But in the new issue of the Washingtonian, Steele suggests his problems are not of his own making, but rather, are the result of racism.

Steele acknowledges that at times he has a tendency to take things too far. "And I get checked on that, just as when I was a young boy and I pushed the envelope too far and my Mama was there to check me."

But there's an edge to his voice when he talks about a double standard that he believes has been applied by his critics, and he posits racism as the cause: "I don't see stories about the internal operations of the DNC that I see about this operation. Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?"

It's unclear exactly who Steele is accusing of racism. As Greg Sargent noted, "Either Steele is suggesting the media gives more ink to the RNC's inner workings because a black man is chairman, or he's suggesting that fellow Republicans are leaking damaging info about the RNC because a black man is chairman."

That's right, and the difference matters. Either the RNC chairman is lashing out at the media for being racist, or lashing out at his own Republican colleagues for being racist. It'd be interesting to know which. Indeed, if Steele believes his own RNC team is engaged in race-baced leaking, he should say so.

Either way, Steele's comments are curious. For one thing, he's generated more attention because he's always screwing up in some very high-profile way. If Tim Kaine had the same kind of self-destructive tendencies as the RNC chairman, he'd probably be in the news a lot, too. If memory serves, Howard Dean's tenure at the DNC sparked all kinds of media coverage when Dean would push the rhetorical envelope a bit.

For another, Steele has said, repeatedly, that he's offended by attempts to play the "race card." Is that no longer operative?

In some circles, it's come to be known as the "cash-and-trash" strategy -- Republicans hate the stimulus package and "trash" it at every available opportunity, but love the stimulus package and grab the "cash" when it comes to creating jobs in their own states/districts. It's been going on for a year, but the phenomenon keeps spreading.

And becoming even more humiliating.

Sen. Christopher S. Bond regularly railed against President Obama's economic stimulus plan as irresponsible spending that would drive up the national debt. But behind the scenes, the Missouri Republican quietly sought more than $50 million from a federal agency for two projects in his state.

Mr. Bond was not alone. More than a dozen Republican lawmakers, while denouncing the stimulus to the media and their constituents, privately sent letters to just one of the federal government's many agencies seeking stimulus money for home-state pork projects.

The letters to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, expose the gulf between lawmakers' public criticism of the overall stimulus package and their private lobbying for projects close to home.

"It's not illegal to talk out of both sides of your mouth, but it does seem to be a level of dishonesty troubling to the American public," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

This report is pretty astounding. More than a dozen GOP lawmakers who said the recovery package is simply incapable of creating jobs and generating economic growth pleaded with the Agriculture Department to spend stimulus dollars in their areas to "create jobs" and "spur economic opportunities." In several instances, far-right lawmakers would publicly condemn the very idea of economic stimulus efforts and request stimulus dollars within a few days of each other.

And remember, this is just one agency of the administration. It's very likely that many more Republican lawmakers who opposed the recovery package also reached out to other agencies, convinced that the money would do wonders in their state/district.

DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse said this morning that "this is a new hypocritical low." He added, "Republicans who opposed the recovery act and then requested money from it or attended ribbon cuttings for projects in their states are either admitting that they were wrong about the legislation from the beginning, that they were simply playing politics with their vote or that they are hypocrites -- take your pick."

Those lawmakers who insisted the stimulus wouldn't work, and that federal spending couldn't possibly be good for the economy, can send their apologies to: President Obama, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue....

In response, instead of adapting their argument to reality, GOP attack dogs have decided that the "more than 300" number has to be a trumped up number and 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."

So, who's right? Newsweek's Mark Hosenball sets the record straight.

Maybe it's time to stop some of the name calling over counter-terrorism policy and start checking the facts....

[I]t turns out that the Administration's claims do appear to be well-documented -- assuming that an official budget request sent to Congress by Bush's last attorney general was truthful itself.

Yes, the figure Republicans insist was manufactured by the Obama administration was actually published in the budget released by Bush's Justice Department. The document put the exact number of terrorists convicted through the civilian courts since 2001 at 319.

Indeed, George W. Bush actually used to boast about these numbers, delivering a speech in 2003 explaining that "more than 260 suspected terrorists have been charged in the United States courts, [and] more than 140 have already been convicted."

Of course, the point here isn't just to mock Republicans for being wrong about the nature of the data. That's amusing, but it's not enough.

The more meaningful angle here is that Bush/Cheney tried hundreds of terrorists in civilian American courts -- without incident -- and then imprisoned these terrorists on American soil. No one complained, no one freaked out, no one got hysterical. But now that Obama is keeping the same practice in place, it's the subject of a huge debate, and the same policy that was considered perfectly acceptable as part of a "war on terror" is now perceived as proof of weakness.

The question, then, for Republicans isn't, "Will you concede that the 300 figure is legit?" but rather, "Will you start being consistent in how you assess the exact same policy?"

* Any chance Illinois State Comptroller Dan Hynes, who narrowly lost to Gov. Pat Quinn in a Democratic gubernatorial primary last week, would replace Scott Lee Cohen as Quinn's running mate? Hynes apparently isn't interested.

* Speaking of Illinois, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D), arguably the most popular statewide officeholder in the state, will serve as chairman of Alexi Giannoulias's (D) Senate campaign.

* Former Sen. Dan Coats (R) has shaken up the Senate race in Indiana, but if he follows through on his plans, he won't have a direct shot at Sen. Evan Bayh (D) -- former Rep. John Hostettler (R) has vowed to stay in the race and compete against Coats in a primary.

* Keep an eye on Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), this year's chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. The DCCC believes Sessions really is vulnerable this year.

* Speaking of Texas, the latest Public Policy Polling survey shows a competitive three-way race in the Republican gubernatorial primary. Incumbent Gov. Rick Perry leads with 39% support, followed by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison at 28%, and novice/right-wing activist Debra Medina close behind with 24%. If no candidate receives 50%, there will be a run-off.

* Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who seems oddly serious about running for president in 2012, endorsed Marco Rubio's Senate campaign in Florida yesterday. It's become something of a litmus test in far-right circles -- if you don't back Rubio, the GOP base won't trust you.

* In South Carolina, state Rep. Tim Scott (R) was running for lieutenant governor, but ended his campaign yesterday to run for Congress. If elected, Scott would be the first African-American Republican in the House since J.C. Watts, who left Congress nearly eight years ago.

* And in Mississippi, former Fox News commentator and Tea Party activist Angela McGlowan (R) announced yesterday that she's running for Congress in Mississippi's 1st district. McGlowan hopes to take on Rep. Travis Childers (D), but will join a crowded GOP primary.

The CIA reportedly succeeded in killing the head of the Pakistani Taliban -- the most recent in a flurry of drone attacks the agency has launched in South Asia and the Middle East. Another strike in Pakistan reportedly took out one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists; another in Pakistan took out a master bomb-maker for the al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines, Abu Sayyaf; and a strike in Yemen targeted a senior military leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the group behind the Christmas Day attack (his fate has yet to be determined).

President Barack Obama's escalation of drone strikes is one area in the counterterrorism fight where he has earned plaudits from even his most vocal critics on the right. Hold the applause. Obama's escalation of the "Predator War" comes at the very same time he has eliminated the CIA's capability to capture senior terrorist leaders alive and interrogate them for information on new attacks.

I see. The conservative line for the better part of a year is that President Obama isn't doing enough to go after terrorists. Reality shows the exact opposite is true, but for the right, this is an inconvenient detail best ignored.

If Thiessen's piece is any indication, however, the argument is now shifting. President Obama is doing too much to go after terrorists, and is taking out too many bad guys before they can be captured and tortured.

I can see the campaign slogans now: "Vote GOP: Obama kills too many terrorists."

Matt Yglesias, who's been doing a fine job making Thiessen look painfully foolish of late, added, "[Thiessen] thinks torture is an excellent thing, and like the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition he thinks it's morally obligatory for the government to torture people. From inside this twisted mental space, the notion that killing terrorists is too soft on terror starts to make sense. After all, in Thiessenland it's better to let four terrorists go free if that lets you torture a fifth. That's just how awesome he thinks torture is. But he won't write the word 'torture' or say clearly 'the problem with Obama killing these terrorists is that he should be torturing them.'"

Post Script: Just as an aside, Thiessen noted the president has "earned plaudits" from the right for striking at terrorists. He disagrees with the praise, but stated as fact that conservatives have lauded Obama's efforts. I'm not at all sure that's true. Has there been a spate of praise for the administration's counter-terrorism efforts that has snuck quietly under the radar? Where have these conservative "plaudits" been hiding the past year?

Nevertheless, Palin still feels comfortable talking about foreign policy, and even giving advice to the president. Over the weekend, for example, Palin said President Obama would be in much better shape if only he'd initiate a war against Iran. Another U.S. invasion of a Middle Eastern country, she seriously argued, would ensure the president's re-election.

"Say [the president] played, and I got this from [Pat] Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. [...]

"I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today."

Palin "got this" from "reading" one of Pat Buchanan's columns -- apparently this one, headlined, "Will Obama Play The War Card?"

The problem, of course, is that Palin didn't get quite past the headline. Buchanan argued against going to war with Iran. While Daniel Pipes said invading Iran would be a boon to Obama's presidency, Buchanan argued the opposite.

It's a shame mildly-sophisticated foreign policy ideas -- such as who supports which war -- can't fit on the palm of a hand.

Sarah Palin's capacity to be a constant embarrassment to herself is limitless.

As the article explained, Democrats are trying to bring new levels of oversight and accountability to Wall Street, which in turn has prompted the GOP to "step up their campaign" to win campaign contributions from the financial industry. As Republicans make the case, if Wall Street gives the GOP cash, Republicans stand a better chance of making things easier on those who nearly brought down the global financial system.

It was almost comical to read. More importantly, though, the efforts appear to be working.

While [JPMorgan Chase] has contributed to some individual Democrats and state organizations, it has rebuffed solicitations from the national Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. Instead, it gave $30,000 to their Republican counterparts.

The shift reflects the hard political edge to the industry's campaign to thwart Mr. Obama's proposals for tighter financial regulations.

So, let me get this straight. The financial industry took truly insane risks with the global economy, and their irresponsible misconduct brought about economic collapse. Democrats are, with varying degrees of urgency, trying to bring some levels of common sense and accountability to the system, in order to prevent future catastrophes.

And as a result, Wall Street, its corporate lobbyists, and congressional Republicans have teamed up to block reform and prevent new rules from becoming law, and the GOP is being rewarded with huge campaign checks.

Conservatives, who somehow claim to be economic populists, are on board with all of this, and the electorate, which is presumably livid with Wall Street, is poised to reward the political party that stands with those who brought the global system to the brink of collapse, and reject efforts to prevent another crisis.

It's quite a system we have here.

Yesterday, Shelby backed off -- for the most part.

Senator Richard Shelby, the Republican from Alabama, today lifted many of his holds on nominations to administration posts by President Obama that require Senate confirmation.

The move may temper a threat by Democratic leaders in the Senate -- and even the White House -- that the administration would make recess appointments during next week's Presidents' Day break, bucking any notion of senators' approval.

Or it may not. Shelby released his blanket hold on all pending nominees, but he's still blocking President Obama's choices for the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force; Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and Under Secretary of the Air Force.

The Pentagon needs those offices filled, and can't wait for a far-right senator -- who claims to want less government spending -- to get paid off in pork. The White House would certainly be justified in filling those vacancies in the face of unprecedented Republican obstructionism, with Congress breaking for a brief recess this weekend.

As for the larger context, Shelby's office said the conservative senator pulled this stunt "to get the White House's attention." I suppose that was effective -- the scheme was hard to miss -- but ultimately futile. Shelby dropped most of his holds in exchange for nothing, and in the process, became the poster child of Republican excess and corruption of the political process.

That he backed down at all just a few days after launching his stunt suggests Dems were at least somewhat effective in embarrassing Shelby. With that in mind, the majority party should keep up its efforts to shine a light on GOP tactics that have gone out of control.

Last year, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) blocked a Senate vote on Becker's nomination. So, the president re-nominated him last month. After Massachusetts' special election, the nomination was in peril, but late yesterday, the Democrats' most conservative senator crushed any hopes of overcoming Republican obstructionism.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) announced Monday evening that he will support a Republican-led filibuster over President Barack Obama's nominee to serve on the National Labor Relations Board.

The move is likely to infuriate labor groups who have fought hard for Craig Becker's nomination to serve on the five-member NLRB -- and will likely give Republicans enough support to sustain a filibuster Tuesday.

Nelson, in a statement, accused Becker of wanting to "take an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB." As a result, Nelson not only decided to oppose Becker's nomination, but insists on preventing the Senate from even having a vote on the nomination.

As frustrating as this is, also keep in mind that Nelson is actually taking a harder line on Obama's nominees than Bush's. Sam Stein reminds us of this report from May.

During the Bush/Cheney era, Nelson decried obstructionism, found filibusters against George W. Bush's nominees offensive, and routinely voted with Republicans to cut off Democratic efforts. He explained that he believed Bush's nominees "deserve an up-or-down vote," even when the person in question "isn't popular with the special-interest groups in Washington."

So, when Democrats raised concerns about John Bolton's U.N. nomination and Alberto Gonzales's Attorney General nomination, for example, Nelson sided with Republicans against filibusters. Now, however, there's a Democratic president, and Nelson is siding with Republicans in support of filibusters.

In other words, a senator who claims to be a Democrat will not let a Democratic Senate vote, up or down, on some of a Democratic president's nominees. It's not enough to vote against them, Nelson wants to prevent his own Democratic colleagues from voting on them at all.

This from a man who claims to oppose "obstructionism."

By late yesterday afternoon, however, Republican leaders were weighing whether to show up for the summit at all.

Leading House Republicans raised the prospect Monday night that they may decline to participate in President Obama's proposed health-care summit if the White House chooses not to scrap the existing reform bills and start over.

In a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) expressed frustration about reports that Obama intends to put the Democratic bills on the table for discussion at the summit, which would be held Feb. 25.

Republicans are effectively arguing that the only way to talk about the health care reform proposal is to ensure that there is no health care reform proposal. The plan that was crafted over months of debate, hearings, analysis, and scrutiny -- the one endorsed by the American Medical Association, American Nurses Association, American Cancer Society, and the AARP -- has to be thrown in the trash immediately or Republicans aren't interested in having a conversation.

This was especially rich.

In their letter, Boehner and Cantor called on Obama to take reconciliation off the table as a "show good faith" to the GOP.

"Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people," the letter said.

I see. Republicans would be more willing to talk about health care reform if the president agrees in advance to give Republicans the opportunity to kill health care reform.

Tell you what, GOP. You take the filibuster off the table as a "show of good faith" and I'm sure Democrats would be willing to take reconciliation off the table as a "show of good faith." What do you say?

For its part, the White House seems unimpressed by the Boehner/Cantor letter, and does not appear inclined to meet the GOP's demands for "ground rules."

In the larger context, it's a reminder that the summit invitation puts Republicans in an awkward spot. If they participate, they'll very likely lose the policy debate. If they reject the invitation, they'll look petty and small (even more so than usual), giving Dems ammunition to further characterize the GOP as knee-jerk partisans, unwilling to even have an open and bipartisan conversation.

* Iran: "Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency on Monday that it will start producing higher-grade enriched uranium, prompting the United States and France to call for tougher U.N. sanctions against the country."

* Tehran fails to impress: "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Saturday played down assertions by Iran that it is ready to reach a deal on its nuclear program, saying Tehran's overall response to overtures from the Obama administration has been 'quite disappointing.'"

* Anthem Blue Cross in California is jacking up its health care premiums by as much as 39% next month. The Obama administration wants "a detailed justification for these rate increases to the public."

* Ukraine: "The opposition leader Viktor F. Yanukovich appeared on Monday to have won a narrow victory in Ukraine's presidential election, according to nearly complete results, giving him an unlikely comeback from his humiliating defeat in the 2004 Orange Revolution, when he was shunned as a bumbling Kremlin sidekick."

* Why the European debt crisis matters to the United States.

* After the explosion at the Kleen Energy Systems: "All workers at a Connecticut power plant that exploded have been accounted for, leaving the death toll at five and the number of injured at 12, the mayor of Middletown said on Monday."

* Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was asked if the U.S. is at risk of losing its triple-A bond rating. "Absolutely not," he replied. "And that will never happen to this country. When people were most worried about the stability of the world, they still found safety in the Treasuries and the dollar. That is a very, very important sign of basic confidence in our capacity as a country to work together to fix these problems."

* Matt Yglesias explains why President Obama is having far more success than the conventional wisdom suggests.

* Getting a sense of what and whether college students actually learned after four years.

* Retired Col. David Hunt, a Fox News military analyst, is generally pretty conservative. But he supports the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and criticized John McCain on the air over the issue.

* Fact checking the Sunday shows.

* No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

* Remember that awful Reuters report about the Obama budget and "backdoor" taxes that don't exist in reality? The reporter who wrote it is no longer at Reuters.

* I tend to think Sarah Palin writing her beliefs on her palm is a fun little side story, but it never occurred to me the defense that Fox News would come up with. Gretchen Carlson "suggested that it was a brilliantly clever plot to draw attention to Obama's use of a teleprompter." Oh my.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Collins said officials only interrogated Abdulmutallab for 50 minutes. That was wrong. She said Abdulmutallab "stopped talking" after having been told of his rights. That was wrong. Collins suggested Abdulmutallab only began cooperating "in the context of plea negotiations." That was wrong. She said there "was no consultation with intelligence officials" about the questioning. And that was wrong .

More recently, Collins has emphasized her outrage over the Obama administration's decision to make Abdulmutallab aware of his rights (the same step taken by the Bush/Cheney administration in a nearly identical terrorist plot in 2001). Except, she, too, was briefed on the arrest by a top Homeland Security official, and raised no concerns about the legal process.

This afternoon, a Collins spokesperson, without a hint of irony, accused the Obama administration of trying to cover its "mistake."

It is offensive, to Senator Collins and the American people, that the Obama Administration is more concerned with political spin to cover a mistake than with taking the actions urgently needed to improve our nation's security. Clearly, the Administration is trying to divert attention from the fact that it interrogated a foreign terrorist for less than one hour before the Justice Department unilaterally decided to Mirandize him and he stopped talking.

Senator Collins calls on the Obama Administration to immediately change its policies and ensure consultation with top intelligence and security officials before treating the capture of the next foreign terrorist as only a civilian law enforcement matter. She will continue to press for her bipartisan legislation that mandates this consultation.

When we cut through the nonsense and cheap talking points, what we're left with is Collins, after making a series of demonstrably false claims, complaining that the Justice Department didn't coordinate further with other agencies on how best to deal with Abdulmutallab. That's it. That's all that's left from the original argument.

But, again, this is foolish. For one thing, the Obama administration has applied the exact same procedures as Bush/Cheney, and Collins never expressed this outrage before. For another, as Attorney General Eric Holder explained last week, "No agency supported the use of law of war detention for Abdulmutallab, and no agency has since advised the Department of Justice that an alternative course of action should have been, or should now be, pursued."

What we're left with, then, is Susan Collins making a mistake by falsely criticizing the administration, and then digging deeper with a series of even more absurd false criticisms.

She should have quit while she was behind. As this story has dragged on, Collins has sounded less like a reasonable, moderate, influential senator and more like a rookie House member trying to impress Fox News producers. As Josh Marshall noted recently, Collins' criticisms have turned her into something of "an embarrassment."

Congressman John P. Murtha (PA-12) passed away peacefully this afternoon at 1:18 p.m. at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, VA. At his bedside was his family.

Murtha, 77, was Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

First elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in February of 1974, Murtha dedicated his life to serving his country both in the military and in the halls of Congress. A former Marine, he became the first Vietnam War combat Veteran elected to the U.S. Congress.

This past Saturday, February 6, 2010, Murtha became Pennsylvania's longest serving Member of Congress.

Murtha's career -- both as a war hero and as an accomplished lawmaker -- has been rather extraordinary, but when I think of him, I immediately turn to the moment in 2005 when Murtha decided he'd made a mistake in supporting the war in Iraq and began calling for an end to the conflict. It made him a hero to many the Bush administration's critics, but just as important, Murtha's stand represented something of a turning point -- if someone of his reputation, stature, and experience, especially on defense issues, came to believe the war was a mistake, it made it easier for others to reach the same conclusion.

For his trouble, Republicans literally accused Murtha -- a decorated combat veteran -- of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." Murtha nevertheless refused to back down. It was a defining characteristic of his adult life.

As for what happens next to his congressional seat, there will apparently be a special election, and given recent trends, it appears Pennsylvania's 12th will be a pick-up opportunity for Republicans, which in turn may make approving legislation like health care reform that much more difficult. [Update: Chris Cillizza reports: "According to state law, the governor has ten days once the vacancy is officially declared to decide on the date of a special election, which can come no sooner than 60 days following that proclamation. That likely means the special election will be held on May 18, which is the date already set for federal primaries around the state."]

But those additional angles will be fleshed out in time. For today, it's enough to say that Congress has lost one of its bravest leaders, and his presence on the Hill will be missed.

For many years, Republicans sought steep cuts in Medicare, which Democrats fought vehemently against. Last year, Dems crafted a health care reform plan that was financed in part by savings in the Medicare program, prompting counter-intuitive cries from the GOP: "They're trying to cut Medicare!" Last week, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, unveiled a GOP budget blueprint that slashes Medicare to the extent that the program as we know it would practically be eliminated.

But when the parties talk about taking money out of Medicare, they have very different ideas in mind. Jonathan Cohn had a very helpful explanation on this today.

For starters, the Democrats' reductions don't appear to be as large as what's envisioned in the [Republican "Roadmap" strategy]. Also, under the Democratic plan, most seniors would still be getting their coverage directly from the government, which has lower overhead than private sector insurers. So every dollar the Democrats spend on seniors would actually go a little further.

No less important, the Democratic plans wouldn't simply slash spending and let the market sort itself out. Instead, the Medicare cuts are part of a broader package of reforms designed to change the way Medicare pays for services. These reforms are designed to reward efficiency (by, for example, paying more to doctors that join integrated group practices) while penalizing inefficiency (by, for example, paying less to hospitals with high rates of infection or, eventually, paying less money for drugs that don't work that well). They are also designed, quite frankly, to push down the prices that providers charge.

This is a critical difference. If you simply reduce the money flowing into Medicare, relying only on the wits of beneficiaries to figure out how best to spend what's left, seniors are bound to end up with less care. That's the Republican method. But if you also introduce system-wide changes that reward more efficient care and force down provider prices, the dollars in the program really might go farther -- so that spending less doesn't always mean getting less. That's the Democratic approach.

A GOP lawmaker told Roll Call the other day, "There's a lot of worry that we beat the Democrats up on health care for cutting Medicare and now we're going to turn around and do it."

That's true, but it's incomplete -- the Dems' cuts are defensible and intended to help the system and seniors. The Republicans' cuts? Not so much.

But even as the snow begins to melt, it's unclear if Republican obstructionism will thaw enough to even allow the Senate to vote on the proposal. It's tempting to think that even the GOP, as far gone as it is, would have to be crazy to block a jobs bill when unemployment is nearly 10%. Given that Dems have included a variety of tax cuts in their plan, it seems like even reflexively right-wing lawmakers would at least allow a vote on the nation's most important issue.

But, at this point, the threat of Republicans blocking a vote on a jobs bill remains very real. Brian Beutler added:

...Democrats still don't have enough votes to overcome a filibuster, and unless they can win over at least one Republican, they may adjourn this coming weekend empty-handed.

What's the hang up? Republicans are working with Democrats on one key aspect of the legislation: tax relief for employers who hire new employees. But beyond such a measure, Republicans are balking at supporting a full package.

It seems, then, that we're left with a familiar dynamic -- Republicans will allow a vote on a bill that gives them what they want, but nothing else.

This seems like it should be political suicide, given the public's hopes for an improved jobs landscape, but Senate Republicans hope Americans just won't be knowledgeable enough to know the difference. The public, they assume, won't know that the GOP is blocking a modest jobs bill, and won't know that a 59-vote majority isn't enough to pass legislation.

And they may very well be right. But let's not forget that if Republicans won't even let the Senate consider a modest jobs bill, filled with GOP-friendly tax cuts, in the midst of an employment crisis, how is it that any bill on any issue at any time can reasonably be expected to pass? For that matter, how is it that the Democratic majority can reasonably be expected to work with the discredited minority as if they were serious about addressing the nation's challenges?