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

* Egypt: "Labor strikes and worker protests that flared across Egypt on Wednesday affected post offices, textile factories and even the government's flagship newspaper, as protesters recaptured the initiative in their battle for the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak."

* The first inter-Korean dialogue in a long while didn't go well: "Military discussions between North and South Korea ended on Wednesday with no improvement in their badly strained relations and no agreement about whether to hold more substantive talks in the future. A Defense Ministry official in Seoul said the talks ended abruptly at 2:30 p.m. when the North Korean delegation 'unilaterally walked away from the table and out of the meeting room.'"

* Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) has recovered to the point that she's begun speaking again. It's "another significant milestone in her recovery."

* Congressional Republicans today grilled Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke over inflation that doesn't appear to exist. I can only imagine what the economy would be like if the GOP cared a fraction as much about unemployment.

* I'm still not sure why this isn't a no-brainer: "The Obama administration wants to invest $53 billion in high-speed and intercity rail service in the next six years, expanding a signature transportation initiative it already has targeted with $10.5 billion. The plan to spend billions more on a vast high-speed-rail network was cast by the administration as vital to keeping the United States competitive with world markets that already use the technology."

* The GOP's outrageous "forcible rape" provision was removed from one anti-abortion bill, but it's still in another.

* The fact that Donald Rumsfeld has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to Saddam Hussein and weapons inspectors isn't at all encouraging.

* What do Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Republicans have in common? Among other things, they all want to see the health care mandate eliminated -- after having believed the exact opposite up until fairly recently.

* Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) seriously believes having health care coverage through Medicaid is "actually worse" than being uninsured.

* The DCCC launches a good idea: a website directed at Speaker Boehner asking, "When are the jobs?"

* Glenn Beck isn't quite done antagonizing Bill Kristol.

* It seems pretty hard to believe that the growing number of college graduates in Egypt is the driving force for the recent uprising.

* And in South Carolina, state Sen. Robert Ford (D) was arguing against a new immigration law this week because "brothers" don't work as hard as "Mexicans." He said, Ford argued, "I know brothers -- and I'm talking about black guys -- they are not going to do the dirty work at Boeing, to do that hauling and all that building, that dirty work... A brother is going to find ways to take a break." What a moron. [Update: I had originally identified Ford as a Republican. Apologies -- he's a Democrat, though that doesn't change the idiotic qualities of the remark.]

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

HOUSE GOP LEADERS LOSE ANOTHER ONE.... Let's just say the week isn't going as planned for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

He brought the Patriot Act to the floor yesterday, expecting easy passage. He lost. Boehner brought a trade bill to the floor, but had to pull it after rank-and-file Republicans balked.

This afternoon, the House GOP leadership "endured another embarrassing floor loss," this time on U.N. funding.

A bill that would retrieve money already paid to the United Nations failed Wednesday afternoon 259-169, 290 votes were needed for passage. The bill is the third to fail under House stewardship this week. The U.N. bill would have return $179 million that was paid into the U.N. tax equalization fund.

The measure was brought up under House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) signature budget slashing initiative, known as YouCut, under suspension of House rules that required two-thirds vote for passage.

Several GOP sources said Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) had lobbied against the U.N. bill, at the urging of New York city officials. King had spoken to New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly about the funding.

King spoke on the House floor Wednesday, saying defeating the bill is "a matter of life and death."

This didn't persuade many in the GOP caucus, but the argument nevertheless carried the day. As with the vote on the Patriot Act, a House majority supported the GOP proposal, but to expedite matters, the measure was placed on the suspension calendar, so it needed a two-thirds majority, and came up far short.

This morning, Boehner told reporters, "We've been in the majority four weeks. We're not going to be perfect every day."

A month into the new Congress, it appears Republican leaders are still struggling a bit in the "leadership" department.

THE LATEST IN A LONG LINE OF REPUBLICAN SEX SCANDALS.... A couple of years ago, Republican Rep. Christopher Lee of New York, wrote a piece warning constituents about Internet safety. "[R]esponding to what may seem like a friendly e-mail or an appealing marketing offer can have serious consequences," he said. "Private information and images can so easily be transmitted to friends and strangers alike."

The conservative lawmaker really should have taken his own cautionary words more seriously.

Rep. Christopher Lee is a married Republican congressman serving the 26th District of New York. But when he trolls Craigslist's "Women Seeking Men" forum, he's Christopher Lee, "divorced" "lobbyist" and "fit fun classy guy." One object of his flirtation told us her story.

On the morning of Friday, January 14, a single 34-year-old woman put an ad in the "Women for Men" section of Craigslist personals. "Will someone prove to me not all CL men look like toads?" she asked, inviting "financially & emotionally secure" men to reply.

That afternoon, a man named Christopher Lee replied. He used a Gmail account that Rep. Christopher Lee has since confirmed to be his own. (It's the same Gmail account that was associated with Lee's personal Facebook account, which the Congressman deleted when we started asking questions.)

By email, Lee identified himself as a 39-year-old divorced lobbyist and sent a PG picture to the woman from the ad. (In fact, Lee is married and has one son with his wife. He's also 46.)

It got worse when the congressman sent a topless photo of himself, but before the story could spiral further, the woman Lee was apparently pursuing cut off communication -- she realized he was lying about his age and occupation.

For his part, Lee has a defense. The married conservative claims his email account was hacked, and his office has a Jan. 21 email from the congressman to his staff, noting the security breach.

That might be more compelling if the emails in question hadn't been sent a week before the hack. For that matter, it wouldn't explain how the hacker managed to obtain a topless photo of the congressman, apparently taken by the congressman himself, or why the hacker might try to use the account to pick up a woman through Craigslist.

This seems like the kind of story that could have some legs. After all, there's that photo, and it's not every day married conservative congressman lie on Craigslist while trying to con unsuspecting women.

There are, however, two related angles to consider. The first is that this is yet another test for the GOP caucus' "zero tolerance" policy. Remember, before the midterm elections, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) vowed that Republicans would "institute a zero-tolerance policy" when it comes to lawmakers and ethical transgressions once there was a GOP majority. The party has apparently decided this doesn't apply to Rep. David Rivera's (R-Fla.) criminal scandals. Will it apply to Christopher Lee? If not, why not?

The second is that, if history is any guide, Lee should be able to overcome this because sex scandals just don't hurt Republicans the way they hurt Democrats. Consider the recent evidence -- Ensign (adultery), Sanford (adultery), Vitter (prostitutes and adultery), Craig (gay adultery), Gibbons (adultery), Giuliani and Gingrich (a lot of adultery) all had sex scandals during their tenure in public service. Not one resigned in the wake of the revelations.

Among Democrats, we have Spitzer (prostitutes and adultery), John Edwards (adultery), Massa (sexual harassment), and McGreevey (gay adultery), all of whom either resigned or are persona non grata in Dem circles.

Given the double standard, Lee probably likes his odds.

BUSH'S E.P.A. CHIEF ADOPTED OBAMA ADMINISTRATION LINE.... In light of today's hearing at the House Energy and Commerce Committee, this seems like a pretty big deal. (thanks to ethan for the tip)

An Environmental Protection Agency administrator under President George W. Bush told the former president in 2008 that his administration was obliged to declare that emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases linked to climate change endanger public health and welfare.

Stephen Johnson, the EPA's administrator from 2005 until 2009, also suggested in a Jan. 31, 2008 letter that the agency propose regulations to limit greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles and from other human sources -- a stance that the Obama administration has taken.

This is something of a bombshell in the climate debate. Late last year, President Obama's EPA chief, Lisa Jackson, concluded that carbon emissions endanger public health and welfare -- the so-called endangerment finding -- which is the step preceding regulating emissions through the Clean Air Act.

The Republican line -- outside of the belief that the entirely of climate science is some kind of communist plot -- is that legislation is needed to overturn the EPA's endangerment finding, so that efforts to combat the climate crisis can be stopped before they start. Dems, in turn, are waving around Stephen Johnson's letter to make the obvious political point.

"As administrator Johnson's letter makes clear, both Republican and Democratic administrations have had the same view of the science: carbon emissions are a serious threat to our nation's welfare," Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) wrote yesterday in a letter to the committee's chairman, Rep. Fred Upton (R., Mich.). "I urge you to leave the science to scientists and drop your effort to use legislation to overturn EPA's endangerment finding."

Upton responded by accusing Waxman of "conspiring with the EPA."

Republicans sure do love their conspiracies, don't they?

In any case, Bush's former EPA chief -- who, admittedly, did not prefer the Clean Air Act as the ideal mechanism for regulating emissions -- said it's possible to use the law in a way "that is prudent and cautious yet forward thinking" and which "creates a framework for responsible, cost-effective and practical actions." In other words, the Bush administration and the Obama administration are saying the same thing.

Johnson's 2008 letter also argued that "the latest science of climate change requires the agency to propose a positive endangerment finding, as was agreed to at the cabinet-level meeting in November."

Whatever happened after that cabinet-level agreement in the Bush administration? It turns out Bush quashed the effort, after Dick Cheney and Exxon Mobil "explained" the situation to him.

Nevertheless, the bottom line remains the same -- Bush's own EPA administrator believed the agency was required to do an endangerment finding, and argued that the Clean Air Act could be used responsibly to combat global warming.

Congressional Republicans, in effect, are arguing that the Bush administration's environmental policies were shaped by radical leftists.

IT'S NOT A MOVEMENT.... A few months ago, describing the Tea Party crowd, Karl Rove told a reporter, "There have been movements like this before -- the Civil Rights movement, the anti-war movement, the pro-life movement, the Second Amendment rights movement."

Identical delusions are pretty common on the right. Take, for example, the launch of a Tea Party magazine this week, and the way in which one its founders described the importance of the publication and those behind it. Katrina Pierson, the "national grassroots director" for the new magazine, told the NYT, "Throughout American history, successful movements -- abolitionists, women's suffragists, the civil rights movement, the conservative movement, et cetera -- all had their own print publications."

This generated some well-deserved mockery from Greg Sargent.

As I've noted here before, it often seems like some on the right are suffering from what you might call a world-historical inferiority complex. They're so desperate to imagine themselves as actors in an ongoing drama that rivals the most momentous struggles in human history that they simply play-act the part, pumping up their own situation into something comically out of proportion with historical reality. [...]

Abolitionism and the civil rights movement, taken together, spanned more than a century, beginning with the founding of abolitionist societies in the early 1800s and culminating in the 1960s with the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts. They liberated millions of people who had been held captive under a deeply entrenched economic system -- the Slave Power -- that could only be defeated by decades of committed political activism, superhuman perseverance, and untold amounts of bloodshed.

Publishers of abolitionist newspapers routinely had their printing presses broken up by angry white mobs, a fate that is unlikely to meet the publishers of the new Tea Party magazine.

Well said. I'd add for context, though, that the Republicans' Tea Party base characterizing themselves as a "movement" in the first place strikes me as a mistake.

We're talking about an amorphous group of activists with no clear agenda, no leadership, no internal structure, and no real areas of expertise. Its passionate members, while probably well meaning, appear to have no idea what they're talking about. Genuine political movements have, as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) put it, a "coherent vision." The Tea Party has rage and a cable news network, but that's not much of a substitute.

Tea Partiers may struggle to appreciate this, but real movements that make a difference and stand the test of time are about more than buzz words, television personalities, and self-aggrandizement. We knew exactly what the civil rights movement was all about -- they highlighted a systemic social injustice and presented a moral/legal remedy. Similarly, labor unions created a movement. Women's suffrage was a movement. The ongoing struggle for equality for gays and lesbians is a movement. In each case, the grievance was as clear as the solution. There was no mystery as to what these patriots were fighting for, and their struggles and successes made the nation stronger, better, and more perfect.

Remind me, what exactly do Tea Partiers want again? More tax cuts? A system that makes it easier for health insurance companies to screw over the public? Their demands are usually contradictory, and the activists don't even agree with one another over what their alleged agenda includes.

It's not that the right is incapable of coming up with legitimate political movements -- I'd consider the pro-lifers and the gun-rights crowd as credible movements -- it's that these Tea Party folks aren't it.

Delusions of grandeur notwithstanding, for the hysterical GOP base to equate itself with abolitionists, women's suffragists, and civil rights activists is ridiculous.

RELATING TO THE STRUGGLES OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS..... When congressional Democrats began to pressure their Republican colleagues to turn down the taxpayer-subsidized health care benefits lawmakers enjoy, there was a political point. Dems knew GOP officials would be reluctant to turn down quality, affordable care for themselves and their families, even as they fought to kill the Affordable Care Act.

But there's a related benefit that wasn't immediately obvious. As several Republicans accept the Democratic challenge and reject the available health care benefits, they're starting to face the same struggles their constituents deal with all the time.

Ask any House Republican about repealing President Barack Obama's health care law, and you'll get the same fiery, self-assured talking points about tearing down what Speaker John Boehner has called a "monstrosity."

But talk to some of the 16 freshman lawmakers who have declined their government health benefits, and you'll hear a different side of the story -- about tough out-of-pocket expenses, pre-existing conditions and support for health reforms that would help those who struggle with their coverage. As they venture into the free market for health insurance, these lawmakers -- many of whom swept into office fueled by tea party anger over the health care law -- are facing monthly premiums of $1,200 and fears of double-digit rate hikes.

Imagine that. Politicians who are forced deal with the same private market the rest of us deal with suddenly notice it leaves much to be desired.

One member who chose not to accept congressional benefits, Rep. Richard Nugent (R-Fla.), said, "I have a niece who has pre-existing conditions, and I worry about her if she was ever to lose her job."

Nugent nevertheless voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and eliminate the protections enjoyed by his own niece.

Indeed, the problem here is that these Republicans don't seem to be learning anything from the experience. Ideally, they'd subject themselves to the private, unreformed marketplace, notice the flaws -- higher costs, discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, etc. -- and conclude, "Well, maybe getting rid of the entire health care law would be a mistake."

But the intensity of their right-wing myopia is powerful enough to overwhelm reason. These folks see the problems first hand, and still don't care to fix them.

HALF-FINISHED STIMULUS PROJECTS WON'T HELP ANYONE.... The Republican message on the Recovery Act has always been a mess for those who take substance and consistency seriously. Just at the surface, even, the GOP is convinced the stimulus didn't work, and actually made the economy worse. That's both wrong and ridiculous.

And then there's the hypocrisy. Every House Republican opposed the package that saved the economy, but most sought stimulus funds for their district. It was fascinating to watch -- GOP lawmakers rejected the Recovery Act and insisted it would fail, while at the same time requesting money from the Recovery Act, insisting the funds would help, and then showing up at the ribbon-cutting ceremony.

Two years later, Recovery Act investments are, regrettably, just about over, but that's not quite good enough for the misguided politicians who refuse to admit they were wrong.

Now, Republican leaders are coalescing around a proposal to "cancel unused spending authority in the 2009 stimulus bill" that could block funds from flowing to ongoing stimulus projects. However, Republicans have failed to fully explain the repercussions for such a radical budget proposal.

As the OMB director Jerry Zients noted, most of the unspent stimulus money the Republicans have targeted is already obligated to specific projects. By cutting off stimulus funds to current projects, Republicans could leave projects half-finished and force mass layoffs at stimulus-funded sites. This wasteful idea is even more cynical given the fact that Republicans have taken credit for major stimulus projects that are still ongoing and could be affected by their new anti-stimulus budget.

I'm curious, how would it help the economy if Republicans cut off funding, on purpose, for a half-finished highway expansion in St. Louis, an unfinished heavy water components test reactor in South Carolina, and a half-finished vertical lift bridge in Iowa -- all projects that created jobs, improved the local economy, and enjoyed GOP support?

This need not be a rhetorical question. To hear Republican leaders tell it, they're committed to improving the economy. So, here's the challenge: explain why scrapping work that's already been done and laying off the workers on these projects would actually help.

We're waiting.

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

* Making the 2012 cycle that much more difficult for Democrats, Sen. Jim Webb (D) announced this morning that he will not seek re-election in Virginia. Former Sen. George Allen (R) shifts to frontrunner status, unless Dems convince former Gov. Tim Kaine (D) to give up his DNC chairmanship and run for the seat.

* Responding to right-wing criticism over New START, Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) chided Tea Party activists in his state yesterday, telling them to "get real." He's right, but the comment probably won't go over well.

* The Dems' decision to reject all corporate financing for the 2012 Democratic National Committee is drawing praise from reform-minded organizations. Fred Wertheimer, founder of Democracy 21, said yesterday, "This is the first time anyone has made any kind of effort to address the problem of unlimited money being used to finance our presidential conventions. It will be interesting to see if Republicans are prepared to do anything similar."

* A new Quinnipiac poll out of New Jersey shows Sen. Robert Menendez's (D) approval rating on the rise, up six points since December. President Obama's approval rating in the state stands at 55%. Both will be on the ballot in 2012.

* In case there were any lingering questions, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said again yesterday that he's not running for president in 2012.

* Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) hasn't officially said whether he's seeking re-election, but the fact that he's hired a campaign manager seems like a big hint.

* Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said he's not running for president, but could he be encouraged to jump in? "I don't want to suggest that I'm waiting for any kind of draft," he said this week. "It's really not what I want to do.... I'm not ruling anything out, but it's not something I want to do."

* Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) narrowly defeated Ilario Pantano (R) last year, but the controversial retired Marine is gearing up for a rematch.

* Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) has heard whispers about Republican presidential candidates skipping the Iowa caucuses, and he doesn't like it.

HOUSE REPUBLICAN WON'T LET GO OF ANTI-ABORTION CRUSADE.... If voters delivered big wins to Republicans last November in the hopes of seeing a slew of anti-abortion bills, the public will be thrilled with the House GOP agenda. If voters backed Republicans hoping to see them focus on jobs and the economy, they're likely wondering what in the world the GOP is thinking right now.

The Boston Globe noted today that the new House majority is pushing a measure that "would eliminate tax deductions for private insurance plans that cover abortions." Brian Beutler helps flesh out the details on this, explaining that the GOP proposal is intended to raise taxes on businesses.

More specifically, it would eliminate tax incentives on employer-provided health care benefits if those benefits cover abortion as a medical procedure. [...]

Ultimately, the impact of tax like the one in the Republican legislation would likely be to phase out abortion coverage in the private insurance market. This would upend the long-standing bipartisan consensus, which does not enshrine the idea that the government should exert pressure on private entities to deny medical services they don't like. And -- speaking of bipartisan consensus -- it would run directly counter to the politically expedient conclusion by both parties that people should be able to keep the health care they already have.

"The Republicans in the House are proposing tax hikes because they don't like a health plan a private-sector business chooses," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). "What they want to do is essentially make abortion unavailable."

The only thing worse that the House Republicans' preoccupation with abortion is the substance of the proposals themselves. A month into their new majority, it's one thing to blow off job creation altogether, but launching an anti-abortion crusade -- knowing full well that the Senate and White House won't go along -- is ridiculous.

For those keeping score, we've now seen the odious "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" become a top GOP priority, the life-threatening "Protect Life Act" garner significant Republican support, the debate over raising business taxes over their insurance plans that might cover abortions, and another proposal is on the way to cut off federal dollars to women's health care clinics that offer abortions.

Culture warrior Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) boasted yesterday, "This House is more pro-life than it's ever been."

That's probably not an exaggeration, but for those who thought 2010 was about the economy, it may come as a bit of a surprise.

THE CONTEXT OF 'EMPTY THE CLIP' DOESN'T HELP.... Scott Beason, a Republican state senator in Alabama, appeared at a party event over the weekend, and spoke a bit about immigration.

"If you don't believe illegal immigration will destroy a community go and check out parts of Alabama around Arab and Albertville," he said. Beason went on to advise Republicans to "empty the clip, and do what has to be done."

Yesterday, the Alabaman clarified matters.

Beason, whose Senate district includes parts of Blount, Jefferson and St. Clair counties just north of Birmingham, doesn't deny the remarks, but said in several interviews Monday and Tuesday that were misunderstood.

"I did say that but it was completely taken out of context," he told the Birmingham News on Monday. "Look, I'll take my beatings when I mess up. But no way was I urging anyone to do harm to Hispanics or illegal immigrants. I would never do that."

Beason said he wasn't thinking about the January shooting in Tucson, Ariz., that injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a dozen others, and killed six, when making his comments. "Frankly, didn't think about what happened in Arizona but I wish I had," he said. "I think it was maybe the wrong example to use, but honestly I didn't call for violence to solve political problems."

I'm hard pressed to imagine how Beason thinks "context" would help make his comments more acceptable, but Matt Yglesias notes the state senator's walk-back and finds the silver lining.

This highlights something that is, I think, a central issue for immigration politics. It turns out that Mexicans are human beings. Even if they move to the United States. Even if they do so without permission. Murdering them is wrong! Whenever I write that the interests of the immigrants themselves deserves to be part of the immigration calculus, folks will email in to observe that this argument is hardly likely to carry the day politically. And it's probably not. But on the other hand, Beasons back-tracking underscores the fact that the American people aren't monsters. Even in Alabama it would be politically damaging to be thought of as the guy who wants to shoot Mexicans. And the reason it's wrong to shoot them is that they're people and their interests count.

So that's progress.

That seems to set the bar for human decency pretty low, but at this point, given the right's attitudes, I'll take progress where I can find it.

BACHMANN'S CASE FOR UNTOUCHABLE 'FOUNDING DOCUMENTS'.... There was quite a gathering at the National Press Club late yesterday for an event called the "Tea Party Town Hall," organized by a group called the Tea Party Express. A variety of Republican lawmakers showed up to sing the praises of their activist base, and repeat the usual far-right talking points.

I was especially interested, though, in what Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) had to say. After the usual palaver -- did you know Democrats want to extinguish the "torch of liberty and freedom"? -- the bizarre lawmaker offered a noteworthy take on the Constitution.

Asked via a Web questioner whether her Tea Party rhetoric might be considered divisive, Bachmann said that "far from being divisive in any way, what we're trying to do is bring together a great unity." The source of that unity? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, documents about which differing interpretations are apparently of little use. "Our founding documents, they cannot be improved upon," said Bachmann, giving an almost Biblical rendition of the work product of the nation's first generation of politicians.

At the risk of being overly literal about this, I'm a little surprised Bachmann believes the Constitution "cannot be improved upon." Isn't the right's line that the Constitution must be improved upon?

It's why congressional Republicans push radical constitutional concepts that were discredited generations ago -- because they're unsatisfied with the existing legal framework of the American government.

It's why congressional Republicans sponsored 42 constitutional amendments in the last Congress, and are likely to do the same in this Congress. (Indeed, Bachmann is already sponsoring a constitutional amendment of her own.)

It's why the new conservative agenda is focused on scrapping the 17th Amendment, repealing the 16th Amendment, getting rid of at least one part of the 14th Amendment, and "restoring" the "original" 13th Amendment.

If the Constitution "cannot be improved upon," maybe Bachmann and her ilk can leave it alone?

WEST'S UNIQUE TAKE ON THE AOL-HUFFPOST MERGER.... Since Sunday night's announcement that AOL is buying the Huffington Post for $315 million, there's been plenty of discussion about the relative merits of the deal and the future of online media.

This take, however, was unique. (thanks to V.S. for the tip)

Florida Republican Rep. Allen West said Tuesday that AOL's purchase of the Huffington Post is a threat to tea party groups' online presence.

West suggested that the business deal gives the left-leaning site more control over federal regulations of the Internet.

"You look out there, you see that AOL has purchased the Huffington Post. Now all of a sudden a very far left liberal blogger such as Arianna Huffington has a huge influence in the Internet world," he said.

"We cannot allow ourselves to be suppressed. We cannot allow them to take over the Internet," he said, as audience members nodded vigorously and started clapping.

The question had something to do with right-wing fears about the FCC's control over the Internet, suggesting that Allen West is somehow connecting Huffington to net neutrality.

I'm glad the right cares about tech issues and takes the Internet seriously, but we can't have a credible conversation about these issues if conservatives have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

The AOL-HuffPost deal is certainly open to scrutiny, but to see it as a threat to Tea Partiers' online presence is to be deeply confused about reality.

ERIC CANTOR'S BOUNDLESS CAPACITY FOR CONFUSION.... In his remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce this week, President Obama committed to an agenda in which the public sector would lay a foundation for private-sector growth. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) wasn't quite sharp enough to understand the concept.

"As a government, we will help lay the foundation for you to grow and innovate and succeed," Obama said. "We will upgrade our transportation and communication networks so you can move goods and information more quickly and more cheaply. We'll invest in education so that you can hire the most skilled, talented workers in the world. And we'll work to knock down barriers that make it harder for you to compete, from the tax code to the regulatory system."

The president added, "But I want to be clear: even as we make America the best place on Earth to do business, businesses also have a responsibility to America." This, apparently, bothered the easily-befuddled Majority Leader.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Tuesday accused President Obama of seeking an inappropriate "quid pro quo" between private business and his administration.

Cantor said the president implied during an address Monday at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that businesses should thank the White House for recent actions on taxes and trade by investing in the economy.

"This sort of quid pro quo -- that if Washington acts to do whatever it is the president's proposing, whether it's reducing corporate rates or passing trade bills, that somehow business owes it to the country to do X, Y, Z -- I think that misses the mark," Cantor said.

Honestly, I get the sense Cantor's conspicuous confusion is getting worse. Characterizing the president's remarks as a call for a "quid pro quo" has all the sophistication of a junior-high debate-club argument.

Obama's message wasn't subtle, and shouldn't have been tough for Cantor to comprehend. The White House, anxious to help spur more robust growth, envisions everyone playing their part in the recovery -- government can help by making investments in infrastructure, research, and education, while businesses can help by expanding, competing, and hiring. Working together, the public and private sectors can work cooperatively to strengthen the middle class, create jobs, and expand opportunities.

To be offended by this is to be troubled by the basics of the American economy. To whine about this is to complain just to hear one's own voice.

Also note the timing -- the bewildered Majority Leader decided to bemoan the president's remarks the day before a White House meeting between Obama, Cantor, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

Cantor said he intends to bring up his concerns with Obama directly. It'll be a riveting discussion, I'm sure, just so long as the president remembers not to use any big words.

HOUSE GOP COMES UP SHORT ON PATRIOT ACT.... Even the scheduling of the vote came as something of a surprise. We knew the House would take up the reauthorization of the Patriot Act fairly soon, but midday, the Republican leadership announced the vote would come in the late afternoon, presumably to help get it over with before opponents could begin a concerted push against it.

The vote didn't go as GOP leaders had planned.

House Republicans suffered an embarrassing setback Tuesday when they fell seven votes short of extending provisions of the USA Patriot Act, a vote that served as the first small uprising of the party's tea party bloc.

The bill to reauthorize key parts of the counterterrorism surveillance law that expire at the end of the month required a supermajority to pass under special rules reserved for noncontroversial measures.

Right. Because it was on the suspension calendar, it needed a two-thirds majority. The final tally was 277 to 148, with supporters far outnumbering opponents, but that lopsided margin wasn't quite enough -- supporters needed seven more votes to get over two-thirds threshold.

For Patriot Act critics, this was a pleasant surprise, but the satisfaction will very likely be short-lived -- the reauthorization will come back to the floor later this month under regular order, and will need only a simple majority to advance to the Senate.

Still, this was fairly embarrassing for the Republican leadership, which expected an easy win yesterday, only to come up short. Boehner, Cantor, & Co. apparently need to keep a closer eye on their own caucus, after 26 Republicans broke ranks and voted with 122 Democrats against the measure, a development the leadership apparently didn't know was coming.

You'll likely hear some media accounts saying that the "Tea Party" wing of the GOP was responsible for beating back the Patriot Act, but that's not quite true. Of the 26 Republican "nay" votes, only eight came from the massive freshman class, and many of those generally associated with the right-wing faction -- including Michele Bachmann and Allen West -- voted with the GOP leadership in support of the bill. Indeed, looking specifically at the 52 members of the House Tea Party Caucus, 44 of them voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

Tea Partiers, in other words, generally backed the bill, their rhetoric about "limited government" notwithstanding.

But while it wasn't Tea Partiers who were responsible for the outcome, it's extremely unusual for 26 House Republicans to blow off their leadership on a high-profile vote on anything. Indeed, the vote came after GOP leaders had to pull a trade-related bill that rank-and-file Republicans didn't like, and after Appropriations Committee leaders were told rank-and-file Republicans aren't satisfied with the size of the proposed budget cuts.

A month into the new Congress, it appears Republican leaders are struggling a bit in the "leadership" department.

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

* Protests in Cairo are not dying down: "With a new wave of demonstrations in Tahrir Square on Tuesday -- by some measures the largest anti-government protests in the two-week uprising -- Egyptians loudly rejected their government's approach to political change and renewed their demands for the immediate resignation of President Hosni Mubarak."

* In fact, today's protests were energized by the words of Wael Ghonim: "Protesters thronged Cairo's Tahrir Square on Tuesday in one of Egypt's largest anti-government demonstrations to date as their movement was energized by a television interview given by a Google executive who for two weeks had been detained by Egyptian security officials."

* On the one-month anniversary of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) being shot, her husband noted today that the recovery process is a long one, but she's "recovering at lightning speed considering her injury."

* I think we saw this coming: "House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says upcoming spending legislation will forbid the White House from using any federal dollars to pay to implement the health care law."

* Congress will never go for it, but the White House budget plan will call for aiding struggling states: "The Obama administration is proposing short-term relief to states saddled with unemployment insurance debt, coupled with a delayed increase in the income level used to tax employers for the aid to the jobless." This would be wise, which is why the GOP will kill it.

* In developments resembling a miracle, the Senate actually confirmed three pending federal district court nominees. The vacancies on the federal bench, however, remain at a crisis point.

* Rep. Bill Posey (R), a right-wing Floridian, is comfortable with accepting government-subsidized health insurance because he's not sure if he's a federal employee. And the level of intellectualism found in the Republican House caucus slips just a little lower.

* Olbermann finds a new home: "Less than a month after leaving MSNBC, liberal lightning rod Keith Olbermann said Tuesday he's headed to Current TV, the public affairs channel launched six years ago by former Vice President Al Gore." Olbermann was named chief news officer at the network, and will have a prime-time talk show.

* The only thing worse than Donald Rumsfeld's tenure as Defense Secretary is reading Rumsfeld's memoir about his tenure as Defense Secretary.

* Another embarrassment for Fox News' Bill Sammon, with the latest in a series of memo leaks.

* Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) ran an op-ed on economic policy that's so wildly, shockingly wrong, it's upsetting that Politico even published it.

* I know most of the country doesn't want to hear this, but Ronald Reagan just wasn't a very good president.

* College staffers are suffering, too.

* Maine's buffoonish governor, Paul LePage (R), refused to let officials from the state Fire Marshal's Office testify on a fireworks proposal because he doesn't like their professional judgment.

* And White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked yesterday to respond to Sarah Palin's weekend criticism of administration policy on Egypt. "I read that answer several times, and I still really don't know what she's saying," he said.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.