REPUBLICANS FIND THEIR BRIDGE TO THE 19TH CENTURY.... The Republican majority in the Iowa House this week passed a measure declaring that they intend to ignore a federal law they don't like. It's unlikely to pass the state Senate, but it's a rather striking development anyway.

The underlying issue is called "nullification," and it was a popular concept with conservatives before the Civil War. The idea has been deemed hopelessly ridiculous by the American mainstream -- in both major political parties -- for generations, which is why it's slightly horrifying to see how common it's become in far-right circles over the last couple of years.

Indeed, just over the past two weeks, in addition to Iowa's state House stoking the confederate fires, the president of the Arizona state Senate wants to create a committee that could "nullify in its entirety" federal laws state officials disapprove of, while Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R) announced his support for a law nullifying federal measures he doesn't like. (Otter's Republican Attorney General felt compelled to explain, "There is no right to pick and choose which federal laws a State will follow.")

Nullification isn't exactly secession from the Union, but it's fair to characterize it as secession-lite.

In other words, this is simply and plainly stark raving mad. It's hardly news that contemporary Republicans have become more radical, but this nullification talk helps drive the point home nicely.

Dana Milbank had a good column a while back on those who claim "states can merely ignore any federal law they don't like."

[N]ullification, like secession, has been tried before, with poor result. In 1832, Andrew Jackson threatened to use force against South Carolina for nullifying federal law, saying the state was on the brink of treason and argued that "to say that any state may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation." A compromise held off violence for another quarter century. [...]

If a state thinks the law is unconstitutional, it can challenge the law in court, as Virginia is doing. If people don't like the law, they can elect a new Congress and president to repeal it. Or, they can attempt to amend the Constitution, as several Republican lawmakers would do with the proposed repeal of the 14th Amendment, the one with all that nonsense about equal protection under the law. But secession and nullification have all the legitimacy of a temper tantrum.

And yet, that tantrum is nevertheless becoming increasingly common, as we're seeing this week.

There is no better example of hysterical Republican extremism. Such madness would have been laughed at by the GOP mainstream not too long ago, but is now a familiar component of the party's message of the 21st century.

KYL'S 'VERY SAD,' IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE.... On the Senate floor yesterday, hoping to demonstrate his compassion while gutting America's health care system, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) made an interesting argument about the Affordable Care Act.

"Even more controversial and very sad, Arizona has stopped Medicaid funding for several kinds of transplant surgeries on October 1st. This is actually a kind of rationing that's required by ObamaCare. The state cannot afford to provide the most expensive procedures. And therefore it has to cut them back, all because they are prevented by law from dialing back the coverage of these adults without children. So the one place that they can cut is on transplants. A very sad day, as I said."

Now, here's a terrific example of why the debate over health care policy hasn't been productive for the last two years. Kyl's home state has been rationing care, but he hasn't the foggiest idea why, so he makes up a blatantly untrue explanation and shares it on the Senate floor.

In our reality, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) made cuts affecting transplant patients late last year as a way to save state funds, knowing that it would likely mean death sentences for many patients. She, too, tried to blame Democrats in Washington, but Brewer was also lying -- the governor signed these state health care cuts into law on March 18. President Obama signed federal health care reform into law on March 23.

Indeed, the American Enterprise Institute's Norm Ornstein explained recently that Republican officials in Arizona chose to create a "real" death panel. "[T]he nightmares of conservatives bitterly opposed to health reform are coming true," Ornstein added, "but with zero relation to the reform bill they opposed."

If Kyl wants to condemn the governor of his own state and his own party, fine. But he should spare us the story of how "very sad" he is given that he didn't bother to get his facts straight, and tried to smear Democrats for a policy they didn't approve and don't support.

THURSDAY'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:

* With the DCCC launching ads in 19 House Republicans' districts, Crossroads GPS, the Karl Rove-backed "independent" group, is investing $90,000 on radio ads in the same districts to defend the targeted lawmakers.

* Right-wing activists in Indiana weren't bluffing -- state Treasurer Richard Mourdock (R) has begun taking the initial steps to challenge incumbent Sen. Richard Lugar (R) in a Republican primary next year.

* Apparently part of her ridiculous national ambitions, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) will travel to South Carolina -- home to one of the earliest 2012 primaries -- this week.

* Sen. John Thune (R) of South Dakota has expressed an interest in running for president, but the latest evidence suggests he'll pass on the 2012 race and remain in the Senate.

* In Massachusetts, Sen. Scott Brown (R) is likely to face a top-tier Democratic challenger next year, but it won't be Rep. Barney Frank (D). The Democratic House member said today he'll seek re-election, instead.

* In Florida, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Sen. Bill Nelson (D), up for re-election in 2012, with a 45% approval rating. That's not horrible, but only 43% of Floridians believe he deserves another term.

* Speaking of Florida, Sunshine State Republicans are interested in blowing off their party's 2012 presidential nominating calendar, and moving up their primary. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is desperate to convince them otherwise.

* Republicans have plenty of Senate targets next year, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California probably shouldn't be one of them -- the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows her with big leads over all of her likely GOP challengers.

* And in Alaska, defeated Senate candidate Joe Miller (R) still has quite a bit of money in the bank and is thinking about a 2012 campaign against someone -- though it's unclear who. One possibility is a primary race against Rep. Don Young (R), rather than waiting until 2014 to take on Sen. Mark Begich (D).

O'REILLY PUTS ON HIS THEOLOGIAN'S HAT AGAIN.... About a month ago, Bill O'Reilly interviewed David Silverman, president of American Atheists, and the Fox News host thought he had a trump card to bolster beliefs in the supernatural.

"I'll tell you why [religion's] not a scam, in my opinion: tide goes in, tide goes out," O'Reilly said, in all seriousness. "Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that. You cannot explain why the tide goes in.... See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain that."

The notion that tides can be -- and have been -- explained by the effects of the moon and its gravitational influence on the spinning earth completely eluded the Fox News personality.

Apparently, O'Reilly heard about some of us mocking him over this, so he released a video for "premium members" of his website, including a challenge to those who've scoffed at his evidence of the supernatural.

"Okay, how did the Moon get there? How'd the Moon get there? Look, you pinheads who attacked me for this, you guys are just desperate. How'd the Moon get there? How'd the Sun get there? How'd it get there? Can you explain that to me? How come we have that and Mars doesn't have it? Venus doesn't have it. How come? Why not? How'd it get here?"

Nicholas Graham noted, "In fact, prevailing scientific theory is that the Moon formed as the result of a massive impact with Earth."

Right, and the reason Mars and Venus don't have Earth's moon is because it's Earth's Moon. Other planets have their own moons. It's really not that complicated.

Bad Astronomy goes into far more detail, documenting the scope of O'Reilly's confusion.

I don't imagine he'll care, but my advice to O'Reilly is to stop trying to prove the supernatural with astronomy. It's just not a good idea. The key to matters of faith is ... faith (i.e., belief in the absence of proof). Looking for proof of the divine in tides and moons, as a rule, means you're doing it wrong.

WHEN POLITICAL PUGILISTS RESORT TO BAD FAITH.... One of the alleged norms of a civil discourse is not questioning opponents' motives. One is on solid ground accusing rivals of being wrong, and can even get away with accusing rivals of being dumb, but accusing them of deliberately arguing in bad faith should be done sparingly.

But once in a while, the shoe really does fit.

Today, for example, Jonathan Cohn makes a very compelling case that many of the Republicans arguing against the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act are, in fact, doing so in "bad faith." His piece is well worth reading, and as regular readers may imagine, I find it persuasive.

Part of the problem for the GOP, of course, is that they fully embraced the individual mandate right up until President Obama agreed with them. Many of the Republicans who are outraged by the policy now are the same Republicans who endorsed, voted for, and even co-sponsored measures with an individual mandate. (Sen. Olympia Snowe voted for a plan with a mandate in committee late 2009, and just months later, said the same policy is unconstitutional.)

It's possible that all of these Republicans had the same epiphany at the same time, but (a) they've never been able to explain the shift; and (b) the more logical explanation is shameless opportunism.

And that's OK. We're all adults, and politics, I've been reminded more than once, ain't beanbag. Shameless opportunism is offensive, but it's part of the game.

But with that in mind, let's at least be clear about motivations, and appreciate what is plainly true: the mandate's critics have long since abandoned sincere, good-faith arguments. I've followed politics long enough to know this is part of the process, but let's not pretend sincerity exists where it does not.

Ezra Klein had a terrific item on this yesterday, explaining, "Whatever the legal argument about the individual mandate is about, it's not, as some of its detractors would have it, a question of liberty."

When it comes to the legislation itself, the key question actually comes down to semantics. It's broadly agreed that tax breaks are constitutional. The individual mandate could've been called the "personal responsibility tax." If you can show the IRS proof of insurance coverage, you then get a "personal responsibility tax credit" for exactly the same amount. This implies that what makes the mandate unconstitutional in the eyes of some conservatives is its wording.... Despite the overheated rhetoric that's been tossed around in this debate, I don't believe our forefathers risked their lives to make sure the word "penalty" was eschewed in favor of the word "tax." This is not a country built upon semantics. [...]

The principle conservatives are fighting for is that they don't like the Affordable Care Act. And having failed to win that fight in Congress, they've moved it to the courts in the hopes that their allies on the bench will accomplish what their members in the Senate couldn't. That's fair enough, of course. But they didn't see the individual mandate as a question of liberty or constitutionality until Democrats passed it into law in a bill Republicans opposed, and they have no interest in changing its name to the "personal responsibility tax," nor would they be mollified if it was called the "personal responsibility tax." The hope here is that they'll get the bill overturned on a technicality. And perhaps they will. But no one should be confused by what's going on.

That's excellent advice.

GOP DROPS BID TO REDEFINE RAPE.... The House Republicans' "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" was odious enough at face value, but its provision redefining rape was simply inexcusable.

Existing law already restricts public funds for abortions, but there are exemptions for impregnated rape victims. This new effort, written by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), would severely limit what would legally be considered rape -- if a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, for example, she couldn't use Medicaid funds to terminate the pregnancy.

The uproar this week has been pretty intense, and as it turns out, pretty effective, too.

House Republicans plan to sidestep a charged debate over the distinction between "forcible rape" and "rape" by altering the language of a bill banning taxpayer subsidies for abortions.

The provision in question, written as an exemption from the ban for women who become pregnant as a result of "forcible rape," touched off a firestorm of criticism from women's groups, and it gained enough attention to become the subject of a satirical segment on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."

But a spokesman for the bill's author, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), says the modifier "forcible" will be dropped so that the exemption covers all forms of rape, as well as cases of incest and the endangerment of the life of the mother.

As the week progressed, even Republicans who support the larger bill struggled to defend' the rape-definition provision, and the language threatened to scuttle the entire legislation. Smith's decision to drop this was a no-brainer, and should make House passage that much more likely.

But before we move on, it's worth emphasizing the fact that this bill is still awful, barring outright "the use of federal subsidies to buy any insurance that covers abortion well beyond the new exchanges."

The tax credits that are encouraging small businesses to provide insurance for their workers could not be used to buy policies that cover abortions. People with their own policies who have enough expenses to claim an income tax deduction could not deduct either the premiums for policies that cover abortion or the cost of an abortion. People who use tax-preferred savings accounts to pay medical costs could not use the money to pay for an abortion without paying taxes on it.

I'm glad proponents have dropped the effort to redefine rape, a move so offensive it's still hard to believe Republicans considered it. But make no mistake -- its removal does not make this a good bill.

THE OFF-AGAIN, ON-AGAIN 'TRUCE'.... Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), a likely presidential candidate in 2012, caused a stir in conservative circles last summer when he suggested it's time for a "truce" on culture-war issues. The religious right movement and leaders like Mike Huckabee were outraged.

Ever since, Daniels has struggled a bit with the line he took. In December, the governor walked back the comment, arguing that the "truce" was directed at liberals who are "very aggressively trying to change the definition of marriage."

This week, Daniels reversed course again, suggesting he was right the first time.

Potential presidential candidate Mitch Daniels irked more than a few conservatives last year when he called for a "truce" on social issues while the country works through its economic problems.

Now he's doubling down on that position.

The Indiana governor and dark horse presidential favorite of many fiscal conservatives told radio host Laura Ingraham he wants to "mute" issue like abortion and gay marriage - at least for a certain amount of time while the country's growing debt is confronted and other economic problems are dealt with.

"I would like to think that fixing [the debt] and saving our kids' future could be a unifying moment for our country and we wouldn't stop our disagreements or our passionate belief in these other questions, we just sort of mute them for a little while, while we try to come together on the thing that menaces us all," he told Ingraham Monday in comments first reported by the Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody.

That may sound like a fairly reasonable position to take, but it's very likely to doom his presidential ambitions. Too much of the Republican base still feels too passionately about culture-war issues to go along with this kind of sentiment from a presidential candidate.

Remember, even now, a month into the new Congress, Daniels' Republican allies are working on abortion rights, not job creation. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) argued last week that it's more important to focus on social issues than economic ones, and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) believes it's literally impossible to be "a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative."

I suspect plenty of Americans would welcome Republicans moving away from a divisive culture war, but most of those Americans don't vote in GOP presidential nominating contests.

STOP WAITING FOR THE 'OLD' MCCAIN TO COME BACK.... It was probably just a matter of time. For years, the media ran so many "Whatever happened to the old John McCain?" pieces, they were hard to count. The reason was obvious -- media figures that adored one of the previous personas of the Arizona senator were dismayed to see what had become of one of their favorite politicians.

As we talked about a few weeks ago, those pieces have, thankfully, run their course. Nearly everyone seems to realize that McCain circa 1999-2001 no longer exists, and he's been replaced by the bitter, belligerent senator we saw throwing a tantrum on the Senate floor in December over gay Americans serving in the military.

My fear has been we'll see a new media push. Instead of figures asking, "Whatever happened to the old John McCain?" we'll be confronted with a bunch of "Maybe the old John McCain will come back to us?" pieces.

Take this week, for example. President Obama invited McCain to the White House for a one-on-one chat yesterday, and the senator agreed to attend. It led to this piece in Time magazine: "After Move Right, Is Maverick McCain Back?"

Friends and colleagues say they have noticed a marked change in the 74-year-old Arizona Senator. His steady march to the right, which began during his presidential campaign and ended with his re-election to a fifth Senate term last year, has halted. [...]

So, is the redoubtable maverick back? One longtime McCain watcher thinks so. "It appears Mac is back on track to be a player of significance and importance on the center stage of American politics," notes his old friend and adviser Mark McKinnon. "The lion in winter is starting to roar."

Oh for crying out loud.

Look, I'm glad McCain is now willing to be in the same room as the president, and it was nice of the senator to be gracious towards Obama in a recent op-ed reflecting on the tragedy in Tucson. And to be sure, the Time article includes some quotes from Senate Democrats saying McCain has been "more willing to sit down and talk."

But I can only hope the media shows some restraint before signing up again for the McCain fan club. Since his re-election -- in other words, after he lost the incentive to pander to the far-right base -- McCain has broken his word on the New START treaty and inexplicably voted against it; filibustered the DREAM Act he promised three years ago to help pass; lost his temper railing against gays in the military; and just yesterday, lied pretty blatantly while trashing the Congressional Budget Office.

"Is Maverick McCain Back?" I suppose anything's possible, but the question itself strikes me as a little silly. Literally every move we've seen from McCain for the last several years suggests that previous persona is gone, and it's not coming back. He's angrier, more partisan, more right-wing, more dishonest, and more willing to abandon every meaningful policy position he's taken than ever before.

I'm willing to entertain the possibility that McCain's "steady march to the right ... has halted," but it's going to take more than one White House meeting.

SENATE KILLS HEALTH CARE REPEAL EFFORT.... We knew a month ago exactly how this would play out. The Republican majority in the House would vote to repeal the entirety of the Affordable Care Act; the measure would move to the Senate where it would die.

And wouldn't you know it, all the relevant players went through the motions, and the Kabuki dance came to a predictable end late yesterday afternoon.

Senate Democrats on Wednesday defeated a bid by Republicans to repeal last year's sweeping health care overhaul, as they successfully mounted a party-line defense of President Obama's signature domestic policy achievement.

Challenges to the law will continue, however, on Capitol Hill and in the courts, with the United States Supreme Court ultimately expected to decide if the law is constitutional.

The only meaningful question was whether any members would break party ranks. None did -- Republicans needed 60 votes, and came up with 47, all from the GOP caucus.

What we're left with is a wasted month in which Republicans, instead of working on meaningful legislation or efforts to improve the economy, made their party's base feel good about itself. Had the repeal measure passed the consequences would have been severe -- higher deficits, higher taxes on small businesses, higher costs for consumers, higher rates of uninsured -- but Republicans did it anyway, in large part because they had the luxury of consequence-free posturing. They knew from the outset that families wouldn't actually suffer from this stunt because the crusade would inevitably fail.

GOP lawmakers, in other words, had the best of both worlds -- they could try to gut the system and screw over millions (which makes the base happy), knowing all the while that they were only putting on a show (which makes families who need the benefits happy). It was a ridiculous charade, an insult to the political process, and a reminder that the GOP is in desperate need of grown-ups, but in the end, the stunt served its intended, shallow purposes.

This little vanity exercise was also a reminder of just how little seriousness Republicans bring to their policy work. Like their House counterparts, the Senate GOP spent the day making up numbers, condemning the CBO, and repeating long-discredited attacks, but what they never got around to doing was explaining how they might want to improve the old, dysfunctional health care system. Not one Republican lawmaker this month has spent time presenting a credible alternative or talking about how they might try to help people who need it.

They love tearing down; they loathe building up.

With yesterday's vote, every Republican in the Senate effectively told American families, "We'll gut the health care system now, and maybe figure something else out later. In the meantime, good luck -- and don't get sick." Those who find this compelling probably aren't paying close enough attention.

Repeal would have real-world consequences that would hurt millions of families. Seniors would pay more for prescription medication. Children with pre-existing conditions would lose their protections. Young adults would be kicked off their family's plan. Small businesses would lose their tax breaks. Untold numbers of Americans would lose their homes, savings, businesses, and quite possibly their lives, simply because they got sick.

Fortunately, the legislative repeal effort failed yesterday. Good riddance.

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

* Clashes in Egypt grow increasingly violent: "The Egyptian government struck back at its opponents on Wednesday, unleashing waves of pro-government provocateurs armed with clubs, stones, rocks and knives in and around Tahrir Square in a concerted effort to rout the protesters who have called for an end to President Hosni Mubarak's near-30-year rule."

* The White House has lost patience with Mubarak. Referencing President Obama's call for a transition, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters today, "Now means now."

* Journalists targeted in Cairo: "As chaos gripped central Tahrir Square in Cairo on Wednesday, journalists covering the scene on the ground found themselves the targets of violence and intimidation by demonstrators chanting slogans in favor of President Hosni Mubarak. One prominent American television correspondent, Anderson Cooper of CNN, was struck in the head repeatedly."

* With the region on edge, Yemen's longtime president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, announced a series of concessions, including his departure and a pledge that his son would not be his successor.

* Cyclone Yasi, packing extraordinary winds up to 186 mph, batters northeastern Australia.

* Judge Roger Vinson's decision on the Affordable Care Act was so wrong on so many levels that the Center for American Progress put together a fascinating interactive graphic, detailing every error of fact and judgment, page by page.

* On a related note, Wisconsin's Republican A.G. is walking back his refusal to enforce the law, while Florida's Republican administration is sending back federal funds in light of the ruling.

* Conservatives won't like it, but the truth is, the government already regulates inactivity, and has for years.

* President Obama signs New START, ending the treaty process.

* It appears the Gulf of Mexico will recover from the BP by the end of 2012, which is faster than many people expected.

* Barbara Morrill does what I should have done yesterday -- make a cool chart documenting the media's interest in health care court rulings.

* Fox News ran a Rupert Murdoch infomercial today instead of covering events in Egypt.

* Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wants to cut U.S. aid to Israel. Senate Democrats push back.

* Michael Kinsley made me laugh out loud with this one.

* How for-profit schools keep the federal dollars flowing.

* Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) had one unfilled cabinet post, and he finally found an African-American official to join his team.

* Bill O'Reilly doesn't understand how climate change doesn't prevent snowstorms in winter. Al Gore explains it to him.

* And best wishes to Glenn Greenwald, who's out of the hospital and on the mend. Here's to a speedy recovery, Glenn.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

WHEN THE KOCH BROTHERS GET A LITTLE CREEPY.... We talked over the weekend about the David and Charles Koch's latest meeting, held at a posh resort near Palm Springs, where the billionaire conservatives gathered with powerful far-right officials to raise money and plot strategy. If you didn't hear much about it, that's not an accident -- the discussions are held behind well-protected closed doors, and journalists are strictly prohibited from attending sessions.

Kenneth Vogel reported today on the Koch Bros' larger media strategy. It apparently involves an aggressive public-relations effort, reaching out to reporters to "shape their Koch coverage," while using a "private security detail" to play "hard ball with critics and suspected foes."

In particular, Vogel noted the events in California over the weekend, with Koch-paid guards tracking resort guests deemed "suspicious," and erecting a blockade to prevent cameras from filming arriving guests.

Inside the resort at the beginning of the conference, "there was an atmosphere almost of paranoia," said Gary Ferdman, a Common Cause official.

Ferdman had reservations at the resort and stayed there Thursday and Friday night. He said he was told Saturday that his lunch reservations at the resort restaurant had been canceled and was urged to check out and leave promptly by a member of Koch's large security detail.

Security manned every doorway and stairwell near the ballrooms where Koch events were held, and threatened to jail this POLITICO reporter while he waited in line at the resort's cafe, after he stopped by a Koch conference registration table.

The resort grounds were "closed for a private function," the resort's head of security, James Foster told POLITICO, ushering the reporter outside, where private security guards, wearing gold lapel pins bearing Koch's "K" logo, threatened "a citizen's arrest" and a "night in the Riverside County jail" if the reporter continued asking questions and taking photographs.

The Kochs already have a reputation for being overly-secretive and heavy-handed in their tactics. I don't imagine threatening a journalist while he waited in line at a hotel cafe is going to help.

As Jon Chait joked, "If those hired goons don't dispel the image of the Kochs as sinister moguls, I don't know what will."

ISSA FORGETS THE MEANING OF 'TRANSPARENCY'.... Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House oversight committee, contacted 160 or so trade associations, companies, and think tanks, asking them to put together a list of regulations he should eliminate. They've begun getting back to him, asking Issa to get rid of all kinds of environmental, worker safety, and consumer protection measures.

As it turns out, though, we don't yet know exactly what all of the requests are, because Issa is keeping the correspondence secret. Seriously.

The committee chairman who obsesses over government "transparency" is the same GOP leader receiving instructions from business groups about the elimination of public safeguards, but refusing to even share them with the other members on his committee. Issa's Democratic counterpart has decided to start contacting the business groups himself, asking for copies.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) is sending letters to many of the same 160 or so companies, trade associations and think tanks that panel Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) approached in December, asking which regulations they feel will harm jobs.

"I fully support bipartisan efforts to improve federal regulations to increase job growth while preserving the core safeguards these regulations were intended to protect," Cummings said in a statement. "But since Chairman Issa has refused to provide Democrats with copies of the industry responses he has received to date, we have no choice but to request them ourselves."

Cummings says he is contacting organizations independently to request copies of their responses to Issa, because the Republican has been reluctant to share the documents he's received. Cummings also asked that any future correspondence to Issa be sent simultaneously to Democrats.

It's almost funny, in a pathetic sort of way. The committee has scheduled a hearing for next week on the economic impacts of regulations, and the ranking member has heard from a variety of entities, each of which have prepared detailed responses, outlining various ideas. Issa, the chairman, refuses to share them.

It's not like Cummings is asking for a peek into Issa's personal emails here. The committee chairman sent officials requests to business groups, and the groups sent official responses related to safeguards that affect the public. In what universe does Issa think it makes sense to treat the materials as secret?

That's not a rhetorical question. Issa's office refuses to say -- it has a secret reason to justify keeping public materials secret.

Issa's off to a great start, isn't he?

DCCC GETS TARGETS' ATTENTION.... The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, working under the assumption that spending cuts aren't nearly as popular as Republicans might think, launched an interesting ad campaign this week. Today, we saw the first signs that the offensive has gotten the Republicans' attention.

The DCCC, using a variety of media, is targeting 19 House GOP incumbents, nearly all of whom represent districts won by President Obama in 2008, focusing on the Republican Study Committee's plan to slash public spending. As part of the effort, radio ads note that the GOP plan would "cut education" and "cut science and technology research," which would in turn cost jobs.

One of the 19 appears to be bothered.

One House Republican distanced himself from conservatives in his own party on the heels of ads by Democrats targeting him on education spending.

Freshman Rep. Robert Hurt (R-Va.) said he didn't necessarily support all of the cuts proposed by the leadership of the Republican Study Committee (RSC)....

"Because I'm a member of that committee, somehow that means that I want to cut education by 40 percent or something like that?" Hurt told a local ABC affiliate. "I mean, it's just totally made up out of whole cloth. I don't know where it's coming from."

Well, it's really not that tough to figure out. Hurt joined the Republican Study Committee, and the Republican Study Committee released a budget plan. The GOP proposal -- which Hurt made no effort to denounce or distance himself from -- would require massive cuts to practically every area of public life, including education. It's not made up of whole cloth; it's just the plan presented by the Republican Study Committee that Hurt joined.

But there's another angle to this that struck me as interesting. Isn't Hurt's response the opposite of what he's supposed to say? As an insurgent, far-right House Republican, I was under the impression he's supposed to say, "You're darn right I'm going to slash spending. That's what voters want, right?"

Except that's not his message at all. On the contrary, the congressman is effectively arguing, "What Republican Study Committee plan? I had nothing to do with that."

Americans tend to like the idea of slashing spending, right up until they're asked about specific areas of the budget, at which point most of the country likes their spending just fine, thank you very much.

That's why the DCCC is going on the offensive, and why lawmakers like Hurt suddenly seem a little defensive.

MCCAIN CALLS CBO DATA 'GARBAGE'.... For years, lawmakers in both parties have considered reports from the Congressional Budget Office to be a reliable guide while shaping legislation. Republicans, in particular, just love the CBO -- considering it reliable and non-partisan -- just so long as the party likes what it's hearing.

It was rather inconvenient, then, when the Congressional Budget Office scored the GOP plan to repeal the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, and found that the Republican proposal would add $230 billion to the deficit. Making matters slightly worse, the CBO also found that the Republicans' repeal bill, if it became law, would leave 32 million Americans without health insurance by the end of the decade and make coverage more expensive for individuals.

Naturally, after seeing the report, GOP officials quickly realized they had to reconsider the merits of their bill.

No, I'm just kidding. GOP officials actually realized it was time to attack the Congressional Budget Office. That's still going on today.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Wednesday rejected the CBO's cost estimate of healthcare repeal as "garbage in, garbage out."

McCain said the Congressional Budget Office estimate that repealing the healthcare law would increase the deficit by $230 billion relies on flawed assumptions.

"So what I'm saying is, garbage in, garbage out," McCain said on the Senate floor.

McCain cited two examples of how the CBO's estimate is not properly taking into account the true costs of the healthcare law. First, he noted that the repeated increases in reimbursement levels to Medicare physicians, and the failure to repeatedly let cuts to those payments happen, are estimated to cost $208 billion over 10 years. "Nowhere is that put into the equation," McCain said.

As a substantive matter, McCain's argument, which we've heard before, is so spectacularly wrong, his rhetoric can only be called what it is: a demonstrable, blatant lie.

It's also ironic, by the way, that Republicans consider inconvenient CBO data "garbage," while simultaneously using a CBO report to make an argument about health care and jobs. (As it turns out, they're blatantly lying about that, too.)

But in the larger context, there's just something unhealthy about McCain's entire style of argument. Ezra Klein recently noted the Congressional Budget Office is a "nonpartisan agency, which calculates the official cost of legislation for Congress, speaks in the polite language of actuarial tables, refuses to reliably please either party, and is the closest thing American politics has to an umpire."

So, naturally, conservative lawmakers feel the need to try to discredit the independent voice calling balls and strikes, because that voice has the nerve to tell the truth, and there's no room for accuracy while there's a public to mislead.

CHARLES FRIED TELLS THE GOP WHAT IT DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR.... Harvard law professor Charles Fried, President Reagan's Solicitor General, doesn't love the Affordable Care Act, and isn't convinced it will work. But as a constitutional matter, Fried has no use for the right's arguments.

He'd written previously that "the health care law's enemies have no ally in the Constitution." Today, he elaborated on this point at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, calling the constitutional issue a "no-brainer."

"I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional.... My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress' Commerce power, 'what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is -- to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed.' To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate.

"The mandate is a rule -- more accurately, 'part of a system of rules by which commerce is to be governed,' to quote Chief Justice Marshall. And if that weren't enough for you -- though it is enough for me -- you go back to Marshall in 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, where he said 'the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. The government which has the right to do an act' -- surely, to regulate health insurance -- "and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means." And that is the Necessary and Proper Clause."

True to form, and offering another reminder of what's become of the intellectual bankruptcy of Republican thought in the 21st century, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said he was "shocked" by Fried's legal analysis -- because it differed from his own. The senator said how much he respected Fried's expertise, but instead of reevaluating his own thinking, Hatch instead said Fried must be wrong, because Hatch says so.

It's been that kind of debate.