The Plum Line

* Republicans successfully blocked the DISCLOSE act today, a big blow to Obama and Dems, but Senate leaders are likely to hold another vote on it this fall, Reid spokesman Jim Manley confirms.

* Though the chances of passing it before the elections are slim indeed, Dems view the issue as a major weapon to tar the GOP as stooges of corporate interests, and another vote will allow Dems to draw a contrast on the issue closer to Election Day.

* Chuck Schumer, one of the leaders of the charge on DISCLOSE, vows to get it passed eventually, no matter how long it takes, and says the future of our democracy is at stake.

* The Republican response: The DISCLOSE fight is yet another example of how Dems have taken their eye off the ball on the economy.

* Newt Gingrich comes out against the mosque near Ground Zero, and like other mosque opponents, he argues that "they" should be ashamed for wanting to build it so near to where they attacked us.

* Joe Klein responds:

"If Newt actually believe what he claims to -- that the American way is superior -- he'd be in favor of placing the mosque near Ground Zero, as a demonstration of American freedom and tolerance."

But of course it has nothing to do with what Newt actually believes. It's all about what he has to say in order to out-pander Sarah Palin, who's raised the bar awfully high.

* Glenn Thrush catches David Plouffe suggesting that Obama's star power among new voters may not be enough to get them out to vote in the midterms.

* Dino Rossi, the GOP Senate candidate in Washington state, comes out for repeal of Wall Street reform.

* Nonstop indignities for California GOP Senate candidate Carly Fiorina! First we learn that Barbara Boxer's hair polls better.

* Then the host of the event where Fiorina announced her Latino outreach effort threw her support to Boxer.

* Great moments in journalism: The Financial Times prints an Op ed by Mort Zuckerman that rips an Obama quote out of context in a comically dishonest way to paint Obama as anti-business.

* David Obey, in one of his last important acts as a lawmaker, cites his conscience to explain his vote against funding the Afghan war.

* More Republican Senators prepare to support the New START treaty. What are they thinking? Did they forget about noted foreign policy expert Mitt Romney's warnings about how dangerous it is to our national security?

* How to end the filibuster with 51 votes.

* And Mickey Kaus comes out against private conversations.

What else is happening?

With the Senate voting today on the DISCLOSE act, it's time to drill down and figure out what Sharron Angle believes about campaign finance regulations.

As best as I can determine, Angle has made no public statements directly about the DISCLOSE act, which would place a host of new restrictions on the power of corporate money to influence our elections, and force people who fund elections to reveal their roles.

But she appears to oppose it. In a Tweet earlier today, Angle approvingly directed her followers to this article about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's attack on Harry Reid over the legislation.

In the article, Chamber president Tom Donohue blasted the DISCLOSE act as an "assault to the First Amendment" and a "complete outrage," which are views Angle presumably supports.

Indeed, asked for comment on Angle's views, Angle spokesman Jerry Stacy emailed me this:

Sharron Angle supports the First Amendment, and I find it astonishing that Harry Reid's priority in Washington is to attack our First Amendment at a time when his home state of Nevada leads the nation in unemployment, home foreclosures, and bankruptcies.

That appears to signal opposition to DISCLOSE. What's more, Angle proudly trumpeted on her old Web site endorsement of the group Citizens United, the group behind the Supreme Court decision that led to the DISCLOSE act.

Meanwhile, the Reid campaign points out that it also said this on Angle's old Web site:

"Sharron Angle believes that campaign finance limitations must come from the candidates themselves."

Though Angle supports some kind of disclosure of contributions, the above appears to signal opposition to any kind of Federal limitations on donations, or at least that all limitations must be self-imposed by the candidates. That, of course, would square with her opposition to DISCLOSE.

Chickens for checkups is back! Only this time, the culprit isn't a Republican. It's a Blue Dog Democrat -- Rep. Ben Chandler of Kentucky.

Chandler is disliked on the left for his opposition to health reform, and this might not help matters: In a conversation with a constituent, Chandler appeared to talk approvingly about bartering chickens for health care.

In an interesting twist, I'm told that Republicans are going to make an issue of it to paint him as out of touch and clueless about health policy. Chandler faces a challenge from Kentucky attorney Andy Barr, and national Republicans view the seat as one of their top pickup opportunities.

Chandler's chickens-for-checkup moment took place in a meeting with constituents in November 2009, and was captured on video by someone present at the meeting.

In the exchange, a woman who identifies herself as a farmer objects to health reform, noting that when she was young, her family didn't have insurance and paid their own way when it came to medical care -- and that this is how it should be.

"They didn't have any kind of health insurance, they went to the doctor, and we paid for the call," the woman tells Chandler. Whereupon he nodded and replied:

"When you didn't have money, you gave him a chicken. You could barter if you didn't have enough money."

Now, this isn't quite Sue Lowden territory. As you'll recall, Lowden endorsed chickens-for-checkups as an appropriate policy response to soaring health care costs. But Chandler -- who, again, voted against health reform -- did seem to cite the idea of bartering chickens for checkups in an approving tone, as if it represented a real salt-of-the-earth alternative to having insurance.

The Chandler campaign dismissed the significance of this, sending me a statement: "Yes, and of course before we had electricity, people burned oil lamps. Before we had automobiles, people used horse transport."

But Republicans plan to pounce on this as proof of Chandler's unseriousness, and they're curious to see whether it will gain anywhere near the traction that Lowden's chickens-for-checkups tale did.

It seems everyone wants a piece of that chickens-for-checkups magic!

UPDATE, 3:37 p.m.: The Chandler campaign sends over another statement clarifying what he meant:

"Congressman Chandler was noting a rural historical practice first raised in conversation by a constituent. His comments had nothing to do with the present healthcare debate. To claim otherwise is a distortion of the truth."

As I've noted here before, the evidence is mounting that Sarah Palin is successfully tightening her emotional grip on her devoted legions of supporters -- at the expense of everyone else, who increasingly find her to be a major turn off.

Here's the latest data point: A new survey from the Dem firm Public Policy Polling finds that in the wake of Palin's endorsement of Kelly Ayotte, the GOP Senate candidate in New Hampshire, Ayotte's lead has dropped to its lowest level yet.

And it appears to be all about Palin: As Taegan Goddard notes, the poll's key finding is that Ayotte's appeal to moderate voters has dropped precipitiously in the wake of Palin's endorsement.

The key here is that this isn't a one-off finding: Palin's toxicity is born out in other polls, too. A recent Gallup poll noted a striking disconnect in public attitudes towards Palin: While her favorability rating is far higher among Republicans than any other 2012 GOP contenders, she's also far and away the least liked of all the 2012 hopefuls among Americans overall.

That's not all: A recent NBC/WSJ poll found that a majority of adults nationwide would look negatively on candidates endorsed by Palin.

The pattern is becoming overwhelmingly obvious. Palin's current role of celebrity quasi-candidate works for her. It's allowed her to insulate herself from direct media cross-examination and to communicate directly to the Palin Nation hordes, who remain as transfixed as ever. But the rest of the world continues to find her more and more distasteful, and it's growing less likely that she'll succeed if she ever steps outside the bubble she's crafted for herself.

UPDATE, 1:03 p.m.: It gets better: That new poll out of New Hampshire also finds that 51 percent say they're less likely to back a Palin-endorsed candidate; among moderates that number is 65 percent.

UPDATE, 11:34 a.m.: Senator Ben Nelson's spokesman, Jake Thompson, confirms that Nelson will vote Yes. "He will vote for cloture on the Disclose Act," Thompson emails. "It's all about transparency."

That removes one more element of suspense. And a quick clarification on what I wrote below: Senator Lieberman is in fact not in the Senate today, so it can't get the 60 votes it needs today. But here's where it gets interesting.

Snowe, who is up for reelection in two years and is expected to face blowback if she votes No, can in fact vote Yes today. Because of Lieberman's absence, she would not be ensuring that it would pass, sparing her the wrath of Mitch McConnell, who is trying to keep the GOP caucus united against it.

But: A senior Dem Senate aide tells me that if Snowe does this, the measure could be brought up for a vote again when Lieberman is present, putting pressure on her to maintain her Yes vote. So again, as long as the odds are, this could still end up passing.

ORIGINAL POST:

No illusions: The odds remain tremendously against it. But it's not out of the question that the DISCLOSE act may pass the Senate today.

Here's the state of play, as we speak. While some published reports have declared that Senator Olympia Snowe is going to vote No on the DISCLOSE act, putting 60 out of reach, she has in fact not definitively said this.

That means there's still a path to 60 votes -- and as unlikely as it seems, if Dems were to pass this, it would be a tremendous victory, because Senator Mitch McConnell has made defeating it effort a top priority.

Again, it all turns on Senator Snowe.

To get to 60, Dems need all 59 Dems and independents, plus one Republican. Senator Ben Nelson has not said which way he'll vote, and his spokesman is not returning emails this morning. But for all the dramatics, he's expected to vote Yes.

That means one Republican can decide whether the measure passes or fails. Senators Susan Collins and Scott Brown have already ruled out a Yes vote. And today's New York Times reports that Snowe is a No, too. But other reports put her down as noncommittal, and in fact she has not announced a final .

Snowe will likely offer her final declaration early this afternoon, at which point we'll know for certain what will happen.

President Obama's entry into the debate yesterday ensures that the DISCLOSE act will be a major campaign issue this fall no matter what happens today. If it fails, Dems will accuse Republicans of voting against ordinary people and siding with major corporations who want to influence our elections without accountability. But let's face it, this would be a far more powerful weapon if Dems succeed in passing it.

Again: The odds are tremendously against it passing. But it's still too early to rule this possiblity out completely.

* Another big loss looming today? In another vote drawing battle lines for the midterms, Democrats are expected to lose the Senate's vote on the DISCLOSE act, because they couldn't get a single Republican to support their effort to reverse the Citizens United decision allowing corporate money to dominate our elections.

* The White House is already going on the offensive, directly calling out Republicans for obstructing the measure, signaling that this will be a major campaign issue this fall, whatever the vote's outcome.

* Which makes this messaging from Chuck Schumer seem puzzling:

"If we fail to act now, the winner of November's elections won't be Democrats or Republicans, it'll be special interests."

Republicans won't be the winners if this goes down? By contrast, Republicans have not refrained from blasting the proposal as a secret Dem plot to game the midterms.

* Good read: House Dems who are now vulnerable after taking a tough vote on cap and trade feel like they got shafted by Senate Dems who have now abandoned climate change.

* Blame where blame is due: As the finger-pointing continues, let's remember that the climate change bill's death is largely the fault of a few "centrist" Dem Senators who let this extraordinary momentous decision be dictated by Republicans yelling "boo" from the sidelines.

* Remember last summer's town halls? House Dems vow not to get caught flat-footed again and plan to go on offense in their districts this August. The message: Bush, Bush, Bush.

* But: Dozens of freshman and sophomore Reps who helped Dems regain the majority are now severly vulnerable and could get swept away.

* Jonathan Chait reminds skittish Democrats that they hold the upper hand in the battle over whether to extend the Bush tax cuts.

* Joe Conason nails it: The only thing the Journolist "scandal" proves is that the right is still capable of dominating the media narrative with bogus, manufactured controversies.

* The real story behind the WikiLeaks disclosures may be that the leaks are getting more attention than the content of the docs themselves and are unlikely to force a change in Obama's war strategy.

* Matt Yglesias notes that Senator Jeff Sessions's call for hearings into the New Black Panther story is perfectly consistent with his record of "defending white interests."

* Adam Serwer predicts that if the current investigation into the New Black Panther tale turns up nothing, Republicans will launch an investigation of that investigation's failure.

* And the random deep thought of the day: Maybe mainstream news orgs should refrain from lavishing attention on Sarah Palin when she describes people who work for mainstream news orgs as crazy and evil.

What else is happening?

* The Democrats' political predicament on unemployment comes down to this: Dems have no way of proving the alternate scenarios -- that a smaller stimulus would have resulted in more job loss, or that a larger one would have led to more job growth.

* The result of the stimulus coming up short, paradoxically, is that the political dynamic is hostile to more stimulus spending, which could mean more suffering and a tougher climate for Dems.

* Markos Moulitsas flags a priceless Andrew Breitbart quote:

"It's my business model to craft strategies to make sure that the mainstream media is forced to reckon with stories that it would love to ignore because it doesn't fit their narrative," he said.

Moulitsas concludes: "This isn't about the truth or reality. It's about `crafting strategies' to force the media to cover stories conservatives think should be covered." And it's Breitbart's business model, get it?

* Jason Linkins nails it on the Journolist non-scandal: A few people floated the idea of coordination, and were shot down. So what?

* Obama's numbers are tanking in states with key Senate races, but it's unclear whether he'll be a factor, since those contests remain tight.

* The White House insists that the WikiLeaks Afghanistan war docs are nothing like the Pentagon Papers.

* But they are like the Pentagon papers in that they've handed war critics a powerful weapon.

* And White House officials are ticked off enough to try to get reporters to note negatives about the WikiLeaks founder, including the revelation that he said in an interview: "I enjoy crushing bastards."

* Newt Gingrich is set to duke it out with Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney for the title of leading GOP voice on national security.

* Hendrik Hertzberg hails The Post's series on our national security bureaucracy as proof that newspapers can still do the kind of "public-spirited, enterprising journalism that is essential to the health of a free society."

* Is momentum building for filibuster reform?

* And here's still more evidence that the right's campaign to mislead the elderly about health reform worked brilliantly.

What else is happening?

By now you've heard that Senate Republicans have announced that they're seeking hearings into whether Obama's Justice Department engaged in racial bias in connection with the decision to pursue the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers as a civil action.

But what some folks may not remember is that Senate Republicans already quizzed Justice officials on this very case several months ago, in a public hearing on Capitol Hill. So why do we need more hearings?

I just read through a transcript of a hearing that the Senate Judiciary Committee held on April 20th, concerning oversight of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. During the hearing, Senator Jeff Sessions extensively quizzed Tom Perez, the head of that division, about the New Black Panther case.

Sessions alleged that the Justice Department had erected a "steel barrier" against efforts to probe this matter. In response, Perez pointed out that his department had already provided "over 4,000 pages of documents" to investigators. He also noted that two career people who made the decision to narrow the case against the New Black Panthers -- the decision that has riled the right -- have already briefed Republicans on the decision.

So what more is there to ask about? Well, Republicans say they would focus much of the new hearings on the claims of former Justice Department lawyer J. Christian Adams, who told investigators he believed the case had been narrowed because his colleagues wanted to protect minorities. But even some conservatives have dismissed this claim as not credible.

There's no shortage of people already looking into this. Both the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Commission on Civil Rights are expected to release reports on the allegations of wrongdoing.

It remains to be seen whether Senator Patrick Leahy, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, will allow this latest round of hearings requested by Senate Republicans to go forward. Either way, it appears that those who want these hearings just aren't content with the behind-the-scenes investigations that are already underway. For some reason, they want yet another round of very public questioning.

Senator Al Franken, in an interview with Think Progress, sounds the now-familiar refrain from Dems that Republicans are obstructing jobs-related legislation because they think mass economic suffering will benefit the GOP in the midterms:

"But I do think that this whole approach of slowing everything down, in many ways I think it's so that, they don't want a jobs bill because they don't want people to get jobs before the election. It's a harsh thing to say, and I don't want to impugn the motives of my colleagues, but I don't get what they're doing otherwise."

But there's more to it than this, and Dems do themselves a disservice with this analysis, which doesn't really get to the core of what Republicans are doing here. The larger Republican strategy -- explained to me privately by Republican aides -- is rooted in the fact that they believe dragging out any discussion of unemployment helps the GOP in the long run.

Republicans privately admit that the standoff over joblessness may help Dems in the short term, by allowing them to scream about how heartless Republicans are. But their larger strategy is all about casting doubt on the efficacy of the stimulus in particular and on the failure of the Dems' big-spending ways in general.

Republicans think that it feeds their larger argument, particularly among independents, if Dems continue to ask for more money to help the jobless (drawing attention to the fact that Dem spending policies have yet to fix the economy) while Republicans continue to insist that government find the money to pay for it.

This isn't about Republicans banking on mass economic suffering to help them at the polls. Rather, they're dragging out the discussion of unemployment in the belief that the public will conclude that Dem policies have failed -- and that Dems have their heads in the sand about how much money they wasted on their pie-in-the-sky liberal dream schemes.

The idea is that the argument over who has better intentions towards the unemployed will have become a sideshow to the main narrative: That Dems, whatever their intentions, have lost control of the wheel. That's the real game plan here.

Now that today's New York Times has weighed in on this topic, I'm going to hit this one more time, because I'm telling ya, it's important.

As I've been noting here, the real takeaway from the Shirley Sherrod mess is this: Not all partisan media are created equal. Right wing media are willing to engage in tactics that simply have no equivalent on the left -- even if mainstream news orgs and commentators keep taking refuge behind the notion that "both sides do it."

Now The Times's Brian Stelter has weighed in with a stand-alone piece that raises questions about what the Sherrod tale has done to the credibility of Breitbart and others on the right.

Some will think that Stelter's story doesn't go far enough. It asserts, for instance, that it is an "open question" whether conservative media have suffered a hit to their credibility. But I'll take it. It's a stand-alone story in the Paper of Record that's focused squarely on what this tale tells us about right wing media, with no nonsense about how "both sides" do it.

What's notable about this story is how few other outlets have done the same. And as a result, one of the most important aspects of the Sherrod mess is going almost entirely ignored: The vast difference it highlighted between media on both sides.

To make this point one more time, it's true that "both sides," to one degree or another, let their ideological and political preferences dictate some editorial decisions, such as what stories to pursue, how to approach them, who to interview, etc. But what's underappreciated is the degree to which the Breitbart-Fox axis goes far beyond this, openly employing techniques of political opposition researchers and operatives to drive the media narrative.

This simply has no equivalent on the left. The leading lefty media organizations have teams of reporters who -- even if they are to some degree ideologically motivated -- work to determine whether their material is accurate, fair, and generally based in reality before sharing it with readers and viewers. They just don't push info -- with no regard to whether it's true or not -- for the sole purpose of having maximum political impact. Period.

This is an important difference that's critical to understanding the rapidly shifting landscape in the new-media age. If I ran the universe more media figures would come right out and say what the Times hinted at today: No, both sides don't do it.