PLEDGE DRIVE'S FINAL DAY.... As 2009 comes to an end, today is also the last day of the Monthly's annual fundraising drive. Our most sincere thanks to those of you who have already contributed. For those who haven't, here's a reminder that your tax-deductible donation can still make a big difference.

The Monthly is a nonprofit organization. We have print and online ads, but this only covers a small part of our expenses, which means that we depend on contributions from readers to stay up and humming. So, I hope we can count on your support. In honor of the Monthly's 40th anniversary, the magazine is asking for $40 donations, but any amount is welcome. If every "Political Animal" reader chipped in just $1, we'd surpass our fundraising goal.

Just click here to help out. You can donate online, through PayPal, or through the mail.

Thanks.

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

* Learning more about yesterday's suicide attack in Afghanistan: "The C.I.A. operatives stationed where a suicide bombing occurred Wednesday -- killing at least eight Americans -- were responsible for collecting information about militant networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and plotting missions to kill the networks' top leaders. Seven of the victims at Forward Operating Base Chapman were C.I.A. officers, and one of the victims was the base chief, officials said. The attack at the remote base in southeastern Afghanistan on Wednesday was carried out by someone who wore an Afghan National Army uniform, according to NATO officials."

* The suicide bomber in the attack was not searched because he'd been invited onto the base -- the attacker had been courted as a possible informant.

* Charges pending against Blackwater for the September 2007 shooting in Nisoor Square have been thrown out: "U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina said Justice Department prosecutors improperly built their case on sworn statements that had been given under a promise of immunity. Urbina said the government's explanations were 'contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility.'"

* More encouraging economic news: "The number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits dropped unexpectedly last week, another indication that the job market may be healing as the economy slowly recovers."

* ABC News reported this week that two of the plotters of the failed Christmas terrorist plot had been released by the Bush/Cheney administration. The network has partially retracted its report, saying that one of the two was not involved.

* Radical Yemen cleric Anwar Awlaki is apparently not dead. Good to know.

* Sessions' controversy deepens: "Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) in 2004 collected more than $24,000 from a financial firm since revealed to be part of a massive, billion-dollar Ponzi scheme, federal election data shows. The contributions came from Stanford Financial -- run by indicted financier Allen Stanford -- and together comprised the second-largest contribution from any firm to Sessions' campaign that year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, citing official Federal Election Commission reports."

* Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) wants to debate Dick Cheney.

* Interesting item from Noam Scheiber: "[T]he government's stress tests -- an eight-week effort to vet the balance sheets of the country's biggest banks -- was the single most consequential economic policy of 2009."

* Another lapse in judgment at the Washington Post.

* TheConservatives.com, a big project of the Washington Times, has apparently been scrapped.

* Rush Limbaugh was hospitalized overnight in Hawaii after experiencing chest pains. By all accounts, the right-wing radio host is expected to fully recover.

* And Rachel Maddow noticed that several media outlets simply passed along Dick Cheney's vile attack against the White House yesterday without noting how spectacularly dishonest it was. She offered news outlets and media professionals some worthwhile advice: "Again, my friends and colleagues in the media have two choices in covering this. You can just copy down what the Republicans and Vice President Cheney are saying, and click 'send,' call it journalism, or you can actually fact-check those comments and put them into context. Your choice. It's your country."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

WILL THE BLUE DOGS COME HOME ON HCR?.... Nearly two months ago, when the House passed its health care reform bill, the vote was 220 to 215. While one House Republican, Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana, joined with the majority, 39 Democrats joined with Republicans to oppose the legislation.

A couple of the 39 Dems -- Reps. Eric Massa (N.Y.) and Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) -- said the health care bill was too conservative to support, but nearly all of the Democratic opponents were conservative Blue Dogs, with one objection or another.

The Senate reform bill, we now know, is less progressive in most respects than the House version, including the omission of a public option. Will some of the Blue Dogs who balked at the House bill in November support the final bill if it closely resembles the Senate version? Brian Beutler takes a closer look.

[F]or the first time, we're seeing signs that some of the members who opposed the bill the first time around are keeping their options open -- even leaning towards supporting the final bill if it closely resembles the Senate package.

Freshman Blue Dog Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO) says some positive things about the Senate bill, and is keeping an open mind. Blue Dog Jason Altmire (D-PA) is on the record saying that the Senate bill is stronger than the House bill, and that "a lot" of Blue Dogs might flip their votes from 'no' to 'yes' if the Senate bill prevails in conference.

This isn't just an academic question. To get the reform bill through the chamber the first time around, the Democratic leadership had very little margin for error -- 218 votes were needed, and Pelosi & Co. assembled 219 Democratic proponents. If there's a sizable progressive contingent that's unsatisfied with the final package -- that is, if it's too close to the Senate version -- an untold number may vote with Republicans against final passage.

At that point, the leadership would need at least some Blue Dogs to cross the finish line. Frankly, I'm not sure what more the Blue Dogs could want from the legislation -- they sought cost controls, deficit reduction, and the removal of the public option. Some conservative Dems will reflexively oppose any reform bill (cough, cough, Mike McIntyre, cough), but for the rest, this should be an easy call.

That is, if their opposition was principled and policy-focused, and not just a reflexive response to far-right apoplexy.

CAN TWO PLAY AT THAT GAME?.... In the wake of the failed terrorist attack on Christmas, confused Republicans have been almost giddy about the shift in focus. As the GOP sees it, issues like the economy and health care are Democratic issues, while national security "belongs" to them, reality and their failed record notwithstanding.

This was bolstered, at least initially, by the fact that far-right Republicans rushed forward to exploit public fear to trash the White House and raise money, while congressional Democrats largely sat on their hands and kept a low profile -- even though, again, there's no reason in the world for Republicans to claim the high ground on the issue they don't even understand.

What's interesting, though, is that the DCCC at least says it intends to turn the tables as the midterms approach.

Democratic leadership in Congress is pledging to make Republican votes against key national security and defense funding measures a feature in the upcoming congressional elections, following the botched Christmas Day terrorist attack aboard a Detroit-bound airliner.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-M.D.) told the Huffington Post on Wednesday that it was the committee's duty to ensure that, come 2010, the American people are aware that House Republicans opposed a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that included funding for airport security.

The 2010 appropriations bill contained Transportation Security Administration funding for explosives detection systems and other security measures -- it was opposed by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) among others.

"It is not so much that the DCCC will be holding people accountable but the American people will be holding people accountable. They deserve to have that info and we will make sure they have it," Van Hollen told Sam Stein. "And I'm assuming our Republican colleagues will have an opportunity to explain why they voted against additional resources for homeland security."

(And remember, it's not just the House.)

I don't doubt Van Hollen's sincerity, but it's probably a little early to say what the driving issues of the 2010 cycle will be. The point, however, is that if national security is a major factor on voters' minds, the DCCC believes it has a compelling pitch to voters -- House Republicans voted against funding for screening operations and explosives detection systems at airports, and voted against funding for the military during two wars.

THEY'RE BOTH WRONG.... Matt Yglesias considers the decade in comic-book adaptations.

We had a lot of comic book adaptations in the zeros, and the best of them, contrary to what you might have heard, is Iron Man. I promise you that this is a better movie than The Dark Knight. Go back and watch them again if you don't believe me. I'm not sure what's led people to get confused about this -- I think maybe people have decided that the use of a darker color pallet makes Dark Knight more serious, which is itself a lot sillier than using bright colors in your comic book adaptation. Dark Knight isn't even as good as Batman Begins!

Dave Weigel offers an alternative take.

Matthew Yglesias says it's "Iron Man," which I think is reflective of the back-loaded bias of so many decade retrospectives. "Spider-Man," which came out seven years ago, is clearly the adaptation of the decade. Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin/Norman Osborn is a fantastic villain (remember the mirror monologues? of course you do) with motivations that make sense and a great denouement. Kirsten Dunst, as bland as she can be, makes a great dream girl, and the resolution of the romance is so good that J.K. Rowling ripped it straight off for "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." Like "Iron Man," it nails the ecstasy of the origin scene, but "rich man gets powers" is a less satisfying transition than "nerd gets everything he wants."

They're both wrong. The adaptation of the decade was "Spider-Man 2." Doc Ock was infinitely more interesting than the Goblin; the train sequence was one of the best of the genre; Peter's existential crisis of confidence made for a more meaningful arc; and the nerd didn't really get everything he wanted until the sequel, making the conclusion that much more satisfying.

"Iron Man" was all matter of fun, but c'mon, it didn't really have a script and Iron Monger wasn't well thought out. Both "Dark Knight" and "Batman Begins" were superior. For that matter, "X2" is widely underappreciated -- Brian Cox always makes good movies even better -- and deserves to be part of the mix for the decade's best.

Let's also not overlook some other fairly strong showings, including the "Hellboy" movies, "Watchmen," and "300."

The genre also had some clunkers this decade. Matt singles out "Daredevil" and "Elektra" as the worst of the '00s, and while they are awful, I'd say "Catwoman" and both of the "Fantastic 4" movies were even worse.

What say you?

INTELLIGENCE FAILURE?.... After Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father raised concerns about his son's radicalism in November, Abdulmutallab's name was added to an enormous list, and the CIA prepared a profile. The profile, however, was not shared with other agencies, including the National Counterterrorism Center.

Soon after, the National Security Agency intercepted chatter about al Qaeda in Yemen seeking a Nigerian for some kind of attack at some point in the near future. The National Counterterrorism Center had that information, but didn't have much to go on.

So, eight years after the attacks of 9/11, communications between intelligence agencies are still far from the idea. But was the failed plot an "intelligence failure"? In a very smart post, Spencer Ackerman explains why it may not have been.

Abdulmutallab's father told embassy officials in Abuja that he didn't know where his son was, but might be in Yemen. The CIA had that information. NSA has information that a Nigerian might be used for an attack sponsored by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. If all of this had gone into the NCTC, would someone have put two and two together -- setting off the process for pulling Abdulmutallab's visa or putting him on the no-fly? Maybe. And the rationale for the all-source, multi-agency NCTC is all about intelligence sharing. But remember: the inputs are that the guy's dad says he's dangerous; he's Nigerian; he might be in Yemen; and al-Qaeda in Yemen may be looking to use a Nigerian in a forthcoming attack. Is that really enough?

The answer to that question most certainly requires a policy decision, not an intelligence decision. The intelligence community is drinking from a fire hose of data, a lot of it much more specific than what was acquired on Abdulmutallab. If policymakers decide that these thin reeds will be the standard for stopping someone from entering the United States, then they need to change the process to enshrine that in the no-fly system. But it will make it much harder for people who aren't threatening to enter, a move that will ripple out to effect diplomacy, security relationships (good luck entering the U.S. for a military-to-military contact program if, say, you're a member of the Sunni Awakening in Iraq, since you had contacts with known extremists), international business and trade, and so on. Are we prepared for that?

Similarly, there's a reasonable issue to investigate about intelligence-sharing processes even in the pre-specific-threat level. But remember: that just increases the firehose of data NCTC must process. Information is supposed to filter up to NCTC in strength and specificity from the component intelligence agencies so that NCTC isn't overwhelmed. If we want to say that there should be a lower standard for sharing with NCTC, fine. But then either NCTC needs to be given more resources, or we risk missing the next Abdulmutallab because NCTC's analysts will be drowning in nonspecific data and trying to rope it to flotillas of additional information.

When you know the answer to a puzzle, the clues look glaringly obvious. This week, we've all seen plenty of items making it seem as if the entire intelligence community must have been asleep at the wheel: "The father told us he was dangerous! And al Qaeda said it was looking for a Nigerian! Simple!"

Except it's not. As Kevin Drum concluded, "The intelligence community plainly needs to account for itself here, and upon investigation we might decide that there really was a systemic breakdown. But it's way too early to say that with any confidence."

KUNG FUN ON AN AIRPLANE.... If you caught yesterday's episode of "Hardball," you saw Chris Matthews host a pretty good discussion between Salon's Joan Walsh and former Dick Cheney aide Ron Christie. It's fair to say Christie didn't get end up looking especially good.

But towards the end of the episode, Matthews slipped back into character. (via John Cole)

"I think we have got to get serious about catching terrorists, not just catching weapons. I'm waiting for the terrorist who knows kung fu or something that gets on an airplane without a weapon. God knows what that is going to be like."

In case you were wondering, you can watch the clip and see that Matthews wasn't kidding. He seems to think this is a legitimate area of concern.

Now, I don't know if Chris Matthews has ever actually been on an airplane, but it's a pretty tight, confined space. A dangerous martial-arts display would be exceedingly difficult in the aisle of even the largest jumbo jet.

And even if a kung-fu-trained terrorist were to start beating up a passenger or crew member, there are still all of the other passengers and crew members to contend with.

Also note the context: Matthews is urging us to "get serious" about counterterrorism, and in the next sentence, warning us of the potentially deadly consequences of terrorists who know "kung fu or something."

Apparently, "getting serious" means not taking security advice from Chris Matthews.

THE SCANDAL LIST.... Marc Ambinder posted the latest in a series of end-of-the-decade polls yesterday, asking readers, "What's the best (or worst) Republican political scandal of the decade?" Respondents were given five choices:

* The Abramoff investigation

* Sen. Larry Craig's "wide stance"

* Gov. Mark Sanford's Argentinian affair

* Rep. Mark Foley's IMs to young male pages

* Other

The top-four choices rotated randomly. As of this morning, the Abramoff scandal was well ahead of the pack.

And while the Abramoff, Craig, Sanford, and Foley matters were clearly significant Republican scandals -- three of the four relate to sex, which is always an attention-grabber -- Ambinder's list doesn't include any of Tom DeLay's scandals, the still-shocking Duke Cunningham scandal, the corruption of nearly all of the Alaska Republican Party's establishment, the phone-jamming scandal that may have helped Republicans steal a Senate race in New Hampshire, other Republicans caught up in sex scandals (John Ensign, David Vitter, Tim Hutchinson), or any of the many, many Bush/Cheney scandals.

That's a shame, because if we're really going to consider the biggest "Republican political scandals of the decade," we shouldn't overlook the gang that couldn't shoot straight, which in fairness, probably deserves its own end-of-the-decade poll.

Jamison Foser noted, "Not mentioned [on Ambinder's list]? The Bush administration lying its way into a war of choice, listening in on the phone conversations of Americans, torture, Abu Ghraib, putting an unqualified crony in charge of FEMA, the US Attorneys firing, outing a CIA operative to get back at her husband, etc."

Those are all key Bush-era scandals, but as long as we're listing some of the highlights (or lowlights, as the case may be), I'd also mention the response to Hurricane Katrina, Scooter Libby and his get-out-of-jail-free card, the no-bid Halliburton contracts, the cost estimates of Medicare Part D deliberately hidden from Congress, the pundits paid to toe the administration's line in the media without disclosure, the fake-news segments the administration created to run on local news outlets without disclosure, the suppression of scientific data the White House found politically inconvenient, the misuse of "faith-based" grants to help Republican congressional candidates, Karl Rove's campaign "briefings" to federal offices in violation of the Hatch Act, the odd special access the White House gave to Gannon/Guckert, and plenty more that I'm probably forgetting.

All from the administration that vowed to return "honor and dignity" to the executive branch.

How can we look back at this godforsaken decade, ask about Republican scandals, and overlook these gems?

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.

* The Democratic Change Commission, which was convened to examine the presidential nominating process, will apparently recommend eliminating the influence of superdelegates. The recommendation will be further evaluated by the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee.

* Much to the chagrin of the DCCC, Kansas state Sen. Laura Kelly (D) announced this morning she is ending her campaign against first-term Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R). Dems believe Jenkins is vulnerable, and will likely try to get state Sen. Tom Holland into the race.

* Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) new fundraising letter suggests he's expecting to face a primary challenge from former Rep. J.D. Hayworth.

* Sen. Richard Burr (R) of North Carolina is considered one of the more vulnerable Republican incumbents in 2010, but he still doesn't mind being associated with the Bush presidency -- Karl Rove is headed to N.C. to help Burr raise money.

* The intra-party fight within Florida's state GOP is getting even more intense. This week, a group of key Republican fundraisers in the state -- most are top allies of Jeb Bush -- called on Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer to resign.

* He's been running for months, but yesterday, ophthalmologist Rand Paul formally filed the paperwork to run for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky. Paul, who has no experience in government at any level, is best known for being Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Texas) son, and for being named after Ayn Rand.

* Former congressman and convicted felon Jim Traficant said yesterday is he "going to run" for Congress next year, though he hasn't picked a district. Traficant served seven years behind bars after being convicted on federal corruption charges. He was released in September, and would have to quickly establish residency somewhere in order to pretend he's part of the community he wants to represent.

A REASONABLE QUESTION.... David Kurtz was probably just being a little snarky with this one, but I've been wondering about this same question myself.

If an underwear bomb means we're not safe under Obama, does a shoe bomb mean Bush didn't really keep us safe after 9/11?

The right-wing criticism of the Obama administration this week has been lacking in any coherence whatsoever, but the bottom line is fairly straightforward -- they want people to blame the president for the attempted attack. Indeed, as far as Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) is concerned, the failed Abdulmutallab effort wasn't an "attempted" terrorist attack, but rather, "it was a terrorist attack."

But that's what makes David's question quite relevant. The White House's Republican critics can't say, exactly, why the president should be blamed for the attempted attack, but even if we put that aside, every criticism is undermined by the Reid shoe-bomb attempt.

The Abdulmutallab plot proves Obama is pursuing a poor national-security strategy? Then the Reid plot proved that Bush/Cheney must have pursued a poor national-security strategy.

The Abdulmutallab plot proves Obama has signaled "weakness" to America's enemies? Then the Reid plot proved that Bush/Cheney must have signaled "weakness" to America's enemies.

The Abdulmutallab plot proves Obama can't keep Americans safe? Then the Reid plot proved that Bush/Cheney couldn't keep Americans safe.

As for Hoekstra's specific argument about Abdulmutallab's failed effort representing an actual terrorist attack, this also necessarily means that the Republicans' favorite talking point -- other than 9/11, Bush/Cheney stopped terror attacks in the U.S. -- isn't true.

PROFITING FROM TERROR.... There's something very wrong with a political party that looks at the attempted murder of hundreds of innocent Americans and, within a few days, thinks, "Maybe I can make a few bucks off of this."

This started earlier this week with Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), but has extended to the House Republicans' campaign committee...

House Republicans moved quickly to use a recent terrorism attempt to help boost their fundraising efforts, sending out an e-mail Wednesday calling for "an immediate contribution" by Dec. 31.

...and the Senate Republicans' campaign committee.

The NRSC is the latest GOP group to use the failed bombing attempt on a Detroit-bound plane to rake in money.

In a statement, DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan accused Republicans of going "beyond crass political opportunism," noting that the Republican campaign committees are using potential terrorism "to raise campaign cash." Sevugan added that Democrats won't lectured by a party that "implemented a radical foreign policy that alienated our allies, emboldened our enemies, depleted our resources, distracted our focus and who made the nation less secure."

The fundraising efforts do, however, raise an uncomfortable question. The GOP attacks against the administration this week have been largely incoherent, contradictory, hypocritical, and dishonest. I'd assumed this was just about trashing the president and undermining Americans' confidence in their government. But is it possible Republicans have spent the last six days senselessly shrieking because they're looking for a fundraising boost?

INTERROGATING ABDULMUTALLAB.... About a millisecond after Northwest Airlines Flight 253 was on the ground on Friday, federal officials took Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab into custody. He was soon after charged with attempted terrorism. Conservatives aren't happy about this for a variety of reasons, but one concern in particular is especially wrong.

Tom Ridge, for example, told Americans this week that Abdulmutallab will only provide information "if he volunteers it." Similarly, the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb complained that "we can't interrogate" the suspected terrorist.

Obviously, no one should expect much from Goldfarb, but Ridge doesn't have any excuses -- he has a law degree and, not incidentally, he led the Department of Homeland Security, where presumably this issue came up more than once.

In reality, Abdulmutallab -- even after having been read his rights, and securing counsel -- can be, probably has been, and will be interrogated. As Spencer Ackerman explained yesterday, "Just because the guy lawyers up doesn't mean we can't interrogate him."

U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials I've talked to in the last several hours have been flabbergasted to hear this line of argument, because at its heart, it betrays a fundamental ignorance of the process. One who has experience in these matters called it "flat-out ignorance" to claim that the "criminal justice system or law enforcement methods impede the collection of actionable intelligence. There is no basis in fact."

Why? Let me turn this over to a U.S. official deeply familiar with intelligence matters who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the Abdulmutallab case. "I cannot speak from first-hand knowledge of the present matter, but if a terror suspect like Abdulmutallab invokes [his] right to silence, it does not mean law enforcement officials must cease the interview," the official said. "It simply means inculpatory information probably will not be used in court."

Got that? Mirandization is about admissibility in court. This ought to explain why law enforcement and intelligence officials aren't complaining about Abdulmutallab. It's just Obama's political enemies, who have no problem inventing a concern based on absolutely nothing and then promoting their ignorance about security matters to a pliant media.

If I had a nickel for every time Republican talking points reflected a "flat-out ignorance," I could retire a wealthy man.

It's possible, of course, that Republican activists like Ridge, Goldfarb, and others aren't hopelessly confused. Rather, maybe they understand the process very well, and are simply lying shamelessly this week in the hopes of scoring cheap points by exploiting public fear and confusion.

That, however, would be worse.

LEAVE HAWAII ALONE.... This again?

On CNN [yesterday] morning, host John Roberts asked former Romney spokesman Kevin Madden about the hypocritical "heat for this president from the Republicans" regarding the Obama administration's response to the attempted Christmas day terrorist attack. Madden claimed that the two reasons Republicans were launching attacks were that Obama "has very little political capital" on terrorism and that he is "on vacation in Hawaii" at the moment. Madden added that "Hawaii to many Americans seems like a foreign place."

I'd hoped we were past this by now.

You'll recall that, during last year's presidential campaign, Cokie Roberts complained on ABC, "I know his grandmother lives in Hawaii and I know Hawaii is a state, but it has the look of him going off to some sort of foreign, exotic place." Soon after, on NPR, Roberts repeated the criticism, arguing that Obama's vacation destination "makes him seem a little bit more exotic." She added that Hawaii is "a somewhat odd place" for him to take a break, even though he was born in Hawaii and grew up there.

Around the same time, Politico ran a 1,200-word piece -- seriously -- on the political perils of Obama spending eight days vacationing in the state of his birth. It quoted a pollster saying, "For somebody who has been called 'elitist,' going to Hawaii is not exactly going against type. I would rather have him going to national parks."

For some, it seems the silliness continues.

AN INCONVENIENT VOTING RECORD.... Almost immediately after some congressional Republicans started trashing the Obama administration for the failed Abdulmutallab plot, Democrats noted that 108 House Republicans -- including Boehner and Pete Hoekstra -- opposed funding for the Transportation Security Administration, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems.

It's worth noting, however, that it's not just House Republicans, and it's not just this year.

Some of the same Republican lawmakers currently criticizing the President for softness on terrorism voted back in July 2007 against legislation that, among other reforms, provided $250 million for airport screening and explosive detection equipment.

The Improving America's Security Act of 2007 was a relatively non-controversial measure that effectively implemented several un-acted-upon recommendations from the 9/11 Commission. Eighty-five Senators voted in favor of the bill's passage. Seven missed the vote (several of whom were on the campaign trail, including Barack Obama, John McCain and Chris Dodd).

Eight Republican Senators, however, voted against passage, including Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), James Inhofe (R-Okl.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ari.).

Now, those eight far-right senators -- which includes, of course, Jim DeMint, who is blocking a vote on the nominee to head the TSA -- knew the legislation was going to pass with strong bipartisan support. They also knew it had been endorsed by members of the 9/11 Commission and the Bush administration.

They even knew that the sure-to-pass legislation included key measures on cargo inspection, transportation security, aid to states and local communities, and funding for airport screening and explosive detection equipment.

But they all voted against the Improving America's Security Act anyway, and never actually explained why. They must have felt pretty strongly about their opposition, though, under the circumstances.

Something to keep in mind the next time DeMint & Co. start claiming the moral high ground on national security issues.

PFEIFFER MAKES IT PLAIN.... It's understandable that the White House, any White House, wants to stay "above the fray." A president and his/her team have broader responsibilities that preclude tit-for-tat squabbles with petty partisans.

That said, some criticisms deserve responses. Dick Cheney, for example, isn't some two-bit radio shock-jock in a third-tier market -- he only acts like it -- but is rather the former vice president of the United States. His loathsome and spectacularly dishonest attack on the president yesterday was hard to ignore.

And with that in mind, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer published an important item yesterday, offering a surprisingly forceful response to Cheney's latest vile nonsense. Pfeiffer noted at the outset that it's "telling" that Cheney and his right-wing cohorts "seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers."

Just as important, Pfeiffer offered a "substantive context" for those who seem desperate to assign blame for a failed terrorist attack.

[F]or seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq -- a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion -- Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years. It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda -- more than doubling our troops in Afghanistan, and building partnerships to target al Qaeda's safe-havens in Yemen and Somalia. And in less than one year, we have already seen many al Qaeda leaders taken out, our alliances strengthened, and the pressure on al Qaeda increased worldwide.

To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.

That's a rather diplomatic way of saying, "Dick, you had your shot and you failed. Now shut up while we clean up your mess. You can thank us later."

Cheney's disgusting missive also insisted that the president, by his estimation, doesn't realize we're "at war." Pfeiffer reminds us of several instances in which Obama has made it clear that, as far as this administration is concerned, we are very much at war.

There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference is this: President Obama doesn't need to beat his chest to prove it, and -- unlike the last Administration -- we are not at war with a tactic ("terrorism"), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered.

Well said.

PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES.... The Monthly's annual fundraising drive is almost over. Our most sincere thanks to those of you who have already contributed. For those who haven't, here's a reminder that your tax-deductible donation can make a big difference.

The Monthly is a nonprofit organization. We have print and online ads, but this only covers a small part of our expenses, which means that we depend on contributions from readers to stay up and humming. So, I hope we can count on your support. In honor of the Monthly's 40th anniversary, the magazine is asking for $40 donations, but any amount is welcome. If every "Political Animal" reader chipped in just $1, we'd surpass our fundraising goal.

Just click here to help out. You can donate online, through PayPal, or through the mail.

Thanks.

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

* A suicide bomber killed eight Americans in Afghanistan today, at an attack at Forward Operating Base Chapman in Khost province.

* Anbar, Iraq: "Twin bombings -- one an assassination attempt against an Iraqi provincial governor -- killed 23 people and wounded the governor Wednesday in the worst violence in months to hit the western province that was once al-Qaida's top stronghold in Iraq."

* Getting a sense of the intelligence breakdown that allowed Abdulmutallab onto that flight.

* Yemen: "Yemeni security forces stormed an al-Qaida hide-out Wednesday in a principal militant stronghold in the country's west, setting off clashes, officials said, as a security chief vowed to fight the group's powerful local branch until it was eliminated."

* That's a lot of transparency: "Fulfilling one of the transparency goals of President Obama's administration, the White House today released more than 25,000 records of visitors who came through the gates at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue this year."

* On a related note, Obama also declared today that "no information may remain classified indefinitely."

* Great story on why the House Committee on Financial Services can be so dysfunctional.

* I'm beginning to wonder if Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) is getting dumber by the day.

* The implosion of the far-right Washington Times continues apace.

* Fox News still wants to see a war against Iran.

* Good tip: "Just because green jobs are growing doesn't necessarily mean it helps to have a green major."

* Brad DeLong: "[M]y grade for the Obama economic team for its first year would definitely be: exceeds expectations."

* And in 2003, the Dixie Chicks were excoriated for criticizing George W. Bush at a concert overseas. Six years later, Ted Nugent trashed President Obama at an event overseas, but will likely face far less pushback -- because few remember who Ted Nugent even is. (Remember "Cat Scratch Fever"? That was released in 1977.)

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

CONGRESSIONAL DEMS START TO SPEAK UP.... Within hours of the attempted terrorist attack last Friday, Republicans had already begun blaming the president for the actions of the madman. Since then, abandoning any sense of reason, GOP officials and their allies have been trashing U.S. officials for ... well, something bad. It's unclear what.

Congressional Democrats have been slow to either defend the White House against baseless attacks or go on the offensive against the Republican attack dogs. That seemed to change this afternoon.

While many Dems stay silent and let the WH lead the way, DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) say the previous admin let down their guard.

"In general, we are facing the consequences of the Bush administration's failures to deal with al Qaeda," Van Hollen told Hotline OnCall. "The Republicans have no business in pointing fingers at the Obama administration on terrorism and national security."

"The Obama administration has been much more aggressive about going after al Qaeda than the Bush administration, which turned its focus from al Qaeda to Iraq," he added. The Obama admin has "been on the offense in places where the Bush administration had taken its eye off the ball."

I'd go a little further, but that's not bad. It's probably also worth noting that a) Bush/Cheney released the terrorist plotters into an "art therapy rehabilitation program"; b) failed spectacularly to keep America and its allies safe from terrorism during the former administration's eight years; c) the same Republican lawmakers whining now also opposed funding for the Transportation Safety Administration, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems; and d) that Obama has succeeded on counter-terrorism fronts that Bush/Cheney only talked about. That said, Van Hollen's message isn't a bad start.

Also today, Massa picked up on Cheney's latest idiocy, responding, "I would remind the American public that the apparent leaders of the al Qaeda cell in Yemen were two terrorists who were released by Vice President Cheney in secret. I think there's a level of accountability that has to be levied personally on the vice president."

And Van Hollen and Massa both pointed to the fact that the Transportation Safety Administration doesn't have a chief administrator right now because of Republican obstructionism. Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) "pure partisan ideology placed not only the passengers and crew of that Northwest flight at great personal danger, but in fact placed the entire American traveling public in danger," Massa said. "He should be held personally accountable for that incredible act of partisan politics that placed so many Americans at risk."

THE THREE AMIGOS STRUGGLE TO KEEP UP.... Well, that's embarrassing.

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) sent a letter to President Obama today asking him to halt the transfer of six Guantanamo detainees to Yemen. The request, they say, is in light of the danger they've apparently just now realized Yemen poses, because Nigerian terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has said he was trained there.

The only problem: those six detainees have already been returned to Yemen.

Whether the appeal itself has merit is suspect enough. For Graham, McCain, and Lieberman, the fact that there are terrorists in Yemen necessarily means detainees from Yemen shouldn't return home, regardless of the individual circumstances. That may have a certain child-like logic, but it's not an especially coherent approach to national security.

What's more, note that Bush/Cheney released 14 Gitmo detainees to Yemen, and the Graham/McCain/Lieberman trio didn't have much to say about it at the time.

But the fact that these three wrote to the president about detainees who have already been sent back suggests the Graham/McCain/Lieberman triumvirate not only don't understand the policy, but aren't even keeping up on current events. Did it not occur to the senators or their aides to, I don't know, check Google or something?

In case this wasn't quite embarrassing enough, when confronted with reality, the senators complained that their ignorance was Obama's fault: "A spokeswoman for McCain, Brooke Buchanan ... said the gap in the senators' knowledge raised questions about the administration's communications with Congress."

Actually, the gap in the senators' knowledge raises questions about the senators' ability to use a search engine. If you go to the Justice Department's website, there's an entire press release about the transfer of these detainees to Yemen. It took me about five seconds to find it. The collective efforts of three experienced United States senators didn't even check?

Remember, as far as the political establishment is concerned, Graham, McCain, and Lieberman are some of the foremost experts on foreign policy and national security on the Hill. I can't help but wonder how much more it will take to disabuse the establishment of this misguided perception.

BETTER BUSH APOLOGISTS, PLEASE.... In December 2001, after Richard "Shoe Bomber" Reid used PETN to try to blow up an airplane en route to the United States, federal officials charged, convicted, sentenced, and incarcerated Reid very effectively. The case tested the federal justice system, which passed with flying colors. At the time, no one questioned or criticized the Bush administration's handling of the case -- it simply didn't occur to anyone that the process might be controversial.

Eight years later, after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab used PETN to try to blow up an airplane en route to the United States, federal officials intend to charge, convict, sentence, and incarcerate Abdulmutallab with the professionalism and efficiency they demonstrated in 2001. Republicans and their allies are throwing a fit over the mere possibility -- but they can't explain why.

So, the question is, why the Bush administration's approach was universally accepted without criticism, and why the Obama administration's identical approach to an identical case is the subject of far-right apoplexy.

TPM has been working on getting an answer to this today, but the right's intellectual firepower is shooting blanks.

Wow, this is getting pretty bad for the National Review and Marc Thiessen. Thiessen of course said that we tried Richard Reid in a regular American court since that was "long before we figured out that we had other options than handing him over" to law enforcement. But as TPM Reader RM points out, President Bush okayed military tribunals a month before Reid tried to blow up the plane.

As I said, there's no spinning this one. There's no reason beside GOP electoral strategy for not trying AbdulMutallab in a regular American Court. But seriously, with National Review's august history, can't we at least get better fake answers?

Thiessen also argued the real relevant case here was Jose Padilla, not Richard Reid. But Thiessen doesn't know what he's talking about -- Padilla was sent to a military tribunal because officials didn't have enough evidence to try him in a federal criminal court. The Reid and Abdulmutallab cases are identical, including the fact that evidence to convict won't be a problem.

If we cut through the nonsense and the talking points, we're left with the obvious answer we knew before we asked the question: Republicans and their allies want to destroy the Obama presidency, and don't care if they have to make up garbage to suit their goals. Literally every day, and with literally every story, the usual suspects -- congressional Republicans, the RNC, Fox News, National Review, The Weekly Standard, etc. -- ask themselves, "How can we use this to attack the White House?" Contradictions, hypocrisy, and dishonesty are entirely irrelevant, and aren't considered obstacles to trashing the president.

They know no limits and have no shame.

DEMINT'S WATERLOO?.... The Transportation Safety Administration doesn't have a permanent head right now. President Obama nominated Erroll Southers, a former FBI special agent and a counterterrorism expert, to head the TSA a few months ago, and he's already been approved by two Senate committees with bipartisan support.

But Sen. Jim DeMint, a right-wing Republican from South Carolina, has blocked Senate confirmation because he doesn't want TSA employees to be able to join a labor union. Protecting the American public from terrorism is a priority, but for DeMint, preventing government workers from organizing is a much higher priority.

DeMint went a little further on CBS's "The Early Show" today, arguing that there's really no rush to filling the TSA leadership post.

A Republican senator who has been blocking President Barack Obama's nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration complains that Democrats are trying to rush a vote on the nominee without adequate debate.

Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina has placed a hold on the nomination of former FBI agent and police detective Erroll Southers.

Why hurry? Collective bargaining represents a bigger threat to our future than terrorists blowing up airplanes, right?

We don't have to imagine what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot here. It's been a while, but in advance of the 2002 midterms, the Bush administration, after initially balking at the idea, decided it wanted to create the Department of Homeland Security. Democratic senators endorsed the idea, but wanted to protect the collective bargaining rights of DHS workers.

The White House and congressional Republicans responded by arguing that Democrats are terrorist-loving traitors. Remember the ad showing Max Cleland's image morphing into Osama bin Laden? It was all over a labor dispute relating to DHS employees.

Now we have a similar situation, only with DeMint, it's slightly worse -- he sees the threat, he knows Southers is qualified, he realizes the nation would benefit from a permanent TSA head, but DeMint is still blocking the nomination because he hates unions that much.

Any chance the Obama White House will approve Rove-like ad morphing DeMint into bin Laden? Well, no, probably not, because Democrats don't play the game this way. But reader A.S. emailed me yesterday to argue that "DeMint just hit his Waterloo."

All Dems have to do is swing at the slow hanging curve.

BORED NOW.... After listening to incessant conservative whining for several days now, I realize that the right is targeting Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. I just can't figure out what it is, exactly, that conservatives think Napolitano did wrong.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is complaining that he didn't like the look on the DHS secretary's face.

In the wake of the attempted bombing of a plane bound for Detroit, Rep. Peter King (NY-R) criticized Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for appearing "bored." [...]

"Finally, Janet Napolitano comes out and the first thing she said was everything worked well. And she seemed almost like she was bored to be there. There was no intensity. There was no show of emotion," he said.

That's what it's come to with today's Republican Party -- in the wake of an attempted terrorist attack, one of the first GOP responses is to blast the Homeland Security secretary for her tone and facial expressions. King wants her to be more "emotional."

Is there something in the water I'm not aware of?

Keep in mind, King went on to say about the Obama administration, "Let me make it clear, I think they are doing the right thing as far as their policies. Since this attack occurred, the FBI and, as far as I can tell, Homeland Security and all the agencies of the United States government are doing the right job."

So, a leading Republican lawmaker is blasting the head of DHS, not because of her on-the-job performance, but because she was calm and composed during a public statement.

I'm at a loss here. Going after Napolitano for "the system worked" is pretty silly. Going after Napolitano for the look on her face while talking to the media is insane.

And yet, we have at least one GOP lawmaker calling for Napolitano's resignation, a call that some in the media seem to think has merit. But I still don't know what it is that the DHS secretary is being accused of. As John Cole put it, "What did she do wrong? Napolitano didn't change any procedures which then led to the bomber getting through security. She didn't shift the DHS budget in a way that impacted security. She didn't botch the response. And her statement is factually correct, and only wrong if you completely distort what she said." Napolitano's biggest mistake has nothing to do with her responsibilities and everything to with "giving Republicans (with yet another assist from the liberal media) a sound bite that is easy to demagogue."

If the right intends to force out a high-ranking cabinet official who's been doing strong, capable work, they're going to have to do better than "she seemed almost like she was bored."

CLOSE GITMO ANYWAY.... Very little of the conservative reaction to the failed Abdulmutallab plot on Christmas has made sense, but the calls to keep Gitmo open in response to the attempted terrorism are especially odd.

For many on the right, the effort to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay was some kind of signal that we're no longer going after terrorists. That's backwards. The point is that Gitmo, thanks to the Bush/Cheney failures, had become a rallying cry that helped terrorists.

When President Obama began the process of shutting the facility down, he explained his position in a way that even conservatives should have been able to understand: "The message we are sending around the world is that the U.S. intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly, we are going to do so effectively, and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals ... We intend to win this fight, and we intend to win it on our terms."

Now, apparently, conservatives believe the fact that terrorists still want to kill Americans is reason enough to keep Gitmo open. The Obama administration said today that plans to close the facility haven't changed. A senior administration official said today:

The detention facility at Guantanamo has been used by Al Qaeda as a rallying cry and recruiting tool - including its affiliate Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. As our military leaders have recognized, closing the detention facility at Guantanamo is a national security imperative.

The President created the Guantanamo Review Task Force to conduct the thorough work that the previous administration did not: to review the relevant information about each detainee, including the threat they pose, to determine whether they should be prosecuted, detained, or transferred. As he has said before, the President will not release any detainee who would endanger the American people. We have worked cooperatively with the government of Yemen to ensure that all appropriate security measures are taken when detainees are transferred.

In other words, nothing has changed. Nor should it -- Gitmo was undermining our national security interests before Dec. 25; it's still undermining our national security interests after Dec. 25. Closing the facility isn't at odds with our security; keeping it open is.

Now, if only congressional Dems weren't stuck in a defensive crouch, they could echo the administration's position. That, apparently, isn't going to happen.

SETTING THE REPEAL TRAP.... When Democrats first started pressing Republicans on whether they're prepared to commit to repealing health care reform, it seemed counter-intuitive. Indeed, last week, when Dems said that they would demand a clear answer on repeal from every GOP candidate, NRSC spokesperson Brian Walsh said, "I realize it's the holiday season and all, but my advice would be to cut back on the spiked eggnog."

The Republicans' far-right base, of course, is making the same demand, and that's easier to explain. Newt Gingrich said on "Meet the Press" the other day that "every Republican in 2010 and 2012 will run on an absolute pledge to repeal this bill." The party's right-wing base will apparently tolerate nothing less -- they hate the reform package (or what they think they know about it) and expect their allies to make "Obamacare" go away.

But what's interesting is that leading Democrats seem quite sincere in their hopes that Gingrich is right and that every GOP candidate really will run on a repeal pledge. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer had this item earlier today:

[B]efore it even becomes law, opponents of health care reform ... are already talking about repealing it. Certainly there is a fundamental disagreement here, since many opponents of reform -- again including Gingrich -- appear to think that insurance companies can do no wrong. [...]

[E]veryone should be very clear what is being called for here. At a time when insurance companies are finally about to be reined in, and when American families are finally about to be given control over their own health care, opponents of reform are advocating that insurance companies once again be allowed to run wild.

While several provisions of the health care reform initiative wouldn't kick in until 2014, the really popular measures would kick in almost immediately in 2010. Consumers would have all kinds of new protections, including a ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, the elimination of rescissions, and a ban on annual or lifetime caps.

And that's exactly why the aggressive repeal push from Republican activists and the Tea Party crowd offers Dems an important opportunity. Democratic leaders would love nothing more than to be able to tell voters next year, "A vote for a Republican is a vote to let insurance companies screw over American families. Know those new protections that just became law? Republicans will take them away unless you vote Democratic."

Some GOP candidates are willing to back partial repeal, in part because they know parts of the package are popular, and in part because they realize that total repeal is practically impossible. But for the right-wing base, partial isn't good enough. As Josh Marshall noted yesterday, "After all, if it's really the end of the universe, America and Apple Pie, as Republicans have been suggesting, it's hard to say you just want to tinker at the margins."

It puts Republican candidates in a box. Democrats are going to ask, "Are you really going to fight to repeal protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions?" If the Republican says "no," he/she alienates the GOP activists who will settle for nothing but a full repeal. If the Republican says "yes," he/she alienates the mainstream electorate.

It leaves Dems and Teabaggers asking the same question at the same time: are Republicans prepared to embrace a total repeal pledge or not?

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.

* Rep. George Radanovich (R-Calif.) became the 13th House Republican to announce he won't seek re-election yesterday. Though there will likely be a crowded GOP primary, the district is expected to remain in GOP hands -- McCain won here with 52% last year, and Bush won the district with 61% in 2004.

* Massachusetts state Sen. Scott Brown, the Republican nominee in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, launched his first television ad of the race today. The GOP candidate uses the ad to try to tie himself to JFK's legacy. Brown will face state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) on Jan. 19.

* Former Sen. Mark Dayton (D), as part of his gubernatorial campaign, announced yesterday that he's been taking medication for many years to treat depression. Dayton, a recovering alcoholic, also conceded that he briefly began drinking again towards the end of his one term in the Senate. "I am a candidate for governor and I think people have a right to know this about me," he said yesterday.

* Perhaps concerned about this standing back home, Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska is launching a new television ad tonight explaining his position on health care reform. In light of all the distortions, Nelson says in the spot, "I want you to hear directly from me."

* And while there's still no official word, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R) continues to move closer to challenging Sen. John McCain in a Republican primary in Arizona next year. Hayworth, who became a right-wing radio talk-show host after losing his re-election bid in 2006 told his listeners this week that "we may have moved past due diligence into something that is more than a legal term of art ... something called 'testing the waters.' So stay tuned on that."

THE APPLES-TO-APPLES COMPARISON.... Karl Rove pried himself away from his divorce attorney yesterday, just long enough to show up on Fox News to condemn President Obama for waiting three days before commenting publicly on the failed Abdulmutallab plot. Rove added that he was outraged that White House officials "couldn't bother to interrupt [the president's] vacation."

What a hack.

Eight years ago, a terrorist bomber's attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner was thwarted by a group of passengers, an incident that revealed some gaping holes in airline security just a few months after the attacks of September 11. But it was six days before President George W. Bush, then on vacation, made any public remarks about the so-called "shoe bomber," Richard Reid, and there were virtually no complaints from the press or any opposition Democrats that his response was sluggish or inadequate.

It's rare to get such a perfect apples-to-apples comparison. Reid and Abdulmutallab used the same chemical, the same target, the same intended consequence, in same month of the year, with the same twisted ideology. Reid's attempt happened when Bush was away from the White House; Abdulmutallab's attempt happened when Obama was away from the White House.

Any fair evaluation makes clear that the Obama team's response was faster, more thorough, and offered more depth.

While the Obama White House issued a background statement through a senior administration official calling the incident an "attempted terrorist attack" on the same day it took place, the early official statements from Bush aides did not make the same explicit statement.

Bush did not address reporters about the Reid episode until December 28, after he had traveled from Camp David to his ranch in Texas.

Democrats do not appear to have criticized Bush over the delay. Many were wary of publicly clashing with the commander-in-chief, who was getting lofty approval ratings after what appeared to be a successful military campaign in Afghanistan. The media also seemed to have little interest in pressing Bush about the bombing, or the fact that the incident had revealed a previously unknown vulnerability in airplane security -- that shoes could be used to hide chemicals or explosive devices.

Here's the kicker: while major news outlets have given Obama detractors all kinds of airtime since Friday, six days after Reid's attempted terrorism, Bush fielded 15 questions from reporters. They asked about the then-president's holidays plans, but asked literally zero questions about the terrorist attempt to blow up an airplane over American soil six days prior.

If Republicans and/or political reporters can explain this stunning double-standard, I'd love to hear it.

NO REWARD FOR BEING A GROWN-UP.... I have no idea if Republicans' insane attacks against President Obama on counter-terrorism are going to have an effect. The daily tracking polls haven't shown much of a shift as of yet, but much of the public is enjoying the holiday season and may not be fully engaged in the GOP talking points of the day.

Ideally, Americans would see through the baseless condemnations of the White House, and recognize them for what they are: petty and stupid. But if public attitudes actually start to shift, and wrong-but-loud criticism undermines confidence in the administration's national security policies, there is an alternative strategy available.

Up until now, the president has chosen a mature, sensible, and effective approach to counter-terrorism. Marc Ambinder had an item over the weekend about the deliberate White House strategy in response to the failed Abdulmutallab plot.

Here's the theory: a two-bit mook is sent by Al Qaeda to do a dastardly deed. He winds up neutering himself. Literally.

Authorities respond appropriately; the President (as this president is want to do) presides over the federal response. His senior aides speak for him, letting reporters know that he's videoconferencing regularly, that he's ordering a review of terrorist watch lists, that he's discoursing with his Secretary of Homeland Security.

But an in-person Obama statement isn't needed; Indeed, a message expressing command, control, outrage and anger might elevate the importance of the deed, would generate panic (because Obama usually DOESN'T talk about the specifics of cases like this, and so him deciding to do so would cue the American people to respond in a way that exacerbates the situation. [...]

Let the authorities do their work. Don't presume; don't panic the country; don't chest-thump, prejudge, interfere, politicize (in an international sense), don't give Al Qaeda (or whomever) a symbolic victory; resist the urge to open the old playbook and run a familiar play.

Republicans didn't care for that approach, and preferred a collective display of pants-wetting. GOP voices and the media decided the strategy to deny terrorists a p.r. victory wasn't good enough. This was a time for partisan grandstanding, not mature leadership.

Again, maybe Americans will find the president's approach compelling. They should. But at this point, it seems pretty obvious that the president acting like a grown-up is going over the political world's head.

There's apparently an expectation that the president can -- and probably should -- exploit incidents for as much political gain as possible. So, for example, when U.S. forces, acting on the president's orders, successfully took out Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, the ringleader of a Qaeda cell in Kenya and one of the most wanted Islamic militants in Africa, the president should appear before the cameras and explain, "Hey, look at me! I took out one of the world's most dangerous terrorists!" When U.S. forces, acting on the president's orders, killed Baitullah Mehsud, the terrorist leader of the Taliban movement Pakistan, Obama should assemble reporters to declare, "Booyah! Who's da man?"

When the Obama administration took suspected terrorists Najibullah Zazi, Talib Islam, and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi into custody before they could launch their planned attacks, each and every instance requires its own press conference, in which the president can proclaim, "Republicans' talk is cheap; I'm the one keeping Americans safe."

The president, by all appearances, finds such shameless politicization of counter-terrorism offensive. And it is. But Republicans are running an aggressive misinformation scheme, and if it's effective, the White House may need to reconsider whether the public rewards or punishes leaders who act like grown-ups.

EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS GOOD NEWS FOR REPUBLICANS.... If facts, history, evidence, and reality have no meaning whatsoever -- and they may not -- then this makes sense.

Republicans are jumping on President Obama's response to the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner as the latest evidence that Democrats do not aggressively fight terrorism to protect the country, returning to a campaign theme that the GOP has employed successfully over the past decade. [...]

The result of the GOP offensive could be to create doubt, even fear, among the American public that Obama cannot protect them.... [I[f the public remains concerned about the safety of air travel and about international terrorism, the Republican attacks on Obama could be "very influential," said Andrew Kohut, a veteran pollster and president of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

"I don't know if it has legs, but it certainly has potential if it has legs," Kohut said.

By all appearances, it doesn't matter if the Republican attacks are baseless and ridiculous. It doesn't matter if Republican national security policies failed. It doesn't matter that Republicans are more anxious to denounce the president than they are to denounce terrorism.

What matters now is what mattered before -- whether GOP voices can create and exploit just enough misguided panic and fear to benefit politically. If they can shout "soft on terror" often enough, and the media overlooks all available evidence, maybe the public won't notice how ridiculous the Republican lies really are.

Republican pollster Neil Newhouse said the attempted attack on Christmas is "a black eye" for the administration. It takes about three seconds of actual thought to realize how absurd this is. Was 9/11 "a black eye" for Bush/Cheney? How about the anthrax attacks? Or Richard Reid? Or the attacks against U.S. allies around the world? And the terrorist attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

If I didn't know better, I might think terrorists trying to kill Americans under a Republican administration is good news for the GOP, while terrorists trying to kill Americans under a Democratic administration is also good news for the GOP. When terrorists try to kill Americans under a Republican administration, it's Democrats' responsibility to help bring the country together against a common foe. When terrorists try to kill Americans under a Democratic administration, it's Republicans' responsibility to attack the White House, undermine American confidence, and create a climate of fear and division.

The Washington Post reported, "The health-care debate demonstrated how successful Republicans and their allies can be in selling a message to the American people, even when some of their facts are in doubt." That's one of my favorite sentences in a long while -- Republicans can't govern, and don't understand public policy, but they have a unique ability to convince the public that their lies might be true.

Reality is stubborn, and the facts aren't on Republicans' side. The trick is getting Americans to notice.

DICK THE COWARD.... It was only a matter of time before Dick Cheney decided to trash the president again.

"As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won't be at war."

Let's review a few pesky details. First, it was Cheney's administration that released some of the alleged terrorists who plotted the attack into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" in Saudi Arabia, only to see them become terrorist leaders in Yemen. It was also Cheney's administration that gave Abdulmutallab a visa to enter the United States in the first place.

Second, let's compare some "low-key responses." President Obama addressed a failed terrorist attack three days after it occurred. Eight years ago, when a terrorist tried to blow up an airplane under nearly identical circumstances, then-President Bush waited six days before making brief, cursory public remarks. Five days after the attempted terrorist attack, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused substantive comment altogether, telling reporters, "That's a matter that's in the hands of the law enforcement people." A White House spokesperson would only say at the time that officials were "continuing to monitor events."

Democrats, at the time, didn't launch an assault against the Bush administration, and we didn't see Al Gore condemning the White House. It simply didn't occur to Democrats in 2001 to use the attempted mass murder of hundreds of Americans to undermine the presidency.

Eight years later, Dick Cheney believes his principal responsibility is to destroy President Obama -- the man Americans chose to clean up the messes Cheney left as a parting gift after eight years of abject failure.

This recent piece from James Fallows continues to ring true: "The former vice president, Dick Cheney, has brought dishonor to himself, his office, and his country. I am not aware of a case of a former President or Vice President behaving as despicably as Cheney has done in the ten months since leaving power.... Cheney has acted as if utterly unconcerned with the welfare of his country, its armed forces, or the people now trying to make difficult decisions. He has put narrow score-settling interest far, far above national interest."

Dick Cheney is a coward and a disgrace.

THE OTHER KING.... Most of the time, when a Republican congressman named King is in the media saying bizarre things, the culprit is Steve King of Iowa. But let's not overlook just how nutty Peter King of New York is, too.

Over the weekend, for example, King appeared on CNN and said the Obama administration has "refused to use the word 'terrorism.'" That's obviously false. More specifically, the Republican lawmaker said, "Even when the president gave his speech at West Point about the troops going to Afghanistan, he didn't use the word 'terrorism.' He spoke of 'extremism.'"

That would be an interesting observation if it weren't completely wrong. From the president's West Point speech:

"America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security....

"Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people....

"In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror....

"Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters....

"We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear....

"And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists....

Now, the point isn't just that King is a rather confused partisan clown who routinely says things on national television that aren't true. The point is King remains a prominent Republican spokesperson on national security issues despite being a rather confused partisan clown who routinely says things on national television that aren't true. Is there no one in the House or Senate Republican caucuses who can speak intelligently and honestly on these issues?

What's more, is there no one in the media who cares that King routinely lies to national television audiences? As Jason Linkins explained, "It seems to me that if the aftermath of the Crotchfire Attack on NWA Flight 253 proved anything about Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.), it's that his main strength as a national security expert is to have excellent intel on the location of various television cameras and the means to get in front of them very quickly. His alacrity, naturally, comes at the expense of his ability to say anything sensible to those cameras once he's found them, but in the current media universe that doesn't matter: the shininess of pointless political static supersedes the need to actually broadcast anything remotely intelligent."

PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES.... The Monthly's annual fundraising drive is almost over. Our most sincere thanks to those of you who have already contributed. For those who haven't, here's a reminder that your tax-deductible donation can make a big difference.

The Monthly is a nonprofit organization. We have print and online ads, but this only covers a small part of our expenses, which means that we depend on contributions from readers to stay up and humming. So, I hope we can count on your support. In honor of the Monthly's 40th anniversary, the magazine is asking for $40 donations, but any amount is welcome. If every "Political Animal" reader chipped in just $1, we'd surpass our fundraising goal.

Just click here to help out. You can donate online, through PayPal, or through the mail.

Thanks.

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

* He didn't sound pleased: "President Obama on Tuesday blamed a 'systemic failure' in the nation's security apparatus for the attempted bombing of a passenger jet on Christmas Day and vowed to identify the problems and 'deal with them immediately.'"

* Preliminary reports point to very dangerous materials: "A dangerous explosive allegedly concealed by Nigerian student Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in his underwear could have blown a hole in the side of his Detroit-bound aircraft if it had been detonated, according to two federal sources briefed on the investigation."

* Tehran: "Iranian security forces made a wave of new arrests Tuesday, including Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi's sister and a relative of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, pressing forward with a broadening crackdown on the reformist movement in the wake of deadly protests this week."

* North Korea claims to have an American citizen in custody who, N.K. officials say, entered the country illegally from China.

* Good economic news: consumer confidence is climbing and many hiring managers expect to add full-time workers in 2010.

* Less good economic news: "Home prices rose modestly in October but beneath the apparent good news were some disquieting signs of deterioration. Analysts expect prices this winter to resume their descent, putting fresh pressure on the fragile economy."

* Kabul: "As the U.S. and its allies try to overcome logistical hurdles and rush some 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan in 2010, intelligence officials are warning that the Taliban-led insurgency is expanding and that 'time is running out' for the U.S.-led coalition to prove that its strategy can succeed."

* Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has blocked a vote on the nominee to hear the Transportation Security Administration, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to force a vote on Erroll Southers when the Senate reconvenes in January.

* The Obama administration seems pretty concerned about the new Japanese leadership.

* Bob Herbert tackles the excise tax intended to finance health care reform. Ezra Klein responds.

* Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), a champion of abortion rights, seems largely satisfied with the compromise funding language in the Senate bill.

* Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) will be the subject of an ethics probe, though no one seems to know why.

* This certainly doesn't sound good: "The political action committee behind the Tea Party Express (TPE) -- which already has been slammed as inauthentic and corporate-controlled by rival factions in the Tea Party movement -- directed around two thirds of its spending during a recent reporting period back to the Republican consulting firm that created the PAC in the first place."

* And apparently, words like "alleged" are a little too sophisticated for Fox News.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

DAN BURTON STRIKES AGAIN.... Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security released reports, requested by Bush administration officials, on the threats posed by potentially violence radical extremists -- on the right and left. By late April, several House Republicans had called on DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to resign because of the reports.

The demands didn't make any sense; the White House ignored the right-wing lawmakers' tantrum; and in time, conservatives found new toys to play with. The political world moved on.

Eight months later, at least one House Republican has decided to kick off a new round of calls for Napolitano's resignation.

Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) on Tuesday became the first lawmaker to call on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to resign after the recent attempted airline bombing.

The veteran member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee called for Napolitano's ouster in the wake of the attack on the Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day.

Now, the details matter here. Did Burton call for Napolitano's resignation because of a problem with the no-fly list? No. Did Burton call for Napolitano's resignation because of Adbulmutallab's visa to enter the United States? No. Did Burton call for Napolitano's resignation because of a TSA breakdown? No.

Burton called for Napolitano's ouster because, as he sees it, her comment on Sunday that "the system worked" means Americans may no longer have "confidence" in her abilities.

Think about that. A high-ranking cabinet official should quit, Burton believes, because of a three-word phrase that was entirely reasonable in context. A so-called "gaffe" is more important, the argument goes, than actual on-the-job performance.

This is terribly nutty. Then again, we are talking about Dan Burton -- a man who used his role as chairman of the House Government Reform Committee back in the '90s to fire a bullet into a "head-like object" (reportedly a melon) in his backyard to test whether former White House counsel Vince Foster was murdered.

Americans have every reason to have lost confidence in Burton. Maybe he should resign?

HOEKSTRA TAKES HEAT OVER CRAVEN SOLICITATION.... Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee and a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Michigan, sent out a fundraising appeal this week, hoping to exploit the Abdulmutallab terrorist plot for financial gain. Even by the standards of House Republicans, it was an ugly, craven move.

Dems are starting to pounce. Hari Sevugan, the DNC's national press secretary, issued this statement this afternoon.

"It was shameful that Republicans like Mr. Hoekstra would attempt to play politics with our national security at all, but raising money off it is beyond the pale. Republicans are playing politics with issues of national security and terrorism, and that they would use this incident as an opportunity to fan partisan flames and raise money for political campaigns tells you all you need to know about how far the Republican party has fallen and how out of step with the American people they have become.

"The American people simply will not tolerate the likes of Mr. Hoekstra and the Republican Party playing politics with the serious issues of national security and terrorism -- especially after the mess they left this country in both domestically and on national security after eight years of failed leadership."

Around the same time, Ryan Rudominer, the DCCC's national press secretary, also took a swing.

"Time and again, Congressional Republicans refuse to back up their tough talk about national security with a vote to actually keep Americans safe. Instead of shamelessly trying to raise campaign cash off the plot to blow up a plane and kill innocent Americans on Christmas, Ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee Pete Hoekstra should look in the mirror and ask why he and 107 of his House Republican colleagues recently voted against strengthening airport security."

Also this afternoon, a spokesperson for Michigan Republican Rick Snyder, a Hoekstra rival for the state's gubernatorial nomination, said, "It is extremely disappointing that [Hoekstra] would us a potentially tragic incident to raise money for his political campaign. In these troubling times, words can't describe how sad it is to see an attempt to politically capitalize on a failed terrorist attack just three days after it happened."

In general, lines of decency and mainstream norms don't really apply to House Republicans, so if Hoekstra actually pays a price for his genuinely pathetic display, I'll be very impressed. There are certain things politicians just shouldn't do. Trying to raise money off the attempted murder of hundreds of innocent Americans should be one of them.

IF THEY REALLY WANT TO POLITICIZE NATIONAL SECURITY.... A variety of congressional Republicans seem awfully anxious to play partisan games with the terrorist threat, and exploit the Abdulmutallab plot for electoral gain. The risk, of course, is that by starting the fight, the GOP attack dogs may be confronted with issues they're unprepared to deal with.

There is, for example, the fact that the nominated head of the TSA can't get confirmed because of Republican obstructionism. Then there's the fact that congressional Republicans also opposed funding for the TSA, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems.

And then there's this unpleasant tidbit.

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.

American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia, where they entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.

As Ron Chusid put it, "Just imagine the Republican response if Barack Obama or Bill Clinton had released prisoners to enter an 'art therapy rehabilitation program.' This sounds almost as silly as an American president sitting and reading a children's book while the country is under attack."

Now, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting Bush/Cheney are indirectly responsible for the attempted attack on Christmas. Sure, the Bush/Cheney administration released some of the alleged terrorists who plotted the attack into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" in Saudi Arabia, only to see them become terrorist leaders in Yemen. And sure, it was the Bush administration that gave Abdulmutallab a visa to enter the United States in the first place. But there was almost certainly no way for the former administration to know what would happen.

Let's be honest -- if Obama had released the attack's plotters into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" in Saudi Arabia, we would never hear the end of it. This would be the lead story on Fox News every day until the end of time. "Art therapy rehabilitation program" would become President Obama's middle name(s).

If Republicans really want to turn the attempted terrorist attack into a partisan fight, Democrats should welcome the opportunity.

MAYBE THEY FORGOT ABOUT RICHARD REID.... Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) doesn't want Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to face criminal charge in a federal court. Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge doesn't want Abdulmutallab to have legal rights.

I had the same thought Josh Marshall had about the search for elusive consistency.

Remember, the AbdulMutallab case is virtually identical to the Richard Reid "Shoe Bomber" case from December 2001 -- to an uncanny degree. Same explosive, (PETN), same MO (blowing up an airliner bound for the US), same failed attempt.

It's really about as close to identical cases and you get. And, of course, Reid was tried in civilian courts and is now serving a life sentence. Seemed to work fine in his case. And unless I'm misremembering, I don't remember anybody criticizing this approach at the time.

Most of the criticisms we're hearing are pretty silly. But that's where the buck stops. It happened. Obama's president. It's natural that the political opposition will try to pin it on him. But can we at least get some demagoguing that isn't so transparently ridiculous and easily refuted by pointing out the policy the accuser followed when they were in charge?

Right. The Reid and Abdulmutallab cases offer nearly identical circumstances -- same chemical, same target, same intended consequence, same month of the year, same twisted ideology. Reid was charged, convicted, sentenced, and locked up for life. Neither conservatives nor liberals whined about it. But if the Obama administration subjects Abdulmutallab to an identical process, Republicans are outraged? Either they're idiots or they think we are.

But let's take this one step further. In December 2001, Reid tried to blow up an airplane en route to the United States, intending to murder the Americans on board. In December 2009, Abdulmutallab tried to blow up an airplane en route to the United States, intending to murder the Americans on board. To hear several prominent far-right Republicans tell it, Abdulmutallab's attempt must be President Obama's fault -- as they see it, the suspected terrorist wouldn't have tried to commit mass murder were it not for the administration's policies. Failed attempt or not, the effort itself, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said, is evidence of the White House's "approach" being wrong.

For any grown-up, that's obviously insane. But taken at face value, doesn't that necessarily mean that Bush/Cheney policies were equally responsible for Reid's nearly identical terrorist plot? If Abdulmutallab's attempt is evidence of Obama's national security strategy being misguided, wouldn't Reid's attempt also be evidence of the Bush/Cheney strategy being equally misguided?

What's more, is there any evidence -- any at all -- that congressional Democrats attacked Bush/Cheney for Reid's failed attempt? I suspect there isn't, which is why it seems like the two parties simply aren't playing the same game.

THE TALKING POINTS NO ONE'S REPEATING.... When it comes to the debate over national security and counter-terrorism, this White House prefers the high road. President Obama didn't mention Republicans or their recent attacks yesterday, instead declaring, "As Americans, we will never give into fear and division."

Bill Burton, the White House's deputy press secretary said the administration is committed to keeping national security issues out of the partisan realm. "The president doesn't think we should play politics with issues like these. He hasn't. His response has been fact-based and appropriate and will continue to be as such," Burton told reporters.

It's a reminder that when it comes to the nation's partisan divide, the two sides are playing different games.

Republicans have wasted no time in attacking Democrats on intelligence and screening failures leading up to the failed Christmas Day bombing of Flight 253 -- a significant departure from the calibrated, less partisan responses that have followed other recent terrorist activity.

Not too long ago, blaming America's leaders for attempted terrorist attacks was considered borderline treasonous. There was an expectation that when enemies of the United States tried to commit mass murder of Americans, all of us should close ranks, join together, and put patriotism over party. That, it turns out, only applies to Republican presidents.

It stands to reason that the White House doesn't want the president getting into a petty pissing match with right-wing members of Congress like Pete Hoekstra and Jim DeMint, but congressional Democrats aren't stepping up to respond at all. As Avi Zenilman put it, "Why are Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, and other Democratic national security voices keeping quiet? What are they scared of?"

I could vaguely understand if Dems were remaining silent because they felt like this is a policy fight they can't win, but that's backwards -- the talking points Democrats aren't repeating are obvious and rather devastating for Republicans.

It's not even an especially long list:

* The GOP's obstructionism is dangerous -- The Transportation Safety Administration doesn't have a permanent head right now, because one right-wing GOP senator won't let the Senate vote on the president's clearly-qualified nominee. What's more, some of the far-right Republican lawmakers blasting the president are the same Republican lawmakers who opposed funding for the TSA, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems.

* The GOP record is a failure -- To hear the Hoestra/King/DeMint camp tell it, the Obama administration should have stuck with the Bush/Cheney strategy. It's worth noting, then, that the Bush/Cheney strategy was a spectacular failure. Perhaps Republicans need to be reminded of the catastrophic events of 9/11, the anthrax attacks against Americans, the attempted shoe-bombing, terrorist attacks against U.S. allies around the world, terrorist attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush's inability to capture those responsible for 9/11, and Bush's failures that inspired more terrorists and made al Qaeda recruitment easier.

* The knocks on Obama's record are insane -- The Hoestra/King/DeMint crowd would have us believe President Obama doesn't take the terrorist threat seriously enough. Notice, however, that these same callous partisans had precious little to say when U.S. forces, acting on the president's orders, successfully took out Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, the ringleader of a Qaeda cell in Kenya and one of the most wanted Islamic militants in Africa; Baitullah Mehsud, Pakistan's enemy No.1 and the leader of its Taliban movement; and launched strikes against suspected al Qaeda sites in Yemen. For that matter, the Obama administration took suspected terrorists Najibullah Zazi, Talib Islam, and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi into custody before they could launch their planned attacks. All in just 11 months.

It's like watching a debate in some kind of political bizarro world in which reality has no meaning. National security and counter-terrorism is one of the Republicans' weakest points. It's an area in which President Obama has had his biggest successes. Republicans are attacking from a position of weakness, and Democrats are letting them -- in part because the White House doesn't want to politicize national security issues, and in part because congressional Democrats are on the sidelines, pretending it's 2003.

The public will continue to think the GOP is "stronger" on counter-terrorism -- all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding -- unless Democrats tell Americans otherwise.

GIVE US WHAT WE WANT AND THEN WE'LL NEGOTIATE.... The idea of some kind of bipartisan budget commission is misguided, but the underlying goal is not entirely ridiculous. There are limited options when it comes reducing the government's long-term deficit: collect more money, spend less money, or some combination of the two.

The commission would ostensibly create the conditions for some kind of grand bargain -- Democrats would have to accept spending cuts they would otherwise oppose, and Republicans would accept tax increases they would otherwise oppose. Spread the pain around and everyone gets some political cover.

The Wall Street Journal's right-wing editorial page has a suggestion for Republicans in how they approach these talks, should they occur.

A budget deficit commission is nothing more than a time-tested ploy to get Republicans to raise taxes. [...]

The Democrats will use a tax-and-spend commission to confront Republicans with the false choice between huge tax increases or fiscal disaster. Republicans should respond with their own choice: They'll agree to a deficit commission only if it takes tax increases off the table....

In other words, as far as the WSJ is concerned, a grand bargain can be considered just as long as one side gets what everything it wants in advance of the negotiations. Yeah, that'll work.

In our reality, thanks to Republican policies championed by the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, there's a serious long-term budget shortfall. Closing that shortfall without tax increases is impossible, whether the GOP and its mouthpieces like it or not.

Update: Looks like others were thinking along the same lines.

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.

* Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) is poised to formally announce a gubernatorial campaign in Rhode Island. Chafee parted ways with the Republican Party after his 2006 defeat, and it's unclear what party affiliation he'll use in next year's campaign.

* In a setback for DCCC recruiting, Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks (D) announced that he will not run for Congress next year, and will instead continue his gubernatorial campaign. Party leaders hoped to see Sparks run against Rep. Park Griffith, who became a Republican last week.

* Rep. Mark Kirk (R) is the leading Republican candidate in Illinois' 2010 Senate race, prompting some desperation from his primary challenger, Andy Martin. This week, Martin, a right-wing lawyer, launched a radio ad speculating as to whether Kirk "is a homosexual." Subtle.

* Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) isn't up for re-election until 2012, but if Gov. Dave Heineman (R) decides to challenge him, a new Rasmussen poll suggests Nelson would be a big underdog.

* In Maryland, former state lawmaker George W. Owings III is poised to challenge incumbent Gov. Martin O'Malley in a Democratic gubernatorial primary. Owings, perhaps best known for his work in former Gov. Bob Ehrlich's Republican administration, apparently intends to challenge O'Malley from the right.

* Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal (D) would appear ineligible for a third term -- the state has a term-limits law -- but he's apparently commissioned a poll to "assess his political standing as he considers whether to challenge a state law that prohibits governors from serving three terms." If Freudenthal decides to step down after eight years in office, he'll likely throw his support to state Sen. Mike Massie (D).

ABSTAINING FROM MAKING SENSE.... If there's one thing conservatives claim to hate, it's wasteful federal spending on programs that have been proven not to work.

Unless we're talking about funding for abstinence programs, in which case conservatives love wasteful federal spending on programs that have been proven not to work.

Proponents of sex education classes that focus on encouraging teenagers to remain virgins until marriage are hoping that the rescue plan for the nation's health-care system will also save their programs, which are facing extinction because of a cutoff of federal funding.

The health-care reform legislation pending in the Senate includes $50 million for programs that states could use to try to reduce pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease among adolescents by teaching to them to delay when they start having sex.

Under the federal budget signed by President Obama, such programs would no longer have funds targeted for them.

"We're optimistic," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association, which is lobbying to maintain funding for the programs. "Nothing is certain, but we're hopeful."

Bush/Cheney spent about $150 million a year on abstinence programs that failed miserably. Obama's budget directs funds to "teenage pregnancy prevention" for programs that have been "proven effective through rigorous evaluation." The right objected, arguing that limiting funding to effective programs would exclude their preferred initiatives. Obama didn't budge.

But abstinence proponents believe health care reform might offer new opportunities, in large part because Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) pushed a measure to provide $50 million to states to use for abstinence programs. It was approved in committee thanks to the support of a couple of conservative Democrats, and for some reason, the provision ended up as part of the legislation passed by the Senate. (Hatch described himself as being "as surprised as anyone" to see the provision remain in the bill.)

Reality has been stubborn on the question of abstinence effectiveness, and policymakers shaping the final health care bill would be wise to acknowledge it. 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.

That this is still even an argument reflects poorly on the seriousness with which lawmakers consider reason and evidence in shaping public policy.

THE HEIGHT OF CRAVENNESS.... Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee and a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Michigan, has been desperately trying to exploit the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas for political gain. But even by Hoekstra's low standards, this is one of the more craven displays of any politician this year.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) is now jumping upon the Northwest Airlines attack -- and using it to raise money for his gubernatorial campaign, the Grand Rapids Press reports.

In the letter, Hoekstra denounces the Obama administration on a whole range of national security issues -- ranging from Flight 253 itself to Guantanamo Bay, investigation of the interrogation techniques used during the Bush administration, and what Hoekstra calls Obama policies that "impress the 'Blame America First' crowd at home and his thousands of fans overseas."

First, when a Republican's first instinct in the wake of an attempted attack is to blame the president and U.S. officials for the terrorist's actions, he's more or less joined the "Blame America First" crowd.

Second, as a substantive matter, Pete Hoekstra is completely, demonstrably wrong about every aspect of national security policy.

And third, just how pathetic does a politician have to be to try to raise money off the attempted murder of hundreds of innocent Americans? Just how desperate does that politician have to be to see a plot to blow up an airplane over American soil and think, "You know, maybe I can exploit this to pick up a few checks."

Looking back over the last several years, Hoekstra has long been an embarrassing buffoon, especially on matters of national security. But he didn't go quite this far -- blaming the president for a terrorist's actions, trying to use attempted murder to fill his campaign bank account -- until very recently. It seems as if Pete Hoekstra is anxious to make the transition from hapless clown to pernicious hack.

HEALTH CARE REFORM TALKS QUIETLY GET UNDERWAY.... The House returns from its winter break until Jan. 12, and the Senate reconvenes six days later. If the goal is to get health care reform finished and sent to the president's desk before the State of the Union address -- a tall order, to be sure -- policy talks will have to begin long before lawmakers return to the Hill.

Apparently, the discussions quietly got underway yesterday.

Congressional aides began laying the groundwork Monday for Democratic leaders in the House and Senate to negotiate competing health care reform bills into legislation that can be signed by President Barack Obama, a senior Senate aide confirmed. [...]

"Everything happening this week is happening behind the scenes," the Senate aide said of preparations to reconcile the House and Senate bills. "Staff is taking the week to review documents. Informal staff meetings may happen, but nothing is scheduled just yet."

There's still a very real possibility that policymakers will skip a formal conference committee, and instead hold informal talks between White House and congressional leaders. After they agreed to a final package, the theory goes, the House would approve it before sending it, "ping-pong" style, back to the Senate, which would then pass it en route to the president. A decision on whether to pursue a formal conference or not may come as early as next week.

Time will tell whether the House-Senate negotiations will go smoothly, but in recent days, Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House Majority Whip, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the chairman of the DCCC, have signaled the likelihood of House support for the Senate's version.

Update: Paul Waldman puts together the 10 "things to watch" as efforts to merge the House and Senate bills continue. "It's not just about abortion and the public option," he reminds us.

DEMINT BLOCKS TSA NOMINEE.... A few weeks ago, there was a mildly embarrassing dust-up over the Transportation Security Administration posting materials online that, if manipulated, revealed sensitive security information. When "The Daily Show" did a segment on this, Jon Stewart highlighted the fact that the TSA doesn't actually have an administrator.

What Stewart didn't mention is why.

An attempt to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day would be all-consuming for the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration -- if there were one.

Instead, the post remains vacant because Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has held up President Barack Obama's nominee in an effort to prevent TSA workers from joining a labor union.

President Obama nominated Erroll Southers, a former FBI special agent and a counterterrorism expert, to head the TSA a few months ago. Southers is the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department assistant chief for homeland security and intelligence, and the associate director of the University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events. Two Senate committees considered the nomination, and easily approved Southers with bipartisan support.

But the Senate hasn't been able to vote on the nomination because DeMint hates unions, and isn't sure if Southers might allow TSA workers to organize. Without that guarantee, DeMint not only opposes Southers' nomination, but prefers to leave the Transportation Security Administration without a permanent administrator.

This realization, in the wake of the attempted terrorism on Christmas, should make DeMint back down. It hasn't -- he still supports blocking Southers' nomination until he knows TSA workers won't unionize. The terrorist threat is bad, but the threat of collective bargaining is the real danger.

Also note, congressional Republicans also opposed funding for the TSA, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems.

The GOP is desperate to politicize the attempted terrorism. That's probably not a good idea.

PAWLENTY'S DREADFUL IDEA.... One year ago, as the global economy teetered on the brink of collapse, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) said he knew exactly what the United States should do to address the crisis and prevent a depression: approve a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Seriously.

As Pawlenty saw it in December 2008, the economic crisis was the result of excessive debt. Right off the bat, that didn't make any sense. Nevertheless, the governor proceeded to argue that balancing the budget in the midst of a financial crisis represented "common sense, kitchen table logic."

The argument may have helped Pawlenty in his bid to become the poster child of Neo-Hooverism, but fortunately, his truly insane recommendation was ignored by those with actual responsibilities.

A year later, and with his unannounced presidential campaign already in gear, Pawlenty is still at it.

Mr. Pawlenty has proposed an amendment to the Minnesota constitution that would limit spending during any two-year budget period to the amount of revenue collected during the previous budget cycle. At a Republican fund-raiser in New Hampshire on Dec. 16, the governor also pushed the idea of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would force Congress to pass, and the president to sign, a balanced budget.

You'll remember that this little gimmick was popular with the Gingrich crowd 15 years ago, before sane people realized it didn't make any sense -- sometimes, the government should run deficits to address crises, such as wars and deep recessions. You know, like the stuff Obama inherited.

It's hard to know whether Pawlenty seriously believes his own nonsense (in which case he's a fool), or if he's just spouting this to score cheap points with the Republican base, which he assumes doesn't know better (in which case he's a hack). Either way, this kind of talk should, in a reasonable political world, effectively end Pawlenty's efforts to become a credible national figure.

OUR BROKEN SENATE.... Senate Republicans have engaged in unprecedented abuse of the chamber's filibuster rules, but the problems is exacerbated by the unprecedented abuse of Senate "holds."

Of the 200 or so Obama nominations pending, some 75 have gotten through committee but were being held up for various reasons in the Senate, administration officials and Congressional staff members said. During their last gasps of official business after the health care vote on Thursday morning, senators cleared 35 nominees by unanimous consent -- far short of the 60 that administration officials had been hoping to get through by the end of the year.

One of those finally approved was Miriam Sapiro, who had become the Obama administration's prime example of stalled nominations since being chosen in April to be a deputy United States trade representative. Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, put a hold on the confirmation of Ms. Sapiro, an Internet policy consultant, to try to pressure the trade representative's office to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization against Canada over a law that bans cigarettes with candy flavors.

Think about that. A government office remained vacant for months, and a qualified nominee was stuck in limbo, because some far-right senator was worried about Canadians' ability to buy candy-flavored cigarettes.

That would be mind-numbing enough if it were an isolated incident, but inane Senate holds on qualified nominees have become painfully routine. The General Services Administration has been without an administrator because Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) blocked the president's nominee -- he wanted more funding for a federal office building in downtown Kansas City. The president's nominee for the U.S. ambassador to Spain faced a hold because Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wanted more information about the dismissal of AmeriCorps' inspector general.

The nominee to head the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission faces a hold. Judicial nominees have been subjected to holds for no apparent reason. Dawn Johnsen was nominated to head the Office of Legal Counsel, but she's spent nine months in procedural limbo. Patricia Smith is prepared to be the Department of Labor's Solicitor, responsible for enforcing workplace protections, but there's a hold on her, too.

There isn't even anyone in charge of the TSA right now, because of another Republican hold. (More on that later.)

Put simply, the failed and discredited Republican minority is effectively breaking the United States Senate.

PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES.... The Monthly's annual fundraising drive is almost over. Our most sincere thanks to those of you who have already contributed. For those who haven't, here's a reminder that your tax-deductible donation can make a big difference.

If you're a regular, you know that the Washington Monthly offers the kind of cutting-edge reporting and analysis the country needs now more than ever, breaking big stories well ahead of major mainstream outlets.

But to keep us going strong, we need a little help. Your donation will not only help the magazine, but also help support this blog. In fact, we've already begun work on a redesign -- a development more than a few of you have requested -- but need some additional funds.

The Monthly is a nonprofit organization. We have print and online ads, but this only covers a small part of our expenses, which means that we depend on contributions from readers to stay up and humming. The truth is, without an annual pledge week, we can't stay in business.

So, I hope we can count on your support. In honor of the Monthly's 40th anniversary, the magazine is asking for $40 donations, but any amount is welcome. If every "Political Animal" reader chipped in just $1, we'd surpass our fundraising goal.

Just click here to help out. You can donate online, through PayPal, or through the mail.

Thanks.

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

* Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl, the only known American serviceman being held captivity: "The Taliban released a video Friday showing a U.S. soldier who was captured more than five months ago in eastern Afghanistan."

* Three attacks in three days against Shiites in Pakistan: "A suicide bomber killed more than 30 people at a Shiite religious procession in Karachi on Monday, setting off rioting in parts of the city and prompting fears that extremist groups already waging a multi-front war against the government were now trying to foment sectarian violence against the country's minority Shiite Muslims."

* Claiming responsibility: "Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility Friday for an attempt to destroy a Northwest Airlines jet over Detroit on Christmas Day, saying that it had done so in response to airstrikes against the group in Yemen this month. The group said it had provided Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab with an explosive device that failed because of 'a technical fault.'"

* Tehran: "Iranian security forces stormed a series of opposition offices on Monday, rounding up at least 12 prominent anti-government activists in a new crackdown on the country's reformist movement, opposition Web sites and activists reported."

* Israel's Housing Ministry announced plans today to build nearly 700 housing units in Jewish areas of Jerusalem. The White House isn't happy about it.

* Preliminary evidence points to slightly better-than-expected U.S. retail numbers during the holidays.

* Is full-body scanning equipment on the way?

* Despite the intense criticism from Roman Catholic bishops, the nation's Catholic hospitals have signaled that they support the Senate's compromise on abortion funding in health care reform.

* Jonathan Gruber explores the merit of taxing "Cadillac" health plans to finance reform.

* Ethics watchdogs have been impressed thus far by what they've seen from the Obama White House.

* I'm starting to get the impression that Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) isn't fond of higher ed.

* Victor Davis Hanson writes odd things.

* R.I.P., Percy Sutton.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

WHETHER 'THE SYSTEM' WORKED.... Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has been catching all manner of hell over the last 24 hours for having said "the system worked" when it came to the AbdulMutallab incident in the skies over Michigan on Christmas. I can see why this was an awkward choice of words, but the reaction has been way over the top.

Napolitano's reference to the system, in context, was clearly in reference to the federal response to the attempted terrorism:

"Within literally an hour to 90 minutes of the incident occurring, all 128 flights in the air had been notified to take some special measures in light of what had occurred on the Northwest Airlines flight. We instituted new measures on the ground and at screening areas, both here in the United States and in Europe, where this flight originated. So the whole process of making sure that we respond properly, correctly and effectively went very smoothly."

This is hardly scandalous stuff. When there's an attempted act of terrorism, the administration has a series of steps it wants to see executed, quickly and effectively. What Napolitano was talking about was officials' ability to do just that -- getting the right information to the right people at the right time so the right teams are ready, even on Christmas day. This wasn't some drill -- officials were given tasks in response to the attempted attack and "the system worked," inasmuch as everyone did what they were supposed to do after the incident.

Much of the political world is throwing a fit, though, because "the system" didn't "work" before the incident. But isn't that obvious? The fact that AbdulMutallab was on the plane with a potential explosive device in his underwear pretty much proves that there was a breakdown at some point in the system. This much should be pretty clear to everyone, and it's certainly clear to the head of DHS.

Asked about yesterday's three-word phrase, Napolitano told Matt Lauer this morning, "I think the comment is being taken out of context. What I'm saying is, once the incident occurred, moving forward, we were immediately able to notify the 128 flights in the air of protective measures to take, immediately able to notify law enforcement on the ground...."

She added that the system that should have kept AbdulMutallab off the plane "failed miserably" and that "no one is happy or satisfied with that."

The various right-wing voices are calling for Napolitano's head, apparently because of the inconsequential three-word phrase. It's hard to take this nonsense especially seriously since those identical right-wing voices also called for Napolitano's head when they learned the Bush administration sought reports on the potential threats posed by radical extremists in the U.S.

Besides, if awkward phrasing is grounds for removal from high-ranking federal office, George W. Bush never would have made it through his first year of his presidency.

The question isn't whether Napolitano's choice of words was adequate; the question is whether she's performing well running an nearly-impossible-to-oversee federal agency. By fair standards, she's not only proven herself capable and competent, but also the best secretary DHS has had in its relatively short history.

'WE WILL NEVER GIVE IN TO FEAR OR DIVISION'.... Speaking from a Marine base in Hawaii, President Obama spoke for about seven minutes this afternoon about the attempted terrorism on Christmas day, and the developments in Iran over the weekend.

Obama covered a fair amount of ground, recapping a bit on what we know about the AbdulMutallab incident in the skies over Michigan, and lauding "the quick and heroic actions of passengers and crew."

The president announced the launch of a "full investigation" to find "all who were involved and hold them accountable," before talking about a series of new administration actions, including "enhanced screening and security procedures for all flights," additional federal air marshals "to flights entering and leaving the United States," a review of the U.S. "watch list system ... not only of how information related to the subject was handled, but of the overall watch list system and how it can be strengthened," and a review of "all screening policies, technologies and procedures related to air travel."

"Finally, the American people should remain vigilant, but also be confident," Obama said. "Those plotting against us seek not only to undermine our security, but also the open society and the values that we cherish as Americans. This incident, like several that have preceded it, demonstrates that an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist.

"As a nation, we will do everything in our power to protect our country. As Americans, we will never give in to fear or division. We will be guided by our hopes, our unity, and our deeply held values. That's who we are as Americans; that's what our brave men and women in uniform are standing up for as they spend the holidays in harm's way. And we will continue to do everything that we can to keep America safe in the new year and beyond."

Obama also addressed developments in Iran and said the United States "joins with the international community in strongly condemning the violent and unjust suppression of innocent Iranian citizens, which has apparently resulted in detentions, injuries, and even death.... What's taking place within Iran is not about the United States or any other country. It's about the Iranian people and their aspirations for justice and a better life for themselves. And the decision of Iran's leaders to govern through fear and tyranny will not succeed in making those aspirations go away."

DELAYED JUSTICE.... I have to admit, I always find it heartening to see professionals who were screwed over by Bush's corrupt Justice Department get recompense from the Obama administration.

A career prosecutor whose promotion to Main Justice was quashed by Monica Goodling during the Bush years has been nominated to be a U.S. Attorney, in President Obama's latest reversal of a politicized decision of the Bush Justice Department.

William Hochul, who has been an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York for nearly 20 years, was nominated to be a U.S. Attorney last week after a recommendation from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

Hochul was poised to be appointed to a top counterterrorism detail in 2006 when Goodling, the DOJ's White House liaison, intervened because Hochul's wife was active in Democratic politics.

An internal DOJ investigation of Goodling reported in 2008 that "notwithstanding the candidate's outstanding qualifications," she "refused to allow the candidate to be detailed to [the counterrorism job] solely on the basis of his wife's political party affiliation."

The lawyer who got the job Hochul sought was a loyal, inexperienced Republican. But Hochul was married to a Democrat, and in the Bush era, that meant "no job for you."

This isn't the first time we've seen Obama's team make amends. Remember Leslie Hagen?

Hagen seemed to be exactly the kind of lawyer the Bush gang would want around. She was a respected lawyer, she had impeccable credentials as a Republican, and her performance evaluations at the Justice Department were outstanding. And yet, in October 2006, Hagen was told her contract with the administration would not be renewed. Apparently, Monica Goodling had heard a rumor about Hagen's sexual orientation.

That, apparently, was enough. As one Republican official at the DoJ conceded, for some Bush political appointees, being gay is "even worse than being a Democrat." The Justice Department's inspector general investigated and found that Hagen was, in fact, passed over based on nothing more than office rumors about being a lesbian. Worse, Goodling, a graduate of Pat Robertson's college, blocked Hagen from being considered from any position, at any level, in the Justice Department.

Fortunately, the Obama administration did right by Hagen, and rehired her to the Department in February.

There was also Daniel Bogden once described by James Comey as "straight as a Nevada highway," and his performance records showed him to be a highly regarded U.S. Attorney by the federal judiciary. That, apparently, was a problem -- Karl Rove and Bush's Justice Department expected him to politicize his office. When the U.S. Attorney chose instead to do his job properly, he was fired, despite being a Republican.

This year, Obama brought him back as a U.S. Attorney.

THE MOST POPULAR 'MTP' GUEST OF THE YEAR.... In the previous post, I mentioned what disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on "Meet the Press" yesterday. I neglected to ask a relevant question: why on earth was Newt Gingrich on "Meet the Press" yesterday?

Yesterday was Gingrich's fifth appearance on "MTP" just this year. In fact, Newt Gingrich, despite not having held any position in government for over a decade, was the single most frequent guest on "Meet the Press" in 2009 of any political figure in the United States. Literally.

From March to December, Gingrich appeared on "MTP," on average, every other month. No one else in American politics was on the show this often.

I'm reminded of something Eric Boehlert wrote recently:

[A]s often happens when I read breaking, this-is-what-Newt-said dispatches, I couldn't help thinking, 'Who cares what Newt Gingrich thinks?' And I don't mean that in the partisan sense. I mean it in the journalistic sense: How do Gingrich's daily pronouncements about the fundamental dishonesty of Democrats (Newt's favorite phrase) translate into news? Why does the press, 10 years after Gingrich was forced out of office, still treat his every partisan utterance as a newsworthy occurrence? In other words, why does the press still treat him like he's speaker of the House? It's unprecedented.

Eric wrote that seven months ago. It's still true.

Keep in mind, "Meet the Press" didn't have the actual Speaker of the House on at all this year. It also featured zero appearances from all of the other living former House Speakers (Hastert, Wright, Foley) combined.

There's just no reasonable explanation for this. Gingrich was forced from office in disgrace -- by his own caucus -- 11 years ago. What's more, he's kind of a nut -- we're talking about a former office holder who speculated, just last week, about hidden messages from God in snowstorms.

And yet, no other political figure was on "Meet the Press" more this year than crazy ol' Newt Gingrich. If someone can explain why, I'm all ears.

THE REPEAL LITMUS TEST.... The question of whether Republicans would prioritize repealing health care reform has come up from time to time this year. It's not an especially complicated idea -- GOP officials have worked to make reform as unpopular as possible. That way, if/when it passes, Democrats won't enjoy the political benefits, and Republicans can run against it.

But as Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) conceded last week, repeal is trickier than it sounds.

Apparently, however, it's too late for that. Newt Gingrich said on "Meet the Press" yesterday that "every Republican in 2010 and 2012 will run on an absolute pledge to repeal this bill." The party's right-wing base will apparently tolerate nothing less.

It's now becoming clear that this could be a major issue for Republicans in 2010: the Tea Party movement, as well as high-profile conservatives, are going to demand that candidates call for a full repeal of the Dem healthcare reform bill, presuming it passes.

Multiple figures on the right are beginning to make this demand explicit. In an interview with me just now, Max Pappas, the Vice President for Public Policy of Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, said that if the bill passes, politicians should call for a full repeal.

"This has an unusual ability to be repealed, and the public is on that side." he said. "The Republicans are going to have to prove that they are worthy of their votes."

He emphasized that all the different parts of the bill fit together, and that Congress would need to try to repeal the whole thing.

I realize that right-wing activists aren't especially fond of nuances and details, but the request doesn't make much sense. Conservatives are making demands their friends won't be able to meet.

There is, of course, the practical/procedural hurdle. The right would need a Republican president, working with a Republican House, and a 60-vote Republican majority. Crapo, hardly a moderate, called this a "very tall order." He's right.

But then there are the political hurdles. "Every" Republican candidate will pledge to repeal popular consumer protections? Caps on families' medical expenses? Cost-containment measures? Deficit-reduction provisions? Subsidies for families who can't afford coverage? I really doubt it.

But the demands nevertheless leave the GOP in a bind. Party leaders know they won't be able to repeal the entire reform initiative, but the party's base is making inflexible demands. Note, for example, that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) dodged a question from Jake Tapper yesterday when asked (twice) whether "Republicans running for Senate in 2010 should run on a platform of vowing to repeal the healthcare reform bill." After McConnell refused to say either way, RedState's Erick Erickson was incensed.

Expect this to be a major point of contention in conservative circles for much of 2010.

ON AMERICAN SOIL.... This paragraph, about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab following his failed terrorist attempt about Northwest Airlines Flight 253, seems rather innocuous, because it is rather innocuous.

A Justice Department official said Abdulmutallab was released Sunday from a Michigan hospital where he was treated for burns suffered in the failed bombing. He was in a federal prison in Milan, Mich., according to the Associated Press. He is scheduled to appear in federal court in Michigan on Jan. 8.

As far as I can tell, these bland details do not seem to have caused any meaningful stir whatsoever. Nor should they. But I think we can all imagine the various right-wing hysterics that could come up right about now.

A terrorist tried to blow up an airplane and murder hundreds of Americans ... and we're keeping him on American soil? Won't that make Michigan a magnet for al Qaeda? How can the Obama administration let this security risk exist in a Michigan community? Where's Pete Hoekstra and John Boehner when Michiganders need them?

And Abdulmutallab is going to appear in an American criminal court? What if he uses the platform to spew hateful propaganda? To a borrow a line from Rep. John Shadegg (R) of Arizona, won't the court proceedings encourage al Qaeda members to kidnap the mayor's daughter, the court clerk's kids, and the jailer's siblings?

All of this is, of course, quite foolish, and deliberately so. Abdulmutallab is, by all appearances, a two-bit thug. His presence in a federal prison, and later in a federal criminal court, is not cause for panic. It's simply the justice system at work -- we've done this before; we'll do this again. It's best not to freak out.

But the larger point has broader applicability. Bringing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to a federal court need not terrify Americans, nor should Khalid Sheik Mohammed's proceedings. Putting Abdulmutallab behind bars on American soil does not undermine our national security, and nor would any of the detainees at Gitmo.

If federal plans for Abdulmutallab are not causing right-wing apoplexy, neither should any of the other administration plans regarding due process and detainee transfers.

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.

* Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is "very confident" that no other House Democrats will switch parties before the midterm elections.

* Remember former Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, perhaps best known for prosecuting disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R)? Earle is now running for lieutenant governor in Texas as a Democrat.

* In Alabama, Rep. Parker Griffith, who became a Republican last week, is still facing a crowded GOP primary. But what about a Democratic opponent? The DCCC has reached out to state Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, who is running an uphill gubernatorial campaign and may be interested in jumping into the House race.

* Louisiana Democrats taking on Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) next year believe they have yet another key issue -- Vitter blocked the EPA from releasing a report on the dangers posed by formaldehyde. The issue is of particular significance in Louisiana in light of the 34,000 Louisianans who lived in FEMA trailers after Hurricane Katrina.

* Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), a prominent Blue Dog, would ostensibly be a top GOP target next year, but Roll Call reports that Republicans are "having recruiting problems in Florida's Panhandle-based 2nd district."

* It may seem early, but Rep. Tim Bishop's (D-N.Y.) Republican opponent launched a general-election ad this morning, 11 months before Election Day.

* And in Ohio, former representative and convicted felon Jim Traficant is apparently contemplating a comeback, and may run in a Democratic primary against a yet-to-be named House incumbent.

THE WARNING FROM ABDULMUTALLAB'S FATHER.... The New York Times reported yesterday that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father, a prominent Nigerian banker, contacted U.S. officials recently with fears about his son's increasingly extremist religious views.

It prompted Marty Peretz to complain that Abdulmutallab's father's concerns should have been taken more seriously. Peretz insisted that "Washington had real details about an Islamic maniac and did nothing about it."

I can appreciate why this thinking may seem reasonable at first blush. U.S. officials were warned about Abdulmutallab's radicalization, but they didn't do much in response. Now that we know Abdulmutallab tried to blow up an airplane over Michigan, it's easy to sit back after the fact and complain, "Boy, someone really should have listened to that guy's father's warning."

But it's worth appreciating the larger context, and understanding why the warnings didn't prompt immediate, wide-reaching action.

When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father in Nigeria reported concern over his son's "radicalization" to the U.S. Embassy there last month, intelligence officials in the United States deemed the information insufficient to pursue. The young man's name was added to the half-million entries in a computer database in McLean and largely forgotten.

The lack of attention was not unusual, according to U.S. intelligence officials, who said that thousands of similar bits of information flow into the National Counterterrorism Center each week from around the world. Only those that indicate a specific threat, or add to an existing body of knowledge about an individual, are passed along for further investigation and possible posting on airline and border watch lists.

"It's got to be something that causes the information to sort of rise out of the noise level, because there is just so much out there," one intelligence official said.

The report entered on Abdulmutallab, 23, after his father's Nov. 19 visit to the embassy was "very, very thin, with minimal information," said a second U.S. official familiar with its contents.

We're dealing with a situation in which Abdulmutallab's father, justifiably concerned, felt like his son might become dangerous. He didn't have any information about a specific plot, but he wanted the authorities to be aware of the potential problem. U.S. officials added Abdulmutallab's name to a list -- a rather long list.

And therein lies the point. U.S. officials learn about all kinds of potentially dangerous people, all over the globe, every day. Most of these people have never committed an act of terrorism, and never will. A tiny fraction will consider violence, a tiny fraction of them will actually attempt mass murder. It's literally impossible to launch investigations into every one of them. It's not that officials "had real details about an Islamic maniac and did nothing about it"; it's that officials had vague details and lacked the capacity and wherewithal to take immediate action.

There's a lot of information out there, and results like this one are practically unavoidable. Blaming U.S. officials for not leaping to action in response to the father's concerns is a mistake.

STANFORD AND SESSIONS, SITTING IN A TREE.... Sir Allen Stanford is widely recognized as one of the decade's more notorious criminals. The scandal-plagued banker, after all, was allegedly responsible for one of the biggest Ponzi schemes in recent history.

Hoping to cultivate power, influence, and credibility, Stanford also had a habit -- before his arrest -- of making close connections with politicians in Washington. The efforts included generous campaign contributions and lavish Caribbean trips. Stanford's investments paid off in 2001, when he used his connections to help kill legislation intended to crack down on offshore tax havens -- a step Stanford had to take to keep secret his corrupt scheme run through an offshore bank in Antigua.

With that in mind, federal investigators are interested in knowing if members of Congress did special favors for the alleged Ponzi scheme operator. One lawmaker in particular is likely to receive a fair amount of scrutiny.

Just hours after federal agents charged banker Allen Stanford with fleecing investors of $7 billion, the disgraced financier received a message from one of Congress' most powerful members, Pete Sessions.

"I love you and believe in you,'' said the e-mail sent on Feb. 17. "If you want my ear/voice -- e-mail,'' it said, signed "Pete.''

Pete Sessions is, of course, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the man chiefly responsible for orchestrating the GOP strategy for the 2010 midterm elections. (He's also the same lawmaker who said earlier this year he'd like to see Republicans emulate the Taliban.)

Keep in mind, Sessions reached out to Stanford after Stanford was busted by the Securities and Exchange Commission for running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme. Most sane politicians distance themselves from apparent criminals, but this year, the head of the NRCC reached out to an apparent criminal to tell him he loves him.

Sessions and Stanford reportedly bonded during a couple of trips to the Caribbean. Asked for comment about his Feb. 17 email, the far-right Republican chose not to respond.

CENTER-RIGHT DEMS THROWING COLD WATER ON CLIMATE BILL.... An important cap-and-trade bill has already passed the House. It's been pending in the Senate for about five months now, but proponents note that the policy has some pretty compelling selling points, including the fact that it caps emissions, combats global warming, reduces pollution, helps create new jobs in a burgeoning sector, and lowers the federal budget deficit, all at the same time.

From a purely political perspective, it also worth noting that recent polls from McClatchy, CNN, Politico, Pew Research Center, and WaPo/ABC all show the same thing -- a majority of Americans support congressional approval of a cap-and-trade bill.

With all of this in mind, it should come as no surprise that center-right Democrats are already going to great lengths to make sure climate legislation doesn't even come up for a vote in the Senate.

Bruised by the health care debate and worried about what 2010 will bring, moderate Senate Democrats are urging the White House to give up now on any effort to pass a cap-and-trade bill next year.

"I am communicating that in every way I know how," says Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of at least half a dozen Democrats who've told the White House or their own leaders that it's time to jettison the centerpiece of their party's plan to curb global warming.

The article includes quotes from several conservative Democrats, all of whom said they'd like the Senate to just skip the climate bill and focus on the economy. Besides, the thinking goes, lawmakers are just kind of tired.

To put it mildly, that's not a compelling pitch. For one thing, policymakers have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Getting health care done -- if health care gets done -- doesn't mean taking a year off.

But more importantly, while a focus on the economy makes sense, there's no reason lawmakers can't embrace a climate bill as part of a larger economic strategy: "Many utilities, investors, and even some consumer companies like Starbucks and Nike believe cap-and-trade will unleash a flood of investments in energy efficiency and renewable fuels like wind, solar, and nuclear power."

This needs to get done, and if the Senate takes a pass on 2010, it's hard to imagine when the next available opportunity might be. It's not as if this will get easier after Republicans make likely gains in the midterms -- it's a party dominated by a head-in-the-sand crowd that prefers to pretend science and data aren't real.

THE STREETS OF TEHRAN.... Political unrest in Iran was relatively quiet throughout the fall, after the striking protests of the summer in the wake of the dubious Ahmadinejad election. But Iranians once again took to the streets over the weekend for protests that renew doubts about the future of the country's ruling regime.

The intense clashes in several Iranian cities that left at least five protesters dead and scores more injured Sunday have raised the stakes for both sides as the government seeks to contain a newly revitalized opposition movement.

The street battles took place on one of the holiest days in the Shiite Muslim calendar, a fact that is likely to give even deeper resonance to Sunday's deaths and that could help spawn further demonstrations in the days ahead. Opposition Web sites reported that as many as 12 protesters had been killed, including the nephew of defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. The government conceded there had been five deaths in Tehran but denied responsibility and said the police had not used their weapons.

That account conflicted with those of numerous opposition sources, which reported that security forces had at various points opened fire on the crowds. Witnesses also reported that demonstrators, who numbered in the tens of thousands, fought back with unusual force, kicking and punching police officers and torching government buildings and vehicles. [...]

Amid thick smoke from fires and tear gas that blanketed key parts of the city, Tehran became the scene of hand-to-hand combat between security forces and the protesters. At one point, according to witnesses, members of the pro-government Basij militia fired their handguns while ramming a car through two barriers set up by demonstrators. Elsewhere, the protesters, who in recent months had run whenever security forces moved in to disrupt demonstrations, began to attack riot police, pelting them with rocks and setting some of their vehicles ablaze.

The White House denounced the "violent and unjust suppression" of Iranian protestors. In a statement, White House National Security Council spokesperson Mike Hammer said, "Hope and history are on the side of those who peacefully seek their universal rights, and so is the United States."

One of the bigger concerns, in the very near future, is that the Iranian government's response to the protests will be even more severe than they were in the summer. Predicting an even harsher crackdown, Hamid Reza Jalaeipour, an opposition supporter and a sociology professor at Tehran University, said, "Everything will, from now on, be harsher, tougher, stronger."

If yesterday's events were any indication, this kind of response will only intensify the underlying conflict.

What's more, Joe Klein highlighted the likely reaction from the "increasingly skeptical religious community in Qum" to the government's brutality: "The only real hope for an end to the Revolutionary Guards' dictatorship is broad opposition by the mullahs. No one knows whether that is possible, but today's violence surely makes the current regime's moral standing less tenable."

MATALIN'S ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.... Mary Matalin, one of CNN's more brazen partisan hacks, was complaining bitterly about the Obama White House yesterday, and whined that the president "never gives a speech where he doesn't explicitly or implicitly look backwards." In literally the next breath, Matalin proceeded to look backwards.

"I was there [in the Bush White House]. We inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history. And President Bush dealt with it. And within a year of his presidency at this comparable time, unemployment was at 5 percent. And we were creating jobs."

As a factual matter, Matalin, as is usually the case, doesn't have the foggiest idea what she's talking about. Bush didn't "inherit" the attacks of 9/11 -- they happened more than eight months into Bush's presidency, after his administration largely ignored warnings about the threat. Bush didn't "inherit" a recession -- it began in March 2001. Matalin didn't even get the unemployment numbers right.

Putting aside Matalin's striking detachment from reality, though, there are two broader angles to keep in mind here. The first is the hypocrisy -- throughout 2009, Republicans and their allies shriek every time President Obama references the challenges he "inherited." Pointing out the spectacular failures of the last administration has somehow become verboten, as if it's a sign of presidential weakness.

But notice Matalin's contradiction -- Obama isn't supposed to reflect on what he inherited, but as long as we're on the subject, let's all reflect on what Bush inherited, even if the claims themselves are demonstrably wrong.

The second is the hackery. Bush was arguably one of the biggest and most painful presidential failures in American history, which makes Republican operatives like Matalin all the more anxious to keep the "blame Clinton for everything" meme going strong, even now.

The underlying spin isn't exactly compelling. The Matalin pitch, in a nutshell, is, "Sure, Obama inherited the Great Recession, two wars, a job market in freefall, a huge deficit, and crushing debt, a health care system in shambles, a climate crisis, an ineffective energy policy, an equally ineffective immigration policy, a housing crisis, the collapse of the U.S. auto industry, a mess at Gitmo, and a severely tarnished global reputation. But what Bush got from Clinton wasn't exactly a walk in the park."

Except it was. After cleaning up H.W. Bush's mess, Clinton bequeathed a prosperous, peaceful country, held in high regard around the world, with a shrinking debt, and surpluses far into the future. There was a burgeoning terrorist threat emerging, but Clinton's team provided Bush with the necessary tools and warnings necessary to keep the nation safe. Bush failed miserably, despite having been given an incredible opportunity to succeed.

Matalin would have us believe Bush "inherited" a mess. If she were capable of shame, she ought to be embarrassed peddling such nonsense on national television.

LIEBERMAN EYES 'TOMORROW'S WAR'.... In light of the attempted terrorism aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas, there are plenty of reasonable questions that deserve thorough answers. Why was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab able to get and keep a visa in 2008? To what extent did Abdulmutallab have terrorist associations? How dangerous were his materials, and how was he able to get them on the plane?

And if you're Joe Lieberman, how soon can we go to war with Yemen?

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) Sunday said that Yemen could be the ground of America's next overseas war if Washington does not take preemptive action to root out al-Qaeda interests there.

Lieberman, who helms the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday" that the U.S. will have to take an active approach in Yemen after multiple recent terrorist attacks on the U.S. were linked back to the Middle Eastern nation.

The Connecticut senator said that an administration official told him that "Iraq was yesterday's war, Afghanistan is today's war. If we don't act preemptively, Yemen will be tomorrow's war."

It was, I suppose, only a matter of time. Those of you who had "Lieberman on Fox News on Sunday morning" in the pool can collect your prize.

Part of what's confusing about Lieberman's comments is that it's not clear exactly what he has in mind for "tomorrow's war." He expects the U.S. to "act preemptively" in Yemen. But does that mean an invasion? One assumes not, since the Yemeni government has already been largely cooperative with our counter-terrorism efforts over the last eight years.

Does that mean striking at terrorist targets in Yemen? One assumes that's not what Lieberman was referring to, since we've been doing just that for quite some time. Indeed, the NYT noted today, "In the midst of two unfinished major wars, the United States has quietly opened a third, largely covert front against Al Qaeda in Yemen. A year ago, the Central Intelligence Agency sent several of its top field operatives with counterterrorism experience to the country, according a former top agency official. At the same time, some of the most secretive Special Operations commandos have begun training Yemeni security forces in counterterrorism tactics, senior military officers said."

Watching Lieberman on Fox News yesterday, one got the sense that Lieberman sees value in "Shock and Awe: Yemen Edition." Here's hoping Lieberman's calls are widely ignored.

PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES.... Yes, the Monthly's annual fundraising drive is still underway. I've been told by the powers that be that it will continue through the end of the calendar year. Our most sincere thanks to those of you who have already contributed. For those who haven't, here's a reminder that your tax-deductible donation can make a big difference.

If you're a regular, you know that the Washington Monthly offers the kind of cutting-edge reporting and analysis the country needs now more than ever, breaking big stories well ahead of major mainstream outlets.

But to keep us going strong, we need a little help. Your donation will not only help the magazine, but also help support this blog. In fact, we've already begun work on a redesign -- a development more than a few of you have requested -- but need some additional funds.

The Monthly is a nonprofit organization. We have print and online ads, but this only covers a small part of our expenses, which means that we depend on contributions from readers to stay up and humming. The truth is, without an annual pledge week, we can't stay in business.

So, I hope we can count on your support. In honor of the Monthly's 40th anniversary, the magazine is asking for $40 donations, but any amount is welcome. If every "Political Animal" reader chipped in just $1, we'd surpass our fundraising goal.

Just click here to help out. You can donate online, through PayPal, or through the mail.

Thanks.

BUFFOON WATCH.... Some have wondered this year if, in the case of a deadly terrorist attack, Republicans could bring themselves to put patriotism over party, and rally behind a president they disagree with.

I think we're getting a sense of the answer.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said Sunday that it is fair to blame the Obama administration for the attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight bound for Detroit on Christmas Day.

Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Select Intelligence Committee said that the administration has not taken the threat of terrorist threats on the U.S. seriously.

Asked by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace if it is fair to blame the Obama administration for the attacks, the Michigan Republican replied "Yeah, I think it really is."

Not quite 48 hours after a Nigerian man -- who got a visa to enter the United States from the Bush administration -- unsuccessfully tried to kill Americans, Pete Hoekstra, one of Congress' more offensive buffoons, is going on national television to blame the Obama administration.

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but this is nauseating.

To rationalize his insane criticism, Hoekstra said he felt comfortable blaming the administration for an attack that didn't occur because, "The Obama administration came in and said we're not going to use the word terrorism anymore, we're going to call it man-made disasters, trying to, I think, downplay the threat from terrorism."

By any reasonable measure, this is breathtakingly stupid. Putting aside the fact that Hoekstra, as a factual matter, isn't even close to reality -- the White House uses the word "terrorism" all the time, whether Hoekstra keeps up on current events or not -- the argument itself is ludicrous. Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up an airplane based on Obama administration rhetoric? Is that really the line the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee wants to share with a national television audience?

Let's be clear. First, the Obama administration's record on counter-terrorism is very impressive. Second, Pete Hoekstra's record on national security issues is so ridiculous, it's hard not to point and laugh. And third, Hoekstra's attempts to exploit an attack that failed is almost certainly motivated by an effort to impress right-wing primary voters in advance of his gubernatorial campaign, making his attacks against the president cheap and disgusting.

What an embarrassment.

THE RECORD SOME WOULD PREFER TO FORGET.... Just six years ago, congressional Republicans approved a major expansion of the government's role over health care, adding a massive amount of money to the national debt in its first decade.

The AP's Charles Babington reports that most GOP officials no longer want to talk about their own record.

Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question." His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good."

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said those who see hypocrisy "can legitimately raise that issue." But he defended his positions in 2003 and now, saying the economy is in worse shape and Americans are more anxious.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said simply: "Dredging up history is not the way to move forward."

Seriously? Is that how we're going to play this game?

Snowe's quote is hard to take seriously -- as if her own record isn't relevant right now -- but it's Hatch's quote that's especially ridiculous. For Republicans, supporting huge new programs without figuring out how to pay for them "was standard practice." Six years later, this is justifiable, just so long as the huge new programs do "a lot of good."

Just so we're clear, according to the rules, Republicans don't have to pay for their programs, and Democrats do. Republicans can build up massive debts, and Democrats can't.

Let's cut the nonsense. Republicans supported Medicare Part D (Karl Rove saw it as a way of creating a "permanent" GOP majority). It was the biggest expansion of government into the health care industry since Medicare. By any reasonable measure, it was a huge giveaway to private industries, and came with a price tag of at least $1 trillion -- far more than this year's Democratic health care reform plan. It was "complicated as hell," and left a huge doughnut hole that screwed over millions of seniors. It included end-of-life counseling, which Republicans now consider "death panels." The Republican bill, which passed under almost comically corrupt circumstances, was financed entirely -- literally, 100% -- through deficit spending, leaving future generations to pick up the tab.

And what do these exact same Republican lawmakers say now? That the Democratic reform plan increases government's role in health care (check), costs too much (check), is too complicated (check), and passed under suspicious circumstances (check). Oh, and don't "dredge up history" that GOP finds embarrassing.

Republicans simply aren't serious about health care policy. Anyone who suggests the Democratic bill should have been "bipartisan" need only to be reminded of what transpired six short years ago.

SHIFTING THE BURDEN.... One of the Republican talking points in the days leading up to the Senate vote on health care reform was, "Can you believe this bill is passing without bipartisan support?" As it turns out, one of the new White House talking points, in the wake of the vote, is, "Can you believe this bill passed without bipartisan support?"

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer had an item the other day tries to turn one of the principal GOP arguments on its head.

Today's Republican talking point of the day is that the historic health reform bill passed today represents the first major piece of social legislation to be passed without a single vote from across the aisle.

Well that may be true. But it's not a commentary on this bill. It's a commentary on the Republican Party, whose leaders made a determination that they were going to put party over progress. That's never happened before when the nation took on big challenges.

Right. GOP lawmakers would have Americans believe that Republicans' refusal to engage in good-faith negotiations, and stubborn opposition to the same ideas they'd already endorsed, reflects poorly on Democrats. Pfeiffer's point is that this argument has it backwards -- for generations, members of both parties were willing to step up and work on major reform initiatives like this with at least some sense of cooperation.

We've never had a situation in which a major political party simply refused to consider a reform effort of this magnitude. In 2009, the Republican Party, in its entirety, decided to sit on the sidelines, heckling those doing the real work of government.

Pfeiffer added, "The sad truth is that Congressional Republican leaders decided early on that their best move was to 'delay, define, and derail' reform -- not to find common ground on a bill both parties could support. They made clear their hopes that health insurance reform would be President Obama's 'Waterloo' and that it would 'break him' politically. In the process, they lost sight of the fact that this was never about President Obama -- it was about the families struggling to keep up with skyrocketing premiums; the small businesses forced to choose covering employees and staying afloat; the 15,000 Americans who lost insurance every day this year. [Thursday 's] vote was a victory for them."

Greg Sargent endorsed the approach. "[T]he die has been cast, and the best route for Dems is to emphasize the fact that the health care reform bill is theirs alone," Greg noted. "Medicare, Social Security, the Clean Air Act, and many other major reforms all passed with bipartisan support. This is the first major reform in American history to be unanimously opposed by a major party. No need to run from this."

Sounds like good advice to me.

BRODER URGES DEMS TO BE MORE MODERATE.... Former Clinton Commerce Secretary William Daley wants to see the Democratic Party be more moderate. David Broder, not surprisingly, is thrilled.

The president is surrounded by people who share Daley's grasp on reality, none more important or better placed than Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff and a fellow Chicagoan. But the picture is not so clear on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's inner circle is made up of long-standing veterans of gerrymandered House districts, virtually immune from Election Day challenge, just as she is. The wants and needs of "the Democratic base" count heavily for them, and Daley's warnings may be resented or ignored.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's home-state party in Nevada is as closely tied to the unions as Michigan used to be in the days of Walter Reuther, and Reid views the world from that perspective.

As a loyal Democrat, Daley insisted in the closing paragraphs of his op-ed that his party is not doomed to ruin. It can still avoid anything more than a minimal setback in 2010, he said, if it will simply "acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans -- and, based on that recognition . . . steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan."

OK, a few things. First, to suggest that Harry Reid "views the world" from a union-dominated perspective is simply mistaken. Is EFCA on the Senate schedule? No. Did Reid change course when labor opposed the tax on "Cadillac" health plans? No.

Second, Broder believes all people should be more moderate at all times -- today's column was almost comically predictable -- but he's wrong to scoff at the notion that Democrats should generate some excitement among the party's activist base. Motivating the rank and file will likely be key to Dems' success (or lack thereof) in the 2010 midterms.

Third, for Broder (and Bill Daley) to believe that liberals' priorities have "not won the support of a majority of Americans" is, for lack of a better word, odd. Liberals pushed for a public option in health care reform, and a majority of all Americans agreed. Liberals supported a Medicare buy-in, and a majority of all Americans agreed. Liberals want a cap on carbon emissions, and a majority of all Americans agree. Liberals want an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and a majority of all Americans agree. On most issues, the liberal approach to policy issues is the mainstream approach to policy issues.

And fourth, note that Broder is pretty vague about what "moving to the center" would actually look like. "Ignoring the demands of the base" isn't a substantive recommendation. "Ignoring the demands of unions" isn't a substantive recommendation, either. "Steer a more moderate course" doesn't actually mean anything unless it's followed by some depth.

If Broder wants to see Democrats become more "moderate," how about backing that up with something specific? It's not as if he lacks a high-profile media platform. If he knows where he'd like to see Democrats go, he should say so.

SENDING A SIGNAL.... If you've been following the news the past couple of days, you've no doubt seen plenty of coverage of the attempted terrorism aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253. And while you've also probably seen some political figures rush to get on television -- God help anyone caught between Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) and a camera -- President Obama has remained largely scarce. Indeed, yesterday, the president went golfing.

Marc Ambinder noted yesterday that there's a deliberate White House strategy underway.

Here's the theory: a two-bit mook is sent by Al Qaeda to do a dastardly deed. He winds up neutering himself. Literally.

Authorities respond appropriately; the President (as this president is want to do) presides over the federal response. His senior aides speak for him, letting reporters know that he's videoconferencing regularly, that he's ordering a review of terrorist watch lists, that he's discoursing with his Secretary of Homeland Security.

But an in-person Obama statement isn't needed; Indeed, a message expressing command, control, outrage and anger might elevate the importance of the deed, would generate panic (because Obama usually DOESN'T talk about the specifics of cases like this, and so him deciding to do so would cue the American people to respond in a way that exacerbates the situation. [...]

Let the authorities do their work. Don't presume; don't panic the country; don't chest-thump, prejudge, interfere, politicize (in an international sense), don't give Al Qaeda (or whomever) a symbolic victory; resist the urge to open the old playbook and run a familiar play.

In the Bush/Cheney era, we know officials read from a far different script. Incidents like these became opportunities to exploit. Top officials -- Bush, Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft, Ridge -- would fan out and start hitting the talking points. There'd be talk about invading Yemen. Maybe the Bush gang would get a bump in the polls, maybe Dems and administration critics would hold their fire for a few days. If they didn't, the White House could take comfort in knowing that critics would be accused of "aiding and abetting" terrorists by attacking the Commander in Chief in the wake of a crisis.

Obama and his team obviously prefer a far more mature, strategic approach. It's about projecting a sense of calm and control. It's about choosing not to elevate some lunatic thug who set himself on fire.

Indeed, notice the pattern throughout the year. The Obama administration has taken out Saleh al-Somali, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, and Baitullah Mehsud, while taking suspected terrorists Najibullah Zazi, Talib Islam, and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi into custody before they could launch potential attacks.

In each case, there were no high-profile press conferences, no public chest-thumping, no desire to politicize the counter-terrorism successes. Indeed, most of the country probably never heard a word about any of these developments.

It's about competent and effective leadership, and it's what the country was sorely lacking up until 11 months ago.

THE FOCUS ON YEMEN.... The claims have not yet been independently corroborated, but Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who apparently tried to bring down an airplane over Michigan on Christmas, has told officials he "obtained explosive chemicals and a syringe that were sewn into his underwear from a bomb expert in Yemen associated with Al Qaeda."

The Yemeni connection was also apparently the thrust of a briefing given to key congressional lawmakers. One of them, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R) of Michigan, who tried to politicize the incident shortly after it occurred, used Twitter yesterday to suggest the Obama administration has paid insufficient attention to Yemen.

Given that Hoekstra is the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, he probably should realize that the Obama administration is paying a great deal of attention to Yemen.

Yemeni forces, backed by the United States, launched a major attack Thursday on a meeting of senior al-Qaeda operatives thought to include the Yemeni American cleric linked to the suspect in the Fort Hood shootings, U.S. and Yemeni officials said. [...]

[T]he U.S. involvement in the strike in southeastern Yemen -- along with a similar strike in the country last week -- appears to reflect greater willingness by the Obama administration to use military force in confronting terrorists outside the traditional war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. Last week's strike was seen at the time as the most significant example of the new approach, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the planning and execution of the attack.

The attack on al Qaeda in Yemen late last week -- personally approved by President Obama -- was executed with "intelligence and firepower" supplied by the United States, representing the widest offensive against Yemeni jihadists in years.

What's more, as Faiz Shakir noted, "[B]oth Obama and his homeland security adviser, John Brennan, have cited Yemen as a key concern.... Despite Hoekstra's desire to make a political issue of the terrorist attack, the evidence is clear that the terrorist threat emanating from Yemen has been a focal point for the Obama administration."

If the reaction from right-wing blogs is any indication, conservatives are already in full-tantrum mode. (Gold star to the reader who can identify a prominent far-right site demanding U.S. officials begin torturing Abdulmutallab.) But as Matt Yglesias explained, U.S. efforts are proceeding as they should: "Al-Qaeda's ideological support appears to be on the wane. The logistical capabilities displayed by things like this attempted airplane explosion are unimpressive. Military campaigns are underway against their hideouts in Yemen and Pakistan. Things are basically going fine."

PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES.... Yes, the Monthly's annual fundraising drive is still underway. I've been told by the powers that be that it will continue through the end of the calendar year. Our most sincere thanks to those of you who have already contributed. For those who haven't, here's a reminder that your tax-deductible donation can make a big difference.

If you're a regular, you know that the Washington Monthly offers the kind of cutting-edge reporting and analysis the country needs now more than ever, breaking big stories well ahead of major mainstream outlets.

But to keep us going strong, we need a little help. Your donation will not only help the magazine, but also help support this blog. In fact, we've already begun work on a redesign -- a development more than a few of you have requested -- but need some additional funds.

The Monthly is a nonprofit organization. We have print and online ads, but this only covers a small part of our expenses, which means that we depend on contributions from readers to stay up and humming. The truth is, without an annual pledge week, we can't stay in business.

So, I hope we can count on your support. In honor of the Monthly's 40th anniversary, the magazine is asking for $40 donations, but any amount is welcome. If every "Political Animal" reader chipped in just $1, we'd surpass our fundraising goal.

Just click here to help out. You can donate online, through PayPal, or through the mail.

Thanks.

VISIONARY INCREMENTALISM AND THE D.C. POWER STRUCTURE.... The institutional power structures that exist in D.C. are not new. On the contrary, they've evolved slowly over decades, and put up overwhelming resistance when challenged.

With that in mind, the NYT's Adam Nagourney has an interesting piece, noting an underlying point of contention between the Obama White House and the progressive base. On the one hand, the president is pursuing his agenda by playing by the establishment's rules, navigating his way through the existing power structure to achieve his policy goals. On the other, liberals want the president to re-write the establishment's rules and raze the existing power structure.

As much as Mr. Obama presented himself as an outsider during his campaign, a lesson of this [health care reform] battle is that this is a president who would rather work within the system than seek to upend it. He is not the ideologue ready to stage a symbolic fight that could end in defeat; he is a former senator comfortable in dealing with the arcane rules of the Senate and prepared to accept compromise in search of a larger goal. For the most part, Democrats on Capitol Hill have stuck with him.

By contrast, [Howard] Dean, the former Democratic Party chairman who has long had strained relations with this administration, said the White House was slow to fight and quick to make concessions -- particularly on creating a public insurance plan -- and demanded that Democrats kill the Senate version of the health care bill.

That sentiment was echoed by liberal efforts that grew up around the Dean campaign, notably Daily Kos and MoveOn.org, which argued that Mr. Obama was not tough enough in staring down foes, be they insurance companies or Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-independent from Connecticut.

"He ran as someone who would fight against entrenched special interests on behalf of the little guy," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which has emerged as one of Mr. Obama's leading critics in recent days. "And what we learned in this debate is that he's not willing to fight and exert pressure on entrenched special interests when it comes to big ideas."

Now, I suspect the White House would disagree. The president butted heads with an entrenched special interest on health care (insurance companies), a different entrenched special interest on military procurement reform (powerful contractors), a different entrenched special interest on FDA regulation of tobacco products (Big Tobacco), and a different entrenched special interest on reforming student loan policies (private lenders).

But the larger point is nevertheless true -- Obama has not changed the political structure, he's working within it. Accusations about "politics as usual" are not unfounded -- the agenda and direction of the country changed considerably on Inauguration Day, but the rules of the game haven't. President Obama's m.o., for the most part, seems to be built around choosing the issue, getting the best deal he thinks he can get, and then moving onto the next issue. The focus places an emphasis on problem solving, while leaving traditional power structures in place.

At least for now, that is.

President Obama has unique gifts, but overturning the D.C. political establishment in 11 months probably isn't a reasonable expectation. If/when health care reform becomes law, it will change, at a rather fundamental level, the relationship between the government and the populace, which may in turn create opportunities for re-writing the rules of the game. It's the kind of thing that will take time ... and a genuine, determined commitment. Time will tell.

I do, however, have a related question, especially for historians in the audience. When FDR got Social Security through Congress, the benefits were negligible, and the program excluded agricultural workers, domestic workers, the self-employed, railroad employees, government employees, clergy, and those who worked for non-profits. The original Social Security bill offered no benefits for dependents or survivors, and included no cost-of-living increases. Women and minorities were, for lack of a better word, screwed.

All of these dramatic flaws were the result of compromises Roosevelt felt like he had to make -- some with uncooperative members of Congress, some with the institutional powers of the day -- in order to achieve his goal.

I'm wondering, however, whether FDR was decried at the time by liberals as a sell-out unwilling to fight for a stronger Social Security bill against entrenched special interests. Were there progressive activists at the time who denounced Social Security as inadequate? Were there liberal lawmakers who voted with Republicans to kill it because it didn't go far enough? Was there widespread talk that Democrats would suffer in the 1936 midterms because liberals were unsatisfied the compromises FDR accepted?

This isn't intended as a snarky question; I'm genuinely curious and looking for write-ups on the political history of the mid-30s.

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... In the last TWIG edition until the new year, the God Machine took note of E.J. Dionne Jr.'s column this week on the ways in which religion and politics didn't cause as big a stir as in previous years.

It is 2009's quiet story -- quiet because it's about what didn't happen, which can be as important as what did.

In this highly partisan year, we did not see a sharpening of the battles over religion and culture.

Yes, we continued to fight over gay marriage, and arguments about abortion were a feature of the health-care debate. But what's more striking is that other issues -- notably economics and the role of government -- trumped culture and religion in the public square. The culture wars went into recession along with the economy.

The most important transformation occurred on the right end of politics. For now, the loudest and most activist sections of the conservative cause are not its religious voices but the mostly secular, anti-government tea party activists.

It's important not to overstate the case. Clearly, the religious right still exists, and conservative activists still rely on matters of faith to deny gay Americans basic civil rights and to restrict American women's reproductive rights. Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-Neb.) often incoherent demands about indirect abortion funding very nearly killed health care reform.

But overall, Dionne's analysis sounds right. The U.S. embrace of the culture war becomes more notable when the country is in otherwise fine shape. That hasn't been the case for several years, and as a result, even Republicans are shifting their attention away from a religio-political agenda. Note, when GOP leaders started a rebranding effort, they ignored culture-war issues entirely, and when Republicans talk about trying to retake Congress, it's not because they intend to work on school prayer and Ten Commandments displays. The religious right's threats no longer seem to scare GOP leaders as they once did, giving the movement less influence.

It prompted Dionne to conclude that "the cultural and religious conflicts that have persisted were debated at a lower volume" this year. God bless us, everyone, indeed.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* A woman jumped a barrier and knocked down Pope Benedict XVI before he delivered his traditional Christmas Day greetings, raising a new round of questions about the Vatican's security procedures.

* Former President Jimmy Carter hopes to make amends with the Jewish community, and issued an apology this week. "We must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel," Carter said in the letter. "As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het [a prayer said on Yom Kippur] for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so."

* Former Sen. John Danforth (R) of Missouri, who is also an ordained Episcopal priest, has created a new Center on Religion & Politics at Washington University. "Chancellor Mark Wrighton said the center, which will open in January, would seek to deepen the academic understanding of the connections between religion and politics and encourage civil discourse in which people 'in a respectful society' can hold different views."

* And I was pleased to see that L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's newspaper, considers "The Simpsons" acceptable entertainment. "Homer finds in God his last refuge, even though he sometimes gets His name sensationally wrong," L'Osservatore said. "But these are just minor mistakes, after all, the two know each other well."

NO PUNISHMENT FOR PREGNANT SOLDIERS.... A bad idea that was, thankfully, short-lived.

A controversial policy that put pregnant soldiers in war zones at risk of discipline will be rescinded under an order from the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Gen. Raymond Odierno has drafted a broad new policy for the U.S. forces in Iraq that will take effect Jan. 1, and that order will not include a pregnancy provision that one of his subordinate commanders enacted last month, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.

Odierno's order comes about a week after the pregnancy policy issued by Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo triggered a storm of criticism. Cucolo had issued a policy that would permit the punishment of soldiers who become pregnant and their sexual partners.

Now, Cucolo had already started backing off his own policy earlier this week, explaining that he had no intention of actually pursuing courts-martial against female soldiers who get pregnant. It was highly unlikely that a pregnant servicewoman was actually going to end up behind bars.

But it's nevertheless encouraging to have this matter resolved altogether. Odierno will issue a new general order on Jan. 1, following a thorough review of existing orders. The pregnancy provision will not part of the consolidation.

PETE HOEKSTRA, SHAMELESS BUFFOON.... Speculation about terrorist plots based on limited information is a fool's game. We know very little about Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempts on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 yesterday, though there are some pretty obvious questions about how he got materials on board, how dangerous they were, and what his associations may be.

Responsible federal officials will wait to get a more detailed picture before popping off in the media, making reckless accusations. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R) of Michigan, inexplicably the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has not yet been briefed on yesterday's incident, but that hasn't stopped him from trying to exploit the Abdulmutallab matter to score some cheap partisan points.

"It's not surprising," U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Holland Republican, said of the alleged terrorist attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight in Detroit. ... "People have got to start connecting the dots here and maybe this is the thing that will connect the dots for the Obama administration," Hoekstra said.

It's not even clear what that means, exactly, though Hoekstra was apparently offended that an Obama administration official described the incident as an "attempted" terrorist attack when, as far as Hoekstra is concerned, "it was a terrorist attack."

How such a world-class buffoon became the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee remains an open question, though it continues to be something of an embarrassment for the Republican caucus.

There are a couple of angles to this to keep in mind. First, Hoekstra would like people to believe the Obama administration isn't taking the terrorist threat seriously enough. The evidence to the contrary -- a.k.a. "reality" -- is overwhelming.

Second, when it comes to national security issues, Hoekstra has one of the more transparently ridiculous track records of any member of Congress in recent memory. We are, after all, talking about a partisan clown who held a press conference in 2006 to announce, "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

And third, yesterday's pettiness probably has something to do with Hoekstra's gubernatorial campaign -- he needs to impress the GOP base to win his primary, and he likely assumes cheap shots at the president in light of attempted terrorism is the way to get a bump in the polls.

One can hope the opposite will occur. Even Republican primary voters should be disgusted by Hoekstra's shameless hackery on this.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES FLIGHT 253.... By early evening, there were quite a few reports about a man setting off a firecracker on a plane en route to Detroit. As it turns out, there was quite a bit more to it than that.

A Nigerian man tried to ignite an explosive device aboard a trans-Atlantic Northwest Airlines flight as the plane prepared to land in Detroit on Friday, in an incident the United States believes was "an attempted act of terrorism," according to a White House official who declined to be identified.

The device, described by officials as a mixture of powder and liquid, failed to fully detonate. Passengers on the plane described a series of pops that sounded like firecrackers.

Federal officials said the man wanted to bring the plane down.

Details are, not surprisingly, still pretty sketchy. The suspected terrorist has been identified as Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian who apparently studies engineering at University College London. He proceeded with his plan towards the end of the flight, aboard an Airbus A330 wide-body jet flying into Detroit from Amsterdam, after originating in Nigeria.

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, has spent quite a bit of time getting hysterical in the media about what transpired, but by all accounts, Abdulmutallab was not exactly a terrorist mastermind. Abdulmutallab, whose claimed ties to Al Qaeda have not been substantiated and may have been "aspirational," had a powder taped to his leg, which he mixed with chemicals held in a syringe. He may have intended to bring down the plane, but by more than one account, his materials were "more incendiary than explosive," and it's not clear if it had the capacity to do serious damage.

Of the 278 passengers and 11 crew members on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253, the only injury seems to have been to Abdulmutallab himself, who apparently suffered severe burns when he inadvertently set himself on fire.

The other passengers on the flight, according to several accounts, acted quickly and effectively to subdue the would-be terrorist.

We'll no doubt have a better sense of what transpired in the coming days, but at this point, plenty of key questions have gone unanswered. How did Abdulmutallab, whose name appears to be included in the government's records of terrorism suspects, get his materials on board? How dangerous were the materials? What, if any, ties did he have to larger terrorist networks?

While we wait for these additional details, it appears federal officials are taking the matter very seriously. President Obama was briefed on developments throughout the day, and John O. Brennan, the White House counterterrorism chief, convened an interagency meeting late yesterday to review the incident and discuss possible new precautions.

If you're traveling this weekend, it's unclear whether you'll face additional security measures, beyond the usual, though existing efforts will be "tightened" after the Detroit incident.

PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES.... Yes, the Monthly's annual fundraising drive is still underway. I've been told by the powers that be that it will continue through the end of the calendar year. Our most sincere thanks to those of you who have already contributed. For those who haven't, here's a reminder that your tax-deductible donation can make a big difference.

If you're a regular, you know that the Washington Monthly offers the kind of cutting-edge reporting and analysis the country needs now more than ever, breaking big stories well ahead of major mainstream outlets.

But to keep us going strong, we need a little help. Your donation will not only help the magazine, but also help support this blog. In fact, we've already begun work on a redesign -- a development more than a few of you have requested -- but need some additional funds.

The Monthly is a nonprofit organization. We have print and online ads, but this only covers a small part of our expenses, which means that we depend on contributions from readers to stay up and humming. The truth is, without an annual pledge week, we can't stay in business.

So, I hope we can count on your support. In honor of the Monthly's 40th anniversary, the magazine is asking for $40 donations, but any amount is welcome. If every "Political Animal" reader chipped in just $1, we'd surpass our fundraising goal.

Just click here to help out. You can donate online, through PayPal, or through the mail.

Thanks.

A GOOD DAY FOR A DICKENS REFERENCE.... Paul Krugman today urges progressives to "congratulate themselves" on the success of the health care reform effort, in what he described as "a big win for them -- and for America."

And to that end, Krugman borrows from Dickens.

Indulge me while I tell you a story -- a near-future version of Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol." It begins with sad news: young Timothy Cratchit, a k a Tiny Tim, is sick. And his treatment will cost far more than his parents can pay out of pocket.

Fortunately, our story is set in 2014, and the Cratchits have health insurance. Not from their employer: Ebenezer Scrooge doesn't do employee benefits. And just a few years earlier they wouldn't have been able to buy insurance on their own because Tiny Tim has a pre-existing condition, and, anyway, the premiums would have been out of their reach.

But reform legislation enacted in 2010 banned insurance discrimination on the basis of medical history and also created a system of subsidies to help families pay for coverage. Even so, insurance doesn't come cheap -- but the Cratchits do have it, and they're grateful. God bless us, everyone.

O.K., that was fiction, but there will be millions of real stories like that in the years to come.

Krugman also identifies the groups of the legislation's opponents, most notably the "crazy right, the tea party and death panel people." The problem with this contingent, of course, is not just the total absence of coherent policy objections, but also that their wild-eyed madness now overlaps with the concerns voiced by the Republican mainstream.

"In the past, there was a general understanding, a sort of implicit clause in the rules of American politics, that major parties would at least pretend to distance themselves from irrational extremists," Krugman said. "But those rules are no longer operative. No, Virginia, at this point there is no sanity clause."

Man, I wish I'd come up with that one.

HOUSEKEEPING NOTE.... It looks like it's a fairly slow news day, and I don't imagine too many readers will be stopping by, so expect a very light posting schedule today. I'll be around in case something dramatic and/or unexpected happens, but if the political world is quiet today, "Political Animal" will be, too.

Whether you're celebrating a holiday or just a day off of work, have a great one.

PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES.... Yes, the Monthly's annual fundraising drive is still underway. I've been told by the powers that be that it will continue through the end of the calendar year. Our most sincere thanks to those of you who have already contributed. For those who haven't, here's a reminder that your tax-deductible donation can make a big difference.

If you're a regular, you know that the Washington Monthly offers the kind of cutting-edge reporting and analysis the country needs now more than ever, breaking big stories well ahead of major mainstream outlets.

But to keep us going strong, we need a little help. Your donation will not only help the magazine, but also help support this blog. In fact, we've already begun work on a redesign -- a development more than a few of you have requested -- but need some additional funds.

The Monthly is a nonprofit organization. We have print and online ads, but this only covers a small part of our expenses, which means that we depend on contributions from readers to stay up and humming. The truth is, without an annual pledge week, we can't stay in business.

So, I hope we can count on your support. In honor of the Monthly's 40th anniversary, the magazine is asking for $40 donations, but any amount is welcome. If every "Political Animal" reader chipped in just $1, we'd surpass our fundraising goal.

Just click here to help out. You can donate online, through PayPal, or through the mail.

Thanks.

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

* Yemen: "Yemeni jets launched an aerial assault Thursday against suspected senior al Qaeda operatives meeting in a remote location, and about 30 militants were killed, according to the Yemen news agency SABA.... One of the militants may have been the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, the embassy said."

* Encouraging: "The Labor Department said the number of new claims for unemployment benefits fell to 452,000 last week, down 28,000 from the previous week, providing the latest sign the job market is gradually improving. It was the best figure since September 2008, before the credit crisis peaked. A recovery in the job market is vital to a strong recovery."

* There was one other vote in the Senate this morning: "The Senate voted Thursday to raise the ceiling on the government debt to $12.4 trillion, a massive increase over the current limit and a political problem that President Barack Obama has promised to address next year." The final vote was 60 to 39, though George Voinovich's (R) broke ranks and voted with Dems, and Indiana's Evan Bayh (D) voted with the GOP.

* Uganda may "soften" its insane anti-gay legislation, with the country's Ethics and Integrity Minister Nsaba Buturo suggesting life sentences may replace execution for "offenders."

* What you need to know following the Copenhagen climate summit.

* Fatigue and nerves can cause trouble: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) accidentally voted against health care reform this morning, before quickly correcting himself.

* In the U.S., we're talking more and more about students getting their college degrees in three years instead of four. In the U.K., they're pondering a similar shift -- from three years to two.

* I've long thought this would be a good idea: "A group of judges, political officials and lawyers, led by the retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, has begun a campaign to persuade states to choose judges on the basis of merit, rather than their ability to win an election."

* And at Chicago's Second City, the comedy troupe held a weekend-long 50th anniversary bash. Stephen Colbert, a Second City alum, was on hand, and reflected on Fox News' Glenn Beck, who makes satire so difficult because he's genuinely deranged. Beck "raised the stupid bar and now it's nearly inapproachable," Colbert said. "I worry that if we use that as a model....if somebody doesn't believe what they're saying, it's very hard to out-stupid them. Because then there's no place to sink our hook into, there's no mountain to climb there. I can't climb Glenn Beck since there's nothing there."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

EVEN IN SUCCESS, 'THE SYSTEM' IS IN TROUBLE.... We've all heard the phrase, "The system worked." It's usually uttered after some contentious, tumultuous, needlessly complicated process meets with a satisfactory conclusion. The suitable result, in these cases, came not from a radical departure from existing norms, but by slowly, painfully working within the framework already in place.

When it comes to health care reform, one might be tempted to think "the system," in the broadest possible sense, "worked." We had hearings, a lengthy debate, and a back and forth that I suppose we can describe as spirited. In the end, the House culled together a majority to pass its bill, and the Senate managed to overcome Republican obstructionism and pass its bill with a 60-vote majority. It wasn't pretty, and it was excruciating to watch at times, but after compromising, cajoling, persuading, and arm-twisting, health care reform worked its way through the system.

Our politics, the argument goes, must not be completely broken, since policymakers were able to identify a problem, propose a solution, and pass legislation. It might even give someone hope -- if officials can work within the system to address the health care crisis, they presumably can do the same to address any number of other major policy challenges.

Mark Schmitt, who was pleased with this morning's vote, explains why that would be the wrong lesson to have learned.

The reason [the health care vote] feels like a loss is simply that fact, that any sense of movement or possibility in our political institutions -- and again, I mean mostly the Senate but not only the Senate -- is gone. Getting exactly 60 votes, on an issue where the ground has been prepared, is possible only on rare occasions. That Obama, and Harry Reid and his allies, hit that small target on the single issue that has eluded every progressive president before him is wonderful for both the health-care system, and for those millions who need care, but still, it does not bode well for our political future.

I've always argued that Obama viewed his central domestic mission as changing the culture and practice of American politics. The passage of health reform is a revelation of just how desperately that change is needed and how difficult it will be to achieve.

Arguing that "the outlines of a growing political crisis" are evident in this debate, Matt Yglesias added, "Think about extending this precedent forward to the time when we need to deal with the budget deficit, however, and things start to look very different. You just can't deal with the country's fiscal challenges within the political dynamic that currently exists. There's no way."

At the risk of taking an overly-simplistic approach to a multi-faceted problem, I continue to think the solution lies in a) the eventual emergence of a sane wing of the Republican Party; and b) the return of majority rule to the Senate. The ability to actually solve problems and address crises in an efficient, coherent fashion would be aided immensely by these two highly improbable developments.

AN EYE TOWARDS HISTORICAL CONTEXT.... After the Senate finally passed its health care bill this morning, a variety of efforts were made to capture the larger significance. Calling it a "watershed moment," Jonathan Cohn described the proposal as "the most ambitious piece of domestic legislation in a generation." Ezra Klein called it a "historic advance," and "arguably the most important piece of legislation the body has passed since 1963."

Matt Yglesias said the reform plan, if passed, will be "the greatest progressive social policy achievement in over 40 years. It's fine not to be satisfied with this legislation, but it's perverse not to be happy about it."

Calling the bill "a cause for celebration, not recriminations," Kevin Drum added, "I'm 51 years old and this bill is, without question, the biggest progressive advance in my adult life. You have to go back to the great environmental acts of the early 70s to get close, and to the civil rights/Medicare era to beat it. That's four decades, the last three of which have constituted an almost unbroken record of conservative ascendency. And now that ascendancy is just days away from being -- finally, decisively -- broken."

But it's Jon Chait who goes the furthest, calling the health care bill "the greatest social achievement of our time" and "the most significant American legislative triumph in at least four decades."

Of particular interest was Chait's analysis of (what's left of) the Republican criticisms of the plan. After running through the incoherent and contradictory claims, he concludes:

The persistence of these thoroughly debunked pseudo-factoids reveals a couple things about the state of the GOP. The first is that the party desperately lacks for genuine health care expertise. Being a member of a party long committed to defending American health care naturally makes one disinclined to study the horrifying reality of the system; likewise, a thorough understanding of the health care system makes one disinclined to support the party that has spent decades blocking its reform.

Second, conservative belief in the failure of health care reform is undergirded by deeper ideological values that are not amenable to data. Consider this typical salvo against reform in National Review, by Jeffrey Anderson, a Bush-era HHS speechwriter: "The motivation is simple and can be reduced to one word: power. And it doubtless has the American Founders, who dedicated their lives to securing liberty, spinning in their graves."

If we want to understand why a bill that embodies the best of moderate Republican ideas has attracted zero support from the Republican Party, it is because moderation has disappeared from the party. The takeover of ideological conservatives, implacably opposed to the expansion of government, has rendered impossible any bipartisan solution.

Someone probably ought to let David Broder know.

HARRY REID.... Whether one sees the Democratic health care proposal as the greatest progressive policy accomplishment in a generation or a bitter disappointment worthy of defeat, it's hard to deny that the Senate Majority Leader did what he set out to do. There were plenty of times this year when it seemed the reform proposal simply wouldn't survive, but Harry Reid kept working, and managed to find -- and hold onto -- 60 votes.

Rahm Emanuel was agitated. With only seven weeks until Christmas, the opportunity to pass healthcare legislation seemed to be fading. The White House chief of staff feared that if the Senate left for the holiday without passing a bill, President Obama's top domestic priority would wither as lawmakers turned to other concerns next year.

Democratic senators and administration officials gathered in a conference room outside Majority Leader Harry Reid's Capitol office. Emanuel wanted to know: Was there a chance the chamber could still act in time?

As one participant placed a calming hand on Emanuel's sleeve, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) told him there was one chance: The White House would have to put its trust in Reid.

The quirky, taciturn majority leader had no background in health policy and a less-than-commanding public image. Yet today Reid delivered as the Senate moved to take its final vote on the most sweeping healthcare legislation to make its way through the chamber in nearly half a century.

As the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid has received his share of criticism -- much of which, on occasion, I've endorsed. But he was able to reach his leadership position thanks to his unique understanding of his caucus, his mastery of Senate procedure, and his almost preternatural patience. Rutgers political scientist Ross K. Baker said, "There are Senate leaders like that who come along every few decades."

Every time reform appeared to be teetering on the brink, Reid would take steps to pull it back from the precipice. It wasn't always pretty, and I didn't always approve of every decision, but whenever reform seemed poised to fail, Reid grew more determined to succeed.

ABC News' Jonathan Karl said this week, "Say what you want about the health care bill, but Harry Reid is about to complete a task of LBJ proportions. And Lyndon Johnson never had to corral 60 Senators for one vote during a blizzard. If public opinion doesn't turn around for Democrats, this may ultimately prove to be a pyrrhic victory, but on a purely procedural level Harry Reid now looks like the master of Senate. One month ago, who seriously thought the health care bill would pass the Senate by Christmas?"

The Brookings Institution's Tom Mann added, "The much-pilloried Harry Reid led an increasingly undemocratic and dysfunctional institution to a stunning victory for the majority party."

And Matt Yglesias wrote last week that Reid's "performance throughout 2009 has been nothing short of heroic.... One's instincts are that overcoming these challenges required some kind of larger-than-life figure, full of colorful LBJ-style anecdotes, or maybe a figure of overwhelming charisma and popularity. That's not Harry Reid. But the proof is in the pudding, and from where we sit today, the low-key, unassuming, unpopular senator from Nevada has delivered on the most significant piece of progressive legislation in over 40 years."

For a senator who's very much at risk of losing his seat next year, the plaudits come at a welcome time.

CRAPO CONCEDES REFORM REPEAL UNLIKELY.... Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) conceded that if/when health care reform becomes law, it's not going anywhere.

"Technically it could be peeled back if the circumstances were right," Crapo said during an appearance on a conservative news radio syndicate. "But we would have to have a president who would sign such a bill, and we would have to have 60 votes in the Senate -- not just 50."

"So it would be a very tall order, and frankly, the likelihood's that that's not going to develop in the near future," he added.

That's true, but it's incomplete. Crapo's right that the legislative circumstances are almost certainly not going to materialize to facilitate a repeal, but there's also the political problem Republicans are reluctant to acknowledge.

Josh Marshall had this item this morning.

Sen. Hatch is on TV getting cornered by a host on just what in this bill he'd be for -- if he supports health care reform but just doesn't like this version of it. It was pretty comical. The host asks him whether he's in favor of barring health insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Oh, yeah, oh, we all agree on that, blah blah blah. No explanation of how you do that without dramatically broadening the risk pools.

It's not surprise. But it's worth noting once again that the Republican opposition on this whole issue is a sham.

It certainly is. It's exactly why GOP senators have ended up opposing provisions they support -- it's about blind, reflexive, reactionary opposition. Listening to the floor debate over the last several weeks has only reinforced the notion that Republican opposition is a sham -- their rationales boil down to lies or trivia (and occasionally lies about trivia). This week, there have been more than a few instances in which it seemed Republicans no longer remembered why, exactly, they thought this was a bad idea.

And any attempt at repeal would be met by awkward questions like those Hatch couldn't answer this morning. Are they going to repeal the consumer protections? The caps on families' medical expenses? The cost-containment measures? The subsidies for families who can't afford coverage?

It's not exactly a compelling message over the next couple of cycles: "Know that health coverage you and your family will finally be able to afford? Vote for me and I'll take it away."

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.

* Republican leaders, most notably John McCain, have reportedly been reaching out to Rep. Chris Carney (D-Pa.) about switching parties. Carney issued a statement late yesterday, saying, "I appreciate the Republican Party's outreach, but I have no plans to change parties."

* In related news, Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama switched parties this week, but only after commissioning a general-election poll in his district.

* He's not up for re-election until 2012, but Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has not done much to improve his stature this year. CNN's latest national poll found that Lieberman's favorable rating has dropped 9 points over the last few weeks. The biggest decline came among self-identified independents.

* Several top Republicans, including Karl Rove, have been trying to recruit Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) to run in next year's Senate race in New York, but the Long Island lawmaker has said he's not inclined to try. "All I've told them is that over the holidays I'll discuss it with my family, but I don't see any reason to change my mind," King said.

* In one of the bigger surprises of the 2006 cycle, Sen. Jim Webb (D) defeated incumbent Sen. George Allen (R) in Virginia, thanks at least in part to Allen's infamous "macaca" slur. Allen conceded this week that he's pondering a rematch in 2012.

A BETTER ANSWER.... On PBS yesterday, Jim Lehrer reminded President Obama that the House health care bill has a public option, while the Senate bill doesn't. (I'm fairly certain he knew that.) As the process enters the final phase, Lehrer asked, "[W]hat's going to be your position when you sit down and talk about this?" The president replied:

"[L]ook, I've been in favor of the public option. I think the more choice, the more competition we have, the better.

"On the other hand, I think that the exchange itself, the system that we're setting up that forces insurance companies to essentially bid for three million or four million or five million people's business, that in and of itself is going to have a disciplining effect.

"Would I like one of those options to be the public option? Yes. Do I think that it makes sense, as some have argued, that, without the public option, we dump all these other extraordinary reforms and we say to the 30 million people who don't have coverage, 'You know, sorry. We didn't get exactly what we wanted'? I don't think that makes sense."

Whether you find that response compelling or not -- it sounds about right to me -- we can probably all agree it's a better response than, "I didn't campaign on the public option."

POLLING THE PARTIES' VISIONS.... There have been plenty of polls of late, many of which show Republicans gaining strength. But a CNN poll released yesterday offered some discouraging news to the minority party: people still don't think Republican policies are good for the country.

Despite the bruising battle over their health care reform proposals, congressional Democrats have maintained an advantage over their Republican counterparts on one key measure, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday indicates that a bare majority of Americans, 51 percent, believe that the Democrats' policies are good for the country, with 46 percent saying that those policies would take the country in the wrong direction.

By contrast, 53 percent of people questioned in the poll say that the GOP's polices would move the nation in the wrong direction, with 42 percent saying Republican policies are good for the country.

That's a tough nut to crack, and it's no doubt a consequence of the failures of the Bush era, which will should take quite a while to live down. That Republicans' preferred policies haven't changed at all -- if given power, they'd go right back to the Bush policies that didn't work -- doesn't help.

But looking at the internals (pdf) suggest the GOP isn't even moving in the right direction. The poll found a 53% majority believing that Republican policies would move the country in the wrong direction. CNN and Gallup polls have been asking this question for a while, and going back over the last 15 years, it's never been higher than 53%.

"This advantage on policy could be an important edge for the Democrats heading into the 2010 midterm elections," said CNN polling director Keating Holland.

Maybe, maybe not. Elections rarely seem to come down to policy or substantive merit, but it's an edge that may count for at least something.

THEY THOUGHT IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL BEFORE THEY DIDN'T.... Yesterday afternoon, Senate Republicans aggressively pushed a measure to challenge the constitutionality of the individual mandate in health care reform.

The constitutional point of order, authored by Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.), was defeated on a 60-39 vote, with Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) not voting. DeMint and Ensign argued the Reid bill would force citizens to purchase health care -- which they said goes beyond the federal government's authority.

Maybe you approve of the mandate; maybe you don't. Let's put that aside for a moment. What's interesting about yesterday's vote goes beyond the merit of the specific provision.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), for example, voted yesterday to declare an individual mandate unconstitutional. Just two months ago, she voted for a Democratic health care reform plan ... which included the same individual mandate. How can a provision be permissible in October but unconstitutional in December?

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also voted yesterday to declare an individual mandate unconstitutional. Over the summer, he told Fox News, "I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.... There isn't anything wrong with it."

Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Bob Bennett (R-Utah), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) all voted yesterday to declare an individual mandate unconstitutional. All five of them are on record co-sponsoring a reform measure that included an individual mandate.

The point here is not just to highlight the bizarre inconsistencies of Republican opponents of health care reform. This is also important in realizing why bipartisanship on health care proved impossible this year -- Republicans were willing to reject measures they'd already embraced. All the Democratic outreach and compromise options in the world can't overcome the fundamental lack of seriousness that comes with a party that opposes and supports the same idea at the same time.

Post Script: In case there's any lingering confusion, by the way, the notion that an individual mandate violates the Constitution -- an argument suddenly embraced by the entire Senate Republican caucus -- is absurd. As Ezra Klein explained in November, "[Y]es, the individual mandate is constitutional. For a roundup of the argument, see this Tim Noah piece. For a longer, more technical explanation, see this post by law professor Mark A. Hall. The summary is that you can look at the individual mandate as a tax, which is constitutional, or as a regulation forcing private actors to engage in a certain transaction, much like the minimum wage, which is also constitutional. I've also heard scholars mention auto insurance, which is an obvious analogue, and the Americans With Disabilities Act, which proved that the government can order businesses to install ramps, despite the fact that the constitution doesn't explicitly give the federal government jurisdiction over entryways."

BRODER'S A HARD MAN TO PLEASE.... For the ostensible "dean" of the media political establishment, David Broder's take on the health care debate seems oddly detached from actual events.

What should have been a moment of proud accomplishment for the Senate, right up there with the passage of Social Security and the first civil rights bills, was instead a travesty of low-grade political theater -- angry rhetoric and backroom deals.

Um, Mr. Broder? Angry rhetoric and backroom deals were very much a part of the passage of Social Security and the first civil rights bills.

There's blame enough to go around. Start with the 40 Republicans, not one of whom was willing to break out of the mold of negative conformity and offer a sustained working partnership in serious legislative effort.

But even those Republicans who were initially inclined to do that -- and there were at least a handful of them -- were turned away by the White House and the Senate Democratic leaders, who never lifted their sights much beyond the Democratic ranks.

I hate to be a stickler for detail, but the White House and the Senate Democratic leaders all but begged Republicans to be a part of the process. The entire initiative was put on hold for months so the bipartisan "Gang of Six" could hold fruitless backroom talks, but the negotiations were nevertheless endorsed by the White House and the Senate Democratic leadership. More recently, just a week ago today, President Obama spent an hour and a half reaching out to Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) directly, followed up by a half-hour phone call. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine was sought out nearly as much. In April, President Obama met with GOP leaders in the White House, and started talking about the kind of concessions he was prepared to make as part of a bipartisan compromise. He asked what Republicans might be willing to do in return. They offered literally nothing.

Dems "never lifted their sights much beyond the Democratic ranks"? Reality suggests otherwise.

It would help a lot if [President Obama] reached out personally to those few Republicans who might still want to improve the bill rather than sink it.

What does Broder think the president has been doing the last several months? Has Broder been traveling outside the country since the spring?

The entire column is almost pretty much what one would expect, given the columnist. Broder blames "both sides" and urges policymakers who disagree to put aside their differences and come together, letting the country know reform has "bipartisan support." Sigh.

The truth is, David Broder should be thrilled with the Democratic plan, in that it addresses all of his purported concerns. It was the result of extensive compromise between liberals and conservatives; it incorporates ideas from the left, right, and center; it's the most ambitious cost-cutting measure Congress has considered in at least a generation; and it's a fiscally responsible policy that brings down the deficit considerably in the coming years.

Isn't this the kind of policy and process Broder claims to love?

OBAMA JOINS CRITICISM OF FILIBUSTER ABUSE.... On PBS's "Newshour" last night, Jim Lehrer asked President Obama for his thoughts on Senate Republicans' use of filibusters. The president conceded that he's "very frustrated."

"[A]s somebody who served in the Senate, who values the traditions of the Senate, who thinks that institution has been the world's greatest deliberative body, to see the filibuster rule, which imposes a 60-vote supermajority on legislation -- to see that invoked on every single piece of legislation, during the course of this year, is unheard of.

"I mean, if you look historically back in the '50s, the '60s, the '70s, the '80s -- even when there was sharp political disagreements, when the Democrats were in control for example and Ronald Reagan was president -- you didn't see even routine items subject to the 60-vote rule.

"So I think that if this pattern continues, you're going to see an inability on the part of America to deal with big problems in a very competitive world, and other countries are going to start running circles around us. We're going to have to return to some sense that governance is more important than politics inside the Senate. We're not there right now."

Obama added that everyone, regardless of party, should be able to reflect on the abuse that's underway and agree that "this can't be the way that government runs." He went on to say, "If we had a Republican president right now and a Republican-controlled Senate, and Democrats were doing some of these things, they'd be screaming bloody murder. And at some point, you know, I think the American people want to see government solve problems, not just engage in the gamesmanship that has become so customary in Washington."

Unless I missed it, this appears to be the most extensive comments the president has made on the subject. It's a welcome addition to the larger debate.

And while the answer was heartening, let's not overlook the question -- the issue of filibuster abuse has risen to the level that Jim Lehrer thought to ask about it in a rare White House interview. It suggests the issue itself is going mainstream, and the larger discussion about how the Senate should operate is entering the larger public discourse.

Indeed, the PBS exchange comes the same week as terrific pieces on the subject from James Fallows, Paul Krugman, and E. J. Dionne, Jr. It even came up on "Meet the Press" this week.

As we talked about the other day, in order for necessary changes to happen, members will need to feel pressure to restore majority rule to the Senate. In order for them to feel pressure, the public will have to reject the dysfunctional and borderline-dangerous status quo. And in order for the public to feel outraged, the mainstream political discourse will have to shine a light on the problem.

It's starting to happen.

LANDMARK HEALTH CARE BILL PASSES SENATE.... It wasn't easy. It took nearly a full year of contentious debate. There were more than a few times in which it looked as if the struggle would come up short.

But this morning, the U.S. Senate did something it's never done before: it passed a sweeping health care reform bill.

The Senate voted Thursday to reinvent the nation's health care system, passing a bill to guarantee access to health insurance for tens of millions of Americans and to rein in health costs as proposed by President Obama.

The 60-to-39 party-line vote, on the 25th straight day of debate on the legislation, brings Democrats a step closer to a goal they have pursued for decades. It clears the way for negotiations with the House, which passed a broadly similar bill last month by a vote of 220 to 215.

Vice President Biden was on hand for the vote, making a rare appearance in the chamber he used to call home. The only senator not to vote was Jim Bunning (R) of Kentucky, who's been absent for much of the week for unstated reasons.

In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) noted, "Nearly 65 years ago, Harry Truman condemned a system that condemns its citizens to the devastating economic side effects of sickness. Nearly 65 years later, we still suffer from the same. Just months after World War II came to a close, President Truman wrote this in a letter to Congress: 'We should resolve now that the health of this nation is a national concern; that financial barriers in the way of attaining health shall be removed; that the health of all its citizens deserves the help of all the nation.'

"Decades passed and those financial barriers grew taller, but we never found that resolve -- until today."

Exactly what will happen next is still a little unclear. There may be a formal conference committee to resolve the differences between the Senate and House bills, or there may be informal talks among Democratic leaders, leading to separate House and Senate votes.

Lawmakers don't return from their winter recess until mid-January -- the House comes back on Jan. 12, the Senate six days later -- but President Obama has said he'll begin work on a final bill, merging to the two versions, well before then.

PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES.... Yes, the Monthly's annual fundraising drive is still underway. Our most sincere thanks to those of you who have already contributed. For those who haven't, here's a reminder that your tax-deductible donation can make a big difference.

If you're a regular, you know that the Washington Monthly offers the kind of cutting-edge reporting and analysis the country needs now more than ever, breaking big stories well ahead of major mainstream outlets.

But to keep us going strong, we need a little help. Your donation will not only help the magazine, but also help support this blog. In fact, we've already begun work on a redesign -- a development more than a few of you have requested -- but need some additional funds.

The Monthly is a nonprofit organization. We have print and online ads, but this only covers a small part of our expenses, which means that we depend on contributions from readers to stay up and humming. The truth is, without an annual pledge week, we can't stay in business.

So, I hope we can count on your support. In honor of the Monthly's 40th anniversary, the magazine is asking for $40 donations, but any amount is welcome. If every "Political Animal" reader chipped in just $1, we'd surpass our fundraising goal.

Just click here to help out. You can donate online, through PayPal, or through the mail.

Thanks.

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

* The Senate shot down a Republican filibuster of health care reform this afternoon, the last hurdle before an up-or-down vote on the bill. The vote was 60 to 39, with Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) skipping the proceedings for an undetermined reason.

* Tomorrow morning's Senate vote has been moved from 8 a.m. (ET) to 7 a.m. (ET), to help senators avoid winter storms. The vote will be the first held on Christmas Eve since 1895.

* Democrats made one last attempt to have the vote today instead of tomorrow. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) refused.

* Good economic news: "Personal incomes rose in November at the fastest pace in six months while spending posted a second straight increase, raising hopes that that the recovery from the nation's deep recession might be gaining momentum."

* Bad economic news: Purchases of new homes in the U.S. unexpectedly fell last month, indicating a recovery from the worst housing slump since the Great Depression will be slow to develop.

* At this rate, Gitmo may never close.

* Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, denounced the Senate health care reform bill today, saying it should be scrapped and lawmakers should start over. Slaughter did not, however, rule out voting for the final reform bill.

* As part of a Republican attack on health care reform today, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) read a post from FireDogLake on the Senate floor.

* On a related note, progressives are only invited onto "Fox & Friends" for two reasons: 1) to be used as a punching bag; or 2) to be used to undermine the Democratic policy agenda. There is no third reason.

* Excise tax vs. wealthy surcharge? Ezra makes the case for the former.

* A counter-intuitive new CNN poll found that Americans, simultaneously, approve of the escalation of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and oppose the war itself.

* ACORN seems to be having a good month: "The controversial community organizing group Acorn has not broken any laws in the last five years, according to a Congrssional Research Service report released Tuesday evening."

* Nate Silver makes the case for Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee being the 2009 Democrat of the Year.

* And Newt Gingrich believes a Republican takeover of the House could make Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) a committee chair, despite her being stark raving mad. It's the kind threat that might help motivate the Democratic base a bit.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

BOOK REVIEWS.... In the upcoming issue of the Washington Monthly, there's an interesting review by Jamie Malanowski of a book called Tinsel: A Search for America's Christmas Present by Hank Stuever. Given this week's seasonal festivities, it seems like a book that may be of particular interest right now. From the Malanowski review:

Pillar of the economy, climax of the calendar year, and wellspring of sentiment, myth, and moral teaching, Christmas is that institution which is so influential, so pervasive, so enormous that it seldom requires more than a pop lyricist to help reveal itself. A phenomenon more ripe for journalistic scrutiny, then, would be hard to find, which is why Hank Stuever, a reporter for the Washington Post, spent three Christmas seasons in the Dallas suburb of Frisco, where he was well positioned to observe suburban Americans performing their holiday rituals in their native habitat. The product of his study is Tinsel: A Search for America's Christmas Present, a stylishly written and often delightful book that aims to capture all the things that Christmas is about -- family, values, religion, ritual, celebration, kitsch.

It's one of several worthwhile reviews in the Monthly, including:

* Amy Sullivan's review of Jeffery L. Sheler's Prophet of Purpose: The Life of Rick Warren.

* Joshua Green's review of Martin Eisenstadt's I Am Martin Eisenstadt: One Man's (Wildly Inappropriate) Adventures with the Last Republicans.

* Charles Homans's review of Peter Maass' Crude World: The Violent Twilight of Oil.

* Paul Hockenos' review of Gunter Grass' On the Road From Germany to Germany.

* Michael O'Donnell's review of Jennifer Burns' Goddess of the Market and Anne Heller's Ayn Rand and the World She Made.

* Jesse Singal's review of Ethan Gilsdorf's Fantasy Freaks and Gaming Geeks: An Epic Quest for Reality Among Role Players, Online Gamers, and Other Dwellers of Imaginary Realms.

* And Tim Murphy's review of Robert W. Merry's A country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, the Mexican War, and the Conquest of the American Continent.

What's that cliche? They're all perfect for the booklover on your holiday shopping list, or even as a gift to yourself....

ENSIGN'S UNDERSTANDING OF 'SOLEMN OATHS'.... Part of the problem for politicians caught up in sex scandals is that they become a lens through which all news is filtered. For example, when Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) promoted his efforts to protect raw oysters, or made a casual reference to handcuffs, it offered critics a chance to remind folks about Vitter's background with prostitutes.

Similarly, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) took to the Senate floor today to push a measure challenging the constitutionality of health care reform. He told his colleagues, "When each one of us comes to this floor after we're elected, we raise our right hand, put our hand on the Bible, and take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. We in no way take an oath to reform health care, or do anything else that we think is good to do.... That's the oath, the solemn oath that each and every senator takes."

First, health care reform isn't unconstitutional.

Second, Ensign's talk about the importance of honoring "solemn" oaths only serves to remind us that he cheated on his wife, sleeping with an aide married to his friend. Eric Kleefeld noted that senator "does appear to have a point on this one. After they are elected, Senators walk down the aisle of the chamber and perform a serious ceremony, committing themselves to the bonds of their office. And breaking those vows is not to be taken lightly."

And third, Cornyn's point of order was defeated, 60 to 39. All 39 were Republicans -- including Snowe and Collins -- who presumably know better.

DEAN'S SUBTLE SHIFT ON REFORM PLAN.... Former Vermont Gov. and former DNC Chairman Howard Dean recently became the highest profile progressive voice to denounce the Senate Democratic health care plan. Just six days ago, he wrote an op-ed arguing that the Senate plan would do "more harm than good." The day before, Dean said he thought policymakers should "kill the Senate bill."

Since then, Dean seems to have shifted a bit. On "Meet the Press," he said the bill "has improved over the last couple of weeks." Rather than have it killed, Dean said he "would let this thing go to conference committee and let's see if we can fix it some more." He even said he's "all ears" to a policy that doesn't include a public option.

Last night, talking to Rachel Maddow, Dean went a little further still. "Honestly, to see the Republicans up there carrying on the way they are, I basically concluded that maybe we should pass this thing," he said, adding, "If the Republicans hate it, there must be some good to it."

Dean also pointed to several improvements he liked in the final Senate bill, including measures that "tightened up cost control, money was added for community health centers ... and increased doctor reimbursements to rural physicians. So they've done a number of things that will make this approach more likely to work."

When Rachel asked specifically if the Senate bill provides "an appropriate foundation for a public option to be introduced" later, Dean replied, "Actually, it does.... Once you've got the exchanges set up ... you could modify this at a later date."

Is it me, or does this represent a rather striking shift in tone?

'A TOUGHER ASSIGNMENT'.... We still have about another month until President Obama marks his first year in office, but many observers have already begun considering where Obama's first year ranks among his modern colleagues'. By most accounts, whether one approves or disapproves of the agenda, the president's first 12 months appears to rank among the most ambitious and consequential in generations.

The bar tends to be set, of course, by FDR and LBJ. Robert Dallek, an accomplished presidential historian, reflected on the differences.

Dallek said Roosevelt had the "advantage" of a huge crisis to bridge partisan division over the New Deal. Johnson, he said, was "able to invoke [John F.] Kennedy's legacy" to push through civil rights and Medicare legislation.

"While Obama has had a crisis, it's not the sort that the opposition would give in to his demands," he said. "Obama, in a sense, has had a tougher assignment than either Roosevelt or Johnson had. The fact that he's getting so close on this health-care bill speaks to his talent of leadership, doggedness and determination to put across the biggest piece of social legislation since Social Security."

The notion that Obama's task is more challenging than Roosevelt's or Johnson's may sound hyperbolic, but I think there's something to this.

I've long thought the most poignant political commentary after the 2000 election a satirical piece from The Onion, in which George W. Bush assured the nation that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over." Similarly, the most poignant observation after the 2008 election came from the same publication, the day after Americans made Obama the president-elect: "Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job."

FDR had to address the Great Depression, but in the wake of Hoover, there were plenty of Republicans willing to work with the Roosevelt administration, and a discredited GOP didn't put up much of a fight. Three decades later, LBJ had a bold, large-scale agenda, but there were still moderate Republicans on the Hill. Neither Roosevelt nor Johnson had to worry about mandatory supermajorities to pass legislation -- Filibuster Mania was still decades away.

It's why I tend to consider the demands on Obama to be almost comical. First, Obama was tasked with rescuing the economy, overseeing two costly wars, improving a deteriorating job market, addressing a crushing debt, and fixing health care, energy policy, immigration, a housing crisis, a collapsing U.S. auto industry, the Gitmo mess, and America's reputation around the world.

Second, Obama is expected to do all of this without Republican support on anything. The GOP simply pretended that its spectacular failures didn't discredit the party.

And third, Obama, for the first time in American history, is told that every one of his proposals has to get 60 votes in the Senate to proceed, making it impossible to do much of anything unless Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson approve.

Dallek calls this "a tougher assignment than either Roosevelt or Johnson had." That sounds like a reasonable assessment.

Of course, the scope of the difficulties doesn't much matter in a practical or political sense. It's not as if voters intend to evaluate on a curve -- success or failure will be judged at face value. No one at either end of the ideological spectrum wants to hear excuses.

But as the first anniversary approaches, the historical context does add some perspective.

MEDIA MANIPULATION AT ITS MOST INANE.... You've probably noticed the phenomenon. Former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin will say something ridiculous on Facebook or Twitter, which immediately becomes "news," regardless of merit. There's a problem with this that goes beyond news outlets' comically poor judgment on what constitutes a noteworthy political development.

Take the "death panels" garbage. Palin made the insane claim on Facebook, which effectively became a press release that outlets were only too happy to embrace, without scrutiny. When reality huggers noted that the argument had no connection to the truth, Palin had another Facebook entry, which was effectively another press release, which generated a new round of coverage. Now that the nonsense has been labeled the "Lie of the Year," Palin has published another Facebook message, which has again generated a new round of coverage, despite being completely inaccurate.

It's a familiar pattern. Indeed, it happened just last week when the former governor relied on Facebook entries to "argue" with those who accept science, reason, and evidence on climate change. Palin didn't actually do any real interviews with journalists, but she, or someone she pays, kept writing little messages online, each of which garnered scrutiny-free news stories. Indeed, a few weeks ago, NBC News' Andrea Mitchell interviewed Al Gore, asking questions about global warming by simply reading from Palin's Facebook page.

Dave Weigel has a very smart piece today, describing the entire journalistic dynamic as "a humiliating exercise."

The problem is that Palin has put the political press in a submissive position, one in which the only information it prints about her comes from prepared statements or from Q&As with friendly interviewers. This isn't something most politicians get away with, or would be allowed to get away with. But Palin has leveraged her celebrity -- her ability to get ratings, the ardor of her fans and the bitterness of her critics -- to win a truly unique relationship with the press. She is allowed to shape the public debate without actually engaging in it. [...]

I think what Palin's doing here is incredibly savvy. She knows that anything that goes out under her name will be accepted as fact by conservatives ... and she knows that liberals despise her and will pick apart everything that goes out under her name. It was liberals, after all, who obsessed over the "death panel" claim, because for whatever reason they thought it was vitally important to prove that Palin was misleading people about what was in the health care bill.

At the same time, I think that the media's indulgence of Palin's strategy -- which often results in pure stenography of press releases that may or may not have been written by her -- is ridiculous, bordering on pathetic.

It's a very compelling point. I'll admit, I'm often torn on this. While I've largely blown off most of Palin's post-resignation nonsense, occasionally, I'm so overwhelmed by the stupidity of her poorly-written missives that I find them noteworthy. It's hard not to marvel at the fact that the conservative movement has made a hero out of (another) dim-witted clown. Indeed, I'm often concerned that if some of her more unhinged policy claims go unchallenged, people may not realize how absurd they are. (A key difference between blog coverage of Palin and, say, CNN's coverage of Palin is that we tend to do fact-checking.)

But Weigel's observation is an important one -- outlets need not treat barely-coherent Facebook messages from an unemployed politician as major developments. She's playing the media for fools, and too many major outlets are only to pleased to be the sucker.

'STAR TREK' AND 'UNABASHEDLY LIBERAL' VALUES.... Kevin Drum flags this gem from National Review's Mike Potemra:

I have over the past couple of months been watching DVDs of Star Trek: The Next Generation, a show I missed completely in its run of 1987 to 1994; and I confess myself amazed that so many conservatives are fond of it. Its messages are unabashedly liberal ones of the early post-Cold War era -- peace, tolerance, due process, progress....

What an odd thing to say. It's not uncommon for someone on the left to suggest conservatives find concepts like peace, tolerance, due process, and progress distasteful, but it's quite rare for a conservative to admit such a thing in print.

But it doesn't end there. Potemra, hoping to understand why conservatives enjoy a show that embraces wacky concepts like due process, asked some National Review colleagues about it. The answer, apparently, is that the right appreciates the "toughness" of Jean-Luc Picard, portrayed as "a moral hardass," who offers viewers a "compelling portrait of ethical uprightness."

But as John Holbo explained, that only makes the larger problem with the analysis worse.

[S]urely the proper conclusion to be drawn, then, is that being an ethically upright and generally virtuous person is, however surprising this result may be, consistent with being tolerant, peace-loving, even with upholding due process. And there is no particular difficulty to the trick of being in favor of progress while being skeptical about human perfectibility. I say this is a semi-serious point because I think, for some conservatives, the main objection to a somewhat vaguely conceived set of liberal values really is a strong sense that they are inconsistent with a certain sort of hardassery in the virtue ethics department. End of story. But then Star Trek TNG ought, by rights, to be the ultimate anti-conservative series. At least for the likes of Potemra.

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.

* National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas) wants the party's base to be more tolerant of moderate candidates. The Texas senator said conservatives "have to yield to the world as it is and not necessarily how they wish it would be." That's not going to go over well.

* Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama, who switched parties yesterday, will "refund campaign contributions to any donors who ask for their money back." The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wants its money back.

* In a big setback for his Senate campaign, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) lost the support of two prominent Florida Republicans who'd already endorsed his candidacy. Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) withdrew their endorsements yesterday, and when asked why, one cryptically replied, "He knows why."

* On a related note, it looks increasingly as if the "Florida Republican Party organization is now in the midst of a civil war, with the latest shoe to drop being that embattled party chairman Jim Greer has called for a special executive committee meeting, in response to a request that he be ousted as chairman."

* A year before the midterms, a survey from Public Policy Polling suggests Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is not particularly vulnerable.

* A Republican pollster finds a very competitive GOP field in next year's gubernatorial race in South Carolina. The leading candidates -- state Attorney General Henry McMaster and Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer -- are currently tied at 22% each.

* Former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton (R), running for the Senate in Colorado next year, is still working to curry favor with right-wing activists, no matter how extreme they are.

* And in Arizona, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth has not yet launched a primary campaign against Sen. John McCain, but in light of the possibility, the two camps are already going at it.

RIGHT SEIZES ON SCHULTZ LINE.... Earlier this week, MSNBC's Ed Schultz appeared on "Morning Joe," and pressed David Axelrod on health care reform, criticizing the Democratic plan from the left. Soon after, on his radio show, Schultz said White House officials were emailing hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski -- during the program -- to complain about all the liberal critics of health care reform on the show.

"Now think about that," Schultz told listeners. "Here's the White House getting in contact with 'Morning Joe' because they're afraid there's too many lefties on the air!"

Schultz's comments were, not surprisingly, quickly embraced by far-right bloggers, who said Schultz confirmed fears about MSNBC being in cahoots with the president's team. After all, the argument goes, if White House aides are communicating with "Morning Joe" hosts during the program, it suggests ... something nefarious. One went so far as to call it "state control" of the media, adding that it would be scandalous if conservative media figures "had been caught taking orders from Bush during the program."

James Joyner, himself a conservative, noted how silly this is.

Now, first of all, all we know if that Schultz claims he saw the hosts looking down at their BlackBerries during the show. He doesn't claim to have seen the messages or that the hosts said they had a question from the White House. It's pure wild ass speculation on Schultz' part.

But let's take a leap of faith and presume that MSNBC's show hosts do in fact get emails from the White House trying to spin them. Is that really that shocking? The White House has a rather sophisticated communications shop, after all. If the hosts are checking their emails while guests are on the air -- which strikes me as a rather bizarre thing to do -- then it stands to reason that they get whatever emails are sent during the show, including those from the White House.

How, exactly, does that translate into state control?

It's the political equivalent of working the refs. Watch any NFL game and you'll see players and coaches pleading with the officials to throw a flag or reverse a call. And every so often, the ref will change his mind after hearing the argument! Does that mean the refs are under the coaches' control? Of course not.

And, one presumes, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin did indeed get messages from the Bush administration and other Republican operatives during their broadcasts. Hell, Limbaugh has admitted to "carrying the water" of the party, putting a spin on things contrary to his own beliefs in order to help Republicans win. He was getting his talking points from somewhere.

Does anyone really think Joe Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman from Florida who many presume has future political ambitions, is a stooge for a Democratic administration? It just doesn't make any sense.

Regrettably, the failure to make sense seems largely irrelevant here. What matters is getting people excited, not keeping them informed.

'POTENT' FOR WHOM?.... Tomorrow morning will be fairly busy on the Senate floor. Around 8 a.m. (ET), the chamber will vote up or down on health care reform. Soon after, members will vote to increase the legal debt limit to $12.4 trillion.

It was part of a deal struck by Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell yesterday, and both got something in exchange. Reid wins by expediting the schedule, and McConnell wins by securing a debate he perceives as a winner for Republicans.

The temporary increase [in the federal debt limit] is projected to get the Treasury through another two months. In exchange, Republicans won the right to stage a full debate on the debt limit in late January, when lawmakers will have to approve an even larger increase to accommodate record deficits.

Republicans view the soaring national debt as a potent political issue heading into the 2010 congressional elections and want to use a lengthy Senate debate to focus attention on the issue just as Obama is preparing to address Congress and unveil his second budget request.

That Republicans consider the national debt a "potent political issue" continues to strike me as fascinating. In 2001, the deficit had been eliminated, and the United States had begun paying down the debt for the first time in a generation. The notorious "debt clocks" had to be turned off -- they hadn't been programmed to run backwards.

After eight years of Republican efforts, $5 trillion had been added to the debt, and a massive surplus had become a $1.3 trillion deficit. At this point, nearly 100% of the long-term debt is the result of Republican fiscal mismanagement.

Now, I realize that this observation is premised on pesky details like fact, reality, and evidence -- none of which have any relevance in a campaign, in GOP talking points, or in mainstream media coverage. But it's worth remembering that when Republicans talk about the "potency" of the debt as a political issue, they're pointing to a mess they created.

THE SOTU DEADLINE.... If all goes according to plan, by this time tomorrow, the Senate will have passed a sweeping health care reform bill on a 60 to 40 vote. Soon after, members will make a beeline for the airport, with no plans to return for about three weeks.

There is, however, the matter of when the final health care bill can/will be approved and sent to the White House for President Obama's signature. Everyone involved suggests they'd really like to see this wrapped up before the State of the Union address, which will probably be delivered on Jan. 26 or Feb. 2.

That may, however, be a tall order. As Mike Allen noted this morning, the House won't reconvene until Jan. 12, and the Senate doesn't return until six days later. Appointing members to the conference committee takes votes, and after participants work out their differences, waiting for a CBO score may take another week.

In effect, the conference committee would have to work out a satisfactory deal over the course of a day or two if they intend to meet the SOTU deadline.

It's why lawmakers may opt to skip the conference committee altogether, preferring a ping-pong approach that's been talked about quite a bit lately.

The reconciliation of the two bills is expected to take place in January, with the aim of sending a bill to the White House for President Obama's signature before he delivers his first State of the Union address. Instead of negotiating in a formal conference committee, senior Democratic aides in both chambers said they expect to hash out a bill in informal negotiations, push it through the House and send it back to the Senate for final approval, a strategy that would give them broad flexibility to rewrite policy provisions in search of a compromise.

That would at least have the advantage of efficiency, and it might still make the SOTU deadline feasible. Something to keep an eye on.

MISDIRECTED PRAYERS?.... Earlier this week, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) raised a few eyebrows when he said, on the Senate floor, that Americans "ought to pray" that one of his Senate colleagues "can't make the vote" on health care reform. It sounded a bit like the right-wing lawmaker wanted something bad to happen to a fellow member.

By yesterday, however, one senator did fail to show up to register a vote on health care -- but it wasn't one of the Democrats, it was Coburn's Republican colleague from Oklahoma, Sen. James Inhofe.

Yesterday on C-SPAN, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) fielded calls from viewers, one of whom raised the specter of misdirected prayers. "Our small tea bag group here in Waycross, we got our vigil together and took Dr. Coburn's instructions and prayed real hard that Sen. Byrd would either die or couldn't show up at the vote the other night," the caller said. "How hard did you pray because I see one of our members was missing this morning. Did it backfire on us? One of our members died?"

Barrasso dodged the question's specifics, and said he did not know why Inhofe didn't show up.

Now, it's certainly possible that the caller was not actually an insane right-wing Teabagger, but was actually a health care reform supporter trying to make conservatives look ridiculous. Regrettably, it's very difficult to tell lately -- the line is blurred between conservatives and over-the-top parodies of conservatives.

Either way, this is awfully amusing.

For the record, Inhofe was not the victim of misdirected prayers, but was traveling yesterday. He'll be back on the Hill for today's and tomorrow's votes.

THE PUBLIC OPTION'S HISTORY, REVISITED.... President Obama sat down with the Washington Post's Scott Wilson on Tuesday, and reflected on the successes of 2009. The president pointed to accomplishments that "in a normal legislative year would be considered really big achievements" -- Lily Ledbetter, hate-crimes expansion, S-CHIP, tobacco regulation, military procurement reform, new consumer credit-card protections, Sotomayor confirmation -- before looking ahead to 2010.

But health care remains the central focus of Obama's young presidency, and one of his comments to the WaPo has already rankled many.

In the interview, Obama vigorously defended the [health care reform] legislation, saying he is "not just grudgingly supporting the bill. I am very enthusiastic about what we have achieved."

"Nowhere has there been a bigger gap between the perceptions of compromise and the realities of compromise than in the health-care bill," Obama said. "Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill."

In listing those priorities, he cited the 30 million uninsured Americans projected to receive coverage, estimated savings of more than $1 trillion over the next two decades, a "patients' bill of rights on steroids," and tax breaks to help small businesses pay for employee coverage.

Those elements are in the House and Senate versions of the legislation; their competing proposals will have to be reconciled in conference committee next year. The House bill includes a government-run insurance plan favored by progressive Democrats; the Senate version does not. "I didn't campaign on the public option," Obama said in the interview.

Now, any discussion that begins with "it depends on the meaning of the word 'campaign,'" is bound to be pretty annoying. Sam Stein and Alex Koppelman ran thorough reports late yesterday on Obama's record as a candidate in 2007 and 2008, and to make a long story short, Obama clearly endorsed the public option and included it as part of his larger policy agenda -- the plan as published online specifically touted a "public health insurance option" -- but it wasn't an element he invested much time in before Election Day.

As Stein summarized, "An examination of approximately 200 newspaper articles from the campaign, as well as debate transcripts and public speeches shows that Obama spoke remarkably infrequently about creating a government-run insurance program."

Indeed, for all the concerns that Obama should have pushed the measure more aggressively during this year's congressional deliberations, it appears the president advocated on behalf of the public option far more after getting elected than before it.

The question, then, is why the president would now say that he "didn't campaign on the public option." I suspect it has something to do with wanting a clean win.

This president, like all presidents, wants historic achievements to look as impressive as possible. When health care reform is signed into law, the White House doesn't want the first paragraph to read, "President Obama accomplished today what most modern presidents couldn't deliver ... but he didn't get what he really wanted." Obama, then, has an incentive to characterize the final product as a close reflection of what he requested all along.

Indeed, I imagine this has helped drive the president's motivations for the last several months. Obama defended and promoted the public option for much of the year, but apparently concluded in the fall that there just weren't 60 votes for the measure, and he lacked leverage over those who stood in the way. So, rather than investing energy and political capital in a provision that wasn't going to overcome the procedural hurdles -- there were "only" 56 Senate supporters for the public option, and because the chamber is farcical, that's not enough -- the president focused his efforts elsewhere.

A NOT-SO-WARM WELCOME.... Rep. Parker Griffith (Ala.) probably thought his plan would go smoothly. A conservative lawmaker from a conservative district, Griffith no doubt figured his professional future would be far more secure if he betrayed the party that helped him get elected, and became a Republican -- the GOP would be thrilled with the pick-up, and the far-right voters back home would applaud the change.

As became quickly apparent yesterday, the plan was flawed.

A prominent right-wing blogger, even before Griffith officially announced his decision, told his readers, "We can pick this guy off and get a real Republican in that seat." The right wing Club for Growth issued a statement expressing a similar sentiment.

In Alabama, Griffith was facing a variety of far-right challengers, all of whom seem undeterred by the former Democrat's change of heart. Dave Weigel had a great report on this, highlighting the near-unanimous hostility the new Republican lawmaker is still facing from right-wing contingents in his district.

"This is an act of desperation to maintain power," said [Les Phillip -- a Tea Party activist who'd been waging a Republican campaign for Griffith's seat since August]. "It's exactly what people in this district are sick of. When someone lied before, and now says he's telling the truth, well, was he lying then, or is he lying now?" [...]

"We've known for a long time that Parker Griffith's principles are either for sale to the highest bidder or can change depending on how the poll results are looking," said a spokesman for Mo Brooks, a county commissioner who'd gotten some early support from the NRCC, in an interview with Politico. "He seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth."

The harsh reactions of Brooks and Phillip were in line with the reactions of activists in Alabama's fifth congressional district.

"He's an S.O.B.," said Dale Jackson, a conservative radio host who's posted a banner reading "Parker Griffith Cannot Be Trusted" on his Website. "He's a liar. Michael Steele should be ashamed of himself. The NRCC should be ashamed of itself for not coming out and immediately repudiating this guy. He was unacceptable a year ago and he's acceptable now? A year ago, they were saying this guy was a murderer."

And that's really just scratching the surface. A variety of prominent Alabama Teabaggers and assorted right-wing leaders all said they don't really trust Griffith, question his integrity, and planned to back others in the GOP primary.

In D.C., Republican officials were delighted by the party switch, but in a noticeable omission, the National Republican Congressional Committee did not throw its official support to the now-incumbent lawmaker from Alabama -- a detail Griffith probably should have worked out before making the switch official.

Welcome to Republican politics, Parker Griffith. It will be all that you bargained for, and more.

PLEDGE WEEK CONTINUES.... You may be tired of the reminders, but it's almost over and this is important. Yes, the Monthly's annual fundraising drive is still underway. Our most sincere thanks to those of you who have already contributed. For those who haven't, here's a reminder that your tax-deductible donation can make a big difference.

Your donation will not only help the magazine, but also help support this blog. In fact, we've already begun work on a redesign -- a development more than a few of you have requested -- but need some additional funds.

The Monthly is a nonprofit organization. We have print and online ads, but this only covers a small part of our expenses, which means that we depend on contributions from readers to stay up and humming. The truth is, without an annual pledge week, we can't stay in business.

So, I hope we can count on your support. In honor of the Monthly's 40th anniversary, the magazine is asking for $40 donations, but any amount is welcome. If every "Political Animal" reader chipped in just $1, we'd surpass our fundraising goal.

Just click here to help out. You can donate online, through PayPal, or through the mail.

Thanks.

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

* A little more provocative: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declined to give a yes-or-no answer on whether he could assure the West that Iran would never weaponize its nuclear material and turn it into a bomb."

* Economic growth in the third quarter was revised downward again, to 2.2%: "The Commerce Department's new reading on gross domestic product for the July-to-September quarter was slower than the 2.8% growth rate estimated just a month ago."

* Serious shortfalls: "The recession's jobless toll is draining unemployment-compensation funds so fast that according to federal projections, 40 state programs will go broke within two years and need $90 billion in loans to keep issuing the benefit checks."

* Encouraging figures in the real estate market: "Extraordinary government efforts to stabilize the housing market are paying off. What happens when the help runs out is anyone's guess. Sales of previously occupied homes surged in November to the highest level in nearly three years, spurred by federal subsidies for starter homes and a massive Federal Reserve push to drive down mortgage rates."

* Obama finds cost savings: "President Barack Obama on Monday touted the federal government's efforts to become more efficient, highlighting a new report that shows billions of dollars in savings on contract costs. The report by the Office of Management and Budget shows that agencies have identified more than $19 billion in contract savings for fiscal year 2010, which began Oct. 1. Obama said that puts the government on track to meet its goal of saving $40 billion annually by fiscal year 2011."

* Obscene: "Ed Hanway, CEO of Cigna, one of the nation's largest health insurance companies, will step down at the end of this year, in just over a week. When he does, he'll get $73,200,000 as compensation for a job well done."

* An unexpected drop in crime: "The homicide rate dropped 10 percent in the first half of this year as crime rates reached their lowest point nationally since the 1960s, the FBI reported Monday."

* A welcome reversal: "An Army general in Iraq backed away from his threat today to court martial female soldiers who get pregnant."

* The New York Times editorial board supports the Democratic health care reform plan.

* So does a group of prominent economists who've been tracking the process.

* Jane Hamsher argues health care reform won't really work "on behalf of the 'poor.'" Jonathan Cohn responds.

* Nate Silver tackles the "insidious myth of reconciliation."

* Fair and balanced: "'Fox & Friends' lists '5 things conservatives hate' and '5 things liberals hate' about Senate health care bill."

* Giving colleges a new mission: prepare kids for college.

* Deadly volcano ash isn't funny.

* For all her talk about small government and the evils of spending, Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-Minn.) family farm has received over a quarter million dollars in government handouts.

* Mary Matalin described proponents of health care reform as "health care jihadists." Seriously. CNN pays her for this kind of stuff.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

GRIJALVA EYES IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE.... Rep Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has been fighting constantly all year to keep as many liberal provisions in the health care reform bill as possible. He'd made some veiled threats (and some not-so-veiled threats) about opposing any bill without a public option, though he's now signaling his support for the watered-down legislation.

Grijalva's is, however, looking for another concession -- one that need not alienate any center-right members of the Senate Democratic caucus. He talked to Greg Sargent today, and said he's eyeing the implementation schedule

In the inteview, Grijalva confirmed that House Dems were beginning to discuss the idea of revising the Senate bill in conference to move up the implementation date for insurance coverage and make it more in line with the earlier date in the House bill.

I asked Grijalva if he could support the bill if such a change were made, even if it lacked a public option or other similar concessions sought by liberals.

"It would sweeten it somewhat," Grijalva said, "if they speed up the coverage mechanism."

He added: "That would be something I'd have to look at very closely."

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) seems to be thinking along the same lines, arguing today that the "starting date" will be a key focus in the conference committee.

As we talked about yesterday, the sooner the better. Paul Starr argued that a faster timetable should be a priority in the conference-committee talks, and there's no reason to think lawmakers like Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman would object -- they can come up with new objections on the fly, but neither have ever said a word about the implementation schedule. And why would they? There's nothing ideological about it.

By all accounts, literally the only reason to delay implementation of subsidies until 2014 is to bring down the overall cost of the bill. The Senate version costs $871 billion over 10 years, which is below the ceiling the White House presented in September. Moving up the schedule means moving above the ceiling.

What I'm unclear on -- and if anyone knows for certain, email me -- is exactly how much it would cost to move up subsidies from 2014 to 2013 (or sooner still). Is it in the range of an additional $50 billion? Or closer to an additional $200 billion? The former makes it feasible; the latter does not.