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

* Indonesian earthquake kills 75.

* A massive tsunami hit Samoa and American Samoa, killing at least 119.

* We knew this was coming: "The Environmental Protection Agency announced a proposed rule Wednesday to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions from thousands of power plants and large industrial facilities."

* On a related note, cap-and-trade finally gets unveiled in the Senate.

* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has scrapped the Senate's Columbus Day recess, so the chamber can work on health care reform. Good move.

* Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) isn't convinced the public option is dead.

* Encouraging vote: "The Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday rejected a Republican proposal to tighten restrictions on abortion under a bill to overhaul the health care system."

* Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-Maine) constituents want to see her break party ranks on health care.

* Roll Call reports that the White House is still working on a possible health care bill. Robert Gibbs knocks it down.

* Another possible compromise on a public option?

* The efforts aren't working: "The number of homes lost to foreclosures rose about 17 percent in the second quarter of this year despite the launch of an extensive government program aimed at helping borrowers save their home, according to government data released Wednesday."

* Second quarter GDP was readjusted in a positive direction -- it was down 0.7%, not 1%.

* An expedited withdrawal timeline for Iraq? Maybe.

* NIH gets $5 billion in grants. Good.

* Despite yesterday's setback(s), the White House is not abandoning the public option.

* Why is Reagan's national security adviser lobbying on behalf of Sudan?

* How college students' brains work.

* When Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) called the president "an enemy of humanity," he apparently only meant part of humanity.

* It's hard to believe how badly three Hyatt hotels in Boston treated their housekeepers.

* House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) criticized President Obama today for traveling abroad to ask for an American Olympics in 2016. Boehner said Obama should focus his attention on "the problems we have here at home." Dems reminded Boehner he took a two-week trip abroad just last month.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

THE NEXT STEP IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.... Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, wrote a web exclusive for the Washington Monthly's College Guide section on affirmative action, income, and socioeconomic diversity.

Critics of class-based affirmative action have long argued that programs that use economic admissions criteria do not produce as much racial diversity as programs that use race instead. Schools like U.C. Berkeley, for example, saw a decline in black and Hispanic enrollment after the ban on race-based affirmative action was put in place. But the data show that economic affirmative action can produce a positive racial dividend. According to a 2004 Century Foundation study by Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose, among the most selective 146 institutions in the country, using race-based affirmative action produced student bodies whose combined black and Latino representation was 12 percent. If students were admitted strictly based on grades and test scores, the combined proportion would decline to 4 percent, Carnevale and Rose found. But using economic affirmative action, defined by parents' income, education, and occupation, and high school quality, produced a black and Latino representation of 10 percent. Research suggests using wealth (assets) as an admissions factor could boost the racial dividend further. Class-based affirmative action, in other words, does improve racial diversity, though not as much as using race per se.

Carnevale and Rose also found that at these selective 146 institutions -- the vast majority of which use race-based affirmative action -- low income students were very scarce. Fully 74 percent of students came from the richest socioeconomic quartile and just 3 percent from the bottom quartile. Carnevale and Rose found that race-based affirmative action roughly tripled the representation of blacks and Hispanics, but that low income students received no leg up. Likewise, William Bowen -- a strong supporter of race-based affirmative action -- found that at 19 selective institutions, being black, Latino or Native American increased one's chances of being admitted by 28 percentage points, but coming from a low-income family didn't help at all.

It's an interesting piece. Take a look.

WHITE HOUSE FACT-CHECKS BECK.... Like a variety of far-right activists, Fox News' Glenn Beck is attacking President Obama for his efforts to bring the 2016 Olympics to the United States (specifically, the president's adopted hometown of Chicago). On his program yesterday, Beck and his cohorts made a series of ridiculous claims, all of which were false, and all of which the White House felt compelled to knock down in a "reality check" item this afternoon.

Beck claimed, for example:

"Vancouver lost, how much was it? They lost a billion dollars when they had the Olympics."

In reality, Vancouver's Olympics won't begin until next year. Beck is so far gone, he apparently doesn't know what year it is.

Beck's guest, Fox News contributor Pat Caddell, said:

"[Obama] is going to go [to Copenhagen] with Valerie Jarrett who was last seen with the NEA pumping up their use of, you know, money."

This is apparently a reference to an August United We Serve/NEA conference call -- which Jarrett was not on.

Caddell added:

"Chicago is closing the government several days a week because they cannot afford to be open. They are going to go and reward -- this is the biggest scandal."

In reality, Chicago, like many cities, has looked to cut costs, and has had exactly one reduced-service day this year. It will have two more later this year -- the day after Thanksgiving and Christmas Eve.

Beck asked, "Is it possible that [Valerie Jarrett] is going to benefit if the Olympics come to Chicago?" Caddell responded, "Well, that's the word. She has certainly had a lot of dealings going on in real estate."

In reality, the White House explained, Jarrett "divested all her investment real estate holdings upon entering government except for a single real estate holding that she was unable to sell. This single real estate investment has been determined by White House Counsel and the independent Office of Government Ethics to present no conflict of interest in performing her duties as a White House advisor. It has nothing to do with the Olympic bid."

This obviously tells us more than the obvious (that Glenn Beck is comfortable with misleading his audience). The fact that the White House published the reality-check item suggests the administration is taking the effort to win the Olympics for the United States quite seriously -- the piece called it "a source of pride and unity for the country" -- and knows that Beck's nonsense is often taken seriously enough that it warrants correction.

Update: An alert reader emails that I may have missed the key phrase. At the very end of the White House item, it reads, "For even more Fox lies..."

In other words, the White House is not only accusing Glenn Beck of lying (which is warranted), it's also accusing the Republican cable news network of repeated and deliberate falsehoods (which is also warranted).

MORE THAN AN 'UNPAID BLOGGER'.... Following up on an earlier item, John L. Perry's role at NewsMax is proving hard to dismiss.

To briefly recap, NewsMax, a right-wing news website, published a piece by Perry, speculating about a military overthrow of the elected leadership of the United States government. His piece encouraged NewsMax readers not to "dismiss" the notion of an American military coup as "unrealistic."

Earlier today, NewsMax yanked the column from its site, and a representative distanced the outlet from the writer. Perry, a Newsmax spokesperson said, "has no official relationship with Newsmax other than as an unpaid blogger."

The whole truth is more interesting.

That's not quite the wording on his Newsmax biography. There, Perry is described as an "award-winning newspaper editor and writer" who "contributes a regular column to Newsmax.com."

He's also a former senior editor for the site, working in that role from late 1999 until October 2001.

Perry has written for the site regularly -- nearly every single week -- since November 1999. Newsmax was founded in 1998.

Just an "unpaid blogger"? I don't think so.

On a related note, Dave Weigel notes that NewsMax is sponsored in part by the Republican National Committee.

Given the RNC's financial support of WorldNetDaily, this isn't a huge shock, though it does point to the motley crew the Republican National Committee is willing to work with in order to connect with the right-wing base.

TAKING A STAND AGAINST SUFFRAGE.... I tend not to expect much from National Review's John Derbyshire. The conservative writer/columnist more or less jumped the shark when he expressed contempt for the victims of the Virginia Tech shooting massacre. (As he saw it, those who feared for their lives should have tried to physically confront the armed madman.)

But it seems Derbyshire continues to push the boundaries of good taste. His new book apparently includes a section against women's suffrage, and Alan Colmes explored the matter on his radio show this morning.

The National Review writer initially said "women lean hard to the left," which isn't necessarily true, and certainly isn't a rationale for denying women the right to participate in democracy. So, Colmes pressed further. Faiz Shakir posted a transcript:

DERBYSHIRE: Among the hopes that I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I'll say this -- if it were to be, I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep.

COLMES: We'd be a better country if women didn't vote?

DERBYSHIRE: Probably. Don't you think so?

COLMES: No, I do not think so whatsoever.

DERBYSHIRE: Come on Alan. Come clean here [laughing].

COLMES: We would be a better country? John Derbyshire making the statement, we would be a better country if women did not vote.

DERBYSHIRE: Yeah, probably.

He added that the United States "got along like that for 130 years," and added that the Civil Rights Act may also lack value because you "shouldn't try to force people to be good."

Just so we're clear, a leading conservative writer at one of the premier conservative political outlets, argued publicly against a woman's right to vote and against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It's extraordinary. Generally, conservative media figures try to maintain the pretense of sanity in public. I'm afraid that's no longer the case.

RHETORICAL HANDCUFFS.... The NYT piece this morning on yesterday's Senate Finance Committee debate on the public option includes plenty of quotes from Republicans on why they oppose the measure. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), for example, called a public plan "a Trojan horse for a single-payer system." Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said a public option would "ultimately force private insurers out of business."

Noam Scheiber raises a very good point -- the left pushes back against GOP falsehoods, but doesn't actually fear the dire Republican warnings.

If, like me, you support the public option, your first instinct is to dismiss this stuff as typical GOP fear-mongering. But then you think about it and you're kind of like: "Well, yeah, if we got a public option, I kind of would hope it eventually put private insurers out of business and led to a single-payer system." Don't get me wrong -- I'm a big fan of the free market. (Okay, a fan.) But it happens to be a complete disaster when it comes to health insurance, owing to problems like adverse selection. (Left to themselves, only unhealthy people would tend to buy insurance, which would drive up costs, which would cause the healthier among them to ditch their insurance, which would drive costs up higher, etc., etc.)

Now, as Jonathan Cohn points out in his latest piece, it turns out you can deal with these problems in a private insurance system. But, as his Dutch example also demonstrates, doing so is incredibly convoluted and requires a ton of intrusive regulation. So, yeah, the idea of creating a public option as a Trojan Horse to end private insurance sounds pretty damn appealing. And I suspect most public-option proponents feel the same way -- even if many of them, especially the ones in public office, can't actually say so.

I've found that this is common, and is not at all limited to the public option.

Republicans, for example, will say, "Democratic reform plans would allow public subsidies for abortion." Progressive reform advocates respond, "That's a complete distortion -- though public funding for women's reproductive choices isn't such a bad idea."

Republicans will say, "Democratic reform plans might let illegal immigrants participate in health care exchange." Progressive reform advocates respond, "That's entirely misleading -- though there's an entirely reasonable case to be made that everyone in the country should get coverage."

And in Scheiber's example, Republicans argue that a public option will put private insurers out of business. Progressive reform advocates respond, "That's obviously not true -- though single-payer doesn't sound so bad."

In other words, Dems are generally steering clear of contentious proposals; Republicans are manufacturing scary-but-false scenarios; and some of us have to push back against accusations relating to ideas we actually like. It's an awkward rhetorical situation.

REMEMBER ABDUL TAWALA IBN ALI ALISHTARI?.... Long-time readers may recall a 2007 controversy in which a generous Republican donor faced federal terrorism charges, but the National Republican Congressional Committee wanted to keep his campaign contributions.

The suspect pleaded guilty yesterday, to a wide variety of ugly charges.

A New York businessman accused of trying to funnel money to a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan pleaded guilty Tuesday to charges of terrorism financing and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari entered his plea before a federal judge in Manhattan. He could face up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced.

Alishtari, 56, of suburban Ardsley, had been accused of accepting an unspecified amount of money to transfer $152,000 that he believed was being sent to Pakistan and Afghanistan to support the camp. Prosecutors say Alishtari, also known as Michael Mixon, believed the money would be used to buy night vision goggles and other equipment.

He also pleaded guilty to stealing millions of dollars from victims through his fraudulent operation of a loan investment program.

Alishtari has also been a generous Republican donor, contributing more than $15,000 in the '02 and '04 cycles to the National Republican Congressional Committee, and having been named to the National Republican Senatorial Committee's "Inner Circle Leadership Committee."

When Alishtari was first arrested in 2007, the NRSC decided to donate the total of Alishtari's contributions to charity. Good move. NRCC officials, meanwhile, acknowledged that they took money from an accused terrorist financier, but decided they wanted to keep the money. Even far-right bloggers said, at the time, that this was a very bad idea.

That was two years ago. Maybe now the House Republican campaign committee will dump the $15,000? Apparently, not quite yet. The AP report noted today that an NRCC spokesperson "has said the committee will donate the money to charity if Alishtari is convicted."

The guilty plea to terrorism charges isn't enough?

I wonder, if the situation was reversed, and Alishtari were a DCCC donor, whether this would be a bigger story. Something tells me Fox News might run a story or two about the Dems and their terrorist-financier friend.

FRIEDMAN'S ADMONITION.... The New York Times' Tom Friedman is one of many noticing some unhealthy signs in our political discourse.

...I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the [Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin] assassination. [...]

Obama is now having his legitimacy attacked by a concerted campaign from the right fringe. They are using everything from smears that he is a closet "socialist" to calling him a "liar" in the middle of a joint session of Congress to fabricating doubts about his birth in America and whether he is even a citizen. And these attacks are not just coming from the fringe. Now they come from Lou Dobbs on CNN and from members of the House of Representatives.

Again, hack away at the man's policies and even his character all you want. I know politics is a tough business. But if we destroy the legitimacy of another president to lead or to pull the country together for what most Americans want most right now -- nation-building at home -- we are in serious trouble. We can't go 24 years without a legitimate president -- not without being swamped by the problems that we will end up postponing because we can't address them rationally.

Asked to comment on Friedman's concerns, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told CNN this morning that Friedman is a "nut job" and the column's arguments are "just crazy." Steele said Friedman and people like him are "saying, because you disagree with the president on policy, that all of the sudden we're going to make this leap into, you know, assassinations and all this other stuff."

Steele, in keeping with his general approach to politics, seemed to be blasting a column he had not read. Friedman did not criticize those who disagree with the president on policy; Friedman said the opposite. Twice.

This is not to say I agreed with all of Friedman's column. Bob Somerby, for example, raised some compelling points about the columnist's -- and his employer's -- record on some of these issues.

That said, I found Friedman's broader point to be an entirely convincing -- the right is playing with fire and doesn't care. The result is understandable fear that our political system cannot "seriously discuss serious issues any longer and make decisions on the basis of the national interest."

Steele thinks these fears make Friedman a "nut job." The response only helps prove the point.

THE FAMILIARITY OF GRAYSON'S RHETORIC.... It seems freshman Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) has sparked something of a controversy with a speech on the House floor last night.

Republicans are pouncing on a late-night House floor speech from Rep. Alan Grayson, during which the freshman Florida Democrat said the Republican health care plan calls for sick people to "die quickly."

"It's a very simple plan," Grayson said in the speech Tuesday night. "Don't get sick. That's what the Republicans have in mind. And if you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: die quickly."

The after-hours speech, which included prominent banners behind the congressman to reinforce his point, drew immediate calls from some Republicans for an apology.

"That is about the most mean-spirited partisan statement that I've ever heard made on this floor, and I, for one, don't appreciate it," Tennessee Republican Rep. Jimmy Duncan told the Politico.

Conservatives are up in arms; GOP offices are going after Grayson with a vengeance; and Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) is introducing a House resolution to condemn the Florida Democrat, who has quickly developed a reputation for shooting from the hip.

Igor Volsky had a good piece on the substance of Grayson's remarks: "No Republican wants Americans to die, but the party's efforts to stonewall meaningful health care reform perpetuate a status quo in which 45,000 Americans die every year because they lack health care coverage and thousands more see their policies canceled or denied by private insurers that are beholden to Wall Street's profit expectations and not patient health. Grayson intentionally over-stated his case. It's not that Republicans want to kill people; it's that their opposition to meaningful health care reform and their "free market" alternatives would further deregulate insurers and allow companies to continue pushing individuals into high deductible policies that don't provide adequate coverage and actually harm Americans who can't afford their medical bills."

As for the politics, isn't it a little late in the game for congressional Republican to feign outrage about death-related rhetoric? Ryan Grim noted this morning, "[C]harges that the opposition's health care plan will kill people have been about as common on the House floor lately as resolutions naming post offices."

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.) said Dem plans would tell seniors to "drop dead." Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said Democratic plans for a public option would "kill people." Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said Dems' proposals might "put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government." Plenty of other House Republicans have made similar remarks, and not one of them has every apologized. House Democrats haven't even asked.

Grayson may have been deliberately provocative to highlight a larger point, but if "die quickly" is beyond the pale, the GOP should probably start lining up now, asking for forgiveness for months of dishonest fear-mongering.

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 Jersey finds a gubernatorial race that keeps getting more competitive. A month ago, Quinnipiac found Chris Christie (R) leading Gov. Jon Corzine (D) by 10. Now, Christie's lead is down to four: 43% to 39%. Independent Chris Daggett is third with 12%.

* Speaking of competitive gubernatorial races, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Bob McDonnell's (R) lead over Creigh Deeds (D) down to five points, 48% to 43%.

* In New Jersey, the DNC has a new ad, highlighting an instance in which Christie cut off a cancer survivor when he got impatient with her question.

* California Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) has, as a practical matter, been running for governor for most of the year, but yesterday he formally launched an exploratory committee.

* A new Rasmussen poll shows Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) struggling in her re-election bid, trailing all of her would-be Republican challengers in hypothetical match-ups.

* Given that nearly all of the candidates have low name recognition, the race is very likely to change dramatically in the coming months, but a new Quinnipiac poll shows state Attorney General Tom Corbett (R) as the leading gubernatorial candidate in Pennsylvania's 2010 race.

* And in Minnesota, former Sen. Norm Coleman (R) is doing his part to help Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) raise money for her re-election fight.

THE OFFICE OF THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN.... From time to time, we're reminded of the fact that members of Congress -- many of whom are fighting to kill health care reform -- give themselves pretty good coverage. Several weeks ago, the LA Times reported on the taxpayer-subsidized insurance federal lawmakers currently enjoy.

The piece noted that, while most Americans have to go with whatever their employer offers, members have a choice of 10 plans that offer access to a national network of doctors. "Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers," the article added.

ABC News explores this conveniently located facility in more detail today. It sounds like a pretty sweet deal for lawmakers.

This fall while members of Congress toil in the U.S. Capitol, working to decide how or even whether to reform the country's health care system, one floor below them an elaborate Navy medical clinic -- described by those who have seen it as something akin to a modern community hospital -- will be standing by, on-call and ready to provide Congress with some of the country's best and most efficient government-run health care.

Formally called the Office of the Attending Physician, the clinic -- and at least six satellite offices -- bills its mission as one of emergency preparedness and public health. Each day, it stands ready to handle medical emergencies, biological attacks and the occasional fainting tourist visiting Capitol Hill.

Officially, the office acknowledges these types of services, including providing physicals to Capitol police officers and offering flu shots to congressional staffers. But what is rarely discussed outside the halls of Congress is the office's other role -- providing a wealth of primary care medical services to senators, representatives and Supreme Court justices.

Through interviews with former employees and members of Congress, as well as extensive document searches, ABC News has learned new details about the services offered by the Office of Attending Physician to members of Congress over the past few years, from regular visits by a consulting chiropractor to on-site physical therapy.

"A member walked in and was generally walked right back into a physician's office. They get good care. They are not rushed. They are examined thoroughly," said Eduardo Balbona, an internist in Jacksonville, Fa., who worked as a staff physician in the OAP from 1993 to 1995.

The Office of the Attending Physician includes at least four Navy doctors as well as at least a dozen medical and X-ray technicians, nurses, and a pharmacist. When a specialist is brought in, members pay no additional costs.

Indeed, lawmakers receive top-notch, wait-free care, and money is largely no object. Members pay a flat annual fee of $503, and it covers all expenses -- without submitting claim forms to their insurer. Despite soaring costs throughout the health care system, prices have been largely stagnant in the Office of the Attending Physician for 17 years.

Some lawmakers didn't pay the fee and still took advantage of OAP services.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear a member of Congress complaining about the nightmares of government-run, taxpayer-subsidized health care.

NIKE LATEST TO REJECT USCOC ON CLIMATE CHANGE.... Following up on an item from yesterday, it appears that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's conservative line on global warming isn't done alienating its one-time supporters.

Nike will relinquish its spot on the board of directors at the Chamber of Commerce to protest the business lobby's opposition to climate-change legislation.

"We believe that on the issue of climate change the Chamber has not represented the diversity of perspective held by the board of directors," the company says in a statement obtained by POLITICO. "Therefore, we have decided to resign our board of directors position."

Nike has long been a strong advocate for government action to combat global warming and has said it "fundamentally disagrees" with the Chamber's position on the climate bill. The company helped found Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy, a coalition of businesses supporting congressional action to address climate and energy legislation.

The move comes on the heels of Exelon, Pacific Gas and Electric, and PNM Resources all quitting the Chamber over the group's efforts to derail energy reform. Nike is withdrawing from the COC's board, but will remain with the association, with the stated intention of "advocating for climate change legislation" from within the Chamber.

Either way, it's additional evidence that the business community is hardly united on the subject of climate change, and the Chamber of Commerce's reflexive, conservative line, premised on the rejection of scientific evidence, is proving to be unacceptable in several corporate circles.

What's more, Amanda Terkel highlighted a strong editorial on this from the New York Times today: "The United States Chamber of Commerce's Web site says the group supports 'a comprehensive legislative solution' to global warming. Yet no organization in this country has done more to undermine such legislation..... [Responsible chamber members] see a carbon-constrained world coming and want to get out ahead of the curve -- not behind it like the chamber."

THROWING MONEY AT PROGRAMS THAT DON'T WORK.... President Obama proposed eliminating federal funding for abstinence-only education, apparently because of the overwhelming evidence that the programs have failed spectacularly everywhere they've been tried. The White House wanted to redirect those funds to broader teen pregnancy-reduction programs.

If there are two things conservative lawmakers love most, it's cutting government spending and eliminating wasteful programs, right? Wrong.

The Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday night approved an amendment providing tens of millions of dollars to fund abstinence education programs for teens.

The proposal, offered by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), would provide $50 million per year through 2014 exclusively for abstinence education programs. The measure would effectively reinstate the controversial Title V program, which offered $50 million per year to states for abstinence education, but prohibited them from tapping the funds for other sex-ed subjects like contraception. The same prohibition would accompany the Hatch amendment. [...]

The vote was 12 to 11, with Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Kent Conrad (N.D.) voting with every Republican to secure passage of the measure.

Hatch, defending the truly ridiculous government spending, said, "Abstinence education works."

That's true, if you live in a fantasy world in which reality has no meaning.

The facts have been stubborn on this. The nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that abstinence programs do not affect teenager sexual behavior. A congressionally-mandated study, which was not only comprehensive but also included long-term follow-up, found the exact same thing. Researchers keep conducting studies, and the results are always the same.

This isn't complicated. Simply telling teenagers not to have sex doesn't affect behavior, doesn't prevent unwanted pregnancies, and doesn't stop the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. Teens who receive comprehensive lessons of sexual health, with reliable, accurate information, are more likely to engage in safer, more responsible behavior.

And yet, every Republican -- you know, the guys who want to cut government spending -- insisted on throwing another $50 million -- of our money -- at programs we know produce the opposite of the desired result. The measure would have failed, were it not for two conservative Democrats who decided to help them.

The provision may eventually be scrapped as the bill progresses, but that it passed at all is an embarrassment.

INCITEMENT RHETORIC GETS EVEN MORE DANGEROUS.... Just eight months into a Democratic administration, Newsmax is running a piece speculating about a military overthrow of the elected leadership of the United States government. Seriously.

Newsmax columnist John L. Perry encourages his right-wing readers not to "dismiss" the notion of an American military coup as "unrealistic."

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont [sic]. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it....

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

In April, a common Republican talking point was the notion that Democrats were creating some kind of "banana republic." In retrospect, the irony is rich.

There is an unmistakable trend in right-wing rhetoric in the direction of extremism and violence. It's not at all healthy, and it's a sign of conservative contingents gone stark raving mad.

RETIRED OFFICERS WEIGH IN ON GITMO.... At this point, the White House (and common sense) can use some help like this.

A group of retired senior military officers on Tuesday backed the Obama administration's troubled effort to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, saying that those who oppose transferring detainees to the United States for trial are engaging in fear-mongering.

At a forum on Capitol Hill, the retired generals and admirals argued that shuttering the facility in Cuba is in the strategic interest of the United States because it will destroy a potent propaganda and recruitment tool used by terrorists.

But, they said, the president's goal has nearly been overwhelmed by fear and misinformation.

The military officers are also opposed to indefinite detention, arguing that detainees should face charges.

John Hutson, a retired Navy rear admiral and former judge advocate general, told the Post, "We believe the people going to be prosecuted are not warriors. They are criminals and thugs.... We ought to be using the criminal justice system."

Noting the nonsense from lawmakers on the issue, Hutson added, "We're trying to encourage more responsible leadership on this issue. But some don't want to hear it. They seem more comfortable with the politics of fear."

Of particular interest, retired Brig. Gen. James Cullen, a former chief judge of the Army's Court of Criminal Appeals, said, "It's up to all of us to say these arguments advanced by Cheney and his acolytes are nonsense and that really what they're doing is undermining our national security by delaying the date at which Guantanamo is closed.... We take a setback every time somebody, whether it's the vice president or his daughter comes out and says the things that they say."

Thank you, Brig. Gen. Cullen, for saying what usually goes unsaid.

And in an especially helpful reminder for policymakers, retired Army Gen. David Maddox highlighted my favorite argument: we already have international terrorists in U.S. prisons on U.S. soil, making the complaints absurd. "[Critics of the administration's policy] say they don't want them in my city," Maddox said. "Have they checked who's there now?"

As a rule, it shouldn't necessarily matter whether sound policy proposals are endorsed by retired generals and admirals. When debating a strategy on the merits, it's best to avoid an Endorsement Contest -- judging the policy based on competing lists of supporters and opponents.

But in politics, this often matters, and offers "cover" to those inclined to waver. President Obama's missile-defense policy, for example, was bolstered by the unanimous judgment of the Defense Secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And when it comes to Gitmo, we have the arguments of the RNC, the Cheneys, and Fox News on one side, and the considered judgment of more than two dozen retired military officers on the other.

THE NATURE OF 'COMPROMISE'.... Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) chatted with Chris Matthews yesterday on MSNBC's "Hardball," and they had an interesting discussion.

The host asked whether there is any possible scenario in which the Republican senator would support health care reform. Hatch said it's possible. Matthews added, "Well, suppose they drop the public option and put in tort reform. Would you sign on? Right on that trade, right there. Get rid of the public option and go to tort reform."

Hatch was non-committal, so the host pressed further: "Well, would you be on the bill? Would you be on the bill then, or is it just a stupid negotiation? Are the Democrats negotiating with themselves? If no Republicans will join, why should they compromise with nobody?"

At that point, Hatch offered a nonsensical answer about "state laboratories" and the notion that Democrats "think everything can be solved by spending." In other words, when pressed on why Democrats should even bother negotiating with the GOP, Hatch didn't have an answer.

The discussion then turned to abortion funding, and Hatch's efforts to add additional restrictions. After the senator explained what he wants to do, Matthews added, "Except you still won't vote for the bill."

Which is, of course, true. The Senate is considering a variety of Republican-led changes to a bill that Republicans intend to reject anyway.

In the same interview, around the same time Hatch said health care reform is wrong for the country unless it gets "at least 70 votes," the Republican senator argued, "I have to tell you, the Democratic party has gone very far to the left.... and to be honest with you, I don't know many moderate Democrats."

First, if Dems had gone "very far to the left," they'd be pushing single-payer, instead of a public-private competition. Second, if Hatch considers Sens. Nelson, Bayh, Landrieu, Carper, Pryor, Lincoln, Baucus, and Conrad to be liberal, his perspective is more than a little twisted.

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

* Iran: "One day after it said it test-fired missiles capable of striking targets 1,250 miles from its soil, Iran said Tuesday that it would soon offer a timetable for international inspectors to visit a hitherto secret nuclear enrichment facility, but that it was not prepared to renounce its nuclear program or debate its 'rights' to operate the previously undeclared plant."

* The U.S. has a different idea: "The Obama administration is laying plans to cut Iran's economic links to the rest of the world if talks this week over the country's nuclear ambitions founder, according to officials and outside experts familiar with the plans."

* President Obama met with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen today at the White House to explore a new strategy in Afghanistan. Rasmussen agreed that it's less important to discuss troop levels, and more important to figure out what the mission should be.

* The administration has cleared 75 of the remaining 223 Guantanamo prisoners for release.

* If you missed some of the "fun" of today's Senate Finance Committee hearing, the NYT and Tim Noah did some good live-blogging.

* This year's White House "Family Day" proclamation honored children of "same-sex couples" for the first time.

* Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will join House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) tomorrow at event to promote public funding of private schools in D.C.

* In case there were any doubts, interim Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) supports a public option.

* Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) is taking the lead on repealing retroactive immunity for telecoms that worked with the Bush administration's warrantless-wiretap program.

* Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) doesn't understand foreign policy.

* A.L. sets Mickey Kaus straight.

* I guess Republicans don't want Chicago to get the Olympics?

* It's one thing for far-right activists to lie on national television. It's another when the network doesn't correct the record for viewers.

* I wish O'Reilly would leave Vermont alone.

* The Washington Post is holding some kind of contest to hire a new op-ed columnist. I don't think Matt Yglesias is going to get the job.

* And Rob Kutner, a writer at "The Tonight Show," put together a good new video on health care reform.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

SILVER LINING.... Developments this afternoon in the Senate Finance Committee were hardly ideal -- after extensive debate, two separate amendments on the public option were defeated.

And yet, about an hour ago, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) declared, "The public option is on the march." Wishful thinking? Maybe, but it's worth taking a moment to acknowledge that the news today, while discouraging, was not all bad.

For one thing, it seems pretty clear that the Senate Finance Committee will, in all likelihood, pass a health care reform bill, almost certainly this week. That tells us that once the Baucus bill is merged with the Senate HELP Committee bill, reform legislation will be headed to the Senate floor for the first time. The goal of getting the entire initiative finished by Thanksgiving is still entirely attainable.

For another, given today's vote(s), reform advocates have two more supporters for a public option. Going into today, The Washington Independent's Public Option Scoreboard featured 47 supporters of a public option, 39 opponents, and 14 senators who are "on the fence." Two of those 14 -- Bill Nelson (D) of Florida and Tom Carper (D) of Delaware -- voted for the Schumer amendment.

Adding two to 47 obviously doesn't produce a majority, but Tom Harkin seems to think some of the remaining stragglers are on board, too.

The Senate has the votes to pass a healthcare reform bill including a public option, a key Senate chairman said Tuesday.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, said that the Senate "comfortably" has a majority of votes to pass the public plan, and that he believes Democrats can muster 60 votes to break a filibuster.

"I have polled senators, and the vast majority of Democrats -- maybe approaching 50 -- support a public option," Harkin said told the liberal "Bill Press Radio Show." "So why shouldn't we have a public option? We have the votes.

"I believe we'll have the 60 votes, now that we have the new senator from Massachusetts, to at least get it on the Senate floor," Harkin later added. "But once we cross that hurdle, we only need 51 votes for the public option. And I believe there are, comfortably, 51 votes for a public option."

Now all reformers have to do is convince every senator in the Democratic caucus to let the Senate vote on a reform bill.

FINANCE COMMITTEE VOTES ON PUBLIC OPTION.... The long-awaited Senate Finance Committee votes on a public option are underway this afternoon. Let's take them one at a time.

The Rockefeller Amendment

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) proposed a robust public option, with funding tied to Medicare rates. The final vote was not close -- every Republican on the panel voted against it, as did Democratic Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Tom Carper (Del.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), and Bill Nelson (Fla.). Of those, Carper's opposition came as something of a surprise, as did Nelson's vote.

The final vote, then, was eight to 15.

The Schumer Amendment

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who was certainly on board with Rockefeller's proposal, offered a different plan, generally called the "level playing field" approach to the public option, similar to what the Senate HELP Committee already passed. Under this proposal, instead of tying the public option's rates to Medicare, HHS would negotiate with providers, just as private insurers do.

It's a more modest approach to the public option, which, in theory, should be more appealing to less-progressive members. That vote is coming up shortly. I'll update this post soon.

The committee just voted, and defeated Schumer's measure, 10 to 13. Two Dems who voted against the Rockefeller Amendment -- Bill Nelson and Tom Carper -- switched to support this approach, but Baucus, Conrad, and Lincoln still voted with the GOP.

Baucus, the committee chairman, argued that he opposed the public option because it doesn't have enough votes to pass. I have no idea what that means -- it might have a better chance of passing if Baucus voted for it.

Conard said he opposed the public option because he prefers his still-undefined co-op idea, though he suggested the Schumer approach gets "much closer" to a bill that can get 60 votes.

BACK TO BASICS.... Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) quoted Ezra Klein, out of context, this morning on the public option. It prompted Ezra to raise an observation that's been common for months, but which hasn't been repeated enough lately.

Let's call this a back-to-basics moment. What do advocates of a public option think will happen if it's included in the system? Eligible consumers will a) be able to choose a cheaper, Medicare-like alternative to private insurance; b) private insurers will offer better coverage as a result of competition; and c) both.

But that confidence rests on a very simple premise: The public sector does a better job providing health-care coverage than the private sector. If that proves untrue -- and I would imagine most every conservative would confidently assume that that's untrue -- the plan will fail. The public option will not provide better coverage at better prices, and so it will not be chosen, and it will languish. Indeed, if it languishes, it will lack customers and thus lack bargaining power and economies of scale, and get worse even as the private insurers get better. In that scenario, the public option not only fails, but it discredits single-payer entirely.

The liberals are willing to bet that they're right. It's not a sneaky strategy: It's an up-front wager. The conservatives are not, however, willing to bet that they're wrong. They're willing to say the public option will fail, but not give consumers the chance to decide that for themselves.

Exactly. One of the common criticisms from the right is that a public option would offer awful coverage -- government-imposed rationing, long wait times, bureaucrats making treatment decisions, etc. But here's the angle that often goes overlooked: if that were true, no one would pick the public option, private insurers would be thrilled, and conservatives would have nothing to worry about. If people are given a choice, no one would pick the nightmarish option.

Except, of course, conservatives don't really believe that, or at a minimum, they aren't willing to take the risk.

The public-private competition is something for the right to fear, precisely because they're confident the private insurers would lose in a straight-up, level-playing-field fight. With this in mind, the goal is to protect insurance companies, even if it costs more, even if the treatments aren't as good, even if consumers might prefer a better alternative.

DEPRESSING DEBATE.... As advertised, the Senate Finance Committee has spent the morning and early afternoon debating heath care reform, and for the first time, getting into the details of a public option. The problem isn't that the debate is going poorly -- it's long been expected that the provision would fall short at this stage -- it's that the arguments against the public option have been ridiculous.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has been repeating Lewin Group data that was debunked months ago. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has argued that socialized medicine costs less, which is a bad thing. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ken.) called a public option a "major step toward universal health care coverage." He meant it as criticism.

This is not the debate you want to watch if you're looking to be inspired by the grandeur of the American political system in action.

But Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) was especially interesting when he said the status quo in the United States does quite well on medical treatment, as compared to other countries, just so long as we don't count those injured by guns or car accidents.

"Are you aware that if you take out gun accidents and auto accidents, that the United States actually is better than those other countries?" Ensign said. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) had been citing the health care systems of France, Germany, Japan and Canada as more effective, but with lower costs.

Conrad responded that one can bend statistics in all sorts of ways.

"But that doesn't have anything to do with health care. Auto accidents don't have anything to do with h--," Ensign said, cutting himself off. "I mean we're just a much more mobile society. ... We drive our cars a lot more, they do public transportation. So you have to compare health care system with health care system."

A few thoughts here. First, Ensign seemed to be making the case for gun control and expanded investment in public transportation. He actually opposes both.

Second, Ensign also said the U.S. does better than European countries on cancer survival rates. That's not true.

And third, unless Ensign has a plan to eliminate shootings and car accidents, I'm not sure what he hopes to prove with his observation.

Update: And fourth, in case it wasn't clear, Ensign's wrong on the substance. As Matt Yglesias noted, "What Ensign is saying here -- that gun accidents and car accidents fully account for the life expectancy gap between the US and other countries -- isn't true."

HOW MANY ELECTIONS UNTIL THEY HAVE CONSEQUENCES?.... Following up on an earlier item, there was something else Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said yesterday that deserves some attention.

In talking to constituents yesterday, the conservative Democrat suggested reform could be done in two parts. The first would find cost savings in the system, and be completed this year. The second would extend coverage to the tens of millions of Americans with no insurance, and Congress could debate this some other time -- perhaps in 2011, after another round of elections.

Voters should be able to evaluate "what's been done and what remains to be done" before they go to the polls, Nelson said.

"Public debate can occur in the context of an election," he added.

Look, I realize Nelson isn't exactly a "team player" when it comes to his party's legislative agenda, but voters already went to the polls. There was already an election. It just happened, 10 months ago.

President Obama ran for the White House and his signature domestic policy initiative was health care reform. Voters approved -- he won the highest percentage of the popular vote of any candidate in 20 years, and the highest for a Democratic candidate in 44 years.

Likewise, Democrats ran on a party platform that called for "affordable, quality health care coverage for all Americans." The platform called this coverage "a basic right," and positioned health care reform as the centerpiece of the Democratic domestic agenda. Voters, in turn, gave the party huge majorities in both chambers.

Nelson, in seems, isn't convinced that constitutes an electoral mandate, and would prefer to wait until another election cycle goes by -- one in which Republicans are expected to make gains, undermining the chances of passing real reform.

These are the comments of someone who opposes health care reform. One can hope that Nelson was playing to the crowd, and is willing to be more constructive on the Hill, but at this point, I really wouldn't be surprised if Nelson, when push comes to shove, sided with Republicans on a filibuster.

GOING OVER THE EDGE.... Rep. Trent Franks (R) of Arizona has been moving fairly aggressively lately towards the edge of the right-wing cliff. By agreeing to appear at an extremist conference in St. Louis over the weekend, Franks further cemented his position as one of the caucus' most unhinged members.

But if there are any lingering doubts, consider the fact that the Arizona congressman labeled President Obama an "enemy of humanity" at the event.

"Obama's first act as president of any consequence, in the middle of a financial meltdown, was to send taxpayers' money overseas to pay for the killing of unborn children in other countries...there's almost nothing that you should be surprised at after that.

"We shouldn't be shocked that he does all these other insane things. A president that has lost his way that badly, that has no ability to see the image of God in these little fellow human beings, if he can't do that right, then he has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity."

Remember, he thinks the president is "insane."

At the same event, Franks said Obama "acts un-American," and "doesn't want people to see" his birth certificate.

Wow.

MCCAUGHEY MANAGES TO LOOK EVEN WORSE.... And I here I thought former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey (R), whose propensity for misinformation is practically limitless, couldn't possibly appear any less credible. I stand corrected.

McCaughey, of course, has been a leading conservative opponent of health care reform in 2009, frequently straying from the truth (and reality) to trash Democratic proposals. She's also known for playing a similarly destructive role in 1994, when McCaughey positioned herself as "a scrupulous, impartial, independent scholar who, after leafing through the endless pages of the Clinton health proposals, had been shocked by what she found."

What we don't know until very recently is that McCaughey, when she wrote her infamous 1994 New Republic article that contributed to reform's defeat, she was working in secret with corporate interests who were lobbying against the Clinton plan.

Writing for Rolling Stone, Tim Dickinson reports on documents obtained from a Philip Morris lobbyist

[W]hat has not been reported until now is that McCaughey's writing was influenced by Philip Morris, the world's largest tobacco company, as part of a secret campaign to scuttle Clinton's health care reform. (The measure would have been funded by a huge increase in tobacco taxes.) In an internal company memo from March 1994, the tobacco giant detailed its strategy to derail Hillarycare through an alliance with conservative think tanks, front groups and media outlets. Integral to the company's strategy, the memo observed, was an effort to "work on the development of favorable pieces" with "friendly contacts in the media." The memo, prepared by a Philip Morris executive, mentions only one author by name:

"Worked off-the-record with Manhattan and writer Betsy McCaughey as part of the input to the three-part expose in The New Republic on what the Clinton plan means to you. The first part detailed specifics of the plan."

Media Matters added, "This latest disclosure, combined with a previously exposed conflict of interest, should destroy any remaining credibility she has with the media as an expert in health care reform acting in the public interest."

Indeed, it should. But will it? How soon until a major media outlet once again turns to McCaughey for "analysis" of health care policy?

Kevin Drum recently noted, "McCaughey is pure poison. She cares about nothing except making sure that no healthcare reform of any kind is ever adopted in the United States, and in that cause she's willing to say or do anything."

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.

* With just five weeks until Election Day in Virginia's gubernatorial race, Creigh Deeds (D) has unveiled a new television ad, touting the support of Sen. Mark Warner (D). Warner, also a former governor, is easily the most popular political figure in the commonwealth.

* The special election in New York's 23rd got a little more interesting yesterday when the right-wing Club for Growth bypassed the moderate Republican candidate and threw its support to Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. GOP leaders, who have backed Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava, are increasingly worried about the race.

* In Massachusetts, state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) is hosting a press conference today, pointing to the strong support her Senate campaign enjoys from a variety of women's groups and leaders.

* In California, the latest Rasmussen poll shows state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) looking strong against all the likely Republican gubernatorial candidates. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (D) fares far less well, and trails the GOP hopefuls in hypothetical match-ups.

* Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) is obviously moving towards a presidential campaign, but only 30% of his constituents want to see him run for the White House.

* And in Kentucky, Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo (D), a leading U.S. Senate candidate, has suffered a serious setback with the release of a profanity-laced recording. The tape, leaked yesterday, features Mongiardo trashing Gov. Steve Beshear (D), who endorsed him earlier this year. Mongiardo added that he's "close to saying f**k it all. I do not need this job. I do not need the U.S. Senate." Mongiardo is facing state Attorney General Jack Conway (D) in a competitive Democratic primary.

THE ACORN CONNECTION THAT WASN'T.... A variety of conservatives are worked up this morning about a report from the American Spectator, which claims that White House political director Patrick Gaspard used to work for ACORN in New York. Right-wing blogs are aflutter with excitement.

Now, it's worth noting that if Gaspard had worked for ACORN, that wouldn't be evidence of anything nefarious or inappropriate. But as it turns out, the report itself is wrong. Ben Smith reports:

The Spectator (accurately) quotes ACORN founder Wade Rathke claiming that Gaspard was political director at the group's New York chapter at some point before 2003.

I covered New York politics at the time, and that was news to me; the also White House denies it. But just to be sure, I checked checked just now with Gaspard's former boss, whom he ultimately replaced as the political director of the giant New York SEIU local, 1199, Jennifer Cunningham. Cunningham confirmed to me that he'd worked for her starting in 1999; that he'd worked for a City Council member before that; and before that, for the Dinkins Administration.

The fact that Rathke got this wrong does provide more evidence of how totally decentralized and disorganized -- contrary to the claims of both fans and detractors -- the group is, but that's all it says.

The Spectator piece is a model of the sort of guilt-by-association Google work in which partisans of both sides specialize.

Pondering ACORN's non-existent role in staffing the Obama administration, the Spectator says it "boggles the mind." So does this right-wing brand of hatchet "journalism."

Of course, now that the New York Times and Washington Post are anxious to know what's generating buzz among conservatives online, here's hoping the nation's major dailies are paying close attention to the details here.

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE.... Prominent Republican lawmakers spent much of the summer trying to move the goalposts on the kind of majority health care reform should get.

A simple majority (51 votes) isn't enough, because it would suggest plenty of Dems oppose the idea. A supermajority (60 votes) also isn't enough, because it would mean a "partisan" bill. A 61- or 62-vote majority doesn't count, either, because it would mean Dems only peeled off a couple of Republican votes. To be legitimate, GOP lawmakers said, reform needs all of the Dems and several Republican votes.

And now the Senate's most conservative Democrat is endorsing the Republican line.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) continues to be a scold to the liberals in his party. Before a crowd of over 200 gathered at a senior center in Nebraska, Nelson said health care reform ought to pass with 65 votes -- a feat which would require at least five Republicans to break with their party.

"I think anything less than that would challenge its legitimacy," he said.

Nelson didn't go so far as to say that he'd oppose a bill that had less than 64 other votes. But he did say he disagreed with the party's legislative approach to the issue.

Historically, legislation that enjoyed say, 57 votes in the Senate, reflected a pretty popular bill. But the political world has not yet come to grips with the unusually small Republican minority, so the expectations are skewed.

And that's what makes Nelson's public comments so foolish. By his logic, health care reform legislation isn't "legitimate" unless some opponents of health care reform vote for it. Nelson is deliberately creating an environment in which the biggest progressive policy achievement in a generation won't be impressive enough, because conservative Republicans didn't like it.

This is the same Ben Nelson who said yesterday that he wants to see the reform debate go even slower and see the public option get scrapped. Last week, Nelson also refused to commit to letting health care reform come for a vote on the Senate floor, holding out the possibility that he'll side with Republicans on a filibuster.

COHEN'S PERSISTENT CONFUSION.... Richard Cohen's columns are getting increasingly difficult to read, and even more difficult to understand.

Sooner or later it is going to occur to Barack Obama that he is the president of the United States. As of yet, though, he does not act that way, appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is. The election has been held, but the campaign goes on and on. The candidate has yet to become commander in chief.

Take last week's Group of 20 meeting in Pittsburgh. There, the candidate-in-full commandeered the television networks and the leaders of Britain and France to give the Iranians a dramatic warning. Yet another of their secret nuclear facilities had been revealed and Obama, as anyone could see, was determined to do something about it -- just don't ask what.

As criticism goes, this is pretty odd. President Obama talking to television reporters about current events from the White House is, apparently, not "presidential." Why? Because Richard Cohen says so. The public disagrees -- recent polls show Americans entirely comfortable with the amount of time the president spends communicating through the media -- but that apparently doesn't matter.

But more important is the notion that Obama, standing alongside British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, was also not presidential enough in publicly revealing the existence of a secret Iranian nuclear facility. The problem, as Cohen sees it, is that the Western leaders warned Iran, but were vague about potential consequences.

It's unclear why Cohen found this so offensive. Obama's goal was to give the U.S. leverage, and put Iran on the defensive, in advance of this week's talks in Geneva -- representatives of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Germany, and Iran will meet, and Obama, Brown, and Sarkozy added an increased "sense of urgency" to the discussions.

Indeed, President Obama seems to have played this very well. After achieving a victory on Thursday with the U.N. Security Council, his remarks on Friday had exactly the intended effect. Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, said Obama "played Iran perfectly, to isolate Iran, unite all the other countries around him, with an open hand to Iran, and then he springs the trap." Even a Washington Times columnist noted, "Not only did the president look strong, he looked cunning."

So what is Cohen whining about?

The columnist added:

The trouble with Obama is that he gets into the moment and means what he says for that moment only. He meant what he said when he called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" -- and now is not necessarily so sure. He meant what he said about the public option in his health-care plan -- and then again maybe not. He would not prosecute CIA agents for getting rough with detainees -- and then again maybe he would.

Most tellingly, he gave Congress an August deadline for passage of health-care legislation -- "Now, if there are no deadlines, nothing gets done in this town . . . " -- and then let it pass. It seemed not to occur to Obama that a deadline comes with a consequence -- meet it or else.

Obama lost credibility with his deadline-that-never-was, and now he threatens to lose some more with his posturing toward Iran.

When Obama called Afghanistan a "war of necessity," he was talking about the merits of launching the war, not with the value in sticking with an ineffective policy in the country. That's not a flip-flop or a lack of commitment; it reflects an ability to adapt to changing circumstances.

Obama has never wavered in his support for a public option. Obama's position on prosecuting torturers didn't shift at all, though the Justice Department had its own ideas.

Obama didn't "lose credibility" because Congress couldn't wrap up health care reform before August -- he gave lawmakers a target, which they missed. Nevertheless, the reform effort is further along than it's ever been, and that's due almost entirely to the president's efforts.

Cohen's entire piece sounds like he's trying too hard to complain about Obama for no particular reason. He wants Obama to "understand" he's the president and should act accordingly. I want Cohen to understand he's an influential media figure and should act accordingly, too.

Update: Tim Fernholz is thinking along the same lines.

COMING SOON, TO A REMAINDER TABLE NEAR YOU.... Readers everywhere are burning with anticipation.

Sarah Palin's much-anticipated memoir now has a title and a new release date, two advisers to the former Alaska governor confirmed to CNN on Monday.

Palin's book will be called "Going Rogue: An American Life" -- a reference to the anonymous criticism directed at Palin by aides to Republican presidential nominee John McCain during the final days of last year's presidential race. [...]

The book's publisher, Harper, has ordered a substantial first printing of 1.5 million copies and moved up the release date to November 17 -- conveniently in time for the holiday shopping season. The memoir was originally slated for release in the spring of 2010.

Why was the release moved up? Apparently, Palin's book was completed faster than expected. The former governor's book deal was announced just four months ago, and the 400-page text is apparently already complete.

In January, when Palin first found a publishing agent, MSNBC's Chris Matthews raised a point that many are likely to wonder about: "The question is who, actually, will write the Palin book."

The answer, apparently, is Lynn Vincent, Palin's ghostwriter in San Diego, who has already signed a non-disclosure agreement.

IN SEARCH OF THE GOP ALTERNATIVE.... Congressional Democrats have made an effort of late to point out the fact that congressional Republicans, despite their "guarantees," have not come up with their own health care plan. Indeed, it's been 104 days since the leadership promised to deliver one.

Yesterday, the Republican Study Committee tried once again to mount a defense.

[T]he Republican Study Committee has tossed this back on Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's lap [Monday], cutting and pasting the GOP alternative, HR 3400, which was introduced July 30. [...]

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the chairman of the RSC, says Hoyer is "making the certifiably false claim that Republicans have 'not only failed to produce legislation, but they have yet to offer any real solutions or ideas' for health care reform."

Here's a radical idea: maybe the RSC can pretend to be grown-ups about this?

Let's be clear. Have assorted groups of GOP lawmakers presented health care reform proposals? Sure. But when observers note there is no Republican alternative bill, we're talking about legislation embraced by the caucus and its leadership. Price and the Republican Study Committee surely know this, which makes their latest claims, to borrow a phrase, "certifiably false."

There are 177 House Republicans. At this point, 44 of them -- not quite one-fourth of the caucus -- have endorsed the RSC proposal. Of the 44, how many are part of the House Republican leadership? Zero.

"Last time I checked, the House Republican Conference does not have a proposal," Hoyer spokeswoman Stephanie Lundberg said. "When the RSC becomes the leadership of the Congressional Republicans, let us know."

What's more, there's a very good reason most of the House Republicans and all of their leaders have steered clear of the RSC plan: it's truly awful. The proposal is built around tort reform and ridiculously inadequate $5,000 tax credits. Democrats would love for this to be the House Republican plan, and use it as proof of just how little credibility the GOP has on the issue.

But it's not the House Republican plan because House Republicans don't have a plan. In mid-June, they "guaranteed" a bill of their own, but have failed to follow through. Tom Price's whining won't change this.

USCOC LOSING FRIENDS FAST.... The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been one of the leading conservative opponents of climate change legislation, operating on the assumption that a looming environmental catastrophe isn't nearly as important as the short-term profit margins of some of its members.

It's a position that some Chamber of Commerce affiliates are no longer willing to accept.

Exelon, one of the country's largest utilities, said Monday that it would quit the United States Chamber of Commerce because of that group's stance on climate change. It was the latest in a string of companies to do so, perhaps a harbinger of how intense the fight over global warming legislation could become.

"The carbon-based free lunch is over," said John W. Rowe, Exelon's chief executive. "Breakthroughs on climate change and improving our society's energy efficiency are within reach."

A wave of departures from the chamber has been building for weeks. It was heralded Monday by some Congressional Democrats and environmentalists as a sign that the business community's opposition to global warming legislation is weakening. In their view, that improves the chances that a global warming bill that narrowly passed the House in June might also pass the Senate.

Last week, Pacific Gas and Electric and PNM Resources also quit the Chamber over the group's efforts to derail energy reform, but Exelon is an even bigger prize. "There will be significant vibrations from this," Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) said. "It's a bit of an earthquake."

One of the driving factors in the shift away from the Chamber is a recent announcement that the group wants a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" about the science of climate change. The remarks made clear that the Chamber of Commerce, even now, simply doesn't accept the scientific evidence.

It's important to note that Exelon, which sold many of its coal-fired plants in 2000, is the nation's biggest operator of nuclear power plants. It's hardly unreasonable to suspect the company's position on climate change legislation is motivated, at least in part, by business considerations.

But Exelon's move is nevertheless welcome, and comes at a fortuitous time for supporters of cap-and-trade legislation -- Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) intend to introduce a Senate version of the already-passed Waxman/Markey bill today.

A global climate crisis will invariably be bad for business. The more the business community acknowledges this fact, the more likely meaningful reform will pass.

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

* Over the weekend, two suicide car bombs "killed 16 people and wounded about 150 others in separate attacks in northwestern Pakistan."

* More provocative steps from Iran: "Locked in a deepening dispute with the United States and its allies over its nuclear program, Iran said that its Revolutionary Guards test-fired missiles with sufficient range to strike Israel, parts of Europe and American bases in the Persian Gulf."

* While most Senate Democrats believe the health care reform debate is entering the home stretch, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) thinks it's just getting started. He also reiterated his opposition to a public option: "I don't see it happening."

* German Chancellor Angela Merkel claimed victory in her country's elections yesterday.

* President Obama will fly to Copenhagen at the end of the week to encourage the voting members of the International Olympic Committee to award Chicago the 2016 summer games. It's not unprecedented -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair went to Singapore to lobby in support of London winning the 2012 Olympics.

* An assassination survey on Facebook gets the Secret Service's attention.

* William Safire died yesterday at age 79.

* Jennifer Nix does a beautiful job explaining why she loves her socialist kidney.

* Last week, the Washington Post's Michael Gerson wrote another weak column. Soon after, the Washington Post's Ezra Klein respectfully noted some of the column's flaws. Apparently annoyed, Gerson wrote a cheap and insulting response. Spencer Ackerman weighed in with a defense of Ezra that I very much enjoyed.

* A leading executive of an Indiana-based insurance company sent a racist, anti-Obama email from his company account earlier this month. It has cost the insurer its account with the city of Bloomington.

* I wouldn't want to take a class taught by Peggy Noonan.

* A good item from David Broder on President Obama's national security team.

* Birthers are now running an infomercial in seven states.

* If Mike Huckabee's rhetoric is any indication, right-wing hatred for the United Nations remains strong.

* 50 helpful facts about health insurance reform.

* The right's interest in Bill Sparkman's death is taking some odd twists and turns.

* And finally, just in time for the holidays, it's the Michele Bachmann action figure. Seriously. (thanks to reader J.B. for the heads-up)

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

WHERE'S THE CONGRESSIONAL COUP CAUCUS NOW?.... In July, a variety of conservative Republican lawmakers were outraged by the official U.S. government opposition to the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Honduras. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) officially endorsed the military-backed coup, and a variety of House Republicans organized a "congressional coup caucus" in support of the new, unelected government.

Oddly enough, we're not hearing much from this GOP crowd anymore. I wonder why that is.

The de facto government that's in power in Honduras closed down television and radio stations Monday morning that are aligned with ousted President Manuel Zelaya. [...]

The moves by interim President Roberto Micheletti came hours after the government announced a decree suspending constitutional civil liberties, an attempt to keep supporters of Zelaya off the streets Monday.

When DeMint endorsed the coup, he heralded those responsible for ousting Zelaya as "guarantee[ing] freedom." House Committee on Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) hosted a private meeting for her Republican colleagues to "discuss how the U.S. can now work to support the democratic institutions and rule of law in Honduras."

All of a sudden, these GOP lawmakers don't seem to be bashing the Obama administration's position anymore. Interesting.

KELLER WEIGHS IN ON 'OPINION MEDIA' INTEREST.... Following up on an earlier item, New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt lamented his paper's coverage of stories like ACORN and Van Jones. He spoke to Jill Abramson, the paper's managing editor for news, who agreed with Hoyt about the Times neglecting "the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio."

In his column on the subject, Hoyt reported that Abramson and NYT executive editor Bill Keller plan to "assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies." In the larger context, this new editorial assignment seemed to be focused on the right -- the Times thinks it's missing stories important to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and is taking steps to keep apprised of right-wing interests.

It turns out, Hoyt's piece was incomplete. Greg Sargent talked to the NYT and found that it has something more ideologically diverse in mind. Through a spokesperson, Bill Keller said:

"We haven't assigned someone to be in charge of 'opinion media.' We've asked a colleague who happens to be a voracious consumer of online political buzz to help us (meaning me and Jill) informally, stay current with what issues are erupting, right and left. The responsibility for covering the subject still resides with the reporters on those beats, their editors, and ultimately me and Jill."

This seems a bit different than what Hoyt described yesterday. Indeed, Keller's comments make it seem as if someone who's already on staff, and who likes to keep up with online buzz, will let some of the leading editors know what's generating attention below the surface.

There's nothing especially wrong with this -- it might even be a good idea -- so long as the focus isn't exclusively on "the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio," the NYT doesn't consider something "news" just because Limbaugh is talking about it, and the paper is willing to help separate fact from fiction for its readers.

FINEMAN REFLECTS ON OBAMA'S SENSE OF 'AURA'.... Newsweek's Howard Fineman criticizes President Obama in his latest column, but after reading all 766 words of it, I'm not entirely sure what it is Fineman is unhappy about.

It seems to have something to do with Fineman's desire to see less of the president on television and more bill-signing ceremonies. "He's a man with an endless, worthy to-do list ... but, as yet, no boxes checked 'done,'" the columnist argues.

That's not necessarily a ridiculous argument. Except the stimulus bill that prevented an economic collapse, the most progressive budget bill in a generation, banning torture, getting a Supreme Court nominee confirmed, lifting the ban on stem-cell research, expanding S-CHIP, passing a national service bill, passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, passing new regulations of the credit card industry, passing new regulation of the tobacco industry, and achieving some key counter-terrorism successes, President Obama hasn't been able to check many boxes "done" after just eight months in office.

But it's the way Fineman presents his case that's especially odd.

Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words "I" and "my." (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the beginning, not the end, of the story.

I'm not sure what an "aura" is, and I haven't noticed the president expressing pride in his own.

More importantly, Eric Boehlert took a closer look at the U.N. speech that Fineman found annoying self-referential. The context for the words "I" and "my" make quite a difference.

I come before you humbled by the responsibility that the American people have placed upon me, mindful of the enormous challenges of our moment in history, and determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad. I have been in office for just nine months -- though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted, I believe, in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems.

Sounds to me like Obama was downplaying his personal significance, not touting the brilliance of his aura.

RATIONING AND LONG WAIT TIMES.... In July, Bill Moyers sat down with Wendell Potter, a former executive at a major health insurance company, who's become a whistleblower, explaining the way the industry "put profits before patients" and is doing everything possible to block health care reform now.

Asked what prompted his change of heart, Potter said he visited a health care expedition in Wise, Virginia, in July 2007. "I just assumed that it would be, you know, like booths set up and people just getting their blood pressure checked and things like that," he said. "But what I saw were doctors who were set up to provide care in animal stalls. Or they'd erected tents, to care for people.... I've got some pictures of people being treated on gurneys, on rain-soaked pavement. And I saw people lined up, standing in line or sitting in these long, long lines, waiting to get care."

Potter added that families were there from "all over the region" because people had heard, "from word of mouth," about the possibility of being able to see a doctor without insurance. He asked himself, "What country am I in? It just didn't seem to be a possibility that I was in the United States."

If only the scene in Wise were somehow unusual. Zaid Jilani flags this story about families in Texas who attended what was described as the "largest free clinic ever held in the United States" to get care they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. Texas has the highest uninsured rates in the country -- it's been called an "epidemic" -- and more than 2,000 people showed up at a convention center in Houston for medical treatment.

"My foot was turned upside down," said patient Lillian Beverly. Beverly has had trouble walking since she took a bad fall three months ago. "I really don't have the money to keep going to doctors and doctors," she said.

Kevin Braggs is worried about his diabetes. "I've been without insurance for six months," said Braggs.

And Vicki Robinson wants to keep her son's asthma under control, but she says it's difficult. "My husband's lost his job. We've gone through our savings," said Robinson.

And nine-year-old Kempton knows it. "We can't afford medicine," he said.

I read this, and I think about the Wendell Potter quote: "What country am I in? It just didn't seem to be a possibility that I was in the United States."

One of the physicians who offered his services at the clinic added, "This is the largest health mobilization in Houston since Katrina. So a national disaster which brought out this kind of response is now paralleled by a national disaster, because this is just an average day in Houston, and there are thousands of people who need help."

It is, in other words, the norm. Thousands go without the care they need, and it's "just an average day."

We saw a similar scene in August near Los Angeles where thousands sought services, and hundreds of people were turned away. Families in need of assistance slept outside an arena, hoping for the chance to see a physician.

Remember, in some conservative circles, there's still a belief that health care reform isn't necessary. Last month, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) even boasted, "There are no Americans who don't have healthcare. Everybody in this country has access to healthcare."

I'd love to see Virginia Foxx head down to Houston, so she can deliver the message to those who attended the free clinic. While she's there, Foxx can let them know that health care reform might lead to "rationing" and "long wait times."

THE 'CHAMPIONS' OF MEDICARE.... It's hard to pick the single most frustrating aspect of the debate over health care reform, but listening to Republican officials and lawmakers pretend to care about Medicare has to be right up there.

After years of trying to cut Medicare spending, Republican lawmakers have emerged as champions of the program, accusing Democrats of trying to steal from the elderly to cover the cost of health reform.

It's a lonely battle. The hospital associations, AARP and other powerful interest groups that usually howl over Medicare cuts have also switched sides. [...]

With the Finance Committee set to resume deliberations Tuesday, cuts to government health programs are expected to account for at least half the funding for its health-care reform package. A competing bill drafted by House leaders would cut spending even more sharply.

AARP and other groups say the cuts are small enough to be absorbed without affecting services, and many health policy analysts tend to agree.

Tim Fernholz added, "If the GOP in Congress prioritized the substance of their beliefs, they would be all for curbing rising prices -- cutting spending is supposedly their raison d'etre.... A Republican in Congress who actually cared about spending but opposed health care reform on other principles would support these cuts, but not the whole bill. Instead, they are trying to scare seniors with false claims about benefit cuts (for example) and gain political traction with the issue, throwing their historical search for entitlement control to the winds of political expediency."

Right. It gets back to the "power vs. policy" argument -- for congressional Republicans, the goal isn't to pursue policy goals, it's to defeat Democrats.

The Medicare rhetoric is especially shameless. Most Republican lawmakers opposed the creation of Medicare; GOP lawmakers pushed for Medicare cuts in the '80s and '90s; and as recently as last year, the McCain/Palin platform called for significant cuts to the popular program. Some prominent GOP lawmakers continue to think Medicare is unconstitutional.

This year, 137 Republicans -- more than three-fourths of the caucus -- voted in support of a GOP alternative budget plan that called for "replacing the traditional Medicare program with subsidies to help retirees enroll in private health care plans." In other words, the same congressional Republicans trying to scare seniors now voted in April for a plan that would have killed Medicare as we know it, privatizing it out of existence.

"Emerged as champions of the program"? I don't think so.

THE WRONG KIND OF OLYMPIC EXCITEMENT.... It seems the story of the day on conservative blogs deals with a Fox affiliate in Chicago, which ran a feature on some locals who don't want the city to host the 2016 summer Olympic games. Given their excitement, it's probably worth taking a moment to knock the "story" down.

Drudge is apparently responsible for getting the right all worked up. The site has a banner headline: "Fox-TV Chicago ordered not to run anti-Olympics story."

A local TV station that reported on Chicagoans NOT wanting the Olympics has been told NOT to run the report again, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT! The Chicago Olympic Committee told FOX Chicago that its broadcast 'would harm Chicago's chances' to be awarded the games. The station's news director ordered staff to hold fire after the report aired once last Thursday morning, claims a source.

As Alex Koppelman noted, "A report like this, exclusive or not, wouldn't normally merit prime placement on Drudge's site. But with Obama's involvement, it becomes a banner headline, because the newsman's implication is clear: The media's being told to back off from a story that could hurt the president, and because the press is in the White House's pocket, they're complying. Conservative bloggers are, of course, picking up the story and running with it in that direction."

Malkin got in on the fun this morning, telling readers, "Drudge reports that WFLD-TV has been ordered not to broadcast an anti-Olympics segment again."

Notice, right off the bat, the passive voice throughout all of this. The affiliate was "has been ordered." The station "has been told." Who's doing the ordering and the telling?

It's vague for a reason -- reality, in this case, isn't especially interesting. Last Thursday, the Fox affiliate in Chicago aired a 60-second report on some locals who don't want the Olympics. Officials at the Chicago Olympic Committee said the report might undermine the city's chances of winning the games -- those who award the games want host cities to actually welcome the Olympics. Public relations people discourage local news outlets like this all the time.

And based on Drudge's "report," the Fox affiliate apparently found the concerns compelling. The report already aired, but the station doesn't intend to re-run it.

That's it. That's the whole story. No heavy-handed government interference; no censorship; no evidence of political pressure. It's the lead story on Memeorandum this afternoon because ... well, I'm still not sure why.

It's a good thing the Washington Post and New York Times will be paying closer attention to the stories far-right blogs care about most. They might have missed this gem.

STATE NULLIFICATION, STILL NOT AN OPTION.... If/when health care reform becomes law, there will still be plenty of hurdles before the changes are fully implemented. One of the problems will be conservative state lawmakers who think they can override federal law at the state level.

This isn't exactly the same as the Tenthers' "nullification" agenda -- effectively secession-lite -- which argues that all federal laws are necessarily unconstitutional. Rather, this is a related nullification effort, which focuses on individual mandates.

In more than a dozen statehouses across the country, a small but growing group of lawmakers are pressing for state constitutional amendments that would outlaw a crucial element of the health care plans under discussion in Washington: the requirement that everyone buy insurance or pay a penalty.

Approval of the measures, the lawmakers suggest, would set off a legal battle over the rights of states versus the reach of federal power -- an issue that is, for some, central to the current health care debate but also one that has tentacles stretching into a broad range of other matters, including education and drug policy.

Opponents of the measures and some constitutional scholars say the proposals are mostly symbolic, intended to send a message of political protest, and have little chance of succeeding in court over the long run. But they acknowledge the measures could create legal collisions that would be both costly and cause delays to health care changes, and could be a rallying point for opponents in the increasingly tense debate.

This has come up in 14 states, with varying degrees of progress. Proposals have been presented in 10 states, some of which have already rejected the idea of overriding federal law. Four more are poised to follow suit, with Arizona, where an amendment will be on the statewide ballot next year, the furthest along.

Some conservative lawyers think they have a shot at allowing states to block health care reform. They don't. Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a health law expert at Washington & Lee University School of Law, told the NYT, "States can no more nullify a federal law like this than they could nullify the civil rights laws by adopting constitutional amendments."

Wake Forest law professor Mark Hall, who has studied the constitutionality of mandates that people buy health insurance, added, "There is no way this challenge will succeed in court."

But conservatives are excited about it anyway, and should reform become a reality, these efforts will likely keep some annoyed Justice Department attorneys busy for a while.

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.

* Bob McDonnell, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, was pressed by Chris Wallace yesterday on the controversy surrounding his 1989 thesis. Wallace asked if the right-wing wish-list represented "a pretty radical agenda." McDonnell replied, "No."

* New York Gov. David Paterson (D) isn't sure what kind of support he might receive from the White House next year, but he said on "Meet the Press" yesterday, "I'm running for governor."

* While most recent polls show Ohio Governor Ted Strickland (D) looking fairly strong in his re-election bid next year, the latest Rasmussen poll shows him trailing former Rep. John Kasich (R) by one, 46% to 45%.

* The latest poll in Michigan's GOP gubernatorial primary shows state Attorney General Mike Cox with an early edge over his Republican challengers. On the other hand, Ann Arbor investor Rick Snyder (R) won a straw poll at the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference over the weekend.

* Sen. John McCain (R) is going to seek re-election next year, and the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows him leading his potential Democratic challengers by wide margins.

* Conservative columnist George Will offered some hearty support to Marco Rubio's far-right Senate campaign in Florida over the weekend, despite the Republican establishment's backing of Gov. Charlie Crist (R). Will specifically complained about Crist's support for the economic recovery package and concerns over global warming.

PUBLIC OPTION WATCH.... On Saturday, the New York Times ran a piece suggesting the public option in health care reform remains viable. In light of Republican obstinacy in the face of Democratic concessions, polls showing support for the measure, and the Democratic caucus reaching 60 votes, the landscape for ambitious, progressive reform looked more encouraging than it did just a few weeks ago.

Just two days later, the New York Times has another piece, this one suggesting the public option will inevitably be scuttled by the Senate.

Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, said the task of merging the two bills [Senate Finance Committee and Senate HELP Committee] would be "very challenging." Democrats are also mindful of the disaster that befell them in 1994 after the majority leader, George J. Mitchell of Maine, failed to pull together competing health care proposals.

To appeal to Ms. Snowe, as well as to centrist Democrats like Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, the combined bill would not include a proposal for a government-run insurance plan, or public option, despite the clamoring of liberals who support it, senior Democratic Senate aides said.

The NYT didn't identify the "senior Democratic Senate aides," who they work for, or even how many of them agreed with the expectation. But, presumably, the Times knows the difference between those credible aides with inside knowledge of party strategy and those who don't.

The point of the article, by the way, is to highlight the fact that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will "lean heavily on President Obama" in the coming weeks to "arbitrate a number of contentious issues that still threaten to divide liberal and centrist Democrats and derail a final bill."

If I had to guess, I'd say the push for a public option, if it happens, will have to come from the White House, not the Senate leadership.

Update: Greg Sargent talks to Reid's office, which denies that the Majority Leader is nixing the public option, and "strongly disputed the story."

ASKING FOR VOTES WITHOUT HAVING VOTED.... Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman launched a Republican gubernatorial campaign last week, and immediately ran into a problem. Chris Cillizza reports:

...Whitman's spotty record as a voter -- she was never registered before 2002, according to reporting by the Sacramento Bee -- has become a major issue as she seeks the Republican nomination for governor of California in 2010.

"This news is disqualifying to a candidate for governor, her campaign knows it, and they are on the defensive," concluded Jarrod Agen, communications director for California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner who is challenging Whitman for the GOP nod. Poizner's campaign has also released a 30-second video slamming Whitman for her missed votes; "Whitman didn't vote for one president, congressman, senator or governor," says the ad's narrator. "She didn't skip some votes, as she claimed, she skipped every one -- for 28 years."

Whitman, who told the Bee that she had been registered before 2002 and challenged reporters to "go find it," exacerbating what was already a very tenuous situation for her candidacy. "It is a big deal and her handling of it is making it worse," said one California Republican who is not affiliated with a candidate.

It's an embarrassing aspect of a candidate's background if he/she didn't take public affairs and civic duties seriously enough to vote. But is it "disqualifying"? Voters, obviously, will make that judgment, but it seems a little over the top.

Plenty of statewide candidates -- Jon Corzine, John Edwards, Bill Frist -- have overcome sparse voting records to win big elections. I wouldn't be surprised if voters weren't especially judgmental on the issue, since most of the country doesn't vote in every election, either.

On the other hand, Whitman's situation seems slightly worse than most. She didn't even register until 2002 -- when she was 46 years old -- and when asked recently about this, she insisted she was registered.

Is this the kind of thing that voters are likely to hold against her? I'm not sure, so I thought I'd open it up for a little discussion.

TAKING THE WRONG MARCHING ORDERS (AGAIN).... A week ago, Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander questioned whether enough attention is being paid to what conservative activists, Fox News, and right-wing talk radio consider important. He lamented the fact that his paper, while offering extensive coverage of important current events, neglected to invest energy into ACORN and Van Jones.

Yesterday, New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt followed suit, expressing regret for the paper's coverage of -- you guessed it -- ACORN and Van Jones.

Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was "slow off the mark," and blamed "insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio." She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies. Keller declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person "a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere."

In the larger context, the NYT's hereafter monitoring of "opinion media" seems to be focused on the right. Indeed, the stated goal is to take more of an interest in the "issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio," not Daily Kos and Air America.

What's more, the paper's interest is apparently expanding. Jamison Foser noted, "A few years ago, the New York Times created a conservative beat -- a reporter assigned full-time to reporting on the conservative movement (the paper didn't bother assigning anyone to cover the progressive movement.) Now, in response to right-wing whining, they're assigning an editor to brief them regularly on Glenn Beck's latest ravings. I'm sure that will make for some excellent journalism."

Josh Marshall also raised a good point about the larger context: "You may have seen that there's a new meme afoot in the news world which has it that the mainstream media either ignores or is insufficiently 'in touch' with the right wing noise machine of Fox, Drudge, Glenn Beck, etc. What's notable however is that the idea seems to be emanating from the folks at Politico whose founders' theory of the media is that its narratives are largely defined by Matt Drudge and who used Drudge as the key vector to build their national audience. I'm not sure how these two facts compute."

They don't.

Two other points to consider here. First, part of responsible journalism is separating fact from fiction, identifying which stories have genuine value, and which don't. Allowing Fox News and talk radio to become assignment editors for major, legitimate news organizations is backwards -- the vast majority of the time they're pursuing obvious nonsense.

Remember the politicized car dealership story? How about the "muzzled" EPA economist? Or the not-so-scandalous DHS report about potentially violent extremists? Or the outrage that President Obama encouraged children to do well in school? Or the unhinged apoplexy about birth certificates and death panels? Right-wing activists always have something to throw a fit over; that doesn't make it news and it certainly doesn't make it true. I'd like to think the boys who cried wolf would get less attention, not more.

Second, the NYT can assign an entire floor to do nothing but monitor what Limbaugh and Beck find important, and it won't stop conservatives from complaining about the Times. Foser reminds us, "These efforts to bend over backwards to appease the Right -- people who will never be appeased -- no matter how ridiculous their complaints, in which newspapers like the Times fret over the suspicion of bias regardless of the merits of the complaint, are exactly how the paper ends up handing a presidential election to George W. Bush -- and then handing him his Iraq war on a platter."

TAX THE RICH.... A new 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair Poll was released late yesterday, with a variety of quirky questions. CBS News described the poll as intended to be "topical, fun, amusing, illuminating and most importantly, interesting." Some of the queries were more compelling than others.

One result, however, stood out as politically relevant.

If the Obama administration proposed a tax of 50 percent or higher on the incomes of the very wealthiest millionaires, would you support it, or not?

A 51% majority endorsed the significantly higher rate, 45% did not.

Of course, the Obama administration intends to return the top rate to 39.6% -- the pre-Bush rate -- which is obviously nowhere close to the 50% (or higher) rate a whole lot of Americans seem to be comfortable with.

By the way, for most of Reagan's presidency, the top rate was 50%. As I recall, society functioned, people resisted the urge to "go Galt," and according to conservatives, the economy thrived.

THERE THEY GO AGAIN.... Having tired of the old fear-mongering regarding health care reform, the Washington Times' far-right editorial board has come up with a new line of attack.

In an editorial that ran over the weekend, the Times argues that the Baucus bill under consideration would punish physicians who use expensive medical treatments effectively. The editorial board insists that a doctors would have an incentive to "provide less care for his patients for fear of having his payments docked." The conservative paper added that physicians will be pressured to "withhold care, and withhold care again, and then withhold it some more."

The headline on the piece read, "Death Panels By Proxy."

Karen Tumulty wasn't impressed.

My question: Has anyone at the Washington Times actually talked to a doctor lately? Under the current system, lots and lots of people are showing up at physicians' offices with no insurance at all. And do you know what these medical heroes are doing? By and large, they are treating them anyway. Doctors I have spoken to tell me that it is not at all unusual for them to be writing off 10%, or 20% or even more of the care they give because their patients simply can't afford to pay their bills.

So now, the Washington Times would like us to believe that these very same doctors will suddenly start cutting their patients off, sending them out to die, simply to earn a little more money.

Yes, this provision is designed to encourage doctors to think a little more about what kind of treatment is most effective, and to cut back on the waste and overtreatment that experts say account for 30 cents out of every dollar that is spent on medical care in this country. But to call these "death panels by proxy" is simply fear-mongering.

What's more, the Times is wrong when it suggests the Finance Committee bill puts no focus on quality. In fact, it gives doctors incentives they don't have now, especially in the management of the chronic illnesses that have been such a factor in driving up health costs.... [It's] not as sexy as "death panels by proxy." But it does have the virtue of actually being true.

Given how the trajectory usually goes, the Times' argument will be a big topic of discussion today on Fox News and talk radio. Keep Tumulty's pushback in mind.

FAMILIAR RHETORIC FROM FAMILIAR SOURCES.... Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) stopped short of calling for U.S. military intervention in Iran on "Meet the Press" yesterday, but by the time he insisted that "just the carrot approach does not work with these people," Kyl's rhetoric was sounding pretty familiar.

"[A]t a certain point talking is counterproductive rather than productive, because time it not on our side," the Republican Whip said. "All the Iranians need is time to develop their nuclear weaponry and, and their missiles. And as a result of that, at some point you have to say that the talk has to stop and solid action in the form of sanctions or some other way of stopping them is necessary.... I mean, what we're trying to do here eventually is to get a regime change with a group of people in there that are more representative of the Iranian people, who we really can talk with in a way that might end up with a good result."

On "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) used similar language: "We have to have strong sanctions, economic sanctions that can force either a regime change or the Ayatollahs to change their policy."

Ben Frumin noted, "For those keeping score at home, that's now no fewer than two Republican senators who called today for regime change in Iran."

In fairness, neither conservative senator specifically endorsed attacking Iran immediately, but phrases likes "regime change" and "time it not on our side" offer pretty big hints as to what Republican lawmakers have in mind.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates took a more reasoned approach on CNN yesterday morning.

"The reality is, there is no military option that does anything more than buy time," Gates said. "The estimates are one to three years or so. And the only way you end up not having a nuclear-capable Iran is for the Iranian government to decide that their security is diminished by having those weapons, as opposed to strengthened.

"And so I think, as I say, while you don't take options off the table, I think there's still room left for diplomacy."

Gates said "a variety of options" remained available, including sanctions on banking and equipment and technology for Iran's oil and gas industry.

Here's hoping GOP lawmakers were listening.

OUR POLITICS MUST SEEM STRANGE ABROAD.... Jake Tapper has this report from the president's CBC speech in Washington last night.

President Obama at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation dinner last night, discussing false claims made about the health care reform bill, told a little anecdote.

"I was up at the G20 -- just a little aside -- I was up at the G20, and some of you saw those big flags and all the world leaders come in and Michelle and I are shaking hands with them," the president said. "One of the leaders -- I won't mention who it was -- he comes up to me. We take the picture, we go behind.

"He says, 'Barack, explain to me this health care debate.'

"He says, 'We don't understand it. You're trying to make sure everybody has health care and they're putting a Hitler mustache on you -- I don't -- that doesn't make sense to me. Explain that to me.'"

I haven't seen the whole text of the speech, so I'm not sure if the president talked about what he told the foreign leader in response to his question.

That's a shame, because it doesn't make sense to me, either.

B. CLINTON ON THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE.... Former President Clinton was on "Meet the Press" this morning, and David Gregory asked about the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" and whether it still exists, pursuing President Obama.

"Oh, you bet. Sure it is," Clinton said. "It's not as strong as it was because America has changed demographically. But it's as virulent as it was."

He added, "You know, it's like when they accused me of murder, and all that stuff they did. But it's not really good for the Republicans and the country, what's going on now. I mean, they may be hurting President Obama. They can take his numbers down. They can run his opposition up. But, fundamentally, he and his team have a positive agenda for America. Their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail. And that's not a prescription for a good America."

Sounds right to me. The "VRWC" talk was, to my mind, mocked unnecessarily. The phrase, when Hillary Clinton used it, always struck me as unambiguously true -- there was a network of conservative Republicans that invested time, energy, and resources into destroying the Clinton presidency. Similarly, there are scores of Republicans who wake up every morning with the same goal: undermining the Obama White House and its allies.

As for the midterm elections, Gregory asked Clinton whether he worries about a repeat of 1994. "There's no way they can make it that bad -- for several reasons," the former president replied. "Number one, the country is more diverse and more interested in positive action. Number two, they've seen this movie before, because they had eight years under President Bush when the Republicans finally had the whole government, and they know the results were bad. And number three, the Democrats haven't taken on the gun lobby like I did, and they took 15 of our members out.... [W]hatever happens, it'll be manageable for the president."

ANOTHER EDITION OF 'HE'S NOT BUSH'.... Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appointed by George W. Bush, kept around by Barack Obama, offered some interesting praise for his boss this morning.

"He is very analytical," Gates told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King. "He is very deliberate about the way he goes through things. He wants to understand everything. He delves very deeply into these issues."

Gates, who previously worked for 27 years in the CIA under six presidents, was the first defense secretary to be asked to remain in office by a newly-elected president when Obama kept him on.

The Pentagon chief was diplomatic when comparing Obama to other former occupants of the Oval Office.

"I'm not going to get into comparing the different presidents, Gates said. "I very much enjoy working for this one."

In the same interview, however, Gates noted that things have changed with the shift in administrations. "I will tell you, I think that the strategy [President Obama] put forward in late March, is the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s," the Pentagon chief said.

I'm reluctant to read too much into the comment, but it certainly seems as if Gates was arguing that Bush waged a war in Afghanistan for seven years without putting together a "real" strategy for U.S. policy in the country.

And I certainly don't recall Gates ever describing Bush as "very analytical," "very deliberate," with a desire "to understand everything" in depth.

WHEN INARTICULATENESS PAYS OFF.... I have no way of knowing if every anecdote from Matt Latimer's "Speechless" is accurate. For that matter, it's certainly possible that some are true and some are less true.

But Eric Zimmermann highlighted a story that that certainly seems plausible. It's about a speech in which then-President George W. Bush decided to endorse a cap-and-trade policy in a high-profile speech, but no one could figure out exactly what he meant.

Connaughton, Bolten and others wanted the president to give a climate change speech. They thought that it would make our allies in Europe happy, and they were constantly pushing the president to the left on the issue. The small but merry band of conservatives in the White House -- who were suspicious of climate change and the movement behind it -- were opposed to any shift in our policy. They were adamantly against any speech supporting a cap-and-trade policy -- a mandate on business to curb their CO2 emissions.

At one point, the words cap and trade were put into the climate change speech, with the president expressing his support for the policy. Then somehow this leaked to the conservative press. Republicans on the outside of the White House sent furious objections, and the words were removed. But only those words. The rest of the speech endorsing that policy remained. After days and days of postponements and fights, the president finally gave the speech. Conservatives in the West Wing were deflated by their loss in the policy battle.

And then something miraculous happened. Because the speech had been so parsed and litigated, no one could quite understand what the president was saying. The press therefore assumed nothing had really changed. So the next day the media reported that the president had in fact come out against cap and trade. A White House spokesman even said that the words cap and trade had never been included in any drafts of the speech, which was flat-out false. The president marveled at his good fortune. He'd changed his policy to please one side, but since he seemed not to have changed a thing, he'd also pleased the other. Indecipherable speechwriting at its finest. [emphasis added throughout]

Again, I haven't seen independent confirmation of this, and I'm not even sure exactly what speech is at issue here. But this doesn't seem especially hard to believe.

For that matter, the notion that a conservative Republican president could come around to embracing a cap-and-trade proposal is a reminder that the right need not throw a fit about this. On the right, it's entirely too common to ignore evidence of global warming altogether, but for those willing to concede the need to limit emissions, cap and trade is a market-based mechanism, which has worked in the past, as compared to command-and-control directives.

Hell, even McCain and Palin offered at least tacit support for some kind of cap-and-trade mechanism last year.

THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE TERRORIST THREAT.... The Guardian had a report a couple of weeks ago on al Qaeda "finding it difficult to attract recruits or carry out spectacular operations in western countries." Counter-terrorism officials said the terrorist network "faced a crisis that was severely affecting its ability to find, inspire and train willing fighters."

The New York Times had a related report today, which explored the issue in more depth, but reached a similar conclusion: "[I]n important ways, Al Qaeda and its ideology of global jihad are in a pronounced decline."

Emile Nakhleh, who headed the CIA's strategic analysis program on political Islam until 2006, noted that al Qaeda is "finding it harder to recruit" and "harder to raise money." Audrey Kurth Cronin, a professor at the National War College in Washington, added, "I think Al Qaeda is in the process of imploding. This is not necessarily the end. But the trends are in a good direction."

What's producing these encouraging results?

[S]ome government officials do take quiet, if wary, satisfaction in two developments that they say underlie the broad belief that Al Qaeda is on a downhill slope. One is the success of military Special Operations units, the C.I.A. and allies in killing prominent terrorists.

Three days apart in mid-September, American special forces in Somalia firing from helicopters killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, a leader of a Somalian organization, Al Shabab, which is allied with Al Qaeda, and the police in Indonesia killed the most-wanted terrorist in Southeast Asia, Noordin Muhammad Top, in an assault on a house in Java.

In Pakistan, missile strikes from C.I.A. drone aircraft have taken a steady toll on Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies since the Bush administration accelerated these attacks last year, a policy reinforced by President Obama. A count of such strikes, compiled by the Center for American Progress in Washington, found a handful in 2006 and 2007, rising rapidly to 36 in 2008, and another 36 so far in 2009, nearly all in Pakistan's tribal areas.

In addition to thinning the ranks of potential plotters, the constant threat of attack from the air makes it far harder for terrorists to move, communicate, and plan, counterterrorism officials say. And while the officials say they worry about a public backlash in response to the civilians killed during the air attacks, those officials also say the strikes may be frightening away potential recruits for terrorism.

The second trend is older and probably more critical. The celebration in many Muslim countries that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has given way to broad disillusionment with mass killing and the ideology behind it, according to a number of polls.

Between 2002 and 2009, the view that suicide bombings are "often or sometimes justified" has declined, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, from 43 percent to 12 percent in Jordan; from 26 percent to 13 percent in Indonesia; and from 33 percent to 5 percent in Pakistan (excluding some sparsely populated, embattled areas). Positive ratings for Osama bin Laden have fallen by half or more in most of the countries Pew polled.

On that latter point, it seems many in the Middle East who may have initially been sympathetic to al Qaeda soon discovered the group had very little to offer in the way of practical solutions to everyday problems. And as terrorist attacks began killing civilians in counties like Jordan, regional support plummeted and al Qaeda appeared discredited. The "movement's pronounced decline has continued apace in recent years.

This is not to say the threat is gone, or will vanish soon. On the contrary, the Obama administration made some key arrests this week, apprehending those who allegedly intended to do considerable harm. It doesn't take a vast terrorist network to launch a devastating attack -- as the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995 helped demonstrate -- and copycat terrorism will remain a danger.

That said, the larger, global trends and counter-terrorism successes in the United States are heartening, to put it mildly.

THE BLURRED LINES.... If you missed it, the National Review's Michael Ledeen had a rather remarkable item the other day, which speaks to a larger truth.

Is Obama Naive? I don't think so. I think that he rather likes tyrants and dislikes America. I think he'd like to be more powerful, I think he is trying to get control over as much of our lives as he can, so that he can put an end to the annoying tumult of our public life. As when he said (about health care) to the Congress, "Okay, you've talked enough, now it's time to do the right thing (my thing)." And he's trying to end American power in the outside world. He's saying "I'm going to stop us, before we kill again."

There is nothing unusual about elitist hatred of freedom. Back in the 18th century, when book publishing really got going, British authors were infuriated that they had to submit to the judgment of a marketplace. They didn't want to be judged by people who were obviously inferior to them, and there was a great rage among the intelligentsia, including some very famous men. And in modern times, we can all name famous intellectuals who fawned all over Mussolini, Stalin, Fidel, and even Hitler.

American politics are very fractious, and always have been. Leaders are constantly frustrated, and some of them come to yearn for an end to our freedom. They think they know best, they just want to tell us what to do and have us shut up and do it. I think Obama is one of them.

National Review's Andy McCarthy enthusiastically endorsed the argument, noting the president's "personal terrorist pals like Bill Ayers."

I'd like to think it goes without saying, but for the record, Ledeen's (and McCarthy's) observation is strikingly dumb. It's almost a parody of unhinged conservative apoplexy -- the president "likes tyrants," "dislikes America," "hates freedom," and wants to be an authoritarian tyrant. This is Glenn Beck-like derangement under the banner of National Review.

And that was the angle that stood out for me reading Ledeen's nonsense. To be sure, National Review's record of conservatism has at times been humiliating -- it's staunch opposition to civil rights, for example -- but in time, the magazine tried to position itself as a source of serious political commentary.

Now it's paying Michael Ledeen and Andy McCarthy.

The larger trend is hard to miss. 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.

'THE CONCERN-ADDRESSING STAGE'.... We rarely see or hear about the White House's aggressive lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill to secure support for health care reform, which makes this behind-the-scenes NYT report pretty interesting. As Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported, "After months of cutting deals and stroking drug makers, hospitals and doctors, the president's aides are laying the groundwork for a final round of Congressional arm-twisting, with Mr. Obama increasingly in a hands-on role."

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House deputy communications director, told her, "We are at the concern-addressing stage.... This is a political and policy challenge of epic proportions, and it takes a lot of effort and attention to achieve it."

Whether the operation the West Wing has put in place is effective remains to be seen, but it's nevertheless impressive. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel oversees two working groups: Nancy-Ann DeParle's policy group and Jim Messina's political group. Both spend their time "trying to learn who has problems with the legislation, what those problems are and what it will take to win each member's vote."

Everyone in the White House -- and the cabinet -- is levering every possible contact. When a lawmaker raises a concern about reform in a media interview, he or she gets a prompt response. When Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) expressed concerns about the effects of Medicaid expansion on her state's budget, DeParle showed up at the senator's home, charts in hand, for a three-hour chat.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who's been personally lobbied by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, told the Times that President Obama "is leaving no stone unturned."

That's largely true, though some stones are apparently being ignored.

Republicans who have been most outspoken about their opposition to the White House say they have been left out of the outreach effort, and some are irked. "The strategy seems to be like a shooting gallery at the state fair; if you hit one target, you win the prize," said Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, chairman of the Republican conference.

Alexander was referring to Maine's Olympia Snowe, though it's worth noting that Maine's other senator, Susan Collins, has also received considerable attention from the White House.

But these details aside, it seems awfully foolish for conservative GOP lawmakers to complain that the White House isn't reaching out to them. Why would Obama's team bother? Or more to the point, when has the White House's outreach to the Republican caucus ever produced positive results?

Congressional Republicans have spent months trashing reform through an often-vile misinformation campaign. Their goal is to defeat this effort by any means necessary.

That the president's team has decided not to bother talking to them reflects an encouraging level of common sense.

WHY THE PUBLIC OPTION ISN'T DEAD.... This NYT piece is ostensibly about Democratic divisions over the details of health care reform -- headline: "For Democrats, Cracks in a United Front" -- which isn't especially interesting. The article, however, actually raises some interesting angles.

Most notable is the new-found optimism on the left about the prospects for a more ambitious reform bill. It's largely a foregone conclusion that the Senate Finance Committee will wrap up this upcoming week, approving a bill that generates no (or almost no) GOP support, but fails to meet liberals' expectations. But as the legislation moves to the floor, progressive lawmakers and their allies "expect to be able to shape the final product more than they had hoped just weeks ago."

What's changed? Having the caucus return to 60 members doesn't hurt, but the NYT's Jackie Calmes point to two other angles.

One is the failure of Senator Max Baucus of Montana, a more conservative Democrat who heads the Finance Committee, to get any Republicans to support his draft legislation, after months of trying. That doomed President Obama's goal of bipartisan backing for a health care overhaul, and now leaves party liberals arguing for a distinctly Democratic health plan.

"One of the strongest arguments against a public option has been that the Republicans will never go for it," [Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)] said. "Well, the Baucus bill doesn't have a public option, and they're still not for it in any way, with the possible exception of Olympia Snowe," a moderate Republican senator from Maine, who has not ruled out supporting the overhaul that Mr. Obama is seeking.

The second development that has encouraged liberals is recent polling, including some done for The New York Times and CBS News in the last week, that gives Democrats a clear edge over Republicans as the party favored to deal with health care issues. The same polls show significant support for a public option despite months of criticism from Republicans, who describe it as a government takeover of health insurance.

Congressional Democrats of all stripes have become more upbeat since returning to work after the August recess.... The sense that something will become law has only strengthened the resolve of liberals, inside the Congress and out, to fight with intensity as Democrats write the legislation this fall.

Like Greg Sargent, I found that Schumer quote of particular interest. Max Baucus bent over backwards to offer Republicans an insurance-industry-friendly bill, filled with concessions and ideas that Republicans had already embraced. Every single GOP senator balked anyway. I'd hoped it was obvious beforehand, but this apparently sent quite a signal to the Democratic caucus -- there's no point in watering down the bill to get bipartisan support if the minority is going to slap their hand away anyway.

I'm also glad to see the polls are having an effect, as they should. We're talking about a provision that would save taxpayers money, lower the costs of reform, and enjoys strong support from the public -- including Republicans. After months of constant whining about the perils of a "government takeover," the public option enjoys broad approval across the country.

That's not to say this is going to be easy going forward; just the opposite is true. But the landscape looks more favorable than it did as recently as a few weeks ago.

KIMBERLY YOUNG.... What a very sad story.

Kimberly Young of Oxford, Ohio, died Wednesday morning a few days short of her 23rd birthday. Hospital officials have said she appeared to have the H1N1 virus, also known as swine flu.

But here's why Young's death is news beyond her southwest Ohio community: people who knew her are saying she resisted treatment that could have saved her life -- because she didn't have health insurance.

And adding to the political resonance: Young's member of Congress is Rep. John Boehner, who as the House Republican leader has led the effort against reform.

Young, a previously healthy 2008 graduate of Miami University of Ohio who lived in Oxford, was diagnosed with swine flu and pneumonia. A few days later, her roommate's mother told a local news channel, she went to an urgent care center. But as her condition continued to worsen, she was reluctant to go to Oxford's McCullough-Hyde Hospital to get proper treatment.

A friend of Young's said, "That's the most tragic part about it. If she had insurance, she would have gone to the doctor."

Her roommate's mother said Young worked several jobs, none of which offered insurance. She eventually went to a public hospital's emergency room after showing signs of kidney failure and dehydration. In critical condition, she was soon after transferred to another facility, where she died.

Now, it's worth emphasizing that Young's illness may have been fatal whether she had insurance or not. Young's friends' observations have not yet been substantiated, and we don't know with certainty that Young did not seek medical treatment because of her lack of insurance.

But at this point, that's what it looks like. And as awful as Young's death is, her circumstances are hardly unique. Victor Zapanta added, "According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 30 percent of 19-24 year olds are uninsured, more than any other group. Despite the conservative argument that young people are voluntarily refusing health coverage in favor of extra spending money, the reality is that high costs on the individual market put coverage out of reach. As Suzy Khimm notes at Campus Progress, young people 'are far more likely to be working part-time or lower-paying jobs for employers who don't offer coverage.'"

Zachary Roth concluded, "[I]f Young's lack of insurance did contribute to her not seeking treatment sooner, it would be hard to find a starker or more compelling example of the need to fix our broken health insurance system. And the fact that she was a constituent of the man who's leading House Republicans' in their effort to block reform only underlines the point."

In every modern democracy on the planet, those who get sick don't have to put off treatment because they lack coverage. It's time the United States join them.

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is an interesting trend in American religiosity -- or in this case, the lack thereof. U.S. News' Dan Gilgoff reported this week on the growing numbers of a group some call the "nones."

If current trends continue, a quarter of Americans are likely to claim "no religion" in 20 years, according to a survey out today by Trinity College. Americans who identify with no religious tradition currently comprise 15 percent of the country, representing the fastest growing segment of the national religious landscape.

While the numbers portend a dramatic change for the American religious scene -- "religious nones" accounted for just 8 percent of the population in 1990 -- the United States is not poised to adopt the anti-religious posture of much of secularized Europe.

That's because American religious nones tend to be religious skeptics as opposed to outright atheists. Fewer than 10 percent of those identifying with no religious tradition call themselves atheists or hold atheistic beliefs, according to the new study.

"American nones are kind of agnostic and deistic, so it's a very American kind of skepticism," says Barry Kosmin, director of Trinity's Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture. "It's a kind of religious indifference that's not hostile to religion the way they are in France. Franklin and Jefferson would have recognized these people."

I tend to think "nones" won't stick as a label -- if for no other reason, it sounds like "nuns" -- but the trend is rather dramatic. And the impact on American politics is likely to be significant if we reach a point at which, in just one generation, a fourth of the U.S. population does not identify with any faith tradition.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Turnout at the "Islam on Capitol Hill" event was modest, with about 3,000 attendees. Some Christian protestors shouted at those praying, but the gathering was largely without incident and was considered a succcess by organizers.. "We wanted to bring people out to show you don't need to fear America," said Imam Ali Jaaber of Dar-ul-Islam mosque in Elizabeth N.J., the service's main organizer. At the same time, he said, he wanted to remind non-Muslims that "we are decent Muslims. We work; we pay taxes. We are Muslims who truly love this country."

* Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia chatted with the Brooklyn-based Orthodox Jewish newspaper Hamodia this week, and reiterated his opposition to the principle of government neutrality on religion. The conservative jurist said he believes the government should prefer religion to non-religion, state neutrality on religious matters, he said, "is not an accurate representation of what Americans believe." Scalia added, "I am not sure how Orthodox Jews feel about the Establishment Clause, but I assume they do not like driving God out of public life."

How would government staying neutral on matters of faith "drive God out of public life"? Scalia didn't say.

THE COMPANY THEY KEEP.... From time to time, if Democratic Party leaders/officials appear at a progressive event, there will be pushback from the right. Democratic VIPs, the argument goes, shouldn't associate themselves with the likes of MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, or Yearly Kos.

It's amusing, of course, because the left's agenda tends to be pretty mainstream, and there's no reason for Dems to keep the progressive base at arm's length. But it also raises a related point: it's exceedingly difficult for a conservative to be too crazy for the Republican Party.

Take the big right-wing gathering St. Louis today, for example.

For weeks now, we have been posting on the How To Take Back America Conference and the utter insanity that has long plagued the hosts of the conference, wondering why on earth Republican leaders like Mike Huckabee or Reps. Michele Bachmann, Steve King, Tom Price, Tom McClintock and Trent Franks are inexcusably lending credibility to this event and to its organizers.

To put this upcoming conference into perspective, let us put it this way: If you thought last week's Values Voter Summit -- where speakers called for public abortions, claimed that pornography turns you gay, proclaimed that gays and liberal Christians are enemies of God who deserve to be struck down, and announced that they had been chosen by God to stand for truth and suffer the consequences - was crazy ... well, you ain't seen nothing yet.

And so we have pulled together our years of monitoring of the people and organizations behind the upcoming How To Take Back America Conference and put it all together in our latest Right Wing Watch In Focus, entitled "Why Are GOP Officials Embracing Extremists at Upcoming 'How to Take Back America' Conference?"

Why, indeed. The radicals running the How To Take Back America Conference are so nutty, you'd think GOP lawmakers and leaders would want nothing to do with them.

Take Janet Folger Porter, for example, who's helping run the event. Porter, a leading right-wing activist and talk-show host, believes the United States is "cursed" for having elected President Obama, who took office as the result of a communist conspiracy. She's told her audience that the H1N1 flu vaccine is really a nefarious plot by the government to kill millions of Americans, and that the Obama administration is creating internment camps for conservatives.

Porter is just one of the truly unhinged conservatives who helped make this weekend's event a reality, along with other nutty activists like Phyllis Schlafly, Joseph Farah, Mat Staver, and Rick Scarborough.

Are Republicans keeping their distance? Some are, some aren't. Four sitting Republican members of Congress -- Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Steve King (Iowa), Tom Price (Ga.), and Tom McClintock (Calif.) -- will be addressing the conference today. Former presidential candidate and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) will headline the event this evening.

And no one seems to think much of it. There's an odd expectation that Republican officials will hang out with obviously insane right-wing activists, so it's not at all controversial for members of Congress to show up at an event like this one. Indeed, it's entirely ignored by the media because it seems so routine.

The How To Take Back America Conference doesn't have a liberal equivalent, but I suspect if radicals on the left threw a shindig like this one, and four Democratic members of Congress and a Democratic presidential candidate showed up, it'd generate a little more interest.

***Rep. Bachman's name has been corrected. --Mod

CANTOR'S PREDICAMENT.... Just five days ago, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told a group of constituents that his caucus agrees with 80% of the Democrats' health care reform plans. Four days later, however, he returned to the old, standard talking points.

[L]et's reset the health care debate and start from scratch. I believe this would help Washington regain the public's trust and would produce real and substantive health care reform. It would be foolhardy for the majority to continue to sidestep this important obligation.

Remember, Cantor is supposed to be one of the sharper minds in the Republican caucus.

That said, the befuddled Minority Whip is in a tough spot. At the same event in which he expressed four-fifths support for health care reform, Cantor was confronted by a constituent. She noted that she has a close relative in her early 40s. The friend had a lucrative career and great insurance, right up until she recently lost her job. A couple of weeks ago, she was diagnosed with stomach tumors and needs an operation soon, but she's no longer covered.

Cantor encouraged her to look to "existing government programs," adding, "No one in this country, given who we are, should be sitting without an option to be addressed."

Except, whether Cantor realizes it or not, he and his caucus are opposed to "existing government programs," and are fighting like crazy to make sure Americans don't have quality, affordable options. It's impossible to reconcile the GOP leader's rhetoric and policy positions.

Kevin Drum explained Cantor's insurmountable hurdle, and why the Minority Whip isn't following through on his promises to produce a Republican reform alternative.

...Cantor's problem is obvious: He can't provide a full-scale Republican plan because it's simply not possible to provide universal coverage without the government taking a big role in things. So he's stuck.... [T]hat's where we are these days: an awful lot of our most pressing problems simply can't be solved unless you accept that the government has to be involved. So conservatives are stuck.

The idea of "starting from scratch" is absurd, but even if policymakers were to consider it, the circumstances wouldn't change -- policymakers would still realize that a government solution is needed to address a pressing national challenge, and Cantor & Co. -- who's ideological opposition to government action outweighs practical solutions and common sense -- would still balk at the idea for philosophical reasons.

AN UNRIVALED EXPERT.... John McCain, via Twitter, around 3 p.m. yesterday:

We just learned of a third "undisclosed" nuclear facility in Iran...how many more are there?

John McCain, via Twitter, about a half-hour later:

opps - I meant two undisclosed nuclear sites NOT three...

Glenn Thrush added, "By 'opps' he meant 'oops,' I presume."

Remind me again why the producers of the Sunday morning shows consider McCain such an expert on foreign policy and national security?

FEMA EARNS PLAUDITS IN GEORGIA.... Many parts of Georgia have been devastated this week by what's been described as a "once in 500 years flood." It's affected 20 counties, killed at least nine people, and caused about $250 million in damages. Vice President Biden appeared alongside members of Congress and federal officials in an Atlanta suburb yesterday, where the American Red Cross had set up a shelter.

By all accounts, officials are responding effectively, and federal aid made available by the administration will be used for recovery programs, including temporary housing and low-cost loans. After a half-hour helicopter tour of the area, Biden vowed that there would be no "bureaucratic stalling and shuffling" as officials addressed the emergency.

I was also struck by the willingness of two very conservative Republican senators -- Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss -- to credit "the White House's quick response" and commend the administration's efforts.

Chambliss praised the Obama Administration for a response that was both "magnificent" and "quick." Isakson said he had spent last night on the phone with local officials, all of whom reported FEMA workers on the ground.

This is good to hear. I remember reports from 2006 about whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which had experienced some very high-profile failures, would ever recover. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) described FEMA three years ago as a "shambles and beyond repair." The agency that was widely recognized as a model of efficiency in the 1990s had become an example of what was wrong with the federal government. There was widespread talk of simply scrapping the entire agency and starting anew.

It appears now, however, that FEMA is back on track, operating as it should. It's encouraging.

BILL SPARKMAN'S GRUESOME DEATH.... As details emerge on the death of the slain Census worker in Kentucky, the story appears to be even more tragic than first reported.

Bill Sparkman juggled three part-time jobs and chemotherapy, and he was conscientious about keeping his schedule straight. So when he didn't show up for work at a day-care program Sept. 10, two days after he went out canvassing residents for the Census Bureau, a co-worker reported him missing.

Sparkman's body was found two days later beside a remote road near a small family cemetery in the Daniel Boone National Forest. His death initially garnered little attention, even in eastern Kentucky.

Then authorities revealed this week that a noose was found around his neck, and that he was hanging from a tree, his feet touching the ground. The word "Fed" was scrawled across the 51-year-old census taker's chest, according to the Clay County coroner.

Officials said Sparkman's body was found with his Census Bureau identification card taped to his head. An AP report added that he was "naked, gagged and had his hands and feet bound with duct tape."

As was the case earlier in the week, it's still worth emphasizing that this is an open investigation and additional information is needed before reaching any conclusions. Some of the earlier details have proven false -- Sparkman was not, for example, found hanging from a tree, as some initial reports suggested -- and our understanding of what actually happened may yet change again.

That said, what we've learned thus far is gruesome, and continues to raise the prospect of what may have been a politically-motivated slaying. Faiz Shakir added, "Regardless of what the motive for the killing may have been, why would a murderer(s) take such pains to so blatantly convey anger, fear, and vitriol towards a Census employee? Perhaps because some on the right have created an impression that Census employees are terrifying."

The record on that front is clear -- Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Glenn Beck, and Neal Boortz have invested considerable energy in trying to convince confused, right-wing activists that the Census and those who work for the Census Bureau are not to be trusted, and may even be dangerous.

Here's hoping that their reckless and irresponsible rhetoric did not have deadly consequences.

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

* The G20 is about as efficient as Congress: "A year after the panic that brought the world's financial system to the brink of collapse, the Group of 20 nations will now assume the role of a permanent council on global economic cooperation. But there is still no global regulatory framework to prevent another major market meltdown."

* On a related note, get used the G20 becoming the new standard global forum. President Obama prefers it to the G8, which will focus more on national security than economic issues.

* Georgia struggles with a "once in 500 years flood."

* More evidence for Inhofe and the deniers to ignore: "Climate researchers now predict the planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century even if the world's leaders fulfill their most ambitious climate pledges, a much faster and broader scale of change than forecast just two years ago."

* Remember the public-option fireworks planned for today? They've been delayed until Tuesday.

* The vaccine for H1N1 will be available in less than two weeks. "There will be enough vaccine for every American," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters at the White House.

* After being hospitalized briefly, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is ready to get back to work.

* Zachary Roth has been doing a great job keeping up on the circumstances surrounding the death of Bill Sparkman, the census worker found dead in Kentucky. The local coroner has confirmed that the word "Fed" was, in fact, written on Sparkman's chest.

* The U.S. Chamber of Commerce loses another member over its right-wing approach to climate change. This time, it's New Mexico's largest utility, PNM.

* Water, water everywhere. Yesterday, Earth's Moon. Today, Mars.

* Mark Kleiman recommends calling the public option Medicare Part E. Sounds good to me.

* The chimera of student opposition to SAFRA.

* There were some important flaws in Michael Gerson's column today.

* A.L. takes on the ACORN "stings."

* Yesterday, there was a conference call between Vice President Biden and governors of U.S. states and territories. The only no-show? Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R). Given his love of the stimulus, it's odd that he was the only one who didn't make time.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

GOP CASE REJECTED, KIRK SWORN IN.... Massachusetts Republicans hoped an 11th-hour lawsuit might prevent Paul Kirk from joining the Senate. That didn't work out.

A Suffolk Superior Court judge today rejected a request by the state Republican Party to block the appointment of Paul G. Kirk Jr. as interim US senator, clearing the way for the Democrat to take the oath of office this afternoon in Washington.

Judge Thomas Connolly ruled that the Republicans' claim was legally inadequate, noting in his four-page decision that, "the Party does not cite any case law in support of its argument." The GOP had maintained that Democratic Governor Deval Patrick overstepped his authority by declaring an emergency so Kirk's appointment could be made immediately. Connolly ruled, however, that the state Constitution clearly gave the governor the power to call for the immediate implementation of a law by sending the secretary of state a letter. [emphasis added]

"This court finds that the Party has not shown that it has a chance to succeed on the merits and therefore, any risk of harm to the Party will not outweigh the risk of harm to the Governor and the Commonwealth," Connolly wrote after deliberating for more than four hours.

Democrats noted that Mitt Romney, as governor, used the emergency provision 14 times during just one term, "including to increase the boating speed limit in Charlton and to change the office of town moderator in Milton."

If Patrick wants to use it to fill a Senate vacancy, it's hardly outrageous. And with literally no support in the law to support their case, Republicans apparently saw no value in appealing.

Kirk arrived in Washington this afternoon, and before heading to the Hill, visited Ted Kennedy's grave in Arlington National Cemetery. Soon after, with John Kerry by his side, Kirk was sworn into office by Vice President Biden.

ENSIGN PROMOTES TENTHER OPT-OUT.... You've no doubt heard about "Tenthers." They're the conservative Republicans, with a few too many adherents in Congress, who reject the federal government's authority to do much of anything based on a long-discredited, right-wing interpretation of the 10th Amendment.

Sen. John Ensign (R) of Nevada, the scandal-plagued conservative, apparently wants to look out for these Tenthers, who may get health coverage from Democrats' reform efforts. Ensign -- best known as the senator whose parents paid off his mistress -- made the case yesterday that Tenthers take constitutional law more seriously than sane people, and should therefore be excluded from individual mandates.

"We've allowed exceptions for religious and various other reasons. But some people hold the Constitution pretty high in their lives, and if they believe that this thing is unconstitutional, and they then say, 'I choose not to have health insurance, I'm not going to buy it,' we could be subjecting those very people who conscientiously -- because they believe in the U.S. Constitution -- we could be subjecting them to fines or the interpretation of a judge, potentially, all the way up to imprisonment. That seems to me to be a problem."

Ensign wasn't kidding. His basic pitch is that if you genuinely believe a law is unconstitutional, you should be exempt from following it, even if your genuine beliefs are ridiculous. Amanda Terkel did a nice job taking this absurd thinking apart, including a helpful reference to an Antonin Scalia ruling.

I'd only add that after three days of Senate Finance Committee hearings on reform, Ensign is proving himself to be hopelessly ridiculous. His big contribution to the debate yesterday was pushing an amendment that would force Nancy-Ann DeParle, the White House health reform director, from her job, unless the Senate voted specifically to let her advise the president on reform policy. DeParle, Ensign insisted, is a "czar," which is bad. Or something. (The committee rejected Ensign's proposal, but every Republican on the panel, including Olympia Snowe, supported it.)

Remember, as recently as last year, before his sex scandal, Ensign considered himself a likely presidential candidate in 2012.

KING OF THE NUTJOBS.... In the ongoing contest to see which House Republican is the single nuttiest, Rep. Steve King (R) of Iowa is making another run at the title.

The Madman from the Heartland has had quite a week. On Monday, King told The Hill that the best vote he ever cast was to deny emergency aid to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005.

On Tuesday, he appeared on a conservative talk show and said marriage equality is part of a broader "push for a socialist society." King added, "Not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis." I guess that means gay bureaucrats control the means of production?

He kept things going yesterday on the House floor, standing alongside Socialist Realist art to argue that President Obama is the leader of ACORN.

Today, however, was my personal favorite. King is apparently angry -- it's not clear why -- that President Obama is changing U.S. missile-defense policies in Europe. The White House is scrapping a Bush-era policy that didn't make sense, for a more effective anti-missile technology, with a better track record, and more flexibility, which will be implemented sooner. The move was endorsed by the Secretary of Defense and backed by the unanimous judgment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

King initially said the president is honoring the "Neville Chamberlain school of diplomacy or capitulation." The Iowa Republican added, "I was thinking about the situation of how it was that Hitler actually negotiated with the Russians for a while. It ended up with Poland being divided and a global war as a result."

So, as far as King is concerned, Obama is both Chamberlain and Hitler?

For that matter, if negotiating with Russia makes one Hitler-like, what does King have to say about Reagan holding talks with Russia -- when it was the Soviet Union?

Look out, Michele Bachmann. Steve King has his eyes on your crown.

THE FEDS WHO CRIED 'WOLF'.... Michael Crowley noted this morning, "It's a little weird that there hasn't been more alarm surrounding the apparently major Denver-based terror plot busted up by the feds in the past few days. Last night, ABC News reported that authorities believe Najibullah Zazi's may have co-plotters who are still at large."

We obviously need quite a bit more information about the Zazi case, but given what we know, it's a fair point. There are reports that this alleged terrorist plot may be "the most serious in years." If the allegations are true, "Zazi, a legal immigrant from Afghanistan, had carefully prepared for a terrorist attack. He attended a Qaeda training camp in Pakistan, received training in explosives and stored in his laptop computer nine pages of instructions for making bombs from the same kind of chemicals he had bought."

So, where's the freak-out? Jason Zengerle offers a compelling explanation.

Part of it is the crying wolf phenomenon: After so many supposedly big-deal domestic terrorism arrests turned out to be what NYU law school's Karen J. Greenberg calls "fantasy terrorism cases" (Padilla, the Liberty City Six, the Lackawanna Six, etc.), I think a lot of people have just become inured to this sort of thing, not to mention skeptical.

Right. I used to maintain a list of the "thwarted" Bush-era terrorist plots that, as additional information came to light, were not even close to what they appeared to be initially. The plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge wasn't quite what it was cracked up to be. Jose Padilla was not actually prepared to detonate a dirty bomb in DC. The plot by the "Seas of David" cult in Miami -- billed by Dick Cheney as being "a very real threat" -- wasn't a very real threat. The facts of the British hijacking plot didn't stand up well to scrutiny, while the plot to attack Los Angeles' Library Tower turned out to be far less serious than we'd been led to believe. Eventually, I gave up -- there were just too many.

Periodically, the Bush administration would, to significant fanfare, claim to have made a major counter-terrorism breakthrough. They'd hold press conferences, and pat one another on the back. Invariably, the claims crumbled upon scrutiny, which only fueled cynicism.

When there is a significant story, we're understandably hesitant.

I should add, of course, that it's certainly possible that the Zazi case may, in time, fall into the same category. The facts appear horrifying -- the suspect is believed to have the intent, training, and materials to launch a serious attack -- but time will tell. Karen Greenberg, executive director of the Center on Law and Security at New York University law school, said, the Zazi case "actually looks like the case the government kept claiming it had but never did." She added that "the ingredients here are quite scary."

But unlike the Bush era, the Obama team has skipped "the bombast and exaggeration" that was the standard operating procedure of the previous administration.

It's nice having grown-ups running the place for a change.

IF COSTS ARE THE MAIN CONCERN.... Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.), the co-chair of the Blue Dog caucus, has been trying to determine the specific priorities of the other center-right Democrats. She's found that the public option isn't at the top of the list. "I understand the media's focus on the public option, but for the Blue Dogs right now it's much more on cost," Herseth Sandlin said.

I'm glad to hear that. Because as Ezra Klein noted, the Congressional Budget Office has found that adding a public option to the health care system, and paying Medicare reimbursement rates, "will save even more money than originally thought." Congress Daily reported, "In total, a public plan based on Medicare rates would save $110 billion over 10 years," $20 billion more than earlier estimates.

Ezra added, "In other words, the conservatives want to spend $85 billion more than the liberals do."

Kevin Drum highlighted ancillary benefits throughout the system:

[A] public option would save anywhere between $2 billion and $11 billion per year depending on whether or not it's based on Medicare rates. That's savings to the government, and it's based on the fact that the public option would lower the cost of insurance and the feds would therefore have to pay lower subsidies to low-income households buying coverage under the individual mandate. However, if the private plans lower their prices to compete with the public option, then everyone buying insurance would save money, not just low-income families, and the total cost savings to consumers would be much higher.

For those who believe holding down costs and fiscal responsibility are key, it seems like the public option should be a no-brainer.

Also note that while poll numbers are always in flux, support for the public option remains quite strong. The NYT/CBS poll released today found 65% support a public health insurance option -- up five points from the last NYT/CBS poll -- and more people would oppose a health care plan without a public option than favor, 40% to 38%.

For that matter, a plurality of self-identified Republicans also expressed their support for the public option, and support among independents was better than two to one. And that's after months of conservatives trashing the idea on a daily basis.

As the debate heats up, we're learning that most of the public supports the same provision that would save all of us money. Maybe Congress should pass it.

STABENOW 1, KYL 0.... As a rule, if a senator is pushing back against a colleague's rhetoric, and references the other senator's mother, it would be a fairly dramatic breach of protocol. But that's not always the case.

Igor Volsky reports today that Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) has been pushing an amendment to "prohibit the government from defining which benefits should be included in a standard benefit package." Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) noted that basic maternity care ought to be required.

"I don't need maternity care," Kyl replied. "So requiring that on my insurance policy is something that I don't need and will make the policy more expensive."

Interrupting him, Stabenow added, "I think your mom probably did."

It generated laughter in the hearing room, and with good reason, but it's worth emphasizing why Kyl's argument is worthy of derision. In the hopes of making insurance cheaper, Kyl is comfortable with not covering basic maternity care. The status quo -- only 21 states require insurers to provide maternity care benefits -- is just fine with the #2 senator in the GOP leadership. If discriminatory practices boost industry profits, it's just the free market working as it should.

Kyl's measure was defeated, 14 to 9. That nine Republicans voted for it says a great deal about how the GOP is approaching the reform debate.

AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO USE TORTURE.... A few weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto insisted that President Obama prefers a "see-no-evil approach," has decided not to "worry so much about terrorism."

It was, at the time, an unusually foolish observation, but given the Obama administration's recent success stories on counter-terrorism, Taranto's inane criticism continues to look even worse.

We learned of another success story this morning out of Dallas. (via Blue Girl)

A 19-year-old Jordanian citizen is expected to make an appearance before a federal magistrate in Dallas this morning after authorities accused him of attempting to blow up a downtown Dallas skyscraper.

Hosam Maher Husein Smadi was arrested Thursday after he parked a vehicle laden with government-supplied fake explosives in the underground parking garage of Fountain Place, a 60-story tower in the 1400 block of Ross Avenue at North Field Street, authorities said.

The arrest was part of an FBI sting operation that began after an agent monitoring an online extremist Web site discovered Smadi espousing jihad against the U.S. more than six months ago.

As more undercover Arabic-speaking agents engaged him, Smadi, living illegally in the U.S. in the small town of Italy, about 45 miles south of Dallas, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and expressed a desire to kill Americans, authorities said.

In conversations with agents posing as members of an al-Qaeda sleeper cell, Smadi said he came to the U.S. to wage jihad, or holy war. He told agents he wanted to target military recruitment centers, but eventually settled on financial institutions.

Remember, Republicans openly mock those who believe intelligence gathering and law enforcement are the keys to counter-terrorism.

The story out of Dallas coincides with new reports out of Denver on the Najibullah Zazi case: "The accumulating evidence against a Denver airport shuttle driver suggests he may be different, with some investigators calling his case the most serious in years.... If government allegations are to be believed, Mr. Zazi, a legal immigrant from Afghanistan, had carefully prepared for a terrorist attack. He attended a Qaeda training camp in Pakistan, received training in explosives and stored in his laptop computer nine pages of instructions for making bombs from the same kind of chemicals he had bought."

These stories come the same week as the arrest of Michael C. Finton, also known as Talib Islam, who was apprehended "attempting to detonate what he thought was a bomb inside a van outside a federal courthouse in the Illinois capital of Springfield."

And of all this comes on the heels of U.S. forces taking out Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan in Somalia, and Baitullah Mehsud, the top leader of the Taliban in Pakistan and a key al Qaeda ally.

To reiterate a point from a couple of weeks ago, if all of these developments had occurred in 2008, I suspect the White House would be releasing photos of Dick Cheney and Bill Kristol chest-bumping each other on the South Lawn.

Steve M. added, "Odd that this is all happening while we supposedly have a president who loves our enemies and hates America.... Isn't it high time we demanded an explanation of this apparent contradiction from those who literally believe Obama is a treasonous America-hater?"

And Adam Serwer tweeted, "Somehow, the government foiled several terrorist plots this week without waterboarding anyone."

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.

* A new InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research poll shows Bob McDonnell's (R) lead over Creigh Deeds in Virginia's gubernatorial race down to just 4 points, 51% to 47%.

* A Democracy Corps poll shows Chris Christie's (R) lead over New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) down to just one point, 40% to 39%, with independent Chris Daggett third with 11%.

* In a setback for Deeds' campaign in Virginia, former Gov. Douglas Wilder (D) is ignoring a direct request from President Obama and declining to back the Democratic nominee.

* A new Rasmussen poll in California shows incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) with 10-point leads over her top GOP challengers. Boxer is, however, below the 50% threshold.

* Speaking of California, Meg Whitman's (R) gubernatorial campaign is getting off to a rough start, in light of revelations that she's hardly ever voted in her adult life.

* A couple of new polls show former New York Gov. George Pataki (R) as a credible challenger for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) next year.

* Speaking of New York, a Marist College poll shows most voters want to see Gov. David Paterson (D) skip next year's election, but they also don't want the White House to pressure him.

* While most recent polls showed Democratic candidates faring well in next year's Senate race in Ohio, a new Rasmussen poll shows former Bush budget director Rod Portman (R) with narrow leads over the top Dems.

* Massachusetts voters are still down on Gov. Deval Patrick (D), but they're not exactly ready to vote for a Republican, either.

* The upcoming special election in New York's 23rd may be a three-way contest between a moderate Dem, a moderate Republican, and a far-right Republican with backing from the Club for Growth.

* In Illinois' Senate race, Alexi Giannoulias (D) has earned the SEIU's endorsement.

* And speaking of Illinois, former state GOP chairman Andy McKenna is now running for governor.

100 DAYS ALREADY?.... In the latest New York Times poll, respondents were asked, "So you think the Republicans have clearly explained their plans for changing the health care system? The vast majority -- 76% -- said they have not, while 14% said they have.

I have no idea what those in the 14% minority were thinking.

As regular readers know, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters in July that GOP lawmakers were putting "the final touches on our bill," which, he said, would hopefully be available "soon." That was 64 days ago.

As it turns out, Dems on the Hill have been using a different baseline, and consider today a milestone.

House Democrats are marking today as the 100-day anniversary of House Republicans promising to produce their own alternative health reform bill as part of their larger effort to shed the Party of No label.

"I guarantee you we will provide you with a bill," said Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), the point man on the alternative plan, on June 17.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) tells POLITICO, "It's been 100 days since they promised they would unveil their own proposals -- where are they?... What positive alternatives have they come up with?"

Well, actually none. Their "guarantees" are about as reliable as their policy prescriptions.

Asked for an explanation, a spokesperson for House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) blasted Van Hollen, but didn't answer the question. Two weeks ago, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) was asked where the Republican plan is, and he dodged it, too.

That said, on Monday, Cantor said a GOP reform alternative is on the way. If you believe that, I have some death panels I'd love to sell you.

To be sure, I don't necessarily blame Republicans for refusing to unveil an alternative health care plan. Producing a GOP reform proposal would not only give Democrats a target, it would offer people a chance to compare the two approaches. In a side-by-side match-up, it's hardly a stretch to think the Dems would come out on top.

What's more, the Republican track record on alternative solutions is truly abysmal. The GOP budget alternative was a humiliating failure (you may recall, it lacked numbers). The GOP stimulus alternative -- tax cuts and a five-years spending freeze -- was so ridiculous, even some conservatives labeled it "insane." With this in mind, there's no need for the party to humiliate itself with a health care plan.

But this route is not without costs. For one thing, it's now that much easier to characterize the minority as the "party of no."

For another, in light of the "guarantees" that Republicans would produce a bill, it's further evidence that the GOP isn't to be trusted to keep its word.

A HARD PERCEPTION TO BREAK, REDUX.... The latest New York Times/CBS News poll offers quite a bit of discouraging news for Republicans hoping to defeat health care reform and undermine the Obama presidency. There's just one catch.

President Obama's approval rating remains quite strong at 56%, and his handling of health care has improved seven points since August. Nearly two-thirds of the country (65%) would like to see a public option as part of health care reform, which is up five points over the last month.

While the numbers for Democrats aren't as strong as they were, Republicans haven't been able to capitalize at all. For example, most respondents maintain a favorable impression of Democrats (47% favorable, 41% unfavorable), while the GOP fares far worse (30% favorable, 57% unfavorable). Asked who can be trusted to make the right decisions, President Obama's lead over congressional Republicans is nearly two to one (53% to 27%).

More than three out of four believe Republicans have not explained what they would do to improve the system, and while a clear majority believes President Obama has tried to work with the GOP, a clear majority believes the GOP has not done the same with the White House. What's more, 64% believe Republicans are fighting against health care reform for purely political reasons, not because of principle.

So, what's the catch? Americans don't like and don't trust the GOP, but they want to see Democrats work with them anyway.

The poll finds that an overwhelming majority of 64% think Republicans are opposing Obama's health care plans mostly for political reasons. But it also finds that an equally large number, 65%, say Democrats shouldn't pass a bill without Republicans -- even if they think it's right for the country -- and should instead compromise to win over some GOPers.

This shows, I think, that Democrats have convinced the public that the GOP wants Obama and Dems to fail at all costs. But they've failed to make the case to the public that GOP obstructionism may leave them no choice but to go it alone in order to realize reform.

This is the third major national poll to find the same result on this in the last couple of weeks.

It continues to put the majority in an awkward situation. Americans don't trust GOP lawmakers on the issue, and don't think Republicans have been acting in good faith, but the public can't quite shake the impression that good bills are "bipartisan" bills, and that legislative consensus may actually be more important than legislative quality.

My only advice to the governing majority? Ignore this. Americans are, for whatever reasons, predisposed to support bipartisan lawmaking. But this is an impossible task -- Republicans don't support reform and aren't willing to make concessions. If Dems make the bill worse, on purpose, just to pick up a few GOP votes, it's likely voters will be far less satisfied with reform when it's implemented.

Pass a good bill and let the policy speak for itself.

U.S., ALLIES POINT TO SECRET IRANIAN NUKE FACILITY.... A big story out of Pittsburgh this morning.

President Obama and the leaders of Britain and France accused Iran on Friday of building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel, saying the country hid the covert operation from international weapons inspectors for years.

The revelation, which the three leaders made before the opening of the Group of 20 economic summit here, adds urgency to the diplomatic confrontation with Iran over its suspected ambitions to build a nuclear weapons capacity. Mr. Obama, flanked by Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, demanded in a Friday morning news conference that Iran allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct an immediate inspection of the facility, which is said to be 100 miles southwest of Tehran.

"The existence of this facility underscores Iran's unwillingness to cooperate" with international rules governing peaceful nuclear development, Mr. Obama said. "The Iranian government must now demonstrate in deeds its peaceful intentions, or be held accountable," he said.

Brown added that Iran's "level of deception ... will shock and anger the whole international community."

The Iranian facility, built inside a mountain 100 miles southwest of Tehran, has been on American officials' radar for years, but is not yet in operation. Iranian officials realized this week that the secrecy surrounding the facility had been breached, so they quietly told the IAEA, in a brief and vague letter, about a "pilot plant" it's building. Iran insists its up-until-recently secret site has peaceful purposes; President Obama said this morning that its size and capabilities suggest otherwise.

This morning's remarks are intended, not only to press Iran and press the IAEA to act, but also to help lay the diplomatic groundwork for sanctions against Iran, which Ahmadinejad has made easier by getting caught lying.

Of particular interest is Russia, which has been more than a little reluctant to punish Iran. Obama spoke at length to President Dmitri Medvedev about Iran, and given Russia's new found satisfaction with the U.S. administration -- Obama's move away from the Bush-era missile-defense policy was extremely well received -- Russia's leadership is now reportedly far more open to sanctions against Iran. Indeed, Medvedev seems to consider sanctions "inevitable."

That's a significant shift from Russia's previous position, and suggests President Obama's strategy in improving relations with the country is paying valuable dividends.

As for the next step, the IAEA is demanding additional information. Just as important, next week in Geneva, representatives of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Germany, and Iran will meet, and Obama noted this morning that there's now an increased "sense of urgency" surrounding the discussions.

Update: A good item from Marc Lynch on the strategy behind this morning's announcement.

RIGHT LIVID OVER 'ISLAM ON CAPITOL HILL' EVENT.... It's gone largely under the media radar, but in Washington today, tens of thousands of Muslim Americans are expected to gather to pray as part of the "Islam on Capitol Hill" event. To say that the religious right is concerned about this would be something of an understatement.

Staffers might hear something more than the usual buzzing and ringing as Members are called to votes Friday; they'll also hear the call to midday prayer as a large group of Muslims gathers to pray on the West Front of the Capitol.

Hassen Abdellah, a criminal lawyer who has served as president of the Dar-ul-Islam mosque in Elizabeth, N.J., since 1997, organized Muslims from around the country to pray peacefully outside the Capitol.

Organizers are planning for as many as 50,000 Muslims to gather on the West Front.

The event has no stated political agenda, and no elected officials are expected to attend. Abdellah has simply called on people to come to the Capitol to "pray for peace and understanding between America and its Muslim community."

So, what's the problem? In reality, there isn't one. But in the active imaginations of religious right leaders, the "Islam on Capitol Hill" gathering is grounds for quite a tantrum.

Right Wing Watch has been chronicling the reactions from Christian right leaders all week, and the panic has become more palpable as the week has progressed. The Family Research Council believes today's participants may "pray for shari'ah law to come to America," so Christians' efforts to convert Muslims should "accelerate." Wallbuilders' David Barton warned that today's event undermines Christianity's place at the top of the heap in America. The National Day of Prayer Task Force warned of "a dark spiritual intent and a coming day of great trouble to America." A group called Operation Save America intends to send members to the Hill to wage some kind of spiritual battle. A variety of religious right leaders quickly created The Ad Hoc Committee of Americans for Transparency and Honesty in Religion to demand that organizers of today's event denounce acts of terrorism.

"I don't understand. This is a simple event. All we want to do is pray," Abdellah said. "In America, name one event where Christians tried to pray and Muslims disrupted it."

That kind of reasonable thinking doesn't work when dealing with the religious right movement. It never has; it never will.

BIG DAY FOR THE PUBLIC OPTION.... Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), two of the leading proponents of an ambitious and progressive health care reform effort, will be leading the charge today in the Senate Finance Committee on a public option. On a conference call yesterday, they sounded surprisingly optimistic.

"The health care bill that is signed into law by the President will have a good, strong, robust public option," Schumer said.

How that will happen remains an open question. But the Senators assured reporters on the call that we're all going to get a taste of their passion and persuasiveness on this issue at the ongoing Senate Finance Committee hearings on Friday.

"I think it's a great idea," Rockefeller said of the public option. "Chuck Schumer thinks it's a great idea. And we're going to be all over it tomorrow."

Schumer said there will be a "full-blown debate" and that "even though the public option might be the underdog in the Senate Finance Committee, don't count it out."

"Tomorrow is the opening day in our big fight," he said.

That sounds pretty exciting, but if I were a betting man, I wouldn't put money on the public option getting out of the Finance Committee. Rockefeller said there's a "good shot" that the panel will approve the measure. I'm not sure how -- Dems have a 13-10 margin on the committee, but at least two Dems (Conrad and Lincoln) oppose the provision, and even Chairman Max Baucus is likely to vote against it. Indeed, it's long been assumed that the public option has no shot in the committee, and would have to be considered later in the process.

Nevertheless, spirited support for the measure is welcome, and if/when it falls short today, we can expect Schumer and Rockefeller to push even more aggressively if/when the bill progresses.

What's more, they certainly won't be the only ones. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said on MSNBC yesterday that he, too, is optimistic about the public option's chances. "Not every Democrat right now would prefer the public option in the Senate," Brown told Ed Schultz, "but no Democrat in the end is going to vote against a procedural question to kill the health care bill." I wish I could say I share his confidence.

As for the House, the leadership is still in an awkward spot -- keep the public option and lose Blue Dogs, scrap the public option and lose the left. Ryan Grim had a very interesting report late yesterday on the Blue Dog whip count, which showed many center-right Democrats with higher priorities than this one provision.

"Blocking a public health insurance option is a relatively low priority for conservative Blue Dog Democrats, according to an ongoing survey of its members," Grim reported. "The fading House opposition could clear the way for the public option to move through the chamber."

HUMANA PULLS GOP LEADERSHIP'S STRINGS.... During yesterday's Senate Finance Committee debate on health care reform, a frustrated Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) noted that the private insurance industry is "running certain people" in the Senate.

It's demonstrably true. Consider this week's controversy surrounding Humana, one of the nation's leading private insurers. The company opposes policymakers finding cost savings though reducing unnecessary spending in Medicare Advantage -- it would undermine their profits -- so it began lobbying its customers with misleading propaganda. Because Humana receives a whole lot of public funds, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services instructed Humana to stop its taxpayer-subsidized misinformation campaign.

Republicans threw a fit on Tuesday, and ratcheted things up late yesterday.

The rhetorical war over an alleged attempt by Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the Obama administration to "muzzle" insurance companies critical of their health care plan intensified Thursday, with Republicans accusing Democrats of violating federal guidelines and threatening to filibuster a host of executive branch nominations. [...]

In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, top Senate Republicans demanded that HHS immediately lift the "gag order" and warned that they would filibuster any HHS nominees until she does so.

According to Roll Call, the administration has five pending HHS nominees awaiting Senate approval, and five more vacancies awaiting nominations. The entire Senate Republican leadership team wants to block any and all consideration of these nominees until Humana is allowed to start using tax dollars to mislead seniors again.

"This is pretty simple," a senior Democratic Senate aide said. "All the GOP spinning in the world can't hide the fact that Republicans continue to protect big insurance companies who mislead seniors. This latest attempt is bizarre and untrue pushback -- CMS has always said providers can communicate with their beneficiaries as long as it's done in an accurate and truthful way. The letter from Humana clearly wasn't -- it was both false and misleading. CMS did the right thing protecting seniors from these scare tactics."

GOP lawmakers generally avoid acting like they've been bought and paid for, which makes this week's tantrum in support of Humana propaganda so foolish. We're talking about an insurer, which has seen its annual profits soar nine-fold this decade, and which recently had to settle fraud and racketeering cases. McConnell & Co. are going to the wall to fight for its ability to engage in publicly-funded lying?

As of last night, the Obama administration said it's ignoring the Republican leadership's demands. Here's hoping officials stick to their guns on this.

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

* Good start: "President Obama presided over the United Nations Security Council on Thursday as it unanimously passed a resolution aimed at shoring up the international commitment to limiting the spread of nuclear weapons, in particular halting the diversion of nuclear material for bomb development."

* I don't imagine this'll be the last word on the subject: "The Senate Finance Committee rejected a Democratic amendment to its healthcare bill that would have expanded prescription-drug coverage to people on Medicare."

* Najibullah Zazi gets indicted: "The Justice Department announced Thursday that a 24-year-old immigrant from Afghanistan has been indicted on a charge of conspiring to use "weapons of mass destruction" against targets in the United States, and federal prosecutors sought his indefinite detention without bail."

* What's the latest on the census worker found dead in Kentucky? Zachary Roth summarizes the latest.

* Predictable: "The Massachusetts Republican Party has gone to court in an attempt to stop the appointment of Paul Kirk to the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat."

* Let's put Speaker Pelosi down as a "no" on a public-option "trigger."

* HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebilius makes clear that flu vaccines will be voluntary. Don't believe anyone who says otherwise.

* Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) notices that some of his GOP colleagues are pawns of the health insurance industry.

* Gen. Stanley McChrystal says "there's no rift" with the White House and he isn't resigning.

* Better than it sounds: "The Obama administration has decided not to seek new legislation from Congress authorizing the indefinite detention of about 50 terrorism suspects being held without charges at at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, officials said Wednesday." Glenn Greenwald explains why this is good news.

* New optimism on an AIDS vaccine?

* Consequences of the missile-defense shift: "Hmm, Russian president Medvedev certainly sounds more open to sanctions against Iran than his foreign minister did a couple of weeks ago. I wonder what might explain that."

* ACORN heads to court.

* On a related note: "The community organizing group ACORN is under review by a Treasury Department inspector general as part of an investigation into the Internal Revenue Service's oversight of non-profit organizations."

* Journalism school enrollment is soaring even as the industry is tanking.

* Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) heads home from the hospital.

* Media Matters highlights RedState.org's "deep, shadowy connections with ACORN."

* Water on the moon. Cool.

* I'd encourage the White House to put Vice President Biden in front of more seniors, more often.

* Quote of the Day, from Matt Yglesias: "I was out on the Hamburg cocktail party circuit last night and mentioned to a German woman that an American Senator had been mentioning Germany as an example of a country where government doesn't run the health care system. Well, she laughed pretty hard at that idea. I tried to explain to her that he's a really important Senator, known for being sharper than some of his colleagues on the Finance Committee and then it turned into more one of those rueful laughs."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

BECK FACES BACKLASH -- FROM THE RIGHT.... As right-wing media personality Glenn Beck has grown in influence, conservative criticism has been, at best, muted.

In early August, Rep. Bob Inglis (R) of South Carolina, who isn't exactly a moderate, encouraged his constituents to "turn the TV off" and stop listening to Glenn Beck. The audience booed the conservative congressman relentlessly. A week later, David Frum, a conservative pundit and former Bush speechwriter, suggested Beck's rhetoric may be, quite literally, dangerous.

But these remarks were largely overlooked, and were not echoed by other conservatives. It seems, however, that we're starting to see a change.

On Tuesday, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough blasted Beck, and argued that the Fox News personality may be fomenting violence. "You cannot preach hatred," Scarborough said. "You cannot say the president is racist. You cannot say things that have very deadly consequences." He added, in an apparent reference to the Oklahoma City bombing, "I was in Congress in 1995. I know where this can end." Scarborough also called on Republican leaders to "call out" Becks' "hatred."

Right-wing radio host Mark Levin called Beck "pathetic." Rush Limbaugh referred to Beck's role in promoting conservative protests as "cheap and disingenuous." Peter Wehner said Beck's "interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting" and his daily attacks are "not good for the country." Wehner called Beck a "roiling mix of fear, resentment, and anger." Conservative columnists Kathleen Parker and David Brooks told Chris Matthews that Beck is "baiting" and "empowering" racists.

Today, Levin said of Beck:

"If you're not going to be politically sensible and have a strategy and have an end-game, you'll keep winding up on weekly magazines, you'll keep making a lot of money, but in the end you won't make a difference."

It's interesting to watch Beck's ideological cohorts (competitors?) trash the self-described "rodeo clown." In fact, it seems as if Beck may be marginalizing himself in a way that will, if we're all really lucky, make him permanently toxic to those who take politics seriously.

For that matter, it should send a signal to mainstream outlets: don't let Beck become your assignment editor. Even conservatives think he's nuts.

THE EFFECTS OF JOB LOCK.... When making the case for health care reform, it's often hard to know where to start, and what to emphasize. To his credit, President Obama frequently tries to make the point about the ways in which the status quo undermines businesses and entrepreneurship.

In his address to a joint session a couple of weeks ago, for example, while emphasizing rising costs, the president reminded lawmakers, "It's why so many employers -- especially small businesses -- are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally -- like our automakers -- are at a huge disadvantage."

Andrew Sullivan heard from a reader who helped drive the entrepreneurship point home.

I'm an American who has also decided to leave the US ... because of my concerns over healthcare. You see, my European wife has a chronic disease that worsened soon after we moved to the U.S. two years ago. I have insurance, but with a sick wife and two children, our bills are quite high. Worse, should I ever change jobs, or get fired, I have no doubt our insurer would drop us, or at least dramatically increase our premiums.

I'm a senior exec in a software company. I've always wanted to run my own company, and I have an idea that I think will work.

But we'll move back to Europe before I take that risk. In the U.S., I just cannot be without healthcare for any length of time. I wonder how many other potential entrepreneurs are discouraged from striking out on their own for this very reason?

At the Washington Monthly, we wondered the same thing.

In May, we ran a great item on this from MIT economic professor Jonathan Gruber in a special feature on entrepreneurship. Gruber's piece detailed the problem of "job lock," the phenomenon that traps workers in a job that offers health coverage, and prevents many small businesses from even opening.

Over the past fifteen years, dozens of studies have documented the detrimental impact that job lock has on the economy. These studies typically compare the mobility of workers who are at firms with insurance but do not have an alternative source of coverage (such as spousal insurance or COBRA continuation coverage) to those who do have an alternative source of coverage should they leave the firm. The studies find that mobility is much higher when workers do not have to fear losing coverage; job-to-job mobility is estimated to increase by as much as 25 percent when alternative group coverage is available. [...]

There are fewer direct studies of the impact of job lock on entrepreneurship. But the most convincing research, by Alison Wellington, mirrors the findings of other job mobility studies: Americans who have an alternative source of health insurance, such as a spouse's coverage, are much more likely to be self-employed than those who don't. Wellington estimates that universal health care would therefore likely increase the share of workers who are self-employed (currently about 10 percent of the workforce) by another 2 percent or more. A system that provides universal access to health insurance coverage, then, is far more likely to promote entrepreneurship than one in which would-be innovators remain tied to corporate cubicles for fear of losing their family's access to affordable health care.

Ezra Klein, after noting Gruber's piece, also raised an important point: "It's also unclear how internalized this is: We may just have a culture in which people who care about health-care coverage don't think about becoming entrepreneurs, as they know perfectly well that they can't sacrifice the safety provided by a large employer. You've heard of learned helplessness? This is learned corporatism. A culture in which people didn't worry about health-care costs might also be a culture in which they were more willing to consider occupational risks."

From a purely political perspective, the Republican Party has tried to position itself as champions of small businesses and entrepreneurs. In this sense, they should be the leading champions of health care reform -- it's a hindrance on innovation and Americans' ability to compete on the global stage.

STEPHANOPOULOS: 'NO APOLOGIES'.... Following up on an earlier item, ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" will feature yet another interview with John McCain on Sunday. It will be the failed presidential candidate's third appearance on "This Week" since early May, and his 13th Sunday show appearance since President Obama's inauguration.

Greg Sargent spoke to Stephanopoulos about this today, and the host presented his defense.

"Our show this week is focused on Afghanistan and foreign policy. Our lead guest is the President's Defense Secretary (after a week where the President was our only guest). McCain is the leading GOP voice on Afghanistan. We think it's important for our viewers to hear that perspective.... For a show focusing on Afghanistan, he is easily the right GOP guest. No apologies for inviting him."

Some of this is reasonable, some of it less so. I'm delighted "This Week" is focusing on Afghanistan and foreign policy, and it's to be expected that the show would balance the administration's Pentagon chief with a conservative Republican reaction. (It's tempting to argue that the conservative Republican perspective isn't entirely relevant right now, since McCain and his allies have been discredited, have been removed from power, and have no meaningful influence over the policy outcome, but let's put that aside.)

But there's no reason to assume that McCain is the "leading GOP voice on Afghanistan." Not only are there plenty of other Republicans who approach the issue with the same perspective, but McCain has never demonstrated any particular expertise on Afghanistan -- on the contrary, he has a record of confusion on the war. During the presidential campaign, for example, McCain was both for and against sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan. His most noteworthy contribution to the debate was arguing in 2003 that "we may muddle through in Afghanistan," whatever that means.

If McCain is a "leading" voice on the conflict, it's only because the media keeps calling on him to talk about it. It's entirely self-fulfilling -- the media gives McCain the stage, and justifies the decision by pointing to how often he's on the stage.

Greg went on to ask Stephanopoulos whether, as a journalist, it's overkill for the Sunday morning shows to have McCain on 13 times in eight months. Stephanopoulos didn't want to answer, responding, "No comment on that."

Perhaps Stephanopoulos will be able to elaborate when he invites McCain back onto the program in October. And then again in December, and February, and....

CONRAD'S MESSAGE TO THE LEFT.... Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), the Senate Budget Committee chairman and a member of the unsuccessful Gang of Six effort, raised a few eyebrows this week with a message for his "progressive friends."

Conrad, a consistent opponent of the public option, wanted liberals to know "government-run programs" aren't necessary to lower costs and expand access. He explained that he'd finished reading T.R. Reid's "The Healing of America" over the weekend, and learned Germany, Japan, Switzerland, France, and Belgium are doing just fine. "[A]ll of them contain costs, have universal coverage, have very high quality care and yet are not government-run systems," Conrad said.

It was an odd thing to say, and reflects some important confusion about these international systems. As Ezra Klein explained, "In France, for instance, the government provides all basic insurance coverage directly. In Germany, insurers aren't permitted to make a profit. In Japan, health insurance is publicly provided, and private insurance is available only to ease co-payments or cover services that the government leaves out."

Zaid Jilani added, "France has had a public insurance system that covers all of its citizens since 1945. Known as Securite Sociale (social security), their public insurance program accounts for nearly 75 percent of total health expenditures in France, and people have the option of buying complementary private health insurance if they'd like. In its most recent ranking of health care systems, the World Health Organization concluded that France has the best health care system in the world."

Matt Yglesias noted that in Germany, consumers are required to purchase coverage from one of many non-profit "sickness funds" that are regulated by the government. "It's true that this meets a technical definition of 'not government-run.'" Matt explained. "But the extent to which the Germany system isn't government run doesn't extend to dealing with any of the concerns of private industry. Which is fine by me, but nothing in Conrad's talk of co-ops and such has suggested that he's serious trying to put for-profit health insurance out of business, which is exactly what the German model does."

But I think Kevin Drum was perhaps the most succinct in summarizing the problem with the senator's remarks.

This has been sort of rattling around in my head ever since I saw it, but I couldn't quite put my finger on what I wanted to say about it. But then I figured it out: it's completely, 100% batshit crazy. I mean, is this actually breaking news to Conrad after (excuse me a moment while I google) 22 years in the Senate? WTF?

Believe me: Conrad's "progressive friends" would be punch drunk with ecstasy if the United States adopted the healthcare system of (take your pick) Japan, France or Germany. It would be beyond our wildest dreams. Does Conrad really not know this? Did he only find out this weekend that those other countries have terrific healthcare systems that contain costs, provide universal coverage, and boast very high-quality care?

Conrad's efforts to impress the blogosphere will have to wait for another day.

TAKING POLICY SERIOUSLY.... There's been an odd trend in recent months in which mainstream media outlets criticize President Obama for caring too much about public policy. I tend to find it a refreshing change of pace after the Bush era to have a curious, intellectually engaged leader, but a surprising number of observers feel differently.

MSNBC's First Read, for example, recently suggested the president "knows too much" about health care policy. Soon after, the Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Weisman also complained that the president cares too much about policy details.

David Broder raises a similar point today, riffing off a piece from William Schambra in National Affairs. Broder, relying on a conservative writer, who works for a conservative think tank, and was published by a conservative journal, highlights "the 'sheer ambition' of Obama's legislative agenda."

[Schambra] traces the roots of this approach to the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.... The progressives believed that the cure lay in applying the new wisdom of the social sciences to the art of government, an approach in which facts would heal the clash of ideologies and narrow constituencies.

Obama -- a highly intelligent product of elite universities -- is far from the first Democratic president to subscribe to this approach. Jimmy Carter, and especially Bill Clinton, attempted to govern this way. But Obama has made it even more explicit, regularly proclaiming his determination to rely on rational analysis, rather than narrow decisions, on everything from missile defense to Afghanistan -- and all the big issues at home.

"In one policy area after another," Schambra writes, "from transportation to science, urban policy to auto policy, Obama's formulation is virtually identical: Selfishness or ideological rigidity has led us to look at the problem in isolated pieces . . . we must put aside parochialism to take the long systemic view; and when we finally formulate a uniform national policy supported by empirical and objective data rather than shallow, insular opinion, we will arrive at solutions that are not only more effective but less costly as well. This is the mantra of the policy presidency."

I'll concede that I have not yet read Schambra's original piece, and it's possible that Broder's column simply doesn't do it justice. But given Broder's argument, this is hardly compelling criticism.

The pitch, in a nutshell, is that the president cares far too much about facts, reason, and evidence. He insists on shaping policies based on their effectiveness. This White House, like the two other Democratic White House of the last 40 years, is convinced that problem-solving is possible through coherent policymaking.

And that's a mistake, Broder suggests, because politics is messy. It's better, the argument goes, to take policy matters far less seriously.

Joe Klein had a good response to this: "Yes, it is possible for liberals to go too utopian, to lose sight of the importance of private entrepreneuralism, to be deluded into believing that government can impose perfect justice and perfect order. But neither Clinton nor Obama -- moderate liberals, at best -- seem even vaguely utopian. The real question is this: if liberals are in favor of policy solutions to chronic societal problems, what are conservatives for? ... It's not liberals who have an existential problem right now. It is conservatives, who believe in nothing, it seems, but winning...and winning at all costs, even at the expense of truth, civility and honor."

TEA-STAINED FLAGS?.... Actor and right-wing activist Chuck Norris has an odd new pitch for the far-right Teaabggers: they're not supposed to use the American flag in their protests anymore. His latest column presents his game-plan.

...I suggest you fly some revolutionary flag in lieu of your 50-star flag over the next year. Post the 13-star Betsy Ross flag, Navy Jack or Gadsden flag ("Don't Tread on Me") or any representation that tells the story of Old Glory and makes a stand for our Founders' vision of America.

Of course, patriots know that the 50-star flag truly represents one nation under God and our Founders' republic, but modernists simply don't get it. So what do you say we make a statement by flying a different flag and educate our neighbors when they ask us, "Why are you flying that flag instead of the contemporary Stars and Stripes?" (If you insist on posting a modern USA flag, too, then get one that is tea-stained to show your solidarity with our Founders.)

I'm rarely able to understand Norris' perspective, but this seems especially bizarre. Americans who claim to be patriotic should stop flying the American flag? If patriots insist on using the stars and stripes, Norris wants them to pour tea on the flag until it's deliberately stained?

Norris added that doing this would "make our Founders proud." I have no idea what this means.

Christopher Orr added, "Now, a more cynical person than myself might suggest that this presents a perfect opportunity for the Democrats to take a page out of the GOP playbook and put Mr. Norris and his ilk on their heels by passing an anti-flag-desecration resolution of some kind. But, like most liberals, I support the speech rights even of those who disagree with me. So, do what you will, Mr. Norris. Wrap a bushel of Darjeeling in Old Glory and dunk it in a scalding tub if it will make you happy. All you're doing is revealing just how pinched and provisional your vaunted love of country truly is."

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.

* Gov. Jon Corzine's (D) campaign released a very aggressive new ad yesterday, going after Chris Christie (R) for throwing "his weight around" as a U.S. attorney to gain special treatment.

* Will Northern Virginia dictate another statewide race? With just six weeks left in Virginia's gubernatorial campaign, Mark Blumenthal takes a closer look.

* Republicans' scorched-earth efforts throughout August helped generate a wildly successful fundraising month for the RNC.

* New York Gov. David Paterson (D) conceded that he would not seek another term if he thinks his candidacy would hurt his party.

* In Arizona, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows state Attorney General Terry Goddard with comfortable leads in next year's gubernatorial race over all of her his likely GOP challengers, including incumbent Gov. Jan Brewer. Brewer, who took office after Janet Napolitano (D) joined the Obama cabinet, has an approval rating of just 26%.

* In Iowa, a new Rasmussen poll shows former Gov. Terry Branstad (R) looking very strong, if he decides to seek his old job. In a hypothetical match-up, Branstad leads incumbent Gov. Chet Culver (D) by 20 points, 54% to 34%.

* Speaking of Iowa, Rasmussen also shows Sen. Charles Grassley (R) with a huge lead over his likely Democratic challenger Bob Krause, 56% to 30%. Krause, who served in the state and had a 20-year career with the state's Department of Transportation, is not widely known.

* And the Ron Paul fundraising machine continues to be effective, as evidenced by Rand Paul's $1 million in contributions. Rand, the Texas Republican's son, is an ophthalmologist running for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky.

MEET THE NEW SENATOR.... This morning, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D), acting on a new law approved this week by the state legislature, appointed Paul G. Kirk Jr. to fill the U.S. Senate vacancy created by Ted Kennedy's death a month ago.

Patrick's decision reflects the expressed wishes of the Kennedy family. Indeed, there were reports this week that Victoria Kennedy, Edward Kennedy Jr., and Rep. Patrick Kennedy all encouraged the governor to select Kirk for the seat.

Kirk's ties to Ted Kennedy were strong and extended back many years. The newly-appointed senator served as a close aide to Kennedy in the 1970s, and became chairman of the Democratic National Committee in the late 1980s. Kirk, who is 71, is currently serving as the the chairman of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation board of directors.

In the 100-seat body, Kirk will be the sixth appointed senator, joining Sens. George Lemieux (R-Fla.), Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), Roland Burris (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.).

The NYT noted this morning, "Democrats in Washington and Massachusetts expressed enthusiasm for his candidacy, saying Mr. Kirk was familiar enough with Capitol Hill and Mr. Kennedy's priorities to seamlessly pick up where the senator left off."

It's a safe, smart pick, adding a seasoned voice to the Senate who, while lacking Kennedy's obvious influence, will vote as his old friend would have if he were still serving.

Kirk, who expects to be sworn in tomorrow, will remain in the Senate until January. Massachusetts will hold a special election on Jan. 19, at which point voters will elect a senator to fill the remaining years on Kennedy's term. Kirk made clear this morning that he will not be a candidate in that race.

KURTZ GETS MANDATES.... The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz notices the right's shift on individual mandates, and summarizes the situation nicely.

I'm not taking sides, but let's be clear. There is no health insurance reform without a mandate. Everybody wants to stop the insurance companies from barring people for preexisting conditions. Without a mandate, healthy people would get a free ride with no insurance and sign up the moment they get sick. Massachusetts has a mandate, passed under a Republican governor, Mitt Romney. So when exactly did this become a lousy idea?

I am taking sides, and if we're being honest about what's transpired, it became a lousy idea right around the time Republican lawmakers decided to defeat health care reform at all costs.

While the GOP is trashing the idea of individual mandates now -- Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) called the idea a "stunning assault on liberty" -- some of these same Republicans have already endorsed the idea. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said he recognizes the need for the mandate. Mitt Romney and Bill Frist have said the same thing. Six current Republican Senators - Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Bob Bennett (Utah), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) -- are all on record co-sponsoring a reform measure that includes an individual mandate.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said, this year, that there isn't "anything wrong" with mandates even if some may view them "as an infringement upon individual freedom."

This is the exact same Chuck Grassley who said this week that consumers forced to buy insurance will be losing their -- you guessed it -- "freedom."

And here's the real kicker: if Democrats were to announce immediately that they were dropping the idea of an individual mandate, Republicans would either a) say they hate the bill anyway; or b) decide they actually love the individual mandate and can't believe Democrats abandoned the idea.

I guess this doesn't get repeated often enough, so let's briefly re-state the obvious: Republicans aren't negotiating in good faith. They don't support reform, and their efforts are motivated entirely by a desire to kill this initiative and deny Democrats a victory.

There's nothing especially outrageous about that -- the opposition party is supposed to oppose the majority's agenda -- but recognizing this reality helps highlight the futility of "bipartisan" negotiations and the media expectations that President Obama is "failing" if he can't convince the GOP to support reform.

LOOK WHO'LL BE ON THE TEEVEE (AGAIN).... ABC News announced the guest list for Sunday's episode of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," and you'll never guess who's going to be on. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will go first, followed by the guy who didn't win last year's presidential election.

Then, an EXCLUSIVE interview with Republican Senator John McCain, who is leading the call to send more troops to Afghanistan. Senator McCain has been supportive of the President's Afghanistan policy, but lately he's expressed concern about the current strategic review and says now is not the time to pull back.

Really, an exclusive interview with John McCain? What a rare occurrence!

Or not. For those keeping score at home, this will be McCain's 13th Sunday morning appearance since President Obama's inauguration in January. That's 36 Sundays, for an average of a McCain appearance every 2.7 weeks.

Since the president took office, McCain has been on "Meet the Press" twice (July 12 and March 29), "Face the Nation" three times (August 30, April 26, and February 8), CNN's "State of the Union" twice (August 2 and February 15), and "Fox News Sunday" three times (July 2, March 8, and January 25). His appearance on "This Week" on Sunday will be his third visit in five months (September 27, August 23, and May 10).

I can appreciate the fact that Stephanopoulos may perceive McCain as having a unique perspective and/or expertise on Afghanistan, but he doesn't. For one thing, there are plenty of other congressional Republicans who've supported the president's policy, but are worried about a shift in direction. For another, when it comes to U.S. policy in Afghanistan, McCain is frequently confused.

But it's the Sunday shows' obsession with McCain that continues to be so absurd. The Arizona Republican, after a wildly unsuccessful presidential campaign, is just another conservative member of a 40-seat minority. McCain isn't playing a role in any important negotiations; he hasn't unveiled any significant pieces of legislation; he isn't being targeted as a swing vote on any major bills; and he's not a member of the GOP leadership. He's just another far-right senator, with precious little to say that couldn't have been predicted in advance. Indeed, we already know exactly what he's going to say this week.

And yet, the networks can't seem to help themselves.

Eric Boehlert recently checked and found that John Kerry, in the eight months after Bush's second inaugural, made three appearances on the Sunday morning shows. McCain's total, obviously, more than quadruples that number.

As Boehlert concluded, "[A]fter Kerry lost in November, the press walked away from him. After McCain lost in November, the press still crowds around him."

INHOFE ASSEMBLES 'SQUAD' TO UNDERMINE U.S. POLICY.... Sen. Jim Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma sure is on a roll when it comes to attacking the White House. Last month, he raised the specter of a "revolution." A couple of weeks ago, he told constituents President Obama is "obsessed with turning terrorists loose in America."

Now the right-wing senator intends to undermine the administration's international efforts.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) has announced to National Review that he will be personally leading a "truth squad" to the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference, where he will make it clear to international leaders not to believe that the United States will pass legislation to deal with the issue.

"Now, I want to make sure that those attending the Copenhagen conference know what is really happening in the United States Senate," said Inhofe. "Some people, like Senator Barbara Boxer, will tell the conference, with Waxman-Markey having passed in the House, that they can anticipate that some kind of bill will pass EPW."

It's nice to see how seriously foreign policy is taken these days -- when a member of the political minority will send his own delegation to an international conference, in order to undermine the government and tell other countries that they can't work with the United States.

Mori Dinauer added yesterday, "Has a sitting Senator ever led a delegation to a international conference with the explicit intent to undermine the official position of the United States on an international matter? ... The president has always had the widest latitude in international affairs, with the Senate limited to treaty ratification and funding war. Inhofe is throwing that basic institutional relationship out the window because of the conspiracies in his fevered mind."

They know no limits; they have no shame.

WALKING, CHEWING GUM.... The White House and military leaders are exploring possible changes to U.S. policy in Afghanistan, and conservative lawmakers want President Obama to decide immediately to send additional troops into combat. The administration doesn't seem to care what conservative lawmakers want.

A new talking point, however, seems to be emerging among Republicans. The president hasn't decided on a new U.S. policy, the argument goes, because lawmakers are debating a health care reform policy. Or something.

Right-wing Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina made the case to ABC News yesterday.

"The problem is, the war in Afghanistan and our economy are our two biggest issues. But he's working on other issues such as health care and he's putting off the decision on Afghanistan which I think puts our troops at risk. So he needs to focus on priorities right now and not try to ram so many things down our throat here in Congress. He needs to address the issue of Afghanistan quickly."

It's not just DeMint. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters yesterday, "With all the attention there is on health care, the attention that needs to be paid to what is happening in Afghanistan isn't happening."

None of this makes any sense. It's a complex policy landscape, and competent policymakers need to be able to keep up, addressing more than one challenge simultaneously. Functioning democracies can walk and chew gum at the same time.

President Obama, for example, isn't "putting off" shaping a U.S. policy on Afghanistan because he's "working on other issues such as health care"; he's able to work on both. DeMint may not realize this, but the president has a variety of policy advisors and experts, and has several meetings through the course of the day. He can, believe it or not, talk to leaders on the Hill about progress on health care reform in the morning, and then talk to military leaders and national security advisors in the afternoon. The president has both an HHS secretary and a Defense secretary.

All available evidence suggests Afghanistan is a major topic of discussion in the West Wing, and Obama is overseeing a deliberate, thorough review of the future of U.S. policy. If there was no debate over health care reform, the exact same thing would be happening.

Jim DeMint thinks deliberation "puts our troops at risk." Jim DeMint isn't very bright.

CENSUS WORKER FOUND HANGED IN KENTUCKY.... It's a deeply disturbing story no matter what the circumstances were, but let's hope it's not an example of anti-government violence.

A part-time Census Bureau field worker was found hanged in Kentucky Sept. 12 with the word "fed" scrawled across his chest, according to a law enforcement source. Bill Sparkman, 51 was found in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky, the Associated Press first reported Wednesday night.

The FBI is assisting state and local police with their investigation, the law enforcement source told The Post's Spencer S. Hsu. The law enforcement source was unsure of the cause of death.

It is a federal crime to attack a federal worker during or because of his federal job. Sparkman was an Eagle scout who moved to southeast Kentucky to be a local director for the Boy Scouts of America, his mother told the AP. He later became a substitute teacher in Laurel County and earned extra money as a Census field worker.

Commerce Department officials have extended their condolences to the Sparkman family, but have not commented on the still unknown motivations behind the hanging.

There are, obviously, far more questions than answers, and it's best not to jump to any conclusions. The reporting, thus far, is based on unnamed law enforcement source, and some of what we've learned may be incorrect.

But as Alex Koppelman noted, if these early reports are accurate, they raise the prospect of what may have been a politically-motivated slaying: "There are always people who have some sort of paranoia about the federal government and the census, but things might be worse this time around. There's been a lot of talk on the right about the connection (always very tenuous, and now severed) between the census and ACORN, a group that's been conservatives' favorite bogeyman of late. And Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has been spreading her own fears about the census, at one point even suggesting a link between the census and Japanese internment during World War II -- a frightening parallel for modern conspiracy theorists who fear that the government is setting up similar camps for them now."

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

* The president was well received at the U.N. today: "The United States is ready to begin a new era of engagement with the world, President Obama said Wednesday in a sweeping address to the United Nations General Assembly in which he sought to clearly delineate differences between his administration and that of former President George W. Bush. 'We have re-engaged the United Nations,' Mr. Obama said, to cheers from world leaders and delegates in the cavernous hall of the General Assembly."

* The next speech went less well: "Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, took the lectern at the United Nations on Wednesday morning for his first address at the General Assembly and delivered a long and rambling diatribe -- far exceeding the 15-minute limit on speeches -- against the Security Council and a host of other perceived enemies, while urging the world to welcome President Obama, referring to him as 'our son.'"

* Guess which part of that paragraph Fox News found important.

* The Massachusetts Legislature gave final approval this afternoon to a bill that will allow Gov. Deval Patrick to fill the state's U.S. Senate vacancy. Patrick will have to declare an emergency in order to legally appoint the interim senator.

* The Fed continues to sound optimistic notes about the economy.

* The White House is exploring multiple alternatives in Afghanistan, "including a plan advocated by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to scale back American forces and focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan."

* The House easily extended unemployment benefits yesterday; the Senate intends to do the same soon.

* The White House gets impatient with Republicans' lies about Medicare, issues hard-hitting response.

* New U.S. policy on state secrets.

* The IRS is backing away from ACORN, too.

* The Washington Post hosted a lengthy Q&A today exclusively on ACORN. How very sad.

* The American Association of Justice starts rallying opposition to medical malpractice reform.

* How discouraging can Blue Dogs be? Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) argued that Medicare is part of a Soviet-style system. Seriously.

* So long, flavored cigarettes.

* Salon's multi-part series on Glenn Beck has been infinitely more informative than that recent Time cover story.

* PG&E has no use for the U.S. Chamber Of Commerce's global warming denials.

* Glenn Thrush extends an important apology to Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), after running a very misleading transcript provided by the NRCC.

* Bill Clinton has some compelling thoughts on higher ed.

* Glenn Beck hates the 14th Amendment.

* Electric and hybrid cars may be so quiet "that they pose a threat to pedestrians."

* Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) thinks marriage equality is evidence of "socialism." What a clown.

* Quote of the Day: "Many Republican politicians keep a little box filled with government programs that they break open in the event that they run into actual human beings with real problems."

* And finally, there's great symbolism in Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) sleeping during yesterday's health care reform hearing.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

GRASSLEY EYES ANOTHER BIPARTISAN GROUP.... The bipartisan Gang of Six was a rather spectacular failure, thanks almost entirely to the antics of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa. Today, however, the conservative senator told some home-state reporters that he's beginning to work on another bipartisan group that could host inter-party negotiations.

"I've had discussions with senators that aren't on the committee that could possibly work with us to try to get back into a bipartisan mold," Grassley said. "I think, though, that it'd be very helpful for people who aren't on the Finance committee or even the HELP committee...would kind of take the bull by the horns themselves and try to coalesce around something that could eventually become more bipartisan."

In order for this new effort at a "bipartisan" compromise to work, Grassley said, members of the Senate Democratic caucus would have to tell Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that they would support a Republican filibuster of a Democratic reform bill.

You don't say.

There are two relevant angles here. The first is why anyone in the Senate would be prepared to negotiate in good faith with Chuck Grassley at this point. Max Baucus bent over backwards to give Grassley an insurance-industry-friendly bill, filled with concessions and ideas that Grassley had already embraced, but he still walked away. Worse, he refused to take a serious, honorable approach to the talks as they dragged on for months.

The second is why Grassley would even bother. He obviously doesn't support health care reform, and has made a series of efforts to kill it. Why go through the motions again, immediately after spiking the Gang of Six talks?

Perhaps because Grassley realizes his conduct recently has hurt him at home. Nate Silver had an item yesterday noting the 18-point drop in the senator's approval rating in Iowa since the start of the year. The decline has come from Democrats and Independents, who apparently haven't been impressed with Grassley's antics of late.

Grassley is probably a safe bet for re-election anyway, but he's up next year in a state that's been trending "bluer" in recent years. Acting like a partisan GOP hack and undermining reform efforts isn't helping him back home, so he has to keep up appearances and pretend to be committed to a "bipartisan" negotiation process.

A SHIFT IN CONVERSATION.... Over at TPM Cafe, Jim Sleeper has a thought-provoking piece.

Two events this month suggest a transition from one conversation about the American republic to another.

The old conversation -- often little better than a shouting match or a dance of snarky repartees -- is petering out with the passing, at 89, of Irving Kristol, the "godfather" of neo-conservatism.

A different conversation is renewing itself in a voice coming from the center of the old republic, thanks to Nicholas Thompson's gripping, stirring new book, The Hawk and the Dove. Writing about the half-century-long rivalry and friendship of arms-race "hawk" Paul Nitze and Cold War strategic "dove" George Kennan, Thompson shows that even bitter antagonists can remain friends if they care more about the civic-republican spirit that is the secret of this country's true strength than they do about themselves or their grand strategies.

Jim's thoughts on Thompson's book dovetail nicely with Gregg Herken's review of The Hawk and the Dove in the new issue of the Monthly.

OH, NOW THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT THE PARTY-UNITY STRATEGY.... Sam Stein reports this afternoon that Senate Democratic leaders are taking a renewed interest in pushing the caucus on party unity. Dems and those who caucus with the party can certainly vote up or down on reform, but they should "at least commit to blocking a Republican filibuster."

Proponents of the strategy say it is being actively discussed both on Capitol Hill and within the White House -- "every day," said one Democrat who is actively involved with both branches when it comes to passing health care legislation. "That's the whole conversation. At the end of the day we don't need them to vote for the bill. We need to get them to get to cloture to end the debate."

Sen. Bernie Sanders, (I-VT) has pushed the strategy on the Hill, and senior aides say he has the backing of the party's leadership.

It doesn't really matter how any of the centrist and center-right Democrats vote on reform -- what matters is whether they'll let the Senate vote on the bill or join with Republicans in blocking a vote from occurring. Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Bayh, Lieberman, et al can take a firm stand against reform legislation, just so long as they agree to support cloture first.

If Massachusetts' vacancy is filled, it's the solution that solves the problem. Reconciliation won't be a factor if members of the Democratic caucus agree to let the Senate vote on the bill. Stein added that party strategists agree that "getting all caucusing members to back cloture may be the most promising legislative path forward."

Of course it is. I'm sure readers are getting sick of seeing me talk about this all the time, but it shouldn't even be controversial -- to be a member of the caucus means letting the Senate vote on landmark Democratic legislation. It doesn't mean every Dem has to vote for every Democratic bill; it means they at least have to let the vote happen.

My only real complaint here is that I would have preferred to see this under active discussion "every day" over the summer. Throughout the month of August, every Democratic senator could have been confronted with a simple, direct message: "Let the Senate vote on reform."

Most of the country probably doesn't even realize this is a problem. For the typical American, it's probably foolish to think that the Senate could vote on a reform bill, the final vote could be 57 to 43, and the 43 would win. It's the beauty of the "Let the Senate vote on reform" message -- opponents would encourage lawmakers to vote against the bill, and supporters would do the opposite. Either way, the notion that a vote would happen should be a foregone conclusion.

We'll see if this renewed effort goes anywhere, but I wish it had started weeks ago.

STANDING ATHWART HISTORY.... There are plenty of discouraging poll numbers for Democrats that have been released lately, but there's little evidence that Republicans are capitalizing in any meaningful way. The party is still less popular than the Democratic majority, and the GOP is still less trusted on most of the major issues of the day.

On health care, for example, the new NBC/WSJ poll shows 45% of Americans approving of President Obama's handling of the issue. For the Republican Party, the number was 21%. The GOP has done wonders raising doubts about Democratic reform plans, but it's not exactly persuading anyone that Republicans offer a superior alternative.

With that in mind, Ezra Klein had a good summary of the bigger picture.

The Republican Party's strategy against health-care reform has been something of a kamikaze mission: destroy the bill through a strategy that also destroys the party, at least in the short-term. The hope is that if they win the war, they'll be in better shape come the 2010 midterms. Maybe that'll work. Maybe it won't.

But if it does work, it won't leave them in a better position to govern. What Republicans -- and, when they're out of power, Democrats -- are doing is essentially discrediting the political process. Piece by piece, bill by bill. The argument, essentially, is that politicians are untrustworthy and Congress is corrupt and interest groups are trying to do horrible things to you and problems are not being solved.

All these thing might be true, but they're being said, in this case, by politicians who want to take back Congress and start negotiating with interest groups to solve problems. That's not going to work terribly well, and for obvious reasons. Republicans may think they've found a clever strategy in making it hard for Democrats to govern, but what they're really doing is making it nearly impossible for anyone to govern. American politics is trapped in a cycle of minority obstruction, and though that's good for whomever the minority is at the moment, it's not particularly good for making progress on pressing issues.

I think this is almost entirely right, except for one point -- Ezra described congressional Republicans as "politicians who want to take back Congress and start negotiating with interest groups to solve problems." I don't mean to be cute here, but I think that gives the GOP too much credit.

In fact, I'm not sure Republicans are interested in problem-solving at all. They want to take back Congress for the express purpose of stopping the White House from passing a progressive policy agenda. GOP leaders don't want to govern or "make progress on pressing issues"; they want to stop the process of governing and let the status quo linger.

To be sure, I think Ezra's entirely right about the consequences of Republican tactics -- they paralyze our system of government. The key, though, is that the GOP is almost certainly okay with that.

Put it this way: when was the last time the Republican Party, on the national level, had a coherent policy agenda? It wasn't 2002 ("9/11, 9/11, 9/11"); it wasn't 2004 (the bulk of George W. Bush's stump speech was about John Kerry); it wasn't 2006 ("9/11?, 9/11?, 9/11?"); and it wasn't 2008 ("maverick" is not a plan).

The same will be true in 2010 -- there's nothing in particular the GOP wants to do with government, other than to say "no" to those who do have an agenda. And with that in mind, making it impossible for anyone to govern suits Republicans just fine.

ROBERTS LOOKING OUT FOR LOBBYISTS' NEEDS.... As the Senate Finance Committee continues to work on health care reform, Sen. Jim Bunning (R) of Kentucky pushed for an amendment that would have required a final CBO score on the bill before holding a vote. Baucus has signaled an intention to vote on a bill as early as this week, and Bunning's measure would have pushed off a vote until October.

As it turns out, Bunning's measure was narrowly defeated -- though Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) supported it -- but the committee will wait for preliminary CBO analysis, which will likely delay a vote until next week.

What was especially interesting, though, was hearing Sen. Pat Roberts (R) of Kansas explain why he supports a slow-down in consideration of the bill. Faiz Shakir flagged this gem, and has the video:

"[T]he thing I'm trying to point is we would have at least 72 hours for the people that the providers have hired to keep up with all of the legislation that we pass around here, and the regulations that we pass around here, to say, 'Hey, wait a minute. Have you considered this?'" [emphasis added]

Generally speaking, lawmakers don't like to admit it when they're going out of their way to help corporate lobbyists who are trying to kill a bill. In this sense, Roberts' candor was a pleasant change of pace.

But it's also further evidence of the ridiculous way in which the congressional GOP is approaching this debate. Roberts has a staff that analyzes legislation. There's also a Republican committee staff. If the senator wants to give experts a chance to go through the bill in detail, there are plenty of people on the payroll ready to do just that.

For Roberts, however, that's not quite good enough. The committee, the bill, and the process should just cool their heels, the conservative Kansan said, while insurance company lobbyists have a chance to tell senators what they think about the bill.

Faiz added, "According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Roberts has received over $172,000 in political contribution from insurance companies over the last five years. Unsurprisingly, Roberts opposes a public option because, he claims, 'it won't work.' Presumably, that's because that's what health insurance lobbyists have told him."

NOT GOOD, BUT NOT QUITE AS BAD AS '95.... Following up on an item from Monday, Gallup conducted a national poll, asking whether people would prefer the government do more to "solve our country's problems" or whether more should be left to "individuals and businesses." The results were discouraging -- the percentage of Americans who believe "government is trying to do too much" is the highest it's been since the days of Speaker Gingrich.

The new NBC News/Wall Street Journal had a similar question in its poll, but found different results (pdf). Respondents were asked whether government "should do more to solve problems and help meet the needs of people" or government "is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals."

A narrow plurality preferred the latter, 49% to 45%, but the 49% is the highest anti-government-activism rating in several years. Note, however, that there was only a four-point gap between the two -- in the Gallup poll, it was a 19-point gap between those who think government is doing too much, and those who want it do more.

What's more, while the demand for government activism has clearly declined, this poll suggests we're not close to the public attitudes of 1995, when it was nearly two-to-one in conservatives' favor.

As for improving this trend, all of the arguments from Monday still apply. First, those who think government is doing too much often don't mean it ("Keep government out of Medicare"). Second, Dems can help prove critics wrong by using the powers of the state effectively, including passing a strong health care reform bill. And third, President Obama, among others, can continue to promote the idea of government activism.

That said, Steve M. also raised a good point on Monday, which Dems would be wise to consider: "Every few years, our side gets the message out and persuades more people to vote Democratic. We don't get a message out that persuades more people to think in a genuinely progressive way. We never do that, and we desperately need to. We need to make more liberals, not just more Democrats. Otherwise, this is the result: shock and horror when Democrats do (or even seem to do) Democratic things."

* Note: Yes, this is another home-made chart, based on the NBC/WSJ data.

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT OF THE DAY.... Putting aside the relative merits of the health care reform framework unveiled last week by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), he clearly went to great lengths to make it appealing to Republican lawmakers.

In the hopes of picking up at least some GOP support, the Finance Committee chairman presented a rather conservative plan that insurance companies loved -- no public option, interstate competition, high-risk pools, verification of citizenship, no public funds for abortion, high-deductible policies, no deficit spending, and featuring an individual mandate and Medicare reductions many Republicans, including conservatives, had already endorsed. All with a modest price tag, too.

We now know, of course, that the GOP wouldn't take "yes" for an answer, and rejected the Baucus pitch en masse. Over the last week, Baucus has made his framework more liberal, not less, to gain favor with committee Dems.

Jonathan Chait ponders a provocative point: what if Republicans had gotten on board with Baucus' proposal last week?

They could have announced their support on the condition that the bill not be changed at any point in the process -- or even insisted on nudging it even further rightward. Moderate Democrats, who are desperate for GOP cover, would have lunged at that deal. It would have acquired the sheen of bipartisanship and probably become an unstoppable force, even at the cost of infuriating liberals. Instead, President Obama is probably going to sign a more liberal health care reform plan.

Now, I understand the reasons for the GOP's behavior. Republicans are acting in their individual and collective political self-interest. Individually, Republicans realize that their base is convinced that Obamacare equals socialism plus death panels, and thus any Republican who signs on would kiss away his political future and quite likely face a primary challenge. Collectively, the party has put all its chips on defeating health care reform, or, as a fallback, withholding support and rendering reform a "partisan" exercise that can be used against red state Democrats in 2010.

It's a smart political strategy. But the health care plan that Obama signs is going to be around for a very long time. Republicans might one day come to wonder if picking up some seats in 2010 were worth forgoing a chance to help put their imprint on the U.S. health care system.

It's speculation, obviously. What's more, it's far too late. But Chait's analysis sounds about right to me -- had Republicans embraced Baucus' offer, Dems like Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Lieberman, and Bayh probably would been more than happy to join them. It would have set up a huge fight with the House, where Blue Dogs would have immediately endorsed the Baucus/GOP plan.

And the media would have loved it. Broder would start chiseling a statue in Baucus' honor, and his plan would quickly be called the "consensus, biparitsan" approach to reform.

I'm delighted Republicans balked, but it's interesting to ponder what the White House and the Democratic leadership might have done if the GOP had latched onto the Baucus bill.

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 Rasmussen poll shows Chris Christie (R) leading incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D) in New Jersey's gubernatorial race by seven, 48% to 41%. Earlier this month, Christie's lead was eight, but Corzine is running short on time -- Election Day is six weeks away.

* Former eBay executive Meg Whitman launched her Republican gubernatorial campaign in California yesterday. In her kick-off speech, she complained about taxes, spending, and regulations.

* Speaking of California, former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina is moving closer to launching her Republican senatorial campaign. To help get the word out, Fiorina's team has unveiled a rather dreadful website, and a head-shaking new slogan: "Carlyfornia dreamin."

* Former Rep. Rick Lazio (R) formally launched his gubernatorial campaign in New York yesterday.

* Retired baseball player Curt Schilling announced yesterday that he will not run for the Senate in Massachusetts' upcoming special election.

* A new Rasmussen poll shows a very competitive Senate race in Missouri next year, with Rep. Roy Blunt (R) and Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D) tied at 46% each.

* And in case there were any lingering doubts about whether Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) is running for president in 2012, the increasingly right-wing governor launched a new political action committee yesterday. He's calling it the "Freedom First" PAC.

ECONOMIC GROWTH VS. DEFICIT REDUCTION.... In the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, respondents were asked to prioritize from a list of issues the federal government may address. "Job creation and economic growth" was easily the top priority (pdf), though it's down a bit from July, and "health care" was second. Coming in third was "the deficit and government spending."

But later in the poll, we find this:

Which of the following two statements comes closer to your point of view?

Statement A: The President and the Congress should worry more about boosting the economy even though it may mean larger budget deficits now and in the future.

Statement B: The President and the Congress should worry more about keeping the budget deficit down, even though it may mean it will take longer for the economy to recover.

Given the seriousness of the economic crisis, and the demand for an improved job market, it stands to reason the first statement would draw much higher numbers. Indeed, when given an open-ended choice in the exact same poll, "job creation and economic growth" was a much higher priority than the budget deficit.

Except, the results weren't even close -- in the other direction. A 62% majority said policymakers should focus on deficit reduction, even if it means delaying economic growth, which is more than double the 30% who said it's better to boost the economy. In June, prioritizing deficit reduction over economic growth also had a clear majority, but the margin is getting bigger not smaller.

Once in a while, policymakers have to be responsible enough to ignore polls and do the right thing. If these results are accurate, people care more about the deficit than the economy. But that's crazy. Imagine politicians telling a person who's lost her job and benefits, and who's struggling to stay afloat, "Yeah, but at least I've helped lower the deficit by a fraction of a percent in relation to the GDP!"

If the poll is right, the majority is wrong. Following this line of thinking is a recipe for a double-dip recession.

PELOSI'S BEHIND-THE-SCENES MOVES.... There's a sizable portion of the House Democratic caucus that won't support reform if they consider it too liberal. There's another contingent, which is at least as big, that won't support reform if they consider it insufficiently liberal.

The Hill reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is reaching a conclusion as to how best to proceed.

Speaker Pelosi is backing away from a deal she cut with centrists to advance health reform, said a source familiar with talks.

Pelosi's decision to move away from the agreement that was made with a group of Blue Dogs to get the bill out of committee would steer the healthcare legislation back to the left as she prepares for a floor vote.... But a Pelosi aide said nothing is final, and the proposal to revert to the more left-leaning version of the language would be vetted before the entire Democratic Caucus.

It doesn't seem quite right to say that Pelosi is "moving away" from the leadership's deal with Blue Dogs. In July, in order to get a reform bill out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and the leadership negotiated with Rep. Mike Ross (D) of Arkansas, the Blue Dog caucus' point-man on health care, and other center-right Dems. They agreed to a fairly progressive bill, which included a public option, and Ross and other Blue Dogs voted to send the measure to the floor.

Two months later, Ross returned from the August recess, scrapped the agreement, and said he would not vote for a reform bill with a public option -- despite the fact that he already had at the committee level, and had endorsed a public option just two weeks prior.

In other words, Pelosi didn't "move away" from the agreement, Ross did. Now, the Speaker is left to pursue a different course, because Ross hasn't left her with much of a choice.

In some circles, House passage of reform is a foregone conclusion, but it's worth remembering that Pelosi's task is far from easy. To pass reform with no Republican votes, the Democratic caucus can afford to lose no more than 38 votes. There are more than 38 Blue Dogs looking for a more conservative bill, and there are more than 38 progressives looking for a more liberal bill.

Brian Beutler reported this morning, "[B]ehind the scenes and in public, Pelosi continues to make the case that health care reform should include a public option, and that the public option should be more robust. And according to Roll Call, she'd like the bill the House votes on to be completed and ready for a CBO score by the end of this week, ahead, she hopes, of a mid-October vote. Pelosi has a tough needle to thread particularly given the Senate's aversion to endorsing a public option. And though her public adamancy has softened, she's clearly working the inside game."

NBC/WSJ POLL.... Some interesting tidbits from the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll:

* Presidential approval: President Obama's approval rating stands at 51%, the same as last month's NBC/WSJ poll. His handling of the economy is up just a little to 50%, and his handling of health care is up five points to 46%. A combined 77% of Americans say they like the president personally.

* Uptick for reform plan: While a plurality of respondents still oppose the Democrats health care proposals, 39% believe the plan is a good idea. That's up three points from August, and is the highest percentage since the beginning of the reform debate.

* GOP not capitalizing: Just 21% approve of the Republican Party's handling of health care, less than half of Obama's support. Overall, 28% have a positive impression of the GOP, while 43% have a negative impression. (Democrats have 41%-39% positive/negative score.) Nevertheless, on a generic congressional ballot, Democrats only lead by three, 43% to 40%.

* Public option: The good news is, a 48% plurality believes it's "extremely important" to "give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance." That's up seven points since June. When another portion of the sample, however, was asked, "Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies?" 48% said they're opposed; 46% said they're in favor. 26% said a public option must be part of reform; 24% said it must not.

* Blame Game: If health care reform falls apart, and nothing passes, most Americans are prepared to blame Republicans. The poll found that a 37% plurality believes congressional Republicans will be "most to blame" if the bill fails. Only 10% said President Obama would deserve the blame.

* Over exposure: The media seems awfully excited about the notion that the president is on television too much. In this poll, a 54% majority said Obama is making the right amount of media appearances.

* Economic optimism: In easily the best results of the year, the number of people who are satisfied with the state of the economy has jumped 20 points since July. Those who think the economy will get better over the next year has increased nine points since April.

* Afghanistan: A 51% majority does not want to see more U.S. troops sent to Afghanistan, and 59% are less confident about the future of the conflict. On the other hand, 55% oppose a pullout.

THE GOP REVERSAL ON INDIVIDUAL MANDATES.... In many cases, Republican lawmakers asked Democratic leaders to make specific concessions on health care reform. When Dems like Max Baucus agreed, the GOP balked anyway.

But there are other areas in which Democrats simply embrace policy ideas endorsed, or even created by, the right. For quite a while, conservatives liked the idea of giving an Independent Medicare Advisory Council more power to determine what the program should pay for. It's a straightforward, money-saving measure. When the Obama administration agreed, Republicans decided they didn't like their own idea anymore.

The same thing is happening with an individual mandate, which Republicans trashed during the first day of Senate Finance Committee debate yesterday.

Advocates of a coverage mandate say it is needed to ensure that young, healthy people get insurance and contribute to the system. They say this will ease costs associated with an influx of less-healthy people who are expected to get coverage under the Baucus legislation.

Republicans, who are trying to slow Democratic efforts to pass a health overhaul by the end of the year, rushed to criticize the proposal.

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the Finance Committee's senior Republican, said the mandate is among the reasons that he couldn't support the bill despite months of negotiations with Mr. Baucus. "Individuals should maintain their freedom to chose health-care coverage, or not," he said.

"This bill is a stunning assault on liberty," said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate's second-ranking Republican.

That's pretty strong rhetoric under any circumstances, but it's especially striking since the GOP used to think individual mandates were fine. Indeed, Sam Stein noted yesterday that the idea was "once considered so non-controversial that it was endorsed by several major Republican officials."

As recently as a month ago, Chuck Grassley, the same senator bashing the idea of a mandate yesterday, announced that the way to get universal coverage is "through an individual mandate." He told Nightly Business report, "That's individual responsibility, and even Republicans believe in individual responsibility." Earlier this year, Grassley told Fox News that there wasn't "anything wrong" with mandates even if some may view them "as an infringement upon individual freedom."

Now, apparently, he disagrees with himself. There's a lot of that going around.

Congressional Republicans could probably save themselves a lot of trouble by simply saying, "Whatever Democrats are for, we're against," in response to every question.

HUMANA VS. BAUCUS/CMS.... Humana, among the nation's leading private insurers, is not at all pleased that policymakers intend to pay for health care reform by reducing unnecessary spending in Medicare Advantage. Humana, after all, makes an enormous amount of money through the program.

So, the company, which has already spent $1.2 million on lobbying on health care, initiated a new mobilization campaign, contacting its customers with frightening and misleading letters to try to scare them about reform, and creating a website to send form emails to lawmakers. (The emails identify the sender as Medicare Advantage members, whether they are or not.) This came to the attention of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which began investigating Humana's lobbying efforts.

More importantly, at the request of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the CMS asked Humana to stop the misleading mailings and shut down the form-email website. The agency has authority on the matter, given all the taxpayer money Humana accepts, and the marketing limits Humana accepted as part of the program.

Republicans aren't happy.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who represents Humana's home state of Kentucky, and has received tens of thousands of dollars from the company over the years, called the CMS actions a "gag order" -- a characterization that has been echoed by House Minority Leader John Boehner and Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) -- ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee -- who fired off an angry letter to CMS acting administrator Charlene Frizzera.

"In light of CMS' seemingly uneven and potentially politically-motivated use of its regulatory authority," Camp writes, "I therefore request that...CMS immediately suspend this virtual gag order on efforts by an MA plan to let its enrollees know how they could be hurt by the health reforms plans being pushed by President.

Just so we're clear, Republican politicians, some of whom get plenty of money from Humana, are defending an insurer misleading Medicare recipients with taxpayer-subsidized communications.

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said he's only looking out for free-speech rights. "You don't lose your rights because you happen to sell insurance for heaven's sake," he said.

That is, of course, a foolish argument. The government is paying the bills here. Humana accepted lobbying and marketing limits when it started collecting tax dollars. As Ryan Grim noted, "Communication between the private Medicare Advantage providers and beneficiaries is strictly regulated because the private companies are using public dollars."

Republicans shouldn't decry the attached strings simply because Humana and the GOP have the same goal -- attacking health care reform.

In the meantime, Democrats on the Hill were quick to note the background of the company Republicans were desperate to defend: "Humana was recently featured in a HuffPost story for denying health care due to lack of an enema. In 2005, it settled a racketeering suit for $40 million. It settled a fraud lawsuit in 2000 for $14.5 million. Since 2000, its profits have soared from $90 million to $834 million."

Republicans often pick the wrong friends, don't they?

CANTOR'S SUPPORT FOR HEALTH CARE OPTIONS.... At a forum this week, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) heard from a constituent about a serious health care dilemma. Her question was sad but common, and Cantor's response was illustrative.

The constituent noted that she has a close relative in her early 40s. She had a lucrative career and great insurance, right up until she recently lost her job. A couple of weeks ago, she was diagnosed with stomach tumors and needs an operation soon, but she's no longer covered.

Cantot encouraged her to look to "existing government programs," or perhaps "charitable organizations." He added, "No one in this country, given who we are, should be sitting without an option to be addressed."

That's worded rather awkwardly, but it's a sentiment I can agree with. Americans who need care should have "options." There should be "government programs" to provide coverage to those who don't have it.

The problem, which Cantor fails to appreciate, is that he and his colleagues are opposed both to giving Americans "options" and creating "government programs." If he meant what he said, Cantor wouldn't be leading the charge against health care reform.

Indeed, the follow-up question is obvious: what is Eric Cantor doing to help provide "options" and strengthen "government programs" for those Americans who need help?

As for relying on charities and the kindness of strangers to save those facing life-threatening illnesses, what Cantor may not realize is that these charities, through no fault of their own, necessarily have to ration care and force patients to endure long wait times -- there are fewer resources than patients.

In other words, Cantor's warnings about the perils of a reformed system are already a reality.

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

* The Massachusetts state Senate passed a bill to empower Gov. Deval Patrick (D) to fill the Senate vacancy. Expect the legislation to be signed as early as tomorrow, with an interim senator to be named before the week's end.

* Keep expectations low: "President Obama on Tuesday chided the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority for not doing more to move peace talks forward but announced no breakthrough after meeting here privately with both men."

* Busy day at Turtle Bay: "Some 100 heads of state gathered at the United Nations on Tuesday for an unprecedented daylong conference on combating climate change, with leaders like Presidents Obama and Hu Jintao of China acknowledging that agreement is an important goal, but also stressing their own needs. Negotiators have been struggling to hammer out a deal to cut global emissions by December in Copenhagen, and the United Nations organizers are hoping that gathering the leaders will give the talks new political momentum."

* After falling at his home, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) has been hospitalized.

* The counter-terror probe expands: "Investigators are looking for about a dozen more people in connection with a wide-ranging terror investigation that has already netted arrests in Colorado and New York City, a source familiar with the investigation said Tuesday."

* The recession is having a real, practical impact on the everyday lives of Americans.

* President Obama's chat with David Letterman seemed to go well last night.

* Reflecting on the president's media-blitz, the Washington Post assembled a misguided panel of observers.

* These guys are nothing if not responsive to criticism: "An August 10, 2009 National Endowment for the Arts conference call in which artists were asked to help supp