Father" upstairs and thought it was an amusing coincidence that "Joe the Plumber" was in Borders at the time.

Wurzelbacher was scheduled to speak and sign books for three hours. He left after 55 minutes when no one else showed up.

John McCain wasn't there. Neither were any other members of Congress, Hill staffers, think-tank aides, conservative media personalities, etc. The whole event sounds kind of depressing. It was a reminder that as campaign props go, Wurzelbacher has become something of an afterthought.

So, why is his take on a presidential address worthy of a piece at the Politico? Your guess is as good as mine.

'NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES'.... This is an unusually instructive look into the far-right's perspective on sexual health.

Democrats were outraged Wednesday morning when [Colorado] Republican state Sen. Dave Schultheis said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease "stems from sexual promiscuity" and he didn't think the Legislature should "remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior." The Colorado Springs lawmaker then proceeded to cast the lone vote against SB-179, which passed 32-1 and moves on to the House.

Schultheis, it's worth noting, is the state senator for James Dobson and Focus on the Family.

I can't relate to an ideology that can fairly be described as "twisted," but let's be clear. Schultheis believes it's important for women to face "negative consequences" for sexual behavior that he considers "unacceptable." If that means more women and children become HIV positive, he's fine with that.

It's a perspective that effectively argues, as my friend Morbo once put it, "They sinned, now let them suffer for it."

It's the same rationale that led many conservatives to oppose initiatives to combat the human papillomavirus (HPV), which increases a woman's chances of developing cervical cancer. A vaccine that immunizes against HPV infection has been developed, but some far-right groups, most notably the Family Research Council, have opposed making it widely available to young women. As an FRC representative said a while back, the vaccine "could be potentially harmful" to women "because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex."

It's practically identical to Schultheis' take. The key is to discourage sex. If the discouragement leads to "negative consequences" -- cancer, HIV, etc. -- so be it.

Remember, these folks like to consider themselves "pro-family." No, I don't understand it, either.

KRISTOL'S ADVICE SOUNDS FAMILIAR.... In his inaugural column for the print edition of the Washington Post, Bill Kristol offers some advice for his Republican brethren: obstruct as much as humanly possible.

...Obama's aim is not merely to "revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity." ... Conservatives and Republicans will disapprove of this effort. They will oppose it. Can they do so effectively?

Perhaps -- if they can find reasons to obstruct and delay. They should do their best not to permit Obama to rush his agenda through this year. They can't allow Obama to make of 2009 what Franklin Roosevelt made of 1933 or Johnson of 1965. Slow down the policy train. Insist on a real and lengthy debate. Conservatives can't win politically right now. But they can raise doubts.... Only if this happens will conservatives be able to get a hearing for their (compelling, in my view) arguments against big-government, liberal-nanny-state social engineering -- and for their preferred alternatives.

It seems like an odd thing for Kristol to put in writing. Generally, Republicans say they want to at least try to have a constructive role in public policy. Kristol counsels the opposite -- Obama is poised to "make history," so Republicans need to "obstruct and delay." The GOP, Kristol insists, needs to "find reasons" to do. Obstruct for obstruction's sake, and figure out the rationale later.

What's striking is how predictable Kristol's advice has become. This was the strategy Kristol recommended during the fight over the economic recovery package, and more importantly, it was the advice he offered Republicans in the early 1990s, when they confronted the Clinton White House. Indeed, in December 1993, Kristol wrote a strategy memo to congressional Republicans, urging them to "kill" any effort at healthcare reform -- "sight unseen" -- because it would help the Democratic Party.

Jonathan Chait noted this morning, "His current advice is equally disingenuous. Kristol is saying that Republicans should raise objections about the speed of legislation, pick fights, point to foreign policy -- but not because they actually care about the speed of the legislative process or the other fights they're going to pick. It will all be a pretext to stop Obama's agenda. Is this the kind of thing he should be admitting in public?"

Probably not. The minority party is going to oppose the majority party's ideas. That's expected; it's what the minority party is supposed to do. But Kristol's advice helps end the charade -- Republicans, if they take the columnist's advice, won't play a constructive role and won't make good-faith compromises to advance a policy agenda.

That's largely in line with expectations, but it's nevertheless interesting to see in print.

THE APOLOGY WILL COME IN 3...2...1.... Real Clear Politics chatted with South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) yesterday, and asked the governor about the "view that perhaps Republicans are rooting for President Obama to fail." Given the notoriety of Rush Limbaugh announcing his hope that Obama fails, the RCP question was almost certainly in reference to the radio host's infamous remarks.

Lee Fang noted Sanford's response:

"I don't want [Obama] to fail. Anybody who wants him to fail is an idiot, because it means we're all in trouble."

As it happens, this is a rare point of agreement for me when it comes to Mark Sanford. Americans who root for American failure are idiots.

But the angle to keep an eye on here is what Sanford will do when Limbaugh hears about this.

Last month, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) offered subtle criticism of Limbaugh, dismissing the right-wing talk-show host for finding it "easy" to "throw bricks" from the outside. About a half-day later, Gingrey was groveling for forgiveness, apologizing to Limbaugh in writing and on the air. It was one of the more pathetic displays for a member of Congress in recent history, but it was also a reminder -- there aren't many lines Republicans fear crossing, but Limbaugh criticism is verboten.

So, will Sanford apologize this morning or this afternoon? Directly or indirectly? Will he try to finesse it -- "Only some of those rooting against Americans are idiots; I didn't mean Rush" -- or will Sanford just make a complete reversal?

The leader of the Republican Party is waiting, and Sanford is planning to run for president. Let the groveling commence.

HE'S GOING FOR IT.... In his address to Congress this week, President Obama said, "Health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year." Apparently, he meant it.

President Obama is proposing to begin a vast expansion of the U.S. health-care system by creating a $634 billion reserve fund over the next decade, launching an overhaul that most experts project will ultimately cost at least $1 trillion.

The "reserve fund" in the budget proposal being released today is Obama's attempt to demonstrate how the country could extend health insurance to millions more Americans and at the same time begin to control escalating medical bills that threaten the solvency of families, businesses and the government.

Obama aims to make a "very substantial down payment" toward universal coverage by trimming tax breaks for the wealthy and squeezing payments to insurers, hospitals, doctors and drug manufacturers, a senior administration official said yesterday.

Embedded in the budget figures are key policy changes that the administration argues would improve the quality of care and bring much-needed efficiency to a health system that costs $2.3 trillion a year.

The White House first step doesn't include the details of a reform proposal, and that's a deliberate part of the broader strategy -- the president intends to move forward with the down payment on a plan, while working cooperatively with Congress to shape the plan itself.

Paying for the investment is, of course, the tricky part (at least, one of the tricky parts). The administration has sketched out a proposal that would "reduce the value of itemized tax deductions for everyone in the top income tax bracket, 35 percent, and many of those in the 33 percent bracket -- roughly speaking, starting at $250,000 in annual income for a married couple." This would cover about half of the healthcare fund, with the other half coming from "proposed cost savings in Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs."

The administration seems well aware of the fact that a $634 billion over 10 years would not cover literally everyone. Neera Tanden, a top Obama health adviser, acknowledged, "We know that this is not enough to achieve our overall goal of getting health care for every American, but it is a significant down payment."

It is, indeed. And while the down payment may only be the first step, this isn't incrementalism -- it's a significant step forward. Jonathan Cohn noted, "How big an investment is that? It's pretty big -- more, I believe, than any president has proposed setting aside for coverage expansions to the non-elderly since Clinton tried for universal health insurance in the 1990s. And it confirms that Obama is serious about pursuing health care reform, beyond small incremental steps."

Igor Volsky emphasized how different this approach is from the early '90s: "Overall, the fund is a good start, but it's certainly not enough to reach universal coverage. Still, the Obama administration has learned from the mistakes of past reform efforts. Unlike the Clinton strategy, which didn't include any money for health reform in the budget, and left Congress to digest a 700+ page health plan, Obama and Congress will fill in the details of reform."

And publius highlighted the broader significance: "Obama is pushing for national health care reform -- the crown jewel of the progressive legislative agenda -- while simultaneously trying to break down the modern political coalitions that Nixon and Reagan built. This guy is swinging for the fences -- and swinging hard."

INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS.... Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R) nationally-televised address on Tuesday has been widely panned, and for good reason. As political speeches go, it was a train wreck. It's rare when political observers from across the ideological spectrum can agree on something subjective, but there was near-universal agreement on this one -- Jindal blew it.

Two dissenters, however, stood out. For example, Rush Limbaugh insisted that conservatives who noticed Jindal's awful speech should keep their mouths shut: "[I]f you think -- people on our side I'm talking to you -- those of you who think Jindal was horrible, you think -- in fact, I don't ever want to hear from you ever again.... I've spoken to him numerous times, he's brilliant. He's the real deal.

Of course, this isn't really a defense, so much as it's a call to "clap louder." Limbaugh thinks Jindal's speech should be free of criticism because Jindal is a far-right Republican. That's hardly a mature way to assess a speech, but Limbaugh is Limbaugh.

The far more fascinating response came from blogger Ann Althouse, who noted the "instinctive revulsion" towards Jindal.

Why are all these people so confident that they are not manifesting racism? There's just something about this man that doesn't seem right, that you don't care to examine exactly what it is, but you know it deep down in your gut somehow. Seriously. How do you know this is not racism? [italics in the original]

Now, I saw quite a few negative reactions to Jindal's speech, from the left, right, and center, but I didn't notice a single critique that incorporated racism, even subtly. Indeed, Althouse didn't offer any examples to bolster her claim; she just seems to believe that some unnamed observers might be motivated by racism.

This is pretty disturbing, and by some measures, offensive. Jindal gave a bad speech. Political observers noticed and then commented on it. That's what political observers do. The response wasn't "instinctive," but rather, "descriptive." Throwing around casual accusations of racism, without evidence, has no place in serious discourse.

There's a certain intellectual laziness at play, and I'm afraid we've seen it before. If you don't like a Roman Catholic judicial nominee, you must be anti-Catholic. If you vote against a woman candidate, you're likely a misogynist. If you were unimpressed by an Indian-American's speech, you might, "deep down in your gut," be "manifesting racism."

How sad.

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

* The Treasury Department is starting to outline the "stress test" mechanism.

* Third time's the charm: President Obama nominated former Washington State Gov. Gary Locke as the new head of the Commerce Department. "Now, I'm sure it's not lost on anyone that we've tried this a couple of times, but I'm a big believer in keeping at something until you get it right," Obama said today.

* Ben Bernanke offered his definition of "nationalization."

* Bipartisanship! The House passed its $410 billion omnibus spending package today, 245 to 178. Sixteen Republicans voted with the majority.

* DHS still wants to have a system in which all cargo entering the U.S. is screened, but it won't meet the deadline.

* Will Obama face any heat from the left on its Iraq withdrawal timeline? Not really.

* What did Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) really say about the president's birth certificate?

* Americans invented all kinds of cool stuff, but Obama was wrong to credit us with inventing the automobile and solar energy.

* Harry Reid intends to tackle healthcare this summer. Good.

* Chris Bowers wants to see David Sirota get the 10 p.m. slot on MSNBC; Ezra Klein wants to see Chris Hayes get the gig. Those both sound like good chioces, but in the meantime, the network still hasn't called me about my audition.

* Jindal's getting some good advice on how to recover from last night.

* On a related note, the timing on Michael Gerson's latest column could have been much better.

* I can't imagine what the mayor of Los Alamitos was thinking.

* The San Francisco Chroncile is in big trouble.

* And finally, Drudge sure does play funny games with headlines.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... George Will's understanding of social norms is on par with his understanding of global warming.

Asked for a "final thought" on the president's speech last night, conservative columnist George Will chose to focus on the fact that Obama was able to wrap his arms around another man, in friendship. "I don't know when men started to hug each other, but hug they do, and look at that," he said.

Really? I don't recall him complaining when George W. Bush kissed Joe Lieberman after a State of the Union address a couple of years ago.

Adam Serwer, who was kidding, responded, "Well I don't know when it started, but it needs to stop. Don't people know that men hugging other men puts you on the lonely path to sin?"

WHAT'S THE OPPOSITE OF A RUBBER-STAMP?.... Senate Pro Tempore Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) has noticed that the White House has appointed a series of policy "czars" in the Obama administration cabinet, covering issues as diverse as healthcare and climate change. Byrd has also noticed that these "czars" don't need Senate confirmation and may be protected, in theory, by executive privilege.

And he's not happy about it.

"Too often, I have seen these lines of authority and responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-making process," Byrd wrote in the letter.

"As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president," he continued. "In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."

Byrd also urged the president to prohibit the right of executive privilege from appointees' in agencies overseen by the Senate.

Two quick things. First, Byrd is probably right. The "czars" operate, as practical matter, as heads of offices that sort of look like presidential taskforces. Obama has vowed transparency and accountability, and I suspect he means it, but this current mechanism could be improved to satisfy the needs of congressional oversight.

And second, good for Byrd for calling Obama out on this. Congress is ... what's the phrase I'm looking for here ... an independent branch of the government. The concept of oversight was effectively banished from 2001 to 2006, and the "rubber-stamp" phenomenon took hold. Congressional Republicans simply did what Bush and Cheney told them to do. It led to almost comical levels of secrecy and abuse, with no accountability at all.

I don't doubt the new majority party will work with the White House on the president's agenda. They're largely on the same page, have the same goals, and are content to let Obama take the lead in establishing priorities. All of that's fine. In a time like this, I'm thrilled there's a president and a Congress ready to work together on an ambitious policy agenda.

But checks and balances still count, and Congress still has oversight responsibilities. It's good of Byrd to remember that.

IS IT MULTIPLE CHOICE AFTER ALL?.... Yesterday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) insisted governors don't really have a choice when it comes to the stimulus package. As far as the law is concerned, this is an all-or-nothing proposition.

This sounded great. The problem is, his argument may have been incorrect.

In a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag. Schumer said, "Section 1607(a) of the economic recovery legislation provides that the Governor of each state must certify a request for stimulus funds before any money can flow. No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation."

My friend Sarabeth, however, alerted me to a piece from Donny Shaw, who read the relevant portion of the bill, and noticed a competing detail that Schumer overlooked.

[H]ere's Section 1607 of the stimulus bill:

SEC. 1607. (a) Certification by Governor - Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: (1) the State will request and use funds provided by this Act; and (2) the funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth.

(b) Acceptance by State Legislature - If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.

That language about funds to a state "in any division" suggests the law does allow for governors to take (and, presumably, reject) portions of the funding, in which case Schumer's mistaken.

To be sure, states should take federal stimulus aid. The point here, though, is whether Schumer's argument is right or wrong.

Anyone have a different read on this?

Update: Jack Balkin tackled this last week, and has a very helpful post on the subject.

SOCIAL SECURITY.... The president told Congress last night, "To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security." This, apparently, was not what Republicans wanted to hear.

The GOP liked a lot of what it heard in President Obama's address Tuesday night about deficit reduction and personal responsibility.

But Republicans didn't like what they didn't hear: talk about Social Security reform. Obama zipped past the issue with a one-line reference.... The way to kill an issue in Washington is to suggest we begin to talk about it. Republicans took notice.

After hoping that Obama might be open to some sort of bipartisan reform that would reduce benefits and raise the eligibility age -- and perhaps plant the seeds for private accounts -- Republicans are now less hopeful that he'll come their way.

"I was not happy," Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told the Huffington Post. "That was the one area of his speech I was not happy with. He appears to be backing away from what I thought was an earlier commitment to tackling Social Security reform."

It wasn't just McConnell. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Obama talked too much about healthcare and not enough about weakening Social Security. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said something similar. Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) said Republicans will work with the White House if the president is ready to embrace their ideas about Social Security.

Frankly, if these guys are "not happy," the rest of us should be rather pleased.

I'm not entirely sure what GOP lawmakers were expecting on this issue. Last month, pressed on entitlements, the president told Washington Post editors, "'Social Security, we can solve,' he said, waving his left hand. 'The big problem is Medicare, which is unsustainable....'" Obama made similar remarks throughout the campaign.

Given the kvetching, congressional Republicans make it sound as if they expected Obama to endorse an "ownership-society agenda" and embrace benefit cuts that aren't needed anyway. If that's what they're waiting for, they're going to be waiting a very long time.

GOP EARMARKS.... Last night, appearing once again on CBS News, John McCain complained about something he heard in President Obama's address to Congress.

"[W]hen he says that there's no earmarks, I just picked up a bill that we're going to take up tomorrow, that has 9,247 earmarks in it, in the omnibus appropriations bill. So, what am I supposed to believe here?"

McCain is confused. When the president talked about the lack of earmarks, he was talking about the economic stimulus bill. In fact, Obama wasn't vague: "I'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks." The omnibus appropriations bill is a different piece of legislation -- a detail McCain is probably aware of -- and Obama didn't (and couldn't) promise that every spending bill would be earmark-free forevermore. "What am I supposed to believe here?" Reality would be a good place to start.

That said, McCain's observation is at least partially right -- there are earmarks in the appropriations bill. And why is that? Because many of McCain's Republican colleagues put them there.

Republicans are expected to deliver a daylong rant Wednesday against Democratic spending legislation, yet the bill is loaded with thousands of pet projects that Republican lawmakers inserted.

Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, included $142,500 for emergency repairs to the Sam Rayburn Library and Museum in Austin Bonham, Texas. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., joined state colleagues to include $1.425 million for Nevada "statewide bus facilities." The top two Republicans on Congress' money committees also inserted local projects.

In all, an estimated $3.8 billion worth of specific projects, called "earmarks," are in the $410 billion spending bill that the House of Representatives is to vote on Wednesday.

According to two separate estimates, earmarks inserted by GOP lawmakers amount for 40% of the total.

Texas' Hall, in particular, is an interesting case. While writing up earmarks, he also boasts on his official website, "I support efforts to eliminate wasteful spending and slow the rate of growth in government."

To borrow a phrase, what am I supposed to believe here?

THE BENEFITS OF TRAGEDY PREVENTION.... Of all the remarks Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) made last night, the one that stands out the best was his complaint about "wasteful spending" in the economic recovery bill. He specifically pointed to "$140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring,'" adding, "Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, DC."

Now, at first blush, there is some irony here. Jindal, the chief executive of a state ravaged by natural disasters, is mocking research funds that monitor natural disasters.

But the substance matters here. Andrea Thompson took a closer look at exactly what that $140 million is for, and explained that "volcano monitoring" helps scientists better understand the inner workings of volcanoes and offers information about impending eruptions. The federal funds saved jobs and will go to update equipment for the United States Geological Survey. (via Yglesias).

When [John Eichelberger, program coordinator for the USGS's Volcano Hazards Program] heard Jindal's remarks, Eichelberger said he "was frankly astonished" that the governor would use this particular example, given his own state's recent brush with a catastrophic natural disaster.

Among the scenarios in which the USGS's monitoring can assist - the catastrophic eruption of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980, which killed 57 people (including a geologist monitoring the mountain) and was the deadliest and costliest volcanic eruption in U.S. history ($2.74 billion in 2007 dollars). This event was preceded by thousands of earthquakes in the two months before the volcano blew its top; some of these prompted the governor of Washington to declare a state of emergency and many residents were evacuated from a designated danger zone.

"This is a hazard we can do something about," Eichelberger said. "We can spend a modest amount of money and prevent a tragedy."

Ironically, within a few hours of Jindal's speech, a volcano in Chile forced evacuations. (If Jindal is only concerned about U.S. disasters, there are 65 active volcanoes in the U.S., and they are of particular concern in Alaska.)

Jindal seemed to dismiss the entire field of research, calling it "something called 'volcano monitoring,'" as if the science was on its face silly.

Paul Krugman concluded, "The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead."

KRISTOL IS AS KRISTOL DOES.... We talked earlier about President Obama facing at least some pushback for putting the economy in front of foreign affairs in his address to Congress. I should have realized similar criticism from Bill Kristol wouldn't be far behind.

Kristol, now a contributor to Time the New York Times the Washington Post, argues today that the president only devoted a "few sentences" to foreign policy last night, adding, "The treatment of foreign policy was perfunctory at best." That's a subjective question, I suppose, but Obama devoted nine paragraphs, totaling about 600 words, to the issue, and outlined an entirely new approach to international affairs. Kristol may not approve of the vision, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

But more importantly, Kristol wasn't too terribly concerned with the extent of Obama's comments on foreign policy, or where they were included in the speech, but he seemed quite troubled over what the president didn't say.

The only particular place mentioned by Obama, in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan, was Israel: "To seek progress toward a secure and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors, we have appointed an envoy to sustain our effort." The Israeli-Arab dispute and its envoy merits a mention. Yet Iran and its nuclear program does not?

This was not the speech of a man who even contemplates the possibility of using force within the next year to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Kristol seems to think this is criticism, as if asking, "Where was the belligerent saber-rattling at Tehran?" is necessarily evidence of some kind of presidential omission. Obama probably won't attack Iran in 2009 -- and we're supposed to think that's a bad thing.

How odd.

SPENDING FREEZE.... On Monday, RNC Chairman Michael Steele appeared on Fox News, calling for a "spending freeze." It was relatively easy to dismiss, since Steele has no formal policy role, and is easily confused over policy details.

But actual Republican policymakers are apparently serious about pursuing such a freeze. David Weigel reports:

House Republicans have responded with a change of subject: they have proposed a "spending freeze," a controversial idea among economists during an economic downturn. [...]

"We're advocating that Congress freeze all federal spending immediately," said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the chairman of the House Republican Conference, during a Tuesday luncheon at the conservative Heritage Foundation. [...]

Pence's argument for a spending freeze is widely accepted within the Republican conference. On Monday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) asked Democrats to "abandon their plans" to push through an omnibus bill "and instead pass a clean bill that freezes spending at current levels."

It's hard to overstate how incredibly foolish this is. It's a Neo-Hooverism approach in its most obvious form. Weigel noted that Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist who wrote a book critical of George W. Bush's spending, "could not name many peers who believe that smaller deficits and less spending are the way to combat economic downturns."

For Republican officials -- who spent freely, cut taxes, and produced massive debt during Bush's presidency -- the way to respond to an economic crisis is to spend less money. It's what "people out there" do, so it's what the federal government should do. (It's as if they've never even heard about the differences between micro- and macro-economics.)

The sensible debate right now is whether the feds should spend, spend more, or spend a lot more. GOP lawmakers have given up on credibility and seriousness, and are moving in the opposite direction, calling for a freeze that would only exacerbate the crisis. Indeed, demonstrating a painful incoherence, Republicans are, simultaneously, calling for a spending freeze, deficit reduction, and more tax cuts.

When John McCain inexplicably called for a spending freeze six months ago, it was a spectacularly bad idea. Pat Garofalo explains it's slightly worse now: "The economic stimulus package's main purpose is to close the GDP gap and jumpstart the economy by spurring spending by households, government and the private sector. A spending freeze would act as an 'anti-stimulus,' cutting spending precisely when it's too low and the economy is moving too slowly."

I received a very sincere note the other day from a long-time reader who thinks I've been too "shrill" lately in describing Republican policy ideas. That may or may not be true -- it's certainly not conscious on my part -- but if I seem more frustrated, it's because in the midst of a very serious crisis, the best the minority party's leaders can come up with is truly nonsensical ideas like these. With so much on the line, it's a little hard to take.

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.

* Things continue to not go well for Norm Coleman. On the other hand, he is the only non-senator allowed to attend the Senate Republicans' weekly caucus meetings.

* Pennsylvania's Republican Committee Chairman suggested yesterday that the state party may not support Sen. Arlen Specter's (R) re-election campaign.

* On a related note, Specter expects to have a primary opponent, though it's not yet clear who that might be.

* In an unusual twist, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is "praising House Democrats for voting in favor of the economic stimulus measure that passed two weeks ago."

* Tony Perkins, the very conservative head of the Family Research Council, continues to explore a possible primary challenge against Sen. David Vitter (R) in Louisiana. Perkins served in the state legislature and ran against Vitter in the 2002 Senate primary.

* And Ben Smith has an interesting item on Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, and Mark Sanford making an appearance earlier this week "at the regular gathering of Legacy, a group of mostly 40-and-under Republicans with roots in Texas but membership across the country. The well-heeled group strives to avoid media attention and does not let reporters attend their meetings."

MAKING THE CASE FOR GOVERNMENT.... In early January, when then-President Elect Obama delivered a speech to unveil his stimulus plan, he offered a rather explicit defense of government: "It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy...."

It was the first hint of a fundamental shift. Reagan told us that government "is the problem." Clinton told us the "era of big government is over." And Obama wants America to know that government is the "only" institution that's capable of addressing an economic crisis of this severity.

The president carried this idea forward last night, delivering a national address that was, at its core, a full-throated defense of government intervention. The NYT noted that Obama "proposed a more activist government than any other since Lyndon B. Johnson."

Alex Massie had a good piece, describing the address, accurately, as an "ambitious, liberal speech."

It was a speech that would have been too bold for Clinton and too grand for Carter. Obama is the heir to LBJ American liberals have been waiting for. Anyone who feared that the present economic turmoil would be used to justify any manner of government initiatives -- in the name of Not Doing Nothing -- had those suspicions confirmed last night. The era of Big Government (by American standards) is back.

But it's back with a poise and a coolness and a demeanour that, allied with the present uncertainty, make it a much more palatable proposition than at any time since the Great Society itself.

E. J. Dionne Jr. was thinking along the same lines.

President Obama's message to the nation Tuesday night was plain and unequivocal: The era of bashing government is over.... [Obama] has sought, subtly but unmistakably, to alter the nation's political assumptions, its attitudes toward collective action and its view of government. Obama's rhetoric is soothing and his approach is inclusive. But he is proposing nothing less than an ideological transformation.

Tuesday night's speech was the most comprehensive manifesto he has offered yet for his new rendezvous with America's progressive tradition. "We will rebuild," he declared, "we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before." If he is right, he will also have rebuilt American liberalism.

And that's ultimately why I liked it so much. The president wasn't apologetic about his use of government, it was just a matter of fact. These are times that demand an ambitious federal response and Obama is going to deliver one. We tried pretending that the government is a tool to be mistrusted and used sparingly, and now we're going to try something different.

I'm 35 and I haven't seen a president endorse this kind of progressive vision in my lifetime. It is, however, what I'd hoped for when I voted in November.

Update: Rich Lowry, intending this as criticism, noted that Obama is "trying to redefine extensive government activism as simple pragmatism, and if he succeeds, might well shift the center of American politics for a generation."

Yep.

THE FOREIGN/DOMESTIC BALANCE.... The last several State of the Union addresses have been broken up into two parts -- a look at domestic policy and a look at foreign policy. Given the economic crisis and the public's concerns, it seemed obvious that President Obama would start with the home front, and he did.

I'm a little surprised to see him face some criticism for this. Around 10 p.m. last night:

* The Politico's Glenn Thrush had an item noting, "It took President Obama 46 minutes to mention terrorism, the military or foreign affairs."

* Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) used his Twitter feed last night to complain, "We are at war -- seems to me honoring our troops should come on page one rather than the end of the speech."

* ABC News' "The Note" asked, "Took a LONG while to get to foreign policy, no?"

The problem isn't what Obama said about foreign policy and national security; the problem, apparently, is when he said it.

In the midst of an economic collapse, the president is facing criticism for starting with the economy in a national address? Really?

For what it's worth, the Republican response from Bobby Jindal was more than 2,000 words long, but only mentioned foreign affairs briefly, in passing, towards the end of his remarks. Unlike the president, the Louisiana governor didn't mention Iraq, Afghanistan, or al Qaeda at all.

Update: The Politico's Glenn Thrush follows up, noting that his observation was not necessarily intended as criticism: "I made no judgment, just wanted to point out how thoroughly domestic issues and the economic crisis dominated the speech -- a stark contrast to the Bush years."

DETACHED.... Following up on an earlier item on Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R) speech last night, I'd be remiss if I neglected to mention some of the specific highlights.

I promise not to fact-check the entire address -- it's tempting, but I'll resist -- but let's touch on a few key points. Here's Jindal, for example, explaining his concerns about government.

"Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts."

That doesn't make any sense. In fact, it's backwards -- the government failed to act in New Orleans, and a result, people suffered. Had a competent and effective federal response been in place, lives would have been saved. Jindal has learned the wrong lessons -- the families devastated by Hurricane Katrina needed more from Washington, not less. (And did you catch Jindal leaving my friend Rachel Maddow completely speechless on this point? Good stuff.)

"While some of the projects in the [stimulus] bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a 'magnetic levitation' line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring.' Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C."

First, the "Las Vegas to Disneyland" line is still ridiculous. Second, marveling at the very idea of high-speed rail, as if it were some kind of fanciful magic, does not reflect well on the governor's appreciation of infrastructure innovation. And third, since when is monitoring volcanoes a bad thing? Does Jindal think monitoring hurricanes is wasteful spending? The governor of a state ravaged by a natural disaster shouldn't mock programs that can save people from natural disasters.

"A few weeks ago, the president warned that our nation is facing a crisis that he said 'we may not be able to reverse.'"

Actually, no, he didn't.

A speech can be judged from a variety of different angles -- content, accuracy, tone, delivery, context, audience, etc. Jindal's was one of those rare gems that failed practically every test.

EARLY REVIEWS.... Most of the reactions to President Obama's speech last night and this morning seem pretty positive, but there's often a disconnect between the observations of political observers and the public in general. How did the address play nationwide?

A CNN poll found a combined 92% of the country had a positive response to the president's remarks.

A new national poll indicates that two-thirds of those who watched President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress reacted favorably to his speech.

Sixty-eight percent of speech-watchers questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey Tuesday night had a very positive reaction to the president's address, with 24 percent suggesting they had a somewhat positive response and 8 percent indicating they had a negative reaction.

CNN acknowledged that the sample was "8 to 10 points more Democratic than the general public." However, when the majorities are this overwhelming -- 85% said Obama made them more optimistic, 82% said they back Obama's economic plan -- the lean doesn't matter as much. Subtract 8 to 10 points and the support is still very strong.

A CBS poll also offered encouraging numbers for the White House.

CBS News and Knowledge Networks held a nationally representative poll of 534 people who watched President Obama give his address to Congress to gauge their reaction in the minutes after the president's speech.

Eighty percent of speech watchers approve of President Obama's plans for dealing with the economic crisis. Before the speech, 63 percent approved.

All the usual caveats apply, of course. Polling immediately after a speech, with modest sample sizes, is tricky. But given Obama's popularity going into last night, and the traditional bounce that comes with a State of the Union address*, the poll results sound about right.

* I know it wasn't literally a State of the Union, but for all intents and purposes....

A PRE-EMPTIVE REBUTTAL.... One of the things I've always liked about Barack Obama speeches is that he refuses to talk down to the public. As Ezra Klein, reflecting on last night's speech, noted that the address "was an explanation. The president told us what he was planning to do. And the speech was written as if he believed that we could understand him."

Quite right. The president also seemed conscious, though, of the idea that there are some in our public discourse that may sow the seeds of confusion, and treat voters in a less respectful way. Earlier this week, speaking to the nation's governors, Obama emphasized his desire to engage in an "honest debate" -- it was a phrase he used the phrase a few times in a brief speech on Monday -- as if to underscore his concern that some are being less than sincere.

Re-reading last night's address again this morning, I noticed that Obama was speaking right past the lawmakers in the room, and effectively telling the public, "You're going to hear some nonsense on the talk shows, but don't believe it."

At times, it was practically pre-emptive in its intentions. We might hear that Obama spent too much time looking backwards, so he said:

"Now, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that for too long, we have not always met these responsibilities -- as a government or as a people. I say this not to lay blame or look backwards, but because it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament."

We might hear that Obama is just an old-school, big-government liberal, so he said:

"As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't. Not because I'm not mindful of the massive debt we've inherited -- I am. I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships."

We might hear that Obama's housing plan is directed at those who least deserve help, so he said:

"It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values."

We might hear that Obama's financial plan rewards failed bankers, so he said:

"I understand that when the last administration asked this Congress to provide assistance for struggling banks, Democrats and Republicans alike were infuriated by the mismanagement and results that followed. So were the American taxpayers. So was I. So I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions. I promise you -- I get it.... It's not about helping banks -- it's about helping people."

We might hear that government is bad and should just get out of the way, so he said:

"I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity. For history tells a different story....In each case, government didn't supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive."

We might hear that Obama is going to raise our taxes, so he was explicit about the point:

"In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut -- that's right, a tax cut -- for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way."

To this extent, Obama was taking the offensive, knocking down arguments before they're even made.

It was an implicit acknowledgement of the ways in which the political discourse can stray from the factual path. The president had the bully pulpit, and he was determined to use it to set the record straight -- before it got corrupted by those less interested in "honest debate."

SO MUCH FOR THE JINDAL BREAKTHROUGH.... Expectations were high for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) last night, delivering the Republican response to the president's address to Congress. Practically every feature on the young governor includes the words "rising star" and "2012," and this was going to be his chance to shine on the national stage.

Instead, we're left with five simple words: "not ready for prime time."

To be sure, it's a tough -- and risky -- gig. These response speeches are very difficult to pull off, and very few manage to appear impressive. (Jim Webb was great a few years ago, but he was more the exception than the rule.) Jindal not only was given a tough assignment, he had to try to follow President Obama, who had just set a very high bar by delivering a terrific national address.

But context notwithstanding, Jindal was something of a disaster. The delivery was awkward and sing-song (comparisons to Kenneth from "30 Rock" are ubiquitous). The arguments were tone-deaf and tiresome. The anecdotes were long and pointless. Jindal hadn't quite practiced enough with a teleprompter. He not only seemed like a guy selling a bad product in an infomercial, Jindal seemed like he was new at it.

It was painful to watch, both because the speech was bad and because it was hard not to feel bad for the guy embarrassing himself on national television.

On one of the cable networks, viewers were told that Jindal was "almost childish," and this "was not Bobby Jindal's greatest oratorical moment." The network? Fox News.

I was under the impression that the whole point of inviting Jindal to offer the Republican response was to present the public with something new and different. But as bad as Jindal's performance was, his ideas were even worse -- tax cuts, drilling, school vouchers, spending bad, government bad. Why bother picking a fresh face if all the party has to offer is stale ideas? Why ask a young governor with a reputation for innovation to present the same old agenda that the GOP has pitched for a generation?

Consider David Brooks' take from last night on PBS:

"You know, I think Bobby Jindal is a very promising politician, and I oppose the stimulus because I thought it was poorly drafted. But to come up at this moment in history with a stale 'government is the problem,' 'we can't trust the federal government' -- it's just a disaster for the Republican Party. The country is in a panic right now. They may not like the way the Democrats have passed the stimulus bill, but that idea that we're just gonna -- that government is going to have no role, the federal government has no role in this, that -- in a moment when only the federal government is actually big enough to do stuff, to just ignore all that and just say 'government is the problem, corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending,' it's just a form of nihilism. It's just not where the country is, it's not where the future of the country is. There's an intra-Republican debate. Some people say the Republican Party lost its way because they got too moderate. Some people say they got too weird or too conservative. He thinks they got too moderate, and so he's making that case. I think it's insane, and I just think it's a disaster for the party."

My friend Tom Schaller added, "Someday, when scholars are trying to fingerpoint the nadir of the post-Bush Republican Party, they may arrive at Jindal's speech tonight. Though it was a tough moment for any Republican to give the opposition response, his speech came across as unserious in content and condescending in its tone."

Politicians can recover from awful speeches, but it'll be a while until Jindal lives this one down. A few years from now, when Jindal gets ready to run for president, conservatives will express excitement -- and then hesitate when they remember just how bad he was in late February, 2009.

SPEECH OPEN THREAD.... I'll have more on the president's speech in the morning, but my quick reaction is that this was a very impressive address. Obama had a needle to thread, acknowledging the scope of the crisis, but also striking a hopeful note for the future.

To my ear, the speech was pitch-perfect. He made the quintessential case about turning crisis into opportunity.

That said, I thought I'd open the floor to some discussion. What'd you think?

SPEECH LIVEBLOGGING.... President Obama will be heading into the House chamber in about 10 minutes, and I'll be sharing some reactions along the way. Here it goes....

8:55: Attorney General Eric Holder is the cabinet official who'll be at an undisclosed location tonight. FYI.

9:00: Capt. Sully and the crew of 1549 get a hearty round of applause.

9:03: Justice Ginsburg gets some deserved love from lawmakers on her way into the chamber. (Justice Thomas rushed past her like he had somewhere to go.)

9:06: I don't see Bachmann along the aisle this year. Just as well; she was always a rather odd presence there.

9:13: Did Shelby just say something about the weekend's controversy?

9:17: The speech is bound to begin eventually.

9:19: "We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before." (It's not "state of the union is strong," but it's in that spirit.)

9:20: "What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more."

9:21: "It is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament." Good idea.

9:22: "Well that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here." I think that was an applause line.

9:24: Hmm, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is only drawing applause from one half of the chamber.

9:26: "Because nobody messes with Joe." Cute.

9:28: That's a good explanation of why the the credit crisis matters.

9:29: Santelli pre-emption: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and re-finance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford...."

9:31: "I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance they receive, and this time, they will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer. This time, CEOs won't be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over." I hope he means it.

9:33: "I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions. I promise you -- I get it." Keep repeating that.

9:34: "It's not about helping banks -- it's about helping people." It was worth saying twice, because it's what people need to hear.

9:38: Making the case for government intervention. It's an important case to make: "Government didn't supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive."

9:39: "I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders -- and I know you don't either. It is time for America to lead again."

9:41: Cap and trade? "I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America."

9:42: Recommitting to the auto industry: "We should not, and will not, protect them from their own bad practices. But we are committed to the goal of a re-tooled, re-imagined auto industry that can compete and win. Millions of jobs depend on it. Scores of communities depend on it. And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it."

9:43: Sobering healthcare numbers: "This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds. By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes. In the last eight years, premiums have grown four times faster than wages. And in each of these years, one million more Americans have lost their health insurance."

9:44: "Scary but true: Already, we have done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last thirty days than we have in the last decade."

9:45: Healthcare reform is "a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come.... The cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough." Expect to hear this a lot in the coming months.

9:46: "Health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year." That should resolve some lingering doubts about the president's commitment to the issue.

9:49: "Dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country -- and this country needs and values the talents of every American." Good stuff.

9:50: That sounds pretty ambitious: "By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world."

9:52: Republicans, $5 trillion in eight years later, love talk about debt reduction.

9:54: Sorry, Halliburton: "We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq."

9:55: The benefit of the Bully Pulpit becomes clear: "If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime."

9:56: Tax-free universal savings accounts? Is that new?

9:57: "For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price."

9:59: Message to the troops: "We honor your service, we are inspired by your sacrifice, and you have our unyielding support."

10:00: It's easy to say you support the troops, follow-through matters: "To keep our sacred trust with those who serve, we will raise their pay, and give our veterans the expanded health care and benefits that they have earned."

10:01: We've been waiting a long while to hear talk like this: "Living our values doesn't make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger. And that is why I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture."

10:04: Leonard Abess gave away how much?

10:06: "We are not quitters." Four simple words, one great message.

10:08: "Every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done."

10:09: Big wrap-up: "If we confront without fear the challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America that does not quit, then someday years from now our children can tell their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words that are carved into this very chamber, 'something worthy to be remembered.'"

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

* For a welcome change, the markets rallied today.

* Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke believes the stimulus package could lead to some economic growth next year, but a full recovery will take "more than two or three years." Bernanke also spoke against the idea of governors rejecting unemployment insurance.

* The Senate confirmed Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary, 80 to 17. It's about damn time.

* Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) urged Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) today to resign from the Senate. Burris refused.

* AIG wants more money.

* News from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is even more discouraging.

* There will be a White House envoy to Darfur.

* US Airways pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger not only made the case for more and stronger unions, he also made the case against deregulation.

* In a surprise move, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the New York Post, personally apologized for the controversial chimp/stimulus cartoon.

* A step closer on D.C. voting rights.

* Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen (D): please stop talking.

* Can someone please hire some capable staffers for Tim Geithner at the Treasury Department?

* I wonder what the New York Times' editors were thinking.

* Given that we're talking about "the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far," the AP really should be more careful.

* And finally, Fox News' John Gibson is feeling litigious.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ BY AUGUST 2010.... The official announcement should come later this week, but in the meantime, the AP has this report:

The United States plans to withdraw most of its troops from Iraq by August 2010, 19 months after President Barack Obama's inauguration, according to administration officials. The withdrawal plan would fulfill one of Obama's central campaign pledges, albeit a little more slowly than he promised. He said he would withdraw troops within 16 months, roughly one brigade a month from the time of his inauguration. [...]

The U.S. military will leave behind a residual force, between 30,000 and 50,000 troops, to continue advising and training Iraqi security forces, the two officials said. Also staying beyond the 19 months will be intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, including unmanned aircraft, they said.

A further withdrawal will take place before December 2011, the period by which the U.S. agreed with Iraq to remove all American troops.

According to the AP report, military commanders and national security advisers differed on strategies, and responded to the president's request with a series of alternatives. The 16-month withdrawal process was weighed against a 23-month timeline. As Obama is often inclined to do, he reportedly chose a 19-month strategy as a compromise.

Joe Klein added, "[T]he situation in Iraq has improved and a fairly rapid draw-down is not only practicable but necessary. The Army and Marines remain over-deployed, there are budgetary considerations and the Af/Pak situation obviously has become a higher military priority. There are still serious problems in Iraq, especially along the Arab-Kurd border in the north, but nothing like the chaos that existed two years ago.... [A] dreadful chapter in the history of American policy -- a bloody war of choice launched thoughtlessly -- seems to be coming to a close."

THE STIMULUS IS NOT 'MULTIPLE CHOICE'.... Chuck Schumer thinks it's time for Jindal, Sanford, et al, to cut the nonsense. Good for him.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has a message for Republican governors hemming and hawing over whether to accept the stimulus money Uncle Sam is mailing to each state: Take it or leave it.

Several GOP governors, including Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and South Carolina's Mark Sanford, have cited ideological differences with the stimulus spending and suggested they may take some parts of it and decline the rest. For Schumer, it's all or nothing.
"No one would dispute that these governors should be given the choice as to whether to accept the funds or not. But it should not be multiple choice," Schumer writes in a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag.

Schumer's argument is two-fold. One, the effectiveness and "integrity" of the program is dependent on states accepting the entire package. Two, states can't legally cherry-pick from the stimulus package: "Section 1607(a) of the economic recovery legislation provides that the Governor of each state must certify a request for stimulus funds before any money can flow. No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation."

Kevin Drum raises a very good point: Schumer is, in at least one respect, doing the far-right governors a favor. Jindal, Sanford, and their cohorts know their states need the stimulus, know that unemployment insurance delivers a very effective bang-for-the-buck stimulus. and know that their pathetic posturing puts their constituents at risk. Schumer is effectively giving them an out -- they'd love to turn down some of the money, but the Big Bad Democrats wrote the bill in such a way as to make that impossible.

"I guess that's OK," Kevin noted. "A bit of Republican theatrics won't hurt us, and at least this means that Louisianans will get the unemployment benefits that Jindal tried to deny them. Which is not only good for them, but good for the economy too."

On a related note, Jindal used to think very differently about unemployment insurance. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) noted today, "In the wake of a natural disaster after Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast in 2005, then-Congressman Jindal cosponsored and supported legislation to expand unemployment benefits and inject federal dollars into Louisiana's unemployment trust fund. Yet today in the face of a financial disaster and record unemployment, he opposes similar action under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. What changed?"

What a good question.

'UNIVERSAL' HEALTH CARE.... Back during the Democratic presidential primaries, one of the few areas of major disagreement between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was healthcare mandates. Clinton said individual mandates were key to achieving universal coverage. Obama, in the least attractive part of his campaign platform, disagreed. It was pretty obvious throughout the debate that Clinton was right, and that Obama would have to switch if elected.

And sure enough, that may be poised to happen.

After speaking with administration officials, Ezra Klein reports this afternoon that the administration's budget will remain deliberately vague, directing Congress to make coverage "universal."

The budget -- and I was cautioned that the wording "is changing hourly" -- will direct Congress to "aim for universality." That is a bolder goal than simple affordability, which can be achieved, at least in theory, through subsidies. Universality means everyone has coverage, not just the ability to access it. And that requires a mechanism to ensure that they have it.

Administration officials have been very clear on what the inclusion of "universality" is meant to communicate to Congress. As one senior member of the health team said to me, "it will cover everybody. And I don't see how you cover everybody without an individual mandate." [...]

The administration is bringing itself into alignment with senators like Max Baucus. Though they're not proposing an individual mandate in the budget, they are asking Congress to fulfill an objective that they expect will result in Congress proposing an individual mandate. And despite the controversy over the individual mandate in the campaign, they will support it. That, after all, is how you cover everybody.

Does this count as a flip-flop over the policy details? Probably, but it's nevertheless an improvement that makes the broader goal more likely. I was always under the impression that Obama got boxed in on opposing mandates for political purposes, and never quite believed his own campaign rhetoric anyway.

The president also probably figures the mechanism lets him off the hook, at least a little -- he's not proposing universal coverage through individual mandates; he's letting Congress do it and merely going along.

As this moves forward, though, expect congressional Republicans to use every criticism Obama uttered during the Democratic primaries to undermine the initiative.

THERE ARE OTHER SENATORS.... A press release just arrived via email:

Katie Couric will speak to Senator John McCain in a live web exclusive interview tonight (24) on CBSNews.com and CNET.com at approximately 10:30 PM, ET, immediately following CBS News broadcast coverage of President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress. The Webcast includes live response to viewer questions....

It occurred to me that Katie Couric had just interviewed McCain on the "CBS Evening News," and sure enough, she did. It happened right around the time McCain was interviewed on CBS's "Face the Nation," which occurred right around the time McCain was interviewed on the "CBS Morning Show."

So, naturally, when CBS News looks for someone to offer some analysis of a presidential address to Congress, Katie Couric turns, once again, to John McCain. It will be his fourth interview in three weeks on just this network.

Atrios noted last week, "I do wish President McCain [was] on my teevee a bit more often."

Perhaps CBS didn't pick up on the sarcasm.

DEPT. OF POTS AND KETTLES.... Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) still hasn't figured out the benefits of quiet time.

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R), who survived a 2007 sex scandal, called on Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) to resign Tuesday for his ethical shortcomings.

Oh my.

To be sure, Burris' problems are overwhelming, and he'd do well to step down from the Senate seat he never should have agreed to accept in the first place. No doubt, it's time for him to go.

But hearing Vitter complain about another senator's ethical shortcomings is pretty amusing. It's as if he has an incredibly short memory -- or he assumes we do.

We are, after all, talking about a far-right Republican, known for his "family values" platform, who got caught up in a prostitution ring just two years ago. Vitter, who's has spent years lecturing others about morality and the "sanctity of marriage," arranged extra-marital liaisons while on the floor of Congress. The only reason Vitter wasn't prosecuted is that the statute of limitations had come and gone.

I can appreciate the notion of Senate Republicans calling for Burris' ouster. But if the caucus nominated Vitter to take the lead on this, they clearly chose the wrong guy.

Indeed, Vitter is facing a tough re-election fight next year. The more he talks about others' ethical shortcomings, the easier it is to remind voters of his own unpleasant background with a certain D.C. madam.

BUNNING THREATENS NRSC LAWSUIT.... In light of Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-Ky.) increasingly erratic behavior, and likelihood of defeat next year, the Republican establishment has practically been begging Bunning to retire. So far, he's only responded angrily and refused to back down.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, worried about losing a winnable seat in a deep "red" state, is quietly making alternate arrangements. Just this past weekend, NRSC officials met with State Senate President David Williams (R) over the weekend, apparently to talk about a primary challenge to Bunning.

Today, Bunning said he's prepared to sue his party.

Sen. Jim Bunning is vowing to fight back as his feud with Republican leadership over his 2010 re-election bid spills into the national political scene.

If Republican campaign organizations tried to recruit another candidate to run in Bunning's stead, "I would have a suit against the (National Republican Senatorial Committee) if they did that," Bunning told reporters on Tuesday. "In their bylaws, support of the incumbents is the only reason they exist."

For what it's worth, NRSC Chairman John Cornyn of Texas said the party would back Bunning in a contested primary, just as it would with any incumbent. But in some ways, Bunning is missing the point. The NRSC doesn't have to officially throw its backing (and resources) to a primary opponent; it will probably just signal its support for the challenger, making it clear to the Republican rank and file that Bunning has lost the respect and support of his party.

By threatening a lawsuit, Bunning is making the NRSC's job easier, reinforcing fears that the senator's behavior has become something of an embarrassment.

RNC TO CONSIDER PUNISHING SENATE CENTRISTS.... Three Senate Republicans -- Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), and Arlen Specter (Pa.) -- were the only members of the minority party to cross party lines and vote in favor of the stimulus package. Yesterday, RNC Chairman Michael Steele suggested they'll be rewarded with primary challengers, and possibly a withdrawal of support from the national party.

Greg Sargent flagged this clip from Fox news yesterday, during which Neil Cavuto asked, "Will you, as RNC head, recommend no RNC funds being provided to help them?" Steele said he'd "talk to" state party officials in Maine and Pennsylvania about the possibility. When asked if he was at least open to withholding party support to three incumbent Republican senators, Steele added, "Oh, yes, I'm always open to everything, baby, absolutely."

Steele was probably hoping to send a message to GOP lawmakers who may be thinking about working with the White House on controversial policies, but it's an odd kind of threat. For one thing, Steele's comments probably won't mean much to Sens. Snowe and Collins. Snowe won 74% of the vote in her last campaign, and isn't up for re-election until 2012. Collins was just elected to a third term with 62% of the vote, and isn't up again until 2014. Are they going to be afraid of Michael Steele? I doubt it.

For that matter, the RNC chairman's threat is probably hollow. The Republican Party has to worry about every single seat, especially vulnerable incumbents like Specter. Steele isn't going to stand behind him next year because he endorsed a recovery plan during an economic crisis? It seems unlikely. (Note to Steele: you shouldn't promise the base one thing on Fox News, and then deliver another thing when votes are on the line.)

Post Script: In the same interview with Cavuto, Steele added that the way to improve the economy was to signal that "the state and the federal government will spend no more money."

Steele added, "[T]e inflationary effect, the deflationary effect, all of those things are going to come to head at some point." I have no idea what this means. I'm fairly certain Steele doesn't either.

THE LOW ROAD TO HIGH OFFICE.... When I think back to the fight for the Republican presidential nomination last year, I tend to think of Mike Huckabee as a radical ideologue with a very pleasant veneer. I disagreed with him on practically every issue under the sun, but I seem to recall him being rather nice about his vacuous, far-right, vaguely-theocratic worldview.

I don't recall him being such a hack.

Ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee has recorded an automated telephone call warning pro-lifers that Democrats and President Obama plan to eliminate all state and federal laws restricting abortion. The calls have been reported in Virginia and Washington State. The caller identification traces the origin of the recording to a Northern Virginia telephone number ... used by FiSERV, Inc. an automated call center used by conservative groups. Huckabee's statement refers to the Freedom of Choice Act, which President Obama has promised to sign into law, although it has not yet been introduced in the new Congress.

This comes just two weeks after Huckabee attacked the stimulus package as "anti-religious," because of a provision that, it turned out, doesn't exist.

Now he's running robocalls attacking Democrats over legislation that hasn't even been introduced? Amy Sullivan recently had a good item about the Freedom of Choice Act, which Huckabee may want to read.

A Freedom of Choice Act was introduced in the 108th and 110th Congresses (from 2003 to '05 and '07 to '09, respectively) by Representative Jerold Nadler, a New York Democrat. It was developed at a time when the future of Roe was in doubt because it was unclear if George W. Bush would have the opportunity to appoint another justice to the Supreme Court. But FOCA had a hard time gaining traction — even under Democratic control of Congress, the bill not only was never voted on but never made it out of committee. And now abortion-rights advocates are breathing easier with Obama in the White House — so much so that when a coalition of 63 organizations sent the Administration its top 15 priorities for reproductive rights and health, FOCA did not even make the list.

Congressional Democrats have also been less than enthusiastic about the proposal. A spokesman for Nadler says that while he expects the legislation to be reintroduced, "it won't be anytime soon." Even if FOCA is reintroduced in the current Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has indicated she has no intention of bringing it up for a vote. And even if she did, there are not enough votes in Congress to pass the bill.

So why is Huckabee bothering? Because he needs to find a way to stay relevant to far-right activists, and he'd like to scare them into taking his warnings seriously.

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.

* Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) doesn't want to resign, but is reportedly prepared to say he won't run again in 2010.

* Norm Coleman's lawyers signaled they could wrap up the current phase of their ongoing lawsuit this week. (This would not include the appeal, of course.) In the meantime, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) believes the lack of representation in the Senate is hurting the state.

* The DCCC's Frontline program, designed to bolster at-risk incumbents, identified its 40 most vulnerable freshmen yesterday.

* Americans United for Change's Brad Woodhouse is leaving the organization to take over as communications and research director at the Democratic National Committee.

* Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) is gearing up for a primary challenge from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R), and right now, he's losing. A PPP survey shows Hutchison leading Perry, 56% to 31%, among Texas Republicans.

* Former President Bill Clinton will headline a fundraiser for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) next month in NYC.

* Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. (R) said yesterday he doesn't bother to deal with congressional leaders from his own party. "I don't even know the congressional leadership," Huntsman told the Washington Times. "I have not met them. I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential -- completely."

* With the DCCC targeting 12 House Republicans who voted against the stimulus package, Mitt Romney's political action committee is sending $1,000 checks to each of the dozen GOP lawmakers. Romney, who is almost certainly planning another presidential run, praised the Republicans for "standing up for fiscal responsibility."

IT'S NOT A 'NATION OF SANTELLIS'.... Josh Marshall flagged this graphic from the Politico home-page last night, warning the White House about a "nation of Santellis." The reference was to CNBC's Rick Santelli, who launched a bizarre class-war tirade last week in reference to the Obama housing policy (and who has since become kind of paranoid).

The argument is pretty straightforward, and has been reinforced by media adulation for Santelli's rant -- the president's mortgage adjustment program is widely disliked. The rage Santelli expressed was endorsed by far-right blogs and talk-radio hosts precisely because it tapped into a simmering anger over the White House proposal.

It's worth remembering, then, that Santelli and his admirers haven't exactly swayed the electorate. The Washington Post found that 64% of Americans support Obama's mortgage proposal. In the New York Times poll, the support was 61%. A CNN poll found similar results.

There is a Rasmussen poll, which was the basis for the Politico article, which shows far more opposition. But while the other polls simply asked whether the public liked Obama's idea or not, the Rasmussen poll asked, "Some people say that having the government subsidize mortgage payments for financially troubled homeowners puts the government in the position of rewarding bad behavior. Is the government rewarding bad behavior when it provides subsidies to those who are most at risk of losing their homes?"

A 55% majority said the government is rewarding bad behavior. Given the wording of the question, I'm a little surprised the number wasn't even higher.

Taken together, is there really a "nation of Santellis" out there? Not so much.

SO MUCH FOR JUAN WILLIAMS' 'LIABILITY' THEORY.... About a month ago, Fox News contributor Juan Williams went after Michelle Obama, describing her as a political "liability" for the president. As Williams argued, the First Lady has "got this Stokely Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going," which may make her "something of an albatross."

As is often the case, there's a big difference between Williams' take and the public's attitudes.

A month into her husband's presidency, Michelle Obama is viewed more positively than were other first ladies in the past 28 years at similar stages, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Over all, 49 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Mrs. Obama, 5 percent view her unfavorably and 44 percent do not yet have an opinion.

In a February 1993 Times/CBS poll, 44 percent expressed a favorable view of the first lady at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton, while 16 percent viewed her unfavorably. And early into Ronald Reagan's first term in office, 28 percent rated Nancy Reagan positively and 10 percent negatively, with the rest offering no opinion.

Polls conducted just before their husbands assumed office also showed 3 in 10 offering a favorable opinion of Laura Bush, and a third expressing a positive view of Barbara Bush. Nearly all of the rest had no opinion yet.

Now, one assumes the 44% who do not yet have an option will include plenty of detractors, who the right wants to influence. As Adam Serwer explained very well, "It doesn't matter if the American people see Michelle Obama the way The Corner does, the point is to make it true through incessant repetition. But to suggest that Michelle is currently a political liability to the president because everyone sees her as a secret black radical is the opinion of a small, vocal fringe."

WHAT SHE 'REPRESENTS'.... I'm not sure what this means.

The mainstream media made it a mission to destroy the vice presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin, the Alaska governor says in a new documentary released Monday. [...]

"'We are going to seek and we are going to destroy this candidacy of Sarah Palin's because of what it is that she represents,'" the former vice presidential candidate described as the attitude members of the press adopted.

Now, I expect Palin to say she was picked on for being a far-right Republican. Or perhaps she prefers to think she drew gender-based criticism. Maybe Palin believes reporters simply failed to appreciate the depth of her insightful responses to policy questions. (Vladimir Putin has flown over her house, you know.)

But news outlets tried to "destroy" her because of "what it is she represents"? What is it, exactly, that Palin thinks she "represents"?

I don't have my Palin Translation Guide handy, but I suspect this relates to Palin's perception of media elitism. About a month before the election, she railed against "those Washington elite who don't like the idea of just an everyday working class American running for such an office."

As messages go, this is pretty weak. The Palins are pulling in a quarter-mil, own a plane and two boats, and live in a half-million-dollar, custom-built lake house. She also happens to be the chief executive of a state. Is this why campaign journalists tried to "destroy" her?

Or maybe Palin meant something else entirely. With her, it's hard to say for sure.

CIVIL UNIONS MUST NOT BE CUTTING EDGE.... Last week, RNC Chairman Michael Steele said he's committed to an "off the hook" public relations offensive that will appeal to voters, especially younger Americans, who've rejected Republicans. "We're going beyond cutting-edge," Steele promised.

He added, "[W]e need to uptick our image with everyone, including one-armed midgets."

In Steele's embrace of modernity, gay Americans apparently fall somewhere below one-armed midgets. Here's the Republican National Committee head talking to conservative talk-show host Mike Gallagher yesterday:

GALLAGHER: Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?

STEELE: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? I mean this isn't something that you just kind of like, "Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage." [...]

GALLAGHER: So no room even for a conversation about civil unions in your mind?

STEELE: What's the difference?

Keep in mind, this represents another step backwards for the Republican Party. After all, both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have publicly expressed their support for civil unions, as have most Americans, and even conservative governors of very "red" states.

It is an entirely mainstream position. And yet, for the chairman of the RNC, to even ask about Republicans "considering" civil unions is "crazy."

MCCAIN'S SALVO FALLS FLAT.... At the closing session of the "fiscal responsibility summit" at the White House yesterday, President Obama graciously introduced John McCain and invited him to go first in raising a point or asking a question.

McCain apparently thought he'd get in a little dig at his former campaign rival, and began talking about the bloated Pentagon budget. "We all know how large the defense budget is," the Arizona Republican said. "We all know that the cost overruns, your helicopter is now going to cost as much as Air Force One. I don't think that there's any more graphic demonstration of how good ideas have cost taxpayers enormous amount of money."

The president, taking away the senator's fun, agreed.

"I've already talked to [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates about a thorough review of the helicopter situation. The helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me. Of course, I've never had a helicopter before. So, you know, maybe -- maybe I've been deprived and I didn't know it. But I think it is an example of the procurement process gone amuck, and we're going to have to fix it."

This almost certainly isn't what McCain had in mind. At a White House gathering on fiscal responsibility, McCain wanted to needle Obama on wasting federal funds on a new Marine One helicopter. Instead, the president voiced his agreement.

Jonathan Chait noted, "This is Obama at his most appealing. He makes a gracious introduction of his rival, who in turn tries to stick in the knife by painting him as wasting taxpayer dollars on needless luxuries. Obama, rather than sniping back, turns around and agrees with McCain while making the point that he's hardly accustomed to extravagance."

There's also the larger issue of the Defense budget, and McCain's comment may have helped the administration's goals on the issue. As Sam Stein added, "On a broader level, there are a variety of political difficulties involved in tightening up on defense procurements: thousands of jobs are tied to the spending, and it opens up a president to charges that he's underfunding the Pentagon. If Obama wants to tackle these issues now, it seems that McCain could serve as a useful bipartisan ally in the Senate."

A RUDE AWAKENING.... Congressional Republicans seem to be feeling pretty good about themselves. They're voting in lock step, dominating the cable chatter, and releasing Aerosmith-backed videos bragging about their opposition to the economic recovery package. The GOP had discovered its mojo and was finally where it wanted to be.

But while Republican policymakers have clearly impressed each other, they haven't quite connected with everyone else.

President Obama is benefiting from remarkably high levels of optimism and confidence among Americans about his leadership, providing him with substantial political clout as he confronts the nation's economic challenges and opposition from nearly all Republicans in Congress, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

A majority of people surveyed in both parties said Mr. Obama was striving to work in a bipartisan way, but most faulted Republicans for their response to the president, saying the party had objected to the $787 billion economic stimulus plan for political reasons. Most said Mr. Obama should pursue the priorities he campaigned on, the poll found, rather than seek middle ground with Republicans.

The NYT poll found that three-quarters of Americans believe the president has been trying to work with Republicans, but only 3 in 10 said Republicans were doing the same. Indeed, 63% of poll respondents said Republican opposition to the stimulus package was about politics, not policy, and 79% said Republicans should give up on its agenda and start working more with Democrats.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll showed similar results. The president enjoys a 68% approval rating; congressional Democrats have 50% support, and congressional Republicans' rating is just 38%.

Head to head ... Americans put far more faith in Obama than in congressional Republicans: Sixty-one percent said they trust Obama more than the GOP on economic matters; 26 percent side with the Republicans in Congress. On that question, Obama's advantage is bigger than George W. Bush, Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush ever had over the opposition party in the legislature.

Overall, Democrats maintain an edge of nearly 2 to 1 over Republicans as the party that Americans prefer to confront "the big issues" over the next few years.

Somehow, "back in the saddle" isn't the first phrase that comes to mind.

Now, publius makes the point that the GOP isn't necessarily striving for short-term gains, and is thinking more about positioning for 2010 and 2012. There's certainly something to that -- Republicans want to be able to say, "We told you so," if the economy continues to struggle in the coming years.

But I also think Republicans expected some kind of boost out of the recent economic fight, which featured a very aggressive p.r. push on GOP economic ideas. If the new poll results are any indication, their efforts haven't worked at all.

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

* It was yet another dreadful day on Wall Street, with the Dow and S&P dropping to their lowest levels in 12 years.

* Bloodshed in Baghdad: "The U.S. military in Iraq says three U.S. soldiers and an interpreter have been killed in combat north of Baghdad. A statement says the soldiers and their interpreter were killed Monday in Diyala province."

* Karl Rove didn't show up for today's House Judiciary Committee hearing on the U.S. Attorney purge scandal.

* Former Gov. Gary Locke (D) of Washington state has emerged as the likely choice to be Commerce Secretary.

* Officials from across the country seem pretty anxious to claim the stimulus money a handful of far-right Republican governors don't want.

* CNBC's Rick Santelli, following up on last week's bizarre class-war tirade, is now sounding kind of paranoid.

* Fascinating story in the NYT today about U.S. "military advisers and technical specialists" working with the Pakistani military on fighting in lawless tribal areas of the country. The initiative began several months ago and "is a much larger and more ambitious effort than either country has acknowledged."

* Sounds like the Pentagon owes stop-loss troops some bonus money.

* Philadelphia Newspapers L.L.C., which owns The Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News, has filed for Chapter 11.

* I can't quite figure out the rationale for this: "The Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, is trying to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails."

* Do the hosts of "Morning Joe" listen to their own show?

* President Obama's approach to budget honesty, at this point, strikes me as very encouraging.

* Where is this "do-over" talk coming from?

* When a cabinet nominee is confirmed 75 to 21, only Fox News could characterize that as getting in "by the skin of his teeth."

* And on a personal note, today is, for lack of a better word, my "Blogoversary" -- I started blogging exactly six years ago today. Given the relative youth of the medium, I guess this means I've been at it for quite a long while. Whether you've been reading for six days or six years, my most sincere thanks for the support.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

BUNNING 'APOLOGIZES'.... We talked earlier about Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-Ken.) medical diagnosis of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The good news is, Bunning apologized this afternoon. The bad news is, his apology left much to be desired.

"I apologize if my comments offended Justice Ginsberg [sic]," Bunning said. "That certainly was not my intent. It is great to see her back at the Supreme Court today and I hope she recovers quickly. My thoughts and prayers are with her and her family."

First, if you're going to apologize for predicting a Supreme Court justice's death, please try to spell her name correctly.

Second, the point isn't that Bunning "offended" Ginsburg. In fact, as far as I can tell, the high court justice hasn't said anything about this. The reason the senator's comments became newsworthy is that he gave a stump speech about Ginsburg dying, delivering remarks that were wrong, crass, and insensitive. That he doesn't understand that suggests his "apology" doesn't mean much.

Josh Marshall concluded, "Most people who do rotten things have redeeming qualities if you look hard enough. Then there are the really low and vile characters like Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY).... Truly a rotten person. No wonder his own party is trying to find someone to run against him."

THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING.... At this point, I kind of hope South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) continues to strive for the national spotlight. The governor, who appears to be mad as a hatter, keeps saying crazy things that make for fun blog posts.

Here's his latest new gem:

"[Y]ou know, people who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.

"The Golden Gate Bridge was a Hoover-era infrastructure project designed to get the economy going. The L.A. aqueduct system was a Hoover-era, you know, infrastructure program designed to get the economy going. The Hoover Dam was a Depression-era, you know, project designed to get the economy going."

First, Sanford claims to oppose government spending in the midst of a crisis, so I'm not sure why he'd point to public works projects like these. Second, as my friend Alex Koppelman explained, the Golden Gate Bridge wasn't a Hoover-era infrastructure project; it was originally proposed before Hoover was even born, and began being built six years before Hoover became president. For that matter, the Hoover Dam wasn't a "Depression-era project," either.

What was that the governor was saying about those who don't learn from history?

On a related note, during a C-SPAN appearance this morning, Sanford received a call from a man from Charleston who lost his job because he's been taking care of an ailing mother and sister. The man relies on unemployment insurance, and Sanford is "wrong" to decline the unemployment money in the stimulus bill. The governor's response? Sanford said his "prayers are going to be with him and his family because it sounds like he is in an awfully tough spot." As Ben Armbruster added, "Sanford offered no other alternative solution for his constituent."

And just for good measure, Sanford, appearing on Fox News yesterday, was asked about his decision to turn down unemployment insurance for struggling South Carolinians. He responded that the stimulus package "at times it sounds like the Soviet grain quotas of Stalin's time -- X number of jobs will be created because Washington says so."

The easiest way to make this guy appear foolish is to hand him a microphone and get out of the way.

Just keep on talking, gov.

HSR LIE JUST WON'T GO AWAY.... Once a claim makes its way onto the approved list of Official Republican Talking Points, it's there to stay. Even after a claim has been exposed as completely false -- sometimes, especially after it's been proven false -- GOP figures will just keep repeating it.

When it comes to the stimulus package, we have a few too many examples to choose from. The marsh-mouse preservation spending is obviously a good one, but the notion of Harry Reid securing an $8 billion earmark for high-speed rail between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is a genuine Republican classic.

Here's reality: as negotiations on the package wrapped up, Rahm Emanuel secured an extra $8 billion for high-speed rail. The Maine and Pennsylvania Republican "centrists" approved, and the bill progressed. The $8 billion is not directed at any specific state or project.

Regardless, conservatives quickly began arguing that the $8 billion was Reid's idea, and would go exclusively to connect Los Angeles and Las Vegas with HSR. "Tell me how spending $8 billion," House Minority Leader John Boehner asked, "in this bill to have a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is going to help the construction worker in my district." The argument doesn't really make any sense -- not every infrastructure bill is going to benefit every worker in every district -- but more importantly, the $8 billion earmark doesn't exist in reality.

And yet Boehner and his cohorts kept repeating the lie, and now it won't go away. Here's John McCain today:

"So, we will be seeking fair and transparent use of the money. I believe that Arizona can compete with any other state or locality to get the much-needed money. Already we're seeing a good example. There was $2 billion in the Senate bill of the stimulus package for light rail; there was zero in the House. It came out of conference -- only Democrats, no Republicans in the room - with $8 billion for light rail. And guess where it's going to go? A light rail between Las Vegas and L.A. Everybody knows that.

"Could we have competed for that money? Maybe so. So it's business as usual in Washington, and I think that Americans are generally very disappointed. Sorry for the long answer."

He should be "sorry," but the problem isn't the length of the answer, it's the blatant dishonesty of his answer.

It's certainly possible that McCain just doesn't know what he's talking about. Maybe he saw someone repeat the lie on Fox News, and assumed it was true. McCain has never been especially detail-oriented, which is why he manages to make patently false claims with some regularity.

But this one is especially egregious, and not just because there is no $8 billion for light rail between L.A. and Vegas. As Matt Yglesias explained, "The thing that John McCain wants where different states can compete for the high-speed rail money is what the bill already says. Except McCain has piled ignorance onto dishonesty by confusing high-speed rail (advanced passenger trains that run between cities) with light-rail (relatively low-capacity trains used for intra-city mass transit)."

So, in this case, McCain is not only lying, he's confused about the subject on which he's lying. He then insists, "Everybody knows that," as if those who accept reality are somehow ignorant.

It's a helpful reminder of why policy debates with congressional Republicans don't usually go well.

THE REVOLVING DOOR.... The Politico's Michael Calderone had an interesting item last week on "at least a half-dozen prominent journalists" who've left their jobs in media over the last three months, to start working for the federal government. For many on the right, seeing professionals make the shift from major news outlets to Democratic offices is evidence of widespread media bias.

But is it also bias when prominent political figures make the transition from Republican offices to major news outlets?

Conservatives have complained for years that there are too many liberals in the mainstream media. Starting Monday, though, they'll have at least one of their own at CBS News.

Jeff Ballabon, an Orthodox Jew and political and communications consultant whom The Forward called "the architect of Bush's 2004 re-election effort in the Orthodox community," is the new senior vice president for communications at CBS News. He starts Monday and, according to a CBS press release, will be in charge of "all media relations and public affairs for CBS News, including strategy and planning, day-to-day publicity, internal and external communications" and coordination with the CBS News website. [...]

Ballabon said CBS reached out to him and it was an "irresistible offer" to "help CBS News regain its standing as the Tiffany news network."

Ira Forman noted today that, during a public debate several years ago, Ballabon claimed that Democrats are inherently bad people. More recently, during the 2008 election, Ballabon added, "Obama is incredibly dangerous."

Greg Sargent talked to Ballabon this morning, and he insisted, "I never said Democrats are evil." Asked if he still believes the president is "incredibly dangerous," Ballabon declined comment.

If Jay Carney making the switch from Time to Joe Biden's office is evidence of some kind of systemic predisposition in American media, what are we to assume about CBS News making Jeff Ballabon its new senior vice president for communications?

And for those keeping score at home, Ballabon's move from Bush's team to traditional major media outlets is hardly unusual. He joins Michael Gerson (Washington Post), Sara Taylor (MSNBC), Tony Snow (CNN), Frances Fragos Townsend (CNN), Nicole Wallace (CBS News), Dan Bartlett (CBS News), and, of course, Karl Rove (Fox News, Newsweek, and Wall Street Journal).

WHAT ABOUT THE 'REAL' FILIBUSTERS?.... One of the more common arguments in the debate over filibusters is the fact that actual filibusters never actually happen anymore. Gone are the days in which senators would stand, reading from phone books and reciting recipes, literally talking a bill to death. If we're not going to get rid of the tactic, can we at least discourage their frequency by making senators launch real filibusters?

Ryan Grim reports today that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is well aware of these questions, and has looked into the procedure. It's not going to happen, or more accurately, it can't happen.

Reid's office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator "can be forced to sit on the [Senate] floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time."

Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."

To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.

As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."

The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster.

"You cannot force senators to talk during a filibuster," says Dove. "Delay in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is through cloture."

But what about some of the historic filibusters, that lasted hours upon hours? Those senators were, Dove said, "making a point." They didn't have to keep talking, but they did.

Good to know. Now, can we talk about getting rid of the filibuster altogether?

IN SEARCH OF AN HONEST DEBATE.... President Obama hosted the nation's governors in the East Room this morning, and, among other things, announced that $15 billion to cover states' Medicaid costs would begin reaching capitals this week. The result is 20 million Americans nationwide who'll be able to keep their coverage.

But towards the end of his remarks, the president stopped looking at his notes and started responding directly to some of the recent talk about some governors rejecting some federal stimulus aid. Most notably, Govs. Jindal, Sanford, and Barbour have raised concerns about unemployment benefits for part-time workers.

Obama didn't mention any names, but he nevertheless made clear that now would be a very good time for everyone to cut the nonsense.

"I think there are some very legitimate concerns on the part of some about the sustainability of expanding unemployment insurance. What hasn't been noted is that that is $7 billion of a $787 billion program. And it's not even the majority of the expansion of unemployment insurance," Obama said. The president added, "If we agree on 90 percent of this stuff, and we're spending all our time on television arguing about 1, 2, 3 percent of the spending in this thing, and somehow it's being characterized in broad brush as 'wasteful spending,' that starts sounding more like politics. And that's what right now we don't have time to do."

Obama went on to say, "I will always be open to honest disagreements, and I think that there are some legitimate concerns that can be raised on a whole host of these issues. You're responsible at the state level. If the federal government gives you something now, and then two years later it's gone, and people are looking to you and starting to blame you, I don't want to put you in that position. You need to think about how this money's going to be spent wisely.

"What I don't want us to do, though, is just get caught up in the same old stuff.... There's going to be ample time for campaigns down the road. Right now, we've got to make sure we're standing up for the American people and putting them back to work."

He wasn't calling out Jindal, Sanford, and Barbour specifically, but the message was hard to miss. Obama wants to engage in an "honest debate" -- he used the phrase a few times this morning -- and some Republicans with their sights on 2012 aren't offering one.

IT'S NOT 1993.... Congressional Republicans, hoping to find a way back to the comeback trail, have apparently focused their attention on the last time Democrats controlled the White House, Senate, and House. This includes taking direction from Newt Gingrich, but as Jeanne Cummings noted in a good piece today, it goes further than that.

Republicans are hatching a political comeback by dusting off a strategic playbook written nearly two decades ago.

Its themes: Unite against Democrats' economic policy, block and counter health care reform and tar them with spending scandals.

Those represent the political trifecta that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich bet on in 1994 to produce a historic Republican takeover of Congress.

Now, some Republicans believe President Barack Obama's one-two push on the economy and health care reform is setting the stage for a new round of significant gains, if not a total takeover.

We'll see, of course, whether this strategy has merit, but I'm skeptical. Cummings did a nice job highlighting some of the reasons 2009 bears little resemblance to 1993, and why the differences matter when hoping to apply the old strategy to a new political landscape.

Indeed, the similarities are easily outnumbered. There were, in both instances, young and dynamic Democratic presidents, but Barack Obama enjoys broader and deeper support than Bill Clinton did at this stage, and unlike Clinton, Obama won a healthy electoral majority in the popular vote. For that matter, just as Republicans hope to capitalize on the GOP gains of the early '90s, Obama has assembled a team that also learned lessons from the same era.

Also note the kind of Democratic majorities from each period. By June 1993, Clinton saw a Democratic caucus in the Senate with 55 members, two of whom not only opposed most of Clinton's agenda, but would also soon leave the party altogether. Obama, in contrast, has a caucus with 58 (with Minnesota, 59) members.

But putting aside the numbers, what Gingrich's modern acolytes probably don't realize is that theirs is a party in decline. In 1992, Clinton won, but it was Republicans who made gains in House and gubernatorial elections. 2008 couldn't have been more distinct -- the GOP suffered electoral humiliation at nearly every level, saw its numbers plunge to their lowest point in decades, and effectively became a regional party. The early '90s were a period of Republican ascendency. That's long gone.

Making matters even worse, the agenda Republicans are fighting -- most notably, on economics and healthcare reform -- enjoys strong support nationally. In a battle of ideas, the GOP is shooting blanks.

Stan Greenberg noted, "We are in a different game, and they are playing by the old rules."

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.

* Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) "hopes" to see Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) resign this week. We'll see.

* How anxious is the Republican establishment to get rid of Sen. Jim Bunning (R) in Kentucky? Officials at the National Republican Senatorial Committee met with State Senate President David Williams (R) over the weekend, apparently to talk about the race.

* The Star Tribune notes today that Norm Coleman's chance of winning his latest legal fight is remote. "Coleman is in a bubble running out of oxygen," said Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political science professor.

* Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) sees Gov. David Paterson's (D) dropping statewide support, and she's getting awfully nervous about next year.

* South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal were all asked over the weekend if they planned to seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Each was noncommittal.

* Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has picked up his first Republican opponent for 2010, but it's not former Rep. Rob Simmons; it's state Sen. Sam S.F. Caligiuri.

* How solid are John McCain's re-election chances next year? Seyward Darby takes a closer look at the Arizona Republican's prospects.

BIGGEST. TAX CUT. EVER. PART III.... I had a hunch we'd hear more about this one; it's just a little sooner than I expected.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, headed by Chris Van Hollen, will start pumping new robocalls later today into the districts of a dozen House Republicans, attacking them for voting against the economic recovery plan and reminding voters that it was supported by business groups.

The calls also hit the Republicans for voting "against the largest tax cut in history," a reference to the tax cuts in the bill that the GOPers opposed, and an early clue to an attack line the Dems will be using in the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections.

CNN, which has the full list of the targeted GOP lawmakers, adds that this new initiative will include robocalls, emails, and text messages, "directly to targeted Republicans' constituents."

It strikes me as a fairly compelling talking point. It may seem unusual, but it turns out that President Obama proposed and passed one of the largest tax cuts in American history -- $282 billion over two years -- without Republican support. Just as importantly, unlike other recent tax cuts, this one was targeted specifically at working and middle class families. When the DCCC accuses GOP lawmakers of rejecting "the largest tax cut in history," it has the benefit of being true.

But it's also an argument with political risks. Brian Beutler noted last week, "The government's eventually going to have to raise taxes to pay for all this.... Democrats will almost certainly be the ones to do this and there's no reason they should be sabotaging public support for those increases years in advance."

It's a good point. The more Democrats fuel Tax Cut Mania, the more, shall we say, awkward it will be when the party pushes through a tax increase. As far as the politics are concerned, though, it's likely to come down to who's affected most -- Obama just cut taxes on work and middle class Americans, but he's also poised to call for raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year.

It is exactly what the president told voters he'd do during the campaign, and it's the kind of dynamic that offers at least some cover to the party come election time. Democrats in Congress seeking re-election will vote for Obama's plan to raise taxes on those making more than a quarter-million, but they'll also tell voters, "I voted for the biggest middle-class tax cut in American history."

AFTER A MONTH.... Gallup released its latest survey this morning, showing President Obama's approval rating at 63%, "down slightly from his initial 68% rating in January."

I should note from the outset that a modest drop in a president's first month isn't worth getting too excited about. A 63% approval rating is still, obviously, quite strong, and higher than most modern presidents at this point in their first terms.

What's interesting, though, is why Obama dropped a bit.

If Gallup's numbers are right, Obama has seen his support go up over his first month with Democrats and Independents, but his overall number fell because he's lost Republican support. The report noted, "More precisely, the steepest drop in approval of Obama has come from conservative Republicans, whose support descended from 36% in his first, partial week on the job (Jan. 21-25) to 22% by his fourth week (Feb. 9-15)."

This is to be expected. Obama enjoyed some GOP support early on, but it dissipated once the president started governing and Republican lawmakers (and their allies) started criticizing. Since the president's numbers actually improved among everyone else, it shouldn't trouble the White House too much to lose support from, as Eric Kleefeld noted, "people who were unlikely to have approved of him in the first place."

I'm skeptical that the president's overall numbers have too big an impact right now. A month is, after all, only a month. But if Republicans were watching these numbers, hoping to see a decline they could exploit in the wake of the stimulus debate, they're probably disappointed right now.

THE SHOCKING MARSH-MOUSE TRUTH.... The New York Times had an item yesterday, describing the Republican Party's vision of a "loyal opposition." It noted Newt Gingrich, emphasizing the partisan benefits of rejecting the majority party's agenda.

"Mr. Gingrich sees the stimulus bill as his party's ticket to a revival in 2010," the NYT's Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote, "as Republicans decry what they see as pork-barrel spending for projects like marsh-mouse preservation."

The Times neglected to mention, of course, that there was no pork-barrel spending for marsh-mouse preservation. It's a Republican talking point that isn't true. Stolberg simply passed this along as if it were fact. It's not.

This comes up quite a bit. MSNBC's "Morning Joe" has been repeating the marsh-mouse claim quite a bit lately, and to its credit, the show invited PolitiFact.com's Bill Adair on to the show this morning to scrutinize the story. Asked if MSNBC was "unfair" to go after this story, Adair said, "You were.... This one gets a 'false' on the Truth-o-Meter.... The reality is, the money is just not in the bill to do this the way that they said."

Joe Scarborough said he'd talked to a Republican House member about this, who defended the claim. Adair said the GOP lawmaker "lied to you."

But what I found most interesting about this wasn't just the fact-checking, which was welcome, but the response from the "Morning Joe" crew, which was flabbergasted when confronted with reality. Take a listen around the 45-second mark, and note the amazement and incredulity when Adair started to explain why this bogus talking point isn't grounded in reality.

It apparently never occurred to the on-air crew that the talking point they'd repeated ad nauseum might not be truthful, so they were stunned by the facts. Perhaps they should have had Adair on sooner.

Update: Greg Sargent thinks it's even worse: "I actually think it’s more cringe-worthy than this. The Morning Joe dudes were noting ironically that they were surprised that the mouse money talking point was not true. It just wasn’t a big deal to them at all that this had happened."

THE CARRY.... There's no reasonable explanation to justify the hedge fund tax loophole. It's a straightforward problem: the tax rates on hedge-fund managers' income are, inexplicably, lower than the rates on everyone else's income.

The debate is not about taxing capital gains like regular income. Rather, it's a system that allows hedge-fund managers to pay capital-gains rates (15%) on their income, while everyone else pays income-tax rates.

The Obama administration apparently intends to address the "carried interest" loophole in his budget proposal.

The president will propose to tax the investment income of hedge fund and private equity partners at ordinary income tax rates, which are now as high as 35 percent and could return to 39.6 percent under his plans, instead of at the capital gains rate, which is 15 percent at most.

Senior Democrats in Congress joined with Republicans in 2007 to oppose that increase. But with Wall Street discredited and lucrative executive compensation a political target, the provision could prove more popular among lawmakers.

As Noam Scheiber noted, "I wasn't sure Obama had it in him to close the loophole and am delighted to see that he might. (We'll obviously have to wait and see if he fights for the measure, and if Congress signs on. But it's a good start.)"

It is, indeed. Both parties have known about this costly loophole (more than $6 billion a year) for years, and both parties have been reluctant to address it (Chuck Schumer, I'm looking in your direction).

Paul Krugman, who called this "a crystal-clear example of unjustified privilege," explained a while back why this should be a no-brainer.

[T]he salaries that pension fund employees receive for managing other peoples' money are taxed as ordinary income, at rates up to 35 percent. But if that money is invested with a hedge fund -- and 40 percent of the money in hedge funds comes from public, corporate and union pension plans -- the fees the hedge fund manager receives for his services are mainly taxed as capital gains, with a maximum rate of 15 percent.

The arguments usually made on behalf of this unique privilege make no sense. We're told that the tax rate on hedge fund managers has to be kept low to encourage risk-taking. But the managers aren't risking their own money. The only risk they face is the uncertainty of their fees -- and as any waitress who depends on tips or salesman who depends on commissions can tell you, most people with uncertain incomes don't get any special tax breaks.

We're also told that management fees would rise, reducing returns to investors, if the privileged status of fund managers is eliminated -- as if someone with a $100-million-a-year hedge fund job would walk away if his take-home pay fell from $85 million to $65 million.

I'm glad the White House has the good sense to take this seriously. Here's hoping Congress does the same.

REMOVING ALL DOUBT.... Five years ago, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ken.) won re-election despite odd and erratic personal behavior. Now, in advance of another re-election fight, Bunning is acting strangely again.

Last month, Bunning decided not to show up for work for a while, and refused to say publicly where he was. More recently, the Kentucky Republican has been more tight-lipped, at least until this weekend.

U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning predicted over the weekend that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would likely be dead from pancreatic cancer within nine months.

During a wide-ranging 30-minute speech on Saturday at the Hardin County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Bunning said he supports conservative judges "and that's going to be in place very shortly because Ruth Bader Ginsburg ... has cancer."

"Bad cancer. The kind that you don't get better from," he told a crowd of about 100 at the old State Theater.

"Even though she was operated on, usually, nine months is the longest that anybody would live after (being diagnosed) with pancreatic cancer," he said.

And here I thought Bill Frist was the only Republican comfortable making medical diagnoses from afar.

There are a few angles to this. First, Bunning -- whose background is in professional baseball, not medicine -- doesn't really know what he's talking about. Ginsburg's cancer was caught early and she had surgery to remove a small tumor that had not spread. It's obviously a serious, life-threatening matter, but the American Cancer Society notes that "people diagnosed with Stage 1 pancreatic cancer have between a 21 and 37 percent chance of living for more than five years with the disease."

Second, shouldn't Bunning, when speaking publicly, show a little more respect? Predicting the death of a Supreme Court justice, in the context of judicial politics, doesn't exactly scream "class."

It's a reminder of why Republican leaders on the Hill, while generally discouraging retirements, would love to see Bunning go away.

Note to Bunning: better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt.

WILL LAMENTS EXCESSIVE DEMOCRACY.... The Washington Post's George Will, who's been on a roll lately, had another interesting piece yesterday, blasting Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) for his proposed constitutional amendment on prohibiting gubernatorial Senate appointments. At first blush, that's not entirely unreasonable -- Feingold's proposal is provocative.

But Will goes to surprising lengths in his criticism. While Feingold's measure would alter the 17th Amendment, which transferred power from state legislatures to voters in selecting U.S. senators, Will argues it would be "better to repeal" the 17th Amendment altogether.

The Framers established election of senators by state legislators, under which system the nation got the Great Triumvirate (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun) and thrived. In 1913, progressives, believing that more, and more direct, democracy is always wonderful, got the 17th Amendment ratified. It stipulates popular election of senators, under which system Wisconsin has elected, among others, Joe McCarthy, as well as Feingold.

This kind of thinking is pretty simplistic -- state legislators occasionally chose good senators, and voters occasionally choose bad ones, therefore legislators are better suited to select senators.

I suppose Will deserves some credit for outside-the-box thinking -- most political observers have gotten past the fight over the 17th, which was resolved 96 years ago. Will is also one of those rare establishment figures willing to argue that the American electorate should have less say over who represents them in Congress.

But on the merits, publius explains why Feingold's proposal goes the furthest to add legitimacy to the process.

The problem with governor appointments is a structural one -- one that goes beyond the individual moral failings of people like Blago. We currently have a vacancy appointment system in which the Blagos of the world have incentives to do funny business (demanding money; extracting concessions, etc.). As long as the incentives are there, future Blagos will inevitably reappear.

Providing state legislatures this authority raises all the same problems. In appointing Senators, state legislators would have all kinds of incentives to engage in corruption in exchange for a Senate appointment. And because those incentives are there -- and because we must assume people will be bad when thinking of constitutional structure -- corruption would inevitably occur.

The solution, then, is letting voters have their say. Democracy isn't "always wonderful," but for accountability and legitimacy, it's tough to beat.

JINDAL.... Time's Joe Klein caught Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) on "Meet the Press" this morning, and wasn't impressed.

At one point in the interview, Jindal -- who seems to be running for President -- trotted out the standard Republican boilerplate about the need for a package with more tax cuts, especially in the capital gains tax. David Gregory pointed out that we'd just had eight years of that philosophy, and it hadn't done very much to help job creation or median incomes. Jindal resorted to the Republican fantasy playbook -- to the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts, which allegedly helped boost the economy. (Actually, it was the Carter-Volcker monetary reforms that set the economy on a more stable path for growth in the early 1980s.) Needless to say, Jindal didn't mention either the Reagan tax increases (proportionately the largest in U.S. history) or the slightly smaller Clinton increases, which led to the lowering of interest rates and the economic boom of the 1990's. Nor did he mention the 30 years of neglect the nation's infrastructure has suffered during the Reagan era -- not just the neglect of roads and bridges and levees, but also of the sorts of high-tech and green infrastructure programs (including mass transit and high-speed rail) that will lay the basis for a more efficient economy in the future.

In other words, Jindal -- the alleged voice of the GOP future -- had absolutely nothing new to say. And what he did say, about the stimulus, was purposefully misleading. I'm not sure how well the Obama stimulus, banking and budget plans will work. No one does. But I do know how the philosophy and the misleading politics that Jindal offered today has worked in the recent past.

It's been a disaster.

This seems to happen a lot. A "rising star" in Republican politics decides he or she should be on the national stage; drops any pretense of intellectual seriousness; and trades the respect of credible observers for the adoration of the Republican base.

In this case, Klein has always found Jindal to be "very smart," "quite creative," and "always intellectually honest." Then Klein saw the new, more hackish Jindal, and is left wondering where that credible guy went. In Klein's case, respect has turned to scorn.

We saw this same pattern with John McCain, who also quickly made a similar transition in preparation for 2008, and even George W. Bush in 2000, who had plenty of admirers in the political establishment, which characterized Bush as having a reputation as a moderate, pragmatic governor.*

The difference seems to be that Jindal is trading his reputation for seriousness and intellectual honesty much sooner than seems necessary.

* edited slightly for clarity

SCHWARZENEGGER.... Sounds like he's new to Republican politics.

Schwarzenegger said Republicans in Washington must put aside their ideology and work with President Barack Obama on solving the economic crisis.

"You know, you've got to go beyond just the principles. You've got to go and say, 'What is right for the country right now?'" he said. "I think that, if they -- they should make an effort to work together and to find what is best for the people, because by derailing everything, it's not going to help anybody, and it creates instability and insecurity."

"They," in this case, is in refence to congressional Republicans.

I wonder if there's an excommunication process in place at the Republican National Committee....

THE RACE TO BE THE CRAZIEST.... Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) has said he'll reject some of unemployment insurance from the federal stimulus package. Not to be outdone, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) said he'll not only reject unemployment insurance, but will also "not take $42 million in funding for green buildings."

Yes, because there's nothing worse than paying construction crews to make buildings more energy efficient.

There's apparently a race among some far-right Republican governors -- all of whom are already eyeing the 2012 presidential race -- to see who can be slightly crazier than the other. Jindal is clearly a contender, and Sarah Palin and Mississippi's Haley Barbour are obviously in the mix, but Sanford seems especially driven to get out in front of the pack.

It's leading him to make unusually ridiculous decisions affecting the people in his state, while making truly odd policy prescriptions.

Sanford, asked about the stimulus, said he would probably reject some of the funds. "I think it's a bad idea," he said of the package. "Period. Exclamation point."

"Good medicine to the wrong patient ultimately makes the patient sicker," Sanford continued. "What we're dealing with here is a fundamental misdiagnosis of the problem."

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) told the WaPo, "I think people will ... understand that it's political posturing and you're playing with people's lives, and that's a very, very dangerous game."

That's true, but for Sanford, it's a dangerous game he can win by losing -- he "wins" by currying favor with unhinged Republican activists, while "losing" as his state's economy deteriorates and his constituents suffer.

As for Sanford's notion of a "fundamental misdiagnosis," what does the South Carolinian believe is the wisest course of action? "When times go south you cut spending," Sanford recently explained. "That's what families do, that's what businesses do, and I don't think the government should be exempt from that process."

It is Neo-Hooverism in its most obvious form.

Sanford added, by the way, that supporters of the economic recovery package are "the real fringe" in American politics. Got that? The "fringe" includes the popular president, a majority of the Senate, a majority of the House, a majority of the governors, labor unions, the Chamber of Commerce, and 60% of the American people.

Perhaps it's best to assume that whatever Mark Sanford says, the opposite is true.

INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTCY.... Why is it so painfully difficult to take the Republican Party seriously in the 21st century? Because they haven't quite figured out that credibility comes with a degree of political maturity. Take Sen. Richard Shelby (R) of Alabama, for example. (via Ben Smith)

Another local resident [in Cullman County, Alabama] asked Shelby [yesterday] if there was any truth to a rumor that appeared during the presidential campaign concerning Obama's U.S. citizenship, or lack thereof.

"Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate," Shelby said. "You have to be born in America to be president."

According to the Associated Press, state officials in Hawaii checked health department records during the campaign and determined there was no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii.

The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document. In addition, Factcheck.org reproduced an announcement of Obama's birth, including his parents' address in Honolulu, that was published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961.

This kind of stupidity took a right turn at annoying quite a while ago, and now rests comfortably in the realm of madness. When Alan Keyes launches into a ridiculous tirade about the president's birth certificate, it's not especially surprising -- Keyes, based on all available evidence, is apparently not well. Anyone looking for lucidity from the poor man is bound to be disappointed.

It's far more annoying to have elected Republican officials in Tennessee signing on as plaintiffs in a lawsuit "aimed at forcing" the President to "prove he is a United States citizen."

But the Shelby example is a different magnitude of idiocy. Shelby isn't just some random yahoo with a right-wing radio talk-show; he's a four-term United States senator. He's the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, for crying out loud. It's incumbent on him to be somewhat coherent and conduct himself with at least a little sanity.

In the broader context, the Republican Party is still unsure how to get back on the road to electoral success after years of failure and defeat. While the party mulls its options, we have a leading House Republican comparing the GOP to the Taliban; a prominent Senate Republican wanting to position the party as "freedom fighters" taking on the "slide toward socialism"; and a leading Senate Republican publicly questioning the President of the United States' birth certificate.

What an embarrassment.

It seems a little early in Obama's presidency to see Republicans become this deranged. I shudder to think how unhinged they'll be in, say, a year.

Update: Shelby's office says the local news account isn't a full reflection of the senator's comments, and that the senator "doesn't have any doubt" about Obama's citizenship and eligibility.

Second Update: While Shelby claims the local paper misconstrued his comments, the paper stands by its story. There are rumors that a video might be available. I'll keep you posted.

KEEPING HEALTHCARE REFORM ON TRACK.... There's been ample speculation as to whether the Obama administration will pursue healthcare reform this year, but as the White House budget comes together, the issue remains very much on the frontburner.

"The budget will kick off or facilitate a focus on getting health care done this year," the senior official said, adding that the White House is planning a health care summit. The event has been delayed by former senator Thomas A. Daschle's decision to withdraw from consideration as health secretary because of tax problems, a move that left Obama without a key member of his health team.

Administration officials and outside experts say the most likely path to revamping the health system is to begin with Medicare, the federal program for retirees and people with disabilities, and Medicaid, which serves the poor. Together, the two programs cover about 100 million people at a cost of $561 billion in 2007. Making policy changes in those programs -- such as rewarding physicians who computerize their medical records or paying doctors for results rather than procedures -- could improve care while generating long-term savings, experts say.

Obama's budget request would create "running room for health reform," the official said, by reducing spending on some health programs so the administration would have money to devote to initiatives to expand coverage. The biggest target is bonus payments to insurance companies that run managed-care programs under Medicare, known as Medicare Advantage.

The Bush-era program has attracted nearly a quarter of Medicare beneficiaries to private health insurance plans that cover a package of services such as doctor visits, prescription drugs and eyeglasses. But the government pays the plans 13 to 17 percent more than it pays for traditional fee-for-service coverage, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, which advises Congress on Medicare financing issues.

On a related note, the Politico reported that the White House is "considering dumping its newly created Office of Health Reform," which Tom Daschle was slated to lead. Does that mean Obama's team is backing off on the broader initiative? Ezra Klein explains that just the opposite appears to be true. The Office of Health Reform was going to be Daschle's baby and "filling that spot with someone else would actually undermine the original intent of the office."

Ezra concluded, "If they decide to dump the Office of Health Reform, it's not because they've abandoned health care reform. It's because they haven't, and they're building a post-Daschle strategy."

UNEMPLOYED BUSHIES.... Alberto Gonzales' difficulties in finding a job in the legal world are well known, but it appears he's not the only one from the previous administration struggling.

The jobless rate is hanging high -- for many of the roughly 3,000 political appointees who served President George W. Bush. Finding work has proved a far tougher task than those appointees expected. [...]

Only 25% to 30% of ex-Bush officials seeking full-time jobs have succeeded, estimated Eric Vautour, a Washington recruiter at Russell Reynolds Associates Inc. That "is much, much worse" than when Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton left the White House, he said. At least half those presidents' senior staffers landed employment within a month after the administration ended, Mr. Vautour recalled.

Moving beyond any sense of Schadenfreude here, there's an interesting aspect to this that warrants attention. As Paul Krugman explained, there's a "wingnut welfare" system in place that, ordinarily, practically guarantees full employment for experienced Republican officials who lose their jobs in government. GOP benefactors are supposed to help "take care of" Republicans like this, through think tanks and related outlets.

Now, however, it appears the system isn't working as it used to.

Thus, lose an election, and a think tank with the usual funding sources will create an America's Enemies program for you to direct. Mess up the occupation of Iraq, and you'll be appointed to run the World Bank; mess up there, and there's still a chair waiting for you at AEI.

But it appears that wingnut welfare is breaking down when it comes to former Bush officials. Is this the beginning of the end for movement conservatism?

Something to keep an eye on.

IRONY WATCH.... The very first sentence of George Will's new column reads:

A simple apology would have sufficed.

Oh, George, the irony is rich.

In context, Will's column blasts Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) for his proposed constitutional amendment on prohibiting gubernatorial Senate appointments. The "simple apology," in Will's mind, should come from Feingold for his campaign-finance reform efforts.

More to the point, though, there's still no word on when Will might offer a "simple apology" for his factual errors in last week's column on global warming.

OBAMA EYES DEFICIT REDUCTION.... Just yesterday, in his weekly address, President Obama said he is determined to "get exploding deficits under control." He previewed a federal request budget, due out this week, that is "sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don't, and restoring fiscal discipline."

The president added, "[W]e can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control."

To that end, the White House is "putting the finishing touches on an ambitious first budget" that aims to cut the deficit in half over the next four years. Republicans who opposed the economic stimulus plan built their arguments around fears of long-term debt (I believe "generational theft" was the phrase of choice). So, will the GOP be thrilled to hear Obama's deficit reduction plan?

Probably not.

To get [to a projected $533 billion deficit -- 3% of GDP -- in 2013], Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from "winding down the war" in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes continued spending on "overseas military contingency operations" throughout Obama's presidency, the official said, but that number is lower than the nearly $190 billion budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011. That means the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the tax on capital gains would jump to 20 percent from 15 percent for wealthy filers and the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million would be maintained at the current rate of 45 percent.

Obama also proposes "a fairly aggressive effort on tax enforcement" that would target corporate loopholes, the official said. And Obama's budget seeks to tax the earnings of hedge fund managers as normal income rather than at the lower 15 percent capital gains rate.

This is, of course, entirely in line with the agenda presented to the electorate in 2008. As David Axelrod told the NYT, "This is consistent with what the president talked about throughout the campaign," and "restores some balance to the tax code in a way that protects the middle class."

We'll have a better sense of the details on Thursday, when the White House will release a 150-page "Economic and Budget Policy" report. This outline will be followed by the complete budget for the 2010 fiscal year, released in April, though the outline will "make clear" that the president "intends to push ahead on promises to contain health care costs and expand insurance coverage, and to move toward an energy cap-and-trade system for controlling emissions of gases blamed for climate change."

JINDAL TO TURN DOWN STIMULUS AID.... I can only assume this is some kind of bizarre kickoff of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Saying that it could lead to a tax increase on state businesses, Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that the state plans to reject as much as $98 million in federal unemployment assistance in the economic stimulus package.

Jindal, who has emerged as a leading Republican critic of the $787 billion spending and tax-cut bill signed into law this week by President Barack Obama, said the state would accept federal dollars for transportation projects and would not quarrel with a $25-per-week increase in unemployment benefits.

Both of those items are financed entirely with federal dollars and require the state only to accept the money. The part that Jindal rejected would require permanent changes in state law that the governor said makes it unacceptable. [...]

But U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., disputed the governor's interpretation and said the new unemployment benefits are designed to be temporary. "This bill is an emergency measure designed to provide extra help during these extraordinarily tough times," Landrieu said. "To characterize this provision as a 'tax increase on Louisiana businesses' is inaccurate."

Apparently, Jindal's position is he'd rather limit unemployed assistance now than worry about a possible tax increase on businesses three years from now.

The Politico reports that Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) "said he, too, would likely decline funds for broadening access to unemployment insurance." South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) may do the same, but hasn't "made any decisions on any part of the stimulus yet."

Ryan Powers explained, "[I]t is not clear why participating in the expanded unemployment insurance program would result in tax increases for business. By Jindal's own estimate, the recovery package would have funded his state's unemployment expansion for three years, at which point the state could -- if it chose to do so -- phase out the program."

Well, sure, if you're going to let facts drive the process. But Jindal & Co. aren't worried about reality -- and they're certainly not worried about the unemployed -- when there's political grandstanding to be done.

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a look at an interesting meeting in Rome between the Pope and the U.S. Speaker of the House, who happens to be a devout Catholic.

Pope Benedict XVI made clear to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday that she cannot advocate for abortion rights and still be a good Catholic.

After meeting with Pelosi (D-Calif.) at the Vatican, the pontiff stressed that Catholic politicians are required to work to outlaw abortion, and stressed that church teachings are "consistent" on the matter.

Both seem aimed directly at Pelosi's public positions. Though she considers herself an "ardent" Catholic, she is also a vocal supporter of abortion rights. She tangled with church officials last year about whether church teachings on abortion have been consistent.

After their meeting the Vatican issued a statement that read:

"His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Pelosi, soon after, issued her own statement, praising the Vatican's "leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming." The Pope's public statement neglected to mention any of these issues.

The issue of whether political leaders can separate their church's mandates from their official responsibilities isn't exactly new, and the Speaker has received "direction" from church leaders before. Pelosi, however, shows no signs of yielding to pressure -- and continues to receive communion.

For his part, Pope Benedict has expressed support for excommunicating elected officials who support abortion rights, though his spokesman later said he has no plans to formally punish anyone in specific.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Frank Page, a very conservative pastor and former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, would ordinarily keep his distance from President Obama. But this week, the White House invited Page to be on an advisory council for the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and he accepted.

"I was assured by [Joshua] DuBois that this was