WHEN THE RIGHT PEOPLE PICK THE WRONG HERO.... There was a fascinating moment on Friday's edition of Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Mike Stark called in and asked why conservatives adore Ronald Reagan's legacy, given the less-than-conservative policies the former president embraced in office, including several tax increases.

Limbaugh refused to answer, instead asking, "Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes?"

As Reagan's 100th birthday puts the 40th president back in the spotlight today, there's plenty of coverage about his life, his two terms, and his legacy. Naturally, then, there's plenty of angles to consider, including the fact that Reagan wasn't a very good president, though his reputation has clearly benefited from an aggressive, well-financed, highly-motivated public-relations campaign.

But the angle that strikes me as most relevant today is the fact that today's conservatives have chosen a hero they don't really understand, and would actually find pretty offensive if they stopped to think about it. Perhaps the most insightful thing Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has ever said is when he noted last year that Reagan "would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today."

Walter Shapiro had a good item the other day highlighting Reagan's record on taxes, in particular, which he said has been "airbrushed by 21st century conservatives."

Even though Reagan persuaded a Democratic Congress to approve his massive 1981 rate reductions, the Gipper reversed field in 1982 to staunch the deficit and agreed to a tax increase (equal to about one-third of the original cuts). That single act of tax realism would have prompted today's tea party movement to denounce Reagan as a RINO (Republican in Name Only) and to threaten to find a real conservative to challenge him in the GOP primaries.

That was nothing compared to the tax-code apostasy of Reagan's second term. He championed, and in 1986 signed into law, a sweeping bipartisan tax reform bill that (warning: be sure you are sitting down before reading further) raised capital gains taxes. In one of the great progressive reforms of the last half century, Reagan eliminated tax loopholes and special preferences like capital gains in exchange for lowering individual tax brackets. At the core of Reagan's tax reform triumph was the liberal principle that unearned income (stock market swag) should be treated the same ways as an autoworker's wages.

If anything, this is understating the case. In his first term, Reagan raised taxes when unemployment was nearing 11% -- imagine trying this today -- and proceeded to raise taxes seven out of the eight years he was in office. It's a fact that's terribly inconvenient on a day like today, but "no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people" as Reagan.

Of course, it's not just taxes. Given the totality of Reagan's record, it's amazing the Tea Party wing of the Republican base doesn't consider him a villain who betrayed everything they cherish.

—Steve Benen 12:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)

SHIFTING ATTITUDES ON (AND ABOUT) THE COURT.... The shifting perceptions and expectations about the judiciary and health care reform have been fascinating, albeit frustrating, to watch. Dahlia Lithwick the other day highlighted the unexpectedly fast evolution.

[J]ust nine months ago, it was an article of faith among court watchers that President Obama's health care reform plan would be upheld at the Supreme Court by a margin of 7-2 or 8-1. Today it is an equally powerful article of faith that everything rests in the hands of Justice Anthony Kennedy in what will surely be a 5-4 decision. What changed between last March and last Monday?

To review: When the first lawsuits were filed challenging the law in March 2010, the conventional wisdom was that they were little more than a Tea Party stunt. "Several constitutional law experts said this week that it is somewhere between unlikely and hard-to-imagine that the Supreme Court would strike down the new healthcare law," wrote David Savage at the Los Angeles Times. He quoted George Washing University law professor Orin Kerr, a former Kennedy clerk, saying that "there is a less than 1 percent chance that the courts will invalidate the individual mandate." In Newsweek in September 2010, Stuart Taylor quoted Walter Dellinger, acting solicitor general under President Clinton, predicting an 8-1 vote at the high court, and Tom Goldstein, another prominent court watcher and litigator, calling for a vote of 7-2.

The problem isn't that credible experts like Dellinger and Goldstein don't know what they're talking about; they clearly do. The problem has to do with the willingness of certain justices to stick to their principles, as compared to jurists who are, shall we say, a little more ideologically malleable.

The case that appeared to seal the deal for reformers was 2005's Gonzales v. Raich, dealing with use of the Commerce Clause to regulate marijuana sales, even in a matter in which the product did not cross state lines, and wasn't part of any marketplace (the defendant grew the marijuana at home for medicinal reasons).

Scalia took a sweeping view of the scope of Commerce Clause power: "The authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.... Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce."

Point, set, match. A justice who believes this couldn't possibly rule against the Affordable Care Act, right?

Wrong. About a month ago, Scalia (joined by his Mini Me) wrote a stinging dissent in a case called Alderman v. United States in which he took largely the opposite view of Commerce Clause power, rejecting some of the same principles he agreed with five years earlier.

Court watchers, perhaps having to reevaluate their assumptions about Scalia's commitment to his own beliefs, quickly realized justices that wanted to rule against the health care law may very well start with the answer, and then work backwards to rationalize their ideological preference.

Simon Lazarus has a thoughtful post about all the ways in which the court's more conservative justices -- not just Scalia but also Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts -- "will have to twist their prior decisions and statements into pretzels in order to rule the individual mandate or other ACA provisions unconstitutional." Reading Raich against the Alderman dissent, I am not sure all the justices are terribly bothered at the prospect of performing such gymnastics. Supreme Court reporters like to believe that the justices are invariably hemmed in and pinned down by their prior decisions, and in a perfect world they might be. But if we learned anything at all from Bush v. Gore, it's that in landmark cases with huge symbolic stakes, justices on both sides of the aisle can get all kinds of creative.

Adam Liptak noted today that the legitimacy of the court may be questioned if politics dictates outcomes. Two Democratic-appointed judges have upheld the constitutionality of the ACA; two GOP-appointed judges have done the opposite. On the Supreme Court, Democratic-appointed justices make up the center-left bloc; GOP-appointed justices make up the conservative bloc.

"[S]ome scholars are already wondering how much damage, if any, a party-line ruling striking down the law would do to the court's prestige, authority and legitimacy," Liptak noted. I can't help but wonder if the justices care far less than those scholars about the judiciary's reputation.

AS IF REDEFINING RAPE WEREN'T OFFENSIVE ENOUGH.... In Washington, Republicans included an outrageous provision in their "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" that would have redefined rape. GOP proponents had the sense to drop the measure this week, but not before offending a whole lot of decent people.

Further south, there's another rape-related GOP measure that's even harder to believe.

Georgia Republican state Rep. Bobby Franklin (of gold-standard-wannabe fame) has introduced a bill to change the state's criminal codes so that in "criminal law and criminal procedure" (read: in court), victims of rape, stalking, and family violence could only be referred to as "accusers" until the defendant has been convicted.

Burglary victims are still victims. Assault victims are still victims. Fraud victims are still victims. But if you have the misfortune to suffer a rape, or if you are beaten by a domestic partner, or if you are stalked, Rep. Franklin doesn't think you've been victimized. He says you're an accuser until the courts have determined otherwise.

To diminish a victim's ordeal by branding him/her an accuser essentially questions whether the crime committed against the victim is a crime at all. Robbery, assault, and fraud are all real crimes with real victims, the Republican asserts with this bill.

If you're thinking, "This can't be true," I'm afraid it is. Amanda Terkel tracked down the legislative language. Her report added:

Rape and sexual assault are chronically underreported crimes. According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, "60% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to the police, according to a statistical average of the past 5 years. Those rapists, of course, never spend a day in prison. Factoring in unreported rapes, only about 6% of rapists ever serve a day in jail." Under Franklin's definition, all of these people who didn't report their crimes aren't actually victims -- because there is never a conviction.

"To be classified, off the bat, as an accuser instead of as a victim places one more barrier to reporting the crime to the authorities," writes Amie Newman at RH Reality Check, who points out that Franklin's state of Georgia ranks 11th out of the 50 states and the District of Columbia for incidences of forcible rape.

Jennifer White, attorney for legal programs at the Family Violence Prevention Fund, said that even when victims do come forward, prosecutions and convictions are still often incredibly difficult to get.

"Changing, just for these particular crimes, the word 'victim' to 'accuser' really buys into an outdated and disproved myth about victims who come forward with these kinds of allegations," said White. "I think it's a sad reality that for some reason, it's easier for society, in some respects, to believe that a victim would fabricate this type of crime than to believe that a person is capable of committing certain atrocities. And it really has a chilling effect for victims who already have an extremely difficult time coming forward."

A SUCKER IS BORN EVERY MINUTE.... It's been a rough winter in much of the country, even in Southern states like Texas that aren't exactly known for their cold weather. Conditions were so difficult in the Lone Star State this week that many Texans had to endure rolling blackouts.

For the right, this apparently created an opportunity. Drudge touted a bizarre story that claimed the Texas blackouts were "a direct consequence of the Obama administration's agenda to lay siege to the coal industry, launch a takeover of infrastructure under the contrived global warming scam, and help usher in the post-industrial collapse of America." Limbaugh followed up, tying blackouts to the administration, and even Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), bought and paid for by Exxon Mobil, insisted the problems in Texas were the result of federal energy policies.

The story, such as it was, gained enough attention that the White House felt the need to explain that the right had simply made this garbage up out of whole cloth.

According to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, these blackouts were actually the result of extreme cold temperatures and high winds, which led to a variety of mechanical failures at more than 50 power plants around the state.

Anytime communities experience major outages, it is a cause for concern, and major utilities and regulators are investigating steps that can be taken to decrease any weather related vulnerability of power generating plants in the state that, unlike their northern counterparts which experience extreme cold every winter, are often not designed to withstand such rare weather conditions.

Some are trying to blame these blackouts -- which the industry has already provided explanation for -- on Clean Air Act standards under consideration to curb dangerous pollution, including carbon pollution. While these claims gained traction on the internet, there is a major problem with this theory -- no power plant in Texas has yet been required to do anything to control carbon pollution.

Yes, the right has decided to blame energy standards that don't exist, and wouldn't cause blackouts anyway. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer described the conservative reports as "unquestionably false."

But because our politics can be so painfully stupid, it won't matter to those inclined to believe nonsense. On Friday, "obama triggers blackouts" was the #1 "Hot Search" in America, according to Google.

The right knows the ignorant will believe whatever Limbaugh & Co. shovel in their direction, which in turn creates an incentive for them to lie more often. Our discourse spirals downward, on purpose, because conservatives find it easier than thinking.

This is why we can't have nice things.

FOX NEWS SUNDAY HAS ITS PRIORITIES.... The past seven days have been pretty dramatic. We've seen an uprising in Egypt; the domestic fight over health care has taken some important twists; and we've seen important new economic data. For the Sunday shows, there's no shortage of meaty subjects to explore in detail.

And for the most part, that's what viewers will see. ABC's Christiane Amanpour will broadcast live from Cairo, and interview Egypt's Ambassador to the United States. NBC's David Gregory will have an exclusive interview with Mohamed ElBaradei. CBS and CNN will speak with several diplomats, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Then there's Fox News Sunday.

Despite the news in Egypt, Fox News Sunday is scheduled to cover only football this Sunday. The show's schedule lists an interview with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell; a "fair and balanced" debate between ex-Packer Jerry Kramer and ex-Steeler Lynn Swann; a roundtable with Fox Sports commentators Terry Bradshaw, Howie Long and Michael Strahan; and a "Power Player of the Week" segment with Fox Sports' Joe Buck.

Host Chris Wallace was asked [Friday] by radio host Mike Gallagher if he's "going to cover some non-football stuff." Wallace replied, "No ... Can I just say one thing about [health care] and Egypt? It'll be there next week."

Look, I know the Super Bowl is a big national event. I also appreciate the fact that one cannot live on political news alone. Even here on this very site, not every item is substantive, covering the most pressing international developments.

But there are certain expectations for a Sunday morning public affairs show, especially given what its competitors are up to. Health care and Egypt will be there next week? Sure. But Fox has other networks -- including a sports channel and the station the game will be played on. The "news" network can't cover the, you know, news?

Media Matters added, "There's a great deal of synergy in the scheduling: Fox News Sunday, like the Super Bowl, airs on Fox-TV. Such synergy was also on display earlier this week when Fox News devoted a half-hour of non-interrupted programming to the launch of Fox-parent News Corp.'s iPad-only publication, The Daily."

Indeed, the half-hour of non-interrupted programming to talk about Fox's iPad-only publication interrupted Fox's coverage of Egypt.

WORD SALADS ARE A DISH BEST SERVED COLD.... Former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) decided to weigh in on developments in Egypt yesterday, and her remarks are generating a fair amount of attention. They were, oddly enough, pretty interesting, in a head-shaking sort of way.

Palin gave a speech in California yesterday, but refused to answer questions from attendees or reporters. Instead, she chatted over the phone with a correspondent for radical TV preacher Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, which asked for her thoughts on President Obama's handling of the situation in Egypt. She responded:

"It's a difficult situation, this is that 3 a.m. White House phone call and it seems for many of us trying to get that information from our leader in the White House it it seems that that call went right to the answering machine. And nobody yet has, nobody yet has explained to the American public what they know, and surely they know more than the rest of us know who it is who will be taking the place of Mubarak and ... not real enthused about what it is that that's being done on a national level and from D.C. in regards to understanding all the situation there in Egypt.

"And, in these areas that are so volatile right now because obviously it's not just Egypt but the other countries too where we are seeing uprisings, we know that now more than ever, we need strength and sound mind there in the White House. We need to know what it is that America stands for so we know who it is that America will stand with. And we do not have all that information yet."

She's quite a visionary, isn't she? I've read this a couple of times, trying to understand what it is, exactly, Palin's trying to say, but I can't make heads or tails of it. She apparently prepped the "answering machine" joke -- Palin's humor is just so droll -- not realizing that a coherent answer would need a little more substance. Indeed, when she says she's "not real enthused" about "understanding all the situation there in Egypt," I'm not even sure who Palin's referring to.

She went on to say:

"Remember, President Reagan lived that mantra trust but verify. We want to be able to trust those who are screaming for democracy there in Egypt, that it is a true sincere desire for freedoms and the challenge that we have though, is how do we verify what it is that we are being told, what it is that the American public are being fed via media, via the protestors, via the government there in Egypt in order for us to really have some sound information to make wise decisions on what our position is. Trust but verify, and try to understand is what I would hope our leaders are engaged in right now. Who's going to fill the void? Mubarak, he's gone, one way or the other you know, he is not going to be the leader of Egypt, that that's a given, so now the information needs to be gathered and understood as to who it will be that fills now the void in the government. Is it going to be the Muslim Brotherhood? We should not stand for that, or with that or by that. Any radical Islamists, no that is not who we should be supporting and standing by, so we need to find out who was behind all of the turmoil and the revolt and the protests so that good decisions can be made in terms of who we will stand by and support."

It occurs to me that Palin probably has some advisers who've tried to help her make sense of developments in the Middle East. She's very likely had some briefings and/or received some talking points from those who presumably have some kind of background in foreign affairs.

If so, the problem isn't just that U.S. policy towards Egypt is complex; it's that Palin is so conspicuously unintelligent, she can't even understand the guidance she receives from her own team.

KRISTOL CALLS OUT BECK OVER 'HYSTERIA'.... There were some noticeable fissures among conservatives as the revolution in Egypt got underway, but those differences have intensified this week, with the right splintering into a growing number of factions. As of this morning, it's impossible to say what "the conservative line" is on Egypt.

What's easy to say is that the line isn't where Fox News' Glenn Beck is drawing it. The deranged media personality has spent the last several days cooking up truly bizarre conspiracy theories -- even by his standards -- involving caliphates, communists, and radical theocrats, all of which has culminated in Beck urging his minions to store food because the "new world order" may be coming to get them.

Yesterday, The Weekly Standard's editor William Kristol, a Fox News contributor, called Beck and his ilk out in print.

Now, people are more than entitled to their own opinions of how best to accomplish that democratic end. And it's a sign of health that a political and intellectual movement does not respond to a complicated set of developments with one voice.

But hysteria is not a sign of health. When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He's marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.

Nor is it a sign of health when other American conservatives are so fearful of a popular awakening that they side with the dictator against the democrats. Rather, it's a sign of fearfulness unworthy of Americans, of short-sightedness uncharacteristic of conservatives, of excuse-making for thuggery unworthy of the American conservative tradition.

Kristol tends to be a loyal party man, reluctant to publicly criticize his allies. Beck and other unhinged conservatives, in other words, must have really gone too far to draw this kind of rebuke.

What's also interesting is that National Review's Rich Lowry, who's also a Fox News contributor, piled on yesterday, praising Kristol for taking "a well-deserved shot at Glenn Beck's latest wild theorizing."

Time's Joe Klein, meanwhile, added that he considers these criticisms pretty important.

Kristol lies very close to the throbbing heart of the Fox News sensibility. And I've heard, from more than a couple of conservative sources, that prominent Republicans have approached Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes about the potential embarrassment that the paranoid-messianic rodeo clown may bring upon their brand. The speculation is that Beck is on thin ice. His ratings are dropping, too -- which, in the end, is a good part of what this is all about. But I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a mirror-Olbermann situation soon.

For the record, I find it extremely hard to believe Fox News would actually dump Beck. It wouldn't surprise me if Murdoch and Ailes were taking some heat over Beck's idiocy, and that GOP leaders consider Beck an embarrassment, but I've never seen a shred of evidence that Murdoch and Ailes have any professional or ethical standards at all.

Regardless, it appears Beck's shtick is starting to wear thin, with his audience and with his own conservative allies. Whether his job is safe or not, that's good news.

WHEN SPITE AND PATHOLOGY ARE PARAMOUNT.... They don't mean it, but congressional Republicans claim to hate the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. If their rhetoric is to be believed, the idea the GOP came up with in the first place is an un-American assault on freedom. Or something; it's hard to keep track.

As is it turns out, plenty of Democrats support the law, but are ready to deal on the mandate. This liberty-crushing, commie plot could be done away with fairly easily if Republicans picked up the phone and told the White House and/or Democratic leaders that they want to work on a policy alternative.

But they don't want a deal -- they want to complain about the provision they could eliminate if they were willing to work on a deal.

Republicans aren't likely to bury the hatchet with President Obama over the healthcare reform act, their Senate leader said Friday.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), fresh off an unsuccessful vote on Wednesday to repeal healthcare reform, said not to expect Republicans to strike any agreements with the president.

"I think it's clear that this is an area upon which we are not likely to reach any agreements with the president," McConnell said on conservative pundit Laura Ingraham's radio show.

Well, it's "clear," only to the extent that McConnell and his party don't want to try to improve the law with their own ideas, they want instead to simply destroy the Affordable Care Act and maybe come up with something worse.

This isn't rational, and it's certainly not serious as a matter of public policy. Greg Sargent talked the other day about how conservatives talk about the health care law in "fervent and even messianic tones." At this point, it's not clear exactly why conservatives hate the law so much, or even whether this is still about health care. We're well past the point of reason -- the law's destruction has become, as Greg put it, a "new Holy Grail."

There's something unhealthy about this kind of zeal. Indeed, it's quite literally unproductive -- Republicans could advance their own interests, pursue their own goals, and move the law in their own direction, if they'd only be a little less unhinged.

Jonathan Chait's take on this rings true.

If this was a dispute about policy, of course, Republicans would be willing to pursue alterations. Democrats didn't like the Bush tax cuts, but if Bush had been willing to tighten up some tax loopholes, maybe lose the estate tax cuts, then they'd have been happy to entertain some alterations. While they may not have liked the law, they could surely imagine ways to improve it that could meet with bipartisan approval, especially given President Obama's professed willingness to negotiate changes. They could do so while still pursuing their preferred model of health care reform.

But the Affordable Care Act has become to the right a symbolic totem that has little to do with actual policies. Its very existence is an enduring emotional wound.... The GOP is operating not on the basis of some analysis of public policy but from a sheer pathology.

Similarly, Aaron Carroll's challenge to congressional Republicans is still out there: "If the mandate so offends you, call on your representatives to support a bill to remove it right now. It's not like there aren't other means to achieve the same incentives.... So there's the challenge. Support a fix to the mandate right now. If you won't, then you obviously aren't that concerned about 'liberty.'"

McConnell effectively answered the challenge yesterday -- he's not interested in advancing his own ideas -- delivering an important message about his party's approach to governing.

TAXES ON THE TABLE.... Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) noted the other day that the parties will have to compromise on budget issues, but he wants to dictate the terms. The right, he said, has to budge by agreeing to Pentagon cuts, while the left has to accept cuts to everything else.

In Paul's vision, this is a "compromise" -- the parties come together to give him the cuts he wants, without raising any tax on anyone by any amount at any time.

To state the obvious, Paul and the conservatives like him have an interest in the deficit, but their top concern is the same as it's always been -- they care about taxes. If deficit reduction were the principal goal, some modest tax increases would be a no-brainer. And yet, it's the only policy practically every Republican in D.C. refuses to even consider.

But "practically every Republican" isn't "literally every Republican." Late last year, Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) started talking informally about a budget plan. Their talks are ongoing -- they intend to have a bill sometime this year -- and have begun to include a variety of their colleagues, including (gasp!) a few liberal senators.

It's hard to explore the substance of a plan that doesn't really exist yet, but what I find noteworthy about the Warner/Chambliss effort is the deliberate way in which it's rejecting the Paul-like approach. If we're going to be serious about deficit reduction, the Republican leader of the effort said this week, tax increases have to be "part of the mix." (via Zaid Jilani)

Chambliss made clear that despite his long record as a reliable fiscal conservative, he is willing to defy the conservative shibboleth that tax increases dare not be mentioned. "I've never voted for a tax increase and hope I don't have to ever vote for one, but I do think it's got to be a part of the mix," said Chambliss, who has a 93.28 percent life time rating from the American Conservative Union.

Chambliss said that he and Warner -- in their discussions about the $1.5 trillion budget deficit and the $14 trillion national debt -- have talked about "the difficulty that he's going to have with his side of the aisle on reforming Social Security and Medicare." "And he knows I'm going to have difficulty on the revenue side with folks on my side."

Now, I have a pretty strong hunch I'm not going to like what Warner and Chambliss come up with, especially with regards to Social Security. But I'm willing to give some credit to Chambliss -- who can fairly be described as a not-at-all-moderate conservative from a deep red Southern state -- for realizing that tax increases have to be part of any serious deficit reduction plan.

As recently as the 1980s, Reagan and the Republican mainstream considered tax increases a necessary evil that had to be passed, from time to time, in the name of fiscal responsibility. It's why Reagan raised taxes seven out of the eight years he was in office, and he did so with plenty of Republican votes in Congress.

I don't imagine the current GOP mainstream will be nearly as sensible anytime soon, but Chambliss' realistic, pragmatic acknowledgement is a big step in the right direction.

THE POORLY-NAMED 'PROTECT LIFE ACT'.... Maybe Republicans interpreted the midterm election results as a sweeping mandate to focus on abortion? The party that apparently has no interest in job creation seems to be spending quite a bit of energy on the culture-war issue.

After holding a symbolic vote on gutting the health care system, House Republican leaders announced that their next top priority was the odious "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." At the state level, there's an aggressive Republican push to limit reproductive options.

And now we have the "Protect Life Act."

First, a little context. Under existing law, American hospitals have to treat everyone -- or at a minimum, stabilize them -- regardless of their ability to pay. If the facility can't provide treatment, it must transfer a patient to a hospital that can, and then that hospital is required to provide care.

Republican Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania has a new idea related to a question that few ever ask: what happens when a patient requires an emergency abortion to save her life? Pitts wants to empower hospitals to simply let the woman die.

The bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the "Protect Life Act," is an amendment to the 2010 health care reform law that would modify the way Obamacare deals with abortion coverage. Much of its language is modeled on the so-called Stupak Amendment, an anti-abortion provision pro-life Democrats attempted to insert into the reform law during the health care debate last year. But critics say a new section of the bill inserted into the language just this week would go far beyond Stupak, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives. [...]

Pitts' new bill would free hospitals from any abortion requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren't willing in terminating pregnancies wouldn't have to -- nor would they have to facilitate a transfer.

The hospital could literally do nothing at all, pro-choice critics of Pitts' bill say.

Now, as a practical matter, this effort has the same problem most of the ideas coming from House Republicans have -- the Senate almost certainly won't support it, and President Obama would quickly reject it if the measure were to reach his desk. A bill like the "Protect Life Act" is pretty outrageous on its face, but even its proponents know it won't have a shot until Republicans control Congress and the White House again.

The point, though, is that a measure like this one reflects the values and priorities of the GOP officials who support -- the bill currently has 100 co-sponsors, not including Pitts -- which is scary enough.

And in the larger context, it's also a reminder that Republicans have badly misread their mandate if they see 2011 as a valuable opportunity to roll back women's reproductive rights.

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a look at President Obama's attendance at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington this week, which generated a little more attention than usual.

It's worth noting, of course, that many have raised legitimate questions about whether there should even be such a thing as a National Prayer Breakfast for the president and elected officials. In a nation that honors the separation of church and state, it's an awkward tradition.

That said, the tradition doesn't appear to be going anywhere, and presidents have been attending the events for several decades. Given the right-wing's relentless attacks on President Obama's faith, his participation draws a greater focus than his recent predecessors.

I've seen some suggest that Obama was defensive at the Prayer Breakfast, feeling the need to defend himself against the ridiculous accusations of his unhinged critics, but I didn't hear it that way. Rather, the president's remarks struck me more as an instance in which Obama shared his vision on faith as "a sustaining force'' in his life, and his larger spiritual journey, describing how he "came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace him as my Lord and savior.''

The president did, however, briefly acknowledge those who persist in pointless attacks. "My Christian faith, then, has been a sustaining force for me over these last few years, all the more so when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned from time to time,'' he said. "We are reminded that ultimately what matters is not what other people say about us, but whether we're being true to our conscience and true to our God. 'Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you, as well.' ''

I found the reaction from Mark Halperin, who is not always generous in his praise of the president, pretty interesting. On MSNBC's "Hardball" the day of the remarks, Halperin described Obama's remarks as "a brilliant performance," adding, "This guy has game. If you want to make a long list, what are all the reasons Barack Obama is favored for being re-elected? Forget the Electoral College, forget the unemployment rate and earnings and all that. That performance [at the National Prayer Breakfast] has a level of sophistication and skill that not one Republican on the field right now can duplicate."

Also from the God Machine this week:

* A large group of civil-rights, community, and faith groups have urged Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) to scrap plans for hearings exploring the "radicalization of Islam," equating the Republican's hearings with McCarthyism. King said he didn't care, and would refuse to respond to the group's concerns.

* A state judge in Ohio put a display in his courtroom contrasting the "Moral Absolutes" of the Ten Commandments with the "Moral Relatives" of humanism. In a unanimous decision, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that the display is obviously unconstitutional.

* Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-Conn.) next big project, following the announcement of his retirement, is a book called "Gift of Rest." It will reportedly be on the senator's orthodox Judaism, and why he honors the Sabbath as a day of rest.

* It's Super Bowl Sunday tomorrow, but some religion-based ads have already been rejected.

GIVING NEW MEANING TO THE PHRASE 'DIM BULB'.... The right finds the strangest things to get worked up about. Take light bulbs, for example.

In 2007, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and congressional Democrats worked on an energy bill, which included advanced light-bulb standards, intended to spur innovation, lower costs, and improve energy efficiency. The provision was approved with bipartisan support, and the larger legislation was easily passed and signed by President Bush.

The effort was a great success. Republicans have now decided they don't care.

One of the leading Republicans in Congress, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), appeared on the G. Gordon Liddy Show [Thursday] and discussed this notion of an "innovation economy." After Liddy peddled the ludicrous claim that House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) had implemented a ban on incandescent light bulbs in the United States, McCotter used the opportunity to scoff at liberal efforts to improve the incandescent light bulb, a product that was first invented over 200 years ago. He called the irony "striking" that liberals would "prais[e] the end of the incandescent bulb at the very time they're talking about an innovation economy."

If this sounds dumb, you should listen to the exchange to appreciate just how dim these bulbs really are.

Liddy asked if McCotter could help "get our light bulbs back." The Republican lawmaker said he could, adding, "I saw that some on the left were praising the end of the incandescent bulb, at the very time they're talking about an innovation economy. The irony is striking."

In Grown-Up Land, that's not what "irony" means. When the left talks about "innovation," the point is to emphasize new technologies that can advance national interests. When Democrats look forward on energy policy, and move past an inefficient, 200-year-old light bulb design, there's nothing "ironic" about it. McCotter has it backwards.

By the way, who's Thaddeus McCotter? He's the guy Republicans recently made the chairman of the House GOP conference -- a top leadership post -- who, just last week, threw his support to the Mubarak regime in Egypt.

Regardless, the larger point is worth keeping in mind, because it keeps coming up -- while some policymakers focus on how to improve American competitiveness in the 21st century, a few too many Republicans have their eyes on the 19th century.

TAKING BRAND PROTECTION A LITTLE TOO FAR.... We've come to expect some oddities from the former half-term governor of Alaska, but this seems unusual, even for Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin has become an industry. The former Alaskan governor has had books deals, starred in a reality television show and set up a political PAC that raised $3.5 million last year. Through midterm election endorsements, broadcast on her 2.7 million-fan Facebook page or via her 400,000 follower Twitter feed, Palin has cemented alliances to new GOP governors such as South Carolina's Nikki Haley and various members of Congress.

But Palin is more than just a former mayor, governor, vice presidential candidate and political force. She has catapulted over most politicians to a status of entertainment icon. She has become a brand -- and she's trying to protect it by trademarking her name.

The Palin brand is so valuable, that other family members are in on it. Sarah Palin's 20-year-old daughter, Bristol, is a well-compensated spokeswomen on sexual abstinence for the Candie's Foundation, has become a reality star in her own right on "Dancing with the Stars" and may land a job as a radio show host in Arizona.

And these savvy women are taking all the prudent steps a brand holder does to protect an asset. In the last several months, Politics Daily has learned that the Palin family lawyer, Alaska attorney Thomas Van Flein, has filed applications to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to trademark "Sarah Palin" and "Bristol Palin."

It's not altogether clear what kind of activities the Palins want to prevent -- I guess Tina Fey should be concerned? -- or why the former governor's daughter would feel the need to trademark her name, too.

What's more, in case anyone's wondering how common this is, neither President Obama nor any of the likely Republican presidential candidates have taken the step of trying to trademark their names.

Nevertheless, at least for the time being, when we put an "R" after Palin's name, we'll be referring to her party affiliation, not the legal designation for her trademark. The application with the PTO can't go through -- Palin never signed the paperwork.

BACHMANN BACKS OFF AFTER TARGETING VETERANS.... Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) caused a bit of a stir last week, presenting a budget plan that included freezing Veterans Affairs health care spending and cutting veterans' disability benefits considerably. Yesterday, she backed off.

To put it mildly, the Bachmann proposal did not go over well among groups representing the needs and interests of veterans. The national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars issued a statement responding to the Republican's idea, saying, "No way, no how, will we let this proposal get any traction in Congress.... The day this nation can't afford to take care of her veterans is the day this nation should quit creating them."

It took a little longer than it should have, but yesterday, a full week after recommending the cuts, Bachmann reversed course.

Rep. Michele Bachmann backed off a plan on Friday to cut $4.5 billion in benefits to veterans, following strong opposition from several veterans groups. [...]

[S]ince Bachmann released her proposal, veterans groups have voiced the loudest objections, causing Bachmann to drop them from her budget-cutting plans.

"One point on my discussion list was a $4.5 billion proposal that would affect payments made to our veterans," Bachmann said in a statement posted to her website. "That discussion point has received a lot of attention and I have decided to remove it from consideration. The problem of government spending must be solved, but not on the backs of our nation's war heroes."

Bachmann offered no explanation as to why she thought the backs of our nation's war heroes were less of an issue last week.

I also liked the fact that she made the announcement on a Friday afternoon, which is generally a time when politicians release bad news they hope won't generate any attention. In this case, Bachmann did the right thing on a Friday afternoon, perhaps hoping few would notice she'd screwed up in the first place.

And while I'm glad to hear that veterans' benefits will probably escape the Republican budget axe, it's worth noting that the rest of Bachmann's budget plan remains pretty ridiculous. As George Zornick explained yesterday, "While Bachmann's decision to retract her proposal is laudable, there are other elements to her proposal that are just as punitive to large groups of Americans: for example, she proposes reducing Pell Grants for college students (along with a complete abolition of the Department of Education). She also wants to eliminate the Maternal and Child Health block grant."

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

* New mass protests in the streets of Cairo: "Cracks in the Egyptian establishment's support for President Hosni Mubarak began to appear Friday as jubilant crowds of hundreds of thousands packed the capital's central Tahrir Square to call for his ouster, this time unmolested by either security police or uniformed Mubarak loyalists."

* The White House's not-so-subtle hints to the Mubarak government: "The Obama administration, encouraged by the relative calm in Egypt on Friday, is urgently trying to persuade opposition groups to participate in a dialogue with Vice President Omar Suleiman in a meeting scheduled for Saturday morning."

* A federal judge in Mississippi, appointed by George W. Bush, dismissed a lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act -- yet another legal win for the law -- but it wasn't on the merits. District Judge Keith Starrett rejected a lawsuit because the plaintiffs lacked standing. At least 14 lawsuits have been tossed on procedural grounds. (thanks to reader V.S. for the tip)

* How can the unemployment rate go down when so few jobs are being created? Annie Lowrey offers an explanation.

* Good advice: "The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, warned Congressional Republicans on Thursday not to "play around with" a coming vote to raise the government's legal borrowing limit." He added that lawmakers shouldn't view the debt ceiling as a "bargaining chip."

* Good question: "Why is Live Action doctoring its Planned Parenthood audio?"

* Remember the 1099 problem in the Affordable Care Act? A fix was approved this week in the Senate, 81 to 17.

* Rush Limbaugh yesterday mocked violence towards journalists at the hands of Egyptian thugs. Veteran war correspondents and those who monitor journalist safety overseas were not amused.

* The law needs to be enforced: "New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Monday announced the results of an undercover investigation into a gun show in Arizona -- and that those results show just how simple it is to buy a gun there with minimal oversight."

* Is the famously lucrative Master of Business Administration just another useless, overpriced degree? It's a reasonable question.

* "Press Secretary School" actually sounds pretty fun to me: "Incoming White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, in preparation to replace Robert Gibbs, has been conducting mock press briefings, with press staffers such as Gibbs and deputies Bill Burton and Josh Earnest conducting the grillings."

* I'm sorry to see Open Left go, and I wish the best for Chris Bowers and the rest of the team that did such great work at the site over the last several years.

* The "dumbest narrative of the year so far"? That's an easy one -- Politico has now run two separate pieces on First Lady Michelle Obama praising the barbecue n Charlotte, N.C., which the publication insists on calling a "gaffe."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.