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

* Another attack in Russia: "Two suicide bombers -- including one impersonating a police officer -- killed 12 people Wednesday in southern Russia. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said the blasts may have been organized by the same militants who attacked the Moscow subway."

* Doku K. Umarov, a Chechen rebel leader, claimed responsibility for Monday's double bombing in Moscow, and warned that more attacks were likely.

* Big federal court ruling: "A federal judge ruled Wednesday that government investigators illegally wiretapped the phone conversations of an Islamic charity and two American lawyers without a search warrant."

* I didn't realize this was an option: "The Army secretary said on Wednesday he would not discharge gay personnel who admitted their sexual orientation to him, despite the 'don't ask, don't tell' stance that remains official military policy."

* What a surprise: "The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved."

* Fascinating piece from Andrew Sabl on the rhetoric of the health care debate, specifically the efficacy of the word "mandate." I wish I'd thought to write this one.

* Former Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer facing a criminal investigation?

* Dear state of Utah, you can't take federal land just because you want to.

* When your right-wing uncle sends you an email saying the IRS will hire 16,000 new agents to enforce the health care law, remember that the claim isn't true.

* Great segment last night from Rachel Maddow on the infamous C Street house and some unresolved tax-law questions that need answers. (thanks to M.R. for the reminder)

* Shelby Steele appears to have published oneof the worst op-eds of all time.

* Trinity College will probably resist efforts to remove "Our Lord" from its diplomas.

* I found this story about the 10 personal letters President Obama reads every day pretty compelling.

* Yep: "Obama could propose cutting taxes to zero, deporting everyone who can't speak English, renaming the country 'Jesusland' -- doesn't matter. The GOP answer will always be the same."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

DEAR RNC, LET THE EXPENSE REPORTS GO.... The Republican National Committee was knocked on its heels this week in a story the party would no doubt prefer to forget. Publicly-available expense reports showed that the RNC had made a variety of odd spending decisions, most notably the nearly $2,000 charge at "a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex."

In the wake of the story, the RNC fired one of its employees, and the controversy was starting to die down. But today, the Republican National Committee, in its infinite wisdom, deliberately brought party expense reports back to the attention of political reporters.

In hopes of redirecting incoming fire about its spending habits, the Republican National Committee on Wednesday tried to turn scrutiny to the spending habits of the Democratic National Committee but came up with nothing nearly as risque as almost $2,000 in expenses for a night out at a bondage club and no private planes.

It tallied up, instead, two years worth of catering, luxury hotels and limousine bills.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele has been widely criticized for his expensive travel tastes -- especially for using private jets and car services. An e-mail from RNC Communications Director Doug Heye pulled together DNC expenses dating back to October 2008.

"The DNC spent at least $2,204,000 for luxury hotels and caterers," Heye writes at the top of the e-mail.

At face value, the RNC's research appears to be legit. Over the last 18 months, the DNC really did spent $2.2 million for luxury hotels and caterers. That's probably supposed to sound scandalous, but it's actually a rather dull observation -- parties host events at nice places. It's all pretty routine. If the sum total of the RNC expenditure reports had to do with nice hotels and caterers, few would have even raised an eyebrow.

But therein lies the point: the controversy surrounding the RNC's spending included a lot of money on private planes (a practice that did not turn up in the DNC's reports), and nearly $2,000 at "a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex."

I can't help but wonder what genius at the RNC thought it'd be a good idea to bring all of this back up. They poured through DNC filings looking for dirt, and they came up with mundane hotel and catering expenses. The smart thing to do, then, would be to say nothing more about expense reports, and instead work on changing the subject.

But, no. The RNC thought it'd be fun to hit the hornets' nest with a stick, and then hang around to kick it a little more.

DNC spokesperson Hari Sevugan seemed only too pleased to respond to the RNC's latest efforts.

"The RNC got in trouble not because it was doing traditional fundraising at hotels, or holding meetings at hotels -- and we've never raised that issue. They got in trouble with their donors because they are spending more money than they are raising (deficit spending is a pattern with Republicans) and because they are doing so in part at sex clubs. [...]

"[I]f Republicans want to compare our spending to their spending and allow us to say Michael Steele approved spending money at a Hollywood sex club a few more times -- that's fine with us."

The RNC should appreciate the value of quitting while they're behind.

—Steve Benen 4:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

THE POWER OR REPETITION, REPETITION, REPETITION.... We've seen ample evidence in recent months that the public was turned off by the process of reforming the health care system. Whether these concerns were well grounded or not is a separate question, but the frustration has obviously been real.

Gallup, for example, published this result today:

Regardless of whether you favored or opposed the health care legislation passed this week, do you think the methods the Democratic leaders in Congress used to get enough legislation -- were [they] an abuse of power, or were [they] an appropriate use of power by the party that controls the majority in Congress?

Abuse of power 53%
Appropriate use of power 40%
No opinion 7%

Substantively, this is bizarre. The "methods the Democratic leaders in Congress used" were entirely legitimate and above-board. Reform went through the committee process, had floor debates, passed both chambers, etc. There was literally nothing that constituted an "abuse of power." Some of the side deals were unsavory, but (a) the deals were ultimately removed by Democratic lawmakers; and (b) the deals were entirely consistent with the way Congress has operated for more than 200 years.

Democrats promised voters they'd pass health care reform, they worked on health care reform for more than a year, and then they voted for it. That's not "abuse," it's "a governing majority fulfilling its campaign promises."

So, what explains the poll results? Greg Sargent's take sounds right to me: "This suggests, I think, that the claim by Republicans and conservatives that Dems were going to 'ram' the bill through Congress via dictatorial fiat really succeeded in riling up people up a great deal -- even though Republicans repeatedly used the reconciliation tactic themselves to pass ambitious legislation.... Moral of the story: Message discipline works."

Does it ever. Republicans, in all likelihood, knew full well there was nothing untoward about a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate approving health care reform. But they kept hammering away at their message -- GOP lawmakers decried the "sleazy" and "abusive" process, and conservative pundits echoed the sentiment. Mainstream outlets, obliged to pass along reports of debates, regardless of merit, covered the sausage-making process at a granular level, offering procedual coverage in a way that probably has no precedent in American history.

Casual news consumers, who don't generally care about legislative procedures, were no doubt left with the impression that Dems were handling the process the wrong way. After all, that's what "everyone is talking about." They heard "something about this on the news."

Fortunately, this will fade, and the public can start caring more about policy than process. But in the meantime, poll results like these are frustrating.

—Steve Benen 3:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (48)

IT'S FUNNY WHAT A PRIMARY CAN DO.... When it comes to immigration policy, Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona has consistently been to his party's left. He was, for example, a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants' kids who graduate from high school. McCain also championed a 2007 effort on comprehensive reform, which included a path to citizenship that the far-right labeled "amnesty."

He moved sharply to the right during the 2008 presidential primaries -- McCain famously announced he'd vote against his own immigration bill, if given the chance -- and then back again after he was the GOP nominee. Now that McCain is facing a primary challenge for his Senate re-election bid, he's conservative on immigration once more.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), under fire from the right for not being tough enough on immigration in his Senate primary race, has called on Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to dispatch National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border.

In a letter sent to Napolitano's office yesterday, McCain says that rising drug violence across the border in Mexico endangers the lives of American citizens. He says the situation now calls for troops to be sent to the "southern border region."

Immigration reform advocates -- McCain's former allies -- recognize shameless pandering when they see it. "All the language he's using is red meat for conservatives," Gabe Gonzalez, a national director at the Center For Community Change, told TPM. "He's getting attacks on the right, so he's going right."

Matt Yglesias noted the ways in which the opportunism contradicts one of McCain's pervious personas.

It's relatively rare for a politician to make a point about how principled he is. Not that politicians don't call themselves principles. It's just that for most politicians, they try to do what they're going to do, make the case for their issues as they make them, and hope that the results look like principled leadership to others. Senator John McCain of Arizona is different, he always wears his principledness on his sleeve, talks about it all the time. Presumably because he's given to a substantially more incoherent approach than most people.

Like remember when McCain was a champion of immigration reform? Well, now he's got a primary to win.

I'm sure the increasingly far-right Arizonan will be able to explain all of this during one of his many upcoming Sunday show appearances.

—Steve Benen 2:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

FRIVOLOUS HCR LAWSUIT'S SCARCE DEFENDERS.... Finding an ambitious, far-right state attorney general willing to waste tax dollars challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is easy. Finding legal experts who think their case has any merit at all is surprisingly difficult.

The University of Washington tried to organize a debate on whether the health-care reform bill is constitutional. But it couldn't find a law professor to argue that it isn't, reports the Seattle Times.

"I will say that we tried very hard to get a professor who could come and who thinks this is flat-out unconstitutional," said the moderator. "But there are relatively few of them, and they are in great demand."

Even a former Bush/Cheney U.S. attorney was on hand, and he agreed that the Republican litigation not only lacks merit, but should be "seen as a political exercise."

Elsewhere, however, Republicans continue to take the frivolous lawsuit seriously. In Georgia, for example, state Attorney General Thurbert Baker (D) said he would not waste taxpayer money on the case that no serious person can defend. As of yesterday, 31 Republicans in the state legislature had signed a resolution calling for the AG's impeachment. Seriously.

"It's a disappointing response by some members of our legislature," Baker said. "I don't think it speaks well for the future of this state or the image of Georgia."

You don't say.

As of now, 14 states, thanks to conservative attorneys general with time and public resources to waste, are pushing a lawsuit against the new health care law that even conservative legal experts consider a weak joke. It was 13, but Indiana's AG signed on this week.

—Steve Benen 1:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... A 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released the other day found that 50% of respondents would be willing to support an openly-gay presidential candidate. The Family Research Council, a prominent religious right group with ties to the Republican leadership, suggested yesterday that President Obama may effectively (not literally) already be "our first gay president." (via Right Wing Watch)

[I]f it was argued during his two terms in office that Bill Clinton was "our first black President" because of his supposed liberal policies that would benefit African-Americans (though I'm not quite sure what President Clinton did, that he wasn't forced to do, that would benefit any minority except for Chinese monks with political donations to spend.) With that argument shouldn't Barack Obama already be our "first gay President" due to his liberal policies pushing the homosexual agenda?

The Family Research Council isn't saying President Obama is gay; it's saying President Obama might as well be considered gay, the same way Bill Clinton was considered black.

And the religious right wonders why it's so hard to take their movement seriously.

For the record, I continue to find it interesting to see the difference in impressions when it comes to Obama and his efforts on issues important to the LGBT community. On the one hand, some conservatives are prepared to label him our "first gay president" and are convinced that Obama "is pandering to the gay lobby."

On the other hand, many in the LGBT community see the White House as deeply disappointing, ignoring the issues that matter.

As Obama's presidency continues, I still think it's the latter group that will be satisfied. In his first year, the president has presented a package of domestic partnership benefits for federal workers, lifted the travel/immigration ban on those with HIV/AIDS, expanded hate-crime laws, addressed the diplomatic passport issue, issued a strong Pride Month proclamation, hosted a White House event to honor the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, and taken the initial steps in ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." He's also publicly expressed his support for repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and making the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act law.

It's a start, and it's apparently enough to make major religious right groups publish foolish things.

—Steve Benen 1:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

GOP 'INCREASINGLY WORRIED' ABOUT REPEAL.... They can't say they weren't warned.

Top Republicans are increasingly worried that GOP candidates this fall might be burned by a fire that's roaring through the conservative base: demand for the repeal of President Barack Obama's new health care law.

It's fine to criticize the health law and the way Democrats pushed it through Congress without a single GOP vote, these party leaders say. But focusing on its outright repeal carries two big risks.

Repeal is politically and legally unlikely, and grass-roots activists may feel disillusioned by a failed crusade. More important, say strategists from both parties, a fiercely repeal-the-bill stance might prove far less popular in a general election than in a conservative-dominated GOP primary, especially in states such as Illinois and California.

Democrats are counting on that scenario.

How antsy are Republicans? Texas Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the NRSC, issued a new memo, called, "Moving Forward," to his candidates yesterday. The point was to offer a rhetorical blueprint on health care to Republicans running for the Senate this year.

The memo mentions the word "repeal" only once, in passing, and makes no effort to encourage GOP candidates to run on a repeal platform.

It's not exactly a mystery why -- repeal is an electoral loser. If Cornyn & Co. thought the demands from the right-wing base were sensible and likely to produce victories at the ballot box, they'd quickly embrace the line Republican voters want to hear. They haven't because they know better, and want to win.

Thus, top Republicans are "increasingly worried." We saw a great example of this yesterday with Rep. Mark Kirk (R), an increasingly-conservative Senate candidate in Illinois. Kirk already signed a pledge, promising the right to pursue a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, but when pressed on whether he intends to stick to it, Kirk suddenly got shy.

On the list of campaign angles Democrats are anxious to talk about in the fall, this ranks pretty high.

—Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

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.

* Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) gave her word last year that she would step down from Congress this year, regardless of the outcome of her gubernatorial campaign. Hutchison has since changed her mind, and will stay on through 2012.

* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) had hoped to get a re-election boost in Nevada this year with Scott Ashjian running as a right-wing Tea Party candidate, which might split the conservative vote. That plan is looking shaky: Ashjian is now facing up to 14 years in prison.

* Dems got some good news in Ohio today, with a new Quinnipiac poll showing Democrats leading in both the gubernatorial and Senate races this year.

* Sen. Arlen Specter's (D-Pa.) campaign got a bit of a boost yesterday when he picked up an endorsement from Pennsylvania's AFL-CIO.

* In Florida's closely-watched Republican Senate primary, Marco Rubio has won the backing of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), an influential far-right senator. Coburn said his decision was based in part on Charlie Crist's support for economic recovery efforts last year.

* California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina (R) ran into some trouble yesterday when she extended Passover best wishes to Jewish voters, and said the holiday is an occasion in which "we break bread." Not in Judaism, they don't.

* In Alabama, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Rep. Artur Davis (D) leading the state's Democratic gubernatorial primary by 10 points over state Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks.

* And in South Dakota, Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D) is leading her GOP challengers in hypothetical match-ups, by margins ranging from 2 to 12 points, at least according to Rasmussen. In related news, Herseth Sandlin's Democratic primary challenger ended his bid yesterday.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

IN A HISTORICAL, PERSONAL CONTEXT.... The parties and their campaign committees release various web videos on a very regular basis, and they're generally pretty forgettable. But this one, released earlier by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is more like a short-film on the importance of the health care reform fight.

To summarize for those who can't watch clips from your work computers, the first half of the clip puts the successful reform push in a historical context, noting just how long a journey it's been. The second half features Democratic House leaders -- Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, Caucus Chair John Larson, Caucus Vice-Chair Xavier Becerra, and DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen -- reading letters from constituents who either urged Congress to pass reform, are grateful the ACA is now law, or both.

I found it pretty compelling.

—Steve Benen 11:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

ALL PART OF THE PLAN.... We talked earlier about the Obama administration's apparent intention to allow new oil and natural gas drilling along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the north coast of Alaska. Given that this move could be used as a bargaining chip with Republicans during negotiations on energy policy, I questioned what the White House would get in exchange for the president's concession. If the president has already effectively given Republicans what they wanted on energy, what will he get in return?

A Hill staffer I know emails with an alternative look at the same dynamic, suggesting President Obama is playing a game we've seen before. I'm republishing the staffer's email with permission.

Obama preempts the other side's most resonant arguments, which forces them to come up with more and more extreme claims in order to differentiate themselves. In the end, he occupies the reasonable middle ground and his opponents are Palinized. It doesn't always work -- on the national security/gitmo/Miranda stuff, for example, it turns out the utter extreme positions the right is left with given the centrist ground Obama has staked out turns out to be fairly popular. But even there, the Administration has had reasonable success pushing back on the Miranda nonsense and, because they effectively occupy the tough, pragmatic middle ground, they routinely get cover from non-crazy Republican national security voices, which has helped blunt the force of these issues. (I understand that the term "middle ground" is very slippery and dangerous here, but I basically use it to mean policies that, before the great crazy of 2009 had broad consensus support from large portions of both parties and the Broder/Friedman/Brooks axis.)

At the same time, the policy is a tailored, measured version of what the Republicans have urged -- so, yes, the headline is, 'Obama Allows New Offshore Drilling/Presses For Energy Independence,' but at the same time, California/Oregon/Washington where opposition is strongest isn't included, and there are environmentally-friendly changes to Alaska leasing policy announced at the same time. And again, as we've seen before, Republicans are sort of forced to twist and parse, and even to oppose things they have long supported, just because the Administration hasn't gone far enough.

Finally, by announcing the drilling policy without seeking to extract concessions, the Administration makes clear that it is their policy and they are the centrist/flexible/pragmatic ones -- making it harder for Republicans to argue that they accomplished this or that they forced Obama to do it. [...]

[O]f course, if there was any reason to believe that Republicans would engage in normal negotiation/compromise, then I see why holding this back and trading it for support of a broader package would make sense. But does anyone really think there are Republicans to negotiate with on this stuff? And if Republicans do come to the table, Obama still has plenty of room to give, including by simply agreeing to sign a law that makes proposals like this a matter of statute, not executive discretion.

That's an interesting take. Something to keep in mind.

And by the way, right on cue, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) denounced the administration's drilling plan, despite its similarity to GOP demands, with Boehner expressing his outrage that the president didn't go further. What a shock.

—Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (77)

'REPEAL AND REPLACE' SOCIAL SECURITY, TOO?.... CNN's Larry King hosted a discussion this week with some leaders of the Tea Party "movement," asking right-wing grassroots organizers Dana Loesch and Wayne Allyn Root about their ideologies. It led to an interesting exchange about Social Security.

KING: Would anyone turn away Social Security now? Would you do away with it?

LOESCH: I would, yes.

KING: You would?

LOESCH: Yes, absolutely.

KING: Would do you away with it, Wayne?

ROOT: I'd certainly like to....

Noting the exchange, Steve M. wrote, "There's your attack ad, Democrats: 'Call Congressman So-and-so and ask him if he agrees with these leaders of the tea party movement that Social Security should be abolished.' How hard is that, Democrats? And if Congressman So-and-so stammers the usual defense of Social Security, make sure the teabaggers know he or she is just another dirty socialist."

That strikes me as sound advice. It's especially potent since Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) far-right "roadmap" effectively calls for the same thing, privatizing Social Security out of existence. Ryan, not incidentally, would be the House Budget Committee chairman if the Republicans retake the House majority.

This should put Congressman So-and-so in an even more awkward position. The Tea Party activists are demanding the elimination of Social Security, and the Republicans' top budget guy wants the same thing. Does Congressman So-and-so think his party and its base are right or wrong on this issue?

If Democrats want to go on the offensive in the midterm cycle, they'll have plenty of opportunities to do so.

—Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

DON'T ENCOURAGE POLITICAL ROAD RAGE.... About a week ago in Nashville, Mark Duren picked up his 10-year-old daughter from school and was headed home, when Harry Weisiger saw that Duren's family car has an Obama-Biden bumper sticker. Weisiger, who did not know Duren, proceeded to lose his mind.

"He pointed at the back of my car, the bumper," Duren said, "flipped me off, one finger salute." Weisiger proceeded to ram into Duren's vehicle, with Duren and his young daughter inside. Weisiger was caught and charged with felony reckless endangerment.

A few days later, Sarah Palin appeared at a right-wing rally in Nevada and encouraged her minions to "stop" those who drive cars with Obama bumper stickers:

"[T]hat bumper sticker you see on the next Subaru driving by, an Obama bumper sticker. You should stop the driver and say, 'So how is that hopey, changey thing working out for you?'"

First, that "hopey, changey thing" is working out pretty well, thanks.

Second, encouraging right-wing activists to confront perfect strangers based on bumper stickers with the president's name on them seems like an extraordinarily bad idea.

As John Cole put it, "I can't be the only one who could see a potential problem with teabagging Palinites randomly stopping people with Obama stickers and taunting them. Certainly nothing could go wrong with this plan."

That Palin would even recommend such a thing after the bizarre incident in Tennessee is insane, even for the odd former half-term governor.

—Steve Benen 9:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (62)

POST-HEALTH CARE PLOTTING.... It's nearly April. There are about seven months until the midterms, and for now, Congress's approval rating is pretty abysmal. Policymakers, after a lengthy dry-spell, recently completed two major policy breakthroughs, delivering on critically important campaign promises, but now have to decide what to do next.

Jonathan Allen reports that even among Democrats, opinions vary. The White House wants to build on last week's success to move forward on other ambitious initiatives. There's some "resistance," however, on the Hill.

Democrats on Capitol Hill differ as to whether -- but mostly to what degree -- putting health care reform on the scoreboard has given Obama more juice in Congress.

They uniformly say that swatting Wall Street is a political no-brainer that unifies their party and splits Republicans, and many of them are eager to pass anything that can be labeled a "jobs" bill to show voters that they are focused on reversing economic misfortune. Both offer the opportunity to cater to populist sentiment before the election -- and to force the GOP to go along or risk public backlash. [...]

As Democrats approach what is expected to be a tough mid-term election, two cross-cutting dynamics are taking hold: Lawmakers who must battle to win re-election are even less inclined to cast tough votes, while some Democratic strategists believe the best bet for party leaders is to use big congressional majorities to enact their agenda before anticipated November losses set them back.

I can appreciate why some hand-wringing incumbents might be content to avoid additional fights, especially in an election year, but members of Congress are rarely punished for too much success. It's pretty unusual to hear a voter say, "My rep got a lot done. I hate that."

And there's still the matter of getting Democrats' rank-and-file motivated for cycle. The "enthusiasm gap" seems to be shrinking, but all evidence suggests Republicans will be turning out in force on Election Day. The more Dems can maintain some enthusiasm among its voters, the better they'll fare in November. That means getting the job done on Wall Street reform, repealing DADT, tackling an energy/climate bill, and getting to work on immigration.

These need not be considered "tough votes" -- polls show pretty strong support for Democratic proposals on all of these issues.

"There's still an opportunity to get a bunch of really big things done," said one senior House Democratic aide.

Dems have to decide to keep their foot on the gas.

—Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

STEELE'S SLIPPING SUPPORT.... Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele can probably take some comfort in the fact that Congress is in recess this week. If lawmakers were on the Hill, reporters would likely be asking them for their opinions on Steele's latest foibles, and the responses would no doubt be less than kind.

That said, the RNC chair's difficulties have not gone unnoticed by party leaders.

Republican leaders in Congress have moved to distance themselves from GOP national chairman Michael Steele, but that job will become more difficult as the spotlight on the midterm election intensifies.

A GOP lawmaker who requested anonymity said the Republican National Committee chairman's relationship with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is "not good at all."

The legislator added, "Steele lacks a base of support. The donors, the activists will all drop him if they sense he might squander the electoral opportunity of the decade."

As a rule, as a party is gearing up for a key election cycle, it's less than ideal for the party's elected leaders to "distance themselves" from the ostensible head of their political party.

What's especially interesting is that the tensions between GOP leaders and Steele were bad before. An "insiders" poll conducted by National Journal asked prominent Republican players, "Is your national party chairman an asset or a liability?" More than seven in 10 Republicans considered Steele a liability -- and the question was asked two weeks ago, before this week's bondage-related unpleasantness.

Indeed, Boehner was asked a few weeks ago if the RNC chairman would play a role in shaping a new policy document like the Contract with America. Boehner replied, "No."

I don't want to overstate this. Boehner and McConnell can effectively ignore Steele for the rest of the year and nevertheless see GOP candidates do well in the midterms. Howard Dean didn't always get along with Democratic leaders during his tenure, and the party excelled anyway.

The difference is, Steele is becoming an awkward distraction for the party, which is undermining fundraising efforts. What's more, Steele doesn't seem to be able to actually manage the RNC effectively, which can affect party performance whether the congressional leadership can work around him or not.

—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

IN EXCHANGE FOR WHAT?.... That the Obama administration would agree to open offshore areas to oil drilling is not exactly shocking. President Obama expressed a willingness to incorporate this into a larger energy policy during the campaign, and he alluded to "opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development" during the State of the Union. It's not like this policy is a shift or coming out of nowhere.

I am interested, though, in what the administration may get in the way of concessions after agreeing to such a move.

The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.

The proposal -- a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations -- would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

Under the plan, the coastline from New Jersey northward would remain closed to all oil and gas activity. So would the Pacific Coast, from Mexico to the Canadian border.

The environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska would be protected and no drilling would be allowed under the plan, officials said. But large tracts in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska -- nearly 130 million acres -- would be eligible for exploration and drilling after extensive studies.

Under any scenario, actual drilling is still years away, and it's unclear how many East coast states, if any, will raise objections.

But I'm especially interested in the larger political dynamic. As I understand it, the plan the White House has supported for months includes a give and take on energy -- Republicans would get the drilling and nuclear advances, while Democrats would get cap-and-trade. There are plenty of related details, but in general, this would serve as the basis for a grand, comprehensive bargain on energy.

My confusion, then, is over the administration's negotiating tactics. In February, the president cleared the way for the first new U.S. nuclear power plants in more than 30 years. Today, the president will reportedly open up new opportunities for coastal drilling.

In other words, Obama has already effectively given Republicans what they wanted on energy. What is he getting in return?

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (56)

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

* Obama administration takes a new approach to aid to Haiti.

* Nissan unveils an electric-car model that will sell for about $25,000 including federal tax credits, "making it roughly comparable to conventional autos and posing a significant test of consumers' allegiance to gasoline-powered vehicles."

* More details on the RNC's Voyeur West Hollywood scandal, including the name of the fired staffer and the effort to clear Erik Brown. Sarabeth has some related questions.

* Volcker: "White House advisor Paul Volcker sounded hopeful Tuesday about the possibility of meaningful financial regulatory reform passing this year.... But at the same time, he voiced skepticism about efforts by banking lobbyists to carve out exemptions from regulation that would force transparency on certain types of derivative trading."

* As disappointing as its editorial board can be, the Washington Post has hired some really terrific journalists lately, Thiessen notwithstanding.

* Gen. Jack Sheehan's (Ret.) apology was both necessary and overdue.

* NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) wants the administration to do more to address gun violence.

* It seems likely American taxpayers will make money off the Citibank bailout, to the tune of about $8 billion.

* It was extremely amusing to see Fox News break away from President Obama's speech today to watch a plane land without incident.

* Remember when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) pretended to be an expert on Iraq and the U.S. military presence there? It's still hard to believe anyone actually fell for that one.

* A physics breakthrough: "After 16 years and $10 billion -- and a long morning of electrical groaning and sweating -- there was joy in the meadows and tunnels of the Swiss-French countryside Tuesday: the world's biggest physics machine, the Large Hadron Collider, finally began to collide subatomic particles."

* Sarah Palin, college fundraiser?

* A fine column from Eugene Robinson on political threats and violence: "It is dishonest for right-wing commentators to insist on an equivalence that does not exist. The danger of political violence in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction -- the right, not the left. The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day -- and, quite regularly, at Tea Party rallies -- is calibrated not to inform but to incite."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

REAPING WHAT ONE SOWS ON THE CENSUS.... Prominent right-wing voices decided last year that the U.S. census was not to be trusted. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said the process could lead to "internment camps." Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) called the census "invasive." Fox News' Glenn Beck's suggested Americans may not be comfortable with "ACORN members" collecting information. Radio host Neal Boortz said some census information is "designed to help the government steal from you in order to pass off your property to the moochers."

No one should be surprised, then, that the spread of right-wing paranoia over the census is having an effect. (via Daily Kos)

Contrary to historical trends, some of the toughest challenges facing the agency responsible for measuring the nation's population are not from counting the traditionally undercounted groups such as African-Americans and Latinos. Instead, a new and growing threat to an accurate national head count is coming from anti-government conservatives who may not fill out their forms to protest against "Big Brother" in Washington.

The Houston Chronicle's report looks specifically at Texas, which is counting on the census to gain additional House seats, electoral votes, and federal funding relating to transportation, agriculture, health, education, and housing

But some anti-government types are shooting themselves in the foot.

The national average on the return rate for census forms is 34%. In much of Texas, the more Republican the area, the lower the return rate. In Briscoe County in the Panhandle, McCain/Palin won nearly 75% of the vote -- and 8% of locals are sending in their census materials. In King County, near Lubbock, McCain/Palin won nearly 93% of the vote -- and only 5% of locals are answering the census.

They apparently have no idea that they're acting against their own interests.

Last July, some very conservative Republican House members urged Bachmann, in particular, to back off the anti-census crusade, calling the efforts "illogical."

It seems at least some parts of the Republican base haven't gotten the message.

—Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (82)

CLUB FOR GROWTH DEMANDS FEALTY.... Mark Kirk, say hello to the repeal trap.

GOP Rep Mark Kirk, who's running for Obama's Illinois Senate seat, was one of the earliest to vow to roll back reform. Today, however, he repeatedly refused to say whether he's still on board with repeal, claiming only that he opposes certain aspects of the bill.

Now the Club for Growth, the powerful, well-funded conservative group, is ripping into Kirk for his sudden indecision, and making it clear that they expect him to live up to his promise.

"He said that he's going to do this," Club for Growth spokesman Mike Connolly just said by phone. "We expect him to live up to his pledge."

Kirk no doubt realizes he's in a bind. This year, in Illinois and every other state in the Union, the Affordable Care Act will extend tax credits to about 4 million small businesses, protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, restrictions on rescissions, eliminations on lifetime limits or restrictive annual limits, free preventive care, and a new benefit that allows young adults to able to stay on their parents' policies until they're 26 years old.

These benefits are likely to be especially popular in Illinois -- President Obama's home state.

The right is demanding that every Republican candidate promise voters that he/she will vote to get rid of all of these new benefits -- no exceptions. In Kirk's case, he actually signed a pledge to that effect, thinking it would boost his fundraising and his primary prospects.

And now he doesn't want to talk about it anymore.

As we've been talking about, the goal is to put Republican candidates in a box. Democrats are going to ask candidates like Kirk, "Are you really going to fight to repeal protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions? Are you really going to take coverage away from 32 million middle-class Americans? Are you really going to take away breaks for small businesses?" If he says "no," he alienates the GOP activists who will settle for nothing but a full repeal. If he says "yes," he alienates the mainstream electorate.

Dems have set a repeal trap. Kirk's leg is already caught in it.

—Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

LATEST MILITIA THREAT COMING INTO FOCUS.... Following weekend raids in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, federal officials now have nine suspected members of a Michigan-based Christian militia in custody. All have been indicted on sedition and weapons charges.

Barbara McQuade, the U.S. attorney leading the prosecution against the accused, explained to reporters today that the terrorist plot represented an imminent threat, prompting federal officials to take action. McQuade said the plot would have begun with a false 911 call, leading to the murder of the responding law enforcement officials. From there, the radicals intended to set off a bomb at the funeral, which they hoped would set off an "uprising."

To clarify a point from yesterday, eight of the nine suspects were initially taken into custody on Sunday, and the ninth surrendered to authorities today.

And as long as we're on the subject, 15 years ago, Paul Glastris, the Washington Monthly's editor-in-chief, spent some time with members of the Michigan militia and wrote a provocative piece for the magazine on his experience.

One June day two years ago, James Douglas Nichols was pushing 70 miles per hour down a country road not far from his Decker, Michigan farm when he was caught in the crosshairs of a sheriff deputy's radar gun. The deputy pulled Nichols over and issued him tickets for speeding and for driving without a valid license.

Soon after, before a courthouse hearing in Sanilac County in eastern Michigan's "thumb," Nichols offered a bizarre defense of his actions. The government, Nichols insisted, does not have the constitutional power to regulate private citizens in their cars. "I have put everyone concerned here on notice of what is going on here," declared Nichols with paranoid melodrama, "to violate my rights to free travel as cited in the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Michigan."

Presiding District Court Judge James A. Marcus patiently explained to Nichols the long-accepted legal distinction between a private citizens' constitutional right to travel freely and the government's legitimate right to regulate the operation of a motor vehicle. But Nichols was not about to buy the judge's fine distinction; he had done plenty of his own research. Nichols continued his losing protests, citing Supreme Court case after Supreme Court case. "He'd lift a sentence or phrase that he thought was applicable, but he'd do so out of context so that the meaning was completely incorrect or nonsensical," recalls Judge Marcus.

The Sanilac County courthouse, a gracious brick edifice with a hideous concrete-block addition stuck on the back, is no stranger to twisted logic. Earlier that year, James's brother Terry Nichols had tried his own hand at finding his salvation in do-it-yourself legal reasoning. He didn't really owe that $31,000 in bank credit card debt, he announced to the court, because the banks had lent him "credit," not "legal tender." He offered to pay with what he called a "certified fractional reserve check" -- a worthless piece of paper. "You can't follow their arguments," explains Judge Marcus, "because they're listening to a different music no one else hears."

Terry Nichols, of course, conspired with Timothy McVeigh to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City -- at the time, the deadliest terrorist attack in American history.

It's fascinating, 15 years later, to see how the militia extremists have changed, and how they haven't.

—Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Most of the far-right arguments against health care reform are either wrong, stale, or both. What we really need is some new far-right arguments to help keep things interesting. Oh, here's one now.

On Glenn Beck's radio show this morning, guest-host Doc Thompson explained his belief that he, as a white person, is a victim of racism inherent in the new Affordable Care Act. You read that right.

Alex Seitz-Wald, thankfully, transcribed the relevant portion. "For years I've suggested that racism was in decline and yeah, there are some, you know, incidents that still happen with regards to racism, but most of the claims I've said for years, well, they're not really real," Thompson told listeners. "But I realize now that I was wrong. For I now too feel the pain of racism. Racism has been dropped at my front door and the front door of all lighter-skinned Americans.

"The health care bill the president just signed into law includes a 10 percent tax on all indoor tanning sessions starting July 1st, and I say, who uses tanning? Is it dark-skinned people? I don't think so. I would guess that most tanning sessions are from light-skinned Americans. Why would the President of the United States of America -- a man who says he understands racism, a man who has been confronted with racism -- why would he sign such a racist law? Why would he agree to do that? Well now I feel the pain of racism."

Sure you do, Doc. Sure you do.

—Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

BACHMANN ACCUSES AFRICAN-AMERICAN LAWMAKERS OF LYING.... Oh, Michele Bachmann, is there anything you won't say out loud?

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told a crowd at a Duluth, Minn., rally over the weekend that there is no evidence that several black lawmakers were harassed by conservative protesters on Capitol Hill in the days leading up to the health care reform vote.

Black lawmakers, including civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), reported that they had been spat on and slurred by protesters demonstrating against the health reform bill last week.

"Democrats said that they were called the 'N word,' which of course would be wrong and inappropriate. But no one has any record of it. No witness saw it, it's not on camera, it's not on audio," she said. "They said that they were spat upon. No one saw it."

She went on, "There's a $10,000 reward right now for anyone who can produce a video or an audio. Don't you think we would have seen a video or an audio by now if there was something out there?"

I see. So, Michele Bachmann would have us believe that John Lewis is a liar. John Lewis, who has demonstrated more integrity, honesty, and courage in his career than Bachmann's limited intellect can even fathom, is deserving of mistrust, because he heard racial slurs and talked about it. Got it.

Here are a few details for the right-wing Minnesotan to consider.

1. When Bachmann's buddies began hurling bigoted slurs at her Democratic colleagues, there were plenty of witnesses, many of them journalists who reported on them. "No witness saw it"? That' s backwards.

2. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) not only claims to have been spat on, there's a video of the incident. Moreover, the right-wing activist who did the spitting was arrested. "Don't you think we would have seen a video"? Michele, we have seen a video. (I'll take that $10,000 reward now, please.)

3. A wide variety of Democratic lawmakers, many of them African American, including Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) have received faxes with images of nooses on gallows. The faxes have been given to law enforcement officials. If Bachmann wants to see them, I'm sure that can be arranged.

It's easy to expect garden-variety stupidity from Michele Bachmann, but these remarks question the integrity of her colleagues, who've been harassed by Bachmann's unhinged friends. The sooner she apologizes, the better.

—Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

NOT EXACTLY A BRIGHT 'DAY'.... Long-time observers may remember the name Bud Day. Six years ago, Day, a decorated Air Force combat veteran, hooked up with the Swiftboat liars to smear John Kerry. Four years later, Day explained his support for John McCain and the war in Iraq by saying, "The Muslims have said either we kneel or they're going to kill us."

This week, Day has begun trying to rally support for Gov. Charlie Crist's (R) Senate campaign in Florida, instead of Marco Rubio (R), who's leading in the polls. Apparently, Day sees the Republican primary through a racial lens. (via Memeorandum)

"You know, we just got through (electing) a politician who can run his mouth at Mach 1, a black one, and now we have a Hispanic who can run his mouth at Mach 1," Day said. "You look at their track records and they're both pretty gritty. Charlie has not got a gritty track record."

Day confirmed he was speaking of Obama and Rubio.

"You've got the black one with the reading thing. He can go as fast as the speed of light and has no idea what he's saying," Day said. "I put Rubio in that same category, except I don't know if he's using one of those readers."

By "readers," Day appears to be referring to teleprompters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the Crist campaign doesn't promote Day's endorsement too heavily. Any praise that includes references to the president as "the black one" probably isn't the kind of support a politician will want to advertise.

Or is it? In a press release, Crist said he "could not be more grateful" for Day's support, though the statement did not refer specifically to Day's apparent racial perspective on the primary contest.

I can only hope Crist will distance himself from Day's comments, and not try to win Republican support by characterizing Rubio as "a Hispanic" that belongs "in that same category" as "the black one."

—Steve Benen 1:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

ONE SIGNATURE, TWO HISTORIC REFORMS.... It wasn't quite as historic a bill signing as last week, but it was in the ballpark.

With the stroke of a pen this morning, President Obama accomplished two of his administration's major goals. First, he put the finishing touches on health care reform -- stripping the law he signed last week of some of its most controversial elements, while strengthening several others. Second, he enacted one of the major goals he set forth during the presidential campaign: student loan reform.

"This week we can rightly say, the foundation on which America's future will be built is stronger than it was one year ago," Obama said moments ago before a crowd at Northern Virginia Community College.

On health care, the budget fixes are key. While much of the attention has been focused on the elimination of special side deals (i.e., the "Cornhusker Kickback"), the reconciliation package signed into law today also improves subsidy rates for the middle class, delays implementation (and alters eligibility) of the excise tax, closes the Medicare "donut hole," and requires insurers to allow young adults to remain on their parents' insurance policies until they're 26.

But let's also not overlook the importance of overhaul federal student loan programs. In a normal year, success on this front would itself be a major legislative victory, but it's been largely overshadowed of late because it was included in the health care package.

Nevertheless, the student loan provisions signed into law today are huge. A $40 billion boost in Pell Grants, a streamlined loan process, saving taxpayers billions, caps on what students will have to pay after graduation, loan forgiveness for veterans after 10 years -- this breakthrough legislation will make a dramatic impact in the lives of millions.

Democrats have wanted to pass this for decades, but it was always just out of reach. There was a real possibility that lobbyists would intervene again this year and kill the proposal once more. Thanks to the reconciliation process, success came together just a few weeks ago.

The president described both achievements as "two major victories in one week that will improve lives of our people for generations to come." It's a bold claim that happens to be true.

—Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

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 Rep. Nathan Deal (R) resigned from Congress last week, ostensibly so he can focus on his gubernatorial campaign. As he departs, the House Ethics Committee wrapped up its report on allegations surrounding Deal, and concluded yesterday that he appeared to have acted improperly.

* Chuck DeVore (R), running for the Senate in California, has "severed all ties" with Erik Brown. Brown is the consultant best known for getting reimbursed for "meals" at a Los Angeles bondage nightclub.

* In Missouri, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Rep. Roy Blunt (R) edging ahead of Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D) in this year's open Senate race, 45% to 41%.

* In Ohio's Democratic Senate primary, Quinnipiac shows Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher leading Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, 33% to 26%. A plurality of Democratic voters remains undecided.

* The latest Research 2000 poll in Wisconsin shows incumbent Sen. Russ Feingold (D) with comfortable leads over his announced GOP challengers. If former Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) runs, Feingold's lead is just four points, 48% to 44%.

* Republicans are struggling to find a credible opponent for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) in New York, but a new Marist poll shows former Gov. George Pataki (R) leading the appointed incumbent by two in a hypothetical match-up.

* In Arkansas' Democratic Senate primary, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter's new commercial goes after Sen. Blanche Lincoln for having supported TARP in 2008.

* And putting rumors to an end, House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) officially filed for re-election yesterday.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)

FOR THE LOVE OF POLLS.... Josh Green posted an interesting item last night about Republican reactions to the success of health care reform, one week later. I've never fully been able to appreciate what it is about the Affordable Care Act the GOP hates so intensely, but Green noted Republican attitudes have begun to focus on one simple point.

I just returned from Capitol Hill, where the new health care law is still the preoccupying issue, and the Republican talking point du jour, which seems to have been issued with stage directions instructing that it be delivered in a tone of gravest concern, is that Democrats and President Obama have perpetrated a breathtaking assault on the body politic by passing a law that did not have widespread public support.

I agree that Democrats have taken a political risk, though most polls I've seen show people about equally divided on the issue. What lent such a surreal quality to my morning is that several of these folks have held an abiding interest in the intersection of governing and public opinion -- only they used to hold the opposite view.

Right. As Green explained several years ago, when he worked here at the Monthly, Republicans of the Bush era went to great lengths to reject the notion of governing based on polls. The very idea was mocked and dismissed as unworthy of true leaders. When policymakers choose to confront a great challenge, they can't just take the public's temperature and base their judgment on shifting whims and attitudes. Green noted, "Announcing that one ignores polls, then, is an easy way of conveying an impression of leadership, judgment, and substance."

Bush himself boasted repeatedly that was a president who governed "based upon principle, and not polls and focus groups."

Now, the point of Green's piece was that Bush wasn't telling the truth, and that his White House relied on survey data just like every other modern administration. The rhetoric was about creating a facade and cultivating an image, not reflecting reality. But the larger observation is still relevant -- Republicans rejected the notion that polls should dictate policy decisions. Such an approach is fundamentally weak and unprincipled.

Except now, that is, when Republicans have concluded that polls are all that matters, and to approve legislation that polls poorly is some kind of un-American act, betraying the consent of the governed.

By recent GOP standards, wouldn't President Obama deserve credit for standing tall and delivering on his campaign promises, even in the face of discouraging polling data? Isn't it more important to do what's right than what's popular?

—Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

BACK-HANDED PRAISE.... Neoconservative icon Norman Podhoretz, apparently still willing to take himself seriously, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week, praising former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. The neocon crowd has generally been skeptical about the bizarre former VP candidate, and it's possible that Podhoretz would like to improve her standing in advance of 2012. (via Ed Kilgore)

Podhoretz and his cohorts tend to look for far-right leaders whose strengths are built around national security, foreign policy, and military affairs. Sarah Palin, meanwhile, was governor of a small state for two years, thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, has no idea why there are two Koreas, and sincerely told a national television audience that she understands international affairs because Vladimir Putin has flown over her head.

Podhoretz's task, in other words, is rather challenging.

Indeed, he concedes early on in his op-ed, "True, [Palin] seems to know very little about international affairs, but expertise in this area is no guarantee of wise leadership."

Of all the anti-intellectual arguments, this is among the most entertaining. To hear Podhoretz tell it, Palin's ignorance is a good thing, because experts have often made poor decisions. So, let's gamble with global stability and security -- maybe Palin will just guess the right answer!

Podhoretz adds that many conservative leaders are underwhelmed by the half-term governor, but it's only because they're snobs.

Much as I would like to believe that the answer lies in some elevated consideration, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the same species of class bias that Mrs. Palin provokes in her enemies and her admirers is at work among the conservative intellectuals who are so embarrassed by her. When William F. Buckley Jr., then the editor of National Review, famously quipped that he would rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the combined faculties of Harvard and MIT, most conservative intellectuals responded with a gleeful amen. But put to the test by the advent of Sarah Palin, along with the populist upsurge represented by the Tea Party movement, they have demonstrated that they never really meant it.

Buckley's thought experiment was always pseudo-populist nonsense, but it's worth appreciating the fact that in this scenario, Podhoretz sees Palin as one of those random names from the phone book, rather than a scholar or an expert.

It's this back-handed praise for Palin that always surprises me. In Podhoretz's vision, Palin deserves support, not because she's extraordinary, but because she isn't. Conservatives should give her a chance, not because she has unique talents, but because she doesn't. She could be a credible national leader, not because she can draw upon her intellect and think creatively, but because she can't.

It's this conservative celebration of mediocrity and ignorance that I'll never be able to relate to. Since when should the United States, when choosing leaders, deliberately aim low and expect less from those we know to be incapable?

—Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

SARKOZY ON HEALTH CARE DEBATE: 'IT'S DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE'.... French President Nicolas Sarkozy, once a European darling to American conservatives, has been keeping an eye on the U.S. debate over health care. Speaking at Columbia University yesterday, the French leader expressed some astonishment at what he saw. (via Kevin Drum)

"Welcome to the club of states who don't turn their back on the sick and the poor," Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. health care overhaul signed by President Barack Obama last week.

From the European perspective, he said, "when we look at the American debate on reforming health care, it's difficult to believe."

"The very fact that there should have been such a violent debate simply on the fact that the poorest of Americans should not be left out in the streets without a cent to look after them ... is something astonishing to us."

I imagine it's all the more astonishing when we have unemployed cancer patients expressing their opposition to improvements in the health care system because they fear government programs and benefits.

European astonishment is understandable. I've followed the debate as closely as just about anyone, and I've found it hard to believe, too.

—Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

STEELE'S JOB SECURITY.... MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, a former conservative Republican congressman, argued yesterday that RNC Chairman Michael Steele "should resign or be fired." The sentiment didn't seem far-fetched, and Scarborough wasn't the only one expressing it.

Under different circumstances, Steele's ouster would be a no-brainer. He is, by most measures, the single worst party chair in recent memory, and has been a near-constant embarrassment to himself and his party since inexplicably winning this job 14 months ago. Steele has failed in pretty much every professional endeavor of his adult life, and this is no different.

That said, Steele probably isn't going anywhere. It's an unpredictable dynamic -- no one ever knows what Steele might do next -- but Chris Cillizza notes that the RNC chair seems to enjoy reasonable job security.

Although RNC officials were quick to point out that Steele was not in attendance at the gathering and had no knowledge of it, it makes little difference in terms of his questionable reputation among the GOP chattering class. Steele is the chairman, period. That means that anything that happens at the RNC -- good or bad -- accrues to either his credit or his detriment.

For all those wondering whether this story will be the one that forces Steele out at the RNC, remember that two-thirds of the committee men and women would have to vote him out and there is no one -- not even Steele's most bitter enemies -- who think [sic] that is a possibility. Simply put: Unless Steele resigns (not likely) or some other major revelation that links him directly to this night club incident comes out, he will be the chairman through 2010.

Any chance Steele might just quit and save himself the aggravation of infuriating his allies? I doubt it. Let's remember, it wasn't too long ago when Steele was conceding that he's "been in a little bit of trouble but I don't care." He said his Republican critics need to "shut up" and "get a life," adding, "I am in this chair. If they want it, take it from me. Until then, shut up, step back and get in the game and help us win.... Get with the program. I'm the chairman. Deal with it."

Doesn't sound like the kind of guy inclined to walk away.

As for the prospect of RNC members simply throwing him overboard, this, too, seems unlikely. Not only is a two-thirds vote a high threshold, but it's unlikely Republicans would make such a move just seven months before the midterms.

For what it's worth, I talked to one DNC official yesterday who was genuinely worried that Steele may be forced out ove this latest controversy. Dems, at this point, want Steele to remain just where he is.

They'll likely get their wish.

—Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

INSURERS AND SICK KIDS.... The new Affordable Care Act includes provisions that prohibits private insurers from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. As of a few days ago, insurance companies thought they'd found a loophole.

The new law, insurers said, would require coverage of pre-existing conditions for children covered by their family policy. But, the industry said, to get around the requirement, insurers could just stop writing insurance for sick kids altogether. That's not how policymakers interpret the new law, but industry lawyers were apparently fond of this reading.

Yesterday, Democratic officials were livid. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote to insurance lobbyist and AHIP president Karen Ignagni, insisting, "Now is not the time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken system." Sebelius added, "I urge you to share this information with your members and to help ensure they cease any attempt to deny coverage to some of the youngest and most vulnerable Americans."

At the same time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also pressed the industry: "The intent of Congress to end discrimination against children was crystal clear, and as the House chairs said last week, the fact that insurance companies would even try to deny children coverage exemplifies why the health reform legislation was so vital."

Perhaps realizing that this would be an unhelpful fight -- do insurers really want to fight to deny coverage to sick children? -- the industry backed down overnight.

In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the industry's top lobbyist said insurers will accept new regulations to dispel uncertainty over a much-publicized guarantee that children with medical problems can get coverage starting this year.

Quick resolution of the doubts was a win for Obama -- and a sign that the industry has no stomach for another war of words with a president who deftly used double-digit rate hikes by the companies to revive his sweeping health care legislation from near collapse in Congress.

"Health plans recognize the significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition," Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, said in a letter to Sebelius. Ignagni said that the industry will "fully comply" with the regulations, expected within weeks.

I don't know if the resolution was the result of stern administration warnings or fear of a p.r. nightmare, but either way, it's the answer families and Democrats were hoping for.

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF THE RNC'S RISQUE SPENDING.... By yesterday afternoon, the controversy surrounding the Republican National Committee's latest expense report was coming into focus, but there were some unanswered questions.

The most scandalous expenditure was, of course, the nearly $2,000 spent on "meals" at a nightclub called Voyeur West Hollywood, an establishment where "impromptu bondage and S&M 'scenes'" are "played out on an elevated platform by scantily clad performers throughout the night." The RNC insisted that Chairman Michael Steele was not directly responsible for the charge, but conceded that the party had reimbursed Erik Brown, a California-based political consultant, for the expenses.

So, why did Brown seek reimbursement from the RNC? Apparently because his evening at the risque nightclub was part of an effort to impress Republican donors.

An RNC investigation of the incident found that the Voyeur party was attended by a group of young Republicans who had been at an official party "Young Eagles" event at the Beverly Hills Hotel the same night, according to an internal memo obtained by The Washington Post. The Young Eagles is an RNC program to cultivate 30-to-40-year-olds as major future donors.

The request for reimbursement was then submitted on behalf of Brown by an unidentified RNC staffer who "was aware that this activity was not eligible for reimbursement and had been previously counseled on this very subject," according to the memo, which was written by the committee chief of staff, Ken McKay.

By late yesterday, the RNC staffer who joined Brown and the donors at the bondage nightclub had been fired. The party has also asked Brown to give the money back.

We do not yet know, however, who at the RNC signed off on the reimbursement and why.

Regardless, to put it mildly, Republican insiders are not happy. Mike DeMoss, a longtime RNC donor who served as a liaison to the evangelical community for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, told Politico, "The RNC cannot attack Democrats for how the government spends taxpayer money when it is spending Republican donor money recklessly. Recent RNC spending stories suggest a tone-deafness at best and a misappropriation of funds at worst.... Ultimately, the RNC can spend however it wishes -- it just may have less to spend the next time around."

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

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

* Deadly attack in Russia: "Female suicide bombers set off huge explosions in two subway stations in central Moscow during the Monday morning rush hour, Russian officials said, killing more than three dozen people and raising fears that the Muslim insurgency in southern Russia was once again being brought to the country's heart." As of this afternoon, 37 deaths were confirmed, along with more than 100 who were injured.

* Afghanistan's Western-educated minister of finance reflected on his interactions yesterday with President Obama: "He asked very, very informed questions." This is the latest in the "he isn't Bush" chronicles.

* U.S. Marshals in Michigan have released mugshots of eight Hutaree militia members who were allegedly plotting an upcoming terrorist attack.

* The Obama administration's efforts to find a permanent head of the Transportation Security Administration hit another stumbling block over the weekend when Maj. Gen. Robert A. Harding, a retired Army intelligence officer, withdrew from consideration.

* Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, not only endorsed the new nuclear arms treaty with Russia, but also called for its swift ratification.

* More Democratic lawmakers face death threats, while right-wing activists target Democratic offices in Michigan and Alaska with vandalism.

* Looks like Aetna CEO Ron Williams may have a problem with the truth.

* "Race to the Top" winners were announced today, with Delaware and Tennessee winning lucrative awards.

* Good editorial on Goodwin Liu, an Obama judicial nominee to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

* Fake-census forms distributed by the Republican National Committee are now illegal.

* I'm beginning to think Gen. James T. Conway, the commandant of the Marine Corps, hates gay people.

* Paul Krugman suggests it's time to scratch Douglas Holtz-Eakin off the "shrinking list of reasonable, reasonably honest conservatives."

* Fact checking the Sunday shows.

* Is job retraining worth it?

* In the wake of several new, disgraceful sex scandals, only Fox News would ask: "Is the Media Out to Get the Pope?"

* Dear Oklahoma state Senate, watch those typos.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

THE REPUBLICAN IDEA THAT REPUBLICANS HATE.... If recent rhetoric is a reliable guide, the part of the Affordable Care Act that Republicans loathe the most is the individual mandate. For right-wing activists, it represents an unprecedented assault on liberty. For right-wing grandstanders, it represents the basis for litigation.

But as the complaints continue, it's worth keeping in mind that the mandate has long been a Republican idea. Sam Stein has this report today:

Though Republican lawmakers now vilify the individual mandate for health insurance coverage as unconstitutional, the provision has long roots in conservative health care philosophy and has been supported by such GOP presidents as Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush.

Republican administrations were among the first to embrace the concept of forcing individuals to buy coverage. Nixon -- hoping to stave off the single-payer ethos of many congressional Democrats -- explored the idea in the 1970s, though Republicans now dismiss those discussions as the byproduct of a moderate president searching for a domestic policy victory.

Less than two decades later, in what remains an unexplored chapter of health care history, a surprising supporter of the individual mandate was George H.W. Bush. According to contemporaneous reporting, Bush used "the tax system to 'encourage and empower' individuals to buy health insurance and would enact insurance market reforms that make it possible for everyone -- even if they have pre-existing health problems -- to get insurance." In short: individuals would be mandated to buy catastrophic health insurance. The cost of that coverage would be tied to income, meaning that the poorer you were, the less expensive your policy would be.

In Nixon's case, Dems thought they'd hold out for a better deal after Nixon's presidency collapsed. In Bush's case, the proposal wasn't seriously pursued. But in both instances, among conservative thinkers of the day, the notion of an individual mandate was "in vogue," including having been endorsed by the Heritage Foundation.

To clarify further, this isn't an idea Republicans were willing to tolerate in years past as part of negotiations with Dems, but rather, this was a Republican idea. They're the ones who came up with it.

Indeed, I'm thinking about creating a roster of prominent Republicans who've either endorsed the individual mandate, voted for a plan with an individual mandate, co-sponsored legislation with an individual mandate, or all of the above. The list isn't short: George H.W. Bush, Richard Nixon, John McCain, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, Tommy Thompson, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, and Judd Gregg, among others.

All of them have supported an individual mandate -- a provision that Republicans now believe to be an unconstitutional freedom-killer that must be eliminated for the sake of American liberty.

They couldn't have picked an idea to rally around that would have made the GOP look less silly?

—Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

DEFINE 'SELF-INDULGENT'.... Now I remember why I stopped reading Robert Samuelson's columns.

In his latest piece, the conservative columnist argues that the money the Obama administration and congressional Democrats intend to use to pay for health care should actually be used to reduce the deficits left by Bush/Cheney, rather than extending health care coverage to 32 million Americans. As Samuelson sees it, President Obama prioritizing the needs of those 32 million people is "self- centered" and his policy initiative "self-indulgent."

Got that? If the president thinks of the needs of those who are struggling, he's necessarily thinking of himself. This is how Robert Samuelson perceives recent events.

Jon Chait is unimpressed with the argument.

"Self-indulgent" -- what an interesting phrase. Let's consider both words, starting with the end. It contains the assumption that some basic health insurance is an "indulgence," rather than a necessity. I defy anybody to make a careful study of the actual conditions of people who lack health insurance -- such as can be found in Jonathan Cohn's book "Sick" -- and come to this conclusion.

Next, there's the word "self." Self-indulgent is when you spend money to indulge yourself. The Bush tax cuts, which massively enriched George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, could be described as self-indulgent. Samuelson supported those, incidentally. President Obama and the Democrats who enacted health care reform all have insurance. Even if you consider providing basic medical care to people who lack it an "indulgence," they are not indulging themselves. They are "indulging" others.

Ezra added, "And before you think this is all about Samuelson, consider that Charles Krauthammer calls coverage 'candy.' There's an absence of empathy here that borders on a clinical disorder."

—Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

STEELE'S SUSPECT SPENDING.... It seems the political story of the day is the latest headache for RNC Chairman Michael Steele. New revelations, published this morning, point to a variety of hard-to-explain spending with donor money, including nearly $2,000 at an establishment called "Voyeur West Hollywood," which is apparently "a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex."

The Republican National Committee is pushing back very hard today, demanding that the media understand that the initial reporting was misleading -- sure, nearly $2,000 in RNC money paid for "meals" at Voyeur West Hollywood in February, but it wasn't Steele who made the charges at the racy nightclub.

To be sure, the Republican National Committee is not known for being truth-oriented, but I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. If RNC officials say Steele wasn't the one racking up big charges at the nightclub, I'll believe them until evidence suggests otherwise.

But I might offer the RNC a small tip: whether Steele was spending freely at Voyeur West Hollywood or not, these revelations are more than a little humiliating. The party can push back all it wants about the one detail it finds most damaging, but by effectively conceding that the rest of the story is entirely accurate, the RNC is nevertheless left with more questions to answer.

For example, all of this is apparently uncontested and true.

The Republican National Committee spent tens of thousands of dollars last month on luxury jets, posh hotels and other high-flying expenses, according to new Federal Election Commission filings, including nearly $2,000 for "meals" at Voyeur West Hollywood, a lesbian-themed nightclub that features topless dancers in bondage outfits.

The RNC spent more than $17,000 on private jet travel in February as well as nearly $13,000 for limousines, according to the documents. The GOP's main political committee also ran up tabs at numerous posh hotels, including the Beverly Hills Hotel ($9,000); the Beverly Wilshire Four Seasons ($6,600) and the W Hotel in Washington ($15,000), and spent more than $43,000 on its controversial midwinter meeting in Hawaii, not including airfare.

For donors who may be thinking about making contributions to the Republican National Committee, do you suppose this helps or hurts? And do you suppose it makes much difference whether the chairman was personally at Voyeur West Hollywood, or merely oversaw an office that signed off on the expenditure forms that allowed Voyeur West Hollywood to get nearly two grand in RNC donor money?

For his part, Tucker Carlson, which runs The Daily Caller site that broke this story, asks, "Why did the committee spend more than $17,000 on private jets in the month of February? How and why was RNC business conducted in a bondage-themed nightclub, and how and why were the nearly $2,000 in charges that resulted approved by RNC staff?"

Repeating the line that Steele never attended the nightclub in question doesn't make the questions go away.

Update: We now know who made the charges at the establishment in question: Erik Brown, a California-based political consultant. We don't yet know who he was with, why he sought reimbursement from the RNC, or why the RNC agreed to spend the money.

—Steve Benen 3:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)

THE EFFECTS OF AN EXTRAORDINARY CON.... The NYT had an interesting report yesterday about the kinds of folks who are becoming Tea Party activists, in part because of the difficult economic conditions. The piece noted that during the Great Depression, middle-class families mobilized in the hopes of getting additional support from the government and a stronger safety net.

Now, of course, we're seeing some middle-class people mobilizing for the exact opposite -- they're drowning, but they've been convinced that if the life-preserver comes from the government, they don't want it.

Reader D.D. sent me this article from the Dallas Morning News about how the Affordable Care Act would affect a variety of local families, all of whom have had difficulties with either their health care, their economic conditions, or both. One family, in particular, stood out.

Amy Townsend, 38, of Hurst was preparing last week for yet another round of treatments in her battle against breast cancer.

In addition to steeling herself for possible side effects, she and husband Jesse, 43, were preparing for the possibility that they might have to pay hundreds of dollars, up front, before radiation treatment can begin.

With both Amy and Jesse unemployed, the family buys health insurance through COBRA with a $5,500 yearly maximum for out-of-pocket expenses -- a threshold the family has not yet met. COBRA coverage generally lasts up to 18 months.

"We've got to come up with some money for next week," she said.

Though she still faces medical bills, Amy said she was against the health care act, fearing so-called death panels and government inefficiency. [emphasis added]

To be clear, I'm not picking on the Townsend family here. Amy Townsend is fighting a terrible disease, and she and her family are facing awful circumstances that I can scarcely imagine. The Townsends and people like them are one of the reasons the American Cancer Society endorsed the Democratic health care reform proposal so enthusiastically -- it stands to help folks like this who really need it.

But that's what makes the response all the more fascinating. Amy Townsend appears to have heard the right-wing propaganda, and seems inclined to believe it. "Every government program," she told the paper, "none of them work very well."

The Townsend family is, however, currently getting by on unemployment benefits (a government program), and is holding onto some coverage through COBRA (another government program), which they can afford thanks to federal subsidies (through another government program).

The point isn't to mock the Townsends or to question their judgment. The point is to appreciate the power of conservative political rhetoric in 2010. Many of those who stand to benefit from a stronger safety net have been led to believe they want a weaker one. Many of those who'll finally be able to get better care under a health care system that's been screwing them over have been convinced that they won't, or can't, benefit from reform.

And as a political matter, this poses an incredible challenge for Democrats. Here's a party that identified a problem burdening millions of families, and worked diligently to approve a solution, only to find some of those they're helping declare their opposition to the life-preserver.

The Democratic challenge is straightforward: convince folks like Amy Townsend that they just successfully fought like hell to give her a hand when she and her family need it.

—Steve Benen 2:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (68)

CANTOR RECEIVES AN ACTUAL THREAT.... Last week, I gave House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) quite a bit of grief after he talked about an instance in which he was "directly threatened." The threat, we later learned, didn't exist, and Cantor's office struggled to come up with a compelling explanation.

It's only fair, then, that I note that some sick man really did threaten Cantor and his family, though it was entirely unrelated to the incident the GOP leader had talked about.

A 33-year-old Philadelphia man was charged today with threatening to kill Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) in a profanity-strewn Youtube video that has since been pulled down.

In the video, Norman Leboon says Cantor will "receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads. You and your children are Lucifer's abominations."

The San Francisco office of the FBI received a copy of the video on March 26, according to the affidavit in the case.... The affidavit paints a picture of Leboon as a deeply disturbed person. When he was visited by federal agents on Saturday, he "stated that he is the 'son of the god of Enoch' and that his father speaks through him. Leboon stated that Eric Cantor is 'pure evil'; will be dead; and that Cantor's family is suffering because of his father's wrath."

He also told agents that "he had made over 2,000 videos in which he made threats."

The threatening YouTube video was reportedly posted last Wednesday, the day before Cantor's mistaken remarks about gunfire at his campaign office, before being taken down. [Update: Cantor was notified about the Leboon threat over the weekend, days after his infamous press conference remarks.]

It's unclear whether Leboon had any intention of acting on his threats, but it's nevertheless encouraging that law enforcement has him in custody.

—Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

SUSPECTED TERRORISTS CHARGED AFTER MIDWEST RAIDS.... The details are still coming together, but based on early reports it appears that federal officials took eight members of a Michigan-based Christian militia group into custody over the weekend. According to reporting today by the NYT's Charlie Savage, these eight, and a ninth who is still at large, have been indicted on sedition and weapons charges.

Based on court filings, it is believed that the nine radicals intended to kill an unidentified law enforcement officer, and attack the funeral procession with explosives similar to those used against U.S. troops in Iraq. The goal, according to the indictment, was to create some kind of "uprising against the government."

Eight of the nine were taken into custody over the weekend in raids in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana. The extremists were identified as members of a militia group called Hutaree, which considers the U.S. government its "enemy," and which reportedly was moving forward with its plans for the attack next month.

These accounts suggest that federal officials intervened at a key moment, and prevented a devastating tragedy from taking place. Responses to terrorist attacks are important, but so are successful efforts like these to prevent the terrorist attacks from happening in the first place.

Given the recent political debates, Tim F. raises a good point.

Rightwing antiterror doctrine clearly states that we must strip these "terrorists" (no such thing as alleged in the war on terror) naked and hang them in cold cages by the wrists with their arms tied behind their backs so that the tendons tear and the shoulder joint dislocates. We should waterboard them until they confess and give up their co-conspirators (the Inquisition found waterboarding almost 100% effective! ). Without question these people should be held without any trial or access to habeas corpus petitions until the "war" against violent fundamentalist groups is over. At the very least we should shunt these guys into military tribunals where the rules have been rigged to ensure a conviction.

Of course Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds and Crittenden and Erickson and any other credentialed rightblogger will agree with what I just said. They have to.

That sounds about right. In fact, I'm genuinely curious what the reaction will be to this from some conservatives.

It appears that the Obama administration identified a group of religious radicals who consider the United States their enemy, and who have been plotting a deadly terrorist attack on American soil. Based on what's publicly available, the accused are very dangerous.

Will the Cheneys demand that they not be tried in civilian courts? Will Rudy Giuliani insist that it's too dangerous to detain the suspects on American soil? With a ninth member of the radical group still at large, will various Fox News personalities call on the president to torture the other eight for information before he/she can do something dangerous?

This may sound snarky, but it's really not intended to be. It appears that the Obama administration has captured eight suspected terrorists, and prevented a deadly attack. Putting aside whether the right would give the administration credit for stopping terrorism before it happens, will we have to endure the same inane questions from the usual suspects, or do those rules not apply when the accused are white Christians?

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)

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.

* Charlie Crist is still losing to Marco Rubio in Florida's Republican Senate primary, but the latest Mason-Dixon poll puts Rubio's lead at "only" 11 points, 48% to 37%.

* Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) needed a running mate, and the state party has chosen Sheila Simon, an attorney and former city council member. Simon is perhaps best known as the daughter of former Senator Paul Simon (D).

* The primary is not until August. But Democrats in Minnesota's 6th congressional district formally endorsed state Sen. Tarryl Clark (D) over the weekend, hoping Clark can topple right-wing Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) in November.

* Many New York Republicans were delighted to recruit Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy, a former Dem, to run for governor on the GOP ticket, but rank-and-file Republicans in the Empire State aren't impressed. In the latest Maris poll, Levy trails former Rep. Rick Lazio in the Republican gubernatorial primary by 36 points.

* At this point, former Sen. Lincoln Chafee (I) continues to look like the frontrunner in Rhode Island's gubernatorial race.

* Shelby County District Attorney Bill Gibbons is dropping out of Tennessee's Republican gubernatorial primary, making it a three-way contest between Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam, Rep. Zach Wamp, and Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey.

* And speaking of dropping out, I'd completely forgotten that he was still running, but former New Hampshire Sen. Bob Smith (R) was apparently trying to run for the Senate this year in Florida. Late last week, however, Smith quit, citing poor fundraising.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

THE RNC: RISQUE NATIONAL COMMITTEE.... Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, has been questioned more than once about his judgment and priorities when it comes to spending his party's money. We learned a month ago, for example, about the RNC chief spending excessively on private planes, limousines, catering, and flowers.

It didn't help when the party, hoping to have every penny it can get its hands on for the midterms, also hired Wolfgang Puck's D.C. crew to cater the RNC's Christmas party at a trendy hotspot, and moved its winter meeting from Washington to Hawaii.

But this new report from The Daily Caller has to be the most humiliating yet.

According to two knowledgeable sources, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele once raised the possibility of using party money to buy a private jet for his travel. [...]

While Steele has not purchased a plane, he continues to charter them. According to federal disclosure records, the RNC spent $17,514 on private aircraft in the month of February alone (as well as $12,691 on limousines during the same period). There are no readily identifiable private plane expenses for Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine in the DNC's last three months of filings. [...]

Once on the ground, FEC filings suggest, Steele travels in style. A February RNC trip to California, for example, included a $9,099 stop at the Beverly Hills Hotel, $6,596 dropped at the nearby Four Seasons, and $1,620.71 spent [update: the amount is actually $1,946.25] at Voyeur West Hollywood, a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex. [emphasis added]

Wait, what?

Yes, it appears that Michael Steele spent RNC money at "a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex." The party of "family values," indeed.

I wonder what the reaction would be -- from the media, from the political establishment, from the RNC -- if Tim Kaine had spent nearly $2,000 in donor money at "a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex."

There have already been reports in recent months about Republican donors moving away from the RNC, and towards campaign committees and preferred candidates, in part because they don't trust the party's strange chairman. This was made worse when we learned that Steele has been using his position to line his own pockets, most notably through his outside paid speeches and a book written in secret.

But these latest revelations will weaken Steele even further. Indeed, if Republicans fall short of their own sky-high expectations in the midterm elections, expect Michael Steele to receive the bulk of the blame.

Update: The RNC now claims that a "non-committee staffer," not Steele, spent the money at Voyeur West Hollywood. The RNC chairman, the party insists, was "never at the location in question."

The party has not yet disputed the other expenditures.

—Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)

THE MOST PROLIFIC AUTHOR OF OUR TIME.... Will Bunch, a braver man than I, attended a Glenn Beck-hosted event in Orlando over the weekend, and has a fascinating report on the deranged media personality's latest message to his followers. Of particular interest, though, was news of yet another book:

Frequently accused of relying on apocalyptic fear-mongering to build ratings and get attention, Beck provided details of the fictional political thriller that he's planning to publish in June -- called The Overton Window, according to online catalogue listings -- that will do little to dispel those complaints, as the tome will portray America sliding into a civil war.

"It's a story of America at time much like today where the people are confused and they're being lied to and they're not sure what's right-side-up and upside-down," Beck said. "And there's one part...there's a group of people that plays a role called the Founders Keepers...This leads to a battle and a civil war, and life is upside down planet-wide. There's a group of people that just won't give up."

Dave Weigel said the book "sounds like 'Atlas Shrugged' with a bit more violence, and with 9-12 Tea Partiers taking the place of underground intellectuals."

I'm also struck, though, by Beck's remarkable ability to churn out books for his minions to buy.

It started in late 2007, with "An Inconvenient Book." A year later, Beck released a Christmas book. He released his next book in June 2009, and then another in September 2009. He released an audio book in May 2009, and another audio book in February 2010. Late last year, Beck even released a photo-companion book to his Christmas book.

His novel will be out in May, followed by yet another book in August, this one on public policy.

For those keeping score, from May 2009 to August 2010 is 15 months. And over those 15 months, Glenn Beck will have published four print books, a photo book, and two audio books.

For a guy who seems to read at a third-grade level -- remember, he thinks the word "OLIGARH" is missing a "y" -- Beck may very well be America's most prolific author.

By some estimates, Beck takes in about $18 million a year. Does he really need to exploit his followers so shamelessly?

—Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

ODD VOICES FACING THE NATION.... CBS's Sunday morning show, "Face the Nation," offered viewers quite a line-up yesterday. The week Americans saw Democrats deliver on some historic breakthrough victories, the lead guest was Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina, arguably the Senate's most right-wing member, who had no role whatsoever in shaping any of the policies at hand.

After his interview, DeMint was followed by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) of Minnesota, arguably the House's most right-wing member, who had no role whatsoever in shaping any of the policies at hand.

The final guest was DNC Chairman Tim Kaine. When Sunday shows look for "balance," this is generally how it works.

Bachmann, who is by most measures stark raving mad, didn't disappoint. Given the national spotlight, again, the Republican extremist made a variety of ridiculous claims. To its credit, "Face the Nation" published a sort-of fact-check piece online after the program.

"[N]ow we have the federal government taking over ownership or control of 51 percent of the American economy. This is stunning. Prior to September of 2008, 100 percent of the private economy was private."

Ms. Bachmann offered no facts to back up her assertion that the government owns or controls 51 percent of the U.S. economy.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis data since 1929, the highest percentage of government spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product was during World War II when government spending was 47.9 percent (in 1944). The lowest level of government spending as a percent of GDP was 9 percent in 1929 at the outset of the Great Depression.

At no time during this period was the United States' GDP 100 percent private.

Bachmann proceeded to pretend that the stimulus and the financial-industry bailout were effectively the same thing, and claimed that the New England Journal of Medicine published a survey that found American physicians planning to leave their profession in the wake of health care reform. Bachmann was wildly wrong on both counts, and the online piece made note of reality.

And as much as I give the show credit for noting the facts in a follow-up piece online, I have two related questions. First, why on earth couldn't the show's host, Bob Schieffer, know enough about the subject matter to alert viewers to reality during the interview? Bachmann's absurdities are not new; she's been repeating them constantly of late. A little pre-show research would have made it obvious what she was going to say on the air. Aren't hosts paid to prep before the interviews, and don't they have a responsibility to pushback against obvious lies?

Second, for crying out loud, why invite Michele Bachmann onto "Face the Nation" in the first place? It's not like she's proven herself to be an insightful, thoughtful, and effective federal policymaker. More accurately, she's an embarrassment to herself and the institution. Sunday shows are not supposed to be circus acts, giving microphones to the nuttiest clowns the producers can find available.

—Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

'STABLE CONDITION'.... As the debate over health care reform dragged on, many on the right believed the process and the underlying policy would wreak havoc on the Democratic Party's public standing. If Dems actually passed the controversial package, some conservatives claimed, the majority party would likely face a massive public backlash.

It's early, and much of the public may still be shaping its perceptions about last week's breakthroughs, but so far there is no such backlash. The Washington Post noted its new poll results today, emphasizing the fact that the reform process has left Democrats "in stable condition." The governing party hasn't seen a big boost, but it hasn't seen its fortunes decline, either.

After steering the landmark health-care reform bill through Congress, the Democratic Party's leaders have emerged mostly unscathed, according to a new Washington Post poll, but they have not received a notable boost in approval ratings.

Shifts among core constituencies suggest that President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) may have reaped some benefit from the legislation's passage, but the public's take on the Democratic Party has not budged, and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) appears to be losing popularity.

President Obama's approval rating is up a few points, to 53%, and his numbers got a boost on questions pertaining to his handling of health care reform and bringing needed change to Washington.

Looking through the internals (pdf), Democrats still enjoy an edge over Republicans on which party voters trust to do a better job on the economy, health care, immigration, Afghanistan, the budget deficit, taxes, and energy policy. Republicans, meanwhile, have an edge on handling counter-terrorism.

In nearly every category in which the Democrats are ahead, the party's margin over the GOP has slipped since last year, but if Dems are right, and the worst is behind them, they've weathered the storm fairly well.

Indeed, on the generic congressional ballot, Republicans led Democrats among registered voters in February, 48% to 45%. Now those numbers are nearly reversed in Dems' favor, 48% to 44%.

Of particular interest, the enthusiasm gap between the parties' rank-and-file voters appears to be quite small at this point. Among Dems, 74% consider themselves enthusiastic about voting this year, while 25% are no. For Republicans, 76% are enthusiastic, and 23% are not.

To be sure, these are not exactly impressive numbers for Dems, but given where they feared they'd be at the end of the reform process, many in the party are likely satisfied with results like these.

—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

A RECESS APPOINTMENT CASE STUDY.... Listening to the Sunday shows, it seems Senate Republicans are pretty angry that President Obama announced 15 recess appointments over the weekend. I tend to think their complaints are, at best, disingenuous, but I'd nevertheless like to hear GOP leaders defend the way Alan Bersin's nomination was handled.

Bersin was appointed to serve as the new commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, after the Senate failed to act on his nomination. James Fallows took a closer look at Bersin's background:

Bersin was an all-Ivy star football player at Harvard. Then he went to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. Then he went to Yale Law School. Then he was a U.S. Attorney in California. Then he was head of a Justice Department unit overseeing US-Mexico border affairs. Then the head of the San Diego school system. Then the Secretary of Education for California, under Arnold Schwarzenegger. Recently he has been an Assistant Secretary at DHS. Last month the past three commissioners of CBP, including two from the GW Bush administration, wrote to Republican Senators asking them, please, to get Bersin into the job rather than leaving this very important agency leaderless.

Instead the Republicans placed various holds on Bersin and the others and would not bring him to a vote. Thus, good for Obama in saying, Enough.

Bersin was nominated for the post seven months ago. In the midst of Senate delays, three former Customs and Border Protection commissioners said the failure to confirm a new agency chief is a "national security concern."

And yet, an up-or-down vote on Bersin's nomination was nowhere in sight. It's hardly surprising that the president got tired of waiting.

Matt Yglesias noted that this example "is a sign of an opposition political party gone mad." Agreed. But I'm nevertheless curious to hear some of the same GOP voices whining about how "outrageous" the recess appointments are explain why the president shouldn't have installed Bersin to the job. We're talking about an overwhelmingly qualified nominee, who enjoyed bipartisan support, and whose nomination had been pending for more than seven months.

What would Republicans have Obama do? If GOP obstructionism has undermined the Senate's ability to function, why should the country's interests suffer when a legal, frequently-used alternative is available to the president?

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

OBAMA'S UNEXPECTED TRIP TO AFGHANISTAN.... The White House announced Friday afternoon that President Obama and his family would enjoy a quiet weekend at Camp David, following a busy and historic week in Washington.

That wasn't quite true.

President Obama made a surprise trip to Afghanistan on Sunday, his first visit as commander in chief to the site of the war he inherited and has stamped as his own.

Air Force One landed at nighttime at Bagram Air Base after a 13-hour nonstop flight for a visit shrouded in secrecy for security reasons; Mr. Obama quickly boarded a helicopter for the trip to Kabul, landing at the presidential palace for talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.

Gen. James L. Jones, the National Security adviser, told reporters aboard the flight to Bagram that Mr. Obama would try to make Mr. Karzai "understand that in his second term, there are certain things that have not been paid attention to, almost since day one." Gen. Jones said those things included "a merit-based system for appointment of key government officials, battling corruption, taking the fight to the narco-traffickers," which, "provides a lot of the economic engine for the insurgents."

Based on early reports, this visit, kept classified until Obama's plane touched down, was hardly a photo-op. Newsweek noted, "[T]here appears to be little fanfare during the trip. The welcoming ceremony between Karzai and Obama lasted no more than 10 minutes and the meetings that will follow between the two men and their national security teams seem to be strictly business.... For Obama, there are few better ways to show you're serious than showing up at someone's door."

This is the president's second trip to Afghanistan, but his first since his election.

Though Obama's schedule is not available, he will also reportedly visit with U.S. troops before returning.

The surprise visit caps a week that's almost hard to believe. Over the last seven days, health care reform passed, a major overhaul of federal student loan programs passed, the terms of a breakthrough nuclear arms treaty with Russia were reached, and the president stopped by Afghanistan for a stern chat with Hamid Karzai.

Weeks like this don't come along often.

—Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

RNC RAISES MONEY FOR HANNITY.... Former Bush speechwriter David Frum, recently fired from AEI for telling Republicans what they didn't want to hear, noted the other day, "Republicans originally thought that Fox [News] worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox."

I thought of this quote when I saw the latest email sent to Republicans this morning by the Republican National Committee. This is the body of the message in its entirety. (thanks to reader C.R.)

Dear XXXX,

I wanted to let you know that I just finished reading Sean Hannity's new book, Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda. As they so often do, Sean's words left me energized for November and even more committed to making the gains necessary to bring the Obama agenda to a halt.

In the book, Sean does more than just tell us why we need to defeat the Obama Agenda. He also gives us a blueprint for getting it done. I cannot recommend it enough -- and I'm confident that, like me, you will be ready for the upcoming elections with a renewed commitment.

Sincerely,

Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee

Just to be clear, this wasn't a personal endorsement from Steele. The email was sent to Republican donors, through the RNC, as part of an official RNC message. The email notes that it was "paid for by the Republican National Committee."

Isn't this a little odd? The RNC is using its list to urge Republicans to buy a book from an independent media personality?

I've seen appeals that tell donors if they pony up a few bucks, they can get a book as a premium, but that's not what this is. Indeed, Steele's message doesn't even ask for a donation for the party. Rather, the RNC simply wants Republicans to go buy a Fox News host's book.

When it comes to the network and the party, it appears one is an adjunct of the other, though the roles are less than clear.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

RECESS APPOINTMENTS AND THE ECONOMY.... Much of the attention surrounding President Obama's recess appointments focuses on the National Labor Relations Board, in large part because Republicans don't want labor-friendly representatives on the panel.

But Matt Yglesias highlights five of the 15 nominees who received appointments yesterday, in the hopes of emphasizing just "how absurd the level of GOP obstructionism has become."

* Jeffrey Goldstein will be Undersecretary of Treasury for Domestic Finance.

* Michael Mundaca will be Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Tax Policy.

* Eric Hirschorn will be Undersecretary of Commerce for Export Administration.

* Michael Punke will be Deputy US Trade Representative and head up the office in Geneva.

* Islam A. Siddiqui will be Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

It's worth appreciating the fact that all five of these nominees have jobs directly related to the economy, and most of them were blocked from receiving votes in the Senate because Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) hasn't been satisfied with -- get this -- enforcement of prohibitions on internet gambling. Kyl wanted enforcement in January, the administration said June, so Kyl effectively responded, "No Treasury Department officials for you."

And so, in the midst of a global economic crisis, the United States government has endured vacancies in important offices because one right-wing senator was pouting over a six-month delay in implementing regulations on internet gambling.

There's simply no way to defend this. As former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker recently put it, "How can we run a government in the middle of a financial crisis without doing the ordinary, garden-variety administrative work of filling the relevant agencies?"

Fortunately, President Obama got tired of asking that question yesterday.

—Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

UNAWARE OF THE CONTRADICTION.... There's an old joke that goes something like this: my neighbor went to public schools before joining the military. He went to college on the G.I. Bill, bought his first home through the FHA, and received his health care through the V.A. and Medicare. He now receives Social Security.

He's a conservative because he wants to get the government off his back.

I mention the joke because a surprising number of right-wing activists don't seem to appreciate the humor. We talked the other day, for example, about a radical libertarian activist who encourages his allies to throw bricks through the windows of Democratic offices to protest the Affordable Care Act. He hates government involvement in the lives of citizens -- but his main income is taxpayer-financed disability checks sent to him every month by the federal government.

This is not uncommon. The NYT reports today on some of the well-intention folks who've been caught up in the Tea Party nonsense. Take Tom Grimes, for example.

In the last year, he has organized a local group and a statewide coalition, and even started a "bus czar" Web site to marshal protesters to Washington on short notice. This month, he mobilized 200 other Tea Party activists to go to the local office of the same congressman to protest what he sees as the government's takeover of health care. [...]

"If you quit giving people that stuff, they would figure out how to do it on their own," Mr. Grimes said.

When Grimes lost his job 15 months ago, one of his first steps was contacting his congressman about available programs that might give him access to government health care. He receives Social Security, and is considering a job opening at the Census Bureau. But in the meantime, Grimes has filled the back seat of his Mercury Grand Marquis with literature decrying government aid to struggling Americans.

The same article noted the efforts of Diana Reimer, considered a "star" right-wing activist in her efforts against government programs, a campaign she describes as her "mission." Reimer, of course, currently enjoys Social Security and the socialized medicine that comes with Medicare.

The cognitive dissonance is rather remarkable. They perceive the government as the source of their economic distress -- which itself doesn't make sense -- and then rely on the government to give them a hand, all the while demanding that the government do less to give people a hand. Their reflexive hatred for public programs is so irrational, they don't even see the contradiction.

"After a year of angry debate," the Times article noted, "emotion outweighs fact."

That's no doubt true. But that doesn't change the fact that we're talking about a reasonably large group of people who are deeply, tragically misguided.

This is important to the extent that there are still some who believe the political mainstream should do more to listen to the Tea Party crowd and take its hysterical cries seriously. But how can credible people take nonsense seriously and hope to come up with a meaningful result? How can policymakers actually address substantive challenges while following the advice of angry mobs who reject reason and evidence?

The bottom line seem inescapable: too many Tea Party activists have no idea what they're talking about. Their sincerity notwithstanding, this is a confused group of misled people.

—Steve Benen 9:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (95)

CROCODILE TEARS.... A few days ago, Senate Republicans started expressing their concerns about possible recess appointments. Sure, they said, President Obama easily won his election. And sure, they noted, he had sent qualified nominees to fill key government posts. And sure, they conceded, if the Senate actually voted on these nominees, they'd be confirmed.

But, these Senate Republicans said, if the president interfered with their blind, reflexive obstructionism by making recess appointments, they were going to complain a whole lot.

And complain they did.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) pronounced himself "very disappointed" with the move, charging that it showed "once again" that the Obama administration has "little respect for the time honored constitutional roles and procedures of Congress." The president's team had "forced their will on the American people," McCain fumed in a written statement. [...]

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell also joined in the protests of Obama's recess appointments on Saturday, calling them "stunning" and "yet another episode of choosing a partisan path despite bipartisan opposition."

The whining is cheap as it is hypocritical. It's not the president who's shown "little respect for the time honored constitutional roles and procedures of Congress" -- that's actually backwards. Obama has been reluctant to use recess appointments specifically because he wants to see the Senate do its job. But it's reactionary Republicans like McCain who prefer to ignore "time honored constitutional roles and procedures" -- such as the notion of giving qualified nominees up-or-down votes.

Also note the selective outrage. McCain was only too pleased to support George W. Bush's recess appointments, even for outrageous nominees like John Bolton. Indeed, during Bush's presidency, McCain implored the then-president to use this tactic more often. There were no bitter press releases about "time honored constitutional roles and procedures."

McConnell is hardly any better. On Fox News five years ago, McConnell not only defended recess appointments, he noted, "[T]ypically senators who are not of the party of the president don't like recess appointments."

You don't say.

In the interest of fairness and intellectual consistency, I should note that I'm still not a big fan of recess appointments. I just don't think Obama had much of a choice here.

Article II, Sec. 2, of the Constitution says, "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." Note that it says, "the recess," not "a recess."

In the early days of the country, framers saw recesses that could last months and wanted presidents to be able to fill key positions temporarily in emergency situations without the Senate's "advice and consent." There's a lengthy break following the final adjournment for the legislative session. This is "the recess." The provision was not about giving presidents the authority to circumvent Congress when the White House felt like it.

In the modern understanding, though, any recess is an opportunity for a president to start filling vacancies with appointed officials.

If I had to guess, I'd say the president, who knows a little something about constitutional law, isn't crazy about this option, which is probably why he hasn't taken advantage of it until now

But Senate Republicans are simply out of control, and are deliberately undercutting the political process in ways that threaten to permanently undermine the institution. If they oppose the president's nominees for various posts, they're welcome to vote against them. But the GOP has taken obstructionism to comical depths -- going so far as to filibuster nominees they end up voting for anyway.

There's no reason for the White House to tolerate this. Indeed, Obama would be setting an unwelcome precedent if he did tolerate this.

If we're being honest about this, do I think using the recess power for routine, non-emergencies constitutes abuse of the option? Yes, it probably is. But the far more offensive abuse is Senate Republicans not letting the chamber vote on these nominees in the first place.

With Senate Republicans unwilling to let the chamber vote on key, qualified nominees, the White House had a straightforward choice: allow important posts to remain vacant indefinitely in the face of unprecedented obstructionism, or start embracing recess appointments. The president, I believe, chose wisely, and Republicans' crocodile tears are best left ignored.

—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

OBAMA'S RESPONSE TO SCANDALOUS OBSTRUCTIONISM.... It's not like Senate Republicans gave President Obama much of a choice.

The White House has sent dozens of qualified nominees to the Senate for key government posts. If given up-or-down votes, the nominees would be confirmed, so Republicans have blocked votes at a rate unseen in American history. Consider: at this point in Bush's presidency, there were five nominees pending on the Senate floor. For Obama, the number is 77.

The president had to decide whether to tolerate GOP obstructionism undermining the government's ability to function. Obama made his perspective quite clear yesterday afternoon.

President Obama, making a muscular show of his executive authority just one day after Congress left for spring recess, said Saturday that he would bypass the Senate and install 15 appointees, including a union lawyer whose nomination to the National Labor Relations Board was blocked last month with the help of two Democrats.

Coming on the heels of Mr. Obama's big victory on health care legislation, Saturday's move suggests a newly emboldened president who is unafraid to provoke a confrontation with the minority party.

Just two days ago, all 41 Senate Republicans sent Mr. Obama a letter urging him not to appoint the union lawyer, Craig Becker, during the recess. Mr. Obama's action, in defiance of the Republicans, was hailed by union leaders, but it also seemed certain to intensify the partisan rancor that has enveloped Washington.

"The United States Senate has the responsibility to approve or disprove of my nominees," Mr. Obama said in a statement. "But if, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis."

The full list of nominees to receive recess appointments is online here. On average, the 15 nominees have waited seven months for an up-or-down vote, but Republicans have blocked them all, knowing that the will of the Senate would lead to their confirmation. This was the first time Obama has made use of this power

The president said in a statement, "I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government."

It's worth fully appreciating the extent to which the president's move reflects deep animosity. Kevin Drum explained the context of the National Labor Relations Board move, in particular.

Years ago, after Republicans filibustered a Carter nominee to the NLRB, the two parties made a deal: the board would have three appointees from the president's party and two from the other party. So after he took office Obama nominated two Democrats and one Republican to fill the NLRB's three vacant seats and got support from a couple of Republicans on the HELP committee for the entire slate. But when it got to the Senate floor John McCain put a hold on Becker, and his nomination -- along with the others -- died.

Fast forward to today and Obama finally decides to fill the board using recess appointments. But what does he do? He only appoints the two Democrats. This is not what you do if you're trying to make nice. It's what you do if you're playing hardball and you want to send a pointed message to the GOP caucus. You won't act on my nominees? Fine. I'll appoint my guys and then leave it up to you to round up 50 votes in the Senate for yours. Have fun.

Again, the patient president seemed reluctant to go down this road, but petty Republicans just kept pushing. Yesterday, Obama pushed back.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

THE ARMS DEAL THAT ALMOST DIDN'T HAPPEN.... The Obama administration was delighted to announce the framework of a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia yesterday, but Peter Baker has a fascinating account detailing how the deal almost didn't happen.

President Obama was angry. He was on the phone with President Dmitri A. Medvedev last month to finalize a new arms control treaty with Russia, only to be confronted with new demands for concessions on missile defense. A deal that was supposed to be done was unraveling.

"Dmitri, we agreed," Mr. Obama told Mr. Medvedev with a tone of exasperation, according to advisers. "We can't do this. If it means we're going to walk away from this treaty and not get it done, so be it. But we're not going to go down this path."

Mr. Obama hung up and vented frustration. Some of his advisers had never seen him so mad. A picture taken by a White House photographer captured his grim face in that moment of uncertainty. For a year he had been trying to forge a new relationship with Russia, starting with a treaty to slash nuclear arsenals. And for a year Russia had been testing him, suspecting he was weak and certain it could roll over him.

If Mr. Obama overestimated his powers of persuasion in reaching quick agreement with the Russians, they misjudged how far they could get him to bend.

That seems to be one of the key takeaways from the long-sought treaty -- Russia wanted to test Obama, and hoped he'd buckle. Indeed, the Russians seemed to think it was likely, given the U.S. president's domestic challenges, and Obama's desire to complete the deal and move on.

"When President Obama's domestic positions were weakened in recent months and he was completely consumed in his crusade for health care reform, making all other issues irrelevant, it is surprising how much attention he kept on Start," said Sergei M. Rogov, director of the Institute for U.S. and Canada Studies in Moscow, referring to the treaty. "Even being 24-hours-a-day busy on health reform, he had a 25th hour for Start."

What Russia didn't expect is what they got -- a U.S. president who took hard lines, didn't yield, and was willing to be patient. That was true even when missile defense provisions threatened to scuttle the entire deal.

Dmitri V. Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, said that the Kremlin thought Mr. Obama would back down out of eagerness to finish the treaty before coming international nuclear summit meetings.

"They believed Obama could be put under pressure and concessions could be extracted from him," Mr. Trenin said. "He needed the treaty more than the Russians in the short term."

"If you're going to continue to persist on this missile defense language, we're going to have to walk away," Obama said to his Russian counterpart, according to senior officials.

The Russians kept up the hard-line posture in private as well, and after President Obama threatened to walk away from the negotiating table if Russians continued to insist on including missile defense in the treat, White House officials say they didn't know what would happen.

Eventually Russians dropped the issue.

"At the end of the day it was a pivotal moment," the official said, suggesting that the Russians saw President Obama as someone who wasn't going to "cave."

Despite the Russians' apparent leverage, Obama didn't back down. The Russians did.

Periodically over the last few years, Obama has joked that "just because I'm skinny doesn't mean I'm not tough." I think everyone is starting to get a better sense that the boast is accurate.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is the escalating sex scandal involving the pope and the Vatican, which seems to grow increasingly more serious with each passing day.

The future Pope Benedict XVI was kept more closely apprised of a sexual abuse case in Germany than previous church statements have suggested, raising fresh questions about his handling of a scandal unfolding under his direct supervision before he rose to the top of the church's hierarchy.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope and archbishop in Munich at the time, was copied on a memo that informed him that a priest, whom he had approved sending to therapy in 1980 to overcome pedophilia, would be returned to pastoral work within days of beginning psychiatric treatment. The priest was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish.

An initial statement on the matter issued earlier this month by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising placed full responsibility for the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties on Cardinal Ratzinger's deputy, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber. But the memo, whose existence was confirmed by two church officials, shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest's reassignment.

These revelations coincide with new details about another Vatican sex scandal.

Top Vatican officials -- including the future Pope Benedict XVI -- did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.

This is likely to get worse for the pope and the Vatican before it gets better -- if it ever gets better.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* In Gainesville, Fla., a local mayoral candidate is gay, prompting a church called the Dove World Outreach Center to erect a sign on its property reading, "No Homo Mayor." In addition to rather clumsy bigotry, tax law prohibits tax-exempt houses of worship from announcing their support or opposition to candidates for public office. Americans United for Separation of Church and State has brought the matter to the attention of the IRS.

* Stephen Colbert recently had Mary Matalin on, and Colbert pressed the Republican operative on why she wears a cross. "You know Jesus preached social justice," Colbert noted. "Makes you look like a commie." Matalin replied that Jesus "also preached, 'Teach 'em how to fish.' Not give 'em a fish, right? You don't work you don't eat." It prompted Colbert to explain, "He said 'I will make you fishers of men.' I don't think Jesus said 'if you don't work you don't eat.' I think that was Cool Hand Luke."

* Democratic House members walked out of a bipartisan prayer breakfast Thursday morning, after Republicans invited Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) to speak. Given that Neugebauer had just shouted "baby killer" during the House debate on health care, Dems were disgusted. In a letter to Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), Dem representatives wrote, "Your last minute invitation to Rep. Randy Neugebauer to address our group at this morning's breakfast was not only irresponsible, but politically tone-deaf."

* And a right-wing political magazine, Newsmax, is apparently getting a little impatient about the second coming. It's latest cover story features a picture of Jesus with a headline that reads: "The Jesus Question: Will He Ever Return?"

—Steve Benen 11:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)

A 'CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER'.... It was tough to keep up with all of the over-the-top Republican rhetoric this week, but Rachel Slajda does a nice job highlighting some of the "most incendiary" remarks of the past several days. In particular, she flagged a written statement from Rep. Todd Akin (R) of Missouri, which I hadn't seen:

"Today Americans are reacquainted with the danger of an arrogant all powerful government, a deadly enemy within, a clear and present danger in Washington.

"In spite of nationwide opposition socialized medicine is being forced down our throats. That medicine is toxic to freedom. But freedom dies hard in America.

"I do not believe that the majority of Americans will submit passively to the gold chains of socialism."

Now, regular readers may recall that Akin is known for occasionally making deranged remarks in public. But if anyone's wondering why some right-wing extremists might feel compelled to consider violence, it may have something to do with the extraordinarily stupid and irresponsible rhetoric coming from the likes of Todd Akin.

He did, after all, put in writing his belief that leaders of the United States government can be characterized as an "enemy."

I'm especially interested in that "clear and present danger" phrase. Lawyers and/or historians are welcome to weigh in here, but as I recall, that's a legal standard used to allow the government to restrict Americans' speech.

Does Todd Akin believe those he disagrees with should be silenced?

—Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

THE PROSPECT OF RECESS APPOINTMENTS.... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), just as an institutional matter, has generally frowned upon recess appointments. Reid wants to see the Senate do its job and give nominees up-or-down votes, rather than have the White House circumvent the Senate altogether.

But in the face of scandalous Republican obstructionism, Reid has decided some recess appointments are necessary. The Majority Leader "has decided that enough is enough and would support such a move," spokesman Jim Manley said late Friday. In particular, Reid has told White House officials that he would endorse President Obama appointing Craig Becker and Mark Pearce to fill two longstanding vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board.

"Harry doesn't like it, but he'll tolerate it for the NLRB guys," a senior Democrat said.

Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Tom Harkin want the president to go even further, using recess appointments to advance dozens of pending nominees.

The right has a different perspective.

Despite the inability to move on those nominations, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl said the GOP would react "very strongly" if Obama bypasses the upper chamber and installs appointees without its blessing.

"They've already broken a lot of rules and traditions around here to try to ram health care through with the sort of arrogance of power," Kyl told POLITICO. "If they were to do that, it would make it very difficult to have bipartisan cooperation."

Reminded of George W. Bush's recess appointments, Kyl said, "It has to be done very sparingly" and should not be done on controversial nominees such as Becker.

Kyl is one of the Senate's dimmest bulbs, and his threat of withholding "bipartisan cooperation" if the president uses his recess-appointment power is almost comically silly.

Nevertheless, here are a few relevant details Kyl may want to consider:

1. Health care reform passed through an entirely legitimate process. No rules were broken, no traditions were ignored. In short, Kyl doesn't have the foggiest idea what he's talking about. The only tradition that's been ignored of late is the one that allows the Senate to vote on legislation, and it's Kyl's party that is ignoring the way the Senate used to, and was designed to, operate.

2. Recess appointments aren't exactly new, at least not in recent years. Clinton made 139 during his two terms, and Bush made 179. Obama's total thus far? Zero. Two recess appointments, in this context, hardly constitutes "arrogance of power."

3. A majority of the Senate supports both Becker and Pearce. Kyl and his GOP cohorts want the president to ignore the will of the Senate -- while demanding that Obama honor "the will of the Senate."

4. Kyl considered Becker "controversial," and thus ineligible for a recess appointment. But Bush used recess appointments on extremists like Charles Pickering and John Bolton, and did so with Kyl's blessing.

I don't doubt that Kyl & Co. will whine incessantly if President Obama uses his authority on this, but the truth is, they're going to whine incessantly anyway.

—Steve Benen 10:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

RNC SLAPS AWAY 'CIVILITY' OUTREACH.... After a week featuring some overheated rhetoric and actual right-wing violence, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine decided to reach out to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele about issuing a joint statement condemning all politically-motivated threats directed at officials.

The draft text of the statement says that while Steele and Kaine disagree on the health care bill, they would "together call on elected officials of both parties to set an example of the civility we want to see in our citizenry" and ask "all Americans to respect differences of opinion, to refrain from inappropriate forms of intimidation, to reject violence and vandalism, and to scale back rhetoric that might reasonably be misinterpreted by those prone to such behavior."

DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse told reporters that Kaine sent the letter to Steele [Friday] and then phoned him asking the chairman to release a joint bipartisan statement "condemning the threats and acts of vandalism over the past week, calling for an end to such tactics and urging a more civil tone in our politics."

The outreach was not limited to the chairmen. The DNC's executive director and communications director also reached out to their RNC counterparts about the value of a joint statement that might help send a signal about the civil discourse.

Republicans refused. RNC Communications Director Doug Heye said Steele rejected the draft statement because "we don't need to do anything on their schedule or on their timetable."

What a surprise.

We are, after all, talking about an RNC that recently put together a fundraising presentation filled with donor insults, offensive caricatures, and an admission that the party will rely on little more than "fear" to win. In the wake of the health care breakthrough, the RNC is desperate to make right-wing activists as angry and agitated as possible -- which is why Michael Steele is describing the Affordable Care Act as "Armageddon" and demanding to see Speaker Pelosi on "the firing line."

What possible value would the RNC see in a joint statement intended to lower the temperature?

To be sure, I'm not convinced a joint statement of civility would make much of a difference. For nutjobs inclined to spit at members of Congress, cut gas lines, make death threats, hurl bricks through windows, and send faxes with nooses, party leaders urging a respectful tone in American politics would likely be ignored.

But prominent figures can set an example and establish a tone. Steele no doubt understands this, which is why he didn't hesitate to ignore the DNC's request.

—Steve Benen 9:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

CODA ON CANTOR.... We seem to have come to an end on the story of House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) magic bullet, with the GOP leader's office acknowledging yesterday that Cantor's claim, repeated to a national audience, wasn't true.

The Minority Whip's remarks didn't leave a lot of wiggle room: "Just recently I have been directly threatened: A bullet was shot through the window of my campaign office in Richmond this week."

Despite some unusually stupid "journalism" in the wake of the claim, practically every angle of Cantor's story was wrong. There was no threat; the bullet was fired randomly; and it wasn't even Cantor's campaign office.

So, Cantor was either shamelessly, blatantly lying, or he was popping off about a harmless incident without getting his facts straight. Yesterday, his aides went with Door #2.

[Cantor spokesperson Brad Dayspring] says Cantor didn't know at the time of the presser what the police subsequently revealed. He says that before the presser, Cantor aides called the police to learn what was known.

"We didn't want to catch them by surprise, we wanted an update on the investigation, and we wanted to be 100 percent accurate," Dayspring says, adding that the trajectory of the bullet was not discussed: "What was known at the time was that a bullet had been fired through the window and that the investigation was ongoing."

Police put out their press statement later in the afternoon, under intense media pressure.

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to believe most of this. Cantor isn't very bright, but even I find it hard to believe he would know the relevant details and then deliberately, brazenly lie on national television about something like this.

But the defense doesn't exactly make Cantor look good, either. The Minority Whip was so anxious to make it seem like violent threats are a problem for "both sides" that he, ahem, jumped the gun. He didn't really know what he was talking about, but he nevertheless told reporters and Americans about a "threat" that didn't exist. Many media outlets even bought into Cantor's claim at face value, assuming he wouldn't say something like this if it weren't true. For that matter, for a media desperate to characterize every ugly phenomenon as "bipartisan," Cantor gave journalists what they wanted.

But it wasn't true. Given the larger atmosphere, and the actual violence that's already occurred, people in Cantor's position have a responsibility not to be reckless with the truth. It's a responsibility Cantor clearly and conveniently forgot at an important moment.

—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

HEATING UP.... As ridiculous as it sounds, cold weather and snowfall during the winter has apparently made it less likely the Senate will vote on a new energy/climate bill. Mind-numbing though it may be, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) recently said snowfall in D.C. has had an effect on policymakers' attitudes: "It makes it more challenging for folks not taking time to review the scientific arguments."

But in Grown-Up Land, the data is worth acknowledging.

It will probably come as a surprise to most Americans, but the winter just finished was the fifth-warmest on record, worldwide.

Sure, nearly two-thirds of the country can dispute that from personal experience of a colder-than-normal season.

But while much of the United States was colder than usual, December-February -- climatological winter -- continued the long string of unusual warmth on a global basis.

And parts of the United States did join in, with warmer-than-normal readings for the season in New England and the Pacific Northwest. Indeed, Maine had its third-warmest winter on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports.

Of course, a few too many Republican policymakers believe all scientific data is part of an elaborate conspiracy/plot, and deserves to be rejected. Told that this winter was one of the warmest eve recorded, James Inhofe and Fox News personalities will very likely respond, "Don't be foolish; didn't you see the snow?"

There are still some hopes that Congress may act before the end of the year on something related to climate change, but those hopes are fading. What's more, if the GOP makes meaningful gains in the midterm elections, it may be many years before Congress even tries to limit emissions and combat global warming, even as the threat of the crisis grows more intense.

The environmental consequences are likely to be severe and unforgiving.

—Steve Benen 8:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

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

* Election results in Iraq: "The former interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, a secular Shiite once derided as an American puppet, galvanized the votes of Sunnis who sat out Iraq's first national elections and clawed his way back from political obscurity. But his wafer-thin edge of 91 to 89 over his nearest rival, the incumbent prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, falls far short of the majority of 163 of the 325 seats in parliament that he needs to form a government."

* Uh oh: "A South Korean naval ship sank early Saturday after an explosion tore a hole in its bottom near a disputed sea border with North Korea. The cause of the explosion was not clear, and the Seoul government did not blame North Korea for the incident."

* Campaign-finance ruling: "A federal appeals court on Friday handed another victory to conservative opponents of campaign-finance restrictions, striking down limits on individual contributions to independent groups who want to use the money for or against candidates in federal elections."

* Welcome changes to the Home Affordable Modification Program and the Federal Housing Administration program: "The Obama administration announced new ways Friday to tackle the foreclosure crisis, in part by requiring lenders to temporarily slash or eliminate monthly mortgage payments for many borrowers who are unemployed."

* Senate Republicans did what they do best: they blocked an extension of unemployment benefits.

* House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) spokesperson tries to explain why the GOP leader got the story of the magic bullet so very, very wrong this week.

* The closer one looks at the right's health care claims, the more one realizes conservatives are practically allergic to honest debate.

* In Tennessee, a man named Harry Weisiger apparently saw a stranger with an Obama-Biden bumper sticker, and proceeded to lose his mind.

* Fact-checking Joe Scarborough's claim that the Affordable Care Act represents "largest tax increase in history." (Hint: he's lying.)

* Despite foolish rumors to the contrary, members of Congress and their staffs must enroll in the new insurance exchanges created by the ACA. They did not "exempt" themselves, no matter what your emails from your crazy uncle say.

* On a related note, no, the IRS will not be auditing people to see if they have health insurance.

* Ever get the feeling that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) just isn't well?

* Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) is coming on strong as one of Congress' nuttier members.

* How much student debt is too much?

* When we reported about the need for a beefed up rail corridor to ease truck traffic on 1-81, we were ahead of the curve.

* And on his Fox News show, Glenn Beck decried "using the politics of fear." Seriously.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Going into this week, most of the Obama administration's key accomplishments seemed to come from the first half of the first year. It's not that the president hadn't scored some big wins -- the stimulus, the budget, counter-terrorism successes, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a credit card holders' bill of rights, new regulations of the tobacco industry, a national service bill, a Supreme Court nominee, the largest land conservation law in nearly two decades, defense procurement reform -- it's that there hadn't been any breakthroughs in quite a while.

With this in mind, this week has a the capacity to be a game-changer.

After signing healthcare reform into law, agreeing to a new nuclear arms reduction treaty and moving forward with financial reform, President Barack Obama will spend the weekend at the presidential retreat at Camp David, Md.

And top White House aides say, "He knows he has" earned it.

"Best week we've had in a long damn time," one senior administration official told The Hill. [emphasis added]

When you pass health care reform after 100 years of trying, complete the most significant nuclear arms treaty in decades, and complete a major overhaul of federal student loan programs, folks in the West Wing can walk with a bit of a spring in their step.

It's worth keeping in mind that a breakthrough week like this doesn't necessary create a new political landscape, at least not right away. Patrick Ruffini predicted earlier this week that the tracking polls would show President Obama's approval ratings around 58% or 59% by today.

That hasn't happened. Using Gallup data as a guide, over the last two weeks, there's been a swing in the president's direction, but it's been modest. Approval is up a few points over the last two weeks, and disapproval is down a few points, but the shift has been gradual. The victories we've seen this week are historic, but the "bounce" isn't dramatic. (The polls don't include news on the new arms treaty, but I'd be surprised if a foreign policy succes like this changed the domestic political equation much.)

But as a political matter, a week like this one changes the trajectory, and its victories are the kinds of breakthroughs that can pay electoral dividends far into the future.

—Steve Benen 4:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

GIVING VOTERS A REASON.... The notion of an "enthusiasm gap" between Democratic and Republican voters has been apparent for several months, but I think it came into sharper focus last November. A Research 2000 poll conducted for Daily Kos added a question to its usual mix for the first time: "In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?"

Markos Moulitsas described the results as "shocking," and they were. At the time, 81% of self-identified Republican voters were either "definitely" or "probably" voting in the midterm elections, while only 14% were not inclined to participate. Among self-identified Democratic voters, 56% were either "definitely" or "probably" voting, while 40% were unlikely to go to the polls.

That, of course, is a recipe for Democratic disaster. While generic-ballot tests tend to show the parties at near parity, it's just as important to consider which party's voters actually intend to show up at the ballot box. If Dems are feeling depressed and disappointed, while Republican voters are feeling motivated and excited, the Democratic majority will disappear.

It's interesting, then, to see the gap narrow this week. Markos had this report today, taking a look at the new data:

Three weeks ago, 40 percent of Democrats were likely or definitely going to vote, compared to 51 percent of Republicans -- an 11 point "intensity gap". Two weeks ago, as the battle for health care reform heated up, and GOP obstructionism came in full view, the numbers were 45 percent for Democrats, 56 percent for Republicans -- both sides equally riled up.

This week, the numbers are 55 percent for Democrats, 62 percent for Republicans. While both sides saw big spikes in their numbers, Democrats were particularly energized, with that intensity gap narrowing from 11 points to a far more manageable seven.

We said it all along -- give us a reason to get excited and fight, and Democrats will get excited and itch for a fight.

Notice, Republican numbers bumped up, too. There's little doubt that the rank-and-file GOP is feeling motivated. Of course, we already knew that.

The key, though, is that Democrats, as they see their leaders starting to succeed, are deciding to start getting back in the game.

The more Dems can maintain some enthusiasm among its voters, the better they'll fare in November. That means getting the job done on Wall Street reform, repealing DADT, tackling an energy/climate bill, and getting to work on immigration.

Five months ago, it looked like Democratic policymakers were going to crush the hopes of its supporters, and ruin their re-election chances in the process. It's still an uphill climb, but success begets success.

—Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

ENSIGN FEELS SORRY FOR HIMSELF.... Republican Sen. John Ensign's (Nev.) humiliating sex scandal doesn't get a lot of media attention, but it's becoming a very big deal, including an ongoing FBI investigation that produced subpoenas for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

But as far as the disgraced, hypocritical, right-wing senator is concerned, he's gotten a bad rap. In fact, Ensign believes he's been the victim of "gotcha" journalism.

The Nevada Republican made the charge as he was being asked whether he's been subpoenaed in a grand jury probe into the aftermath of his affair. Instead of answering that question, he descended into an extended rebuke of the press -- including POLITICO -- for the way it has covered the scandal surrounding him.

"Seeking of the truth should be not only part of the Justice Department and part of our judicial system, but also should be ... a goal of reporters today," Ensign said. "Unfortunately, too much of our press is ... (1) biased or (2) just about 'gotcha.'" [...]

Ensign has insisted that he complied with the law and with Senate ethics rules, and he suggested Wednesday that the press is out to get him.

"Whether it's Republican or Democrat, it's about nailing somebody," Ensign said.

And if there's one senator who knows all about nailing somebody, it's John Ensign.

Look, for the senator to claim to be a victim is ridiculous. If anything, the media has gone unbelievably easy on this guy. Despite recent revelations and subpoenas, the Washington Post, for example, hasn't run an article about Ensign's scandal in months. News outlets that couldn't get enough of Eric Massa (and John Edwardse, and Eliot Spitzer) haven't even mentioned Ensign's sordid affair.

If you're just joining us, Ensign's humiliation came to public attention last June, when we learned the conservative, "family-values" senator carried on a lengthy extra-marital relationship with one of his aides, who happened to be married to another one of his aides. Ensign's parents tried to pay off the mistress' family.

The scandal grew far worse in October, when we learned that the Republican senator pushed his political and corporate allies to give lobbying contracts to his mistress's husband. When Douglas and Cynthia Hampton left Ensign's employ -- because, you know, the senator was sleeping with Cynthia -- Ensign allegedly took steps to help them make up the lost income, leaning on corporate associates to hire Douglas as a lobbyist. Emails surfaced this month that bolstered the allegations.

The controversy features the immediate affair, plus alleged ethics violations, hush money, and official corruption. An ongoing FBI investigation appears to be heating up, and by some accounts, expanding.

And yet, no media frenzy. No reporters staked out in front of Ensign's home. No op-eds speculating about the need for Ensign to resign in disgrace.

"Gotcha" journalism? Please. If Ensign were a Democrat, he would have been forced from office months ago.

—Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

I JUST DON'T GET SCOTT BROWN.... The poor guy is on TV all the time, but he just seems in over his head. (via Gerry Canavan)

Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., said today it's time to "collectively fix this [health care] bill" and that he's prepared to lead the charge to do just that.

"We're all in favor of the catastrophic care coverage and coverage for children," Brown told "Good Morning America." "But what about the backroom deals? What about all the bad things?"

What a garbled mess. "All" Republicans are "in favor" of some key provisions in the bill? That's very nice, except those same provisions would be scrapped if Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act, as Brown's party is currently promising to do. Besides, if there was unanimous GOP support for those provisions, Brown's party kept this little detail carefully under wraps during the policy debate itself.

As for the "backroom deals," this weak tea is getting weaker all the time. For one thing, deal-making has been part of every major piece of legislation in American history. For another, the Senate approved a reconciliation package yesterday that removed the more notorious "backroom deals" from the package -- and Brown voted to leave the deals in.

"What about all the bad things?" That's profound, to be sure, but like everything else involving Scott Brown, it's noticeably short on substance and meaning.

He took at shot at President Obama's reaction to Republican plans to try to repeal the the health care reform bill.

"If they want to have that fight, I welcome that fight…My attitude? Go for it," the president told a rally on Thursday.

"I believe the president's rhetoric is inappropriate," Brown told "GMA."

Hmm. Prominent members of Brown's own party are using truly insane rhetoric about the ACA, telling all kinds of lies and whipping an agitated right-wing base into a sometimes-violent frenzy, but Scott Brown finds "go for it" to be "inappropriate."

Republicans sure do pick strange people as heroes.

—Steve Benen 1:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON TERROR PROSECUTIONS.... Whenever Republicans or their allies get hysterical about federal officials trying accused terrorists in the U.S. justice system, the Obama administration has a compelling retort: we're just doing what Bush/Cheney did.

Indeed, several weeks ago, administration officials began using a specific number: more than 300 suspected terrorists have already gone through the civilian court system -- with nary a complaint from Republicans.

Incredulous, far-right lawmakers and personalities have concluded that the number must be the result of Obama administration deception. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the Judiciary Committee's top Republican, called the number "unsubstantiated" and questioned its validity. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) called the number "disingenuous." National Review called the figure "bogus." Dana Perino concluded, "The 300 number is as false as false gets."

Both sides can't be right. Either Bush/Cheney did this or it didn't. Either Obama's detractors are right or wrong. Care to guess which side of the dispute is telling the truth?

An extensive new chart compiled by the Obama Justice Department, drawing on Bush administration records, shows hundreds of terror suspects have been convicted in civilian courts -- directly contradicting claims by Bush/Cheney officials to the contrary. [...]

[I]n its most comprehensive pushback to date, the Justice Department has produced a detailed accounting of hundreds of such prosecutions in chart form. It was sent over by a source and can be viewed right here.

I'm trying to think of the last time the right came up with criticism of Obama related to national security that proved to be accurate. I can't think of anything.

Between lies and errors of fact and judgment, this is a crowd that has an uninterrupted track record of failure. Dems, in general, still seem hesitant about engaging on national security, even if that means hanging the White House out to dry, but the truth is, this is one of the Republicans' weakest issues.

That the conventional wisdom suggests otherwise is a result of media laziness and Democratic reluctance.

—Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

ONE INCIDENT IS REAL, ONE IS NOT.... Arguably this week's most dangerous instance of Tea Party extremism involves Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.). Right-wing activists posted what they thought was the congressman's home address, but it turned out to be the address of his brother's house. That detail didn't stop someone from going to the home and, according to the FBI, deliberately severing a gas line.

Today, however, the Washington Post editorial page drew a parallel between the Perriello incident and "the bullet fired through a window of Mr. Cantor's campaign office."

And this is why the Washington Post editorial board makes me sad.

To be sure, I can understand why the Post might be confused. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House Minority Whip, told reporters in a nationally televised news conference yesterday:

"I've received threats since I assumed elected office -- not only because of my position, but also because I'm Jewish. I've never blamed anyone in this body for that.

"Just recently I have been directly threatened: A bullet was shot through the window of my campaign office in Richmond this week."

The remarks generated some strikingly irresponsible "journalism." Fox News told viewers about the incident in which a "gunman shoots up" the office of the Republican House leader.

At this point, here's what we know about Cantor's tall tale (details that were available yesterday, and which the WaPo editorial board should have considered before publishing):

1. Cantor was never threatened. In fact, local police believe the bullet had been fired in the air, and ended up hitting a window at random.

2. It wasn't Cantor's campaign office.

3. The office was not "shot up." According to a statement from the Richmond Police Department, "The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds. There was no other damage to the room."

Taken together, what Cantor told reporters -- and the entire country -- was clearly false. When he said he was "directly threatened," Cantor was either shamelessly, blatantly lying, or he was popping off about a harmless incident without getting his facts straight.

It's a credibility-killing moment for the Minority Whip, or at least it would be if major media outlets were willing to consider the veracity of his claim. At this point, Cantor has a responsibility to apologize and/or retract his bogus claim.

—Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* With Massachusetts' increasingly strange Sen. Scott Brown (R) refusing to retract or apologize for his bizarre remarks about Rachel Maddow possibly running against him, the MSNBC host took out a full-page ad in the Boston Globe today.

* In Arkansas, a new Research 2000 poll shows incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln leading Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in a Democratic primary, 44% to 31%. But in general election match-ups, Lincoln currently trails all five GOP candidates, and Halter looks stronger.

* In related news, Lincoln continues to distance herself from labor unions, but "documents show Lincoln aggressively sought the support of these 'Washington D.C. unions' several months ago --undercutting her derision for them."

* In the state of Washington, a Research 2000 poll shows incumbent Sen. Patty Murray (D) with surprisingly strong, double-digit leads over her three most credible Republican challengers, Dino Rossi, Dave Reichert, and Don Benton.

* In an interesting twist in Kentucky's Democratic Senate primary, state AG Jack Conway is hitting Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo for opposing health care reform.

* With Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.) retiring this year, Kansas Democrats have been searching for a top-tier candidate. They found one: Dennis Moore's wife, Stephene.

* In South Florida, congressional candidate Corey Poitier, an African-American Republican running in a heavily Democratic district, referred to President Obama this week as "Buckwheat."

* And believe it or not, Rick Santorum continues to pursue a presidential campaign.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

U.S., RUSSIA AGREE TO NEW NUCLEAR ARMS TREATY.... Breakthroughs like these do not come often.

Shortly after concluding a phone call with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House briefing room to hail the new arms control agreement with Russia, replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) treaty that expired on December 5th.

"I'm pleased to announce that after a year of intense negotiations, the United States and Russia have agreed to the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades," the president said from the press podium.

Negotiations on the new START treaty with Russia have been worked on intensely for the past year. Mr. Obama said today it had been one of his highest priorities since taking office.

"It cuts -- by about a third -- the nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia will deploy," Obama said describing the agreement. "It significantly reduces missiles and launchers. It puts in place a strong and effective verification regime. And it maintains the flexibility that we need to protect and advance our national security, and to guarantee our unwavering commitment to the security of our Allies."

The treaty will still have to be ratified by the Senate, where it will need 67 votes. Administration officials emphasized this morning that they've been in frequent communication with lawmakers from both parties during the talks with Russia, and they're confident of "strong, bipartisan" support for the agreement.

As for Medvedev needing approval from the Duma, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered to send Rahm Emanuel to Moscow to help whip up some votes. She was kidding. I think.

President Obama will reportedly sign the treaty in two weeks at an event in Prague.

As for the larger context of the Obama presidency, can you believe this week? A historic success on health care, a successful overhaul of federal student loan programs, and a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia -- all in the span of four days?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we won't hear any more talk about the president "lacking accomplishments" for quite a while.

—Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

THE LIMITS OF AN EXTREME IDEOLOGY.... The Washington Post ran a profile of Mike Vanderboegh, a 57-year-old former militiaman from Alabama, who disapproves of the new Affordable Care Act. Vanderboegh, who describes himself as a "Christian libertarian" and has been part of various clandestine militia groups, has been encouraging those who agree with him to throw bricks through the windows of Democratic offices nationwide.

It's about what you'd expect from someone like this, and Vanderboegh is unapologetic about his extremism. In his interview with the Post, he makes multiple references to people who "are armed and are capable of making such resistance possible and perhaps even initiating a civil war."

Given the threat of domestic terrorism, all of this is disconcerting, to be sure. But Josh Marshall flags the punch-line from the profile:

Vanderboegh said he once worked as a warehouse manager but now lives on government disability checks. He said he receives $1,300 a month because of his congestive heart failure, diabetes and hypertension.

I see. So, Vanderboegh has a physical ailment, so instead of working, he's turned to the government to supply him with a modest income. Whether Vanderboegh appreciates the irony of a radical libertarian, who demands that a small government leave people alone, getting taxpayer-financed checks from the government not to work, is unclear.

But reading this, I'm reminded of the recent scene in Ohio, in which Tea Party activists berated a man with Parkinson's. A conservative told the ailing man, "You're looking for a hand-out, you're in the wrong end of town. Nothing for free over here, you have to work for everything you get." Another conservative, after mocking the man with wadded bills, shouted, "No more hand-outs!"

To be clear, I don't doubt that Vanderboegh is entitled to government benefits. To my mind, there's nothing at all wrong with federal programs that provide assistance to those who can't work for medical reasons. I support such efforts enthusiastically.

But Vanderboegh and his compatriots seem to think my approach represents radical "big government," which necessarily needs to be curtailed to promote and defend "liberty." Indeed, for those right-wing activists in Ohio, government disability checks are, by definition, "hand-outs."

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (82)

AN INTERNATIONAL BOOST.... Laura Rozen and Ben Smith had a great piece the other day reflecting on what President Obama's victory on health care reform may mean for his global standing. Reuters has a related piece today, which agrees that the Leader of the Free World likely got an international boost from his domestic success.

President Barack Obama's domestic success on healthcare reform may pay dividends abroad as the strengthened U.S. leader taps his momentum to take on international issues with allies and adversaries.

More than a dozen foreign leaders have congratulated Obama on the new healthcare law in letters and phone calls, a sign of how much attention the fight for his top domestic policy priority received in capitals around the world. [...]

[T]he perception of increased clout, after a rocky first year that produced few major domestic or foreign policy victories, could generate momentum for Obama's agenda at home and in his talks on a host of issues abroad.

It's best not to overstate this, of course. It's not as if foreign policy challenges will suddenly start producing resolutions, just because the U.S. president delivered on his top domestic policy priority.

But on the international stage, stature matters. Even the Bush/Cheney national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, agreed that the legislative breakthrough can make a difference: "It shows political strength, and that counts when dealing with foreign leaders."

Obama's deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes added, "It sends a very important message about President Obama as a leader... The criticism has been: (He) sets big goals but doesn't close the deal. So, there's no more affirmative answer to that criticism than closing the biggest deal you have going."

Today, for example, the United States and Russia are poised to announce an agreement on a new nuclear arms treaty, creating a successor to START. Reuters noted that Russia has been "watching Obama's domestic successes and failures throughout the process."

"I think there were some in the Kremlin saying, 'how strong is he? If he can't get some of these things through, does that give us more leverage to push him on arms control?'" said Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

As we talked about the other day, global players base their U.S. interactions, at least in part, on their perceptions of presidential standing. If the American head of state is perceived as weak -- faltering domestic support, stalled legislative agenda -- friend and foe alike will take those cues seriously. If the chief executive is perceived as strong, that matters, too.

And at this point, President Obama's stature is on the rise.

—Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

WHEN EVEN A HACK MANAGES TO EMBARRASS HIMSELF.... Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) of Utah has been nearly as shameless as anyone in making ridiculous and demonstrably false claims about health care policy. But last night, he may have reached a new low. I knew he was a partisan hack, but this one managed to surprise me.

After hearing Hatch complain about the individual mandate, CNN's Campbell Brown noted that he endorsed the identical idea in 1993. "Well," Hatch replied, "in 1993, we were trying to kill Hillary-care, and I didn't pay any attention to that, because that was part of a bill that I just hadn't centered on."

In other words, Hatch endorsed a policy he didn't understand, simply to kill a piece of legislation he also didn't understand. The senator, who's been on the Hill for more than a generation, admitted, on national television, that he promoted an idea that he didn't "pay any attention to," simply as part of a larger ploy.

Mark Halperin, who isn't exactly known for taking a hard line against Republicans, characterized Hatch's on-air remarks as "breathtaking cynicism." It is, indeed.

—Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

THE OTHER REFORM BREAKTHROUGH.... Under normal circumstances, a major overhaul of federal student loan programs would be a historic victory in its own right. The idea, decades in the making, was, after all, the centerpiece of President Obama's education agenda, and appeared stalled in the Senate.

But two weeks ago, Democratic lawmakers agreed to include the student-loan overhaul in the health care reconciliation package. And with that, we're getting two historic reform victories at the same time.

Ending one of the fiercest lobbying fights in Washington, Congress voted Thursday to force commercial banks out of the federal student loan market, cutting off billions of dollars in profits in a sweeping restructuring of financial-aid programs and redirecting most of the money to new education initiatives. [...]

Since the bank-based loan program began in 1965, commercial banks like Sallie Mae and Nelnet have received guaranteed federal subsidies to lend money to students, with the government assuming nearly all the risk. Democrats have long denounced the program, saying it fattened the bottom line for banks at the expense of students and taxpayers.

"Why are we paying people to lend the government's money and then the government guarantees the loan and the government takes back the loan?" said Representative George Miller, Democrat of California and chairman of the Education and Labor Committee.

What a good question. I'm glad we won't have to ask it anymore.

Republicans, of course, were outraged about passage of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), largely because bank lobbyists told them to be. The same GOP lawmakers who demand cost savings, improved efficiency, and streamlined government programs, nevertheless fought like hell to kill a common-sense idea that achieves those very goals.

They lost. The result is a new law that provides "a huge infusion of money to the Pell grant program and ... new help to lower-income graduates in getting out from under crushing student debt." The savings to taxpayers are expected to total about $61 billion over 10 years.

Kevin Drum added, "This is, to coin a phrase, sort of a big effin deal. The student loan program has been a disgrace for a long time, essentially insuring a fat stream of profits to banks by allowing them to make risk-free loans thanks to guarantees from Uncle Sam. It was a pretty nice racket while it lasted."

Update: An alert reader reminds me that CNN recently polled on student-loan reform, and found that 64% expressed support for the Democratic proposal. Even a slight majority of Republicans favored the idea.

—Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

THE FINISHING TOUCH.... After a painfully long, arduous process, Congress completed its work on health care reform last night. I know, I find it hard to believe , too.

Several hours after the Senate voted 56 to 43 to approve a reconciliation package, the House voted 220 to 207 to pass an identical measure. The combined total of Republican votes in support of reform in both chambers: zero.

The bill now goes to President Obama, who will likely sign it into law today -- though probably with far less fanfare than Tuesday's historic bill-signing ceremony.

By any reasonable measure, this package of amendments -- often called the "sidecar" -- makes a good bill better. The reconciliation fix improves subsidy rates for the middle class, delays implementation (and alters eligibility) of the excise tax, closes the Medicare "donut hole," and requires insurers to allow young adults to remain on their parents' insurance policies until they're 26.

And with that, the most ambitious and most important domestic policy initiative in nearly a half-century -- after a few too many obituaries -- is complete. Back in December, Jon Chait described the Affordable Care Act as "the greatest social achievement of our time" and "the most significant American legislative triumph in at least four decades." I agree wholeheartedly.

And now we have one last phrase to use to describe health care reform: law of the land.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

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

* Final health care vote looks set for 9:30 p.m. (ET) in the House.

* The right continues to be out of control: "An envelope filled with white powder was sent to the district office of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) today, the congressman said in a statement."

* Better news on new unemployment claims, which beat expectations, but they're still too high.

* Looks like France and Germany have come to an agreement on aid to Greece.

* Pulling a Bunning, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) blocks an extension of unemployment benefits.

* When you hear media reports that White House and congressional staffers are "exempt from health care bill," know that those reports are wrong.

* Republican senators are likely to block Goodwin Liu's nomination to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in part because he supports health care reform.

* Senate Republicans demand that President Obama refrain from making recess appointments. Or what?

* The policy consequences of health care repeal would be severe.

* Gingrich, naturally, thinks recent political violence is Democrats' fault.

* James Joyner agrees that it's time for conservative leaders to calm the base.

* Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), another target of right-wing political violence, found House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) admonition far too weak.

* Ann Coulter will not be going to Canada, where her brand of hate is frowned upon.

* Good piece from Josh Marshall on recent right-wing tactics:"It's time for a truth moment for the national Republican party. Incitement matters. They have to take responsibility for what they've done: which is nothing less than a campaign of incitement for which they're now unwilling to take any responsibility."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

TAKING THE 'THINK' OUT OF THINK TANK.... David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter and a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has been urging the Republican Party to be tactically smarter. He's also publicly lamented the fact that the party seems to be taking dictation from Fox News, rather than the other way around.

Today, the American Enterprise Institute, a major think tank on the right, parted ways with Frum, after seven years. He emphatically denies that his departure was the result of his criticism of the GOP, and I have no evidence to the contrary. But Bruce Bartlett has a piece worth reading this afternoon:

Since, [Frum] is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.

Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go.

Consider the larger pattern here. A few years ago, John Hulsman was a senior foreign policy analyst at the right's largest think tank, the Heritage Foundation. Hulsman was a conservative in good standing -- appearing regularly on Fox News and on the Washington Times' op-ed page, blasting Democrats -- right up until he expressed his disapproval of the neoconservatives' approach to foreign policy. Heritage showed him the door. The Cato Institute's Chris Preble said at the time, "At Heritage, anything that smacks of criticism of Bush will not be tolerated."

About a year before that, Bartlett was fired from the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis. His transgression? Bartlett criticized Bush's incoherent economic policies.

And now Frum is gone from AEI. Intellectually, modern conservatism is facing a painfully sad state of affairs.

—Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)

CANTOR'S CREATIVE DEFINITION OF 'THREAT'.... This week, we've seen an unacceptable number of incidents involving right-wing activists. To protest their rage about what they think the new health care law is, they're engaging in acts of political vandalism, assault, and harassment.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) seemed rather desperate today to characterize this as a bipartisan problem. During a bizarre press conference this morning, Cantor told reporters:

"I've received threats since I assumed elected office -- not only because of my position, but also because I'm Jewish. I've never blamed anyone in this body for that.

"Just recently I have been directly threatened: A bullet was shot through the window of my campaign office in Richmond this week."

Well, that sounds pretty serious. We've heard about plenty of vandalism at district congressional offices this week -- all of the cases involve Democrats as targets -- but this would be the first reported shooting.

The problem is, what Cantor told reporters wasn't true. When he said he was "directly threatened," Cantor was either shamelessly, blatantly lying, or he was popping off to the press about politically-motivated violence without getting his facts straight.

Here's what happened: early Tuesday morning, someone in the Richmond area fired a bullet into the air. It eventually came down and hit a building -- named, of course, the Reagan Building -- on the first floor. According to a report from the Richmond Police Department statement, "The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds. There was no other damage to the room, which is used occasionally for meetings by the congressman."

Was Eric Cantor "directly threatened" this week? Not if those words still have any meaning at all.

—Steve Benen 4:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

OBAMA TELLS REPEALERS: 'GO FOR IT'.... With success comes confidence.

President Obama appeared in Iowa today, hosting his first public event since signing the Affordable Care Act into law, and acknowledged that opponents of reform are now talking about taking office and turning back the clock. He didn't sound especially intimidated by the GOP palaver about "repeal." Indeed, like most Dems, he seems to hope Republicans pursue it.

"Now that we passed it, they're already promising to repeal it," the president noted. "They're actually going to run on a platform of repeal in November.... And my attitude is, 'Go for it.'

"If these congressman in Washington want to come here to Iowa and tell small business owners they plan to take away their tax credits, and essentially raise their taxes, be my guest. If they want to look Lauren Gallagher in the eye and tell her they plan to take away her father's health insurance, that's their right. They want to make Darlyne Neff pay more money for her check-ups, her mammograms, they can run on that platform. This young man out here thinks this is a bad bill, he can run to repeal it.

"If they want to have that fight, we can have it. Because I don't believe the American people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver's seat. We've already been there, we're not going back. This country's moving forward."

Expect to hear similar remarks as the midterm elections draw closer -- the choice for voters is to decide between "moving forward" or "going backwards."

At the same event, President Obama also continued to have fun with Republicans' more reckless hyperbole.

"There's been plenty of fear-mongering, plenty of over-heated rhetoric. If you turn on the news, you see the same folks are still shouting about how there's going to be the 'end of the world' because this bill passed. I'm not exaggerating -- leaders of the Republican Party, they called the passage of this bill, 'Armageddon!' 'End of freedom as we know it!'

"So, after I signed the bill, I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling or some cracks opening up in the earth. Turned out, it was a nice day."

Obama added, "From this day forward, all of the cynics, all the naysayers, they're going to have to confront the reality of what this reform is -- and what it isn't. They'll have to finally acknowledge, this isn't a government takeover of the health care system."

Due respect, Mr. President, they'll do nothing of the sort. These guys make their own reality. Reason, evidence, and facts are inconvenient details to be mocked, manipulated, and ignored.

It's up to voters whether or not to fall for the con.

—Steve Benen 3:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

SENATE APPROVES RECONCILIATION PACKAGE, HOUSE UP NEXT.... Right on schedule for a change, the Senate completed its work on health care reform this afternoon, voting 56 to 43 to approve the pending reconciliation package.

I'll post the roll call once it's up, but three Democrats -- Nebraska's Ben Nelson, Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln, and Arkansas' Mark Pryor -- voted with Republicans in the up-or-down vote. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) is in the hospital and did not vote. (Remember, the GOP couldn't filibuster the reconciliation measure, so 60 votes were not needed.)

As they did in December, senators voted one at a time, from their desks, as is often the case on historic pieces of legislation.

Before the vote, the Senate held a moment of silence to honor Ted Kennedy.

The measure now heads to the House for one final vote.

More soon.

Update: I guess those concerns that the Senate would screw over the House were unfounded after all.

Second Update: White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters earlier that officials are "quite confident" that the reconciliation package "will be approved rather quickly by the House."

Third Update: The outcome in the House does not appear to be in doubt. "This is quite benign in terms of any change that could be made to the legislation," Speaker Pelosi told reporters this morning. "Of all the things that they could send back, this is probably the most benign."

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said House approval will likely come this evening.

—Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

CANTOR AND 'FANNING THE FLAMES'.... In the face of right-wing activists engaging in acts of political vandalism, assault, and harassment, most reasonable people should agree that the Republicans who helped generate this rage have a responsibility to help lower the temperature.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has a slightly different take. As he sees it, it's Democrats who need to stop "fanning the flames."

Seriously.

"Legitimate threats should be treated as security issues, and they should be dealt with by the appropriate law enforcement officials," Cantor said. "It is reckless to use these incidents as media vehicles for political gain. That is why I have deep concerns that -- some [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] chairman Chris Van Hollen and [Democratic National Committee] chairman Tim Kaine, in particular -- are dangerously fanning the flames, by suggesting that these incidents be used as a political weapon."

Let me get this straight. As the dim-witted Minority Whip sees it, Democrats are facing vandalism, assault, and harassment, and Democratic leaders want it to stop. But by urging responsible officials to denounce (and hopefully, discourage) misconduct, Dems are, Cantor believes, "dangerously fanning the flames."

Does Eric Cantor hear the words coming out of his mouth as he says them? Does he not realize how ridiculous he sounds? His message seemed to be: "If Dems just stayed quiet in the face of violence and intimidation, everything would be fine."

A few hours after accusing Democrats of "fanning the flames," Cantor was the featured guest on a conference call held by the "S.T.O.P. Obama Tyranny National Coalition."

By all appearances, Cantor isn't quite bright enough to appreciate the irony.

—Steve Benen 1:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (48)

A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT.... When it comes to health care reform, it makes sense that Republican opponents of the Affordable Care Act would vote against it. It also makes sense that they'd complain about it now that it's law. If you think voters are gullible rubes, it might even make sense for Republicans to pledge a "full repeal" of the law.

But filing a lawsuit to challenge the law and invite judicial activism, basically just to make Tea Party extremists happy, is a colossal waste.

I saw a report the other day that 13 state attorneys general who are challenging the law, questioning the constitutionality of the individual mandate, failed to include "any specific case citations to buttress the underlying claim that it is unconstitutional."* A.L. took a look at the lawsuit and concluded, "It is beyond frivolous. I can't believe actual lawyers are willing to sign it."

In Georgia, the state AG said he wouldn't waste taxpayer money on such a weak case, but the far-right governor intervened anyway.

Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker, a Democrat, has refused to file an anti-health care mandate lawsuit, and called other AGs' decisions to do so "political gamesmanship." Undaunted -- and, of course, very concerned about the rule of law -- Gov. Sonny Perdue (R-Ga.) is appointing a "special attorney general" to sue the federal government anyway.

It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

It's worth remembering that many of the AGs involved with this ridiculous exercise are running for governor in their respective states, and likely are wasting time and money on this case to impress in-state Republican voters (and donors). This dynamic has not gone unnoticed.

In Michigan, for example, the Detroit Free Press blasted state AG Mike Cox: "As a candidate for his party's gubernatorial nomination, Cox has every right to pander to the Tea Party adherents many believe will play a decisive role in August's Republican primary. As Michigan's top law enforcement officer, he should know better than to pursue his specious claim that Congress has exceeded its constitutional authority."

In Pennsylvania, Republican Attorney General Tom Corbett, in an apparent bid to help his own gubernatorial campaign, is also part of the pointless litigation. Some state lawmakers are so annoyed by the waste of taxpayer resources that they're threatening to cut funding for Corbett's office.

If there were any justice, these attorneys general would face a voter backlash for participating in such a wasteful stunt.

* Update: I've talked to several readers today who have far more expertise on this point than I do, and they agree that Ambinder's observation is not quite what it seems, and that the lack of specific case citations in the filing is not especially noteworthy. Fair enough. The larger point, however, about the weakness of this lawsuit, the waste of public resources, and the petty partisan motivations behind the litigation, stand.

—Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

WHAT IS LINDSEY GRAHAM WHINING ABOUT?.... It's nearing its completion, but the health care reform process has obviously been difficult to watch for much of the year. Whether one was pleased or not with the outcome, those who take the integrity of political discourse and the policymaking process should be able to agree that congressional Republicans did not put their best foot forward.

It's largely indisputable. GOP lawmakers decided early on, by their own admission, that they would not cooperate with the Democratic majority. As the process dragged on, Republicans ignored attempts at Democratic outreach, forced needless delays, refused to negotiate in good faith, and lied with reckless abandon. Now that the Affordable Care Act is law, we see these same GOP officials playing petty games and even making excuses for their supporters' criminal misconduct.

And now Republicans intend to punish the majority and shut down Congress' lawmaking functions -- because they don't like the way Democrats behaved during the health care debate.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the Democrats' most likely potential allies on a range of legislation, said in an interview he would no longer work with the majority party on an immigration overhaul. He said because of the Democrats' tactics in passing the package, the "well has been poisoned."

Mr. Graham also has been working with Democrats on climate change, and that cooperation, too, appears in doubt. "Climate and energy are another heavy lift. We'll see," Mr. Graham said. "The consequences of health care being done this way are enormous to the body." Mr. Graham's initiatives would probably not have received significant Congressional attention this year in any case, but his posture signals one potential route for the party.

Look, if a far-right lawmaker doesn't support immigration reform or a new energy bill, fine. That's to be expected. But Graham is saying these initiatives are more likely to fail, with his help, because Republicans are in a vengeful and spiteful mood.

This is just insane. Democrats tried to work with Republicans on health care. Dems incorporated Republican ideas and amendments into the legislation, and even patterned the legislation after a moderate GOP proposal from the last reform fight. Substantively, Republicans described the public option and a Medicare buy-in as beyond the pale, and Dems scrapped both ideas. Procedurally, Republicans blasted the self-executing rule as inexcusable, and Dems scrapped that, too.

All the while, the majority practically begged Republicans to play a constructive role, negotiate in good faith, and make some concessions to meet Dems in the middle. They refused.

And now Graham (and McCain, and others) feel justified in throwing a tantrum, and intend to kill every other policy initiative, because they think Democrats were somehow big meanies during the health care debate?

Please.

—Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)

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.

* In Pennsylvania, the latest Franklin and Marshall College survey shows a very close Senate race. Far-right former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) leads Sen. Arlen Specter (D) by four, 33% to 29%, but another third of poll respondents described themselves as undecided.

* Speaking of close Senate races, Public Policy Polling shows former Bush Budget Director Rob Portman (R) holding onto modest leads over his top Democratic challengers, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.

* A new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California shows Carly Fiorina with the narrowest of leads over Tom Campbell in their Senate primary, though other recent polls have shown Campbell ahead.

* The attack ads are getting a little more intense in Florida between Senate hopefuls Marco Rubio and Gov. Charlie Crist, as part of their Republican primary.

* In a bit of a surprise, Dan Senor, the former spokesperson for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, announced yesterday he will not take on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) this year. Senor had already taken some preliminary steps towards launching a campaign.

* As expected, former Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R) will seek a rematch against incumbent Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) this year. Republicans didn't really have anyone else interested in running.

* Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) dodged one primary opponent this week, but picked up another. Yesterday, Dr. Kevin Weiland said he would take on the incumbent, motivated in part by her opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

* And once again, Gen. David Petraeus isn't going to be a candidate for public office.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)

DEAR MITT, QUIT WHILE YOU'RE BEHIND.... Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) believes his presidential prospects will improve if he positions himself as the nation's leading critic of the Democrats' Affordable Care Act. It's hard to believe a man seeking national office could be so foolish.

On its face, Romney's strategy is burdened by his record. His health care reform law at the state level looks awfully similar to what Democrats have now done at the national level. A few years ago, Romney could base his presidential platform, at least in part, on his accomplishment. But now that the Republican Party has moved drastically to the right, and President Obama has signed a Romney-like plan into law, the former governor is in an impossible position.

But that's really just scratching the surface. Romney also wants Republicans to know he thinks the new law is unconstitutional, presumably because of the individual mandate. That's problematic, too. For one thing, his own plan featured a mandate. For another, there's now a video showing Romney endorsing a similar mandate at the national level.

Greg Sargent flags this clip, released this morning by the DNC, featuring footage from a 2008 debate between Republican presidential candidates. In the clip, Romney notes his approval for mandates. When ABC's Charlie Gibson notes, "You seem to have backed away from mandates on a national basis," Romney replies, "No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work."

Indeed, time and again, Romney has characterized mandates as a conservative idea.

Perhaps no one in modern political life has flip-flopped on more issues than Mitt Romney. The man simply bears no resemblance to his previous personas. But this reversal is just laughable -- the same man who embraced health care mandates in his own proposal now believes health care mandates are an unconstitutional abuse.

It's tempting to think Romney should try to change the subject to an issue where he's stronger, but the truth is, I don't know what that might be.

—Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.... Legislative milestones need good names. We all know what Social Security is. We all know what Medicare is. But the new health care reform law will generally be known as ... well, that's less than clear.

It has a name, of course. Formally, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law this week. But Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act doesn't exactly roll off the tongue the way Social Security and Medicare do. For that matter, PPACA isn't helpful, either. The right prefers "ObamaCare," but needless to say, that's not likely to stick.

I noticed Matt Yglesias had this item this morning:

Tuesday, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) seemed prepared to concede the point that conservative politicians were not, in fact, likely to repeal the Affordable Care Act's ban on insurers discriminating against applicants with pre-existing medical conditions. This, of course, implies accepting the basic structure of the whole shebang -- to make it work, you need the mandate and to make the mandate work you need the subsidies... [A]s Ramesh Ponnuru argued in his initial pushback from the right on Cornyn you simply can't keep the pre-existing conditions bit without accept the entire basic structure of ACA. [emphasis added]

I hadn't really noticed until this morning, but it looks like Matt has been using "Affordable Care Act" all week.

This works for me just fine. "Affordable Care Act" is accurate and descriptive, and it comes from the actual legislative name. ACA is a perfectly memorable abbreviation, too.

So, should we run with this forevermore? Or does someone have a better idea for a name?

—Steve Benen 10:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (73)

THE INTERIM STEP ON DADT.... About a month ago, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee that it's time for DADT to go, Gates hinted at an interim step, preceding a full repeal. Gates told senators that the Pentagon can enforce the status quo "in a fairer manner" until the repeal is complete, suggesting that the Pentagon will likely be disinclined to discharge servicemen and women who are "outed" by third parties or jilted partners.

In other words, if a serviceman or woman really doesn't "tell," then there's no reason for him or her to be stripped of their uniform.

Today, the Pentagon chief will make the interim step official.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates will announce measures on Thursday to make it more difficult for the military to expel openly gay service members, an interim plan while the Pentagon examines repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, officials said.

Officials said the new steps would include a requirement that only a general or admiral could initiate action in cases where service members were suspected of violating the prohibition against openly gay service in the armed forces.

The guidelines would also raise the standard required for evidence to be presented in such cases, an effort to prevent "malicious outing" by a third party or jilted partner, officials said.

The Defense Department, the Washington Post added, is "moving ahead on the assumption that Congress will overturn the ban on gays serving openly, but whether that will happen remains uncertain."

Marc Ambinder added, "Internally, the move sends a message to the general officer corps, within which there are notable doubters of the move to repeal it: don't bother trying to stop this thing once it starts."

To be sure, Gates' announcement is not an adequate substitute for scrapping DADT altogether. But it's not intended to be the final step; it's supposed to be the first step. And between the new enforcement guidelines and the (eventual) repeal, a policy like this one will, as Ambinder noted, "help change the culture, which is one reason why Gates is proceeding."

—Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

CALLING OUT SENATOR HOTHEAD.... If there's one thing Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) doesn't like, it's failing to get booked on a Sunday show being called out publicly for his irresponsible behavior. The conservative Republican, dubbed "Senator Hothead" by some of his colleagues (in both parties), must have been particularly incensed yesterday.

McCain announced on Monday that, going forward, he would refuse to cooperate in the Senate's legislative process. To punish Democrats for voting to approve legislation they support, McCain said, "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year."

The declaration came up during yesterday's White House press briefing with Robert Gibbs.

Helen Thomas: McCain said he's going to oppose everything.

Gibbs: Well, yes, I find it curious that not getting your way on one thing means you've decided to take your toys and go home. I don't think -- it doesn't work well for my six-year-old; I doubt it works well in the United States Senate, because we have issues that are important for his constituents and for all of America.

Look, again, when it comes to financial reform people are going to have an opportunity to weigh in on behalf of the banks or on behalf of consumers. And I'll let their vote on that dictate which side of that ledger they feel most comfortable on.

Chip Reed: Are you comparing McCain to a six-year-old?

Gibbs: I'm saying that I think the notion that if you don't get what you want you're not going to cooperate on anything else is not a whole lot different than I might hear from a six-year-old.

If the taunt fits....

—Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

THE RESULTS OF REPUBLICAN RAGE.... It started with racist and anti-gay slurs on Capitol Hill. It led to a Democratic congressman being spat on. Before long, opponents of health care reform were vandalizing lawmakers' offices. Then a gas line was cut at a lawmaker's brother's house. Yesterday, nooses were faxed to Democratic lawmakers. One Democrat received an anonymous voicemail message that said, "You're dead. We know where you live. We'll get you."

If the goal of the Republican base was to send a terrorist-like signal to Congress, officials have heard it.

The pitched battle over health care has unleashed a rash of vandalism and attacks directed at politicians, with at least 10 House Democrats reporting death threats or incidents of harassment or vandalism at their district offices over the past week.

More than 100 House Democrats met behind closed doors Wednesday afternoon with representatives of the FBI and the U.S. Capitol Police. The lawmakers voiced what one senior aide who was present described as "serious concern" about their security in Washington and in their home districts when they return this weekend for the spring recess.

Usually only the congressional leadership has regular personal protection from the Capitol Police. But at least 10 lawmakers have been offered increased protection by law enforcement agencies, said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.).

Asked whether members are endangered, Hoyer said: "Yes. [There are] very serious incidents that have occurred."

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) appeared on Fox News yesterday and briefly addressed the developments. He initially expressed sympathy for the enraged -- saying "Americans are angry" because "Washington Democrats just aren't listening" -- but added, "[V]iolence and threats are unacceptable. That's not the American way. We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change. Call your congressman, go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, make your voice heard -- but let's do it the right way."

The sentiment was welcome, but arguably too weak and too late. Republican leaders, including Boehner, have whipped up the GOP base into a frenzy, pumping so many lies into right-wing activists that incidents like these aren't even that surprising.

What do Republicans expect to happen? They've told confused, misguided activists that health care reform is a "totalitarian" scheme that attacks our "freedom" and represents the "end of America as we know it." The policy breakthrough is, as several GOP leaders have put it, "Armageddon."

It's quite likely that most Republican lawmakers know that their over-the-top rhetoric is just a political gambit, and that their more insane attacks on the new law have no foundation in reality. But therein lies the point: their base doesn't know that Republican officials are lying. When enraged activists are told by leaders they trust that health care reform will destroy America, these activists actually believe the nonsense.

When Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele demands that Pelosi get "ready for the firing line," the GOP base gets the message. When Sarah Palin's Facebook page shows 20 gun sights over Democratic lawmakers, some of whom are colored in red, the GOP base gets the message.

And now we're seeing the results of Republicans' irresponsibility.

The most farcical angle to this? The lunatics committing these crimes don't even know what they're so upset about. The things they think they hate about health care reform aren't real. They're lashing out violently to protest a law they don't understand. Ironically, many of these same people and their families stand to benefit as a result of reform.

Republicans have quite deliberately exploited the ignorance and hatred of their own supporters to create a toxic political environment, which in turn leads to the violence we've seen over the last several days. Responsible GOP leaders, if any still exist, must do far more to lower the temperature before conditions take a more tragic turn.

—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)

ONCE MORE, WITH FEELING.... Earlier this week, Senate Republicans effectively conceded they had no realistic shot at derailing the health care reconciliation package. Their goal would be to (1) push politically inconvenient amendments that could be used in attack ads, and (2) "put a few holes" in the package, so the House would have to vote on health care reform one more time.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) conceded the other day that edit-free approval was still the goal, but "one or two" minor changes might be unavoidable.

Well, guess what.

With the Senate working through an all-night session on a package of changes to the Democrats' sweeping health care legislation, Republicans early Thursday morning identified parliamentary problems with at least two provisions that will require the measure to be sent back to the House for yet another vote, once the Senate adopts it.

Senate Democrats had been hoping to defeat all of the amendments proposed by Republicans and to prevail on parliamentary challenges so that they could approve the measure and send it to President Obama for his signature. But the bill must comply with complex budget reconciliation rules, and Republicans identified some flaws.

As expected, the provisions in question are small and technical, and their removal does not affect the larger reform package in any meaningful way.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told reporters overnight, "We see no impact on the score and very insignificant impact on any policy. This is not going to be a problem."

Dems hoped to pass the reconciliation measure as-is, so it could be sent directly to the White House for the president's signature, but after Senate passage, the House will have to make one final vote. Party leaders knew this was a possibility -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) signaled to House members earlier this week that they should plan to stick around, just in case. This morning, Hoyer said House passage of the ever-so-slightly different package wouldn't be a problem.

As for the Senate, the chamber wrapped up for the night about 2:45 a.m. (ET), and is scheduled to get back to work about two hours from now. Leaders believe the Senate may complete all of its work on the reconciliation measure by mid-day today.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

WEDNESDAY'S EXTRA-EARLY MINI-REPORT.... I have a medical appointment this afternoon that I've been pushing off until after the health care vote, so I'm afraid I have to wrap up early. Hoping that nothing extraordinary happens between now and 5:30, here's today's early edition of quick hits:

* Done deal? "President Obama and his Russian counterpart, President Dmitri A. Medvedev, have broken through a logjam in their arms control negotiations and expect to sign a new treaty in Prague next month that would slash American and Russian nuclear arsenals, officials from both nations said Wednesday."

* U.S. housing market still struggling.

* Not helpful: "With strains still high between Israel and the United States over the issue of Jewish settlements, construction of a contentious Jewish housing project in a predominantly Arab neighborhood of East Jerusalem could start at any time, Israeli officials and experts said Wednesday."

* Improved prospects for financial industry reform?

* As promised, President Obama signed that executive order today on abortion funding.

* Today's must-read: "For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government's biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago."

* Funny, I didn't realize Republicans would be able to parse "full repeal."

* What's in the new health care law? The White House puts together a compelling list.

* Brian Beutler puts together a wild list of the 10 most ridiculous GOP-proposed health care amendments.

* Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) should probably offer taxpayers a hint as to how much of their money he'll waste challenging health care reform.

* The Wall Street Journal makes very odd editorial decisions.

* Winners in the fight over student loan reform.

* Dear Michael Steele, avoid the phrase "firing line."

* And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wants everyone to know, "I am pleased to report that, contrary to Sen. Bunning's prediction, I am alive and in good health."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 3:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

LINES THAT MUST NOT BE CROSSED.... Rep. Tom Perriello (D) represents a fairly conservative district in Virginia, but that didn't stop him from voting in favor of health care reform on Sunday. In response, local Tea Party activists posted the lawmaker's home address online, and encouraged constituents to go to Perriello's house to share their thoughts on the new law.

The right-wing activists, however, made a mistake: they posted the address to the congressman's brother's house.

Nevertheless, a day later, there was an incident.

Federal and local authorities are investigating a severed gas line at the home of U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello's brother, discovered the day after Tea Party activists posted the address online so opponents could "drop by" and "express their thanks" for Perriello's vote in favor of health care reform.

The gas line connected a propane tank to a gas grill on the home's screened-in porch, according to sources in Tom Perriello's office.

The incident is being viewed as an attempted threat to a member of congress, sources said... The local FBI field office and the Albemarle County fire marshal are investigating the incident. Police have stepped up patrols in the area as well.

A local Tea Party leader, Nigel Coleman, was apparently one of two activists who posted Bo Perriello's address online Monday. When told that it wasn't actually the lawmaker's address, he wrote, "Oh well, collateral damage." (Coleman later removed that comment, and said today that he "condemns" the incident at Bo Perriello's home.)

Coleman's Danville Tea Party previously made headlines in November for organizing a rally where Perriello and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were to be burned in effigy, though the event was later cancelled.

And now a congressman's brother's gas line has been cut, perhaps as the latest form of Tea Party "protest."

Look, I realize that right-wing activists are outraged by health care reform. I'm not altogether sure why, but their anger is obvious.

But once we get to the point where gas lines are severed at private residences -- following outrageous vandalism and weekend protests in which a member of Congress was spat on -- it's not unreasonable to wonder if the far-right base has gotten dangerously out of control.*

* edited

—Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (63)

ENTERING THE 'TAKING-CREDIT' PHASE.... Despite incessant whining about the successful economic recovery package, congressional Republicans quietly started taking credit for some of the very efforts they fought so hard against. I suppose it stands to reason, then, that we'll start seeing something similar on health care reform.

Take Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa, for example. Few, if any, policymakers played as absurd a role in the reform process than Grassley. From advancing demonstrably ridiculous claims to forcing needless to delays to brazen hypocrisy and contradictions, the Iowa Republican has been an obnoxious and regressive force. Given that he was the Senate Republicans' point-man on health care, this was a problem.

With this context in mind, I have to admit, I didn't see this one coming.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has long been a vocal critic of the Democrat's health reform efforts, but behind the scenes he's started taking credit for some provisions of the bill, and talking up his own role in crafting the legislation.

In a release sent out by his staff to reporters today, Grassley says the bill will "hold tax-exempt hospitals accountable for the federal tax benefits they receive" thanks to his work. [...]

"The health care legislation signed into law yesterday includes provisions Grassley co-authored to impose standards for the tax exemption of charitable hospitals for the first time," his staff writes in the memo.

The same memo emphasizes, "In 2009, [Grassley] drafted legislative reforms and succeeded in persuading the Democratic majority to include several of the reforms in the new health care law."

Remember, Chuck Grassley repeatedly tried to kill the proposal, fought to prevent the Senate from even voting on it, and repeatedly concluded that the law itself is unconstitutional.

But just in case any Americans end up liking what's in the new law, Grassley also wants folks to know some of the good stuff was his idea (even though he voted against it).

Shameless. Just shameless.

—Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

PETTINESS EVEN TRUMPS NATIONAL SECURITY.... We talked earlier about the latest Republican tactic: refusing to allow the Senate to hold any hearings, on any issue, after 2 p.m. The point is to spite Democrats for passing health care reform. The GOP tantrum continues today in ways that are breathtakingly stupid.

The Senate Armed Services Committee, for example, has scheduled some pretty important hearings this afternoon. Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) appeared on the Senate floor earlier, imploring his colleagues to let his hearings continue.

"We've had, we have three [U.S. military] commanders scheduled to testify this afternoon. They've been scheduled for a long time. They've come a long, long distance. One of them has come from Korea; one of them has come from Hawaii. And I would, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled and currently scheduled hearing of the Committee on Armed Services be allowed to proceed."

Levin added that the committee's ranking member, John McCain, also wants the hearing to proceed, and the hearing would not conflict with any scheduled floor votes. Among those scheduled to testify are Adm. Robert Willard, Navy Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command; Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command; and Gen. Walter Sharpe, Army Commander of U.S. forces in Korea.

All Levin needed was for the Senate to let the hearing occur, as would be normal on any other day. But that requires unanimous consent, and Sen. Richard Burr (R) of North Carolina rose to explain that there's "an objection on our side of the aisle."

So there will be no hearing, because the increasingly pathetic Republican caucus is miffed that the Senate majority voted for a bill the GOP didn't like.

Scheduled hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee have also been suspended, because they were slated to begin after 2, and the GOP refuses to allow the hearings to happen.

I've seen more maturity from second graders than from the Republican caucus of the United States Senate.

In terms of messaging, though, I think Ezra has the right idea:

I could imagine a lot of smart ways to begin obstructing the chamber and making life miserable for Democrats. But declaring that you won't work after 2 p.m? Do Republicans really think the average American is going to rally to that battle cry?

If Senate Dems want to see Republicans scramble, they'd run with this one. Have the leadership hold a press conference and announce, "We're stunned that Republicans won't let the Senate function after 2 p.m. American workers don't the option to just stop working at 2 because he or she feels like it, and there's no reason their Republican senators should just call it a day after lunch. Republicans have gone from the party that only says "no" to the party that's too lazy to say anything at all."

—Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

THEY'RE REALLY LOSING IT.... I've enjoyed much of the hyperbole coming from the right since health care reform passed, but for pure hysterics, it' hard to top this National Review piece from conservative media figure and former Gingrich spokesperson Tony Blankley. (thanks to reader A.W. for the tip)

What House Minority Leader John A. Boehner has called the Battle of Capitol Hill is over. I expect that the Battle of the Electorate is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of a nonsocialist America. Upon it depends our own American way of life and the long continuity of our institutions and our history. The whole fury and might of the media and the Democratic party must very soon be trained on the electorate.

If they can stand up to the coming propaganda, America may be free, and the life of the wider free world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

But if the voters succumb to those seven months of blandishments and deceptions, then free America -- including all that we have known and cared for -- will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

I wonder what the reaction would have been if the public option had passed, too.

Reading Blankley's panic-stricken screed, I was immediately reminded of Ronald Reagan's 1961 attacks on JFK's Medicare proposal. At the time, Reagan said the plan would lead federal officials to dictate where physicians could practice medicine, and open the door to government control over where Americans were allowed to live. In fact, Reagan warned that if Medicare became law, there was a real possibility that the federal government would control where Americans go and what they do for a living.

Reagan added, "[I]f you don't [stop Medicare] and I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free."

With the benefit of hindsight, we now know these crazy warnings were pretty silly. But the truth is, whenever far-right voices get hysterical about social progress, the crazy warnings always look pretty silly in hindsight.

It's probably why it's best to simply be patient at moments like these, and wait for those throwing conservative tantrums to tire themselves out.

—Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (59)

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.

* In the wake of health care reform passing, the Democratic National Committee raised $2 million in two days -- without actually making a formal fundraising appeal.

* In Ohio's closely watched gubernatorial campaign, Public Policy Polling now shows former congressman and Fox News personality John Kasich (R) leading incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D), 42% to 37%.

* Hoping to shake up the Republican primary in Kentucky's Senate race, Dick Cheney has announced his support for Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson. Most recent polls show Grayson trailing right-wing ophthalmologist Rand Paul.

* As Utah Republicans gather for local caucuses, Sen. Bob Bennett's (R) future may be in jeopardy.

* In Vermont's open gubernatorial race, Rasmussen shows Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie (R) leading all of his would-be Democratic challengers in hypothetical match-ups. There are currently five top-tier Democrats vying for the party's nomination, and Vermont Secretary of State Deb Markowitz (D) is the most competitive against Dubie according to the poll.

* Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) ended up voting for health care reform over the weekend, but his primary challenger, former Charlevoix County Commissioner Connie Saltonstall, intends to continue with her campaign.

* Rep. Brad Ellsworth's (D) Senate campaign in Indiana will get a boost of $1 million from retiring Sen. Evan Bayh's (D) coffers.

* And in Georgia, Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) announced that the special election to replace Rep. Nathan Deal (R), who resigned to run for Perdue's job, will be April 27. Republicans are widely expected to keep the seat in GOP hands.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

OPPOSING THE IDEAS THEY SUPPORT -- MANDATE EDITION.... When conservative opponents of health care reform characterize the new law as undermining "freedom," they're generally talking about the individual mandate. If Americans are required to have health insurance, our "liberty" will deteriorate. Or something.

Indeed, when conservatives decided they'd rely on judicial activism as a last resort in killing health care reform, they targeted the mandate as the most outrageous provision. It's worth reminding them, then, that it was conservative Republicans who came up with the mandate idea in the first place.

"The truth is this is a Republican idea," said Linda Quick, president of the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association. She said she first heard the concept of the "individual mandate" in a Miami speech in the early 1990s by Sen. John McCain, a conservative Republican from Arizona, to counter the "Hillarycare" the Clintons were proposing.

McCain did not embrace the concept during his 2008 election campaign, but other leading Republicans did, including Tommy Thompson, secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush.

Seeking to deradicalize the idea during a symposium in Orlando in September 2008, Thompson said, "Just like people are required to have car insurance, they could be required to have health insurance."

Among the other Republicans who had embraced the idea was Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts crafted a huge reform by requiring almost all citizens to have coverage.

"Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate," Romney wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2006. "But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian."

Romney was referring to the federal law that requires everyone to be treated in emergency rooms, regardless of their ability to pay.

The reversals have occasionally been hard to believe. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) told Fox News last summer, "I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.... There isn't anything wrong with it." He later said he would oppose the Democratic proposal because individual mandates are, as he put it, "non-constitutional."

Also note, 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 are on record co-sponsoring a reform measure that included an individual mandate. And then all of them voted for a measure to declare the individual mandate unconstitutional.

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 ideas at the same time.

—Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

WORST. SMEAR. EVER..... A few weeks ago, some on the right thought they'd found a big new scandal. President Obama nominated Scott Matheson -- law school dean, former Harvard professor, Rhodes scholar, respected attorney, and accomplished federal prosecutor -- to serve on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. For conservatives, the nomination was an attempted bribe of sorts -- Scott Matheson's brother, Jim, is a Utah congressman who was weighing whether to vote for health care reform. The right, as it's prone to do, saw a conspiracy.

Except there wasn't one, as even Republican officials quickly conceded. The whole story was nonsense, and most of the right moved on.

Some didn't get the memo. (thanks to reader G.S.)

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., claimed on Fox News [yesterday] morning that Rep. Jim Matheson switched his position to support health care after the congressman's brother was named to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"In Utah, a member from Utah that voted on the bill, he was against it and then he was for it. What a coincidence that his brother just got named to be a federal judge," Barrasso told Fox's Greta Van Susteren.

First, for a senator to allege a conspiracy of this sort on national television with no proof is truly ridiculous.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, Jim Matheson voted against the health care reform bill. Barrasso, hoping to paint a picture of corruption, said the Democrat "was against it and then he was for it." But if Barrasso had bothered to check before attacking a lawmaker's integrity in front of a national audience, he would have seen that the Democrats voted against reform in November and in March.

A Barrasso spokesperson said late yesterday that the senator "misspoke." If "misspoke" means "falsely accused a member of Congress of accepting a bribe," then sure, Barrasso "misspoke."

Granted, the far-right senator isn't the only one who keeps pushing this unusually stupid conspiracy theory, but Fox News personalities and sitting U.S. senators are held to different standards.

The need for the Republican caucus to clean up its act is becoming overwhelming.

—Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

BROWNOUT.... Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) apparently has a viable plan to stay a Republican superstar: be as ridiculous as possible.

Is Rachel Maddow gunning for Scott Brown's Senate seat? The Massachusetts Republican thinks she is. In a fundraising email sent out Tuesday afternoon, he says the state's Democratic Party is trying to get the MSNBC host to challenge him for his newly acquired Senate seat.

"It's only been a couple of months since I've been in office, and before I've even settled into my new job, the political machine in Massachusetts is looking for someone to run against me," Brown writes. "And you're not going to believe who they are supposedly trying to recruit -- liberal MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow."

Said Brown in a fundraising email: "I'm sure [Maddow's] a nice person -- I just don't think America can afford her liberal politics."

Now, I realize that politicians and various political entities take certain, shall we say, liberties when writing fundraising letters. But making up imaginary rivals is usually the work of desperate fringe groups, not sitting United States senators.

For her part, Rachel addressed the subject in a very amusing segment last night.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If you can't watch clips from your work computer, here's the bottom line: Rachel said, "I have the best job in the world. I'm not running for office. I never said I would run for office. Nobody's asked me to run for office."

On a related note, the conservative Boston Herald has a report today, suggesting the Brown fad is quickly coming to an end. Bill Whalen, a former Republican operative and research fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, compared the GOP senator to Arnold Schwarzenegger, calling both a "political novelty."

—Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

A MUDDLED REPEAL MESSAGE.... While Republican lawmakers tend to struggle in some areas (substance, honesty, integrity, seriousness of purpose, decency), they are not without strengths. As a rule, their most impressive quality is message discipline.

The GOP Powers That Be will decide what party officials and their allies are supposed to say, and Republicans tend to follow the marching orders extremely well. The GOP shapes much of the discourse simply by getting its members to all say the exact same thing, over and over again.

At the same time, however, when Republicans are struggling, it's obvious -- they start muddling their message. Take the health care "repeal" push, for example.

"We will work in every way to repeal this legislation and start over," said House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence, of Indiana.

Moments later, however, Pence said the House GOP was in favor of "repealing and replacing Obamacare with an approach that gives Americans more choices instead of more government."

"There are small elements of the legislation that's moving forward that Republicans have always supported," he said.

Got that? The whole package has to go -- except for those good parts. Which provisions of the new law do Republicans like and plan to keep? They'll have to get back to us on that.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) wants to repeal the whole thing, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is only interested in repealing the "egregious parts." Reps. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Steve King (R-Iowa) demand a full repeal, while National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (R-Tex.) wants to leave the "non-controversial stuff" alone.

Mitt Romney wants to scrap the whole package, while Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) declared, "We always said there are things that we can all agree on in the bill."

Rep. Phil Gringrey (R-Ga.) "does not want" to repeal the whole thing, and Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) see partial repeal as more realistic than the full repeal some of their GOP colleagues are pushing.

Republicans, in other words, are already finding themselves stuck in the repeal trap we've been talking about for months. Party leaders continue to characterize the new law as "Armageddon," but are grudgingly coming to believe some parts of Armageddon may not be that bad after all.

Democrats are not only thrilled, they're seizing on Republicans' discomfort. The DSCC has even set up a "new feature designed to make it easier to track who's called for repeal and who hasn't."

It took a while, but the trap has been set. Republicans can either infuriate their base (which has been misled about health care from the start), or they can alienate the mainstream electorate.

—Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

CASHING IN ON CLASSLESSNESS.... On Sunday, during a surprisingly rousing speech, Rep. Bart Stupak, the pro-life Michigan Democrat, was interrupted by a Republican lawmaker who shouted, "Baby killer!" We learned the next day that Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R) of Texas was responsible for the ugly outburst.

When he fessed up, Neugebauer tried to sound contrite, expressing "deep regret," and apologizing to Stupak. "The timing and tone of my comment last night was inappropriate," the far-right Republican said in a statement.

That was Monday. By Tuesday, Neugebauer decided his misconduct might be lucrative.

One day after admitting he yelled "baby-killer" during Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak's speech before Sunday evening's health care vote, Texas Republican Randy Neugebauer has posted a fundraising video on his campaign web site citing the incident.

"Not only did we see the government take over of your health care, but we saw the lives of unborn children used as a bargaining chip to somehow get the needed votes to pass this legislation," the three-term congressman says in the video, where he's joined by his wife, Dana. Neugebauer also sent a note about the incident, which is posted along with the video on the conservative Red State blog.

So much for "deep regret" and "inappropriate."

I suppose this was predictable. When Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) heckled the president during a speech to a joint session of Congress lasst year, he was initially contrite, too. But his remorse quickly disappeared when Wilson realized he could parlay the controversy into becoming a right-wing cause celebre. It wasn't long before unhinged donors were throwing money at the South Carolinian.

It no doubt occurred to Neugebauer, "Hey, maybe I can be a right-wing cause celebre, too!"

It creates a bizarre dynamic -- GOP extremists now have an incentive to be as boorish as possible, in order to receive rewards from a radical base. Why be an obscure back-bencher in a small caucus when you can act like an idiot and become a Republican star?

"House Republicans continue to reach new lows as they engage in shameless and dishonest fearmongering," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Ryan Rudominer. "There is no line they won't cross if they think it will appeal to right wing extremists."

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

A SLOW-MOTION SHUTDOWN.... Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) told the media on Monday about his outrage over the Democratic majority voting to approve legislation they support. He announced that, going forward, he would tell Dems to stay off his lawn refuse to cooperate in the Senate's legislative process. To punish Democrats for fulfilling their campaign promise to the nation, McCain said, "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year."

We saw the manifestation of this pettiness yesterday, when Republicans used an obscure rule to block any Senate hearings from continuing after 2 p.m. Amanda Terkel reports on the developments that are almost too juvenile to believe.

Today, during a Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing on transparency, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) announced that he had to stop the proceedings because of Republican blocks. [...]

ThinkProgress spoke to a Homeland Committee staffer who said that the committee's work would be significantly disrupted if Republicans refuse to give unanimous consent throughout the week. The AP also reported today that Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) had a hearing on the bark beetle canceled today "after Republicans angry over the passage of health insurance reform legislation blocked it by using an obscure Senate rule requiring a unanimous consent to hold hearings scheduled after 2 p.m."

Democratic staffers on the Hill told ThinkProgress that they anticipate Republicans will not only continue blocking hearings for the rest of the week, but also delay or block all sorts of minor, routine measures.

The country has not seen a congressional minority this pathetic in a very long time. Republicans are effectively shutting down the Senate because a supermajority of the chamber approved legislation the GOP didn't like.

Kevin added, "To call this behavior childish would be an insult to children everywhere. Are we really expected to take a party like this seriously?"

For its part, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) office noted in a statement, "The bottom line is that as millions of Americans are learning about the immediate benefits of health reform, Republicans are throwing a temper tantrum and grinding important Senate business to a halt."

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (54)

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

* Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) believes the Senate can pass the health care reconciliation bill without any changes.

* Right-wing vandalism against the offices of pro-reform lawmakers is a national embarrassment.

* The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a Republican ally, but the USCOC will not support the party's push for repeal of the new health care law.

* Photo of the day.

* Graphic of the day.

* Quote of the day.

* Euphemism of the day.

* Paragraphs of the day, as published last August:

Despite his illness, Senator Kennedy made a forceful appearance at the Democratic convention in Denver, exhorting his party to victory and declaring that the fight for universal health insurance had been "the cause of my life.''

He pursued that cause vigorously, and even as his health declined, he spent days reaching out to colleagues to win support for a sweeping overhaul; when members of Obama's administration questioned the president's decision to spend so much political capital on the seemingly intractable health care issue, Obama reportedly replied, "I promised Teddy.''

* Legislation reforming the way Wall Street operates is headed to the Senate floor.

* A terrific behind-the-scenes look at how the White House approached the health care fight over the last few months.

* A.L. took a look at the state attorneys general's lawsuit against the new health care law: "It is beyond frivolous. I can't believe actual lawyers are willing to sign it."

* Jamie Leigh Jones to get her day in court.

* Worth keeping an eye on: "Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to lead a probe into whether laws were broken after photos of undercover CIA agents were found in the cell of an alleged 9/11 conspirator at Guantanamo."

* Bob Herbert would like to see Republicans address their "absence of class." It's good advice the party will no doubt ignore.

* Thomas Ricks seems to hold Marc Thiessen in low regard, too.

* Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is an unusually foolish man.

* The late Jerry Falwell's right-wing university wants to get in on the litigation against health care reform.

* Paul Krugman is right about Christiane Amanpour, Tom Shales is wrong.

* And I'm delighted to note that the Washington Monthly has been nominated for two Utne Independent Press Awards, in the categories of General Excellence and Political Coverage. It's an honor to be nominated.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)

THE POWER OF MOCKERY.... On Saturday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), a man who believes he should be Speaker of the House in January, declared that passage of health care reform would be "Armageddon." He wasn't kidding.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele echoed the sentiment yesterday. Shep Smith, the token sane person at Fox News, asked Steele, "Armageddon? Seriously?" The RNC leader replied, "Yes!"

President Obama is right to find this worthy of mockery. "Now that this legislation is passed, you don't have to take my word for it," he said this afternoon. "You'll be able to see it in your own lives.

"I heard one of the Republican leaders say this was going to be 'Armageddon.' Well, two months from now, six months from now, you can check it out. We'll look around [Obama starts looking up and around] and we'll see. You don't have to take my word for it."

The audience at the Department of the Interior was amused, and with good reason -- Republicans' policy arguments have become literally laughable.

Given the way the party has chosen to conduct itself, the GOP deserves to be openly mocked by the president. More, please.

—Steve Benen 5:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

CORNYN SEES REPEAL TRAP, HOPES TO AVOID IT.... Republican lawmakers and congressional candidates are going out of their way to talk about how desperate they are to repeal the new health care law. They're making no distinctions or allowances for popular provisions, either -- the buffoonish Pete Hoekstra of Michigan told right-wing supporters, "On January 3 ... we're not going to repeal a part of the bill, we're going to repeal the whole thing with your help."

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who's responsible for the Senate GOP's election-year strategy, told the Huffington Post he doesn't quite see it that way.

"There is non-controversial stuff here like the preexisting conditions exclusion and those sorts of things," the Texas Republican said. "Now we are not interested in repealing that. And that is frankly a distraction."

Nice try, John, but you're too late.

The base is demanding a complete repeal of the new law, and Republican candidates, at a variety of levels, have already embraced it as their election-year message.

Some GOP candidates are willing to back a partial repeal, but remember, as far as the right-wing base is concerned, partial isn't good enough. Indeed, it's something of a sell-out. As Josh Marshall noted not too long ago, "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."

So, by the GOP's own choosing, it's all or nothing. It's a dynamic Dems are thrilled to see.

Cornyn is no doubt worried, because he sees the repeal trap and wants to avoid it. But he should have thought of that before his entire party committed to getting rid of popular health care provisions and a new law that seems to be generating more public support all the time.

—Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

STARTING THE CLOCK IN THE SENATE.... This afternoon, the Senate voted 56 to 40 on the motion to proceed on the health care reconciliation bill, and with that, the clock will start on this week's debate. Senate Republicans, when they were desperate to psych-out House Democrats, argued repeatedly that they would use this last phase of the process to crush key changes/fixes.

Funny, they're not really talking like that anymore.

Republicans are unlikely to force major changes to the measure making final tweaks to healthcare legislation, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said Monday night.

[He] said the GOP would have a difficult time forcing changes to the healthcare reconciliation bill the Senate is expected to take up this week, despite others in the party professing confidence.

"No," Coburn said during an appearance on CNBC when asked if the GOP would be able to stop many elements of the reconciliation bill. "We'll put a few holes in it, but basically it's going to come through here because they've done a good job crafting it."

Now, those "few holes" might matter, at least as far as procedure is concerned. The Senate intends to pass the reconciliation package as-is, without changing so much as a syllable, so it can be sent on to the White House by week's end. Even the most minor of changes would mean the House would have to vote on this one last time before it's done.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) told reporters this morning that edit-free approval is still the goal, but there may be "one or two" changes, though he characterized them as "minor" and inconsequential. To be sure, Senate Dems don't want to have any changes, but Baucus believes these minor adjustments may be necessary based on procedural rulings.

With that in mind, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has already signaled to House members that they should plan to be around this weekend, just in case.

I'm sure they're thrilled.

As for Senate Republicans' next move, Sen. David Vitter, the scandal-plagued far-right Louisianan , offered the GOP's first two amendments this afternoon. The first is a measure to "repeal the government takeover of health care," and the second is "prohibiting use of funds to fund ACORN."

The latter refers to a group that no longer seems to exist.

It sometimes amazes me who actually gets to serve in the world's most deliberative body.

Update: One more thing. Republicans will be offering several liberal amendments, in the hopes of getting Democrats to vote for them and mess up the bill. Progressives won't be fooled, but it's something else to keep an eye on.

—Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

SUCCESS BEGETS SUCCESS.... Lately, the basis for Republican opposition to health care reform has been public opinion polls. Americans didn't like the Democratic proposal, the GOP argument goes, so it deserved to be defeated. Public attitudes on the plan have underscored every Republican argument for weeks.

And in response, proponents of health care reform have been repeating the same prediction: it will get more popular after it passes.

Reader M.B. let me know about a new national poll that suggests proponents were on to something.

Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it.

By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the b