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

* On the streets of Cairo: "With Egypt's revolt entering a third week, many parts of Cairo appeared to be resuming normal life on Monday: A.T.M.'s dispensed much-needed cash, shops and banks were staffed -- though some kept their doors shut to customers -- and the city's drivers were snarled in a vast traffic jam.... Still, signs that the revolt had not ended were rife. Plans to reopen the stock exchange were postponed until Sunday. The army kept columns of armored personnel carriers patrolling the streets, and burnt-out vehicles remained in various squares."

* Talks in Egypt progressed over the weekend: "The main Egyptian opposition groups eased up on their insistence that President Hosni Mubarak step down immediately, agreeing instead on Sunday to join in talks toward overhauling the country's political system at a more gradual pace while Mubarak remains in office." Mubarak's newly appointed vice president, Omar Suleiman, led the talks, which included leaders from the banned Muslim Brotherhood movement.

* Following a successful independence referendum, Southern Sudan is poised to become the world's newest country. The White House announced today it will recognize Southern Sudan as a sovereign, independent state in July.

* The votes are slated for tonight: "In what Senate Democrats are hoping is a sign of forthcoming comity around the politics of filling judicial vacancies, Republicans have agreed not to block the confirmation of three nominees who had been stalled in the last Congress."

* President Obama takes his case to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of his most aggressive adversaries: "In his most overt effort yet to mend ties with the nation's business community, President Obama on Monday pledged to make government an ally to companies as they emerge from the worst economic downturn in generations."

* Effective today, the arms control treaty known as New START takes effect in the U.S. and Russia.

* Keith Olbermann will announce his next career move tomorrow. No one seems to have any idea what he'll say.

* Former President George W. Bush was forced to cancel a planned trip to Switzerland, upon learning he might be arrested for human rights abuses upon his arrival.

* Left with a dwindling budget and a tiny staff, it appears the Democratic Leadership Council will permanently close its doors, perhaps as early as next week.

* As part of the debate over the individual health care mandate, the new question du jour on the right is whether Americans could be forced to eat broccoli. Andrew Sabl considers whether this makes any sense.

* On a related note, Sabl also ponders the libertarian approach to budgeting, and comes away shaking his head.

* A significant trade mission to India gets underway this week.

* Why is college students' emotional health the worst it's been in 20 years?

* And finally, freshman Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.) actually published this yesterday: "When I was a child, President Ronald Reagan was the nice man who gave us jelly beans when we visited the White House. I didn't know then, but I know it now: The jelly beans were much more than a sweet treat that he gave out as gifts. They represented the uniqueness and greatness of America -- each one different and special in its own way, but collectively they blended in harmony." (Dear Hill staffers, do not let your bosses actually write their own op-eds.)

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

SKEPTICISM ON DEBT-CEILING POLLS.... The leadership of both parties seems to appreciate the importance of avoiding American default, protecting the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, and raising the federal debt limit.

The public doesn't appear to be on the same page just yet.

Only 27 percent of likely voters favor raising the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, while 62 percent oppose it, according to an exclusive poll for The Hill.

The poll found solid opposition from Republicans and also from independent voters, who are critical to President Obama's re-election in 2012.

Seventy-seven percent of likely GOP voters and 64 percent of independent voters said they don't want the debt ceiling to be raised. Even among Democrats, more oppose raising the ceiling (46 percent) than support it (42 percent).

There was a recent poll, published a couple of weeks ago, that showed similar results.

Here's hoping policymakers don't care. I haven't seen the wording of the question in this particular poll, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect most of the public has no idea what the debt ceiling is. For all I know, they might very well hear a poll question about this, and think it's about whether they support higher or lower deficits.

At a minimum, those who say they oppose raising the limit probably haven't the foggiest notion about the potential consequences of failure on this, and don't realize what would be required if the ceiling isn't raised.

This is one of those classic dynamics in which responsible policymakers realize that they know more about the subject matter than the public at large, so they have to do the right thing, even if the uninformed find it distasteful -- knowing that the disaster that would follow would be far more unpopular.

Put it this way: what if the poll had asked, "Would you rather raise the debt ceiling or risk a global economic catastrophe and massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare?" The results, I suspect, might have turned out differently.

Long story short, debt-ceiling polls are useless if the electorate doesn't understand the debt ceiling.

CHRYSLER AD GENERATES POLITICAL CHATTER.... Like every year, some Super Bowl commercials last night proved more memorable than others. In the world of domestic politics, it seems one spot in particular stood out.

For those who missed it last night, and can't watch clips on your computers today, the commercial was run by Chrysler, one of the companies saved in 2009 when the Obama administration rescued the American automotive industry. It shows a series of images of Detroit, and one of the new Chrysler models.

A voiceover tells viewers, "I got a question for you. What does this city know about luxury? What does a town that's been to hell and back know about 'the finer things in life'? Well, I'll tell you: more than most. You see, it's the hottest fires that make the hardest steel. Add hard work and conviction and the know-how that runs generations deep in every last one of us. That's who we are. That's our story.

"No, it's probably not the one you've been reading in the papers. The one being written by folks who have never even been here and don't know what we're capable of. Because when it comes to luxury, it's as much about where it's from, as who it's for. Now, we're from America, but this isn't New York City. Or The Windy City. Or Sin City. And we're certainly no one's Emerald City."

At that point, Eminem tells viewers, "This is the Motor City -- and this is what we do."

Criticisms from the right on Twitter were immediate, followed today with plenty of angry responses from online outlets. A member of Congress, freshman Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.), also weighed in, criticizing the ad, the rescue of the industry, and even Eminem (whose music "hasn't ever been heard" on Ross' speakers).

In terms of the ad, it's a subjective question, of course, but I absolutely loved it. Out of concern for the economy and American competitive, I've been hoping the industry will recover, and a spot like this -- centered around an emotional appeal -- not only helps improve the Chrysler brand, but makes the viewer root even harder for Detroit (the city, not the Lions).

What's more, I can' help but find the right's incessant complaints unseemly. I'm sure they want what's best for the country, but I've never seen so many take such an active role in hoping for an American industry's failure.

Update: I'm reminded that conservatives aren't the only ones who disapproved of the commercial. Adam Weinstein, who knows a great deal more about Chrysler than I do, blasted the ad in a piece that's worth reading.

THE SMALLEST TAX BURDEN IN GENERATIONS.... If I had to guess, I'd say most Americans think the government collects too much money in taxes. Indeed, despite an enormous deficit they claim to care deeply about, congressional Republicans are nearly unanimous in their belief that raising any taxes on anyone by any amount is entirely unacceptable -- because Americans are "taxed enough already."

With that in mind, today's AP report on tax burdens probably won't be well received on the right, but that doesn't make it wrong. (thanks to reader R.S. for the tip)

Taxes too high?

Actually, as a share of the nation's economy, Uncle Sam's take this year will be the lowest since 1950, when the Korean War was just getting under way.

And for the third straight year, American families and businesses will pay less in federal taxes than they did under former President George W. Bush, thanks to a weak economy and a growing number of tax breaks for the wealthy and poor alike.

Income tax payments this year will be nearly 13 percent lower than they were in 2008, the last full year of the Bush presidency. Corporate taxes will be lower by a third, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

There are multiple factors that contribute to this, including the weak economy that holds down income. But it's also the result of very low tax rates, coupled with, as the AP noted, "a tax code that grows each year with new deductions, credits and exemptions."

The result is an economy with federal tax receipts equal to just 14.8% of the economy -- the lowest level since the Truman era.

Of course, this is only looking at federal taxes, and doesn't reflect state and local taxes, but a USA Today analysis found last year that if we include everything -- federal, state, and local taxes, including income, property, sales, and other taxes -- the percentage of personal income that's paid in taxes is still at its lowest level since 1950.

As Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the Center for American Progress, said at the time, "The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts."

THE BREWING KRISTOL, BECK FEUD.... Well, this ought to be interesting.

Last week, Fox News' Glenn Beck launched a week-long effort to explain developments in Egypt as only he can. The deranged media personality cooked up truly bizarre conspiracy theories -- even by his standards -- involving caliphates, communists, and radical theocrats, all of whom are coordinating their efforts for "the coming insurrection" and the "new world order," which will apparently include China seizing New Zealand.

Over the weekend, The Weekly Standard's William Kristol, a Fox News contributor, had seen enough. "[H]ysteria is not a sign of health," Kristol wrote in a new column. "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."

Nearly as important, National Review's Rich Lowry, who's also a Fox News contributor, praised Kristol for taking "a well-deserved shot at Glenn Beck's latest wild theorizing." Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund, another very conservative media voice, added that Beck's use of "apocalyptic conspiracy terms" when describing Egypt "goes too far."

Apparently, Beck caught wind of all of this, and lashed out at Kristol on his radio show this morning.

"I don't even know if you understand what conservatives are anymore, Billy," Beck said in his extended, sarcastic attack on Kristol. "People like Bill Kristol, I don't think they stand for anything anymore. All they stand for is power. They'll do anything to keep their little fiefdom together, and they'll do anything to keep the Republican power entrenched."

I especially liked it when Beck asked rhetorically on the air, "Have you done a minute of research, Bill?" It's amusing to think Beck believes additional scholarly work would prove there's a global conspiracy to "divvy up" the world between communists and "radical Islamists." If only Kristol would do more "research," he'd see how right Beck's delusions are.

We'll see if Kristol feels compelled to respond to this, though I rather doubt he'll bother. The larger point to keep in mind, though, is that the fissures within the right that generally go unnoticed are starting to widen.

In the case of U.S. policy towards Egypt, the dynamic is well beyond left vs. right. Instead we're seeing (a) those in the U.S. who support the protesters, their calls for sweeping democratic reforms, and Mubarak's ouster; (b) those who support Mubarak and fear his unknown replacement; and (c) those who believe caliphates run by zombie Islamists, the Illuminati, and the Loch Ness Monster are coming to steal your car.

Joe Klein noted over the weekend that he's "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."

A feud with Kristol almost certainly won't help.

KNOWING HOW TO TELL THE MEDIA WHAT IT WANTS TO HEAR.... Politico's John Harris and Jim VandeHei have an interesting item today on how President Obama "is playing the press like a fiddle." At first blush, the premise seems way off base -- the relationship between the White House and the D.C. media establishment is often strained and almost always adversarial.

But that's not really the point they're getting at. Rather, the piece is about the president and his team recognizing -- and exploiting -- what political reporters are looking for. Most notably, "their favoritism for politicians perceived as ideologically centrist and willing to profess devotion to Washington's oft-honored, rarely practiced civic religion of bipartisanship." (via Steve M.)

Conservatives are convinced the vast majority of reporters at mainstream news organizations are liberals who hover expectantly for each new issue of The Nation.

It's just not true. The majority of political writers we know might more accurately be accused of centrist bias.

That is, they believe broadly in government activism but are instinctually skeptical of anything that smacks of ideological zealotry and are quick to see the public interest as being distorted by excessive partisanship. Governance, in the Washington media's ideal, should be a tidier and more rational process than it is.

In this fantasy, every pressing problem could be solved with a blue-ribbon commission chaired by Sam Nunn and David Gergen that would go into seclusion at Andrews Air Force Base for a week, not coming back until it had a deal to cut entitlements and end obesity.

That sounds largely right to me. When push comes to shove, it's a D.C. industry filled with David Broders. I generally believe the media establishment is "wired" for Republicans -- news organizations internalize GOP talking points, and unknowingly take more of an interest in stories Republicans promote -- but when it comes to ideology, the cult of centrism is surprisingly strong.

For Harris and VandeHei, this relates to President Obama's improved fortunes as he's taken steps that make the Broders happy. For example, he struck a deal on tax rates with congressional Republicans, which the media loved, in part on the substance, but mainly because of the obsession with "bipartisan process." This is reinforced with presidential outreach to conservative foes, as evidenced by Obama's speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today.

But there's a larger context to this that Harris and VandeHei overlook -- by even making this observation in print, they're implicitly acknowledging one of the left's more common media criticisms. Greg Sargent, who emphasizes the fact that Harris and VandeHei "carry tremendous respect with the Beltway establishment," had a good post on this today.

The claims that Washington's political and media establishment fetishizes bipartisanship regardless of policy details, and that this establishment is all too willing to confer the label of Very Serious Beltway Wise Man on those who profess outsized concern about the deficit, have long been twin pillars of the left's critique of our political discourse.

I don't really expect the Politico's recognition of this to generate any introspection -- the media culture in D.C. is too ingrained -- but it's heartening to see the acknowledgement of the problem anyway.

CHOOSING NOT TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE.... The disconnect between congressional Republicans' rhetoric and the policies they impose on themselves is often hard to overlook. They like to complain, for example, about the size of the federal workforce and partisan perceptions about soaring public-sector wages, while at the same time, boosting the payroll of their own aides.

A similar problem is unfolding when it comes to spending on government agencies -- GOP officials want to slash budgets across the public sector, while choosing not to make big cuts to Congress' budget.

Republicans now running the House are barely touching Congress' own generous budget even as they take a cleaver to many domestic agencies.

A new GOP proposal would reduce domestic agencies' spending by 9 percent on average through September, when the current budget year ends.

If that plan becomes law, it could lead to layoffs of tens of thousands of federal employees, big cuts to heating and housing subsidies for the poor, reduced grants to schools and law enforcement agencies, and a major hit to the Internal Revenue Service's budget.

Congress, on the other hand, would get nicked by only 2 percent, or $94 million.

Under the plan shaped by House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) and Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office, agencies across the government would face steep cuts, but would largely leave Congress unscathed.

"Charity begins at home, and Congress should lead the way with cuts to their own budget," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group. "Instead they're protecting their bottom line while slashing everyone else's."

The cut to Congress gets a little deeper, to 3.5 percent, if it were imposed for a full calendar year instead of the seven months that will remain in the current budget year. But so, too, would the cuts to other agencies -- growing to 16 percent.

Republicans are already lacking in credibility when it comes to budgets and fiscal responsibility. This really won't help.

MONDAY'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:

* In a surprise move, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) is resigning from Congress to become the new director of the Woodrow Wilson Center. There will be a special election in California 36th district to replace her.

* As expected, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R) formally announced over the weekend that he's running for the U.S. Senate in Montana, will take on incumbent Sen. Jon Tester (D) next year.

* Speaking of confirming what we already suspected, Indiana state Treasurer Richard Mourdock acknowledged over the weekend -- twice -- that he is taking on Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) in a Republican primary next year.

* In Nevada, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D) is inching closer to a U.S. Senate campaign in Nevada, though she apparently wants to make sure she won't have a primary opponent. The seat is currently held by scandal-plagued Sen. John Ensign (R), who is seeking another term.

* On a related note, Nevada will hold one of the earliest Republican presidential nominating contests next year, but while likely candidates spend a great deal of time in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, aspirants appear to be blowing off Nevada. Fascinating data point: "More potential GOP candidates have traveled to Israel this year -- three -- than to Nevada."

* In a modern first, the 2012 Democratic National Convention will not accept any corporate donations at all, with the intended goal of "increasing the influence of grassroots and individual donors." It's safe to assume the Republican National Convention will not follow suit.

* In the "invisible primary" phase, there's a very large field of likely GOP presidential candidates, but don't assume we know all of the candidates just yet. Former two-term Alabama Gov. Bob Riley (R) is apparently eyeing the race, too.

* And as of today, the Iowa caucuses are just 363 days away. There are still no Republican candidates (except for that guy in Georgia who owned a pizza company).

WHEN KRAUTHAMMER TRIES TO SOUND CREDIBLE ON CLIMATE SCIENCE.... Conservative media figure Charles Krauthammer took his ongoing confusion about global warming to PBS over the weekend, and managed to hurt his credibility just a little more.

Gordon Peterson explained that "there's about a four percent more water vapor in the air now in the atmosphere than there was in the '70s because of warmer oceans and warmer air, and it returns to earth as heavy rain and heavy snow." Krauthammer responded:

"Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it's global warming, because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it's a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence."

Remember, Krauthammer is supposed to be one of the smarter, more influential voices in conservative politics.

What an embarrassment.

LET THE JEB BOOMLET BEGIN.... Former two-term Florida Gov. John Ellis "Jeb" Bush (R) has said he's not going to run for president, at least in 2012, and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest otherwise. But I suspect we'll soon see a "Run, Jeb, Run" boomlet anyway.

National Review has a cover story on Jeb Bush in its new issue, and Rich Lowry follows up today with a piece arguing that Jeb should run in 2012, not 2016.

Four years after leaving the Florida governor's mansion, he remains one of the most impressive Republican politicians in the country, a formidable policy mind with the political chops to drive conservative reforms even out of office. So why isn't he running for president? Bush told Miller what he's said to others, too -- he won't run in 2012, but he'll consider 2016. This is a mistake. Bush should run now...

Oddly enough, I'm not inclined to dismiss the idea out of hand. If the guy's name was John Ellis Smith instead of John Ellis Bush, I imagine he'd be a leading contender, if not the frontrunner. (Of course, realistically, John Ellis Smith probably wouldn't have been elected governor in Florida in the first place, so the hypothetical is admittedly flawed.)

Bush clearly brings quite a bit to the table -- he's the former chief executive of the nation's largest swing state, where he remains quite popular. He's perceived as serious about public policy, and cares about reaching out to Hispanic voters. What's more, the 2012 field is likely to include plenty of GOP contenders, but none of them is impressive or striking fear into the hearts of Democrats.

That said, Lowry's case wasn't especially persuasive. He argues, for example, that by 2016, "Jeb will have been out of office ten years." Do Republicans really care about this? Newt Gingrich hasn't held a day job in 13 years, and he's apparently not only running, but is being taken seriously. Jeb can't keep busy until '16?

Lowry added that the Bush name has been rehabilitated, and that Jeb is "different" from his father and brother -- a fact, Lowry added, people will "realize" as soon as they "see him on the national stage."

All told, I think it's a tough sell. The unmitigated trainwreck of George W. Bush's presidency hasn't been forgotten that quickly -- the stench of failure surrounding that name won't fade too quickly -- and while Jeb's style is distinct from his brother's, I suspect a fairly significant chunk of the population would respond to another Bush candidacy by asking, "Hasn't that family done enough damage already?"

The last name "Bush" has been on the Republican ticket in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, and 2004.* I question whether the public would welcome adding 2012 to the list.

* Postscript: Since 1952, there have been 15 Republican presidential tickets. How many of those 15 did not feature the name Nixon, Dole, or Bush? Just two: 1964 and 2008.

TRYING TO PUT IMMIGRATION POLICY BACK ON THE TABLE.... A crowded legislative calendar in the last Congress made immigration reform unlikely, and the breakdown of bipartisan talks made it impossible. With Republican gains in the midterms, including a new House GOP majority, any chance of passing meaningful legislation before 2013 appears remote, at best.

But there are apparently some preliminary efforts underway to try anyway.

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have rekindled their alliance on immigration reform, taking some early steps to test the political will for addressing the contentious issue this year.

Their call list hasn't focused so much on House and Senate members who've been reliable pro-immigration votes in the past. Instead, they're looking to a strange-bedfellows mix of conservative and liberal constituencies that can provide a "safety net" of support, as Graham put it, once the issue heats up.

It's a credible enough initiative that Schumer's office has reportedly sent word to "conservative evangelicals, the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union, business organizations and immigrant advocacy groups," that talks are prepared to move forward. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is back in the mix, too.

Comprehensive immigration reform is long overdue, and the basic framework of a worthwhile package is already in place -- Bush, congressional Democrats, and some reform-minded Republicans agreed on a path several years ago, and the Obama White House would very likely endorse a very similar, if not identical, policy.

With this in mind, I'm glad Graham and Schumer at least have their hearts in the right place. They're reaching out to newly-sensible GOP senators like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and have apparently brought John McCain back into the discussions (though he promised voters last year he would refuse to negotiate on the issue).

But putting aside questions of whether it's even possible to craft an immigration bill that could get 60 votes and overcome Republican obstructionism, I haven't the foggiest idea why anyone would think the GOP-led House would even consider such a measure.

The Republican majority in the lower chamber has already said it would never pass the DREAM Act, for example, and that's arguably the easiest and most popular part of comprehensive reform. As for a pathway to citizenship, GOP leaders in the House have effectively said such an idea is dead in the chamber before the debate even starts.

I'd love to be wrong about this, but unless someone came up with a way to pass important legislation without the House of Representatives, I'm inclined to put my hopes on immigration policy on hold for a long while.

DOES THE RIGHT NOT REALIZE REAGAN WAS WRONG ABOUT MEDICARE?.... Most folks have probably heard the audio of Ronald Reagan in 1961, before he sought elected office, railing against Medicare. It was recorded as part of the American Medical Association's campaign against a precursor to the legislation that would become law several years later.

What I don't quite understand is why the right looks back at the recording with such fondness a half-century later.

For the greater part of the last two years, the conservative Heritage Foundation has based part of its campaign against health care reform on the argument that reform means a weakening of Medicare. Most recently, Heritage's James Capretta railed against the Affordable Care Act by arguing that it "will reduce seniors' access to quality health care by limiting the health care plan options currently available to them."

The charge is not only false but also ironic given that Republicans have repeatedly voted for Medicare cuts totaling more than a trillion dollars and we've heard barely a squeak from the folks at Heritage. Nevertheless, their new appreciation for Medicare -- the most expansive and expensive government program -- is worth something.

It's somewhat surprising, then, that Heritage chose to honor President Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday by sending out a video in which the Gipper assails Medicare.

This comes up from time to time. Jonah Goldberg touted it in 2009, just as the debate over health care reform was picking up in earnest. Around the same time, Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and Laura Ingraham did the same thing, highlighting the audio's ongoing salience and relevance. Yesterday, it was the Heritage Foundation's turn.

Have these folks actually listened to the recording they're so impressed with? Reagan argued that if Medicare became law, we'd see federal officials empowered to dictate where physicians could practice medicine, and open the door to government control over where Americans were allowed to live. In fact, Reagan warned that if Medicare passed, there was a real possibility that the federal government would control where Americans go and what they do for a living.

Reagan added, "[I]f you don't [stop Medicare] and I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free."

As Jon Chait explained a while back, "You'd think conservatives would be embarrassed about this sort of talk. After all, can there be anybody who doesn't live in a militia compound who believes the passage of Medicare represented the death knell of that freedom in America? Does anybody think this business about the government dictating what city doctors live in has come true? Yet conservatives continue to trumpet it."

It's quite odd. We know with the benefit of hindsight that the warnings in Reagan's diatribe were silly, if not crazy. That conservatives listen to the recording 50 years later, and fail to notice that the scare tactics were wildly wrong, is disconcerting.

OBAMA REBUFFS O'REILLY'S 'MOVE TO THE CENTER' ARGUMENT.... Shortly before the Super Bowl, President Obama sat down in the White House with Bill O'Reilly, in an interview the Fox News host said would have more viewers than "any other interview that's ever been done in the history of mankind."

Those Fox News personalities do like to think big, don't they?

The interview covered some of the major issues of the day, most notably developments in Egypt, with the president explaining that the U.S. can't force the Mubarak government's decisions, but "what we can do is we can say, 'The time is now for you to start making change in that country.'"

Pressed on the possible role of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt's future, Obama noted that the group is just "one faction," which doesn't have "majority support." Asked if the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat, the president added, "They are well-organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti-U.S. There's no doubt about it. But here's the thing that we have to understand: there are a whole bunch of secular folks in Egypt, there are a whole bunch of educators and civil society in Egypt that wants to come to the fore as well. And it's important for us not to say that our only two options are either the Muslim Brotherhood or a suppressed Egyptian people."

Of particular interest, though, was the back and forth over the perceived "intrusion" of a "huge government," as O'Reilly put it. The president explained, accurately, that these perceptions just don't match the reality. It led to this exchange:

O'REILLY: [T]he pundits now say you're moving to the center to raise your approval, is that true, are you moving to the center?

OBAMA: No.

O'REILLY: No? Because we were set up over there, and then they moved you a little to the center.

OBAMA: (Laughs) Here's what I think is true. Over the first two years of my presidency, we had a complete disaster. Right? We had a complete crisis. The financial markets were breaking down. We were slipping into a Great Depression. And we had to take a bunch of extraordinary steps in order to make sure that the economy was growing again, which it is now, growing. Making sure that the private sector was creating jobs again. It's now doing that.

And now our focus is not on refighting the battle of the last two years...

O'REILLY: So you're not moving to the center?

OBAMA: I haven't -- I didn't move to...

O'REILLY: You haven't moved anywhere? You're the same guy?

OBAMA: I'm the same guy. My practical focus, my common-sense focus right now is how to we out-innovate, out-educate, out-building, out-compete the rest of the world? How do we create jobs here in the United States of America? How do we make sure that businesses are thriving? But how do we also -- making sure that ordinary Americans can live out the American dream?

As far as the White House is concerned, there may be a political upside to people thinking the president has "moved to the center" -- the media has been preoccupied with this for weeks -- but I'm glad Obama pushed back, because the observation itself is pretty silly. Paul Waldman had a great item on this last week: "Everyone is obsessed about Obama moving to the center. Too bad it doesn't mean anything anymore."

Postscript: What did Fox News' "Fox Nation" website consider important about the interview? The fact that the president wasn't wearing a necktie.

AOL BUYS THE HUFFINGTON POST.... On Super Bowl Sunday, it turns out the big winner was ... Arianna Huffington.

The Huffington Post, which began in 2005 with a meager $1 million investment and has grown into one of the most heavily visited news Web sites in the country, is being acquired by AOL in a deal that creates an unlikely pairing of two online media giants.

The two companies completed the sale Sunday evening and announced the deal just after midnight on Monday. AOL will pay $315 million, $300 million of it in cash and the rest in stock. It will be the company's largest acquisition since it was separated from Time Warner in 2009. [...]

Arianna Huffington, the cable talk show pundit, author and doyenne of the political left, will take control of all of AOL's editorial content as president and editor in chief of a newly created Huffington Post Media Group. The arrangement will give her oversight not only of AOL's national, local and financial news operations, but also of the company's other media enterprises like MapQuest and Moviefone.

Huffington posted an item overnight, sharing her vision, noting, "By combining HuffPost with AOL's network of sites, thriving video initiative, local focus, and international reach, we know we'll be creating a company that can have an enormous impact, reaching a global audience on every imaginable platform."

It wasn't too long ago that AOL had created its own HuffPost-like site, Politics Daily, which has done some quality work. At this point, it appears the site will disappear, and its writers will join the Huffington team.

I'm not even close to being an expert on the business of media, but at first blush, this seems like a pretty good deal. The Huffington Post gets an expanded reach, while AOL gets the eyeballs that follow one of the most powerful online news behemoths.

It's bound to be a better move than that Time Warner deal.

* Disclosure: Though I don't post often, I've been a Huffington Post contributor.

FROM THE WEEKEND.... We covered a fair amount of ground over the weekend. Here's a quick overview of you may have missed.

On Sunday, we talked about:

* On his 100th birthday, Ronald Reagan continues to enjoy religious-like reverence from conservatives. Given his record, he's an odd choice for far-right hero.

* Last year, most credible observers assumed there was no way the Supreme Court could possibly rule against the Affordable Care Act. No one assumes that anymore.

* As if congressional efforts to redefine rape weren't outrageous enough, a Republican in Georgia wants to re-label rape victims as rape "accusers."

* Though you may have heard otherwise, the Obama administration's energy policy didn't lead to rolling blackouts in Texas last week.

* "Fox News Sunday" deliberately chose not to cover actual news yesterday.

* Former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has some thoughts to share on developments in Egypt. Hilarity ensues.

* How ridiculous has Glenn Beck been while hyperventilating about Egypt? Even Bill Kristol can't take it anymore.

On Saturday, we talked about:

* If he were willing to negotiate, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could move the health care law more in his direction -- but he doesn't want to deal.

* Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) is serious enough about deficit reduction that he'll consider tax increases as part of the mix. Good for him.

* The "Protect Life Act," the latest anti-abortion effort from congressional Republicans, is poorly named.

* In "This Week in God," we covered, among other things, President Obama's remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast.

* House GOP Conference Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (R-Ga.) doesn't understand light bulbs -- or irony.

* Palin wants to trademark herself, but she screwed up the paperwork.

* Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-Minn.) budget plan included freezing Veterans Affairs health care spending and cutting veterans' disability benefits considerably. Late Friday, she backed off.