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

* Iraq's "National Sovereignty Day" marred by violence: "At least 26 people were killed Tuesday in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk, marring a national holiday declared to celebrate the departure of U.S. combat troops from Iraqi cities after six years and three months of war."

* The White House lauded the key transition day in Iraq, but Robert Gibbs told reporters, "I will keep the banner printers from doing anything crazy."

* Another tragic plane crash: "A Yemeni jetliner carrying 153 people crashed in the Indian Ocean on Tuesday as it came in for a landing on the island nation of Comoros. Yemeni officials said a teenage girl survived."

* A North Korean ship, monitored under U.N. sanctions, reversed course today and headed back toward the south coast of China.

* As if the past couple of weeks weren't enough: "Police officers and militia forces crowded the streets of Tehran on Tuesday, setting up checkpoints and making clear that the government had zero tolerance for any further public expressions of defiance to the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a day after the powerful Guardian Council certified his landslide victory."

* The United Nations approved a measure today condemning the removal of President Manuel Zelaya from power in Honduras. The U.N.'s move comes on the heels of condemnations from the U.S., the E.U., and a variety of Latin American countries.

* Mark Sanford apparently plans to resist calls for his resignation, saying it's God's plan for him to finish his term.

* Justice Samuel Alito's perspective in the Ricci case is generating considerable attention, but not in a good way.

* Sen. Robert Byrd (D) of West Virginia was released from the hospital today. The 91-year-old senators is reportedly home, "resting comfortably." It's unclear when he might return to work.

* This fall, San Francisco will be the first city to require composting. (thanks to doubtful for the tip)

* Someone should probably let Joe Scarborough know what "out of touch" means. He seems confused about it.

* And finally, Sen.-Elect Al Franken (D), who will be sworn in next week, will apparently be able to hit the ground running. His staff is already in place, and party leaders have reserved spots for him on four committees -- including those tackling health care reform and judicial nominees.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

SANFORD SERIAL SINS.... Part of crisis management is not letting a story drag out over several days and weeks. Someone really ought to let Mark Sanford know about this.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said Tuesday that he "crossed lines" with a handful of women other than his mistress -- but never had sex with them. The governor said he "never crossed the ultimate line" with anyone but Maria Belen Chapur, the Argentine at the center of a scandal that has derailed his once-promising political career.

"This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story," Sanford said. "A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day."

During an emotional interview at his Statehouse office with The Associated Press on Tuesday, Sanford said Chapur is his soul mate but he's trying to fall back in love with his wife.

He said that during the encounters with other women he "let his guard down" with some physical contact but "didn't cross the sex line." He wouldn't go into detail.

The governor added that he was less than honest last week about how many liaisons he'd had with Chapur.

South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler said this morning, "This latest admission from Mark Sanford is precisely the reason why we've pushed the Attorney General and Republican legislative leaders to investigate all of the Governor's activities related to his extramarital affair. South Carolinians need to know if Governor Sanford's reckless, irresponsible behavior constituted illegal behavior."

That, as it turns out, came before we'd learned that Sanford had "crossed lines" with women other than his wife and mistress.

As of this afternoon, South Carolina's attorney general requested that the State Law Enforcement Division review the governor's travel records to look for evidence of possible illegalities.

And to think, Sanford probably thought the worst was behind him.

THE LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE ENDS.... After nearly eight months of legal wrangling, former Sen. Norm Coleman (R) has conceded last year's election, thus ending one of the longest Senate election fights in American history.

Coleman was under pressure from party leaders in Washington to keep his legal fight going indefinitely, taking his case to the federal courts, but after a unanimous defeat at the Minnesota Supreme Court today, Coleman apparently saw no upside to dragging this fiasco out any further.

Coleman said that further litigation would damage the state, and congratulated Sen.-elect Franken on his victory. He said his future plans in politics "are a subject for another day."

The matter, then, is resolved. Lingering questions about Republican filibusters and gubernatorial certifications are now moot, and the 2008 election cycle is complete -- just a little later than expected. (Coleman added this afternoon that he's made Pawlenty's life "a little bit easier.")

Congratulations, Senator Elect Al Franken (D). The chamber's newest member will reportedly hold a press conference in about an hour.

TODD NOTICES 'LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH'.... The standard conservative critique of judges and/or rulings they don't like is that they see evidence of "legislating from the bench." Most of the time the criticism doesn't apply, and doesn't even make sense, but it's more reflexive than anything else. (What do you call a judicial nominee you don't like? A "judicial activist.")

It was refreshing, then, to see NBC News' Chuck Todd note this morning that the five conservative members of the Supreme Court engaged in some legislating from the bench in yesterday's Ricci ruling.

Pay particular attention to Joe Scarborough's reaction. He not only acts as if the very idea is inexplicable, but suggests Todd is going into too much detail.

DEFINE 'ESSENTIAL'.... Time's Mark Halperin had an item near the top of the page this afternoon about Rush Limbaugh's latest paranoid fantasy regarding President Obama. Halperin seemed to think it was important, and even went to the trouble of transcribing Limbaugh's latest attack.

So, I clicked to see what the fuss was about. In a nutshell, Limbaugh thinks Obama might try to "serve beyond 2016."

"I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the next number of years there is a move on the 22nd Amendment, which term limits the President of the United States. He may not do it that way, he may not openly try to change the Constitution. But there might be this movement in the country from his cult-like followers to support the notion that a democratically-elected leader who is loved and adored has carte blanc once elected. Just serve as long as he wants because the people demand it, because the people want it, because the people love it. [...]

"No one else can lead the nation, they will say. And they won't care a whit about the legalities that might be trampled. Half of the legalities if they don't even know about them because they haven't been properly educated. I think this situation in Honduras is very instructive. Anybody who thinks that [Obama] intends to just constitutionally go away in 2016 is nuts ... These are people who seek power for reasons other than to serve. They seek to rule."

I see. Rush Limbaugh, a mere five months into President Obama's term, is convinced not only that Obama will win a second term, but also that the president will position himself as some kind of dictator seven years from now. He doesn't point to anything substantive to bolster this nonsense -- it's Limbaugh, after all -- but he thinks those who disagree with him are "nuts." How amusing.

That, however, isn't the interesting part. After all, Limbaugh, a drug-addled blowhard, says all kinds of ridiculous things on the air every day. That's his job. It's what he's paid (handsomely) to do.

No, what caught my eye is the fact that Time's political analyst described Limbaugh's harangue as "essential reading." In fact, Halperin put the words "essential reading" in all caps, bolded, and in a bright-red font.

Here's hoping Halperin considers this "essential reading" because Limbaugh's tirade is a good example of the kind of pathological lunacy that passes for conservative criticism of U.S. leaders these days, not because he thinks Limbaugh's tirade has merit.

MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT: FRANKEN WON.... In a unanimous ruling issued this afternoon, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected former Sen. Norm Coleman's argument and agreed that Al Franken won the Senate race held last November.

The courts finds that "Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn. Stat. 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota." This means that when Franken is ultimately seated, the Democrats will have 60 seats and be able to beat any Republican filibuster if they stay completely united (though good luck with that, obviously.)

It's been seven and a half months since Election Day, and five and a half months since the seat went vacant after Coleman's term expired -- but the state's process of recounts and litigation is now over, barring the unlikely event of a higher authority stepping in and forcing them to do more. Franken has won by 312 votes, out of roughly 2.9 million -- a difference of 0.011%.

The full ruling is online here.

The unanimous ruling obviously resolves one big question, but we still don't know exactly what will happen next. As we discussed yesterday, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) said he would certify Franken's victory if instructed to do so. The state Supreme Court, however, said Franken is "entitled ... to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator," which Pawlenty may very well try to weasel out of.

Coleman, for that matter, now has to decide whether to keep filing more lawsuits, taking his case to the federal courts after having lost repeatedly in the state courts. He'll likely be encouraged to do just that by the RNC and NRSC, regardless of the will of the voters or the impact on Minnesotans.

And speaking of Minnesotans, recent polling shows the vast majority of the state expecting Coleman to go away if he lost at the state Supreme Court. In the wake of this unanimous ruling, the demands for him to end this will likely be overwhelming. Whether he cares or not remains to be seen.

Should Coleman do the right thing, the impact on Capitol Hill will be significant, with Franken becoming the Democratic Senate caucus' 60th member.

OBAMA'S WRONG, EVEN WHEN HE'S RIGHT.... As post-election developments in Iran spiraled into violence, many on the right were outraged -- or, at least they pretended to be -- that President Obama didn't thump his chest more. The administration, conservatives said, should take a firm stand in support of democracy and liberal principles.

In the wake of the coup in Honduras, it seemed the administration was taking steps that even these conservatives would like. The president spoke up personally yesterday to criticize Zelaya's ouster. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on for the "full restoration" of democracy in the country.

So, the right is finally pleased, right? Wrong. The same people who loved democratic principles in the Middle East two weeks ago aren't especially concerned about the overthrow of a democratically elected president in central American this week.

On the June 29 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck said of Zelaya's ouster: "They installed their own man, drawing a quick rebuke from Cuba, Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, and our president." Beck added: "Wow, good company we're keeping ourselves with." Similarly, on the June 30 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, in arguing that Obama was "sending the wrong message to our allies and our foes," Beck stated: "I'm telling you, the policies that we have seem to always embrace our enemies and slap our friends across the face. It just doesn't make sense to me."

Apparently, if Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega take a stand against a coup in a foreign country, far-right media personalities believe the United States should necessarily take the other side and support the coup, because, well, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega are "bad."

This attitude was endorsed, not only by Glenn Beck, but also by Wall Street Journal editorial board member Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Drudge, Bill Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer. In fact, offering the kind of sophisticated, high-brow analysis we've come to expect, Krauthammer argued on Fox News, "[A] rule of thumb here is whenever you find yourself on the side of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and the Castro twins, you ought to re-examine your assumptions."

Now, I realize that developments in Honduras are not cut and dried, at least when it comes to identifying "good" guys and "bad." Zelaya was poised to work outside the law to stay in power, and his opponents worked outside the law to remove him from office.

But the analysis we're getting from the lines of Kristol and Krauthammer aren't focused on the merits of the situation. They're not even addressing the up-until-recently-popular principle of defending democracy at all costs. Instead, they're offering a child-like approach to foreign affairs (if Chavez opposes a coup, coup = good).

For what it's worth, the European Union has also condemned the coup in Honduras, putting the United States on the same side as our traditional allies. Reflexive conservative hackery notwithstanding, it's not unusual for international governments to criticize the overthrow of democratically elected leaders.

Meanwhile, in Honduras, tear gas was used to break up protests yesterday, and the "provisional" government cracked down on international media and blocked Internet access for its citizens. They sound like the kind of developments Kristol and Krauthammer might otherwise find interesting.

EVERY SPERM IS SACRED.... President Obama, even as a candidate, always seemed to have a good, politically-salient line on reproductive rights: he's pro-choice, but he also supports common-sense measures that would reduce unwanted pregnancies, reduce the abortion rate, and improve the reproductive health of millions of women.

In general, it was an approach that resonated with many who were otherwise skeptical of progressive politicians. After all, if Obama supports steps that would lower the number of abortions, he can be pro-choice while also finding some meaningful areas of agreement with opponents of abortion rights.

At least, that was the theory. U.S. News' Dan Gilgoff reports:

As the White House readies its plan for finding "common ground" on reproductive health issues and reducing the need for abortion, a major debate has emerged over how to package the plan's two major components: preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion.

Many abortion rights advocates and some Democrats who want to dial down the culture wars want the White House to package the two parts of the plan together, as a single piece of legislation. The plan would seek to reduce unwanted pregnancies by funding comprehensive sex education and contraception and to reduce the need for abortion by bolstering federal support for pregnant women. Supporters of the approach say it would force senators and members of Congress on both sides of the abortion battle to compromise their traditional positions, creating true common ground that mirrors what President Obama has called for.

But more conservative religious groups working with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships say they would be forced to oppose such a plan -- even though they support the abortion reduction part -- because they oppose federal dollars for contraception and comprehensive sex education. This camp, which includes such formidable organizations as the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, is pressuring the White House to decouple the two parts of the plan into separate bills.

It often goes overlooked, but a significant number of conservatives not only oppose abortion rights, but would also deny Americans legal access to contraception.

As a result, it's difficult to have a constructive discussion. The left says, "Women should have the right to a safe, legal abortion." The right replies, "We're against that." The left says, "OK, how about improving women's access to contraception and education, which in turn would reduce unwanted pregnancies and cut down on abortion?" The right replies, "We're against that, too."

So much for "common ground" with conservatives.

CHENEY'S CHEAP CHICANERY.... Former Vice President Dick Cheney, after quite a bit of time in the media spotlight of late, started to fade away, at least a little. He piped up again yesterday, though, complaining to the conservative Washington Times about U.S. policy in Iraq.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday said he is concerned about U.S. forces withdrawing from Iraqi cities within 24 hours.

Mr. Cheney told The Washington Times' "America's Morning News" radio show that he is a strong believer in Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and that the general is doing what needs to be done.

"But what he says concerns me: That there is still a continuing problem. One might speculate that insurgents are waiting as soon as they get an opportunity to launch more attacks." [...]

"I hope the Iraqis can deal with it," Mr. Cheney said. "At some point they have to stand on their own, but I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point."

Andrew Sullivan responded, "[H]aving initiated the worst foreign policy decision in recent times, Cheney doesn't want the occupation to end any time soon. More to the point, he is gearing up to blame Obama if the withdrawal leads to bloodshed or chaos."

That's probably true, but I'd go a little further. Cheney argued the Obama administration's policy may produce a new round of violence and squander recent gains. What Cheney neglected to mention is that the Obama administration is simply following through on the SOFA deal negotiated by the Bush/Cheney administration.

As Fred Kaplan explained the other day, "[T]he withdrawal is not the doing of President Barack Obama. Rather, it was negotiated during the Bush administration, at -- more to the point -- the Iraqi government's insistence. The Iraqis are the ones who wanted, and ordered, us out. Even if John McCain had won the 2008 election, we'd still be pulling out of Iraq's cities."

If Cheney doesn't like the Status of Forces Agreement, signed in November 2008, he should take it up with Bush.

For that matter, Cheney is going to have to work a lot harder to convince the public. A new CNN poll found that 73% of Americans "favor the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraqi cities and towns." Among Republicans -- the ones who bought into the "cut and run" rhetoric Cheney threw around for years -- 74% favor the withdrawal plan being executed this week.

The national consensus is obvious. It's just not what Cheney would like it to be.

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. Kirsten Gillibrand's (D-N.Y.) campaign for a full term got a big boost yesterday when the NARAL Pro-Choice America political action committee threw its support to the incumbent.

* In related news, while the Democratic primary in the Senate race in New York is pretty intense, it's far from clear who the nominee will face on Election Day. Yesterday, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) accepted a key slot on the House Intelligence Committee, which by King's own admission, makes a Senate campaign far less likely.

* Joe Torsella, who briefly sought the Democratic nod in next year's Senate race in Pennsylvania, has officially endorsed Arlen Specter. Keep in mind, Torsella was deputy Philadelphia mayor under now-Gov. Ed Rendell (D), and Rendell is heavily involved in supporting Specter.

* In Florida, a Mason-Dixon poll found that Charlie Crist still has a huge lead over Marco Rubio in the Republican Senate primary, but that lead all but disappears among Florida Republicans who know both candidates well. It suggests Rubio, if he can raise a lot of money, may have a legitimate shot at an upset in the primary.

* Mason-Dixon also polled Florida's gubernatorial race, and found state Attorney General Bill McCollum (R) leading Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink (D), 41% to 35%. The good news for Sink is that she's close, despite having only 61% name recognition (McCollum's name I.D. is 87%).

* Rep. Don Young (R) of Alaska, despite a series of scandals and close calls, will seek a 19th term next year.

* Rudy Giuliani conceded to CNN yesterday that he's thinking about running for governor of New York next year. You don't say.

* Add another name to the mix for the Senate race in Illinois next year: Chicago Urban League head Cheryle Jackson.

* It may sound ridiculous, but House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) may be thinking about a presidential campaign. Seriously.

THE BLURRED LINES.... Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a prominent conservative writer, has a new National Review piece that's ... how do I put this gently ... a little out there.

A quadrupling of the national debt in just one year and accepting a nuclear-armed sponsor of international terrorism such as Iran are not things from which any country is guaranteed to recover.

Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II. It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender -- especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago.

Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their granddaughters to live under sharia law.

Sowell goes on to insist that Republicans resist calls that the party reach out to a larger audience, and steer clear of "moderates."

Now, anyone who raises the specter of the United States surrendering to Iran, which would in turn impose sharia law on Americans, has a terrific imagination, but a rather tenuous connection to reality.

Reading Sowell's piece, though, my first thought wasn't, "Wow, this is nuts"; it was, "Wow, National Review published this on purpose."

Over the last couple of decades, the line between the GOP establishment/leadership and the unhinged GOP base has become blurred. At the same time, the line between the analysis offered by "serious" and "respectable" conservative voices and the unbalanced tirades put forward by the nutty conservative fringe has all but disappeared.

MORE TRIGGER TALK?.... Talk of a public option "trigger" as part of health care reform gained some attention earlier this month, but it quickly faded. Brian Beutler reports this morning that a key Republican senator is reviving the idea.

This idea sort of came and went a few weeks ago, but some legislators just can't let it go. According to the Associated Press, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)--a potentially key moderate on the Senate Finance Committee--hasn't forsworn signing on to a health reform bill that includes a public option. But she's holding out to see it affixed to a "trigger mechanism," which would, in theory, give insurance companies a years-long window to lower costs on their own and only "trigger" the public option if they failed to do so.

"If you establish a public option at the forefront that goes head-to-head and competes with the private health insurance market ... the public option will have significant price advantages," Snowe said. But this was her argument against making the public option available as soon as the bill becomes law.

It's a reminder of why this policy debate has been so frustrating -- a few too many of those involved believe we must avoid positive developments.

As you've probably heard, a public option would improve the system by lowering costs, expanding access, and using competition to improve efficiency. Those who like the idea of a "trigger" argue that if we pass a reform package and private insurers can lower costs, expand access, and improve efficiency on their own, we wouldn't need a public option. It's better, they say, to wait for the system to get really awful before utilizing a public option to make things better.

The problem should be obvious: if proponents of such an idea realize that a public option would necessarily improve the overall system -- and they must, otherwise there would be no need for the trigger to kick in when things got even worse -- then why deliberately delay implementation of the part of the policy that lawmakers already realize would help?

Or, put another way, if Snowe knows a public option is a good idea, there's no reason to push it off to some arbitrary date in the future, as the system deteriorates in the interim.

SKIPPING A SOTOMAYOR SCRAP.... After the Supreme Court handed down its Ricci decision yesterday, conservative activists and media personalities seemed awfully excited. Finally, the right said, a development that might be twisted into a cudgel to use against Sonia Sotomayor.

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, however, raised a good point. While conservative activists saw an opportunity, their Senate allies took a pass.

If there was any question of whether Republicans had given up on the idea of turning the nomination of judge Sonia Sotomayor into a major political fight, the events of the past 24 hours have effectively erased those doubts.

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn a ruling by Sotomayor regarding allegations of reverse discrimination by a group of white firefighters in Connecticut seemed like just the sort of thing Republicans would jump on to reinforce the idea that President Obama's nominee was not fit for the bench.

Instead, crickets.

To be sure, people like Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) issued statements hitting Sotomayor but neither GOP leader took any real rhetorical risks.

Newt Gingrich didn't stomp up and down. Mitt Romney didn't even issue a press statement. Judicial Watch and the Judicial Confirmation Network were certainly worked up, but the far-right groups' enthusiasm apparently didn't work its way to the Hill.

Cillizza talked to some party strategists who conceded that the party just doesn't see much of an upside to this fight. Mike Murphy said, "I think the strategy not to rain on a very big Latino parade that could not be stopped anyway was a very good one."

Stuart Stevens, a media consultant who worked for Romney, said he sees value in blaming President Obama for inheriting a mess, but added, "Don't pick a fight with a tough girl from the Bronx. There are easier fights."

Those on the right who hoped Ricci would be a game-changer for Sotomayor are likely to be disappointed.

THE LATEST MCCAIN DISAPPOINTMENT.... With the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act on its way to the Senate, the global warming legislation's fate remains very much in doubt. Not only are there skeptical centrist Democrats to worry about, but the prospects of winning over Republican votes appear slim.

It's tempting to think John McCain would be willing to show some leadership on this. It was, after all, just a year ago, after he'd secured the Republican presidential nomination, that the Arizona senator acknowledged the climate crisis and said the United States "needs ... a cap-and-trade system." It was a position he reiterated throughout the year.

As Ryan Powers reports, however, McCain has since decided that a cap-and-trade system is a "far-left" agenda item, which he, like many far-right activists, now prefers to call a "cap-and-tax" system. Here's McCain yesterday on an Arizona talk-radio show:

"It's really terrible, because I believe that climate change is real, I believe it is something that we need to address, and I'm sure that a lot of Americans do, but to do so with a bill like this? ... What [the Obama administration is] doing is using cap-and-trade...to raise billions of dollars so they can spend money on Cash for Clunkers, you know, buying General Motors and Banks and the world's largest insurance company.... So it started on the wrong path and now it's just turned into, you know, it's laws and sausages at its worst in my view.

Ryan fact-checks McCain's criticism -- not surprisingly, McCain doesn't know what he's talking about -- but I'd just add that the Republican senator's bizarre and baseless opposition makes the larger effort that much more difficult.

Keep in mind, while reconciliation rules are in place for health care, center-right Democrats made it so that Republican obstructionism can kill climate-change legislation. To get to 60, the Democratic majority will need some support from those handful of Republicans who take science and global warming seriously.

McCain was supposed to be one of them. That now appears unlikely.

(RE)BUILDING BRIDGES.... There's obviously ample room for criticism when it comes to the speed with which the Obama administration is addressing gay rights. But it also seems obvious the White House takes the criticism seriously, and is prepared to make things right.

President Obama opened the doors of the White House to hundreds of gay and lesbian leaders yesterday, continuing his cautious outreach to a constituency that has loudly criticized his efforts on its behalf.

In an event in the East Room marking the 40th anniversary of the riots surrounding New York's Stonewall Inn, where gay patrons rose up against a police raid in Greenwich Village, Obama sought to reassure guests that he had not abandoned the issues important to them. He also drew a parallel between the progress gays and lesbians have made in recent decades and the struggles of black Americans to win equality.

Reading the transcript of Obama's remarks, it was arguably the most forceful pro-gay speech ever delivered by an American president. Joe Solmonese of Human Rights Campaign, who has been sharply critical of the administration of late, talked after the event about his renewed optimism. "There certainly was the appropriate and inspiring acknowledgment that he made of what this community has been through," he said, adding that the event helped reassure gays and lesbians "that the work continues, that the commitment is still there."

Much of the president's speech was devoted to acknowledging the history and struggles, not only of those involved with the Stonewall events of 40 years ago, but also of the larger community. Obama also made note of the steps his administration has already taken after just five months in office, before recommitting the White House to repealing "the so-called Defense of Marriage Act," passing the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act, expanding hate crimes law, "rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status," and ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

He also sounded like a president who "gets it."

"[T]he riots at Stonewall gave way to protests, and protests gave way to a movement, and the movement gave way to a transformation that continues to this day. It continues when a partner fights for her right to sit at the hospital bedside of a woman she loves. It continues when a teenager is called a name for being different and says, 'So what if I am?' It continues in your work and in your activism, in your fight to freely live your lives to the fullest.

"In one year after the protests, a few hundred gays and lesbians and their supporters gathered at the Stonewall Inn to lead a historic march for equality. But when they reached Central Park, the few hundred that began the march had swelled to 5,000. Something had changed, and it would never change back.

"The truth is when these folks protested at Stonewall 40 years ago no one could have imagined that you -- or, for that matter, I -- would be standing here today. So we are all witnesses to monumental changes in this country. That should give us hope, but we cannot rest. We must continue to do our part to make progress -- step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind. And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a President who fights with you and for you."

Obama didn't ask for the "patience" of gay right supporters, because as he noted, it would be no more appropriate than those who "counsel[ed] patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago."

Instead, the president asked to be judged on the promises on which his administration delivers. Stay tuned.

U.S. POSITION ON IRAN ENJOYS SUPPORT.... In recent weeks, there's been a very aggressive push on the part of some high-profile Republicans, most notably leading neoconservatives, to condemn President Obama's policy on Iran. What seemed like a common-sense approach, endorsed by a variety of experts from both sides of the aisle, somehow became the latest "controversy" ginned up by the right.

Fortunately, the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll suggests the neocons aren't persuading the American mainstream.

A new national poll suggests that that nearly three out of four Americans don't want the U.S. directly intervene in the election crisis in Iran even though most Americans are upset by how the Iranian government has dealt with protests over controversial election results. [...]

Most Americans approve of how President Obama's handled the situation. And 74 percent think the U.S. government should not directly intervene in the post-election crisis, with one out of four feeling that Washington should openly support the demonstrators who are protesting the election results.

In all, 61% approve the way Obama has responded to the events in Iran. (The same poll, by the way, also showed the president's overall approval rating at 61%.) What's more, much to the consternation of the staff at the Weekly Standard, 82% of Americans do not support military action against Iran.

For all the bloviating from McCain, Graham, Krauthammer, et al, they've largely only impressed those who already agree with them.

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

* The latest from Honduras: "One day after the country's president, Manuel Zelaya, was abruptly awakened, ousted and deported by the army here, hundreds of protesters massed at the presidential offices in an increasingly tense face-off with hundreds of camouflage-clad soldiers carrying riot shields and automatic weapons."

* President Obama described Zelaya ouster as a "not legal" coup, meaning that the current government is not legitimate as far as the U.S. is concerned. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today called on for the "full restoration" of democracy in the country.

* The Iranian government certified the results of its own dubious presidential election. Protestors were not pleased.

* Bernie Madoff was sentenced today to 150 years.

* New lighting standards may not seem especially exciting, but they're important anyway.

* A big event at the White House this afternoon, commemorating the anniversary of the Stonewall riots of 1969, and hosting 250 gay leaders in the East Room in honor of LGBT Pride Month.

* Speaking of Stonewall, is history repeating itself, this time in Texas?

* Most senators are heading home this week. Max Baucus isn't -- he has health care homework to finish.

* With the Iranian regime consolidating power, what's Mir Hossein Mousavi's next move?

* At an event this morning at the Center for American Progress, Tom Daschle said, "I don't think the public option is dead at all. I think it's very much alive."

* Keep an eye on the big upcoming election in Afghanistan.

* Bizarre developments at a San Diego fundraiser for a Democratic congressional candidate over the weekend, prompting an internal affairs investigation.

* A series of office posters celebrating Gay Pride Month at the Department of Labor were defaced or removed recently. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis warned employees about this kind of behavior: "I do want to make myself absolutely clear: Respect for others is non-negotiable at the U.S. Department of Labor."

* I imagine MIT's John Reilly is pretty frustrated.

* Did Israel and the Bush administration have an "understanding" on settlements? Apparently not.

* There's no shortage of nutty state lawmakers out there, but when it comes to being "special," Missouri's Cynthia Davis (R) is pretty extraordinary.

* Pat Boone was never a good entertainer, but his political activism is even more offensive.

* Do "red" states have a lock on morality and virtue? Not so much.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

'A SETUP FOR A SELLOUT'.... There was some interesting discussion last week on whether now would be a good time for President Obama to take more of a hands-on approach to health care reform, twisting arms and knocking heads before the larger effort skids off the rails. Michael Tomasky made the case for more intervention; Ezra Klein argued for White House restraint, at least for now.

Today, the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne Jr. more or less takes Tomasky's side, arguing that the president can make a difference at this stage of the legislative process, addressing angles that "only Obama's intervention can solve." But in making the case, Dionne raises an important point about "the absence of substantial Republican support for comprehensive change."

Max Baucus, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has done everything short of making ethanol a reimbursable prescription drug to win the heart of his good Republican friend from Iowa, Chuck Grassley.

I'm told that Grassley, under immense pressure from Republican colleagues not to deal at all, has informed Baucus that he cannot sign on to a bill if it is supported by only one other Republican, the sensible Olympia Snowe of Maine. Grassley needs more cover from more conservative colleagues.

This creates a terrible dynamic in which Baucus is pushed toward one concession after another. It's a setup for a sellout. And the compromise Baucus is likely to produce cannot be the final word.

Dionne is clearly right, and his observations raise more than a few concerns. Matt Yglesias noted, for example, that Grassley's search for bipartisan "cover" is ridiculous: "[A] new consensus is emerging that for a bill to be 'really' bipartisan, it's not good enough to acquire the vote of the 41st-most-conservative Senator (Ben Nelson) or even the 40th- and 39th-most-conservative Senators (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe). You also need an additional even more conservative Senator. And now we have Chuck Grassley signaling that his commitment to this weird principle is so strong that he would vote against a bill of which he otherwise approves unless a Senator who even more conservative than Grassley agrees to vote for it. But what's the point of this? Who does this help? The way bipartisan bills happen is that you forge a compromise with the moderate members of the other party. As it happens, there are only two moderate Republicans in the Senate. But that should be understood as the GOP's problem, not the Democrats' problem."

I was also struck by the apparent fact that Grassley, arguably the leading Republican negotiator on health care reform, is "under immense pressure from Republican colleagues not to deal at all." That seems like a pretty big deal -- Democratic lawmakers and the Democratic administration are reaching out to a party that is actively opposed to any constructive discussions.

Indeed, it's not just Dionne's point about Grassley. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) was asked how many Senate Republicans could sign on to developing Democratic plans. He told the NYT, "I think right now, none. Zero."

So, to review, Republican lawmakers -- the ones Democrats are trying to find some common ground and consensus with -- don't want to lower health care costs, don't want to spend money on health care reform, don't want to do anything that might upset the insurance companies, don't want to give the government any additional authority in the health care system, and don't even want to discuss possible reform options with the Democratic majority.

What's wrong with that? In principle, nothing. Republicans are the opposition party; they're supposed to oppose what the majority party wants.

The problem, though, is that there's an ongoing effort on the part of Democrats to generate bipartisan support for a reform initiative that one side of the divide not only rejects, but doesn't even want to discuss. The appropriate response isn't to keep making the bill the worse, in the hopes that the GOP will eventually do the right thing; the appropriate response is to write a good bill, invite Republicans to support it, and pass it.

The alternative is, as Dionne put it, "a setup for a sellout."

MEETING A DEADLINE IN IRAQ.... For months, there were plenty of concerns that the U.S. commitment of withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraqi cities by June 30 was ambitious, and perhaps unrealistic.

And yet, here we are. The deadline is tomorrow, and the schedule is very much on track. There will still be U.S. troops in the cities, and conditions will still be dangerous, but the American servicemen and women will take on "support" roles, rather than "combat" roles.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has called on his countrymen to revel Monday to mark the ostensible departure of U.S. troops from Iraqi cities by the end of the month -- a turning point he calls a "major victory." [...]

American troops have been thinning out across Baghdad and other restive cities in recent months. Since Jan. 1, the U.S. military has shut down more than 150 bases and outposts.

In deference to the security agreement that set the pullout deadlines, American troops in and near urban areas have begun avoiding nonessential outings during the daytime and will be on virtual lockdown during the first days of July. But they expect to continue conducting patrols in urban areas alongside Iraqi security forces in the months ahead.

"On 1 July, we're not going to see this big puff of smoke, everyone leaving the cities," Brig. Gen. Stephen R. Lanza, a spokesman for the U.S. military, said recently.

Nonetheless, some Iraqis see the date as an independence day of sorts.

"The 30th of June will be like a wedding," said Maj. Gen. Abdel Amir al-Zaidi, commander of the Iraqi army's 11th Division, currently in the northern city of Kirkuk. "It is a victory for all Iraqis, a national holiday."

What's more, Gen. Ray Odierno told CNN over the weekend that he believes Iraq's security forces are ready: "They've been working towards this for a long time. Security remains good.... I believe this is the time for us to move out of the cities and for them to take ultimate responsibility."

Of course, the excitement and optimism are not universal, and plenty of people throughout Iraq fear an increase in violence as Americans continue to pull back -- a sentiment that has grown in the face of deadly bombings over the last week or so.

Are conditions likely to deteriorate? Slate's Fred Kaplan ponders the possibilities, but concludes that the weight has shifted to Maliki: "For better or for worse, there isn't much we can do about this situation, however it develops.... [F]ormally and practically, it's out of our control."

'HIGHLY CONCENTRATED'.... When it comes to health care policy, two of the more popular buzz words, even among conservatives, are "choice" and "competition." Mitt Romney, for example, said on "Meet the Press" yesterday that Republicans "believe in allowing people to have choice in their health care." Likewise, Joe Lieberman recently emphasized the importance of "competition" in the system. Kathleen Sebelius told CNN a couple of weeks ago, "Choice and competition is what we want."

What's not to like? Americans are predisposed to like choices and competition, and when it comes to health care, any approach to reform that offers consumers fewer choices and less competition is necessarily suspect.

It's worth remembering, then, that conservative defenders of the status quo are fighting against choice and competition. Zachary Roth has a very good piece today pointing to a HCAN report documenting the fact that most Americans don't enjoy "anything like a competitive marketplace for health care."

The report, released by Health Care for America Now (HCAN), uses data compiled by the American Medical Association to show that 94 percent of the country's insurance markets are defined as "highly concentrated," according to Justice Department guidelines. Predictably, that's led to skyrocketing costs for patients, and monster profits for the big health insurers. Premiums have gone up over the past six years by more than 87 percent, on average, while profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007.

Far from healthy market competition, HCAN describes the situation as "a market failure where a small number of large companies use their concentrated power to control premium levels, benefit packages, and provider payments in the markets they dominate."

So extreme is the level of consolidation, in fact, that one former top Federal Trade Commission official working with HCAN has sent a letter to the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, asking for an investigation into the health insurance marketplace.

Specifically, the Justice Department considers a marketplace "highly concentrated" if a company's market share tops 42%. HCAN found 10 states in which one or two companies control 80% or more of the market. In Alabama, home to Sen. Richard Shelby (R), one of the strongest opponents of reform, Blue Cross Blue Shield controls 83% of the statewide market.

Individual insurance companies enjoy practical monopolies in many parts of the country, which keeps prices high, profits high, and consumers screwed. It's why the public option is seen as such a serious threat -- it would introduce at least some competition, and offer consumers some choices.

In terms of political framing, this would, it seems, give Dems a pretty big reality-based hint: ambitious, progressive reform is necessary for consumer choice and competition. To oppose reform and a public option is to oppose choice and competition. And everyone loves choice and competition, right?

INHOFE'S NEW CONSPIRACY.... On Fox News this morning, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) insisted the Environmental Protection Agency was given evidence that undermines global warming, so the agency hid it to advance "probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

Inhofe said the EPA "absolutely" buried evidence undermining policy on global warming after a researcher's report claimed that carbon dioxide has had little effect on the environment.

"They've been cooking that science since 1998," Inhofe said during an interview on Fox News.

Inhofe argued that there should be a criminal investigation into the EPA report, as well.

"I don't know whether there would be or not," he said. "There could be, and there probably should be."

In our reality, the EPA has an employee -- an economist, not a climate scientist -- named Alan Carlin who apparently doesn't believe in global warming. In fact, he insists that global temperatures are "not going up, and if anything they're going down." He submitted a "report" arguing that the government shouldn't worry about regulating carbon emission, relying on familiar conservative arguments.

Not surprisingly, the EPA saw the "report" but did not take Carlin's concerns seriously.

"Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted. [...]

"The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue."

Nevertheless, Fox News is awfully excited about this; the right-wing Competitive Enterprise Institute is trying to rally support for Carlin; Inhofe is talking about a criminal investigation of the EPA; and House Republicans are waving Carlin's report around as evidence of ... something.

Our policy discourse can be very frustrating.

IT WAS A 5-4 SPLIT.... Everyone knew the Ricci ruling would come down today. It was the last day of the session, and the Supreme Court hadn't issued its decision yet. By mid-day Friday, we knew the ruling would be released early Monday.

And that, in turn, gave the various players plenty of time to come up with their carefully crafted over-the-top responses. I'm afraid some of the leading conservative activists didn't use the time wisely.

Wendy Long, head of the Judicial Confirmation Network, which apparently exists for no other reason than to attack Democratic judicial nominees, quickly issued a statement this morning with the headline: "Not Even One Justice Approved Sotomayer In Ricci Case." Yes, even now, Wendy Long can't spell "Sotomayor." The press statement went on to say:

"Frank Ricci finally got his day in court, despite the judging of Sonia Sotomayor, which all nine Justices of U.S. Supreme Court have now confirmed was in error."

Soon after, on a Federalist Society conference call with reporters, additional conservative activists emphasized a similar line.

Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity suggested that the ruling "gives the Senate Judiciary Committee a lot to ask about" and that it brings to light her past statements on this issue.

He was joined by Gail Heriot, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law in the insistence that each of the nine Justices had rejected Sotomayor's reasoning in her Second Circuit decision.

There's a variety of problems with all of this, but the most obvious is the fact that the Ricci ruling was 5 to 4, not 9 to 0. Even if Wendy Long & Co. hoped to exploit the ruling to attack Sotomayor -- itself a dubious proposition -- they should have at least checked to see that there was a dissent, endorsed by four justices.

Raise your hand if you think Long, Clegg, or Heriot actually read all 93 pages of the ruling before sharing their analysis of the decision with reporters.

And, again, it should be clear by now, but the fact that a narrow Supreme Court majority reached a different conclusion on this case than Sotomayor is not a "rebuke" of the high court nominee. Repeating the line over and over won't make it true.

Update: Rush Limbaugh also insisted that Ricci was "a nine-zip decision." Is the right so far gone that they can no longer count to four? If someone can explain to me, I'm all ears.

Second Update: Ah, now I see. Brian Beutler explains that the 10th footnote in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissenting opinion takes issue with a procedural matter from the appeals court. So, for these conservative activists, even the justices who agreed with Sotomayor necessarily disagreed with her, too. It doesn't quite explain Rush calling it "nine-zip," but that's probably the rationale for Long, et al.

'TRANSFORMING' INTO POLITICAL PABULUM.... A reader emailed me the other day to let me know about the political subtexts of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, a big-budget action flick released last week. Reader P.C. told me the movie mentioned President Obama in a less than flattering light.

I haven't seen it, but Matt Yglesias also saw the movie, and noticed its "searing indictment" of the administration.

[O]ne critical turn in the storyline comes when a heroic Major in the United States Army (or possibly Air Force) decides to disobey orders and mutiny against a civilian operative specifically sent by POTUS to take command of the operation. But what's more, this is no rogue special forces officer, he's clearly supported in his action by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who elects to turn a blind eye, and leave President Obama (who's named specifically) in the dark as he cowers in fear in an underground bunker. Obama, you see, has ordered American forces to attempt to appease the Deceptecon threat by halting all collaboration with the Autobots, and agreeing to turn Sam Witwicky over to the forces of evil. By defying Obama and staging what amounts to a coup, the military saves the day.

What's more, the film appears to indicate that Jordan and Egypt share a border right near the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba. For this to be the case, of course, Israel would have to be wiped off the map. The film doesn't specify how this horrific turn of events took place, but I think we can take for granted that Obama's cowardly of a settlement freeze is ultimately responsible.

This might be less annoying if the movie didn't make $200 million in its first five days.

I'd just add, by the way, that the movie was apparently filmed last year, before we knew who'd win the presidential election. Presumably, post-production continued into 2009, and filmmakers could add Obama-specific references after he took office in January. Great.

Maybe Michael Bay could stick to explosions and steer clear of political messages? (If we're lucky, he might also stay away from cameras, the movie industry, scripts, actors....)

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.

* The Club For Growth is still trying to figure out ways to make Sen. Arlen Specter as miserable in Pennsylvania as possible.

* In related news, former Rep. Pat Toomey, who will likely be the Republican Senate candidate in Pennsylvania next year, is attacking Rep. Joe Sestak (D), Specter's likely primary rival, for his support of the Waxman-Markey global warming bill last week.

* With about a year left before California Democrats choose their gubernatorial nominee, a new poll shows state Attorney General Jerry Brown with a big lead over San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

* Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) may have referenced certifying Al Franken's victory after the upcoming ruling from the state Supreme Court, but a closer look suggests Pawlenty's comments were nothing new.

* Is former New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu (R) planning to run again for the Senate next year? We'll apparently find out this week. Sununu's father, former Gov. John H. Sununu, who also happens to be the current Republican state party chairman, said he expects other possible GOP candidates to get out of the way should Sununu launch a campaign.

* Peter Schiff, an advisor to Ron Paul's presidential campaign, is moving forward with his plans to run for the Senate in Connecticut, apparently as a Republican. He would face former Rep. Rob Simmons and state Sen. Sam Caligiuri in a GOP primary.

* And as Mitt Romney continues a lengthy run for the presidency, his already-assembled team has to figure out how to spend the next few years.

OF ALL THE GUESTS AND ALL THE TOPICS.... National Review's Jim Geraghty caught an interesting segment on MSNBC this morning.

Rudy Giuliani is on MSNBC's Morning Joe, talking about the fate of South Carolina governor Mark Sanford. Giuliani mentions that a lot of it comes down to performance. One of the other guests mentioned that a CEO who behaved like Sanford did would be replaced by the company's board quickly; Giuliani said he wasn't so sure; he said a lot had to do with performance, and he could think of at least three executives who were in a similar spot to Sanford. (He didn't elaborate; did he mean adultery, or suddenly disappearing for a few days?) [...]

Asked whether the forgiveness-depends-on-performance mentality was right, Giuliani said, "it's just reality."

I didn't watch the segment, so I can't speak to what viewers were told by way of disclosure, but inviting Rudy Giuliani onto national television to discuss consequences for a politician caught in an adultery scandal is hilarious, even by the standards of "Morning Joe."

For those who've forgotten, Giuliani has been married three times. The first was to his cousin. He left his second wife, Donna Hanover, during his mayoral tenure by announcing it in a press release -- before telling his spouse. After Hanover kicked him out their home for alleged serial adultery, Giuliani marched in a St. Patrick's Day parade with his mistress. (In the divorce proceedings, Hanover accused Giuliani of serial adultery, alleging that Judith Nathan was just the latest in a string of mistresses, following an affair the mayor had had with his former communications director.)

Atrios tweeted this morning, "of course the cable news day began with rudy giuliani discussing the sanford affair on morning joe. any self awareness journos?"

Apparently not. Inviting Giuliani onto national television to discuss Sanford's sex scandal is like inviting Barry Bonds on to discuss what should happen to a baseball player accused of steroid abuse. Sure, there's some familiarity with the subject matter, but it's not like there's any degree of credibility.

Update: More on this from Jamison Foser, who noted that the segment included discussion of Bill Clinton, but not Giuliani himself.

RICCI RULING.... The Supreme Court this morning did pretty much what everyone expected it to do, ruling that New Haven, Conn., was wrong to deny promotions to white firefighters in the Ricci case.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

The ruling, written by Justice Kennedy, is online here (pdf). The high court breakdown fell along familiar lines -- Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito in the majority, with Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer dissenting.

Because of the subject matter, the case has been closely watched, but because the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal of a ruling decided in part by Sonia Sotomayor, the case was of particular political significance.

More soon.

Update: It's probably safe to assume that Sotomayor's detractors will characterize today's ruling as a rebuke of her judgment regarding race and the law. It's worth noting, then, that this is a very poor argument.

Remember, Sotomayor joined a unanimous appeals court panel in Ricci, and she applied precedent that existed at the time. Four justices on the high court agreed with her conclusion.

Also note, the Supreme Court's role in the process is different. As Scott Lemieux noted, "[T]he Supreme Court can create new law in way that Circuit Courts can't." Besides, if this were the right metric for evaluating an appeals court judge nominated for the high court, Alito and Roberts would have been rejected by the Senate.

For more background on Ricci, consider a couple of very helpful items Hilzoy wrote in May, as well as this discussion on the case from Slate's Nicole Allan and Emily Bazelon.

ENDGAME IN MINNESOTA?.... Most analysts seem to agree that the Minnesota Supreme Court will, one of these days, rule against Norm Coleman. At that point, the former Republican senator may very well try to keep the process going, taking his case to the federal courts.

Will Al Franken's victory be certified after the state court's ruling, regardless of Coleman's next move? Maybe.

Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) said Sunday he has no plans for further delay in certifying the results of the state's disputed U.S. Senate election so that Republican Norm Coleman can pursue a federal court challenge.

Pawlenty told CNN that he would abide by whatever ruling the Minnesota Supreme Court makes in the contest, where Democrat Al Franken appears to have an upper hand.

"I'm prepared to sign [the certification] as soon as they give the green light," Pawlenty said. "I'm not going to defy an order of the Minnesota Supreme Court. That would be a dereliction of my duty."

Pawlenty said he had no plans to slow up the process to allow federal litigation to play out, but would abide by any federal court stay Coleman might obtain. "If that doesn't happen promptly or it drags out for any period of time, then we need to move ahead," Pawlenty said.

This sounds fairly encouraging for those anxious to see this matter resolved, but like Dave Weigel, I'm not sure what Pawlenty means by "green light." It's certainly possible, for example, that the Minnesota Supreme Court will reject Coleman's claim, but not specifically order the governor to certify Franken's victory. Indeed, by saying he won't "defy an order," Pawlenty made it sound as if he'll wait for specific instructions, and won't necessarily act before.

In other words, the state court ruling may not resolve the matter, as far as Minnesota Republicans are concerned.

A MORE LIBERAL SECOND HALF?.... The first half of 2009 on Capitol Hill has seen Congress focus the bulk of its attention on the economy, the budget, health care and energy. And while those last two are still very much on the front burner, Roll Call reports today that the second half of the year will likely feature more work on domestic social issues, most notably on gay rights.

...House Democratic leaders are starting to show signs that they are now ready to push key aspects of the gay rights agenda.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her leadership team met privately last week with Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.) -- the three openly gay Members of Congress -- to chart a strategy for advancing gay rights issues this Congress.

Sources in the meeting said Members discussed workplace discrimination, health care benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees, and a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Lawmakers also discussed how to help the Senate pass hate crimes legislation that has already cleared the House and the possibility of rolling workplace discrimination and federal health benefits into one bill.

House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the original sponsor of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, has also agreed to hold hearings, revisiting the issue 16 years later.

The second half of the year is also likely to include a renewed debate over immigration reform, as evidenced by a meeting last week among key lawmakers plotting a legislative strategy. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) left feeling "very optimistic"; Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) described the meeting as "a real shot in the arm." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is committed to tackling immigration reform this year, and Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) sounded encouraged by the prospects.

I can't remember the last year in which policymakers even tried to do this much in a single calendar year. Bush didn't really have a policy agenda after 2005, so it's good to see Congress wiping off the cobwebs. It'll be even better if they can actually succeed.

HOLDS.... Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) explained over the weekend that he's put a hold on Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein's nomination to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Sunstein easily cleared the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in May, but Chambliss doesn't want him to get a floor vote, because of something Sunstein once wrote about animal rights.

If this were just an isolated delay, it would hardly be cause for concern. It's not. This is, regrettably, quickly becoming the norm.

In a burst of activity before adjourning on Friday for a two-week recess, the Senate confirmed 12 nominees for important positions in the Obama administration. That is the good news. Unfortunately, there are still 21 nominees for important posts awaiting confirmation.

Most of the stranded nominees have long since had hearings and majority approval by Senate committees and meetings with lawmakers. None of the nominees have been tainted by scandal or had their core competence questioned. And yet, they remain unconfirmed -- one for more than three months and several others for more than a month -- mainly because of holds, often anonymous and unexplained, by Republican senators.

Holds are effectively a filibuster, requiring 60 votes to overcome. Used legitimately, they can buy time to clear up unanswered questions about a nominee's qualifications. But the current widespread holds of uncertain duration are obstructionism. Writing in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, Norman Ornstein, a Congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said the mass delays are "damaging the fabric of governance."

That may sound hyperbolic, but Ornstein makes a very compelling case that good governance is undermined by these "capricious" holds. He explained, "We need political appointees in place to make decisions and sign off on policies. Of course, there are talented career executives. But they often lack the authority, or the will, to make tough or controversial decisions that are not normally in their purview. Some of the delays in implementation of the stimulus package have undoubtedly occurred because no official able to expedite the normal vetting process for projects or grants has been in place to do so. It is also important to keep in mind that incoming officials cannot start operating at 100 percent the day they are sworn in; it takes a while to learn the ropes and the procedures, so these delays will be even longer and more damaging than they appear."

I'd just add that while the holds are themselves frustrating, I'm not even sure why the Senate has to confirm all of these officials anyway.

Regardless, there was at least some progress last week, with Harold Koh's confirmation. It'd be even more encouraging if Dawn Johnsen (OLC) and Robert Groves (Census Bureau) could overcome holds and get up-or-down votes, too.

SOTOMAYOR'S STRONG SUPPORT.... Conservatives had such high hopes for Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination. They were going to raise lots of money, put Democrats on the defensive, and use the confirmation fight to generate enthusiasm among Republican activists.

Developments have clearly not gone according to plan. In Washington, Republican leaders concede that Sotomayor has not become the lightning rod they'd hoped for. And nationwide, support for the judge's conformation is quite high.

A sizable majority of Americans want the Senate to confirm Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, and most call her "about right" ideologically, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Senate hearings on Sotomayor, President Obama's pick to replace retiring Justice David H. Souter, begin in two weeks, and 62 percent of those polled support her elevation to the court. Sotomayor, 55, is currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York.

If confirmed, Sotomayor would become only the third female justice and the second on the current nine-member court. But there is no gender gap in support for her, with men and women about equally likely to be on her side.

With 62% supporting her, Sotomayor enjoys stronger backing at this stage in the process than any of the last four nominees.

It seems none of the charges from Sotomayor's detractors has had much of an effect. Only 25% want to see the Senate reject her nomination, and a fifth of those critics insist that Sotomayor isn't liberal enough. What's more, despite some recent polling suggesting a growing number of Americans describing themselves as "pro-life," the Post/ABC poll found 60% of respondents saying they want Sotomayor to vote to uphold Roe vs Wade.

All the attacks on Sotomayor have managed to convince conservative Republicans, but no one else. The right largely expected to lose this fight over Sotomayor, but the goal was to lose in a productive way, leaving conservatives in a better position going forward. That isn't happening.

THE CODA.... It's been a few days, and the political world has largely moved on, but the Huffington Post's Nico Pitney asking President Obama a question submitted by an Iranian continues to wrinkle some feathers. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank has played a leading role in criticizing Nico -- Milbank's column on the subject included a series of errors of fact and judgment -- and sat alongside Nico on CNN this morning to discuss the matter.

It led to quite a lively chat.

It's not in the video, but as Howard Kurtz went on to introduce the next segment, Milbank whispered to Nico, "You're such a dick."

I guess he didn't think the discussion went well.

For the record, Milbank again suggested this morning that Nico "worked in collusion" with the White House, and argued that presidential aides encouraged Nico to ask a question "a certain way."

Milbank hasn't produced evidence to bolster his claims, probably because they're false. As Milbank should realize by now, the White House saw some value in answering a question from an Iranian, and knew Nico was in a position to offer one. Obama didn't know the question in advance, Nico didn't work in "collusion" with anyone, and not incidentally, Nico's question was a good one that the president seemed anxious to dodge. (Honestly, if the White House were really going to "collude" with a journalist and encourage said journalist to ask a question "a certain way," wouldn't aides make it a softball?)

It's a shame Milbank is still bothered by this, but his accusations, days later, remain unfounded. It's one thing to be annoyed; it's another to make up relevant details to fit a bogus conclusion in front of a national audience.

THE PARTIES ARE SUPPOSED TO DISAGREE.... On ABC News' "This Week," presidential advisor David Axelrod said the health care bill "will be bipartisan by definition." By way of an explanation, he added, "The Senate health committee accepted 82 Republican amendments. Republican ideas will be included with this process, we hope it will come with Republican votes as well."

Soon after, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), one of the leading Republican negotiators on health care, said the 82 Republican amendments that were approved don't count. "Those were strictly technical," Grassley said this morning. "And Republicans are not going to hoodwinked into calling that a bipartisan bill."

The back and forth pointed to an obvious truth that the political establishment doesn't seem to like: the two major parties don't agree on health care reform.

Congressional Republicans are finding much to dislike in Democratic health care proposals, illustrating the immense difficulty Democrats face in fashioning an overhaul that can attract enough Republican support to be portrayed as bipartisan. [...]

Asked how many Senate Republicans could sign on to developing Democratic plans, Senator Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, author of a Republican alternative, said: "I think right now, none. Zero."

Grassley added that even in the unlikely event Democrats are able to find a few Republicans to support their reform efforts, it wouldn't count as a "bipartisan bill" unless a lot of Republicans sign on.

Several GOP lawmakers, meanwhile, have said they're open to the possibility of a bipartisan effort, just so long as health care reform doesn't cost a lot of money, doesn't raise taxes, doesn't adversely affect the insurance companies, doesn't include a public option, and doesn't give the government more influence in the system. As long as Dems can agree to these conditions, everyone can get along just fine.

Maybe now would be a good time to remind the relevant players that there are different political parties for a reason. Democrats and Republicans are -- I hope you're sitting down -- supposed to disagree.

They have very different policy agendas, driven by different worldviews. That they're struggling to agree on how to pass the most sweeping overhaul of the health care system isn't surprising; that they're trying to overcome this is.

A.L. noted this week:

For as long as I can remember, the Democratic party has fought to increase the government's role in providing health care coverage for Americans while the Republican party has fought to reduce the government's role. The Democrats are responsible for Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP; the Republicans fought all of those initiatives. On a policy level, the Democrats believe that the best health and cost outcomes can be achieved by increasing access and encouraging widespread use of routine and preventative medical care. Republicans, on the other hand, have routinely identified the problem as over-consumption of care. Their proposals to fix the system inevitably involve significant deregulation with the goal of encouraging the use of high-deductible policies to try to discourage personal consumption of health care. Nearly every Democrat (including the blue dogs and "centrists") believes this to be bad policy.

In other words, there is virtually no common ground between the parties. The parties don't even see eye-to-eye regarding basic goals and policy assumptions.

There's nothing wrong with this. It's nice and pleasant when both sides can agree, and President Obama probably hoped the situation was so severe, Republicans would put aside many of their preconceived ideological objections to reform, and work in good faith towards obvious, common-sense solutions. That's not going to happen, of course, but that's not necessarily awful. The political system expects the parties to argue with one another. It's a feature, not a bug.

It looks like the opposition party is going to criticize and object to the Democrats' health care reform effort. That's what opposition parties do -- they oppose.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) asked the other day, "[D]o you want to be non-partisan and get nothing? Or do you want to be partisan and end up with a good health- care plan? That is the choice."

The process will probably go much smoother once negotiators come to grips with this.

WRONG RESPONSE TO THE WRONG QUESTION.... It hasn't gotten too much attention -- all things considered, that's probably a good thing -- but MSNBC picked up on the calls from some conservatives for a boycott of General Motors. (The idea also got some airtime recently on "The Colbert Report.")

A sizable share of Americans, recent surveys show, are reluctant to buy from a bankrupt automaker. Complicating matters, the bailout is triggering a harsh reaction from the conservative end of the political spectrum, with some high-profile pundits calling for an outright boycott of what many are calling "Government Motors."

Among the most vocal is Hugh Hewitt, who has frequently called for a boycott to protest the "Obamaization of the American car business," both on his syndicated radio show and on his blog.

Hewitt insists that "individual Americans" must resist buying the automaker's products because, as he wrote in one blog entry, "every dollar spent with GM is a dollar spent against free enterprise."

I rarely agree with Joe Scarborough, but two weeks ago, he described the idea of a GM boycott as "stupid," and the conservative proponents of the boycott "morons."

While that's probably an impolite way of putting it, Scarborough's larger point is certainly true. As we talked about earlier this month, these conservative activists have the situation backwards.

The Obama administration intervened to prevent GM's collapse, but its goal is to see the auto manufacturer get back on its feet quickly. The White House doesn't want to hold onto GM; it wants to divest as quickly as possible. A boycott, organized by far-right activists, would work against Americans' interests -- it would undermine GM, exacerbate the company's problems, and undercut taxpayers who obviously have a lot invested in this arrangement.

If GM's finances improve, the government can divest, American jobs will be saved, and taxpayers can get a return on their money. That would be a good thing.

There's been (a little too much) debate in conservative circles over the last several months about whether, in the midst of multiple crises, it's appropriate to root for failure. But it's even more striking to see some conservatives trying to actively ensure failure, regardless of the consequences for the country.

IDEOLOGICAL INFERENCE.... When it comes to political commentary and analysis, it's easy to make certain assumptions about the perspective of the writer/speaker. It's a lazy habit that many of us make, and I include myself in this. If a prominent political media voice was critical of Bush/Cheney, one assumes he/she is on the left. Those who go after Obama must be on the right.

But it's worth remembering that these are just assumptions, and they're often wrong. This came to mind the other day when the Washington Post's Andy Alexander addressed Dan Froomkin's departure.

[The paper's decision was] not about ideology. My original Omblog post quoted Hiatt as saying Froomkin's "political orientation was not a factor in our decision." In my discussions with Froomkin, he has not cited ideology as the primary reason. And several veteran Post reporters have dismissed that as the cause. In an online chat this week, Post Pulitzer-winning columnist Gene Weingarten, who expressed "respect" for Froomkin and regret that White House Watch was ending, said: "I don't know why Froomkin's column was dropped, but I can tell you that the diabolical conspiracy talk is nuts. Froomkin wasn't dropped because he is too liberal; things just don't work that way at the Post."

I'm not in a position to say whether ideology played a role here or not. The Post insists the decision had nothing to do with politics -- DougJ has a compelling item with healthy skepticism -- and for all I know, the paper's line may very well be true.

But I'm still struggling with the premise. Dan Froomkin had an "ideology"?

The official response from the Post emphasized the idea that Froomkin's ouster had nothing to do with him being "too liberal." OK, but how do we know he was a liberal at all?

It gets back to this problem about ideological inferences. Froomkin wrote, extensively and eloquently, about Bush administration wrongdoing. He called out the Bush White House on its disastrous policy in Iraq, its torture policies, its abuses of power, its secrecy, and its lies.

It's assumed, then, that Froomkin must be left of center. But that's, at best, speculative and unfounded -- can't a conservative also find fault in the Bush White House's failures, abuses, and crimes? Why can't political observers in the media be able to call it the way they see it, without being pigeonholed into one group or another?

It's only been five months since President Obama took office, but Froomkin has been plenty critical of the president since January. Hell, for all I know, conservatives would have ended up loving Froomkin for his efforts to hold this Democratic White House accountable for its errors. Regrettably, we'll never know.

Put it this way: if the president, any president, lies about something important, it's a lie no matter what the ideology is of the person who hears it. Froomkin was considered some kind of ideologue because he had the audacity to a) notice White House wrongdoing; and b) use a media platform to write about it.

By that reasoning, we could use a lot more ideologues in media.

TIME FOR D.C. TO CATCH UP.... On June 28, 1969, police officers raided a gay bar called the Stonewall Inn, touching off days of riots. Forty years later, federal policy makers are in a position to finally enshrine equality in the law, but they're not only reluctant, they're behind the American mainstream.

[E]ven as cultural acceptance of homosexuality increases across the country, the politics of gay rights remains full of crosscurrents.

It is reflected in the surge of gay men and lesbians on television and in public office, and in polls measuring a steady rise in support for gay rights measures. Despite approval in California of a ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, it has been authorized in six states.

Yet if the culture is moving on, national politics is not, or at least not as rapidly. Mr. Obama has yet to fulfill a campaign promise to repeal the policy barring openly gay people from serving in the military. The prospects that Congress will ever send him a bill overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, appear dim. An effort to extend hate-crime legislation to include gay victims has produced a bitter backlash in some quarters: Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, sent a letter to clerics in his state arguing that it would be destructive to "faith, families and freedom."

"America is changing more quickly than the government," said Linda Ketner, a gay Democrat from South Carolina who came within four percentage points of winning a Congressional seat in November. "They are lagging behind the crowd. But if I remember my poli sci from college, isn't that the way it always works?"

The political establishment developed certain preconceived notions of how America approaches gay rights, and as of now, most of those notions are locked in the early '90s. For Dems, that means a fear that a culture-war clash will cost the majority party dearly, seemingly unaware that polls show most Americans already support many of the measures Democrats want but are afraid to seek.

For the right, it leads to confidence that the country is on conservatives' side, reality notwithstanding. For example, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a far-right anti-gay group, noted to the NYT that supporters of equality want to see an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but doubts the administration is willing to oblige. "I think there's a reason for that, and that is because I think the American public isn't there," Perkins said.

Except, of course, the American public is there. Gallup poll released this month found that 69% of the country supports allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military. Better yet, a clear majority (58%) of conservatives support it, too.

It's time for policymakers to catch up to the rest of the country. Indeed, it's past time.

ELITE EIGHT.... House Republicans wanted to put up a united front against the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), but eight GOP lawmakers -- Reps. Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Mike Castle (Del.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Leonard Lance (N.J.), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), John McHugh (N.Y.), Dave Reichert (Wash,), and Chris Smith (N.J.) -- broke ranks. In light of the narrow margin, it's likely ACES would have failed were it not for these Republicans' support.

Today, conservative bloggers responded to the eight.

RedState labeled them "quisling" Republicans who "sold out the nation\'s [sic] future." Malkin put up a "wanted" poster with the eight, under the text: "Wanted in the United States of America for selling out taxpayers." She went on label them the "GOP's Cap-and-Tax 8."

And Robert Stacy McCain is targeting the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), now that the "Monstrosity From Hell That Will Destroy the American Economy" passed with the help of eight GOP lawmakers.

...I've got four words for the National Republican Congressional Committee: Not One Red Cent.

We've already said Not One Red Cent for the National Republican Senatorial Committee because Sen. John Cornyn and the NRSC betrayed the GOP grassroots in Florida. Now, add the NRCC to the list.

What's the point of giving money to the national party if, on key votes, Republican members of the House are indistinguishable from Nancy Pelosi?

Why give money to the campaign committee whose job is to re-elect these RINO sellouts?

It's not altogether clear why RSM blames the NRCC for last night's outcome, but he added, "Unless and until all eight of these swine announce their retirements -- or are defeated in next year's primaries -- I say the grassroots answer to the NRCC should be NOT ONE RED CENT!"

Whether the party is inclined to take this talk seriously is unclear -- few seemed to care when these activists were livid about the Crist endorsement -- but some of the eight from last night are preparing statewide campaigns next year. If activists were really focused on punishing the defectors, Kirk and Castle would be the two most vulnerable of the eight.

'ERADICATION IS A WASTE OF MONEY'.... When the administration talked up the idea of a new U.S. policy in Afghanistan, officials apparently meant it. This includes new restrictions on airstrikes, but just as importantly, it also includes a new approach to Afghanistan's drug problem.

The U.S. has announced a new drug policy for opium-rich Afghanistan, saying it was phasing out funding for eradication efforts and using the money for drug interdiction and alternate crop programs instead.

The U.S. envoy for Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, told The Associated Press on Saturday that eradication programs weren't working and were only driving farmers into the hands of the Taliban.

"Eradication is a waste of money," Holbrooke said on the sidelines of a Group of Eight foreign ministers' meeting on Afghanistan, where he announced the policy shift and said it had been warmly received, particularly by the United Nations.

Afghanistan is the world's leading source of opium, cultivating 93 percent of the world's heroin-producing crop. The United Nations has estimated the Taliban and other Afghan militants made $50 million to $70 million off the opium and heroin trade last year.

Antonio Maria Costa, the head of the U.N. drug office, has been arguing that international efforts are necessary to assist Afghan farmers who are willing to grow valuable crops, while at the same time, targeting drug trafficking and production. Holbrooke told the AP that hasn't been U.S. policy, but it's exactly what the Obama administration intends to do.

"We're essentially phasing out our support for crop eradication and using the money to work on interdiction, rule of law, alternate crops.... That's the big change in our policies."

Holbrooke said the previous U.S. policy to combat Afghan poppy, which focused on eradication programs, hadn't reduced "by one dollar" the amount of money the Taliban earned off cultivation and production.

"It might destroy some acreage," Holbrooke said. "But it just helped the Taliban." [...]

"The farmers are not our enemy, they're just growing a crop to make a living," he said. "It's the drug system. So the U.S. policy was driving people into the hands of the Taliban."

Afghanistan is going to remain a nightmarish challenge, but the chances of U.S. policy succeeding go up considerably with smart policies like these.

IT'LL TAKE MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS.... Republicans have a new line of attack they seem to be especially excited about: President Obama, irrespective of what he inherited, has not yet fixed the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Indeed, in the Republican response to the president's weekly address, Representative John A. Boehner, the minority leader ... derides what he calls the Democrats' "spending binge" in service of helping the economy and asks, "After all of this spending, after all of this borrowing from China, the Middle East, our children, and our grandchildren, where are the jobs?"

Earlier this month, after May's job numbers looked less awful than expected, Boehner tried the same approach: "Today's announcement is an acknowledgement that the Democrats' trillion-dollar stimulus is not working, and the American people know it." (Boehner's assessment of the size of the stimulus is only off by hundreds of billions of dollars, but he's never been a "detail oriented" kind of guy.)

What's interesting, though, is the underlying point. When Obama took office, the economy was in free fall, the job market was collapsing, the banking industry was in crisis, the auto industry was on its last breath, the deficit was nearly $1.3 trillion, and the budget was a total mess. The White House got its stimulus bill in February, and saw Congress approve its budget in April.

And now, it's June, and congressional Republicans are shocked President Obama has not yet completely cleaned up the mess they directly helped create.

Boehner's argument, in a nutshell, is easy: if the recovery package passed in February hasn't solved our problems by June, it's only reasonable to declare it a failure. Paul Krugman noted this week that this kind of analysis is "insane," in large part because "hardly any of the money has flowed to the economy yet."

It took quite a while to dig our way into this hole; it'll take more than four months to get us out.

Maybe Boehner can just wait in the corner and let the grown-ups talk for a while.

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is the resolution of a recent controversy involving the late Jerry Falwell's college in Virginia, which no longer wanted to allow its students to organize an official Democratic student group on campus.

Liberty University's College Democrats again will be recognized by the school after the two sides reached a compromise, school and club officials say.

Controversy ensued last month after the school announced it was revoking official recognition for the chapter, citing moral beliefs held by its parent organization. Specifically, Liberty was upset with the national Democrats' views supporting abortion rights and same-sex marriage.

In an agreement announced Tuesday, whose terms begin with the fall semester, Liberty will classify all political clubs as "unofficial" -- meaning they will not receive any funding from the institution, but can use its facilities. According to the university's new policy, posted on its Web site, such groups will be able to use Liberty's name "as long as they make it clear they are not being endorsed by the university."

As compromises go, this may not sound like much of a deal for the College Dems, but Liberty will now at least treat College Democrats and Republicans equally.

"We had no policy governing unofficial clubs before all of this controversy," Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Jr. said in a statement. "The new policy will allow Liberty to protect its Christian mission and at the same time will allow the political clubs to achieve their objectives."

College Democrats Secretary Jan Derwish told CNN, "Our goal throughout this whole situation was to be put on the same playing field as our counterparts. I believe it is a fair compromise."

Liberty had more to consider than bad publicity and magnanimity -- the evangelical college was facing an IRS complaint because it's a tax-exempt institution that wanted to favor one political party over another. The compromise effectively ends the controversy.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* The drive to make the visitor center on Capitol Hill a little more religious is gaining steam: "The House Administration Committee has unanimously approved a resolution directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the National Motto -- 'In God We Trust' - and the Pledge of Allegiance inside the new Capitol Visitor Center."

* And this week, when South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) returned to the United States and acknowledged his adulterous affair, he made an oblique reference to "C Street" in his remarks. The comment has renewed interest in a secretive spiritual haven in D.C.: "On any given day, the rowhouse at 133 C St. SE -- well appointed, with American flag flying, white-and-green-trimmed windows and a pleasant garden -- fills with talk of power and the Lord. At least five congressmen live there, quietly renting upstairs rooms from an organization affiliated with 'the Fellowship,' the obsessively secretive Arlington spiritual group that organizes the National Day of Prayer breakfast, an event routinely attended by legions of top government officials. Other politicians come to the house for group spirituality sessions, prayer meetings or to simply share their troubles."

THE PROMISES OF PRIMARY PRESSURE.... Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, up until fairly recently, opposed including a public option in health care reform. This week, he reversed course. I wonder why that is.

Speaking [on Thursday] to a large and animated crowd of union organizers and health reform advocates in a brewing house just North of the Capitol, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) said he supports a public insurance option.

"Schumer has it right about having a public component," Specter said. [...]

[T]he Schumer proposal is in line with the principles of the major reform campaign Health Care for America Now -- and, as such, just about every major health care and labor organization in the country.

Before Specter switched parties this spring -- and for a brief period afterward -- he said he did not support the public option. But as a Democrat he's facing different pressures -- notably from Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) who plans to challenge Specter in next year's primary -- and he's begun tacking to the left as a result.

He certainly has. In his first week as a Democrat, Specter voted against the Democratic budget, rejected a Democratic measure to help prevent mortgage foreclosures, announced his opposition to the Democratic president's OLC nominee, announced his opposition to a public option, and told a national television audience that he'd never promised anyone he'd be a "loyal Democrat." Soon after, he told the New York Times, "There's still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner." (Specter later said he forgot he was a Democrat.)

And yet, now we see Specter speaking at HCAN rallies and endorsing a public option.

Is there any doubt that a likely primary challenge from Rep. Joe Sestak is having an effect on Specter's policy positions?

When it comes to primary challenges, I tend to think they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If Specter were a Republican-turned-Democrat from Alabama, and a primary challenger were pushing him far enough to the left to make a general election campaign more difficult, I can imagine this being detrimental.

But for those who believe primary campaigns are always harmful to a party's interests, Specter's example is pretty compelling evidence to the contrary.

DENIERS.... National Review's Victor Davis Hanson explained his rationale yesterday for denying evidence of global warming.

I just spent a few days in the Sierra in May during freezing cold temperatures and snow; a week ago it was quite cool and raining in New York; each time I have passed through Phoenix this spring it seemed unseasonably cool; and just gave a talk on the Russian River and about froze. Meanwhile the grapes look about ten days behind due to unseasonably cool temperatures. Any empiricist would be worried, as Newsweek once was, about global cooling. Will the planet boil, if we slow down a bit, review the science and dissenting views, and consider the wisdom in a recession of allotting nearly a trillion dollars to changing our very way of life (while the Chinese absorb market share)?

It's items like these that help explain why our political discourse is so routinely stunted. If the left and right disagreed on how best to address policy challenges, that would at least open the door to constructive dialog. But we're still stuck in a political environment in which prominent conservative voices at high-profile conservative outlets a) don't recognize the difference between climate and weather; b) find meaningless anecdotes compelling evidence of global trends; and c) are entirely comfortable delaying necessary solutions while trying to continue an already-completed debate.

Also yesterday, the Wall Street Journal editorial page ran an item from Kimberly Strassel that offered even less persuasive evidence. (via Jon Chait)

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.

Ah, yes, the Inhofe list. Strassel sees "more than 700 scientists" who reject evidence of global warming, but a closer look reveals that the list includes economists, engineers, geographers, TV weathermen, and physicists -- none of whom has a background in climate science. Some of the "more than 700" actually accept global warming as fact, have asked that their names be removed from the list, only to find Inhofe ignore their requests.

In my favorite example, one of the 700 "scientists" is a weatherman at the FOX-affiliated station in Bowling Green, Ky. The "scientist' doesn't have a college degree, believes in creationism, and rejects evidence of global warming because he doesn't believe "God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created." He's also argued that his perspective on science has value, despite not having a background in science, because, "The way I see it, some people are too smart for their own good."

EXECUTIVE ORDER, INDEFINITE DETENTION.... About a month ago, President Obama delivered a speech at the National Archives on national security, and described his vision of a five-part system for detainees in U.S. custody. The fifth is made up of detainees who "cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people," and the president described what was, in effect, a system of indefinite detention without charges.

Obama added that his administration would submit such a system to checks and balances, and "will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."

The administration has since come realize that working with Congress on this is practically impossible, so a new approach is under consideration.

Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

Now, there are some ambiguities here. A White House spokesperson said "there is no executive order and that the administration has not decided whether to issue one." Time's Michael Scherer added, "A White House official tells me that there is no 'draft executive order' and that the task force charged with investigating this issue has not completed its work."

At the same time, according to the Post's report, an administration official suggested that the White House is trying to build support for an order. "Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order," the official said.

At first blush, this sounds very hard to believe. Why would civil liberties group encourage the White House to pursue indefinite detention through an executive order? The answer may be that an executive order is preferable to a new law negotiated through Congress, since an executive order can be easily rescinded.

For that matter, Spencer Ackerman talked to Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Policy who explained that the devil is in the details of the policy.

[Martin] doesn't have any knowledge about the order aside from what she's read, but says, "If the administration issues an executive order like the one [Linzer and Finn] describe [in the WaPo piece], it'll be a major victory." That's because Martin thinks that established law holds that the administration doesn't require any additional legal authorization to hold anyone captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan without charge until the end of hostilities -- that comes from the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, as does dispensation for the 9/11 plotters -- but would need to charge or release any detainee picked up outside either Afghanistan or Iraq. Martin thinks the reported executive order might be the only thing standing in the way of an even broader congressional effort of the sort seen in the war supplemental that Daphne critiqued yesterday.

While we wait for that additional information, there's one simple concept policymakers should keep in mind: locking people up indefinitely, without charging them with a crime or giving them a fair trial, is always a recipe for disaster.

COMING UP ACES.... Hilzoy noted overnight that the House, in a very close vote, approved the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), 219 to 212. In the end, 44 Democrats broke party ranks and joined the minority in opposition -- including a few who had told the leadership otherwise -- while eight Republicans voted with the Democratic majority.

The legislation's flaws notwithstanding, yesterday's vote was a very big deal. The NYT noted that this is the "first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change. The legislation ... could lead to profound changes in many sectors of the economy, including electric power generation, agriculture, manufacturing and construction."

Under the circumstances, a handful of Democratic leaders have definitely earned a pat on the back.

"It has been an incredible six months, to go from a point where no one believed we could pass this legislation to a point now where we can begin to say that we are going to send president Obama to Copenhagen in December as the leader of the of the world on climate change," said [Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey (D)], referring to world climate talks scheduled this winter.

When Markey says "no one believed we could pass this legislation," that's not an exaggeration. This was more than just an ambitious long shot; this was widely seen as nearly impossible. When House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) vowed to get this bill out of committee, onto the floor, and over to the Senate before the 4th of July, some literally laughed at him.

And yet, here we are. Looks like Waxman was the right person for the job.

Credit also has to go to Speaker Pelosi and President Obama, both of whom were tested on this, twisting arms on legislation Congress didn't want to pass, and both passed their tests nicely. The Hill called yesterday's vote "one of the biggest victories of [Pelosi's] tenure" as Speaker, which is an entirely fair assessment.

As for the eight Republicans who supported the measure -- Reps. Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Mike Castle (Del.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Leonard Lance (N.J.), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), John McHugh (N.Y.), Dave Reichert (Wash,), and Chris Smith (N.J.) -- this should probably be seen as a sign of at least some progress. For one thing, the legislation likely would have failed without them. For another, a few of these GOP lawmakers are planning to run for statewide office next year, suggesting they see a political upside to being on the right side of climate change when seeking a promotion.

And let's also not forget that House Republicans have been strikingly disciplined and in lock-step this year, giving Democrats exactly zero GOP votes on measures like the budget and the economic stimulus package. The Republican leadership would have loved nothing more than to see a united front against ACES yesterday, but it obviously didn't happen.

Now, onto the Senate. Does it stand a chance? Stay tuned.

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

* Bloodshed in Baghdad: "A bomb mounted on a motorcycle exploded in an outdoor market in Baghdad on Friday, killing nearly a dozen people and wounded scores more in a third straight day of violence in the capital ahead of the Tuesday deadline for American troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities.... Nearly 200 people were killed and hundreds wounded in attacks over the past week in Baghdad and elsewhere in the country, with the deadliest attacks aimed at Shiites."

* More signs of trouble out of Iran: "An influential Iranian cleric told worshipers Friday that those stirring unrest in connection with the recent election should be punished 'ruthlessly and savagely' and convicted for waging war against God, a crime that under Shiite Islamic law is punishable by death."

* The CIA's declassification of that 2004 report we've been waiting for will happen ... someday.

* For all the recent complaints about "apology tours," South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) seems to be in the middle of one.

* At this point, some of the Democratic fence-sitters on Waxman-Markey appear to be announcing their support for the bill, and the leadership seems confident that the bill will pass.

* House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers' (D-Mich.) wife, Monica Conyers, the president pro tem of the Detroit city council, pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to commit bribery.

* Sen. Kay Hagan's (D-N.C.) opposition to a public option is a major stumbling block, so MoveOn.org is putting the pressure on.

* One of these days, conservative Republican lawmakers are going to learn to stay away from comparing American leaders to Iranian's authoritarian regime. It's not only insulting; it makes them appear ridiculous.

* Given how very, very wrong she is, and how often her arguments fall apart upon scrutiny, it's disturbing that Betsy McCaughey is given major media platforms as often as she is.

* Sarah Palin's comeback insults are about as fresh and creative as her policy agenda.

* Vice President Biden spoke at a party fundraiser with gay and lesbian donors yesterday, and reiterated the administration's commitment to gay rights. He added that he doesn't blame supporters for their "impatience." Despite recent tensions, Biden reportedly drew "repeated standing ovations."

* The Senate's impeachment trial against U.S. District Judge Sam Kent was cut short when he resigned yesterday.

* I'm familiar with the notion that "sex sells," but Burger King's ad campaign in Singapore is wildly inappropriate.

* Michael Savage is apparently no longer threatening the staff of Media Matters.

* And Rhode Island's official name is "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." Policymakers are moving towards dropping the last two words in the long name. Seems like a good idea.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

HOAXES.... Listening to the House debate over the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) is a surprisingly frustrating experience. It's probably better that most Americans don't actually see these debates -- it would undermine faith in our system of government.

At one point today, Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) noted, "It is very difficult to find common ground if the other side rejects the science of our times." Truer words, never spoken.

Take, for example, Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.). Broun is perhaps best known for telling reporters late last year that he fears that President Obama may establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship on Americans. He added at the time that Obama reminds him of Hitler. Today, the Georgia Republican shared his thoughts on the environment.

"Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus.... And who's going to be hurt most [by ACES] the poor, the people on limited income…the people who can least afford to have their energy taxes raised by MIT says $3,100 per family.... This bill must be defeated. We need to be good stewards of our environment, but this is not it, it's a hoax!"

The "$3,100 per family" line has been debunked over and over again -- the MIT scholar Broun cites has specifically tried to explain to Republican lawmakers that it's completely bogus -- but they just can't seem to stop using it.

Regardless, the general inanity of the speech is what's troubling. Ideally, the two major parties would at least agree on reality. Reasonable people would look at the evidence and recognize the seriousness of the climate crisis. From there, Democrats and Republicans could argue fiercely over how best to address the problem.

But policymakers can't work together to tackle problems when one side prefers to believe the problems don't exist.

DEPT. OF PRACTICING, PREACHING.... Patrick Ruffini, a Republican strategist and blogger, had an interesting item yesterday on the GOP and adultery, and the apparent double-standard when it comes to the major political parties and infidelity.

At the core of the Sanford and Ensign episodes is the cloud of "hypocrisy" that hangs over any Republican who strays from the bonds of their marriage. (Quickly forgetting that all who commit adultery are hypocrites, having taken a solemn vow of marriage.) Because Democrats are perceived as more socially libertine, they get off easier.

This is a structural disadvantage that, on the margins, hurts Republican officeholders, forcing them into resignation or disgrace more easily than their equally adulterous Democratic counterparts.

Simply put, it is a strategic error to sanctify the idea that it's worse when Republicans cheat.

Ruffini's argument, at face value, is not unreasonable. Adultery is, he argues, a "human failing that strikes Democrats and Republicans equally." With that in mind, the GOP should resist the temptation to "purge their ranks based exclusively on a test of personal moral conduct."

I tend to see this differently. For one thing, I'm not at all sure that Republicans are forced into "resignation or disgrace" more easily than unfaithful Dems. In fact, I get the sense that's backwards -- the only recently caught adulterer to resign from office was Eliot Spitzer. Sanford, Ensign, Vitter, Craig, et al were all caught while in office, and each one ignored calls to step down.

But more to the point, shouldn't there be a double standard? I can appreciate why Ruffini would lament a "structural disadvantage" on this, but hasn't the Republican Party invited this disadvantage?

For a few decades, Republican candidates at every level have emphasized the GOP's moral superiority on "family values." If you want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage, the argument went, it's incumbent on you to vote Republican. There's a culture war underway, Americans have been told, and Democrats just aren't as reliable on these issues as the GOP.

All the while, the list of prominent Republican officeholders who cheat on their spouses keeps getting longer.

Ruffini thinks it's a mistake to "sanctify the idea that it's worse when Republicans cheat." The problem is, it is worse. If the party doesn't want to be held to a higher moral standard, the party probably ought to stop lecturing everyone else about higher moral standards.

If you help run Mothers Against Drunk Driving and you're caught drunk driving, it's going to be a bigger deal than the typical DUI. If you're the local fire chief and you're caught setting a fire, it's going to be a bigger deal than the typical arson.

And if you're part of a party that hails itself as the political arbiter of virtue and morality, it's going to be a bigger deal when some of your party's leading figures get caught in sex scandals.

NAMING NAMES.... Dan Froomkin's last Washington Post piece was, alas, published earlier today, and for all the reasons we talked about last week, it's a real shame to see him go.

But as TS reminded me, it's worth paying particular attention to Froomkin's last item, not just for sentiment, but because Froomkin goes out with the kind of pull-no-punches insights that made his work so valuable in the first place.

Froomkin reflects, for example, on his observations from the previous administration (links in the original):

When I look back on the Bush years, I think of the lies. There were so many. Lies about the war and lies to cover up the lies about the war. Lies about torture and surveillance. Lies about Valerie Plame. Vice President Dick Cheney's lies, criminally prosecutable but for his chief of staff Scooter Libby's lies. I also think about the extraordinary and fundamentally cancerous expansion of executive power that led to violations of our laws and our principles.

And while this wasn't as readily apparent until President Obama took office, it's now very clear that the Bush years were all about kicking the can down the road – either ignoring problems or, even worse, creating them and not solving them. This was true of a huge range of issues including the economy, energy, health care, global warming -- and of course Iraq and Afghanistan.

How did the media cover it all? Not well. Reading pretty much everything that was written about Bush on a daily basis, as I did, one could certainly see the major themes emerging. But by and large, mainstream-media journalism missed the real Bush story for way too long. The handful of people who did exceptional investigative reporting during this era really deserve our gratitude: People such as Ron Suskind, Seymour Hersh, Jane Mayer, Murray Waas, Michael Massing, Mark Danner, Barton Gellman and Jo Becker, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau (better late than never), Dana Priest, Walter Pincus, Charlie Savage and Philippe Sands; there was also some fine investigative blogging over at Talking Points Memo and by Marcy Wheeler. Notably not on this list: The likes of Bob Woodward and Tim Russert. Hopefully, the next time the nation faces a grave national security crisis, we will listen to the people who were right, not the people who were wrong, and heed those who reported the truth, not those who served as stenographers to liars.

Why am I going to miss Dan's column at the Post? This is why.

TYING IT ALL TOGETHER.... We learned yesterday, by way of Rush Limbaugh, that Mark Sanford's sex scandal was President Obama's fault. If it weren't for the administration's economic policies, the argument goes, Sanford would have been more optimistic about the future, wouldn't have cheated on his wife, and wouldn't have secretly left the country to see his mistress.

Who can argue with air-tight logic like this?

Today, Limbaugh's right-wing colleague, Michael Savage, takes this one step further. Obama didn't just inspire Sanford to betray his family; the White House conspired to make this scandal happen in the first place.

"The fact is, Obama's team is taking out potential [2012] rivals, one after another," Savage argued. "Just last week, the media jumped on the story of Sen. John Ensign (R) of Nevada and his infidelity. He was considered to be a possible Republican presidential candidate in '12. Now Sanford, who had similar ambitions, caught in a similar situation.

"This is politics at its worst, brought to us by the worst administration, the meanest administration, the most closed administration, the most incompetent administration in American history."

Now, listening to the clip, it's a little unclear to me whether Savage thinks Obama made Sanford and Ensign have sex with these other women, or whether Obama was spying on Sanford and Ensign, learned of their adultery, and brought it to public attention.

Sure, either way, this is all painfully stupid, and not to be taken seriously. But even from the perspective of a twisted right-wing worldview, I'm curious about one thing: how does an incompetent administration pull off a feat like this? Wouldn't it take an enormous amount of competence to secretly hatch such an elaborate conspiracy?

HOLDING A MISGUIDED GRUDGE.... Apparently, some of the conservative criticism of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is not just about her or her record. Some of it, the NYT's Neil Lewis reports today, has to do with the fact that liberals hurt conservatives' feelings in 1987 and 1991.

[T]he fervor with which some of those criticisms have been hurled may not be just about Judge Sotomayor. Those emotions, say people who have followed the confirmation wars, are often fueled by the sense of grievance among conservatives and Republicans who say their judicial nominees have been treated unfairly and, sometimes, disrespectfully.

Richard A. Epstein, a noted libertarian-conservative scholar at the University of Chicago, said he had concluded that the case against Judge Sotomayor was thin but that it was energized by the anger over the treatment of past conservative nominees like Robert H. Bork, who lost his confirmation battle in 1987, and Clarence Thomas, who was narrowly confirmed four years later.

"There's no question that those hurts remain powerful today," Professor Epstein said in an interview. "And there's no question that Breyer and Ginsburg were never subjected to anything remotely like that," a reference to Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the last two Democratic nominees, both of whom faced relatively easy confirmation proceedings.

As conservative whining goes, this is awfully weak. Bork isn't some kind of conservative martyr, inspiring baseless conservative attacks 22 years later. He was a "right-wing nut" who was so far from the American mainstream, he drew bipartisan opposition. For that matter, Clarence Thomas was not only a conservative ideologue with limited judicial experience, he also faced credible accusations of sexual harassment -- and was confirmed anyway.

As for Breyer and Ginsburg, they were far less controversial because, well, they were far less controversial. They were both qualified, mainstream jurists, recommended to a Democratic president by the lead Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time. They faced "relatively easy confirmation proceedings" because they, unlike Bork and Thomas, were better nominees for the high court.

And yet, two decades after Bork and Thomas, the right is feeling sorry for itself, and using the old controversies as a justification for new unfair attacks on Sotomayor. Maybe it's time for conservatives to get over it?

BACHMANN RAISES THE ISSUE OF 'MENTAL STABILITY'.... You can enjoy Glenn Beck's deranged worldview, or you can enjoy Michele Bachmann's deranged worldview, but for real entertainment, you can watch one "interview" the other.

Yes, the Minnesota Republican appeared on the infamous Fox News program yesterday, and said a lot of the things you'd likely expect her to say. Cap and trade is anti-freedom? Check. The census can be used to round up Americans for internment camps? Checkity check. ACORN is scary and dangerous? Checkity check check.

But Bachmann did break a little new ground: "Does the federal government really need to know our phone numbers? Do they really need to know, like you said, the date and time that we leave? Mental stability?

"You know the one question that's not on this survey, Glenn? 'Are you a U.S. citizen?' This would be your perfect opportunity to find out how many illegal aliens are in the United States. Guess what? That's the one question they don't ask on this."

First, the form asks for a phone number, but it's not required, and it's only there so the Census Bureau can follow up with those who submit incomplete questionnaires.

Second, asking people whether they're American citizens or not is hardly an effective strategy for "finding out how many illegal aliens are in the United States." I don't want to alarm Bachmann and Beck, but I have a hunch someone who's in the country illegally might not answer the question truthfully.

Third, the reasons people are asked some seemingly personal questions is that it's relevant information, tied to government policy. As the Census Bureau tried to explain to Bachmann, "[The materials] would include questions such as income, education levels, how long it take you to get to work. All of these things are actually tied to federal programs, laws or judicial rulings that say we must collect data on these questions. So Congress approves these questions so they can now administer some of the programs and laws that they've passed."

And finally, did you notice that Bachmann just threw in a random reference to "mental stability"? It seemed a little out of the blue, and given the circumstances, rather ironic.

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.

* Former Rep. Rick Lazio (R), perhaps best known for getting trounced by Hillary Clinton in New York nine years ago, is planning to run for governor of New York next year.

* The polls in Florida's gubernatorial race are far from consistent, but Rasmussen has state Attorney General Bill McCollum (R) leading state CFO Alex Sink (D), 42% to 34%.

* In North Carolina, a survey from InsiderAdvantage shows Sen. Richard Burr (R) with just a 39% approval rating. Though this reinforces the perception that Burr is definitely vulnerable next year, Democrats have not found a top-tier challenger for the race.

* There's a very competitive Republican Senate primary in Kansas for the open-seat contest next year, featuring two House members: Reps. Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran. Yesterday, it seemed the religious right started moving heavily in Tiahrt's direction.

* In Oregon, the latest Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos shows Democrats with the edge in next year's gubernatorial campaign. The leading Democratic candidates -- former Gov. John Kitzhaber and Rep. Peter DeFazio -- are leading the likely Republican candidates -- former Sen. Gordon Smith and Rep. Greg Walden -- in hypothetical general election match-ups.

* Memphis Mayor Willie W. Herenton is stepping down next month after five terms, in preparation of a primary challenge against Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.).

* Is Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) going to run for president? He seems to be thinking about it.

* Is former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge (R) going to run for president? He's thinking about it, too.

DEMINT DOES IT AGAIN.... Gearing up for his re-election campaign next year, Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina, arguably the chamber's single most conservative member, is doing what all candidates in his position are doing: raising money and unveiling legislation.

Here's his latest pitch to supporters:

I believe the only way to take back our freedom is to return to the constitutional principles our founding fathers promised in 1776. It's upon those principles I announced my conservative alternative to President Obama's liberal healthcare plan just yesterday.

I can't do all this alone.... I trust that conservative activists are willing to stand behind the ideas I've been pushing in Washington, so I've set a loft [sic] goal of raising $17,760 in $17.76 increments over the next five days.... All you have to do is click here and donate $17.76.

I suppose this preoccupation with 1776 is a cute little fundraising gimmick, but it's also rather embarrassing. As Alex Koppelman explained this morning, "[T]he Constitution wasn't written until 1787, 11 years later. The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, but it didn't contain 'the constitutional principles our founding fathers promised.' In fact, there was a whole other system of government in place in the U.S. before the Constitution was written."

Given the constant references in DeMint's pitch, it seems like the kind of detail he's want to get right.

And what about the Republican senator's "conservative alternative to President Obama's liberal healthcare plan"? Well, as DeMint sees it, Americans would be given vouchers -- $2,000 dollars for individuals, up to $5,000 for families -- to go buy private insurance. Voila, universal coverage.

How would this lower health care costs? DeMint doesn't say, probably because it wouldn't lower costs at all. Instead of using competition to challenge insurers, DeMint would instead direct untold millions to insurance companies. He'd pay for it by scrapping TARP.

What happens when TARP money runs out? DeMint doesn't know. What happens with Americans who can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions? DeMint doesn't know. What's to stop employers from scrapping their own plans and simply telling their employees to take the DeMint voucher? DeMint doesn't know. What happens when costs continue to spiral out of control? DeMint doesn't know.

Andrew Leonard said the South Carolina senator's "plan" takes us "to a Republican fantasy-land so devoid from any moorings in reality that one is forced, willy-nilly, to admire it, irrespective of its merits. It takes true chutzpah to pull something like this off."

PRESCRIPTION FOR RATINGS?.... There's a perception that it's difficult to get Americans, in large numbers, to tune into policy discussions, even important ones. I was curious, then, to see what the ratings were like for the ABC News special this week on health care at the White House.

Apparently, folks tuned in after all.

The ABC News special edition of Primetime "Questions for the President: Prescription for America" drew 4.7 million Total Viewers - last in the time slot but ABC's best 10pm audience in six weeks. NBC's "The Philanthropist" won the time period with 7.4M and CBS' "CSI NY" was second with 7.3M.

ABC's program continued into "Nightline" where it topped NBC's "The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien" and CBS' "Late Show with David Letterman" in fast national data. The program averaged 4.25 million Total Viewers at 11:35pm, to Conan's 3.66 million and Letterman's 3.23 million.

It's possible, of course, that the RNC's incessant whining about the program helped give the special the publicity needed to generate a larger audience, but for an evening discussion on health care policy to draw bigger numbers than Letterman and Conan seems pretty impressive.

Apparently, some far-right blogs are crowing that the ratings weren't higher. All things being equal, though, the numbers suggest there is an audience for substantive policy discussions, which is encouraging.

THE AD WRITES ITSELF.... For several years, Democratic opposition to blank-check spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the single most popular area of attack for Republicans. To vote against "funding the troops," the GOP said, was to betray the nation and those who wear the uniform. It was the basis for countless speeches, ad campaigns, and attacks.

Whether a lawmaker was fully satisfied with individual provisions in the spending bill was irrelevant -- the troops are fighting wars and they need the money. Excuses won't protect them or give them the resources they need.

In fact, just a year ago, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) argued, "[T]here is a clear distinction between saying you support the troops and backing up those claims with genuine action. [Obama] once said 'we shouldn't play chicken with our troops' when it comes to funding our troops in harm's way, and [Hillary Clinton] urged General Petraeus at the start of the surge to request 'every possible piece of equipment and resource necessary' to keep our troops safe. These words turned into little more than empty rhetoric when both proceeded to vote against funding our troops last year."

Last week, of course, the situation was reversed, and it was House Republicans "voting against funding our troops." This week, the DCCC is unveiling a series of 60-second radio ads targeting seven vulnerable GOP incumbents on their votes. This one, for example, goes after Rep. Lee Terry (R) of Nebraska.

"Around here, we recognize Independence Day with parades ... and picnics ... maybe a few fireworks.

"But July Fourth is about more than that. It's about remembering those who fought for our freedoms. And those still fighting today.

"Congressman Lee Terry used to understand that. When George Bush asked, Congressman Terry voted to fully fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, last year he said, quote, 'We must give our military every resource it needs.'

"Seems like Congressman Terry is playing politics now. Last month Congressman Terry voted AGAINST funding for those same troops. It's true: vote number 348 -- you can look it up."

Republicans did make this easy for Dems. Indeed, all the DCCC had to do was pull up the same kind of radio ads Republicans used before and insert GOP names.

As a substantive, policy matter, lawmakers can have completely legitimate reasons for voting against military spending measures, and opposition to these expenditures does not make one an unpatriotic terrorist sympathizer.

But Republicans opened this door. It's hard to blame Democrats for walking through it.

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... I don't usually think of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) as a champion of progressive public policies, but on health care, it sounds like he's exactly where he needs to be. (via TPM)

"We can't count on insurance companies. They are just maximizing their profits. They are sticking it to consumers. I am all for letting insurance companies compete. But I want them to compete in a system that offers real health-care insurance. I call it a public plan," Rockefeller said.

Earlier this month, Rockefeller introduced the Consumers Health Care Act that would give all consumers the option to participate in a government-run plan competing with private plans. [...]

On Thursday, Rockefeller admitted he expects little bipartisan support.

"There is a very small chance any Republicans will vote for this health-care plan. They were against Medicare and Medicaid [created in the 1960s]. They voted against children's health insurance.

"We have a moral choice. This is a classic case of the good guys versus the bad guys. I know it is not political for me to say that," Rockefeller added.

"But do you want to be non-partisan and get nothing? Or do you want to be partisan and end up with a good health- care plan? That is the choice."

Good for Jay Rockefeller -- a moderate from a "red" state where Obama lost last year by 13 points.

SANFORD'S POOR ODDS.... Even if South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) had engaged in a regular ol' extra-marital affair, the pressure on him to resign would be considerable. South Carolina is one of the most socially conservative states in the nation, Sanford has always positioned himself as a Bible-quoting champion of "family values," and even "routine" adultery would ruin his credibility with the state's political establishment.

But it's Sanford's specific and aggravating details* that make his survival significantly less likely. Instead of a regular ol' affair, this governor used tax-dollars to see his mistress, and then left the country for a week, ignoring his responsibilities, to visit with his lover in Argentina.

Early yesterday, Sanford's office said the governor would not consider stepping down. As the day dragged on, it became apparent that the governor may not have a choice.

Fellow Republicans issued sharp calls for the disgraced Sanford to step down -- a move he indicated he was not considering. And at least one campaign donor was drafting a letter asking for his money back.

One county GOP leader said the governor "talked about how our leaders have stepped away from our core values, and said one thing on the campaign trail or out in the public and did something different in the background."

Glenn McCall, a local representative to the Republican National Committee, said the GOP "can recover from this if we hold him accountable and the governor does the right thing and resigns for the sake of the party."

The state Commerce Department records indicated that Sanford's taxpayer-financed trip to Argentina last year cost the public more than $8,000. The governor said yesterday he would reimburse the state, but Republican state Sen. Jake Knotts, a longtime Sanford foe, said that wouldn't be good enough. Knotts called for an independent investigation by the state's Law Enforcement Division into Sanford's extracurricular activities.

Which helps point to what may be the biggest impediment to Sanford's political survival: his complete lack of allies. The governor wasn't especially popular with lawmakers in either party before he secretly left the country to visit with his foreign mistress, and by any reasonable measure, Sanford has just done an awful job as South Carolina's chief executive, independent of his obvious personal shortcomings.

Ordinarily, in a situation like this, a governor might a) circle the wagons; and/or b) point to his record of on-the-job successes and hope they overshadow his personal failings.

In this case, though, Sanford has run out of friends and can't rely on his record.

* fixed

CAN THE CLIMATE CHANGE BILL CROSS THE FINISH LINE?.... After months of legislative legwork, arm-twisting, and compromising, the Waxman-Markey energy reform legislation will likely get a vote on the House floor today. The NYT has a good editorial, urging its passage.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act would, for the first time, put a price on carbon emissions. The bill has shortcomings. But we believe that it is an important beginning to the urgent task of averting the worst damage from climate change. Approval would show that the United States is ready to lead and would pressure other countries to follow. Rejection could mean more wasted years and more damage to the planet. [...]

The centerpiece of the legislation is a provision that aims to cut America's production of greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by midcentury -- the minimum reductions scientists say are necessary to avert the worst consequences of climate change.

Its mechanism for doing so is a cap-and-trade system that would place a steadily declining ceiling on emissions while allowing emitters to trade permits, or allowances, to give them flexibility in meeting their targets. The point is to raise the cost of older, dirtier fuels while steering investments to cleaner ones.

The two seasoned politicians behind this bill -- Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts -- have also insisted on provisions that would mandate more efficient buildings, require cleaner energy sources like wind power and provide subsidies for new technologies.

The AP did a nice job putting together a Q&A with frequently asked questions about the bill. Of particular interest was its description of how the reform legislation will affect Americans' lives: "It fundamentally will change how we use, produce and consume energy, ending the country's love affair with big gas-guzzling cars and its insatiable appetite for cheap electricity. This bill will put smaller, more efficient cars on the road, swap smokestacks for windmills and solar panels, and transform the appliances you can buy for your home."

This is not to say, however, that it's nearly as progressive or as ambitious as it could be. Indeed, some of the chamber's most liberal Democrats (see Kucinich, Dennis) will oppose the bill for not going far enough. David Roberts added, "The green world is ... fluctuating between rage (kill it!), dread (we're screwed), and resignation (it's better than nothing)."

And even under optimistic scenarios, nearly everyone seems to agree that Waxman-Markey, if it passes the House, and if the Senate doesn't screw it up, and if it does what it's supposed to do, will still only be a first step in the right direction. No one is under any illusions that, if the bill becomes law, policymakers can just clap the dust off their hands and say, "Global warming? Problem solved."

But first steps still need to be taken, and Waxman-Markey is about the best bill anyone can hope for, all things considered.

So, is this thing going to pass? In a 435-member House, 218 is the minimum necessary for passage. As of late yesterday, Waxman-Markey had 184 "yes" votes, and a whole lot of "maybes," with a lot of wrangling going on behind the scenes.

Republican leaders think the votes aren't there for passage; Democrats think it'll cross the finish line; and President Obama is doing his part to push those on the fence. We'll know soon enough, but keep in mind -- if the Democratic leadership is counting heads and can't find 218, they'll probably scrap today's vote and reschedule.

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

* The latest from Iran: "As Iran's embattled opposition leader said he would "not back down for a second" in challenging the disputed elections, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told President Obama on Thursday to avoid interfering in Iran's affairs and demanded an apology from the American leader for striking the same critical tones as his predecessor, George W. Bush."

* The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling, makes the right call on the strip-search of a 13-year-old girl suspected of having ibuprofen.

* South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's (R) office said today he will not resign, but there's a growing number of key officials who want him gone, and his constituents would prefer he step down.

* The Waxman-Markey energy bill is headed for a vote tomorrow on the House floor, with the outcome very much in doubt. Today, President Obama leaned on lawmakers to pass the legislation. Brad Plumer has a very good look at the behind-the-scenes wrangling to secure a majority.

* I'm delighted to see Harold Koh was confirmed this afternoon, 62 to 35.

* Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is on board with the public-option plan sketched out by Sen. Chuck Schumer.

* Art Levine considers the showdown between lobbyists' interests and the nation's interests.

* Mark Sanford's personal emails to his mistress are his own business. Who leaked them, however, continues to be of interest.

* Why is right-wing shock-jock Michael Savage threatening Media Matters?

* With the Letterman controversy more or less finished, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has started a new feud, this time taking on an Alaskan blogger.

* In light of Hal Turner's arrest, that DHS report on extremists continues to look more and more relevant.

* Sen. Sam Brownback (R) of Kansas officially announced his opposition to Sonia Sotomayor's nomination yesterday, joining Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).

* If you're a Republican candidate guilty of adultery, don't worry, the Washington Examiner can help pretend it didn't happen.

* Ezra Klein notices that conservative bloggers tend to live in an alternate universe.

* Fox News is sorry it identified Mark Sanford as a Democrat yesterday.

* As expected, the $3,100 cap-and-trade GOP talking point has been thoroughly debunked, but House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) keeps repeating it.

* Think Bush's Justice Department couldn't possibly look any worse? Think again.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

UNDER THE ARBITRARY CEILING.... Max Baucus has his eye on a specific spending target, and he seems to think he'll hit it.

A senior lawmaker trying to break the logjam on health care overhaul says his committee has come up with elements of a plan that would allow them to produce a bill under $1 trillion that would be fully paid for.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., made the announcement Thursday. Of the five congressional committees working on President Barack Obama's top legislative priority, Finance has the best chance of producing a bipartisan bill.

Baucus said the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed the $1 trillion cost over 10 years.

Now, I haven't seen any of the details on this, so I can't speak to the efforts that went into Baucus reaching the desired price tag.

But it occurs to me that it's odd, just on a conceptual level, to pick an arbitrary number and build the policy around it. We're apparently dealing with a legislative dynamic in which Senate leaders want a reform bill that costs no more than $1 trillion over the course of 10 years (or, an average, $100 billion a year). What if a good bill cost $1.1 trillion or $1.2 trillion? That's too much. Why? Because the Senate likes round numbers.

Did any of this happen during the Bush years? Did Republican senators ever say, "We'd like to fund the war in Iraq on an indefinite basis, but only if it costs less than $100 billion a year for the next decade"? Or, "We'd like to slash taxes on wealthy people who don't need a tax cut, but we're picking an arbitrary round number that the cost of the tax cut can't exceed"?

IT'S NOT JUST 1953.... Reader J.C. alerted me to this exchange on Fox News the other day, with the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes insisting that President Obama's rationale for not intervening in Iranian affairs is outdated.

BARNES: [T]he most pathetic thing is to say, 'Gee, well, we were involved in 1953.' 1953! This is an extremely young society. You think those demonstrators are thinking, 'Well, we hope the U.S. stays out because they were involved in 1953'? That's total nonsense.

KIRSTEN POWERS: I think there is a history there.

BARNES: 1953?

POWERS: They do remember the United States meddling.

BARNES: No, they don't.

This is absurd for a variety of reasons. Right off the bat, no one in the administration is pointing to 1953 as a rationale for the White House's current strategy relating to Iran. Barnes is convinced it's the principal basis for the United States steering clear of the ongoing developments in Iran, but that's "total nonsense."

What's more, Barnes assumes that contemporary Iranians couldn't care less that the United States helped overthrow Iran's democratically elected leadership 56 years ago. That's a debatable point, but it's worth noting that this is the kind of development that sticks with a populace. In fact, Chris Good had a very helpful item the other day, noting that Mossadeq, Barnes' assurances notwithstanding, remains very relevant to Iran's population today, with the former leader remaining a symbol for democracy.

But what's especially striking about Barnes' argument is the idea that nothing has happened since 1953 that might give the U.S. pause about intervention now. In our reality, Iranians are, for example, very well aware of the fact that George W. Bush inexplicably placed Iran in the "axis of evil." For that matter, as Joe Klein noted this week, "I have yet to meet an Iranian who does not believe that the United States gave poison gas to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, gas which injured thousands upon thousands of Iranian men, who still live, incapacitated, in the shadows of that society.... The protesters admire our freedom, but they are appalled -- and insulted -- by our neocolonialist condescension over the past 50 years."

Or, to put another way, what is Fred Barnes talking about?

SELF-PARODY WATCH.... I remember, when Enron and other corporate scandals first broke during Bush's first term, some conservatives argued that the scandals were Bill Clinton's fault -- not because of lax regulations, but because the Lewinsky scandal sent an "anything goes" signal to the nation, which in turn led business leaders to abandon their ethical standards.

It was a reminder that, when it comes to the right's drive to blame unrelated events on Democratic presidents, conservatives' creativity and imagination are practically limitless.

This occurred to me again today when Rush Limbaugh, without a hint of humor, argued that South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) cheated on his wife, betrayed his family, and abandoned his professional responsibilities to fly off to Argentina ... and it's President Obama's fault.

"This is almost like, 'I don't give a damn, the country's going to Hell in a handbasket, I just want out of here,'" Limbaugh said. "[Sanford] had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn't want any part of it; he lost the battle. He said, 'What the hell. I mean, the federal government's taking over -- what the hell, I want to enjoy life.'"

Limbaugh added, "The point is, there are a lot of people whose spirit is just -- they're fed up, saying, 'To hell with it, I don't even want to fight this anymore, I just want to get away from it.'"

A listener apparently sent Limbaugh an email during the program, asking if he was kidding about the White House's economic policies being responsible for Sanford's affair. "No!" he said, adding that the governor may have realized, "The Democrats are destroying the country; we can't do anything to stop it."

What's especially funny about this is the way in which Limbaugh's attempts to pass the buck and shift the blame -- Mark Sanford isn't responsible for his own behavior, Barack Obama is responsible for Sanford's behavior -- is that it can be applied to practically any situation. Any time anyone does anything wrong, following Limbaugh's logic, he/she could simply chalk it up to Obama-driven despair.

Remember when conservatives used to say that liberals were opposed to people taking responsibility for their own actions? Good times, good times.

BACHMANN FEARS CENSUS-DRIVEN INTERNMENT CAMPS.... Last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), solidifying her well-deserved reputation for madness, insisted she will refuse to cooperate with the 2010 census. This happens to be illegal, but the Minnesota Republican has an elaborate conspiracy theory to bolster her position.

Today, Bachmann appeared on Fox News to defend this, and came up with a new argument: "If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the Census Bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations at the request of President Roosevelt, and that's how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps."

Bachmann added, "I'm not saying that that's what the administration is planning to do, but I am saying that private personal information that was given to the Census Bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up, in a violation of their constitutional rights, and put the Japanese in internment camps."

When Fox News' Megyn Kelly, who'd been bashing ACORN with Bachmann to this point, noted that members of Congress probably shouldn't deliberately ignore federal law, Bachmann added, "I'm just not comfortable with the way this census is being handled," in part because Americans are "compelled" to answer the census.

It's tempting to note that the census hasn't started and compulsion is kind of the point, but I don't imagine Bachmann would understand.

Ali Frick, showing great patience, fact-checks the Fox News interview, but let's also note, as Eric Kleefeld does, that Bachmann's concerns about census-driven internment camps is consistent with her insane argument that the Obama administration may try to force Americans into "re-education camps."

I'm curious, does one have to work hard to be this crazy, or does it come naturally?

IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME.... I'm not surprised Joe Lieberman is offering veiled criticism of President Obama on Iran. I'm surprised it took this long for Joe Lieberman to offer veiled criticism of President Obama on Iran.

At a presser today, Lieberman seemed to take a veiled shot at President Obama's handling of the Iran crisis, obliquely comparing Obama's desire not to be seen as "meddling" in Iran with a failure to stand up for protesters.

Lieberman was at the presser with John McCain, where they unveiled new Iran legislation, to be introduced next month, that would boost funding for radio outlets that have been informing Iranians and might fund a new Farsi-language website. Lieberman said:

"I know somebody asked, 'Don't we risk discrediting the forces of change and reform -- and reform in Iran and risk that the regime will accuse us of meddling.' I would ask, if we don't stand up for the fundamental rights of the Iranian people to speak freely, to assemble peacefully, don't we risk abandoning our own first principles as Americans in undermining the courageous quest of the Iranian people for freedom?"

Lieberman didn't (or couldn't) specify what "standing up" would constitute, how/why it would help reform-minded Iranians, how/why it would advance American interests, or why we should disregard concerns about "discrediting the forces of change and reform" in Iran.

In other words, Lieberman's grandstanding and posturing is about as constructive as all of the other neocon palaver we've been listening to for nearly two weeks.

Indeed, Lieberman's remarks today further reinforce the point from the weekend: we're not dealing with a dynamic that pits the left vs. the right, or Democrats against Republicans. Rather, this is a situation featuring neocons vs. everyone else.

Lieberman isn't satisfied with the administration's deft handling of the issue, but notice that plenty of prominent Republicans believe Obama is absolutely right -- including Republicans who are in office (Dick Lugar), served in Republican administrations (Henry Kissinger, Gary Sick, and Nick Burns), or are prominent Republican voices in the media (George Will, Peggy Noonan, and Pat Buchanan).

Lieberman is siding with McCain, Graham, Kristol, and Krauthammer on U.S. foreign policy? You don't say.

For an alternate take, consider Reza Aslan's interview on "The Daily Show" last night. Here's a teaser: he told Jon Stewart, "All I can say is thank you God for President Barack Obama."

RALPH REED?.... Wait a second. Ralph Reed believes he can show his face in public again? He thinks he has the credibility to once again be a political player?

Ralph Reed, the Republican operative who built the Christian Coalition into a potent political force in the 1990s by mobilizing evangelicals and other religious conservatives and who did similar work to help George W. Bush win two presidential elections, is quietly launching a group aimed at using the Web to mobilize a new generation of values voters. In addition to targeting the GOP's traditional faith-based allies -- white evangelicals and observant Catholics -- the group, called the Faith and Freedom Coalition, will reach out to Democratic-leaning constituencies, including Hispanics, blacks, young people, and women.

"This is not your daddy's Christian Coalition," Reed said in an interview Monday.

Now, as a substantive matter, the idea of yet another religious right group seems pretty silly. There are already plenty of organizations and ministries, doing the same work, on the same issues, chasing the same donors with the same culture-war message, with the same goal in mind. The problem isn't a dearth of groups; it's that the American mainstream has already rejected the movement's message.

But putting that aside, Ralph Reed is trying to make a comeback? I know it's been a few years, but the Abramoff scandal left Reed a humiliated disgrace. It wasn't just some embarrassing misunderstanding; the scandal ruined him. Permanently.

Remember this one, from June 2006?

Yet another delightful characterization of Ralph Reed, courtesy of today's McCain report on the Abramoff scandal. This one comes courtesy of Jack Abramoff himself, via his discussion with Marc Schwartz, a public relations representative for the Tigua tribe in Texas.

Let's pick up the report on page 148. Schwartz was evaluating whether the tribe should hire Abramoff as its lobbyist: To Schwartz, Abramoff appeared to have the right credentials. Abramoff claimed to be a close friend of Congressman Tom DeLay. He also discussed his friendship with Reed, recounting some of their history together at College Republicans. When Schwartz observed that Reed was an ideologue, Schwartz recalled that Abramoff laughingly replied "as far as the cash goes."

Or, how about this one?

Ralph Reed, email to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, 1998: "Hey, now that I'm done with the electoral politics, I need to start humping in corporate accounts! I'm counting on you to help me with some contacts."

Or this?

E-mails and testimony before McCain's panel showed that Reed, who once branded gambling a "cancer" on society, reaped millions of dollars in tribal casino proceeds that Abramoff secretly routed to him through various non-profit front groups. Abramoff, a lobbyist for the tribes, paid Reed to whip up "grassroots" Christian opposition to prevent rival tribes from opening casinos.

And now Reed wants to launch the "Faith and Freedom Coalition"? You've got to be kidding me.

IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T HELP.... It looks like all of the major dailies had the same idea: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's (R) sex scandal isn't just awful for him and his family, it's also more bad news for a political party that's already been knocked down.

New York Times:

Republicans were just starting to breathe a little easier....

Then Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, a fiscal conservative seen by many Republicans as an attractive standard-bearer for the next presidential campaign, went missing. Worse, he returned. His confession on Wednesday that he had been in Argentina with a woman not his wife -- and not hiking the Appalachian Trail as his staff had said Monday -- was another jolt of bad news for a party that has struggled to get off the ropes all year.

Washington Post:

Sanford's story is more than personal. For a Republican Party down on its luck, the governor's disappearance and subsequent rambling apology to his wife, his family, his close friends and all the people of South Carolina draw more unwelcome publicity to a party that needs but cannot seem to get any good news. [...]

For Republicans, the long winter continues. "It's bad news," said Peter Wehner, a former Bush White House adviser, of the back-to-back confessions by Sanford and Ensign. "It reflects on them individually, but it reflects on the party. The Democrats are vulnerable on a number of areas, including scandals. They've had their own on a range of issues. But if you accept as I do that the Republican brand is hurt, this does more damage to it."

LA Times:

Mark Sanford's extramarital excursion to Latin America is just the latest -- albeit the most lurid -- in a series of setbacks that have plagued Republicans as they struggle to recast the party and promote a new generation of national leaders.

Wall Street Journal:

[T]he GOP, still struggling after losing control of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008, was left to wonder when it would stop seeing its attempts to attract positive attention trumped by embarrassments.

It's best not to exaggerate this too much. In all likelihood, the Republican Party "brand" has already just about bottomed out, and while Sanford is yet another embarrassment, it probably won't make matters significantly worse.

But it certainly doesn't help, either. Every time the Republicans start to think they're finally ready to get back on track, they suffer another humiliation.

We'll see what kind of long-term implications these scandals have for the GOP, but I suspect the real lasting impact will be the loss of a key party issue: "If Republicans talk about family values, people will roll their eyes," said Matthew Dowd, a onetime adviser to President George W. Bush. He added, "It's hard to say [voters are] going to trust Republicans on it."

You think?

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.

* Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour will take over for Mark Sanford as chairman of the Republican Governors Association. Sanford resigned from the post yesterday.

* It's a Republican pollster, but Strategic Vision shows former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie (R) leading incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D) in this year's gubernatorial race in New Jersey, 51% to 39%.

* State Rep. Nikki Haley (R), running for governor in South Carolina next year, has generally been known as Mark Sanford's favorite for the race. Yesterday, Haley "removed a picture of the governor and any mention of him from her campaign Web site."

* Former U.S. Ambassador Tom Schieffer kicked off his gubernatorial campaign in Texas yesterday, running as a Democrat despite his work in the Bush administration. "I am a Democrat -- as Sam Rayburn used to say without prefix, suffix or apology -- and I think it is time we all had a governor," Schieffer said.

* Rep. Joe Sestak (D) took one step closer to launching a Senate campaign in Pennsylvania, telling supporters in a fundraising letter that he's received encouragement from his family.

* In related news, a new poll in Pennsylvania shows bad news for Sen. Arlen Specter, with 57% of voters in the state agreeing that it's "time for a change," and only 43% of Democrats saying Specter deserves another term.

* In still more Pennsylvania news, Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.) effectively ruled out a Senate campaign next year, boosting former Rep. Pat Toomey's chances of being the Republican candidate.

* And in Florida, Marco Rubio continues to line up far-right supporters for his Senate campaign in Florida, the latest being Rep. Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) who was a big supporter of Charlie Crist's gubernatorial campaign in 2006.

HIM AGAIN?.... Some people run for president, come up short, but nevertheless see their stature enhanced by the process. For Rudy Giuliani, it was the opposite -- his fairly ridiculous and spectacularly unsuccessful presidential campaign diminished his reputation and turned him into something of a joke. Indeed, Giuliani entered the 2008 presidential campaign with a 9/11 halo and widespread admiration, and quickly found he had nowhere to go but down. The more Americans saw of Giuliani, the less they liked him.

But, for whatever reason, Giuliani not only finds himself credible, but is apparently eyeing a gubernatorial campaign.

As part of the effort, the former NYC mayor is putting himself back into the spotlight, talking up Fox News, and writing pieces for the New York Times about how the state government should run.

New York state government is not working. This has been true for some time. But the paralysis and confusion that has overtaken the capital demonstrates the need to confront this dysfunction directly and take decisive steps to solve it once and for all. That's why I'm calling on Albany to convene a state constitutional convention. [...]

Calling another convention would be an extraordinary step, but it is a necessary and effective way to overcome the challenges we face. It would be an opportunity for Republicans, Democrats and independents to come together, take a long hard look at our problems and then propose real, lasting solutions.

As part of his agenda, Giuliani, in an apparent '90s flashback, proposes that New York impose strict term limits -- because if there's one thing New York doesn't need, it's experienced policymakers with institutional knowledge in state government -- before demanding mandatory "supermajorities" for all tax increases. "A supermajority," Giuliani said, "would protect already over-burdened citizens and attract businesses, improving our long-term competitiveness."

In other words, the former mayor is watching the budgetary catastrophe unfold in California and thinks, "Hey, we should do that, too!"

It's obviously too soon to know what kind of gubernatorial candidate Giuliani would be, but by all appearances, his time has come and gone. His claim to fame -- performance on 9/11 -- drew scrutiny, and turned out to be rather humiliating. And don't even get me started on Bernie Kerik and all the alleged criminals Giuliani hung out with in recent years.

It was no doubt embarrassing for Giuliani to invest millions in a presidential campaign that produced exactly zero delegates, but why keep trying?

Don't go away mad, Rudy. Just go away.

THE GOP'S FLEETING LOVE FOR THE CBO.... Back in January, the Congressional Budget Office issued a preliminary assessment of the administration's stimulus package. It was only a partial look at an out-of-date proposal, but it bolstered Republicans' criticism, so the GOP ran with the misleading numbers. Soon after, a more complete CBO report was issued, it bolstered the Democrats' case, and all of a sudden, Republicans' love and respect for the CBO disappeared.

We're seeing the exact same scenario play out again.

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office scored an incomplete Democratic health care proposal, issuing an unhelpful analysis with little practical value. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) not only accepted the CBO numbers as gospel, but called the analysis "the turning point in the healthcare debate."

This week, the CBO ran the numbers on the Democratic cap-and-trade, and in the process, discredited the Republican talking points on the proposal. Cantor's fickle love for the CBO, predictably, faded quickly.

"Today, now we are reading the reports that have come out this week that CBO has now reduced its cost estimate to say that it is only $160 that families will be impacted by the cap and trade bill. I think that now CBO has now entered the realm of losing its credibility."

Um, congressman? If you believe the CBO when it tells you what you want to hear, and reject it when it delivers bad news, it's not the Congressional Budget Office that's "losing credibility."

In January, the New York Times' David Brooks wrote that President Obama is "going to have to prove the hard way that he meant what he said about being pragmatic and evidence-based. That means he won't sweep a C.B.O. study under the rug simply because the findings are inconvenient."

It's tempting to think, under the circumstances, that the criticism might now be directed at congressional Republicans, except no one has ever accused them of being pragmatic and evidence-based.

WEAPONIZED KEYNESIANISM.... For all the talk about cutting wasteful spending and saving taxpayer money, a whole lot of members of Congress are fighting awfully hard to spend billions on the basically useless F-22 fighter jet. Conservative Republicans, in particular, are arguing that it will be good for the economy to spend the money.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) highlights the irony.

"These arguments will come from the very people who denied that the economic recovery plan created any jobs. We have a very odd economic philosophy in Washington: It's called weaponized Keynesianism. It is the view that the government does not create jobs when it funds the building of bridges or important research or retrains workers, but when it builds airplanes that are never going to be used in combat, that is of course economic salvation."

We seem to keep running into this problem. For Republicans, there are certain incontrovertible, unyielding truths: government spending does not create jobs and cannot stimulate the economy. The only thing worse than government spending is government spending on unnecessary programs. It has always been thus; it will always be so.

Unless, that is, the government spending and the unnecessary program relates to the military, at which point the economic benefits are huge.

Back in April, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a conservative Georgia Republican, argued on NPR, "When it comes to stimulating the economy, there's no better way to do it than to spend it in the defense community."

So, for the GOP, government spending can't help the economy, except when it can. I'm glad we could clear this up.

PERFIDY PARITY.... Way back in May 2003, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz had an item about then-West Virginia Gov. Bob Wise (D) admitting to an extramarital affair and apologizing to voters. Kurtz told readers at the time, "Just what the country needed: another Democrat who can't keep his zipper zipped."

I get the sense that, for quite a while, this was the accepted conventional wisdom. When it came to sex scandals, this was more a problem for Democrats than Republicans.

Can we finally put this notion to (ahem) bed?

To be sure, looking back over the last couple of decades, Dems have had plenty of high-profile controversies about illicit affairs. John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, and Jim McGreevey are some of the more recent ones. If we look back at the '90s, we can add Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, and Henry Cisneros to the list. Looking back even further, Gary Hart, JFK, and even FDR come to mind.

But Republicans have made great strides of late in closing the gap with Democrats, and by some measures, have taken the overall lead. Mark Sanford, John Ensign, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Vito Fossella, and Jim Gibbons* are all pretty recent. If we look back just a little further, Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich obviously come to mind. And if we include the '90s, embarrassing adulterous admissions were made by Tim Hutchinson, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, and Bob Livingston.

The point isn't that there are a lot of men in positions of power who are sleeping around -- though that seems to be a common problem -- the point is that neither party has a lock on virtue or vice.

The difference, of course, is that only one of these two parties presents itself as the champion of "family values," seeks to use government to impose its sense of morality through public policy, lectures Americans on the "sanctity of marriage," and blames gay couples for undermining Western civilization.

With that in mind, Bob Inglis seems to have the right idea.

South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis made a name for himself in the late 1990s as one of Bill Clinton's most zealous pursuers, an impeachment "manager" who attacked the moral failings of the president with a gusto that earned him a devoted following in the staunchly conservative "Upstate" of conservative South Carolina.

But with his governor now felled by similar temptations, Inglis sees an opening for the Republican Party, a chance to "lose the stinking rot of self-righteousness" and "to understand we are all in need of some grace."

It would be a welcome development.

* updated

NO WAY TO NEGOTIATE.... For all the talk about reaching some kind of bipartisan consensus on health care reform, and all the concessions Democratic lawmakers are willing to make to keep the GOP at the negotiating table, let's not forget that many Republicans just don't want health care reform. Brian Beutler reports:

[T]here's no evidence that potential Republican support for the idea of a co-operative health care system will translate into Republican support for the broader reform bill they're attached to. [...]

[Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi (R)] is the ranking member of the Senate HELP committee, and he's been a harsh critic of the health care bill that's come out of that panel. I talked to his spokesman this evening, who said ... Enzi supports the Finance Committee's process, which he said has been more transparent and bipartisan in spirit. He says the co-op proposal sounds promising, but he needs to learn more about it before he offers his full support to the provision.

But, crucially, even if he does decide that co-ops are a great policy idea, in no uncertain terms, [Enzi] withholds judgment on the greater bill. This is a common position in the GOP, and, frankly, a common legislative tactic in general. It's not necessarily a wink and a nod toward a 'no' vote, but it raises concerns among Democrats -- or at least it should -- that Republicans might try to weaken the bill only to turn around and vote against it.

That's not only right, it's a critically important point that often goes overlooked.

Democrats are willing to weaken their own bill in the hopes of winning support from a discredited minority that not only has an interest in seeing the reform effort fail, but which is almost certain to vote against the final bill, no matter what's in it.

This isn't an effective way to negotiate -- or to govern.

Indeed, most of the focus over the last couple of weeks has been about the public option, and the fact that Republicans consider it a deal-breaker. It is, we've been told, the one line the GOP minority cannot cross. But looking at the big picture, Republicans haven't said, "We can support the rest of the reform agenda, outside of a public plan." In fact, Republicans haven't actually endorsed anything in the reform agenda at all.

The bill the Senate Finance Committee's written, which has no public plan but does have a lot of virtues, provides an important test. Will Republicans actually flock to support the bill? If they will, then that's something worth thinking about. A public plan is important, but if you could get leading Republicans to sign on to the idea of tough new regulations on insurers, on an expansion of Medicaid, on subsidies to ensure that insurance is affordable for everyone, and on higher taxes to pay for the whole thing that would be no small achievement. You'd have to think seriously about whether it isn't worth cutting a deal. But thus far, for all the whining about the public plan, I'm not seeing the evidence that they're actually willing to embrace the rest of the health reform agenda, either. In which case, you may as well go forward with a robust public plan.

Sounds like a no-brainer.

SANFORD'S PRECARIOUS FUTURE.... Not surprisingly, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's (R) political health did not improve after his painful mid-afternoon press conference. Indeed, things went from bad to worse when The State, South Carolina's largest newspaper, published a series of emails Sanford sent to his mistress last July. (Far more interesting than the private love letters is the question of who leaked the emails in the first place.)

Making matters even worse still, it appears that at least one of Sanford's trips to Argentina was financed by taxpayers, which makes the "private, personal indiscretion" argument a little more difficult to make.

So, what happens next? The State reported this morning that South Carolina lawmakers, many of whom were never especially enamored with the governor in the first place, are focused specifically on his bizarre disappearance, and the fact that he effectively stopped doing his job for a while.

In the next few days, lawmakers may consider whether Sanford abandoned his duties as governor. No lawmaker uttered the word "impeachment." But most left the impression an apology may not be enough.

"We all know that leaving the state without a governor for any period of time is not acceptable," said Attorney General Henry McMaster, a Republican who plans to run for governor in 2010. "I suspect Governor Sanford now understands that better than anyone else." [...]

[State Sen. Hugh Leatherman (R)] -- who clashed repeatedly with Sanford over money issues, taking sharp criticism from him -- said Sanford "basically stopped being governor" while in Argentina.

Lawmakers said they'd begin asking lawyers to help define phrases like "gubernatorial negligence" and "abandonment of office."

The governor's strategy, I suspect, is to hunker down and wait for the storm to blow over. Under the circumstances, it's unlikely to work.

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

* A powerful bomb killed at least 60 people today in an eastern Baghdad market.

* Confrontation near the Iranian Parliament: "Hundreds of protesters clashed with waves of riot police and paramilitary militia in Tehran on Wednesday, witnesses said, as Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted that the authorities would not yield to pressure from opponents demanding a new election following allegations of electoral fraud."

* North Korea's government called the United States "imperialists" today and said the "army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all."

* An airstrike, likely from an American drone, "killed at least 60 people at a funeral for a Taliban fighter in South Waziristan on Tuesday."

* After more than four years without one, a U.S. ambassador to Syria is en route to Damascus.

* The Obama administration has "stepped up its efforts yesterday to salvage a four-year-old peace accord for Sudan, convening officials from 32 countries and international organizations amid fears that Africa's longest-running civil war could resume."

* Did the White House signal last night that a public option is less important than a bipartisan deal? Not according to one of the senators at the meeting.

* With House Democratic leaders finally in agreement, Waxman-Markey will likely get a vote on Friday.

* If you missed South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's (R) press conference this afternoon, it's online.

* Proving once again that the network is beyond parody, Fox News labeled Sanford a Democrat during his event today.

* Setting a land-speed record, the Family Research Council dropped Sanford very quickly from its big upcoming religious-right event.

* I don't think it matters, but technically, adultery is illegal in South Carolina.

* Tesla Motors gets a government loan for its electric sedan project.

* We haven't seen a good impeachment trial in a long while.

* R.I.P., Dr. Jerri Nielsen.

* The Republican temper tantrum against ABC keeps getting stranger.

* And Dick Cheney finally got the book deal he wanted, when his former aide, Mary Matalin, used her Simon & Schuster imprint to get the former vice president a deal. Matalin also came to Karl Rove's rescue. Industry insiders don't expect either book to sell especially well.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

THE PRECONDITION FOR 'BIPARTISAN' REFORM.... Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee and arguably the lead Republican negotiator on health care, argued on MSNBC this morning that a public option was a deal-breaker for the minority party. Period.

If the legislative package is going to be "bipartisan," Grassley said, "We need to make sure that there's no public option."

This comes up from time to time, but hearing Grassley take an unyielding position on the proposal embraced by most Americans, the president, and most of Congress reminded me that it's worth reiterating why there are fundamental flaws in trying to prioritize Grassley's happiness. A.L. had a great item on this last night.

Health care policy is a definitional issue in American politics. For as long as I can remember, the Democratic party has fought to increase the government's role in providing health care coverage for Americans while the Republican party has fought to reduce the government's role. The Democrats are responsible for Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP; the Republicans fought all of those initiatives. On a policy level, the Democrats believe that the best health and cost outcomes can be achieved by increasing access and encouraging widespread use of routine and preventative medical care. Republicans, on the other hand, have routinely identified the problem as over-consumption of care. Their proposals to fix the system inevitably involve significant deregulation with the goal of encouraging the use of high-deductible policies to try to discourage personal consumption of health care. Nearly every Democrat (including the blue dogs and "centrists") believes this to be bad policy.

In other words, there is virtually no common ground between the parties. The parties don't even see eye-to-eye regarding basic goals and policy assumptions. So why on earth would anyone believe that there is a bipartisan solution to health care? If one side believes the answer is behind door #1 and the other believes it is behind door #2, the correct answer is never to walk into the wall between the doors. Yet any conceivable "bipartisan solution" to health care would amount to exactly that.

This is especially true when dealing with a small (and shrinking) Republican minority, which has done nothing but act as an obstructionist force, and which has a vested interest in ensuring that reform efforts fail.

On a related note, Sen. Max Baucus finally realizes that it was a mistake ruling out the very possibility of a single-payer system, before the debate even began, if no other reason because it threw off the balance of negotiations.

Imagine where we'd be right now if, on the one hand, Dems were pushing a single-payer plan, and on the other, Republicans were pushing a protect-the-insurance-industry-at-all-costs proposal. At that point, the "bipartisan compromise" could have settled around a system in which private insurers competed with a public option -- which just so happens to be the mainstream Democratic position right now.

Sooner or later, Democratic policymakers -- on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- are going to realize that they keep entering these talks with the fulcrum in the wrong place.

MIXED EMOTIONS.... Mulling over South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's (R) press conference, I'm not sure what to think.

On the one hand, just on a human level, it was tough to watch the governor humiliate himself, fessing up to a deeply embarrassing extramarital affair. Sanford didn't make excuses, he wasn't dodging any uncomfortable questions, and thankfully, didn't have his wife standing there next to him. All in all, at least on the surface, the governor acted like a stand-up guy, owning up to his wrongdoing

And then there's that other hand. A stand-up guy doesn't lecture others on "family values" and then cheat on his wife. A stand-up guy doesn't secretly leave the country and blow off his professional responsibilities to more than 4 million South Carolinians.

Indeed, watching Sanford's confession today, I kept thinking about Sen. John Ensign's (R-Nev.) identical confession just last week. The circumstances are surprisingly similar -- during the Lewinsky scandal a decade ago, Ensign voted to remove the president from office, and Sanford voted to remove Clinton from office. When other prominent politicians got caught in sex scandals, Ensign went on the attack, and Sanford went on the attack. Ensign is an evangelical Christian who's promoted the "sanctity" of marriage; Sanford is an evangelical Christian who's promoted the "sanctity" of marriage.

A politician's personal problems are a private matter, but the hypocrisy here is harder to overlook.

Chris Cillizza added:

This is not the end of the story. The problem for Sanford is that he appears to have willfully misled his staff, the lieutenant governor and the people of the state about his whereabouts -- signaling that he was likely headed to the Appalachian Trail before hopping on a flight to Argentina. There will almost certainly be some sort of investigation into whether Sanford misused state funds on this trip -- remember that he took a state-owned vehicle and parked it at the Columbia airport -- that will keep this wound raw for the foreseeable future.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised, given the governor's popularity (or lack thereof) among state lawmakers, if impeachment talk starts making the rounds fairly quickly.

I'd be remiss if I neglected to add that while sex scandals are always going to generate public interest, the significance of Mark Sanford's efforts to screw over his own constituents with his neo-Hooverite economic policies is almost certainly more offensive than anything he had going on in his private life.

SANFORD SPEAKS.... In a strange and meandering press conference, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) explained this afternoon that he'd been "unfaithful" to his wife, after developing a "relationship" with a woman in Argentina. Sanford said he would step down as chairman of the Republican Governors Association, but did not respond when a reporter asked if he would step down as governor.

Sanford began by repeatedly talking about his love of "adventure trips." (Is that what they're calling adultery these days?) He then said his admission is "gonna hurt."

The governor proceeded to apologize, in order, to:

* his wife

* his four boys

* his staff

* his constituents

* his friends

* his in-laws

* people of faith in South Carolina and nationwide

"I've let down a lot of people; that's the bottom line," he said, adding, "I would ask their forgiveness.... All I can say is that I apologize."

Sanford then requested a "zone of privacy" for his family, who apparently is not living in the same city as the governor for the time being.

As the governor began to walk away from the podium, a reporter asked, "Are you going to resign?" Sanford continued to walk away. When the same reporter asked a Sanford aide the same question, he said, "Thank you" and ended the press conference.

THEIR LYING EYES.... Some opponents of a public option in health care reform seem to have a new strategy: pretend they know what Americans want -- and ignore evidence to the contrary.

On Fox News this morning, for example, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), arguably the chamber's most far-right member, insisted, "Americans don't want more government in health care."

Yesterday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) made the same argument in a bizarre piece in the Washington Examiner: "The President's proposal would empower bureaucrats -- rather than patients and doctors -- to make key medical decisions, limit treatments, and ration care, raise taxes, and kill jobs. The American people simply don't support it."

Putting aside the absurd policy argument here, what's interesting is that these conservative Republican leaders seem convinced they know better than anyone what "the American people" want.

If there was evidence to back up their claims, we could at least have a debate. But how many more polls need to be released before GOP leaders realize the public isn't with them on this issue? On DeMint's point in particular, a recent national CNN poll found 72% of Americans said "they favor increasing the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans."

Republicans think the 72% are wrong? Fine. They hope to change those Americans' minds? No problem. But to simply make up public attitudes based on their personal beliefs is silly.

We're left with the new GOP talking point on public attitudes and health care reform: don't believe your lying eyes.

IT'S ALWAYS GOOD NEWS FOR REPUBLICANS.... The lead story on the Politico today ponders the likelihood of a "Republican comeback."

For the first time since their 2006 election drubbing, top Republicans see signs -- however faint -- of a political resurgence over the next year.

The Politico's Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Martin concede this "sounds absurd," but proceed to spend another 2,000+ words exploring why a Republican comeback is "plausible" and "might not be as far-fetched as it seems."

Substantively, the piece raises some legitimate points, but hardly offers the GOP a roadmap back to the American mainstream. VandeHei and Martin, for example, note that Republican leaders have come to realize that it's in their interests to "distance themselves a bit from George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich." The same piece adds, however, that the party has done a "poor job of doing so."

Similarly, the Politico article argues that Republicans need to "find a way" to appeal to younger voters and minority communities. That's true, as far as it goes, but it's not exactly a constructive tip for the GOP.

But strategic advice aside, one of the striking aspects to all of this is just how poorly timed the idea is.

Last week, two major national polls asked respondents whether they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the major political parties. The GOP not only fared poorly, but had the lowest ratings ever recorded in NYT/CBS or WSJ/NBC polls.

In a WaPo/ABC poll released yesterday, Republicans hardly fared any better: "Obama maintains leverage on these issues in part because of the continuing weakness of his opposition. The survey found the favorability ratings of congressional Republicans at their lowest point in more than a decade. Obama also has significant advantages over GOP lawmakers in terms of public trust on dealing with the economy, health care, the deficit and the threat of terrorism, despite broad-based Republican criticism of his early actions on these fronts."

The stage is set for a Republican "comeback"? Really?

I suppose in a nowhere-to-go-but-up kind of sense, that's reasonable, but under the circumstances, it's a stretch.

SANFORD'S SILLY SOJOURN.... I think I've got it -- South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) secretly traveled to Argentina last week because he thought it might count as foreign policy experience.

I hope he's not too disappointed when it doesn't.

As you've probably heard, the governor has called a press conference to discuss his bizarre behavior, which will get started around 2 p.m. (eastern). I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess there will be more than a few reporters on hand for the Q&A.

There's no shortage of possible questions for Sanford to answer, but some of the inquiries that come to mind...

* Where did Sanford stay during his trip? And with whom? (The governor refused to discuss his accommodations in Argentina earlier today.)

* Did Sanford lie to his staff, or did he encourage his staff to lie to us?

* Why didn't the governor tell his wife and children where he was going?

* Why didn't Sanford check in with the U.S. embassy in Buenos Aires?

* The governor's vehicle parked at a South Carolina airport had a "baseball cap, running shoes, sunscreen, a pair of shorts, a canvas bag and a sleeping bag" inside. Did Sanford intend to come home and pretend that he actually was on the Appalachian Trail during his absence?

* Why did Sanford change his travel arrangements for his return trip home?

* Who was in charge of the South Carolina executive branch for the last six days?

* Given the number of telephones and computers in Buenos Aires, why didn't Sanford call and/or email anyone on his staff or in his family?

Sometimes, there's a reasonable explanation for a seemingly unreasonable situation. I can't wait to hear what Sanford has come up with.

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.

* A new Quinnipiac poll in New York shows an extremely competitive Democratic primary in next year's Senate race, if, as expected, Rep. Carolyn Maloney challenges appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. At this point, about half New York Dems are undecided, but among those with a preference, Maloney edges Gillibrand, 27% to 23%. Both easily lead Rep. Peter King (R) in a hypothetical general election match-up.

* Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has vowed to support former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), no matter how long he keeps fighting last year's election results.

* On a related note, Cornyn's NRSC continues to support Coleman's efforts financially, directing nearly $1 million to the former senator last month alone.

* The League of Conservation Voters has let members of Congress know that anyone who votes against the Waxman-Markey climate change bill will be automatically ineligible for an LCV endorsement next year.

* Is Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign? Probably.

* And speaking of 2012, the latest poll from the Pew Research Center asked Republicans about their support for prominent GOP officials. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) was easily the most popular figure in her own party, with Mitt Romney a distant second.

GLENN BECK, ACORN, AND DOLLS.... Now, I can appreciate the notion that some news stories are hard to explain with just text or words. Graphics, charts, video, etc. can help a news consumer understand an item with more depth.

But when Glenn Beck starts playing with dolls on national television to go after ACORN, explaining a "story" that really isn't especially complicated, it's a helpful reminder of the caliber of "reporting" we're getting from Fox News.

As Nicholas Graham noted, "Beck used the dolls to illustrate that the federal government's probe of ACORN was too narrow, and that by focusing on one of their houses in New Orleans, they were letting the 'villains' just drive away and set up shop elsewhere."

Well, that's probably what Beck was trying to get across. With him, it's hard to say for sure what he's talking about.

I should also note that Beck "reported" that ACORN is in the process of changing its name. In our reality, that's not true, either.

As for the dolls, Graham added, "[P]erhaps a visual aid was necessary to distract from the fact that Beck's not making much sense." If so, it didn't work.

LETTER TO IRAN.... It seems one of the bigger political stories of the day is this Washington Times report about previous outreach efforts towards Iran by the Obama administration. Reading the details, though, this isn't especially shocking.

Prior to this month's disputed presidential election in Iran, the Obama administration sent a letter to the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calling for an improvement in relations, according to interviews and the leader himself. [...]

U.S. officials declined to discuss the letter on Tuesday.... An Iranian with knowledge of the overture, however, told The Washington Times that the letter was sent between May 4 and May 10 and laid out the prospect of "cooperation in regional and bilateral relations" and a resolution of the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.

This has caused a stir -- predictably, Drudge is all excited -- but there's nothing in the official correspondence that's especially provocative.

Indeed, it's not even particularly new. Iran's regime sent Obama a letter of congratulations last fall, and it's already been reported elsewhere that the State Department has been crafting a response.

What's more, this is entirely consistent with what Obama said he'd do if elected -- reaching out to a foe to explore possibly improving relations and engaging Iran on a possible nuclear deal.

The White House said it would reach out, we knew officials were working on reaching out, and so now we know the White House did reach out. As revelations go, this hardly sends the heart aflutter.

Some of the overly-excited conservative analysis is that the administration's letter was predicated on "the expectation that President Ahmadinejad would win a landslide victory." But there's no evidence to support this -- in fact, it seems backwards. The letter was to Khamenei, the country's supreme leader, not the Iranian president, and there's nothing in the reports pointing to any White House assumptions about the Iranian presidential election.

Indeed, the correspondence seems unrelated to the election, which is why it was sent more than a month before Iranian voters headed to the polls, long before any U.S. officials could have expected the unrest that's shaken Iran so dramatically, and circumventing Ahmadinejad altogether.

I suspect the right will continue to be excited about this; I'm just not sure why.

TURNING THE NUTTY TO 11.... I thought it was bad when John McCain, asked yesterday whether "there's any doubt what side President Obama is on" in Iran, replied, "I know what side I'm on. I'm on the side of the people. I'm not on Ahmadinejad's side or Mousavi. I'm on the side of the Iranian people and I'm on the right side of history."

Even for a politician whose descent into cheap hackery has been painful to watch, this kind of embarrassing chest-thumping is just ridiculous.

As it turns out, though, it wasn't even close to being the worst Republican rhetoric of the day regarding the administration and U.S. policy towards Iran. No, that prize goes to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who happens to be a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and who believes Iranian brutality is President Obama's fault.

The California Republican, appearing on MSNBC's The Ed Show, said that the president "ratcheted up the language a little bit" during his press conference on Tuesday. But, he added, "If [Obama] would have been talking even a little bit tougher a few days ago we might not have seen the violence and bloodshed of this repressive regime in Tehran in the last two days."

This is what it's come to. Senior Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee think Iranian bloodshed might have been diminished if Obama "had been talking ... a little bit tougher."

On Monday night, The Nation's Chris Hayes noted, "There's just a tremendous pathological narcissism on behalf of [neocon Republican lawmakers] that everything revolves around the U.S. and revolves around our kind of preening self-satisfaction. And it's actually really destructive. I mean, if the president was doing what they wanted him to do, we would see things get worse in Iran, worse for the dissidents and protestors. It's very hard to excuse."

And yet, the Republican screeds continue to get even more offensive anyway. Incredible.

ENTIRELY RIGHT, EXCEPT FOR ALL OF THE RELEVANT DETAILS.... I don't mean to belabor the point, but the Washington Post's Dana Milbank ran some criticism today of Nico Pitney's press conference question that deserves some follow-up.

In his first daytime news conference yesterday, President Obama preempted "All My Children," "Days of Our Lives" and "The Young and the Restless." But the soap viewers shouldn't have been disappointed: The president had arranged some prepackaged entertainment for them.

After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post," he announced.

Milbank generally described the general circumstances correctly -- the White House told Pitney he was likely to be called on, because he could ask a question submitted by an Iranian -- but Milbank's analysis was wildly unfair.

The Post reporter/columnist/humorist described the question from Pitney as "arranged," "prepackaged," "preplanned," and "planted." Milbank added that Pitney's question sent "a message" that the "American press isn't as free as advertised."

For all the reasons we talked about yesterday, Milbank's diatribe is just wrong. Indeed, we know it's wrong in part because of the reporting done by one of Milbank's colleagues at the Washington Post Company.

But I have a more general question: if the White House were "preplanning" a "planted" question with a sympathetic journalist -- it wasn't, but I'm speaking hypothetically here -- wouldn't the president's team make it an easy one? Wouldn't Obama want a softball he could just hit out of the park? Indeed, when the Bush White House invited a former male prostitute to ask questions, he was called on specifically because he'd help the Bush gang out.

In Nico's case, the question was really good. So good, in fact, that President Obama largely dodged it.

Milbank's criticism isn't just mistaken; it doesn't even make sense.

WHERE THERE'S SMOKE, THERE'S BOREDOM.... There's something odd about the media's fascination with President Obama's occasional cigarette. McClatchy's Margaret Talev broached the subject during yesterday's press conference.

"As a former smoker, I understand the frustration and the fear that comes with quitting. But with the new law that you signed yesterday regulating the tobacco industry, I'd like to ask you a few questions. How many cigarettes a day do you now smoke? Do you smoke alone or in the presence of other people? And do you believe the new law should help you to quit? If so, why?"

In other words, the president had just signed landmark legislation, giving unprecedented authority to federal officials to regulate tobacco products. What's really interesting, though, isn't the new government policy, decades in the making, but rather, Obama's personal habits.

The president addressed this, explaining that the new law isn't about him. Recognizing the "human interest story," however, he added that he "struggles" with it and has "fallen off the wagon" at times. Obama went to explain that he never smokes around his family, is 95% "cured" of his addiction, but like recovering alcoholics, "it's something you continually struggle with, which is precisely why the legislation we signed was so important, because what we don't want is kids going down that path in the first place."

This led to reports today in the New York Times and LA Times, bizarre criticism from Michelle Malkin, and even some unexpected disapproval from Matt Cooper.

Does the president's occasional cigarette and difficulty in kicking the habit really deserve this much attention?

Michelle Cottle added, "In the wake of the tobacco bill signing, I'm sure the media's hypocrisy obsession comes into play. But who better knows the insidious allure of smoking than a struggling addict? As things stand, the storyline that the leader of the free world stupidly got himself hooked on nicotine as a kid and, despite having tried on numerous occasions to kick the habit, still can't totally shake that monkey kind of works as a cautionary tale."

The president has a personal vice. It's not that important.

TAKE A HIKE?.... The official line on South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's (R) whereabouts is that he went hiking on the Appalachian Trail. The number of people who accept the official line at face value appears to be small. (Updated below: he actually left the country)

Late yesterday, CNN reported the vehicle Sanford drove off in last week turned up at an airport near the state capital.

The black Chevy Suburban believed to have been used by South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford to leave town has been found in the parking lot of Columbia Metropolitan Airport. [...]

The SUV is outfitted with blue police lights and two-way radio.... A parking permit for the school attended by Sanford's children is visible on the windshield.

Complicating matters, the local NBC affiliate reports that Sanford was seen boarding a plane in Atlanta.

Sources told [News 4's Nigel Robertson] that a federal agent spotted Sanford in the [Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta] boarding a plane. Robertson was told that the governor was not accompanied by security detail. [...]

[S]ources told WYFF News 4 that the federal agent who spotted Sanford saw him at the Atlanta airport, which is about 80 miles from the start of the trail.

WYFF News 4 has not yet confirmed where the plane was going or how the governor got to the airport, but it is clear there are two very different stories.

Now, this doesn't necessarily prove anything. The local affiliate is the only outlet with these details, which haven't been confirmed elsewhere. It's possible Sanford from South Carolina to Atlanta, and then flew again from Atlanta to somewhere he could go hiking, but it seems like a strange way of going about doing things, especially in light of the other details.

As for Sanford's family, the governor was away from his wife and kids for Father's Day, and yesterday, after his aides told reporters Sanford was returning to his duties, Jenny Sanford said she still hadn't spoken to her husband. In talking to CNN, she added, "I am being a mom today. I have not heard from my husband. I am taking care of my children."

As for the governor's allies, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) didn't appear anxious to vouch for Sanford's character during a Fox News interview yesterday.

Stay tuned.

Update: This morning, Sanford returned to the United States, explaining that he wasn't actully hiking, but rather, was in South America. He claims he was alone, driving around Buenos Aires since Thursday. When asked why his staff said he was on the Appalachian Trail, Sanford replied, "I don't know."

Second Update: Any chance state lawmakers, who don't care for Sanford anyway, may hold hearings and/or consider impeachment?

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

* Iran's Guardian Council has "refused to nullify" the contested presidential election. No big surprise.

* Iran has also created a "special" court to try arrested protestors.

* Iranian women continue to stand up in large numbers.

* North Korea keeps making noises about its next missile launch.

* The deadly accident yesterday on the D.C. metro system was just breathtaking.

* More than a few politicos in South Carolina are having trouble believing that Gov. Mark Sanford (R) has really been hiking since last week.

* And even now, with Sanford poised to return to work, the governor who wasn't with his family on Father's Day also hasn't spoken to his wife.

* If you missed today's White House press conference, the entire video is online.

* Sen. John Ensign (R) of Nevada apologized to his Republican colleagues today, but he doesn't want to talk to anyone else.

* In an interesting twist, Sean Hannity believes Ensign should resign.

* Iran's dissident soccer players, banned for life.

* To her credit, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) isn't giving up on a public option.

* Even now, all of these years later, Richard Nixon can still appear even crazier.

* Next week, the White House will host an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, further evidence of the administration hoping to heal the rift with gay-rights supporters.

* What do you know, the state Senate in New York can get even nuttier after all.

* Recent buzz notwithstanding, the latest WaPo/ABC poll shows Obama with a 65% approval rating.

* Despite conservative rumors to the contrary, ACORN isn't changing its name.

* The Washington Times drops the pretense and starts doing conservative activism?

* The RNC and ABC are still at odds.

* And finally, Charles Krauthammer's criticism of Obama for describing Khamenei as Iran's "supreme leader" might be more persuasive if Krauthammer hadn't repeatedly referred to Khamenei as Iran's "supreme leader."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS.... I guess it was obvious that there'd be a flap surrounding Nico Pitney's question at the White House press conference this afternoon, but that doesn't give this "story" merit. Here's the latest:

Some reporters and right wing bloggers are accusing the White House of "coordinating" a question with The Huffington Post at today's press conference, suggesting this shows the White House cozying up to a lefty news outlet.

The White House, however, says No Dice. White House officials tell me they didn't ask the Huffington Post reporter, Nico Pitney, what his question would be, and didn't know what Pitney would be asking.

Of course not. For all the speculation about "coordination," there's even less here than meets the eye.

Let's talk a little about this process. Sometimes, presidents call on specific journalists because they know, not what the question will be, but what the subject matter is likely to cover. At one of his press conferences, for example, Obama called on a reporter from Stars & Stripes. Did the president know what the question was going to be? No. Did Obama know it was likely to have something to do with U.S. troops? You bet. And why is that? Because that's what Stars & Stripes covers.

Obama also not too long ago called on a journalist who covers the auto industry. He didn't know the question, but Obama had reason to assume it would have something to do with the auto industry, and the president had something to say. That was the point.

Indeed, even today, Obama called on Macarena Vidal of the Spanish-language E.F.E. news agency, and who asked about Chile and Colombia. Did the president know what the question was going to be? No. Did Obama know it was likely to have something to do with Latin America. Of course, which is why he called on her -- the president wanted to talk about his upcoming talks with President Bachelet.

This isn't collusion. It's not unethical. There's nothing here that breaks with journalistic standards. Specifically with regards to Nico, the White House saw some value in responding to a question that came from someone in Iran, and knew that Pitney, given his recent work, was likely to ask just that. It's no different than calling on someone who covers the auto industry and expecting a question about that industry. As White House spokesperson Josh Earnest explained, "We didn't want to know the question, and we didn't ask. This was a creative way for us to answer a question from an Iranian."

If someone has a legitimate concern about Nico's specific question, that's one thing. But that's just it -- it was a terrific question that the president wasn't anxious to answer.

'THE TIMELESS DIGNITY OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF IRANIANS MARCHING IN SILENCE'.... As the brutality in Iran becomes more apparent, the forcefulness of the administration's strategic responses adapts. We were told in advance of today's White House press conference that President Obama would use different, tougher language today, and that's exactly what happened.

This was an opening statement -- Obama discussed his perspective in more detail in response to specific questions -- but notice that the president continues to carefully walk a fine line. For example, the president condemned the violence and offered an unambiguous defense of those who wish to peaceably assemble and have their voices heard.

But also note, he didn't dictate suggested remedies -- John McCain's suggestion that the U.S. should call for new elections hasn't gained traction -- and certainly didn't insert the American government in the middle of the intra-Iranian conflict.

Obama, in other words, took a firm stand against the actions of the Iranian regime, while avoiding language that the same regime could exploit or use as an excuse for more brutality.

I've included a full transcript of the opening remarks after the jump.

"The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days.

"I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

"I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not interfering with Iran's affairs.

"But we must also bear witness to the courage and the dignity of the Iranian people and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

"The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in Iran -- some in the Iranian government, in particular, are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others in the West of instigating protests over the elections.

"These accusations are patently false. They're an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran's borders.

"This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won't work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States or the West; this is about the people of Iran and the future that they -- and only they -- will choose.

"The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That's precisely what's happened in the last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to peaceful protests of justice. Despite the Iranian government's efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers. And so we've watched what the Iranian people are doing.

"This is what we've witnessed. We've seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands of Iranians marching in silence. We've seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and that their voices are heard.

"Above all, we've seen courageous women stand up to the brutality and threats, and we've experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets.

"While this loss is raw and extraordinarily painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

"As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech.

"If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent and not coercion.

"That's what Iran's own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government."

CALLING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY'S BLUFF.... I believe it was David Jackson, from USA Today, who suggested to the president this afternoon that a public health care option would "drive private insurance out of business." I thoroughly enjoyed the Obama's response.

"Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government -- which they say can't run anything -- suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical.

"Now, the -- I think that there's going to be some healthy debates in Congress about the shape that this takes. I think there can be some legitimate concerns on the part of private insurers that if any public plan is simply being subsidized by taxpayers endlessly that over time they can't compete with the government just printing money, so there are going to be some I think legitimate debates to be had about how this private plan takes shape.

"But just conceptually, the notion that all these insurance companies who say they're giving consumers the best possible deal, if they can't compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what's the best deal, that defies logic, which is why I think you've seen in the polling data overwhelming support for a public plan."

I don't know the president personally, but I got the sense he actually enjoyed making this argument. In effect, he said, "If the insurance companies are telling the truth about the service they're providing to their customers, they have nothing to worry about. And insurance companies couldn't possibly be lying, right?"

Indeed, it's been the underlying point all along that usually goes overlooked in media coverage. A public option, critics tell us, would provide a horrible, bureaucratic service for customers, including rationing and long waiting times. But here's the follow-up: if that's true, no one would choose the public option and insurance companies would be just fine for the indefinite future.

Except, of course, insurance companies and their policymaking allies know better. Which is why they're panicking.

Obama returned to the subject later during the press conference.

"... I think that there is a legitimate concern, if the public plan was simply eating off the taxpayer trough, that it would be hard for private insurers to compete. If, on the other hand, the public plan is structure in such a way where they've got to collect premiums and they've got to provide good services, then, if what the insurance companies are saying is true, that they're doing their best to serve their customers, that they're in the business of keeping people well and giving them security when they get sick, they should be able to compete.

"Now, if it turns out that the public plan, for example, is able to reduce administrative costs significantly, then you know what, I'd like the insurance companies to take note and say, 'Hey, if the public plan can do that, why can't we?'

"And that's good for everybody in the system. And I don't think there should be any objection to that. [...]

"[Y]ou know, I take those advocates of the free market to heart when they say that, you know, the free market is innovative and is going to compete on service and is going to compete on, you know, their ability to deliver good care to families.

"And if that's the case, then this just becomes one more option. If it's not the case, then I think that that's something that the American people should know."

I'd just add that it's very encouraging to hear the president issue such a forceful defense of the public option. He wasn't prepared to draw a line in the sand and vow to veto a reform package if it lacked a public option, but he not only made his priorities clear, he also issued a spirited argument in support of a public plan.

Here's hoping the "centrists" in the Senate Democratic caucus were listening.

BEING A PUNDIT VS BEING A PRESIDENT.... One of the more memorable exchanges from this afternoon's White House press conference came when President Obama called on NBC News' Chuck Todd, who followed up on earlier questions rega