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

* Germany: "A man armed with a handgun attacked a bus carrying U.S. Air Force troops at Frankfurt airport Wednesday, killing two airmen and wounding two others before being taken into custody, authorities said."

* Libya: "Rebel fighters repelled powerful ground and air assaults on this key oil port Wednesday as forces loyal to Moammar Gaddafi launched their first offensive against the opposition-controlled eastern part of Libya."

* Tragedy in Afghanistan: "Nine boys collecting firewood to heat their homes in the eastern Afghanistan mountains were killed by NATO helicopter gunners who mistook them for insurgents, according to a statement on Wednesday by NATO, which apologized for the mistake. The boys, who were 9 to 15 years old, were attacked on Tuesday in what amounted to one of the war's worst cases of mistaken killings by foreign-led forces. The victims included two sets of brothers. A 10th boy survived."

* The Senate approved the measure to keep the government open for two additional weeks today, following a 91 to 9 vote. Soon after, President Obama signed it into law.

* Economic expansion: "A Federal Reserve survey released Wednesday showed that all 12 of the Fed's regions reported growth at a 'modest to moderate pace' and it pointed to a pickup in job creation in each."

* The Ohio state Senate narrowly approved Gov. John Kasich's (R) union-busting measure today, 17 to 16. Six Republicans voted with Democrats, but seven were needed to protect Ohio workers.

* Wisconsin Republicans will now fine Democrats in the state Senate $100 per day until they return. The Dems' paychecks are already being withheld.

* On a related note, Wisconsin Republicans now hope to criminalize prank phone calls. I can't imagine why.

* The U.S. Senate approved a measure to ensure that members of Congress will not receive compensation if the federal government shuts down. The GOP-led House has not yet acted.

* This GAO study has the potential to be a fairly big deal: "With Congress and the White House set to debate the merits of massive spending cuts, federal auditors have identified hundreds of overlapping government offices and programs that if merged or eliminated could save taxpayers billions of dollars. The U.S. government has, for example, more than 100 programs dealing with surface transportation issues, 82 that monitor teacher quality, 80 for economic development, 56 for 'financial literacy,' 20 offices or programs devoted to homelessness and 17 grant programs for disaster preparedness, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday. Among other redundancies, 15 agencies or offices handle food safety, and five agencies are working to ensure that the federal government uses less gasoline."

* Hiring Erick Erickson was arguably the dumbest thing CNN has ever done.

* And finally, "The President's Speech," not to be confused with "The King's Speech," is one of the funniest clips of the week. Thanks to R.G. for passing it along.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

PROTECTING EVEN DISGUSTING SPEECH.... Free-speech rights are so much easier to appreciate when the speech isn't disgusting. The Supreme Court reminded us this morning that the First Amendment makes no such distinction.

The First Amendment protects hateful protests at military funerals, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in an 8-to-1 decision.

"Speech is powerful," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. "It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain."

But under the First Amendment, he went on, "we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker." Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate." [...]

Chief Justice Roberts used sweeping language culled from the First Amendment canon of foundational decisions in setting out the central place free speech plays in the constitutional structure. "Debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and wide-open," he wrote, because "speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values."

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Albert Snyder, whose son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, died in Iraq. The monsters who make up the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. -- to my mind, America's most disgusting people -- protested at the Snyder funeral. The father sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and received a hefty sum from a jury.

Today's ruling undoes that award. The Westboro Baptist Church's members can't threaten anyone, block access to the funeral, or disrupt the services, but as far as the eight-member majority of the Supreme Court is concerned, they can stand at a distance waving loathsome signs and chanting disgusting slogans.

The lone dissent came from Justice Samuel Alito, who argued unpersuasively that our civil liberties are not "a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."

I suspect all decent people are repulsed by this so-called church, but I have no doubt that the Supreme Court made the right call today.

As Adam Serwer noted this morning, "It's one of those rulings that reminds you that at least on some very basic understandings of what 'free speech,' means, both conservative and moderate jurists on the court are on the same page: You don't forfeit your First Amendment rights just by being an asshole."

COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE IRS CUTS CONTRADICT DEFICIT GOALS.... For a party that claims to be obsessed with deficit reduction, and tackling a debt they perceive as threatening the fabric of civilization, congressional Republicans don't seem to care for credible ideas that actually reduce the deficit.

This comes up all the time. Democrats have presented a wide variety of policy ideas -- health care reform, cap and trade, the DREAM Act, Clinton-era tax rates for the wealthy, an end to pointless subsidies to the oil industry -- each of which would reduce the deficit. And in each case, Republicans balk.

But each of those proposals involves some kind of shift in the status quo. With that in mind, This GOP move is simply ridiculous.

Every dollar that the Internal Revenue Service spends on audits, liens and property seizures from tax cheats brings in more than $10, a rate of return so good that the Obama administration wants to boost the agency's budget.

But House Republicans, wary of the too-heavy hand of government, differ. They voted to cut the IRS budget by $600 million this year and want bigger cuts in 2012.

The IRS has dramatically increased its pursuit of tax cheats in the past decade. Audits are up, property liens are up, and asset seizures are way up. President Obama and Democrats in Congress see stepped-up enforcement as a good way to narrow the nation's budget deficit without raising taxes or cutting popular programs.

"It makes little sense to cut the agency that collects revenue," said Rep. Jose E. Serrano (N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House subcommittee that oversees the IRS budget.

Sure, the IRS is unpopular. And sure, Republicans have horror stories of IRS abuse, some of which may even have happened in reality.

But if GOP officials believe there have been abuses, they should identify those responsible, and approve rules to prevent these mistakes from happening again. Slashing the IRS budget, though, only does one thing: make it harder to collect revenue.

In other words, the Republican plan to reduce the deficit is almost certain to increase the deficit.

This happens all the time, and it's precisely why Republican claims about fiscal irresponsibility are such a weak joke. If the GOP were sincere about deficit reduction, they'd jump at any measure that would help bring the budget closer to balance. Instead, the party's response is effectively, "If it doesn't hurt working families, we're not interested."

FOX NEWS SUSPENDS GINGRICH, SANTORUM.... One of the unfortunate truths of the political landscape is that the Republicans' cable news network currently keeps several likely Republican presidential candidates on the payroll.

As of this afternoon, at least for two White House hopefuls, that's no longer the case.

The Fox News Channel said Wednesday that it had suspended the contracts of two employees, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who are considering running for president.

Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum are both Fox News contributors. By suspending the two men, Fox appears to be addressing long-standing questions about how to handle pundits who are contemplating political bids. [...]

Bret Baier, the network's political anchor, came on Fox News just before noon on Wednesday to announce the decision to suspend Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum.

"The suspension is effective for 60 days," Mr. Baier said. "Then on May 1, their contracts will be terminated unless they notify Fox that they are not running for president."

The concern has long been that candidates who collected paychecks from Fox News would be receiving literal in-kind contributions, rather than the routine de facto in-kind contributions the network provides party officials every day. By suspending Gingrich and Santorum, Fox News is resolving at least part of the problem.

Of course, the next question is why Fox News limited the announcement to the disgraced former House Speaker and the defeated former senator. One wonders if the network has been led to believe that such a move is unnecessary for Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and John Bolton -- all of whom have expressed interest in the 2012 race, and all of whom receive checks from Fox News.

More likely, though, it's just a matter of timing. Gingrich and Santorum appear likely to launch campaigns sooner rather than later, prompting today's move, while the network will probably make identical moves in the future, should Palin, Huckabee, and/or Bolton take steps in that direction.

BERNANKE GETS SPECIFIC ON GOP-FORCED JOB LOSSES.... Congressional Republicans seemed quite pleased with themselves yesterday after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke commented on the GOP's spending-cut plan. As Bernanke sees it, economic projections showing 700,000 job losses resulting from the Republican proposal were overstated.

GOP officials were delighted. They shouldn't have been.

Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke said Wednesday that House GOP's 2011 spending plan would likely cost "a couple hundred thousand jobs," a number he called "not trivial."

Bernanke's testimony Wednesday was more specific than what he offered Tuesday before a Senate committee, in which he said he couldn't put a number on the number of jobs the GOP spending package would eliminate.

His comments buttress House Democrats' warnings that the bill will put people out of work.

Ya think?

Look, I realize that different economists have come up with different numbers. Bernanke believes the Republican plan would cost the nation a couple hundred thousand jobs; Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi puts the number at 700,000 job losses; the Economic Policy Institute projects job losses of just over 800,000; and data from the Center for American Progress found the proposal would force roughly 975,000 Americans from their jobs. Goldman Sachs didn't offer specific numbers on job losses, but it believes the GOP plan would cost us up to 2% of GDP, pushing the U.S. economy closer to a recession.

They obviously can't all be right. But there's one thing all of the projections have in common: they all show the Republican plan making American unemployment much worse.

The question Congress has to ask itself is why on earth anyone would push a proposal that would cost the United States hundreds of thousands of jobs right now.

The question the media has to ask itself is why this, and not the size of proposed spending cuts, isn't at the heart of the debate. If there's an argument over which of these numbers is the most accurate, fine, let's have the argument. But at this point, we haven't even reached a he-said/she-said dynamic ("Democrats said the GOP plan would make unemployment worse; Republicans said, 'So be it.'") If Republicans have competing projections, let's see them.

For a month, the debate has been limited to who wants to cut what, and consequences have been left out of the conversation. If even Bernanke -- a Republican, no less -- sees what Democrats see, isn't it time for a shift in the debate?

MORE MISPLACED WHINING.... I don't generally consider White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley as a go-to guy for pushback against unfair criticism, which made this all the more encouraging.

A top aide to President Barack Obama pushed back hard on Tuesday against an accusation that the president was "anti-business," bluntly calling out Obama's critic by name.

"I was amazed to see the critical comments George Buckley, chief executive and chairman of 3M, made in the Financial Times this week, when he dubbed the president as 'anti-business'," Obama chief of staff William Daley wrote on the London-based newspaper's website.

Daley, the former JP Morgan Chase executive brought into the White House in January to make it more business-friendly, said the president was committed to boosting the U.S. economy and making the country more competitive.

3M's Buckley apparently went on quite a little tirade, condemning President Obama for having "Robin-Hood-esque" instincts, and arguing -- in all seriousness -- that the administration's policies are so misguided, manufacturing may start moving to Canada or Mexico.

(Buckley might have missed the latest data, showing U.S. manufacturing activity reaching its highest levels in seven years.)

Honestly, I'm amazed sometimes at the whining we see from some in the corporate world. After two years of these "Robin-Hood-esque" efforts, corporate profits have soared, the private sector is where nearly all of the new jobs are being created, and all of the major investment indexes are way up. The president is reaching out to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, he's pushing trade deals that the business community wants to see, and he's even raised the prospect of reforming the corporate tax code. Hell, Daley himself was brought in from the corprorate world.

If the White House is driving an "anti-business" agenda, officials aren't executing this nefarious scheme very well.

"We are seeing positive signs as a result of these efforts. Two years ago our economy was in freefall. Today, it is growing," Daley said yesterday. "There is plenty of work to do. But the stakes are too high to give credence to the kind of comments Mr. Buckley made this week, or to believe those who would question Mr. Obama's commitment to our economic recovery."

Good for Daley. Here's hoping Buckley and his buddies noticed.

JOURNALISTS AND ISSA SHOULDN'T 'COLLABORATE'.... Following up on an earlier item, more than a few D.C. political reporters are feeling antsy this week after learning about what's been going on in Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) office. Unbeknownst to the journalists, Issa's top aide has been sharing their emails with the New York Times' Mark Leibovich, a journalist writing a book about how Washington works.

Much of this stems from revelations found by the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza, who learned about Kurt Bardella's extensive efforts to help Leibovich while writing a recent profile on Issa. Lizza later told colleagues about Bardella sharing their emails, which ultimately led to this week's kerfuffle.

But before we move on, Lizza had an interesting follow-up item, adding some additional context. Of particular interest was this quote from Bardella, Issa's right-hand man before his dismissal yesterday:

[R]eporters e-mail me saying, "Hey, I'm writing this story on this thing. Do you think you guys might want to investigate it? If so, if you get some documents, can you give them to me?" I'm, like, "You guys are going to write that we're the ones wanting to do all the investigating, but you guys are literally the ones trying to egg us on to do that!"

This is the part of the process that the public never gets to see, and it's really not healthy. As Lizza explained:

[T]hat Bardella accused reporters of offering to collaborate with Issa as he launches what will inevitably be partisan investigations of the Obama Administration seemed jaw-dropping. This is exactly the dysfunctional investigator/reporter dynamic that in the [1990s] fed frenzies over every minor Clinton scandal.

In his short-lived career, Bardella was witness to the fact that it was all starting over in 2011, now that there was again a Republican House and a Democratic President. From what I know of what Bardella shared, the beat reporters who cover Issa and engaged in this kind of game with Bardella will be the ones most embarrassed by the e-mails that Leibovich possesses.

In the traditional model, reporters come across a story, pursue it, and publish the revelations for the public. Maybe, at that point, policymakers will see the story, find it troubling, and launch an formal investigation. What's wrong with this? Nothing. It's how the process is supposed to work.

What Issa's aide described, however, is altogether different. That's a dynamic in which reporters want to partner up with a Republican attack dog known for partisan witch-hunts.

As Joe Sudbay argued, it makes it seem as if "DC-based reporters were encouraging Issa's office to conduct investigations of Obama so they could report on the investigation."

If/when Leibovich publishes the materials he received from Bardella, the embarrassment for some reporters will be severe.

FOX NEWS FINDS PALM TREES, T-SHIRTS IN MADISON.... The right has been desperate in recent weeks to characterize pro-union protests in Wisconsin as violent, and the activists themselves as thugs. Reality, alas, has interfered, and the events in Madison have been passionate but civil.

But on Fox News, reality can be manipulated for partisan ends. Brian Beutler flagged this unintentionally-amusing clip aired last night, as Bill O'Reilly "interviewed" Mike Tobin, the Fox News person covering the protests at the Wisconsin state capitol.

Tobin told viewers that "labor organizations" have "bused in" outside agitators. At that point, Fox News aired footage of a protest getting out of hand, with pushing and shoving, aggressive confrontations, police intervention, etc.

It seemed to be the evidence the right has been so eager to find, and the video quickly bounced around from conservative to conservative.

The problem becomes apparent when one stops to actually look at the clip. Why are there palm trees in the background? Why are some of the people in the video wearing t-shirts?

The answer is, at the very moment Fox News was accusing labor groups of bringing in outsiders for protests in Madison, the network was showing footage of a protest in California held a week earlier, passing it off as evidence of something that never happened in Wisconsin.

This is the same Mike Tobin, by the way, who claims he was "punched" by a protester in Madison, despite video evidence that suggests he's lying.

There's a reason Fox News viewers are so confused -- they're the victims of a con.

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:

* Aides to disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) spent much of the day confirming to reporters yesterday that Gingrich would announce a presidential exploratory committee tomorrow. Last night, those same aides then said the opposite.

* In Virginia, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows next year's U.S. Senate race as a toss-up. In a hypothetical match-up pitting former Gov. Tim Kaine (D) against former Sen. George Allen (R), the two are tied at 47% each.

* Democrats' hard times in Mississippi: "Here's the latest sign of the Democratic party's monumental struggles in the deep South: The party failed to get a single candidate on the ballot for lieutenant governor, secretary of state, or auditor in Mississippi, after the state's filing deadline arrived Tuesday."

* The field of Democrats eyeing a race against Sen. Scott Brown (R) in Massachusetts next year is large, but candidates seem reluctant to launch campaigns at this point. The Boston Globe reports today that Newton Mayor Setti Warren; Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll; City Year founder Alan Khazei, businessman Robert Pozen, and Reps. Michael Capuano and Stephen Lynch are all in the mix.

* When looking for "blue" states that might be in play next year, it's best to skip past Rhode Island. PPP shows President Obama looking strong and popular in the state, with big leads over likely GOP challengers.

* Redistricting hasn't shaped California's congressional lines yet, but former Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado (R) intends to compete in the redrawn 23rd district next year anyway.

* And New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) insists he's not running for president next year, but nevertheless sounds pretty cocky about his appeal. "I have people calling me and saying to me, 'Let me explain to you how you could win,' " he told National Review. "And I'm like, 'You're barking up the wrong tree. I already know I could win.' That's not the issue. The issue is not me sitting here and saying, 'Geez, it might be too hard. I don't think I can win.' I see the opportunity both at the primary level and at the general election level."

TEACHING OUR COPS TO FEAR ISLAM.... Muslim radicals can be spotted by the "cone shape" of their beards, Islam is a "violent radical religion," and the Prophet Muhammad was "a pedophile." Stray comments from ignorant talk radio hosts? No, these are examples of the kinds of lessons being taught to America's front line police officers by self-styled counter-terrorism "experts" being paid by the U.S. government.

In an investigation in the upcoming March/April issue of the Washington Monthly, with support from the Nation Institute, Meg Stalcup and Joshua Craze reveal how Washington is spending billions of dollars in grants to teach local law enforcement how to sniff out and respond to terrorists, but with little supervision over who provides the instruction or what's being taught.

The result could be dangerous: having a bunch of ill-trained cops sleuthing around for jihadis not only poses a threat to civil liberties, but could jeopardize the very counter-terrorism efforts the government is supposed to be conducting.

Read "How We Train Our Cops to Fear Islam" here.

MAKING ISSA (AND THE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT) LOOK EVEN WORSE.... When I first heard about the controversy in Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) office, I couldn't figure out what the big deal was. One of his top aides passed along some materials to the New York Times' Mark Leibovich, a journalist writing a book about how Washington works. It's the sort of thing that happens hundreds of times a day, every day. Who cares?

But that's not quite what happened here. Dana Milbank has a really terrific column on the story today.

The latest symptom of our deformed political-journalistic complex presented this week, when news broke that the office of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House committee in charge of probing the Obama administration, had been secretly forwarding private correspondence with journalists to an author writing a book about Washington. This caused a great kerfuffle among reporters and a fear that the release of the e-mails could prove them to be sycophants: flattering Issa and his staff in hopes that favorable coverage would be rewarded with scraps of news.

The episode makes everybody look bad. Issa, a man with subpoena power, was having his staff work as his personal publicists rather than doing honest government work. Issa's spokesman, Kurt Bardella, was justifiably fired for his double dealings with reporters. And reporters were (or soon will be) exposed as currying favor with the powerful.

D.C. political reporters suddenly took a keen interest in this, not because Issa's top aide was passing along information to a reporter, but because Issa's top aide was passing along their information to a different reporter, and they didn't know anything about it.

And if the public realized the kinds of things Capitol Hill reporters say and do to gain access, a lot of these reporters would be pretty humiliated. Indeed, Politico has been all over this story, at least in part because it's the publication that stands to lose the most credibility if the emails Bardella passed along to Leibovich were made public. As Milbank noted, "That publication had done more than any other to increase Issa's profile, with items such as 'Issa aims to unmask health care deals' and 'Sheriff Issa's top six targets.'"

That said, it's certainly not the only major outlet "that played footsie with the 27-year-old Bardella as part of a culture in which journalists implicitly provide positive coverage in exchange for tidbits of news."

Issa, meanwhile, has worked hard to raise his visibility and position himself as a credible GOP leader, and this flap has clearly damaged his standing. Politico, apparently feeling burned, reported today, "[T]he only politician Issa has taken down a few notches is himself."

The same piece noted that aides on the House Oversight Committee are now "combing through correspondence between Bardella and Leibovich to make sure nothing sensitive was leaked," and quoted a GOP staffer saying Issa has done damage to his ability to chair the panel effectively.

Making matters slightly worse, the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza, who first learned of the emails between Bardella and Leibovich, reported yesterday that Issa's entire operation knew about Bardella's media-related activities.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Issa's predecessor as committee chairman, said yesterday of his successor, "He's not gotten off to a good start."

That seems like a fair assessment.

WELFARE QUEENS FOR A NEW GENERATION.... In the face of ongoing budget problems, Republican governors want to cut more low-income families off the Medicaid rolls, and that mean ol' Obama administration won't let them. But GOP governors keep making their case anyway.

Take Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R), for example. The likely 2012 presidential candidate wants low-income families to pay more for prescription medications, arguing, "We have people pull up at the pharmacy window in a BMW and say they can't afford their co-payment."

If this sounds vaguely familiar, it's because, as Adam Serwer noted this morning, Barbour's rhetoric is awfully similar to Ronald Reagan targeting "Cadillac-driving welfare queens" in 1976. (Reagan pointed to a specific woman to bolster his case at the time, but his anecdote was proven to be a rather ridiculous lie.)

What's more, Glenn Kessler took a closer look at the substance of Barbour's claim, and concludes that the far-right governor is just making stuff up.

Mississippi provides some of the lowest Medicaid benefits to working adults in the nation. A parent who isn't working can qualify only if annual family income is less than 24 percent of the poverty line. Working parents qualify only if they make no more than 44 percent of the federal poverty level. Seniors and people with disabilities are eligible with income at 80 percent of the poverty line. Pregnant women do better -- they're eligible with income up to 185 percent of the poverty level.

Translated from the federal poverty guidelines, that means a working Mississippi couple with one child could earn no more than $8,150 a year and still qualify for Medicaid, seniors and people with disabilities could earn no more than $8,700, and a pregnant woman could earn no more than $20,000 a year.

Meanwhile, the German-engineered BMW is a pretty fancy car. Edmunds.com says that new BMW car prices range from nearly $30,000 to more than $120,000. That seems out of the price range of someone making $8,000 a year.

Checking used BMWs worth less than $5,000 in Mississippi on Yahoo Used Cars finds 10 available within 300 miles of Jackson, the state capital -- but all carrying lots of miles. Four grand, for instance, would get you a 1996 BMW 328i with 237,000 miles on it. But even that, for many of Mississippi's Medicaid recipients, would be half a year's salary.

In other words, when Barbour claims "we have people" who pick up prescriptions in Mississippi in a BMW -- as if this is somehow common -- he's lying. Indeed, when Kessler asked the governor's office to bolster the anecdote, they blew off two days of inquiries.

But I suspect Barbour doesn't much care. The point of a quote like that one isn't to draw attention to a legitimate policy concern; it's to appeal to right-wing voters on an emotional level.

Indeed, it's not dissimilar to Barbour whining that "some people on the left" don't like "conservative Christian Republicans from the Deep South," as he did this week.

HUCKABEE-BRAND BIRTHERISM, REVISITED.... Yesterday, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee caused quite a stir after he insisted, repeatedly, that President Obama "grew up in Kenya." By late yesterday afternoon, once the media had picked up on the comments, the Republican walked it back, but not in a way that made sense.

"Governor Huckabee simply misspoke when he alluded to President Obama growing up in 'Kenya.' The Governor meant to say the President grew up in Indonesia."

"When the Governor mentioned he wanted to know more about the President, he wasn't talking about the President's place of birth -- the Governor believes the President was born in Hawaii. The Governor would however like to know more about where President Obama's liberal policies come from and what else the President plans to do to this country -- as do most Americans."

If this were simply a matter of a verbal slip -- Huckabee meant "Indonesia," but said, "Kenya" -- this walk-back would more or less put the matter to rest.

But if Huckabee thinks this is simply about "misspeaking," he's fooling himself. In his little on-air tantrum yesterday, for the former governor didn't just confuse two foreign countries, he engaged in an ugly, layered smear.

Remember, as part of the tirade, Huckabee emphasized Kenya as part of an effort to argue that President Obama is hostile towards Great Britain and "imperialists." The Kenyan part was clearly wrong, but the larger argument echoed the disgusting D'Souza/Gingrich argument connecting the president to "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior."

It is the cheapest and vilest of the right-wing smear campaign against the president, and Huckabee had to know better than to engage in such nonsense.

What's more, Huckabee's entire case is deeply stupid. After screwing the countries, Huckabee argued Obama offended the British by returning a bust of Winston Churchill (that never happened; Obama moved the bust from the Oval Office to the White House residence), misidentified the family members who raised Obama, and suggested there are legitimate questions about the president's birth certificate.

This was a pathetic display, intended once again to cater to right-wing pathologies about the president being The Other. Huckabee "simply misspoke"? I'm afraid he did much more than that.

A BOLD STAND IN SUPPORT OF SUBSIDIES FOR BIG OIL.... Before the House approved a measure to keep the government open until March 18, Democrats took full advantage of their motion-to-recommit power. Indeed, they're getting better at this.

Two weeks ago, before a vote to extend the Patriot Act, Dems used this maneuver to get nearly every Republican in the House to vote against a measure that said, "When investigating American citizens, the government must comply with the Constitution."

Yesterday, it was another motion that may very well end up in some 2012 campaign ads.

Democrats are committed to fiscal responsibility and to ensuring that government lives within its means. With Big Oil raking in record profits, House Democrats offered a Motion to Recommit to the House Republican short-term spending bill this afternoon making a responsible cut to the budget: putting an end to taxpayer-funded subsidies to large oil companies. [...]

Rep. William Keating (D-MA) offered the motion on the House floor saying "let's stop sending taxpayers' money to the most profitable companies in the world."

Republicans voted unanimously against the motion, defeating it by a vote of 176-249.

Here's the roll call on the vote. A total of 236 Republicans voted, and all of them opposed the effort to end public subsidies for oil companies.

For the typical American, I suspect this will seem hard to understand. In the face of fiscal challenges, Republicans are ready to slash funding in education, health care, job training, and national security, but they're not willing to end taxpayer subsidies -- our money -- for the oil industry? An industry that's already enjoying extraordinary profits?

Also note, ending the subsidies would save the federal government tens of billions of dollars, making a significant dent in the deficit-reduction campaign that Republicans pretend to care about. It's a reminder that the GOP's commitment to fiscal responsibility is shaped in large part by who'll suffer as a result of the cuts -- working families can feel the brunt of the budget ax, under the GOP vision, but ExxonMobil can't.

Every time Americans go to the pump -- which is becoming more painful all the time -- Democrats want consumers to remember, "You're not only paying higher prices for gas, your tax dollars, thanks to Republicans, are also subsidizing the oil companies themselves."

Just a few weeks ago, former Shell Oil CEO John Hofmeister acknowledged reality, conceding that his industry doesn't need the government subsidies. Regrettably, congressional Republicans disagree.

HOUSE PUSHES BACK SHUTDOWN DEADLINE, BUT THREAT STILL LOOMS.... The House easily approved a temporary budget extension yesterday afternoon, passing a compromise measure worked out late last week, and likely helping avert a government shutdown this week. But for those thinking it makes an eventual shutdown less likely, there's reason to believe that's backwards.

Yesterday's vote wasn't close -- the House voted 335 to 91 to pass $4 billion in cuts over two weeks. Most House Dems and all but six House Republicans voted to approve the compromise, shaped last week when GOP leaders switched gears and targeted $4 billion in spending Democrats wanted to cut anyway. It was a much-needed win for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who faced an 11th-hour revolt, but who managed to keep nearly all of his caucus united.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where it's likely to be approved this morning with bipartisan support. President Obama will sign the deal long before Friday at midnight.

The new deadline to avert a shutdown will be March 18, two weeks from Friday, ostensibly giving policymakers time to negotiate some other compromise to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year.

It's tempting to think this week's success on a temporary extension could help generate some momentum. After all, Dems and Republicans got together, showed some flexibility, moved from their original position, and reached a compromise. If they can do it once, they can do it again, right?

Don't count on it. In fact, I'd argue a shutdown is slightly more likely now, not less. As Jon Chait noted the other day:

Republicans are demanding domestic discretionary spending cuts at an annualized rate of $100 billion. They have been willing to keep spending going temporarily only as long as it maintains that annualized rate, breaking the past practice of keeping the government going at status quo levels while negotiations are worked out. But the Republicans' latest offer simply front-loads all the spending cuts Democrats find acceptable. After this two-week extension passes, reaching a mutually acceptable deal will get all the more difficult.

Right. For the GOP, what matters is the number, not the policy -- they wanted $4 billion in cuts, and after borrowing the details from a Democratic proposal, they got them. In the next phase, Republicans will demand roughly $56 billion in cuts, but can't pull the same trick twice, because Dems don't have $56 billion in cuts just lying around, waiting to be adopted. On the contrary, Democrats believe, correctly, that cuts of this magnitude would undermine the economy and make unemployment worse.

The agreement approved by the House yesterday was, in the larger context, fairly easy. The next round will be significantly more difficult.