Hi, everyone.  First, a personal note.  I've been hip-deep in MBA classes and work over the past year, and I take the LSAT in two weeks as well.  So I've been mostly lurking. 

I wanted to take a minute, though, and post my thoughts about the November general election for the US Senate seat out of Pennsylvania.

Congratulations to Joe Sestak on a solid win in the primary.  I was exposed to his media ramp-up for the last couple of months, and his campaign did an excellent job, especially with their TV ads.  Those helped his poll numbers climb steadily, and those rising poll numbers kept Obama and Biden away from the state in the closing push, when they might have helped increase what was pretty crappy turnout. 

Obviously, I'll be working for Sestak's campaign when I can.  I've already asked about phonebanking.  And it's a rather obvious choice for me in the general, as I don't want Pat Toomey anywhere near a lever of power.

Having said all that, I do believe that Ed Rendell has reason to worry about the general election.  Here's why - and here's what we need to do in the Keystone State to ensure that a nutburger like Toomey doesn't get in under the wire.

First, one of Specter's biggest general-election strengths was his ability to attract crossover votes.  He was never seriously challenged in his November re-election battles, in large part because he could always count on pulling 20-30 percent of the Democratic vote.  I don't think there's much Sestak can do in that regard; he's just not going to pull very many Republican votes. 

Second, Specter would have been very difficult for Toomey to run against, because Toomey would have to run way to the right to establish any significant difference between him and Specter.  This shift would help Specter rack up moderate votes, which would probably lead him to win a lot of the "T" in Pennsylvania against Toomey.  (For those who don't know, the "T" is the state of Pennsylvania, minus the greater Pittsburgh and greater Philadelphia areas.) 

Toomey, knowing this, has already tried to moderate himself on a number of issues, and has stayed far, far away from the bombast he employed when he was president of the Club for Growth.  However, with Sestak in the race, Toomey will have greater room to tack to the center and get more of the moderates. 

Can Sestak win in November?  Obviously.  Rendell, despite his probable gloom over Specter losing, has already endorsed Sestak, who will also enjoy support from the White House as well as Bob Casey, who will become our senior Senator.  However, the two factors above are significant.  So, what to do?

Well, first, Toomey's past positions and pronouncements must become a major factor in the November race.  Elections are often won by the candidate who defines the other first.  Sestak has to get out in front and make sure that everyone - especially the state's registered Democrats - knows that Toomey is a few Sandinistas short of a coup.  The contrast between the two candidates should stand out in bold relief before the end of the summer.  Yes, I know most voters aren't paying attention until fall rolls around.  But it can't hurt to stake out your ground now.

I'm not suggesting that Sestak go totally negative.  But this general election will not feature much crossover voting.  So Sestak has to get the state's Democrats excited.  Judging from the primary turnout, now would be a great time to start on that. 

Sestak has the added disadvantage of being just about as anonymous to the average voter as Toomey (with the exception of PA-7).  That relative anonymity, however, is also an opportunity for great advantage...if Sestak can fill those voids the way he wants.

Second, Sestak really needs to go wide (national) with his personal story.  It's the one thing that really made me think he could win, if he could get past the state machine (which I did not think would happen) and let voters know what he's all about.  Nationally, he could definitely draw contributions based on personal appeal.  And the higher the profile for this election, the better it is for getting PA voters excited in general, which benefits the candidate whose party has a voter-registration edge. 

Third, Sestak needs to run even harder in the general than he did in the primary.  No pulling a Martha Coakley here.  Voters in this state won't take kindly to it.  All those personal appearances will be exhausting - but they will result in votes, especially in this state. 

Hope everyone's doing well.  Looks like last night went better for the good guys than I thought.  I just hope it translates into one big moose-pie sundae for the GOP in November.

A few notes about last night's remarkable developments in the Massachusetts special election, and then on to discussing the immediate future of health care reform in Congress.

First, as a political junkie, I have to tip my proverbial cap to Senator-elect Scott Brown.  If his campaign looked familiar to long-time Pennsylvanians, it should have.  It's exactly how Harris Wofford got elected to the Senate (upsetting former US Attorney General Dick Thornburgh in the process).  He really found a meme and pushed it through.  Catching lightning in a bottle is one thing, and yes, Brown was very fortunate in that regard.  But you have to be able to use it once you catch it, and he did that very well.

Second, I have to wonder if it's possible to run a worse campaign than the one Martha Coakley ran.  Her performance at the last debate was horrendous.  She showed less energy in two months than Julia Child exhibited in a normal cooking show.  She routinely made the most idiotic campaign gaffes.  (Taking a six-day vacation during a special election?  Disparaging your opponent for standing in front of Fenway freakin' Park to meet voters?  Not knowing who Curt Schilling is, or why he might just be somewhat important to people in Massachusetts?  Misspelling the name of the state in which you've been elected Attorney General?  Holy McCain/Palin, Batman.)

Now, make no mistake about it, health care reform is seriously endangered.  But, despite the predictable Chicken Little routine among many of us on the left, it's not dead.  To my way of thinking, there are four options.

Door #1:  Abandon the larger HCR package, get smaller reforms through now, and turn immediately to jobs creation and other economic matters.

Door #2:  Push the larger HCR package through the Senate, either before Senator-elect Brown is sworn in or via reconciliation.

Door #3:  Have the House pass the Senate HCR bill as it stands, with an understanding that the Senate will use reconciliation to make certain House-driven changes.

Door #4:  Try to negotiate with certain Republicans again (read:  Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown - yes, Scott Brown - to get the 60th vote for cloture on a conference bill.)

None of these options are perfect.  In fact, none of them are even good.  But one of them will end up being what happens.  So, it's worth examining all of them.

Door #1 is extremely unlikely.  You just can't spend an entire year doing HCR and come away with nothing.  It's not a feasible option, politically, legislatively or ideologically.  Yet, it could be exactly what happens if moderate Democrats (read:  Bayh, Webb, Nelson) run from HCR.

Door #2 is about as unlikely as Door #1.  There's no way to sell the optics of ramming HCR through before Brown is sworn in.

Now, reconciliation for the whole shebang is also possible.  In this scenario, the plus is that stuff like the sweetheart deals for Dodd, Landrieu and Nelson can disappear, and a public option can reappear, since you no longer need Joe LIEberman.  However, if the Democrats were going to use reconciliation, they should have gone that route from the beginning (which, to be fair, I never liked).  The problem is that reconciliation requires a lot of time - and with the midterms coming up, many Dems really want to get HCR off the agenda and move on to job creation.

Door #3 is the easiest option.  If the House passes the Senate bill unamended, there is no need for a second Senate vote, and the legislation goes straight to the Resolute Desk.  However, it requires the House to not only have to swallow a Senate bill that includes many things they don't like, but also trust the Senate and the Obama Administration to get the House-desired changes through the Senate via reconciliation after the HCR bill is signed.  With all fairness toward Harry Reid (who I still think is a miracle worker) and the President, I wouldn't blame the House for not trusting this to happen.  However, the Democrats are pretty much all-in on HCR now, so Nancy Pelosi may have to make this happen...somehow.

Door #4 seems illogical.  After all, even Reid thinks the WH spent too much time trying to get Snowe to back HCR (and I agree with him).  And Brown ran explicitly on being the 41st Senate vote against HCR, so it's hard to see how he could ever come on board. 

However...there are very good practical reasons Brown could reconsider.  First, there's the naked political angle.  Brown has to run again in 2012 - and this time, Obama will be at the top of the ticket, and the next Dem candidate for Brown's seat is not likely to pull a Coakley.  Brown is a fairly smart guy, and he knows Massachusetts is still among the bluest of states.  If he votes like he's Coburn or DeMint, he's done in '12.  Also, he's on record as supporting Massachusetts' health care system, which shares some important traits with the proposed HCR measure. 

So, if he can come in, win some concessions (and yes, this means that people - like me - would have to swallow an even more watered-down bill), and gives the 60th vote for cloture, that could play very well for him all around back home. 

Finally, I don't think last night's vote was so much about Massachusetts voters not wanting health care reform.  Rather, I think it was their opportunity to express frustration with what they see as an unresponsive Washington, coupled with their irritation at Coakley's campaign of inevitability.  Naturally, we'll see a lot of the usual suspects (Steele, Boehner, McConnell, et al.) blathering about how Obama and the "Democrat agenda" have been rejected.  I would suggest considering the sources and giving said proclamations their due weight in light of those sources.

All that said, though, I don't think Brown is going to vote for HCR.  And if Snowe didn't go for it before, it's hard to envision a reason she'd go for it now.  She doesn't have to worry about an election until 2014, I think, and she's about as safe as safe gets.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, where does this leave health care reform?

Well, without falsely attempting to downplay the significance of last night's election, this will finally force the President to stop relying on a supermajority in the Senate.  As I've said before on here, a Democratic supermajority is hardly one that can be counted on to move in lockstep.  Even for a signature issue like HCR, it took a Herculean effort - and a few hundred million in bribes - for Reid to get his caucus to hold together.

At this point, there is only one Democrat who can rescue Obama's agenda.  To do it, though, Obama himself will have to make a decision about whether he will continue to play it safe.  Will he step out and make his own positions clear?  Will he fully engage his critics?  Will he - not Robert Gibbs, not David Axelrod, not Rahm Emanuel - use the power of his office and oratory to directly engage both lawmakers and the public?  Will he get "fired up and ready to go" again? 

I agreed with pursuing bipartisanship at first - but if the stimulus fight didn't demonstrate that Republicans aren't going to come along "in these things we have to do," as Michael Corleone said, then there's just no way to demonstrate it.

I've always thought there was a great narrative to be told about why HCR is so vital to the American people.  I think it's the narrative that you've heard people like Barney Frank and Russ Feingold and Anthony Weiner use.  I think it's the ability to relate complex legislation in Joe Six-Pack terms (one of the many gifts of Bill Clinton).  I think it's knowing how to really go after those who would filibuster, delay, deny and slow-walk this historic legislation.  (Gaffes and all, Joe Biden is a powerful speaker with over three decades in this fight, and should be let off the leash here.)

I think it's holding up stacks, shoeboxes, bags full of medical bills and insurance denial letters belonging to those being victimized by our wealth care system, getting mad as hell in front of a camera, and breathing fire directly at those profiting from the suffering endured by the addressees of those denial letters.

Then, repeat that same visceral message and visual.  Every major city, every state in the Union.  Do the same for jobs creation (where you can use Biden even more, as he's directly involved with ARRA).

I've always thought Barack Obama never looked better on the campaign trail than when he started to fight - when he got tired of being pounded, first by Clinton and then by McCain - and really began to speak from his gut, unmodulated, with purpose and clarity. 

That was the Obama that got elected.  That was the Obama that people - especially independents - expected to see leading the fight for "change" in Washington.  That was the Obama who got people behind the stimulus.  That's the Obama who's been shelved for the better part of a year now, while the quixotic chase for bipartisanship has continued in the West Wing. 

Unless President Obama spends the next couple of years channeling that engaged, proactive part of Candidate Obama, his Presidency will end exactly three years from today. 

And deservedly so.

I received a newsletter in my e-mail from my state's senior Senator yesterday.  I'm scheduled for an eye exam today, because I'm still convinced I'm not reading it correctly.  I thought I would share it with you guys.  This is a link to the Web version of the newsletter.

I do remember that, last year, I predicted Specter would work his way leftward on all the swing issues, primarily due to the emerging politics in Pennsylvania.  He has to have the state machine, the unions and the population centers behind him, and all of those things are reliably Democratic. 

Here's what I consider to be the "money quote" from Specter.  (The emphasis is actually Specter's, not mine.)

It is not the bill that I would have preferred and there is an oppuntunity to improve it in conference. I would like to see a strong, robust public option. I would like to see more clear-cut language on a woman's right to choose.

I don't think I ever recall Specter so clearly coming out in favor of a strong public option AND pro-choice language in HCR.   

Yes, Specter is the consummate political opportunist.  However, I actually take that as a strong sign that this legislation is really a first step forward toward really fixing our broken health care system. 

You see, Arlen Specter is one of the best political weather vanes ever.  I firmly believe that he'll do whatever he can to maximize his political mileage.  He's done it for more than half his life, and been rather successful.  I see this statement as Specter clearly recognizing that his constituents favor a public option.  Which tells me that the conference on this bill might not be as hopeless as we thought...and that public opinion will force this bill closer to a public option, especially as the benefits kick in.

Mostly, though, I'm amazed to see Specter willing to align himself so firmly with a robust public option.  I'd really thought I'd seen just about everything Arlen could do.  If I keep watching, maybe he'll breakdance too.

One of the greatest joys of my early teenage years (1984-1988) was waking up on a Saturday morning with $20 in my pocket and nothing to do.

I'd get dressed, grab my Walkman, and pop in a favorite cassette.  Then, I'd walk down to the bus stop at the corner of State & Vogel in East St. Louis, and catch the 560 eastbound to Union Station in downtown St. Louis.

I'd spend the day window-shopping, maybe buying a few small things here and there.  Then I'd get a meal at McDonald's, and walk around some more.  I could explore the downtown area at my leisure.  I would go to the library, Kiener Plaza, Busch Stadium, St. Louis Centre, the Eagleton Building, the Old Courthouse, the Cathedral Basilica, and the Arch.  I always made a point of doubling back to Union Station to catch the ongoing show at the Fudge Factory.

I'd finish this excellent day by going to the Wehrenberg Theatre back at Union Station, and watching a couple of movies, munching on freshly made vanilla fudge.  Then, I'd have exactly enough money to catch the 560 back home around 10pm.  (The same day now, of course, would cost me around $80 - and it's hard to imagine allowing a pre-teen to have that kind of unsupervised trip in today's world.)

The only constant on these trips would be my Walkman.  And, no matter whether I was listening to the radio or my cassette, there was an excellent chance that Michael Jackson was in heavy rotation.

Growing up then, there was no substitute for Michael.  He WAS popular music.  Of course, there were other top-selling artists at the time (Phil Collins, Lionel Richie, etc.).  But Michael Jackson simply towered over his industry - and his culture. 

His face was on everything - t-shirts, lunchboxes, school folders, album covers, posters, TV screens.  That bus I would ride to St. Louis?  Chances were, there was at least one unoccupied window seat - right next to a window with a one-foot-diameter splotch of Jheri curl juice from some Jackson fan leaning his or her head against the glass. 

He signed nine-figure contracts, won awards by the busload, and released albums with multiple #1 hits.  Four of his albums DEBUTED at Billboard's #1 spot. 

How much oxygen did Michael suck up?  In 1983, Lionel Richie released "Can't Slow Down", which was a monster album that had a number of top singles and reached #1 on Billboard's Top 100 Albums.  The next year, Richie was basically shut out of the AMA and Grammy awards.  You see, he'd had the misfortune of releasing "Can't Slow Down" the same year that Michael Jackson unleashed "Thriller".  In any other year, Richie would likely have won a half-dozen Grammys for his work.

Michael's videos were groundbreaking.  The "Billie Jean" and "Thriller" videos, in particular, inspired a generation of young artists and helped launch the music video to a position of entertainment pre-eminence.

If you ever got to go to a Michael Jackson concert, you could see firsthand why he was the top entertainer of his generation.  He had a natural showman's flair, and could captivate an audience for hours on end. 

His concert styling not only spilled over to his own clothing, but into haute couture as well.  Red leather jackets with dozens of zippers did more than their share of damage to parents' car paint.  A single sequined glove with matching sequined socks (and, natch, the flooding black pants designed to show off said socks) could be seen on many a teenager.  And many of my friends (I'm not copping to any this!) rocked the gold-rimmed aviator sunglasses as well.

And the dancing!  More than one kid in my school turned an ankle trying desperately to moonwalk.  He was a blend of precision and panache that left other musicians in the dust. 

Michael gave freely of his money AND his time.  "We Are The World" (which he co-wrote with Richie) started the wave of celebrity collaborations and concerts aimed at promoting charitable causes.  He was honored by two different Presidents (Reagan and Bush 41) for his charitable work.

Later, of course, I would find out more about his past - and shake my head in disappointment at his latest antics.  I would wonder how much the abuse he suffered from his father affected his later life.  And I would long ponder the idea that, perhaps, he was too successful - and just couldn't handle being the world's biggest celebrity. 

His death basically took over the news.  He was a headline item even on *sports* websites.  I know that many people have been critical of the amount of coverage his death and other "fluff" news items have received.  But what you have to keep in mind about Michael is that his personality and creative genius always hogged the spotlight.  Though there may be more "important" stories, the relative youth and the unexpected demise of this musical Colossus make it front-page news.

It's been estimated that the song catalog he still owns is worth billions, and he was estimated to be worth close to a billion dollars at his peak (and this was in late '80s dollars).  Yet, he's thought to be as much as $400 million in the red, and his last days were spent in a rented house.  (Granted, the rent was a cool $100,000 per month, but still.)

But, when I think of Michael Jackson, I don't think of the money, the lawsuits, the jokes, the weird news stories (many of which were not only false, but also planted by Jackson himself) or the crushing fame he had for virtually his entire life.  I also don't think of the unfulfilled promise, and just how much more he could have contributed musically if his personal life hadn't imploded.

I think instead of the musical genius that he was.  I think of the songs that defined my generation and inspired people of all races the world over.  I think of his dancing and style that were embraced by kids of all cultures.  I think of the self-assured voice on that Walkman, singing away.  If any one person could truly be said to be my generation's Elvis, it would have to be his former son-in-law, hands down. 

Michael Jackson was more than the background noise on those Saturday trips.  He was, in many ways, the soundtrack of my youth.  So, as I sang along with him then, I sing of him now. 

God speed, Michael. 

This contest requires you to put yourself in the shoes of SC Gov. Mark Sanford.

Picture it.  Charleston, 2009.  You're standing behind a lectern, in your first presser after having read a prepared statement in which you admitted to hiking in the Appalachians flying to Argentina to clear your head having an extramarital affair.

The first question you're asked is:  "Governor, why did you fly down to South America?"

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to answer that question. 

We're looking for brevity, originality and an extra helping of snark.  I look forward to the wits of TPM having some fun with this.

Those of you who watch television on a semi-regular basis have probably seen one or more of the recent Comcast "Future Hopping" animated commercials, featuring their signature monotone jingle.  (They're available at ComcastTown under the "Extras" pop-up menu in the lower right-hand corner, but you'll need Flash to view the site.)

Several of us at the office were trying to describe the jingle.  We eventually hit upon the phrase, "creepy-yet-catchy".  For some reason, that phrase made me think of today's increasingly extremist Republican Party...which led to the following creative effort.  After the last few days of wading through GM, Sotomayor and Tiller, I wanted to write something funny. 

(Apologies in advance to GOP readers, who may feel I missed the mark.)

An Ode to the Grand Old Party
(Where Far Right Is No Longer Far Out)

Reichwing's in a state of rigor
Don't want their tent any bigger
Ideas straight from Nixon's grave
Swamped by blue election wave

What they say just doesn't matter
Refuted by facts and data
Republican ideas just splatter
Against the fan like fecal matter

Boehner's tan just makes 'em groan
When Cantor speaks, people just zone
McConnell bores 'em right to tears 
Kyl cries about immigration fears

The GOP's going moribund
With Palin-Coleman legal funds
Steele overpays jerks for work
And Rush and Bachmann go berserk

Oh, they miss the days of yore
When Bush took vacations galore
Now reduced to a whiny bray
When Obamas go see a play

O'Reilly and Hannity on the screen
Need to cut back the caffeine 
They only tell a shameless lie
On days of week that end with "y"

Advice to the New Whig Party
Wear good sneakers and eat hearty
'Cause if Cheney is your ace
Forty years in desert you face

G-O-P is O-U-T

This doesn't rank anywhere near the high-profile MoDo plagiarism recently uncovered by TPM's thejoshuablog.  However, I got curious as to exactly how much stuff gets hijacked from TPM bloggers, many of whom could certainly write commercially if they wanted.  (And, of course, bloggers like Deanie Mills do make a living as wordsmiths.)

To be clear, I am not one of those talents.  But, I figured there was no better place to start than my own blog.  So, I started using teh Google on some of my older blog titles.  About five minutes later, I found a case of out-and-out, wholesale plagiarism of one of my own pieces. 

I wrote the blog entry "Michele Bachmann - Unstable AND Unable" here on TPM on February 20, 2009. 

A writer on Salem-News.com, Dorsett Bennett, wrote this article on February 27.  To conserve space, I won't quote it here. 

The first half of Bennett's article is, well, my blog.  With only a few cosmetic changes, he essentially lifted my piece and made it part of his own.  Of course, I am not cited anywhere in the article, nor is TPM.  Clearly, Bennett's "article" violates even the most generous reading of the "fair use" exception.

I strongly advise all TPM bloggers to take some of your blog titles and run them through Google.  After all, you never know what "journalists" may be sponging off your creative efforts.

Last week, I was one of the chief directors for SuperNationals IV (which puts the national high school, junior high and elementary chess championships under one roof).  This year's event was held in Nashville, Tennessee.  5300 kids and three days later, I know why Valium was invented...but that's another story for another day.

Between preparing for that event, work, giving my son T-ball and chess lessons, and preparing for my GMAT exam, something had to give.  For now, that thing has been blogging, and the site appears to be much the better for it.

However, I've been wanting to share a story about something I encountered while flying from Atlanta to Nashville.  I sat next to a soldier, in full camo, who was returning home from his second tour of duty in Iraq.  We exchanged pleasantries; I shook his hand and thanked him for his service.  Not wanting to bother him further, I then listened to my iPod for the rest of the flight. 

When I got to the baggage claim area at Nashville International, there was a woman waiting there with her daughter, who couldn't have been any more than seven.  When the soldier got to the claim area, the daughter lit up like a Christmas tree and barreled into him, knocking his duffel bag out of his hand.  Or maybe he dropped it to pick her up.  No matter.

He walked over to the woman, and they kissed.  Then he kissed the girl again.  Then he kissed the wife again.  Then they all stood in a tight circle and hugged each other.  What passed as seconds to me certainly felt like days to them.

I'm sure many of you - especially those readers who have family or close friends in the military - have seen this scene often.  However, it was the first time in my 35 years that I've been sufficiently privileged to watch such a reunion live.  And, as much as I wanted to turn away, I couldn't stop staring and smiling.

Eventually, the daughter turned and noticed me looking at them.  Her face was still wet from crying.  She took a few steps toward me and, in her unmistakable Tennessee accent, said, "Mister, why are you smiling at us?" 

I walked a little closer and said, "You missed your dad, huh?"  She nodded so hard I was afraid she might dislodge her head.

"Are you glad he's home?"  Another 9.8-Richter nod was my reply.

"Well, I'm glad he's home too.  And I'm grateful for his work.  That's why I'm smiling." 

The soldier scooped her up, walked over with his wife and little girl, and thanked me for what I'd said to his daughter.  I apologized for being so ill-mannered as to intrude in their happy reunion, wished them all the very best, and started to walk back to my staked-out spot at the baggage carousel.

The girl pulled her face out of her dad's shoulder and said, "Mister!"

When I turned, she said, "Sometimes, it's OK to butt in."  For the first time since my high school girlfriend asked me out, I was rendered speechless.  I just walked away with a giant smile plastered on my face.

War has its human costs.  We hear about them on the nightly news, and read about them in places such as these.  And the people who raise the many spectres of that cost are completely correct to do so.  For me, though, it was so good to see one of our servicemen be rewarded with something that I have come to take for granted - the joy of coming home after doing a difficult job under trying circumstances. 

For once, the human cost exacted from those who wait for their heroes to come back to them was repaid.  I still feel blessed and utterly humbled to have borne witness to that repayment.

It appears that President Obama is headed to "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno."

POTUS 44 will appear on the late-night variety show this Thursday, per the New York Times.

This is an interesting move, to say the least.  It's not unusual for Presidential candidates or big-name political figures to appear on the major talkfests, both morning and evening. 

However, it is exceedingly rare for a sitting President to make an appearance on a show like Leno's.  In fact, I cannot think of a single past instance of this happening.  As the Times article mentions, President Bush did make a taped appearance on "Deal or No Deal" once, for a soldier who had served three tours of duty in Iraq.  However, I cannot recall a sitting President appearing live on a "non-serious-news" TV program.  (I am working from memory here; any examples to the contrary would be greatly appreciated.) 

I doubt he'll go on and be completely serious, but it's going to be a delicate balancing act to not be too humorous, given the gravity of the situations he must deal with in Washington.

Your thoughts, please.  Is the President exposed to political risk by appearing on "The Tonight Show"?

Glenn Thrush over at Politico has flagged an item from the Weekly Standard that definitely deserves some attention.

It appears that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has $100,000 in money donated by one Bernard L. Madoff. 

This would be an ideal time for Sen. Bob Menendez, DSCC chair, to show some actual leadership, especially after his embarrassing behavior in the omnibus bill debate.  And I think we should do all we can to encourage young Robert to give back this (obviously dirty) cash.

With that in mind, please avail yourselves of the contact information below.  I'd love nothing better than to help refund some of the $50,000,000,000+ that Madoff has stolen over the past two decades, and get some completely unnecessary taint off our party's brand in the process.

Senator Robert Menendez

DC Office:  317 Senate Hart Office Building, 202-224-4744

Newark, NJ Office:  973-645-3030

Barrington, NJ Office:  856-757-5353

Website:  http://menendez.senate.gov

Web e-mail:  http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

As WhoRunsGov has noted, Menendez has a bit of a history when it comes to campaign finance.  If he is not pressed on this issue, it is safe to say that Madoff's contribution will remain in the DSCC's coffers, and be a valuable tool - for the Republican noise machine. 

When former Sen. Henry Ashurst (R-AZ) was congratulated for seeing the light on an issue he'd reversed position on and voted against, he said, "I didn't see the light - I felt the heat!"  Let's see if we can't warm things up a bit for Menendez and get him to do the right thing.  (Any NJ readers, your contribution would be especially appreciated.)

The following should be of interest to those complaining about the state and local jobs created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as not being created fast enough to really get the economy moving.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation announced yesterday that 53 road projects throughout the state will be financed by $75 million in stimulus funds.

It is also worth noting that the Minnesota DOT is handing out contracts for those projects - starting today.

To review:  ARRA was signed into law on February 17.  We're starting to see that money hit the economy, in the form of awarded contracts, on March 13.  And there may be even earlier examples; I just happened to run across this one. 

Twenty-four days.  Even Smilin' Bob would say this is a fast-acting stimulus. 

(This blog started as a comment I was writing in response to an excellent blog from debbiedoesnothing.  However, I thought it might be appropriate to put it here, so as to not hijack her comments section.) 

The following is a quote from this blog.  If you haven't had the chance to read it and its good comments section yet, please do.

I feel like the situation is hopeless - no amount of money they throw at the banking system is going to solve anything and no one in Washington has the will to do anything else. 

So I just don't read the articles anymore.  If I see a headline about an economic story, I skip the article.  Sometimes sticking your head in the sand is the only way to save your sanity.  My sanity is fragile enough already.

I think the above quote tangentially raises a very, very important point.

I think the financial gnomes who built this system count on people feeling exactly the way this quote describes, especially those lawmakers charged with its oversight.

Their continued dominance depends on people throwing up their hands and throwing shoes at the TV every time they hear words like "derivative", "Madoff", "recession", "trillion", "cramdown", etc.

So, I decided I would no longer turn away.  I started reading about the economy last spring, and haven't stopped.

I primarily read Krugman and Reich (I personally prefer Reich, as he tends to balance his writing more between theory and practice).  But I also read Stiglitz, Johnson, Roubini and Kudlow.  I try to follow Summers and Geithner.  My brother works for Chase, and worked for WaMu before that, so he was a monumental help in getting some kind of grasp on the housing bubble explosion and the credit freeze.

I still feel like I don't even know what I don't know.  But I do think I have enough of a handle that I can stand to learn more.  And now that I do understand the most elementary parts of this terrifyingly complex subject, I can begin to see through some of the BS that gets served up on the nightly news.

Every day, TPM readers discuss so many things.  A quick scan of the current most recommended reader blogs shows pieces on the Vatican's outmoded approach to women, opposition to domestic spying, a competitive health care system, rightwinger religious hypocrisy, and more great subjects.  Worthy subjects, every one of them.

As debbiedoesnothing points out (correctly, I believe), the economy trumps all of these.  I've believed this since before the Lehman collapse (after all, the DJIA has been sinking since October 2007). 

Now, I will never be mistaken for Warren Buffett.  I don't even pass for Rick Santelli.  But I have discovered that I am actually able to comprehend our current situation more, and even make some personal financial decisions with more clarity, than I could have at this time last year. 

Most importantly, I have begun to spot economic BS better.  I posted this criticism of Paulson's TARP proposal last fall, shortly after it came out.  My main concerns were that it was not helping homeowners, and that, if left unregulated, it was a license to steal.  Fast forward to February 2009, and those criticisms were being addressed by President Obama and Secretary Geithner...$350 billion too late, unfortunately.

That doesn't make me any kind of financial guru.  I still need a calculator and a Sherpa guide for my taxes.  But I do know that I couldn't have written that article in March 2008.  And THAT means that I am getting closer to helping knock down that wall of confusion.  Once that wall is demolished, then I can really use my voice against those who perpetrate these frauds against us.

As discouraging as the financial news is, and as labryinthine as the regulations and relationships are, we have to keep at it.  All of us have to keep at it.  We have to watch what's being reported, and learn to find out what's NOT being reported.  The economy IS the number one issue.  Neither it, nor our nation, will ever truly improve until we understand it just as well as we understand Darfur, FISA, habeas corpus, Proposition 8 and embryonic stem cell research. 

During the debate over the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, many people here and elsewhere criticized President Obama's stimulus as being too small.

I contended that (1) the White House had to know that the stim pack, by itself, would not make up for the loss of demand we're expecting in the economy, (2) a larger stimulus package would not have made it through the first time, and (3) there would likely be at least one more stimulus proposal, for at least as much as the first, coming this year.

Well, a consensus is developing that there will need to be another stimulus package.  Here's some particularly sobering stuff from the Washington Post article on the subject (emphases mine):

The stimulus package was designed to "save or create" 3.5 million jobs, according to the administration. But the nation has already lost 4.4 million jobs since the start of the recession.

That's simple math, underscored by the announcement of an 8.1% unemployment rate.  But even that number is probably understating the problem.  I consider underemployment to be a first cousin of unemployment, and you can't really begin to understand just how bad things are until you account for the millions of underemployed workers.

But even the current job-loss figures mask the degree of pain among American workers. A broader measure, which includes people who want a job and have given up looking and those working part time but who want full-time work, rose nearly one percentage point, to 14.8 percent.

So, let's put that in perspective.  Of every 40 adults you see, 3 are underemployed, and another 3 are completely unemployed. 

"It's premature to say we need another stimulus, but the economy is performing much worse than when [the law] was signed, and the odds are increasing that we'll need a bigger policy response," said Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com, who has advised Democratic lawmakers. "What we've learned is policy has been a step behind this whole downturn. It's important to get a step ahead."

I admit, I don't understand how another stimulus could be premature, given the subsequent statements Zandi makes.  But I am proceeding on the idea that at least one more stimulus package is needed.

This appears to be a non-partisan conclusion.  And Congress should be scared enough by the recent Department of Labor report that they should not need nearly as much prodding on a reasonable stimulus as they did earlier.

So, with that in mind, I want to start a discussion.  Please contribute your thoughts on these two questions:

1. How big should the next stimulus be?
2. What should it focus on?  (Include all major areas, percentages on each, etc.)

I think Zandi has it absolutely right.  I think the discussion in general was behind the curve on the last stimulus.  And I know TPM'ers don't like to be behind on anything. :-)   

The Senate is currently debating a $410 billion omnibus spending measure.  This measure stretches across at least a dozen Cabinet-level departments, and funds our government for the remainder of FY 2009.

As of this writing, the Senate counts 59 votes in favor of ending debate on the omnibus bill.  Unfortunately, since this is a spending measure that requires suspension of debate, there must be 60 votes in favor.

What may surprise some of you not following this bill is that there are two Democrats currently voting against it:  Senator Bill Nelson (FL) and Senator Bob Menendez (NJ).  Their reason is the same:  both oppose language in the omnibus that would greatly relax our ongoing embargo against Cuba.

This is the same embargo that Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) has called "ineffective". 

This is the same embargo that the Los Angeles Times has called "useless".

This is the same embargo that the United Nations has roundly condemned every year. 

This is the same embargo that a majority of Cuban-Americans in Miami oppose.

When the only international supporters for your policy are Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau, doesn't that indicate that something just might be seriously amiss with your policy?

When our nation's citizens can travel to Venezuela and Iran without restrictions, but can't travel to Cuba, doesn't that indicate that our priorities are just a wee bit backwards?

Would Nelson and Menendez have been surprised to learn that, in 2004, we had six times as many investigators looking for embargo violations than we had tracking terrorist financial networks?

Oh, and did I mention that their opposition is what's holding up a bill that will actually keep the government open for business through September 30?

Oh, and did I mention that Menendez is also blocking two key White House science appointees solely because of the omnibus measure?

This is the same sort of circular firing squad nonsense that Democrats did throughout the Bush Administration.  We have no time for parliamentary games - especially from our side of the table. 

I'm on record as supporting virtually all of Obama's selections and nominations.  Now we'll get to see just how good they are.  Mr. Emanuel?  You're up.

During last year's Presidential election, some people took to nicknaming the Republican Presidential ticket.  Perhaps no nickname fit better than "Unstable/Unable".

Give the Republicans credit for efficiency.  Not wanting to waste their valuable resources, they now only allow interviews with people like Michael Steele, Steve King and Pete Sessions.  As such, they can demonstrate inability and instability in one monstrous swoop.

However, for sheer spectacle, no one goes over the cliff without so much as a skidmark quite like Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).  The saucer-eyed Congresswoman, you may recall, made national waves by recommending a return to the days of Joseph McCarthy.  She then compounded the problem with this Politico piece, and then proceeded to blame Chris Matthews for tricking her.

Apparently, voters in Minnesota's 6th Congressional District don't have much use for national reputation or competent representation, because Bachmann somehow managed to be re-elected. 

Of course, we've got Madoff and Burris and Bush (oh my!) to occupy us on more serious matters.  It is good, though, to not let perpetual train wrecks like Bachmann escape our notice.

(WARNING:  The author of this blog, as well as its host, TalkingPointsMemo.com, are not responsible for the liquefying of brain cells that will likely occur if you actually listen to the Bachmann interview linked below.  If you don't believe me, ask the driving puppy.)

Still here?  Okay!  Through the looking-glass we go!

Frau Bachmann's latest trip into her alternate-reality bunker happened last weekend.  In a radio interview with KTLK conservative talker Chris Baker, Bachmann was responsible for the following utterances.

• ACORN is "under federal indictment for voter fraud," but the stimulus bill nevertheless gives ACORN "$5 billion." (If you have followed the theme of this post so far, you will not be surprised to learn that ACORN is not under federal indictment and isn't mentioned in the stimulus bill at all.)
• Many members of Congress have "a real aversion to capitalism."
• The stimulus bill includes a measure to create a "rationing board" for health care, and after the bill becomes law, "your doctor will no longer be able to make your healthcare decisions with you."
• Republicans are "too nice" and won't fight back.
• The recovery package is part of a Democratic conspiracy to "direct" funding away from Republican districts, so Democratic districts can "suck up" all federal funds. Bachmann doesn't think this will work because, as she put it, "We're running out of rich people in this country."
• The "Community-Organizer-in-Chief" (yes, that's verbatim) is also orchestrating a conspiracy involving the Census Bureau, which the president will use to redraw congressional lines to keep Democrats in power for up to "40 years." When the host said he was confused, noting that congressional district lines are drawn at the state level, Bachmann said Obama's non-existent plan is an "anti-constitutional move."

No, I am not making any of this up.  Yes, these are all taken straight from the interview.  Yes, you should listen to the whole thing.  No, you cannot sue me for damages.  Frankly, if you listened to the interview before getting to this part of the blog, you may, in fact, qualify as a true medical miracle for surviving the dain bramage caused by trying to logically process Bachmannese.

There is a slim silver lining in Bachmann's cloudy return to Washington.  It was only a matter of time before the nation would once again be treated to watching Bachmann's mind roam wild and free in that gigantic space which it occupies. 

A Palin/Bachmann 2012 GOP ticket has been proposed here before.  But, by combining evidence of being unstable and unable in one gobsmacking package, with absolutely no countervailing evidence of legislative or governing ability, Michele Bachmann is making a strong case to move to the top of the ticket as the true face of the Republicans.  Here's hoping.