Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* In a new video, Jim Messina, President Obama's campaign manager, notes that the campaign raised $43.6 million in April, which is down from March's totals.

* In Wisconsin, the latest Daily Kos/Public Policy Polling survey shows Gov. Scott Walker (R) ahead by five in his recall fight against Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D), 50% to 45%. The election is three weeks away.

* Gallup asked respondents to put aside personal preferences and predict who would win the 2012 presidential election. Obama led Mitt Romney, 56% to 36%.

* Karl Rove's attack operation, super PAC Crossroads GPS, is launching a 10-state, $25 million ad buy, attacking Obama's economic policies.

* In New Hampshire, Public Policy Polling shows Obama leading Romney by 12, 53% to 41%.

* In New Jersey, Quinnipiac shows Obama with a healthy lead over Romney, a dynamic that wouldn't change if Gov. Chris Christie (R) is added to the ticket.

* On a related note, incumbent New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez (D) leads his Republican challenger, state Sen. Joseph Kyrillos, 45% to 35%.

* New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) has already withdrawn from VP speculation, but she moved even further away this week when she mocked Romney's preferred immigration policy. "'Self-deport?' What the heck does that mean?" she asked.

Associated Press

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) yesterday said he would do in 2013 exactly what he did in 2011: use the debt ceiling to hold the nation hostage. As Boehner sees it, Democrats have to give in, or he'll trash the full faith and credit of the United States and crash the economy on purpose.

And why did Boehner declare his intentions in mid-May? Because the Speaker is trying to shape upcoming tax-policy negotiations, applying leverage to get what he wants. The problem, as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner noted yesterday, is that Boehner's calendar doesn't quite work.

At the end of this year, an enormous fight is looming over taxes and revenue, when all of the Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire, just as major spending cuts from the debt-ceiling agreement are set to begin. This doesn't directly relate to the debt-ceiling fight, but Boehner wants it to -- yesterday was partly about sending a signal to the White House. The Speaker was effectively saying, "I'm holding a gun to the nation's head; if you don't want me to pull the trigger, don't push for any tax increases."

But Geithner spoke at the same fiscal summit, and said something interesting.

"[O]n the current estimates ... we're likely to hit the debt limit sometime before the end of the year, but Congress has given the executive branch a set of tools that buy [administration officials] some time. And those tools will probably take us into the early part of 2013, thus separating somewhat the timing of the expiry of the tax cuts and the sequester with the ultimate need for Congress to act on the debt limit. You know, they should do it as soon as they can, but that's the basic sequence in this context."

That may sound a little clunky, but in everyday terms, the Treasury Secretary was explaining that policymakers will be dealing with expiring tax cuts and triggered spending cuts in December, but won't be dealing with the debt ceiling until January and February.

Boehner wants to tie the debt limit to the December discussion, but the administration has no reason to play along. Indeed, at this point, we don't even know who'll be the President or the House Speaker the next time the ceiling needs to be raised.

To be sure, the variables may change, and as Brian Beutler noted, if federal receipts slow, the deadline for the debt-ceiling vote may come much sooner.

But for now, Boehner has a strategy that he probably won't be able to execute.

If you're going to present arguments based on anecdotes, make sure the anecdotes say what you want them to say.

Last month, Mitt Romney blamed President Obama for a closed drywall plant in Ohio, but the facility was shut down during the Bush era. This week, the Romney campaign released a video showing a closed Electrolux plant in Iowa, but the company has added more American jobs than it had lost.

Romney also released this video about Steel Dynamics, which benefited in part from an investment by Bain Capital.

The point of the clip isn't subtle: Romney wants voters to overlook all the mass layoffs he orchestrated at his vulture-capital firm, and instead focus on some relative success stories. The minute-long ad even tells the viewer that Steel Dynamics is a "perfect entrepreneurial story."

But this anecdote isn't quite what Romney wants it do be.

What Romney doesn't mention is that Steel Dynamics also received generous tax breaks and other subsidies provided by the state of Indiana and the residents of DeKalb County, where the company's first mill was built.

The story of Bain and Steel Dynamics illustrates how Romney, during his business career, made avid use of public-private partnerships, something that many conservatives consider to be "corporate welfare."

The former governor, on the campaign trail, likes to tell voters that government "gets in the way of creating jobs." Romney apparently didn't feel this way when he relied on government handouts as part of his private business deals.

The Steel Dynamics example is especially interesting -- the community even had to levy a new income tax to help finance Romney's venture. I wonder why the ad overlooked this detail.

What's more, Steel Dynamics isn't some isolated story from Romney's past that he would just as soon see us overlook; this is a story that Romney considers proof of his job-creating expertise. The takeaway, apparently, is that the presumptive Republican nominee wants government to get out of the way of the private sector, but only after the government gave Romney some handouts that helped boost his profits.

"This is corporate welfare," said Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst with the Washington-based Cato Institute, which encourages free-market economic policies. DeHaven, who is familiar with corporate tax subsidies in Indiana and other states, called the incentives Steel Dynamics received "an example of the government stepping into the marketplace, picking winners and losers, providing profits to business owners and leaving taxpayers stuck with the bill."

So, Romney is eager to end the same policies he used to boost his own profits, and now he's bragging about one of the more notable examples in a campaign commercial.

Got it.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Newark Mayor Cory Booker have made a parody video. From the New Jersey press:

The three-and-a-half minute video unveiled Tuesday night at the New Jersey Legislative Correspondents Club dinner shows the Republican governor being thwarted at do-gooding by Booker. The mayor fixes the governor's flat tire, catches a falling baby and backs up Bruce Springsteen after the music star loses a guitar, each time telling Christie, "I got this!"

Not to take the fun out, but when we watched this at my house, our reaction went from Hey, that governor who snarls at town halls and wants the majority to vote on our rights seems so likeable to something more along the lines of Wow, he knows exactly what he's doing.

Associated Press

Romney's magic act in Iowa yesterday.

Mitt Romney delivered a curious speech in Iowa yesterday, presenting his thoughts on the budget deficit, the debt and debt reduction, which is worth reading if you missed it. We often talk about the problem of the left and right working from entirely different sets of facts, and how the discourse breaks down when there's no shared foundation of reality, and the Republican's remarks offered a timely peek into an alternate reality where facts have no meaning.

Even the topic itself is a strange choice for Romney. If the former governor is elected, he'll inherit a $1 trillion deficit and a $15 debt, which he'll respond to by approving massive new tax cuts and increasing Pentagon spending. How will he pay for this? No one has the foggiest idea.

In other words, the guy who intends to add trillions to the debt gave a speech yesterday on the dangers of adding trillions to the debt.

More importantly, though, Romney presented a vision of the last few years that bears absolutely no resemblance to reality at any level. Jon Chait had a good piece on the remarks.

Mitt Romney delivered a speech today about the budget deficit. It’s hard to wrap your arms around Romney’s argument, because it’s an amalgamation of free-floating conservative rage and anxiety, completely untethered to any facts, as agreed upon by the relevant experts.

In the real world, the following things are true: The budget deficit was projected to top $1 trillion even before President Obama took office, and that was when forecasters were still radically underestimating the depth of the 2008 crash. Obama did propose temporary deficit-increasing measures, an economic approach endorsed in its general contours, if not its particulars, by Romney’s economists. These measures contributed a relatively small proportion to the deficit, and their effect is short-lived. Obama instead focused on longer-term measures to reduce the deficit, including comprehensive health-care reform projected to reduce deficits by a trillion dollars in its second decade. Obama put forward a budget plan that would stabilize the debt as a percentage of the economy. Obama has hoped to achieve deeper long-term deficit reduction by striking bipartisan deals with Congress, and he has tried to achieve this goal by openly endorsing a bipartisan deficit plan in the Senate and privately agreeing to a more conservative plan with John Boehner, both of which were killed by Republican opposition to any higher revenue.

The story told by Romney is one in which all of these things are either untrue or could not possibly be true.

I don't think Mitt Romney is stupid. I do think Romney is operating from the assumption that voters are stupid.

In Romney's speech, the deficit is responsible for a tepid economic recovery. That doesn't make any sense -- and I suspect the former governor knows that -- but he's counting on you not knowing the difference. What's more, he's avoiding interviews with journalists who might ask him to explain why on earth such arguments should be taken seriously.

In Romney's speech, the deficit can be dramatically reduced magically, even while cutting taxes on the wealthy and increasing spending on defense. How? Apparently, we're not supposed to ask.

In Romney's speech, "spending" has created a "financial crisis" (that's gibberish). In Romney's speech, the size of government has exploded to new heights (the opposite is true). In Romney's speech, the deficit is growing (it's actually shrinking). In Romney's speech, President Obama doesn't care about fiscal responsibility (Obama offered Republicans an overly-generous $4 trillion debt-reduction package, which the GOP rejected). In Romney's speech, Bush-era policies have absolutely nothing to do with Obama-era deficits (ahem).

In Romney's speech, everything we know about the Recovery Act should be replaced with talking points that don't make sense.

Watching the Republican's remarks, I was annoyed by the breathtaking dishonesty, but I was also struck by something that seemed rather new to me: Romney's immaturity. His arguments weren't just wrong; they were silly. If the political discourse were in any way grounded in fact, this was the kind of speech that would laugh Romney off the national stage, with sensible people agreeing that the guy just isn't ready for the big kids' table. Grown-ups don't feel the need to create fantasy lands where their wishes are true.

The speech seemed like it had been written by a high-school student who's preoccupied with Rush Limbaugh's radio show and assorted right-wing Twitter feeds. I couldn't take Romney seriously yesterday because Romney no longer cares enough to take himself seriously.

We got a peek into an alternate reality yesterday, and it appears that Romney Land is a deeply foolish place.

A few weeks ago, the Senate approved the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act fairly easily, with a 68 to 31 vote. Though all 31 opponents were Republican men, the measure enjoyed at least some bipartisan support.

But the measure still has to get through the Republican-led House, which will vote on its own, watered-down version of VAWA today. The White House, hoping to make matters clear to the lower chamber, issued a veto threat yesterday, saying the House GOP version is unacceptable.

The House GOP bill is stripped of expanded protections included in the Senate-passed version, which extends coverage to gay, bisexual, and transgender victims of domestic abuse.

"For instance, H.R. 4970 fails to provide for concurrent special domestic-violence criminal jurisdiction by tribal authorities over non-Indians, and omits clarification of tribal courts' full civil jurisdiction regarding certain protection orders over non-Indians," the White House said in a statement.

"The bill also fails to include language that would prohibit discrimination against LGBT victims in VAWA grant programs. No sexual-assault or domestic-violence victim should be beaten, hurt, or killed because they could not access needed support, assistance, and protection."

The Violence Against Women Act has been a bipartisan success story for nearly two decades, and this year's reauthorization was not expected to be one of the year's more contentious disputes. But the Senate version, co-written by a liberal Democrat (Vermont's Pat Leahy) and a conservative Republican (Idaho's Mike Crapo), is apparently too much for the House.

So, the Republicans have gutted the Senate version. Indeed, the House proposal "adds burdensome, counter-productive requirements that compromise the ability of service providers to reach victims, fails to adequately protect Tribal victims, lacks important protection and services for LGBT victims, weakens resources for victims living in subsidized housing, and eliminates important improvements to address dating violence and sexual assault on college campuses. Among the most troubling components of this bill are those that jettison and drastically undercut existing and important, long-standing protections that remain vital to the safety and protection of battered immigrant victims."

House Republicans are likely to pass their version anyway, sending VAWA to a conference committee. Time will tell how that turns out. But in the meantime, when it comes to assessing the GOP's efforts to undermine women's interests in 2012, the fact that Republicans are putting the Violence Against Women Act in jeopardy clearly deserves a place on a very long list.

Associated Press

For months, the Republican U.S. Senate primary in Nebraska has been a bitter proxy fight, pitting the GOP establishment's choice, state Attorney General Jon Bruning against the even-more-far-right state Treasurer Don Stenberg. The two waged a bruising battle for nearly a year, but as recently as two weeks ago, it looked like Bruning would get the nod.

Who won? Oddly enough, neither of them.

In a dramatic, come-from-behind dash to the finish line late Tuesday evening, state Sen. Deb Fischer of Valentine laid claim to the Republican Senate nomination.

Her late surge, perhaps unprecedented in modern-day Nebraska political history, upended a Senate race that appeared to be settled as recently as 10 days ago with the GOP prize within the grasp of Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning.

One almost needed a scorecard to keep up with the competing contingents. First there was Bruning, an experienced and well-funded statewide candidate recruited by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, backed by the party establishment at the state and national level. Then there was Stenberg, who enjoyed the support of Jim DeMint, Rick Santorum, the Club for Growth, and FreedomWorks.

And finally there was Fischer, who had Sarah Palin's backing, and financial support from Joe Ricketts, the wealthy AmeriTrade founder, who paid for some late attack ads targeting Bruning's character.

As the dust settled last night, Fischer beat Bruning by four points, 40% to 36%, with Stenberg finishing a distant third, despite $2 million in spending from right-wing groups. Fischer will face former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D), who's trying to make a comeback after several years away from his native Nebraska. Fischer is arguably the favorite in this "red" state, but in light of the GOP primary results, Democrats are more optimistic about the race than they were a few days ago.

In terms of the larger lessons from this primary fight, we learned that Jim DeMint and the Club for Growth aren't nearly the kingmakers they thought they were, but more importantly, we also learned that the Republican establishment, after losing badly in Indiana last week, and suffering a series of embarrassments in 2010, is far weaker than many realized.

Indeed, in 2014, how much sway will the NRSC have when it tries to recruit candidates? Given its recent track record, very little.

Romney's formal rivals try to airbrush their past criticism of him. The thing is? The internet is forever.

Sen. John McCain wants campaign finance reform again. So who does he huddle with? Not Republicans.

Americans Elect gives up the dream of a viable third party for 2012.

The House votes on its version of the Violence Against Women Act, which specifically does not include protections for illegal immigrants, gay people and Native Americans.

The Army today allows female soldiers into formerly all-male combat units. 

Indianans Hoosiers unite to protest the bullying of a gay student.

Colorado civil unions bill killed before reaching House floor

House of Delegates rejects gay judge Tracy Thorne-Begland

Executive Directive 1 (2010) (pdf)

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell Rolls Back Non-Discrimination Protections For Gay State Workers

From McDonnell, a Turn on Sexual Orientation

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell Evolves On Gay Judges

To prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

A Primary Factor

Snopes: Miss me yet?

'Miss Me Yet?' Billboard With Photo Of Bush Is Real; Not An Internet Trick

George W. Bush: 'I'm for Mitt Romney'

We believe that Peter Zuckerman is a good man who did a poor job reporting the facts on an important story in 2005. The entire community was buzzing about Mr. Zuckerman's sexual orientation after a local radio talk show had talked about it for days. We came to Mr. Zuckerman's defense and chastised the talk show for bringing his sexual orientation into the debate. I apologize for any personal pain that he suffered because of our involvement. That was not our intent.

—Frank L. VanderSloot

I am a strong supporter of the argument that gay and lesbian people should have the same rights as all other Americans. My argument against It's Elementary was not against the film itself but with its intended audience. I don't believe that sexual concepts – either homosexual or heterosexual - should be introduced in our schools to first, second and third graders. I would endorse It's Elementary for adults, but most Americans would agree it should not be shown to little kids.

—Frank L. VanderSloot

Tonight's guests include:

Glenn Greenwald, contributing writer for Salon

Steve Schmidt, former senior strategist for the McCain-Palin campaign, and MSNBC political analyst

While watching tonight's video preview, take a listen to tonight's soundtrack. (Just be sure to allow the ad below to play out entirely before starting the song.)

Executive producer Bill Wolff shares a preview of tonight's show:

Today's edition of quick hits:

* They can still probably afford good lawyers: "The Federal Bureau of Investigation is examining potential wrongdoing surrounding JPMorgan Chase's $2 billion trading loss, people briefed on the matter said Tuesday."

* Greece: "Greek political leaders said Tuesday that they had failed to find consensus to form a government, pushing the rudderless country to new elections amid political instability and volatility in financial markets that could push Greece to abandon the euro."

* Murdoch media scandal: "Rebekah Brooks, the former head of Rupert Murdoch's British newspaper empire and a close friend of Prime Minister David Cameron, was formally charged on Tuesday."

* Counter-proliferation: "Gen. James E. Cartwright, the retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former commander of the United States' nuclear forces, is adding his voice to those who are calling for a drastic reduction in the number of nuclear warheads below the levels set by agreements with Russia."

* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is reportedly planning to move forward with President Obama's nominees to the Federal Reserve Board. Whether Senate Republicans will allow the chamber to vote on them is far from clear.

* Colorado: "A bill that would have allowed civil unions for same-sex couples in Colorado was defeated on Monday night during a special legislative session called by Gov. John W. Hickenlooper to debate the issue."

* I have a hard time understanding why conservatives, who used to consider themselves the patriotism police, would celebrate someone renouncing their American citizenship to avoid paying taxes.

* In Virginia, Republican state lawmakers apparently believe gay people who believe in gay rights shouldn't be allowed to serve as judges. It's the 21st century; I just thought I'd mention that.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

The Obama campaign unveiled its first salvo against Mitt Romney's controversial private-sector background yesterday, an offensive the Republican campaign surely knew was coming eventually. This morning, the former governor released a two-minute clip in response, which had almost certainly been prepped and was ready to go.

The point of the video is to show three unemployed Iowans who are clearly struggling, and whom Romney hopes to use as proof the "Obama economy" not working. (Presumably, by this logic, if the president's economic policies were worthwhile, unemployment would be zero percent, and Republicans wouldn't be able to find anyone who could appear on camera.)

There's nothing to connect the president to the plight of the individuals in the video -- unlike, say, the plight of those who got laid off because Romney's vulture capital firm threw them out of work -- but we're supposed to blame Obama anyway. What's more, there's nothing in the clip to explain why these struggling folks would be better off under a Romney administration that intends to cut taxes for the wealthy while slashing public investments that benefit working families, but we're probably not supposed to think too much about that, either.

What's more, as Jamelle Bouie explained, What stands out about this video is that the Romney campaign has moved away from acknowledging any roots to the crisis, which would require a nod to the previous, Republican president, and treating the Great Recession as a random event -- like a bad hurricane or tornado -- for which no one is responsible. In this narrative, the GOP didn't mismanage the economy into the deepest downturn since the Great Depression. Rather, the economic crisis simply happened, ex nihilo, and Obama did nothing to stop or mitigate it."

Romney's video, in other words, is powerful just so long as you have a very short memory, no understanding of current events, and no interest in the candidates' backgrounds, platforms, or ideas.

Romney's target demographic, in other words, is uninformed amnesiacs.

But there's another catch: the Republican's video highlights a closed Frigidaire plant. In 2012, Frigidaire is ... hiring.

Greg Sargent explained that Frigidaire, which is owned by Electrolux, first started the process of shifting manufacturing jobs to Mexico in 2006, which, if memory serves, predates Obama's election. Blaming the president for Bush-era economic trends isn't just foolish; it's dishonest.

But complicating the story further is that Romney would have voters believe Obama deserves blame for an Electrolux plant closing, but doesn't deserve credit for an Electrolux plant opening.

...Electrolux is actually adding more jobs in the United States now than were lost in Webster City. The company is building a plant in Tennessee to manufacture cooking products, and it's expected to add 1,200 jobs.

The rub, though, is that this new plant, which is shipping jobs here from Canada, is being built in part because of incentives created by city, county and state government, [Caryn Klebba, a spokesperson for Electrolux] confirms -- exactly the sort of government "picking winners and losers" that Romney likes to decry. Obama, by contrast, favors this sort of use of government resources to create American jobs.

The Romney campaign assumes, probably correctly, that relevant details and facts will go completely unnoticed by voters. We're supposed to see three people who got laid off in Iowa, assume that they weren't laid off by Bain Capital, and blame Obama for the fact that they're struggling. Don't think too much and the video has a certain child-like logic -- Obama's the president; unemployment is still high; so it's best to replace the president.

I imagine Republicans could have run similar attacks in 1936: highlight people unemployed because of the Great Depression, tell voters to blame FDR, and hope Americans don't remember Hoover.

But outside of uninformed amnesiacs, it's not clear why the mainstream should take misleading videos like these seriously.

In the New Hampshire legislature today, Republican State Representative Steve Vaillancourt was tossed from the chamber for shouting "Sieg Heil" and waving -- or not waving -- his hand in a Nazi salute. Vaillancourt was objecting to limitations on debate over a voter ID bill.

The chamber then formed an apology committee to help him regret his mistake. From the local Concord Patch:

"As I was saying before, I cannot apologize for anything I did not do," Vaillancourt said. "But I do apologize for using two German words, which I understand has negative ramifications when three Latin words would have been better. I will never use a German word again."

As Vaillancourt received a smattering of applause and returned to his seat, the committee huddled with O'Brien and determined that the apology wasn't acceptable.

Vaillancourt did eventually offer up an apology that worked. It mentioned "inflammatory German words which can have offensive connotation," according to a report tweeted by Republican State Representative Jon Richardson.

In other New Hampshire news, House Republicans brought back legislation for a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion. Today, the chamber also revived a measure that would allow religious institutions not to offer insurance coverage for contraception. You can find that one here, attached to a bill about delegates for a constitutional convention -- search for "2012-2215h."

(Image: The apology committee meets with Representative Vaillancourt, in white shirt. Pic tweeted by Representative Richardson.)

UPDATE: James Carter did the good deed of going through tape of the proceedings and culling it down. The "Sieg Heil" part happens around minute four.

The Occupational Safety & Health Administration launched an effort to prevent heat illnesses among outdoor workers, and at face value, this wouldn't be especially noteworthy. On the contrary, this is a basic part of OSHA's mission, in this case, the agency recommends, "Water. Rest. Shade. The work can't get done without them."

So why am I mentioning this? Because, as Steve M. noticed, Fox News' website put its own unique spin on what seems like a fairly mundane story.

Obviously, if the Obama administration is trying to prevent heat strokes, the relevant takeaway is that the president is attacking Americans who work outside, right?

Fox Nation has an amazing track record of putting silly spins on routine news stories, but going after the administration over heat strokes is breaking new ground.

I'm not sure whether to be annoyed by Fox's ridiculous standards or impressed with its creativity.

Getty Images

For Democrats, one of the principal goals of 2012 is to persuade American voters not to go backwards. Bush/Cheney left all kinds of crises for Obama/Biden to clean up, and Dems intend to urge the electorate not to return to the failures of the recent past.

With this in mind, I suspect Democrats are happier about today's news than Mitt Romney is.

Mitt Romney has the support of George W. Bush.

"I'm for Mitt Romney," Bush told ABC News this morning as the doors of an elevator closed on him, after he gave a speech on human rights a block from his old home -- the White House.

Bush's endorsement isn't a surprise, given that Romney is virtually the Republican Party's nominee. But the 43rd president has been absent from the 2012 campaign and hasn't made any public comments showing his support for Romney.

As endorsements go, it's hard to get much thinner than this -- no joint appearance, no press release, no celebratory passing of the torch. It's just a four-word expression of support as elevator doors were closing.

Nevertheless, Democrats will take it. Romney already had the support of Bush's brother and parents; he's already hired Bush's former team to lead his campaign; and he's already adopted most of the same policy priorities of the failed former president.

The Republican National Committee conceded recently that a Romney presidency would be the same as Bush's presidency, "just updated." Those hoping to characterize Romney as offering Bush's third term -- only more right-wing -- have it pretty easy, and given the scope of Bush's spectacular failures in office, and the fact that many Americans correctly still hold him responsible for national and international problems, that's not a good thing for the GOP in 2012.

I suspect the former Massachusetts governor won't have too much to say about today's endorsement, but I'd like to see Romney answer just one question: how would your presidency be different from Bush's?

It was, to my mind, the worst thing an American major party has done, at least in domestic politics, since the Civil War. Last summer, congressional Republicans held the full faith and credit of the United States hostage, threatening to impose a catastrophe on all of us, on purpose, to achieve a specific (and unnecessary) policy goal.

It was a move without parallel. The entirety of a party threatened to deliberately hurt the country unless their rivals paid a hefty ransom -- in this case, debt reduction. It didn't matter that Republicans were largely responsible for the debt in the first place, and it didn't matter that Republicans routinely raised the debt ceiling dozens of times over the last several decades.

This wasn't just another partisan dispute; it was a scandal for the ages. This one radical scheme helped lead to the first-ever downgrade of U.S. debt; it riled financial markets and generated widespread uncertainty about the stability of the American system; and it severely undermined American credibility on the global stage. Indeed, in many parts of the world, observers didn't just lose respect for us, they were actually laughing at us.

It's the kind of thing that should have scarred the Republican Party for a generation. Not only did that never happen, the Republican hostage takers are already vowing to create this identical crisis all over again, on purpose.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will threaten Tuesday that Congress will not raise the debt limit next year without spending cuts greater than the size of the debt ceiling increase.

According to excerpts of the remarks Boehner will deliver to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation fiscal summit on Tuesday afternoon, the Ohio lawmaker will "insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase." [...]

He will also tell the audience: "We shouldn't dread the debt limit. We should welcome it. It's an action-forcing event in a town that has become infamous for inaction."

It's not hyperbolic to characterize this as madness. Boehner is, in no uncertain terms, announcing that he and his party will deliberately hurt the country -- and he's calling his hostage-taking strategy an "action-forcing event."

At a certain level, it's true that holding a gun to someone's head forces "action," but it's also true that such aggression tears at the fabric of the body politic.

I should emphasize that Boehner's comments don't come as a surprise. After the crisis was resolved last summer, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities President Robert Greenstein explained, "Those who have engaged in hostage-taking -- threatening the economy and the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury to get their way -- will conclude that their strategy worked. They will feel emboldened to pursue it again every time that we have to raise the debt limit in the future."

And that's exactly what has happened. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Fox News that the GOP-created crisis "set the template for the future." He vowed, "We'll be doing it all over" in 2013.

In case anyone's forgotten, over the last 72 years -- before 2011 -- Congress raised the debt ceiling 89 times. Lawmakers from both parties, working with presidents from both parties, treated this as routine housekeeping. Preconditions have never been applied to this process, and neither party has ever used the law to hold the nation's full faith and credit hostage. Clean debt-ceiling votes weren't always popular, but they've been a standard American norm for generations.

Last year, radicalized Republicans changed the game, and they apparently have no intention of going back. This wasn't a one-time hostage strategy, threatening the nation's wellbeing in a fit of partisan rage; this was the creation of a new norm, to be repeated forever more. Why? Because the dangerous scheme worked -- when radicalism is rewarded, the result is more radicalism.

Update: Incidentally, it's also worth realizing that Boehner is demanding another debt-ceiling deal less than a year after breaking the terms of the agreement he reached last summer. President Obama is well positioned to ask a simple question: "If you won't keep your word and honor your own agreements, why should I negotiate with you?"

Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* A New York Times/CBS News poll released last night shows President Obama's approval rating inching higher to 50%, but he still trails Mitt Romney by three, 46% to 43%. There are some serious concerns about the methodology.

* A new Public Policy Polling survey, meanwhile, shows Obama with a narrow lead over Romney, 48% to 46%.

* The Obama campaign isn't the only one targeting Romney's controversial private-sector background -- super PAC Priorities USA Action is investing $4 million in support of this ad.

* Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) will apparently "no longer actively campaign in states that have not yet held Republican presidential primaries."

* The Democratic National Committee is not investing heavily in Wisconsin's gubernatorial recall race, and to put it mildly, local Dems are not pleased.

* Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) isn't backing away from VP speculation. "You never rule out opportunities or options," he said.

* And in New York, a well-known, openly gay Romney supporter has not only given up on the Republican candidate over his far-right views on LGBT rights, he's also asking for his contribution back.

Getty Images

It sometimes seems as if Republicans haven't updated their talking points in a very long while.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who has endorsed Mitt Romney and is sometimes mentioned as a potential running mate, attacked President Obama on Tuesday and defended Romney's record in business.

"President Obama hasn't run anything before he was elected President of the United States," Jindal said on Fox News's America's Newsroom. "Never ran a state, never a business, never ran a lemonade stand."

This is a pretty standard criticism for any presidential candidate whose background is legislative work. Recent major-party nominees like John McCain, John Kerry, and Bob Dole -- none of whom served as a governor or business leader -- faced similar critiques.

But what Jindal lacks is a calendar -- these criticisms of Obama's record were made four years ago. Since early 2009, he's been president of the United States during a time of foreign and domestic crises. Obama may not have led a state or a business before getting elected, but he led a nation after getting elected.

Like him or not, Obama's experience with lemonade stands isn't nearly as relevant in 2012 as his experience as Commander in Chief during a time of war. So what on earth is Jindal talking about?

Perhaps Republicans are feeling a little defensive about the fact that they're nominating the least-experienced major-party presidential nominee in more than 70 years, and if elected, Mitt Romney would be the least experienced president in 100 years.

But defensive or not, the GOP should try to remember it's running against a sitting president, not a sitting senator.

President Obama caused a minor stir last month in a speech at the Associated Press luncheon, when he argued, "Ronald Reagan ... could not get through a Republican primary today."

Getty Images

This sparked some worthwhile discussion, but I've been especially struck by the number of Republicans who agree with the argument.

The Republican Party has drifted so far to the right and become so partisan in recent years that President Ronald Reagan wouldn't even want to be a part of it, former Nebraska GOP senator Chuck Hagel told The Cable.

"Reagan would be stunned by the party today," Hagel said in a long interview in his office at Georgetown University, where he now teaches. He also serves as co-chair of President Barack Obama's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

Reagan wanted to do away with nuclear weapons, raised taxes, made deals with congressional Democrats, sought compromises and consensus to fix problems, and surrounded himself with moderates as well as Republican hard-liners, Hagel noted. None of that is characterized by the current GOP leadership, he said.

Hagel added that there were similar divisions in the early 1950s between Eisenhower Republicans and GOP extremists like Joe McCarthy, but the difference is, in 2012, "the extremists are winning."

Remember, Hagel's voting record in the Senate wasn't exactly Olympia Snowe's -- this guy's a conservative from a reliably-"red" state. And yet, he believes Reagan "wouldn't identify with this party."

A few weeks ago, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) said the same thing. What's more, Mike Huckabee said a year ago, "Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible, time being nominated in this atmosphere of the Republican Party." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had a nearly identical take in 2010, arguing Reagan "would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today."

I continue to believe this matters.

As we discussed a while back, Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times, and he supported the precursor to the Buffett Rule. In his first term, Reagan raised taxes when unemployment was nearing 11% -- imagine trying this today -- and proceeded to raise taxes seven out of the eight years he was in office. It's a fact the right finds terribly inconvenient, but "no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people" as Reagan.

Reagan gave amnesty to undocumented immigrants, expanded the size of the federal government, tripled the deficit and added trillions to the debt, bailed out domestic industries, and called for a world without nuclear weapons. Reagan also met with our most hated enemy without preconditions, criticized Israel, and illegally funneled arms to Iran.

And then there's his gubernatorial record: in California, Reagan increased spending, raised taxes, helped create the nation's first state-based emissions standards, signed an abortion-rights bill, and expanded the nation's largest state-based Medicaid program (socialized medicine).

Reagan "could not get through a Republican primary today"? Reagan could not get through a Republican primary without being laughed off the stage today.

And why is this relevant today? For one thing, it's at least interesting to appreciate the fact that Republicans have a religious-like reverence for Reagan, they have no use for his approach to governance.

But more importantly, it should tell the American mainstream something important when the GOP moves so far to the ideological extreme that it's no longer the Party of Reagan.

About a year ago, Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) hosted a town-hall meeting with some constituents, one of whom said Bush-era policies are largely responsible for the current budget deficit. The Republican didn't take the news well.

"This year's deficit is due to George Bush? That's insanity!" Grimm said. He added, "That's insane."

I can appreciate why Grimm's pushback might resonate with some folks. George W. Bush left office more than three years ago, so it may seem as if today's problems no longer have anything to do with him. Why blame Bush for Obama-era deficits? Grimm, who routinely struggles to understand the basics of current events, was incredulous, and I suspect plenty of Republicans agree.

But reality isn't "insane," and the facts are incontrovertible. Sahil Kapur published this chart this morning.

TPM Media

If the image looks familiar, it's because the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities published something very similar a while back (the wonks call it the "parfait chart").

This is important for a couple of reasons. First, there's the simple matter of basic accountability -- though some on the right prefer to think it's "insane" to hold Bush-era policies responsible for current problems, the truth is, sweeping policy agendas carry lasting consequences. In this case, Bush not only squandered a massive surplus, added $5 trillion to the debt, and left a $1.3 trillion deficit for Obama to deal with, he also approved policies that we're still struggling to pay for, years after his departure.

That's not opinion or spin; it's fact. When Republicans in 2012 cast blame for this year's budget shortfall, they're generally condemning the wrong president.

Second, understanding what actually drives our debt is key to understanding how to address the debt. For GOP policymakers and their presidential nominee, the answer is increasing defense spending, more tax cuts, and slashing investments in health care, education, and combating poverty.

But the chart tells a very different kind of story: Bush-era tax breaks represent the biggest chunk of the deficits projected in the coming years. If there's a "debt crisis" -- there isn't, but for the sake of conversation, let's say it's possible -- common sense suggests policymakers would start with the single biggest driver of the debt.

For the right, President Obama's policies are "bankrupting" the country. For those who care about facts, it's not Obama's agenda that's causing the budget shortfall.

About two months ago, as controversy swirled around Rush Limbaugh, the right-wing radio host lost all kinds of advertisers who didn't want to sponsor his on-air misogyny. But the news wasn't all bad.

Despite his antics, the Missouri Legislature announced at the time that it would honor the Republican broadcaster with a statue at the state capitol, giving him a place in the Hall of Famous Missourians. Limbaugh's bust will sit alongside the likes of Mark Twain, Harry Truman, and Walt Disney.

The event for Limbaugh was held yesterday, and after delivering some remarks, the host returned to the microphone with some thoughts he'd neglected to mention. Our pal James Carter passed along this clip.

"Our so-called 'friends' on the other side of the aisle," Limbaugh said, "are deranged."

Mark Twain, Harry Truman, Walt Disney, and a misogynist who thinks Democrats are "deranged" and advocates for access to contraception are "sluts." Congratulations, Missouri.

Incidentally, Republican leaders of the Missouri House kept yesterday's event secret until 25 minutes beforehand, hoping to keep protestors away from the unveiling of Limbaugh's bronze bust.

Update: Doors to the legislative chamber were reportedly locked and guarded during Limbaugh's appearance, and Democratic lawmakers were not welcome.

Last summer, there were plenty of centrists who expressed genuine excitement about a project called Americans Elect, which its backers perceived as a vehicle towards bipartisan governing. Thomas Friedman, last summer, devoted a column to singing Americans Elect's praises, saying its organizers are "really serious, and they have thought out this process well."

As it turns out, that wasn't quite right.

Americans Elect, the deep-pocketed nonprofit group that set out to nominate a centrist third-party presidential ticket, admitted early Tuesday that its ballyhooed online nominating process had failed.

The group had qualified for the general election ballot in 27 states, and had generated concern among Democrats and Republicans alike that it could wreak havoc on a close election between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

But just after a midnight deadline Monday, the group acknowledged that its complicated online nominating process had failed to generate sufficient interest to push any of the candidates who had declared an interest in its nomination over the threshold in its rules.

I never fully understood the appeal of this enterprise. Voters were supposed to gravitate towards Americans Elect out of a desire to see a presidential campaign committed to centrist, compromise-focused policymaking. Americans Elect did not, however, have a candidate. Or a platform. Or a policy agenda. Or even vague positions on any issue. It had money, a slot on 27 state ballots, and the admiration of some moderate-minded newspaper columnists, but nothing else.

So what, exactly, was the point? Apparently, the entity's organizers intended to hold an online convention, in which "the people" would nominate a ticket with two candidates: one from each party. What would be the value of this? No one ever got around to explaining that.

Real-world problems, however, kept getting in the way.

Credible candidates, for example, weren't interested. Americans Elect talked about bold, democratic principles, but it collected tens of millions of dollars in secret donations, then built a series of "anti-democratic measures" into Americans Elect's structure: "the power of a board to set aside (subject to a veto override from 'voters') the People's Choice in order to create a legitimately 'balanced, centrist' ticket, whatever that means."

When it came time for the convention, organizers found they were missing two rather important elements: candidates and voters.

And as of last night, the project appears to be a bust, which is heartening -- Americans Elect was an overly-secretive, well-financed gimmick, eager to play electoral mischief for reasons that were never clear.

Photo: Richard McKeever

New work by Banksy.  Discuss

Aaaaaand we've got another one!   An anti-Romney ad about Bain Capital, that is

A California state assemblyman reveals his true feeling about Title IX in front of one of the most famous women athletes ever

Gay activists test the boundaries with a bike ride

Marc Ambinder says goodbye to Washington DC with a list of things he's learned (you may skip ahead to #7)

France swears in its new president whose last name is also the name of another European country

Our top general in Afghanistan prepares to leave

No longer just for watching baby hawks and checking in on your dog... Yosemite National Park gets 4 webcams with spectacular views