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

* Crisis on the Korean peninsula: "President Obama and South Korea's president agreed Tuesday night to hold joint military exercises as a first response to North Korea's deadly shelling of a South Korean military installation, as both countries struggled for the second time this year to keep a North Korean provocation from escalating into war."

* Obama administration succeeds in securing Israeli patience on Iran: "Some Israeli officials say the country's fingers are off the hair-trigger that would launch a strike on the Iranian nuclear program, but that convincing the United States to take a harder line on Iran remains a top national priority."

* Irish austerity: "Desperate to seal a deal for an international bailout, the government in Ireland on Wednesday unveiled a painful, four-year plan for $20 billion in spending cuts and new taxes that would slash unemployment benefits and cut welfare payments for the already hard-hit Irish public."

* Unusually good news on unemployment filings: "The number of people applying for unemployment benefits fell sharply last week to the lowest level since July 2008, a hopeful sign that improvement in the job market is accelerating. The Labor Department said Wednesday that weekly unemployment claims dropped by 34,000 to a seasonally adjusted 407,000 in the week ending Nov. 20."

* President Obama takes a compelling pitch to Kokomo, Indiana.

* Nearly 70% of the allocated TARP money has been "repaid, offset with profits, or canceled."

* The Pentagon will give Congress its DADT survey results on Tuesday. The Senate Armed Services Committee will hold hearings, including testimony from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, on Thursday and Friday.

* Remember the widely-mocked, color-coded terror-alert levels? They're on their way out.

* When has a country ever prospered by devaluing its currency? I'm glad you asked.

* Former right-wing Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating (R) will now lead the American Bankers Association. (thanks to K.G. for the tip)

* Sarah Palin is now going after First Lady Michelle Obama for trying to combat childhood obesity.

* When it comes to student loans and crushing debt, stories like Kelli Space's shouldn't even exist.

* Salon War Room blog has been counting down its Hack 30 -- a list of "the worst pundits in America." The top choice was announced this afternoon, and it's hard to argue with the selection.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

JUST IN TIME FOR THANKSGIVING.... Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) thought he'd use some floor time on the U.S. House to share his understanding on Thanksgiving history and the travails of 17th-century Pilgrims. There are, however, a few problems with his version of events. (Fired Up Missouri warns that watching Akin's video "may make you dumber.")

The far-right lawmaker believes the Pilgrims were "a great bunch of Americans," who "came here with the idea that, after trying socialism, that it wasn't going to work. They realized that it was unbiblical and it was a form of theft. So they pitched socialism out; they learned that in the early 1620s."

This is, to be sure, a popular belief among conservatives. Those rascally Pilgrims tried socialism, only to suddenly realize that it was ineffective and "unbiblical." They discovered the error of their ways and embraced the virtues of capitalism soon after.

The problem is that Akin's wrong. The New York Times' Kate Zernike had an item on this the other day, citing the work of actual historians, rather than easily-confused right-wing politicians.

In our reality, the settlers agreed to hold their property in common, not as experiment in socialism, but as a short-term decision "in the interest of realizing a profit sooner." The Pilgrims "were more like shareholders in an early corporation than subjects of socialism."

In the right's version, the commonly-held property led to laziness and famine. That's wrong, too: "The arrangement did not produce famine. If it had, Bradford would not have declared the three days of sport and feasting in 1621 that became known as the first Thanksgiving."

The Pilgrims ultimately moved away from the system, not because of discoveries about their "unbiblical ways," but because settlers "spoke different dialects and had different methods of farming, and looked upon each other with great wariness."

In the right's version, the Pilgrims flourished after moving away from communal property, which made the first Thanksgiving possible. In reality, the first Thanksgiving was held two years before the settlers gave up on holding their property in common.

Their production improved, not because they turned from a wicked economic system, but because the Pilgrims got better at farming crops like corn that they'd never seen before.

Brian at Right Wing Watch noted that Akin's not the only one caught up in the conservative-politically-correct myth on Thanksgiving's origins -- John Stossel and Phyllis Schlafly like the bogus version, too -- so don't be too surprised if your crazy uncle brings it up tomorrow at the dinner table.

IF THERE IS 'SABOTAGE,' WHAT DOES THE WHITE HOUSE DO?.... It turns out there are quite a few folks who think it's plausible congressional Republicans may be tempted to keep the economy down on purpose to advance partisan goals. Greg Sargent suggests it's time to ask the next question: if that's true, what does the White House do about it?

To be sure, finding examples of observers who find the argument itself is plausible isn't hard. As I've noted, the list includes, to varying degrees, Yglesias, Krugman, Collender, and Serwer, among others. Andrew Sullivan argued the other day that congressional Republicans are "as close to organized vandalism as one can imagine," and reiterated the point today.

Greg asked in response to all of this:

If this is the case, however, what should Obama do about it? As Sullivan rightly notes, during his first two years Obama was able to accomplish an extraordinary amount despite GOP opposition. But now Republicans are set to take over the House, and the Dems' margin in the Senate has dwindled dramatically. So what should Obama do now? What new methods should he employ to use the power of the presidency to reckon with the new, emboldened opposition?

That's obviously fair. Noting that a major political party seems willing to place partisan goals ahead of the public interest is one thing; suggesting constructive courses of action is arguably more important.

So, here are a few thoughts on the next step:

* Govern around Congress: If emboldened congressional Republicans would rather destroy the president than govern, the White House should realize it can do quite a bit without Congress. Eugene Robinson recently noted, "Obama's focus should be on using all the tools at his disposal to move the country in the direction he believes it must go." John Podesta and Dan Froomkin have pieces that flesh this strategy out -- making use of executive orders, executive regulations, etc. -- in more detail.

* Adapt negotiating styles accordingly: If White House officials sit down with the GOP leadership to negotiate, expectations matter. If the president and his team assume Republicans are prepared to work in good faith to find effective solutions to agreed-upon challenges, they may present Democratic proposals with reasonable compromises in mind. If the president and his team assume Republicans are pursuing a scorched-earth campaign, willing to sacrifice the nation's needs in the hopes of destroying the Obama presidency, the compromise proposals -- and the duration of the talks -- would hopefully be pretty different.

* Make your case explicitly: It's one thing for a party to complain about the "Party of No"; it's another level of magnitude to suggest Republicans are willing to sabotage the country's interests to improve their odds in 2012. Any White House has to be cautious about attacking rivals' motives -- though the Bush White House effectively accused Dems of treason, and faced almost no pushback -- but voters need to at least be aware of the concerns. If Democrats believe Republicans may be sabotaging the president and endangering the nation, they're going to have to say so in order to initiate some kind of public conversation.

* Be prepared to run against a "Do-Nothing Congress": It worked for Truman.

I'm sure there are other ideas. What am I missing?

E COLI CONSERVATISM ISN'T GOING AWAY.... I'd really like to know how Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Okla.) mind works. Take his opposition to a food-safety bill currently pending in the Senate.

Far from offering common-sense reforms, this bill doubles-down on the status quo -- which failed to prevent the salmonella outbreak -- with 250 pages of new bureaucracy and regulations. Expanding the Food and Drug Administration will harm small businesses and raise prices at the grocery store -- all without having a meaningful impact on food safety.

Throughout the debate, proponents have claimed we haven't modernized food safety laws in 100 years. That proves my point. For the past 100 years, the free market, not the government, has been the primary driver of innovation and improved safety. Consumer choice is a far more effective accountability mechanism than government bureaucracies.

Now, I realize Coburn is one of the most right-wing senators in modern history. I also realize he reflexively opposes government regulation, even when those regulations help protect those Americans who eat food.

But his reasoning here is incoherent. Follow the logic: our existing food safety measures are inadequate ... which leads to public-health hazards ... which means we should stop trying to improve food safety measures.

By that reasoning, if I'm lax in bringing my car in for routine maintenance, and as a result my car starts to break down, it's proof that routine auto maintenance isn't a good idea.

This makes perfect sense, if you're a crazy person.

Coburn seems at least partially aware of reality. Over the summer, there was a major egg recall, following at least 1,300 salmonella-related illnesses spanning 22 states. The Washington Post reported in August that the outbreak highlights the need to fix "the holes in the country's food safety net."

That truth was hard to deny, and even harder to ignore. As we learned more about the story, we saw that the salmonella problems stemmed from an uninspected producer in Iowa, with a record of health, safety, labor, and other violations that go back 20 years. The need for better regulations and enforcement has been obvious for decades, but conservative, anti-regulatory lawmakers have consistently put industry profits above public safety.

Coburn sees all of this, and thinks, "See? I told you consumer safeguards are a bad idea."

Walid Zafar explained yesterday, "Coburn reasons that since regulation didn't prevent the salmonella outbreak, it means we need less regulation, when in fact, it means the exact opposite."

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

* As expected, Minnesota state Canvassing Board agreed yesterday to start a hand recount of all 2.1 million votescast in the Nov. 2 gubernatorial election. At this point, Mark Dayton (D) leads Tom Emmer (R) by 8,770 votes.

* Rep. Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.) conceded yesterday in his re-election bid, losing to Ann Marie Buerkle by 567 votes. Maffei had the option of asking for a hand recount of the more than 200,000 ballots cast, but chose to step aside instead. It brings the net gain for House Republicans to 63 seats. Buerkle, by the way, is a former spokesperson for Operation Rescue, a militant anti-choice and anti-gay organization.

* On a related note, Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) has narrowly won re-election, as vote counting yesterday showed him with an insurmountable lead over his GOP challenger, Andy Vidak.

* There are now just two unresolved U.S. House races: New York's 1st district and California's 11th district. Democratic incumbents currently lead in both contests.

* Don't be surprised if appointed Sen. Roland Burris (D), who'll give up his seat next week, becomes the 21st candidate to enter Chicago's mayoral race.

* Gentry Collins, the former RNC political director who's marveled publicly at Michael Steele's incompetence and mismanagement, will now take on his former boss in the race for the RNC's chairmanship.

* If Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) intends to stay in the Senate beyond 2012, it seems likely he'd have to seek the Republican nomination. "That's his only hope," said John Olsen, president of the Connecticut AFL-CIO and a former state Democratic chairman.

ONLY GLENN BECK TRULY UNDERSTANDS THE TSA.... Complaints about airport security aren't really my beat, but I nevertheless enjoyed Glenn Beck's on-air tirade yesterday, in which he insisted that Americans are being forced to hate the TSA on purpose so workers would unionize and become President Obama's private army. Or something.

"I don't know what this TSA thing is. And I will tell you that Andy Stern and all his good friends, Richard Trumka and all these guys are now ratcheting up the TSA, and the TSA is now being courted by the unions. You know they are trying to unionize TSA and they are being courted by the unions. 'You need representation because people are starting to treat you poorly. If you don't if people don't take care of you, if the unions don't stand behind you, who's going to stand behind you?'

"This is as much of a play on the TSA as it is on you! Make the people hate the TSA and then the TSA employees are going to beg for somebody to protect them and represent them. And they'll run right into the arms of the union.

"You know when Barack Obama said he was creating his own private army? 'We need a private army just as well funded, just as well equipped.' There's a lot of people saying he was talking about some, I don't know, some diplomatic corps. Uh huh. Was he now? Some people say that it was AmeriCorps and whatever. It could be. I don't know what it is. I don't know what the hell this guy is doing. Nobody does. That's the point. But if you wanted to really have a security force, wouldn't a unionized TSA under the umbrella of Homeland Security be the best thing? I mean, why start a whole new security force when you already have one?"

Fact-checking Beck is an inherently silly exercise, but this notion that President Obama called for the creation of a "private army" continues to be a popular concept on the unhinged right, but it remains patently ridiculous.

Oliver Willis posted a transcript of what Obama actually said, and explained, "Obama was discussing the expansion of agencies like the foreign service and AmeriCorps, not any sort of private army -- and definitely not one comprised of unionized TSA agents."

Once in a while, I almost feel sorry for Beck's minions. Is it any wonder why they have such a twisted view of reality?

LOOKING FOR LEVERAGE ON NEW START.... For proponents of the pending arms control treaty with Russia, New START, much of the last several days have been spent trying to figure out who Senate Republicans will listen to, if anyone.

At this point, GOP opponents have blown off, if not explicitly rejected, the guidance of foreign policy experts from the Reagan and Bush eras, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, the intelligence and diplomatic communities, our European allies, and the American public in general. At this point, Senate Republicans don't seem to care, though they've struggled to explain why.

But the White House hasn't given up. Realizing that the only foreign governments who actually want to see New START fail are Iran and North Korea, administration officials have reportedly begun reaching out to pro-Israel and pro-Jewish organizations, urging them to help Republicans come to their senses.

Over the last three days, three major pro-Israel organizations issued strong statements of support for New START: the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and the American Council for World Jewry (ACWJ).

"We are deeply concerned that failure to ratify the new START treaty will have national security consequences far beyond the subject of the treaty itself," the ADL said in a Nov. 19 letter sent to all senators. "The U.S. diplomatic strategy to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons requires a U.S.-Russia relationship of trust and cooperation."

NJDC President David Harris said this week, "To me the nexus is clear. Ratifying New START is should be a central objective of the entire pro-Israel community."

If this thinking has won over any Republicans, they're hiding it well. Yesterday, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he would vote to kill the treaty, arguing that its verification measures are inadequate. What Bond may not realize -- the often-confused conservative tends to literally sleep through classified briefings related to national security -- is that there are currently no verifications measures in place, the provisions in this treaty would have the strongest verification language ever, and if he and his party kill New START, it may be years before we're actually monitoring Russia's nuclear arsenal again.

WOULD REPUBLICANS FORGO THEIR OWN HEATH CARE BENEFITS?.... Rep.-elect Andy Harris (R-Md.) caused a bit of a stir last week. The conservative incoming freshman, after running on a platform opposed to health care reform, declared that he wanted his taxpayer subsidized coverage -- and he wanted it immediately.

It's never received a whole lot of attention, but members of Congress enjoy an attractive benefits package, including extensive options and taxpayer-subsidized insurance. In light of the Harris flap, a growing number of Democrats are asking a reasonable question: why don't anti-health care Republicans put their coverage where their mouths are?

Congressional Republicans who assailed the Democrats' healthcare law in the run-up to the midterm elections are facing pressure to decline government-provided coverage when they take office. [...]

On Tuesday, Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to GOP leaders signed by 60 Democrats arguing that critics of a government-backed coverage expansion should "walk that walk" and also refuse their federally subsidized coverage.

"If your conference wants to deny millions of Americans affordable health care, your members should walk that walk," Crowley wrote in a letter to Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "You cannot enroll in the very kind of coverage that you want for yourselves, and then turn around and deny it to Americans who don't happen to be Members of Congress."

Outside groups are getting in on the act. The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a union that is among the biggest financial backers of Democrats, on Tuesday released a statement calling on lawmakers who campaigned on repeal to put their money where their mouths are.

"If they enroll in the taxpayer-funded healthcare system provided to members of Congress, they deserve to be denounced as hypocrites," AFSCME President Gerald McEntee said. "If you campaigned for repeal, you should go without taxpayer-funded coverage first."

A handful of incoming House Republicans have accepted the challenge and vowed to refuse congressional health care benefits, but this, in turn, only increases the pressure on the rest of the caucus.

Making matters slightly worse for the GOP, a new survey from Public Policy Polling found a majority of respondents believe Republicans who ran against health care reform should, as a sign of consistency, refuse government coverage. The sentiment was especially strong among Republicans.

The GOP leadership has already said this is a non-starter, and that members will not be asked or expected to give up coverage for them and their families, but it's a safe bet the outline of 2012 attack ads are already coming together.

REMEMBER THE GOP'S EARMARK BAN?.... It's been about a week since Senate Republicans agreed to impose an earmark moratorium on themselves. How's it going to so far? Not well.

Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks -- money included in a bill by a lawmaker to benefit a home-state project or interest -- was short-lived.

Only three days after GOP senators and senators-elect renounced earmarks, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, got himself a whopping $200 million to settle an Arizona Indian tribe's water rights claim against the government.

Kyl slipped the measure into a larger bill sought by President Barack Obama and passed by the Senate on Friday to settle claims by black farmers and American Indians against the federal government.

Kyl's office insists the senator's earmark isn't an earmark. It's just a specific spending provision Kyl quietly inserted into an unrelated spending bill that would direct funds to people in his state.

And to think some would have the gall to call this an "earmark."

The money for the 15,000-member White Mountain Apache Tribe was one of four tribal water rights claims totaling almost $570 million that was added to the $5 billion-plus bill. [...]

The $200 million in Kyl's measure would be used to construct and maintain a drinking water project on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, including a dam, reservoir, treatment plant and delivery pipelines.

Knowing almost nothing about this, Kyl's earmark may be entirely worthwhile, and this may very well be money well spent. That's not really the point -- Kyl just threw his support to a sweeping moratorium on earmarks, which apparently didn't quite last a week.

And the larger point is that we're likely to see this quite a bit. Bradford Plumer explained recently that "the odds that this ban ever amounts to much are pretty slim," given the fact that Senate Republicans are likely to keep doing exactly what Kyl did.

ACKERMAN'S 'PUT UP, OR SIT DOWN' CHALLENGE.... For months, public opinion has been pretty steady on health care -- Americans have been convinced not to like the Affordable Care Act, but those same Americans actually like what's in it. Even many of those who like the idea of repealing the new law balk when told about the popular benefits families would lose.

This has given one Democratic House member an idea.

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) is daring Republicans to make good on one of their top legislative priorities: repealing the healthcare law.

Using a somewhat unusual tactic, Ackerman, a strong advocate for the healthcare reform law, vowed Tuesday to introduce a series of bills next week that would roll back some of the most popular provisions of the law.

The congressman said the legislation -- all titled the HIPA-CRIT (Health Insurance Protects America -- Can't Repeal IT) -- will give Republicans a chance to "put up, or sit down" on their campaign promise to repeal the eight-month-old law.

You'll notice, of course, that HIPA-CRIT, when spoken, is "hypocrite."

Touting his idea, Ackerman said, "This will be the big chance for Republicans to do what they've vowed to do. These bills will be their chance to at long last restore liberty and repeal the evil monster they've dubbed 'Obamacare.'" In his letter to his House colleagues, Ackerman practically taunted his rivals: "Go ahead, make my day. Become a cosponsor."

His plan, at this point, is for six separate votes under the HIPA-CRIT Act, forcing members to vote up or down on repealing (1) a ban on rescissions; (2) annual coverage limits; (3) lifetime coverage limits; (4) safeguards protecting adults with pre-existing conditions from discrimination; (5) safeguards protecting children with pre-existing conditions from discrimination; and (6) allowing young adults to stay on their parents' plans until age 26.

To repeal the Affordable Care Act, as so many Republicans are champing at the bit to do, would be to eliminate all of these benefits, each of which are extremely popular. Is the GOP willing to put their votes where their mouths are? Ackerman intends to find out. (This is consistent with the "repeal trap" strategy I outlined back in January.)

And as worthwhile as I think Ackerman's idea is, I can't help but wonder about one minor detail: the timing.

I don't mean to tell congressional Dems how to do their job, but wouldn't the HIPA-CRIT Act have been far more interesting if the votes were held in, say, September or October? Before, you know, the midterm elections?

PROJECTIONS IN NEED OF A RESPONSE.... About six months ago, the Fed made economic projections for the next couple of years. The Fed's board of governors and its regional bank presidents now have new projections, and they're slightly worse.

Unemployment is set to remain higher for longer than previously thought, according to new projections from the Federal Reserve that would mean more than 10 million Americans remain jobless through the 2012 elections - even as a separate report shows corporate profits reaching their highest levels ever.

Top Federal Reserve officials project that the unemployment rate, now 9.6 percent, will fall only to about 9 percent at the end of 2011 and about 8 percent when the next presidential election arrives, in late 2012. The central bankers had envisioned a more rapid decline in joblessness in their previous forecasts, prepared in June.

Economic news isn't all bad. Third quarter GDP was revised upwards; corporate profits certainly aren't a problem; and Neil Irwin's report added that there have been "solid readings in recent weeks on job creation, manufacturing and retail."

But the Fed's top policymakers nevertheless expect economic growth next year in the 3% to 3.6% range, which would relatively acceptable under normal circumstances, but which is wholly inadequate when trying to bounce back from a brutal recession. If these projections prove to be accurate, unemployment will be in the 8.9% to 9.1% by the end of 2011, and in the 7.7% to 8.2% range at the end of 2012.

And if the Fed's projections turn out to be a little too optimistic, as they were in June, these figures will end up being worse.

That said, it's the political response to all of this that leaves me shaking my head -- which is to say, there isn't a political response.

A discouraging report like this should, one would like to think, encourage policymakers in Washington to take steps to improve economic conditions. The Fed is effectively letting D.C. know that if Congress does nothing, we can expect tepid growth and painfully slow job growth for quite a long while.

But at this point, we'd actually be lucky if "nothing" is the worst response from Congress. Remember, congressional Republicans, by their own admission, have no plan to expand economic growth. They don't even intend to try. Their stated goals in this area include taking money out of the economy through spending cuts, focusing on deficit reduction, cutting off stimulative unemployment benefits, fighting for the same tax rates we already have, and weighing the possibly of sending the United States into default.

Ideally, policymakers would see bleak economic projections and want to try to do something. But we're so far from the ideal, we can't see it from here.

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

* Crisis on the Korean Peninsula: "South Korea warned North Korea on Tuesday of 'enormous retaliation' if it took more aggressive steps after Pyongyang fired scores of artillery shells at a South Korean island in one of the heaviest attacks on its neighbor since the Korean War ended in 1953."

* For crying out loud: "For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement. But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all."

* Conditions in Ireland are deteriorating: "Political infighting engulfed Ireland on Tuesday, threatening to trigger a quick election and delay a massive EU-IMF bailout. Rebels from Prime Minister Brian Cowen's own party pressed to oust him and opposition leaders demanded an election before Christmas."

* Maybe someone should do something: "Top Federal Reserve officials expect the unemployment rate to remain around nine percent at the end of next year and eight percent at the end of 2012, according to internal forecasts that drove the central bank to take new efforts to boost the economy three weeks ago."

* Also not encouraging: "Sales of previously owned homes slipped slightly in October as the housing market struggled in the face of high unemployment and tight credit."

* When dealing with congressional Republicans, if Dems "hope for the best, and plan for the worst," they'll be on the right track.

* The dispute among Senate Republicans over ethanol subsidies continues to get even more interesting.

* The fact that incoming House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is considered a leading Republican voice on economic policy is rather horrifying.

* Harold Pollack reports on encouraging developments in combating AIDS.

* After all this time, Marc Thiessen should probably know quite a bit more about the subjects he claims to care about.

* The Daily Caller's transition from credible to dubious to ignominious to cover-your-eyes-ridiculous was completed today.

* Daniel Luzer takes a closer look at some of the ethical issues surrounding Melanie Sloan's departure from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

* Fox News refuses to air paid advertising featuring U.S. troops, apparently because they don't like what the servicemen and women have to say about repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

* And last night, former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) told Sean Hannity that Republicans shouldn't "just preach to the choir with Fox [News] viewers." I'm pretty sure that's not the network's official line, but accidental candor is better than none.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

BACHMANN'S 'TEACHER'.... The New York Times had an item the other day on Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and her plans for the next Congress, some of which are pretty ambitious. Reader C.W. reminded me of the significance of the last two paragraphs:

For now, [Bachmann's] plan for the caucus "is to start weekly classes on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights," inviting everyone from Supreme Court justices to legal scholars to speak.

"As we're studying every week, let's say for instance the commerce clause, then as the legislation comes before us, we can apply through the grid of the Constitution the actual legislation that we're looking at," she said. "This is a tremendous real-time forum to be able to discuss these issues ahead of time, prior to the vote, in regard to principles of the Tea Party."

When asked who'll be lead these "classes," Bachmann tends to mention the far-right members of the Supreme Court -- who may not be interested in an unpaid teaching gig at a separate branch of government -- and an evangelical activist/Glenn Beck buddy by the name of David Barton.

Who's David Barton? He became a celebrity in the religious right in the '90s, serving as a pseudo-historian trying to convince fellow activists to reject the separation of church and state. Objective analysis of Barton's materials found glaring factual errors -- which often happens when someone pretends to be a historian.

More recently, Barton helped write the absurd Texas curriculum standards, despite his lack of credentials; became a faculty member at Glenn Beck's "university"; compared Tea Party activiststo Jesus Christ; and was the subject of a fairly devastating Keith Olbermann segment.

But that's really just scratching the surface. Check out this recent report from the Minnesota Independent, and this fairly devastating critique from People for the American Way.

And remember, as far as Bachmann is concerned, this guy is qualified to "teach" members of Congress about how they should interpret the Constitution.

'I CANNOT FATHOM WHY THEY ARE DOING WHAT THEY ARE DOING'.... I think it's fair to say Norm Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute, isn't exactly a raging liberal.

So when he notes in his Roll Call column that Senate Republican tactics on the pending arms control treaty with Russia, New START, are "unsettling and depressing," I hope Ornstein's concerns are not only harder to dismiss, but are also taken seriously.

[Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)] has long been a Senator I admire for his seriousness of purpose, his intellect, and his decency. [Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)] is a thoughtful, solid and independent conservative, a rising star in the Senate, who voted for the treaty in the Foreign Relations Committee. [Sen.-elect Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)] brings real depth and experience from his position of leadership in the House; I always found him to be one who put national interest ahead of cheap shots, at least on the international front.

I cannot fathom why they are doing what they are doing. [Reagan Administration Secretary of State George Schultz] is not exactly a wimp when it comes to dealing with Russia or threats in the world. No one understands the dynamics of global relations and America's role in the world -- much less the dangers of nuclear proliferation -- more than [Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.)].

Our military leaders are not prone to wishful thinking or peace-at-any-price thinking. The stakes for America's national interest, including Iran and Afghanistan, are immense here. Please, guys, suck it up and find a way to make this work. [emphasis added]

I tend to disagree with some of Ornstein's assessments of the GOP players here -- Kyl conceded in August that he just assumed, falsely, that nuclear-site inspections were continuing while he held up New START, which does not speak well of his intellect or seriousness of purpose.

But Ornstein's larger point clearly has merit. Partisan games come and go, but we're talking about international affairs, nuclear proliferation, national security, and American credibility on the global stage. There are, in other words, some policy areas where even Republicans are supposed to be able to be grown-ups, and put the nation's needs first.

Except, that's not happening. Ornstein's good advice notwithstanding, a few too many Senate Republicans don't want to "suck it up"; they appear to want to undercut the U.S. government for partisan ends.

It's what lead Paul Krugman to sound pretty convincing when he wrote, "These days, national security experts are tearing their hair out over the decision of Senate Republicans to block a desperately needed new strategic arms treaty. And everyone knows that these Republicans oppose the treaty, not because of legitimate objections, but simply because it's an Obama administration initiative; if sabotaging the president endangers the nation, so be it."

THE PARTY OF 'ORGANIZED VANDALISM'.... I don't intend to belabor the point too much more, but I've been encouraged this week by the broader discussion after my "sabotage" post from Saturday.

To briefly recap, I'd noticed some commentary of late suggesting an uncomfortable point about congressional Republicans: they may be tempted to keep the economy down on purpose to advance partisan goals. Matt Yglesias, for example, said the Obama White House should be prepared for "deliberate economic sabotage" from the GOP.

I made the case that this is worthy of discussion, which hasn't gone over well with conservatives (Michael Gerson thinks I'm an "idiot"), but which nevertheless generated some noteworthy coverage at outlets such as The Week and The Atlantic.

Paul Krugman's NYT column emphasized a related point yesterday, insisting that the Republican Party "isn't interested in helping the economy as long as a Democrat is in the White House." But similar arguments keep popping up. Here's an Andrew Sullivan item from the other day:

The ghastly truth is that we have one political party that is as close to organized vandalism as one can imagine. START, the debt ceiling, civil rights, real spending cuts and tax reform: all these will be subject to the pure nihilism of the will to power. Their goal is the destruction of Obama. That is all.

And here's Adam Serwer this morning:

[Congressional Republicans] use what power they have to prevent government from performing basic duties at any level of efficiency, and then turn around and argue that this reflects a failure of leadership on the part of the president. The pursuit of political power is more important to the party than civic responsibility. It's a testament to the power of low expectations that this hasn't produced more of an outrage, especially since they aren't even pretending otherwise.

It's interesting, in and of itself, that this sentiment has become fairly common. We are, after all, talking about prominent observers wondering aloud whether a major political party is putting its partisan hatred for an elected president ahead of the public good. There was a time such a suggestion was scandalous; now it's widespread enough to appear in a Nobel Laureate's print column in the paper of record.

For a slightly different angle, it's also worth considering Greg Sargent's take on this yesterday:

...I happen to think the "economic sabotage" argument is not going to work. Dems tried variations of this case for two years, and there's no evidence they bore any fruit. I just don't think voters will buy it, or if they do, they won't particularly care about it.

Also: At a certain point there's little percentage in making variations of the same old lament again and again that Republicans are out to defeat Obama politically at all costs and that it's folly for Obama to keep seeking bipartisan compromise. It seems like the better argument to be having at this point is over what Obama specifically should do to adjust to this new reality.

That seems fair, though I'd add that it's worth having the "sabotage" conversation, if for no other reason, than to make clear to the White House what it should expect from the president's partisan rivals.