The Plum Line

Only 46 days until senators-elect Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell and Speaker-to-be John Boehner give victory speeches detailing their plans to restore our glorious center-right country from our nightmarish two-year lapse into socialism. What else is happening?

* She may be "the one"! Sarah Palin tells Fox News she could run for president if the American people decide she's "the one."

* Maybe I'm just fried, but for some reason this brings to mind that McCain/Palin 2008 ad sneeringly referring to Obama as "the one."

* Tea Partyers for stimulus funds! Stimulus-hating Senate candidate Ron Johnson sought stimulus finds for a local opera house when he was president of the opera's board in 2009.

* The DCCC opens fire on that other Tea Partyer from Delaware, House candidate Glen Urquhart, for equating the separation of church and state with Nazism.

* Not our usual fare, but John Aravosis writes in from Sweden with an interesting tale about how a young woman's single blog post about her ailing mother is transforming the Swedish elections.

* Three independent fact-checks -- one, two, three -- all rate Sharron Angle's latest ad attacking Harry Reid on immigration as misleading or downright full of it.

* Rant of the day: Onetime top Obama aide Steve Hildebrand tears into Dem "cowards" in Congress who are fleeing Obama's agenda, claiming they should take a hike if they can't stand up for policies that are right.

* Paul Krugman says the GOP offer of a "deal" on a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich is a "set up":

The whole point is to avoid a vote on the middle-class tax cuts while Democrats control the House; when and if Republicans regain control, they can refuse to let anything but a full extension reach the floor. So the goal is actually permanent extension; what they're offering isn't a compromise, it's a trap.

* Sam Stein reports that White House officials are irked with Blue Dog Dems for coming out against letting the tax cuts for the rich expire after they spent so much time weeping about the deficit.

* Markos is just fine with Elizabeth Warren taking the consumer financial protection agency gig temporarily, because that way she can run against Scott Brown in Massachusetts in 2012.

* Grovel alert: Karl Rove will appear alongside Christine O'Donnell on the same show this Sunday.

* Good for Chuck Todd for asking Evan Bayh how he squares his support for continued tax cuts for the rich with the fact that one in seven are below the poverty line.

* And a fun read to send you into the weekend: Michael Gerson gives the Tea Party a stern spanking and sends it to bed without its supper.

What else is happening?

This passage from a 2006 profile of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware's Wilmington News Journal may not be conclusive, but it certainly cries out for further exploration:

She considers homosexuality an identity disorder and sees pornography and the lust it engenders as selfish gratification.

"Sex is a covenant between a man and a woman and God," she says. "Your job is to satisfy the other, the giving of oneself to another. Porn turns that around."

She practices what she preaches, she says. She's had boyfriends, but they don't last long when they realize her seriousness concerning chastity before marriage.

Is that what O'Donnell believes? The story reads as if O'Donnell told the reporter in some fashion or other that she views homosexuality as an identity disorder, as part of a broader discussion of sex and religion. The reporter wrote it down as a paraphrase.

However, it's not a direct quote, so for now, this is inconclusive. I've checked in with the reporter and will update you if I hear back.

At a minimum, though, that is an extreme view, and its appearance next to her name in a reputable paper is grounds to ask whether she really believes this, particularly given the views she's already expressed on related topics. O'Donnell is already on record claiming the government spent too much on AIDS and arguing that "gays get away with so much."

Also: If O'Donnell did say something this extreme or something close to it as recently as 2006, it would seem to give the lie to her claim at last night's debate that her rigid moralistic views represent long-ago youthful excesses.

This morning, NRSC chair John Cornyn signaled that he is open to a "compromise" under which all the Bush tax cuts would be extended "temporarily." Other GOP Senators seem to be signaling support for this deal, too.

Here's why Dems should not take this deal.

It will squander the Dems' last, best chance to make the central Dem campaign message stick. The Dems' core campaign message, the one upon which Dems are betting control of both houses of Congress, is that a vote for the GOP is a vote to return to the Bush policies that ran the economy into the ground. There is no issue more perfectly suited to amplifying and dramatizing this message than the debate over whether to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Taking a deal would fritter away the last, best chance Dems have to drive their message home in dramatic, vivid fashion -- by staging a vote on whether to extend just the tax cuts for the middle class. This would bring a level of clarity that would take this out of the realm of Beltway white noise, forcing a straight-up choice between Obama tax policy and Bush tax policy. By contrast, if Dems take this deal, they're agreeing to an extension of Bush tax policy. Needless to say, this might muddle the Dem message a bit, since that message is: Republicans want a return to those awful Bush policies, and Dems don't.

We're finally seeing evidence that the core Dem message about Bush and the GOP is gaining traction. It doesn't seem like an accident that this is occuring even as the debate over the Bush tax cuts is dominating the news. Imagine how much staging a vote could enhance this dynamic. Taking the deal, by contrast, could undermine it.

But should Dems fear losing this vote? Yes, some 38 House Dems are demanding a vote on an extension of all the tax cuts. But how many of them would really vote No on a measure to only extend the tax cuts for the middle class?

It isn't every day that Democrats target Latino challengers with nasty anti-immigrant ads, but these are apparently desperate times for certain embattled Dems.

Check out this remarkably vicious new ad from Blue Dog Dem Walt Minnick of Idaho, claiming that illegal immigration is "good business" for his Republican challenger, Raul Labrador:

"Over half of his work is helping illegal immigrants stay in the United States," the spot intones, an apparent reference to the GOP challenger's work as an immigration attorney. The ad slams Labrador for running a site called RapidImmigration.com, charging that the site offers "easy to understand advice for illegal immigrants seeking amnesty."

In reality, the site in question offers would be immigrants "easy to understand pages that will help your immigration goal applying with the USCIS as a temporary visitor or permanent resident."

I'm told that Labrador is short on funds, and that Republicans think this is a tough race for them because Minnick's record is hard to attack, because he's bucked his party on many major issues. Yet Minnick apparently sees the need to run an ad that stinks of fear and desperation. Quite a specimen.

For some time now, Democrats have been demanding to know what Pat Toomey, the GOP Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, did during his year spent in Hong Kong in 1991 working for a financial advisory firm. Dems have been seeking detail on Toomey's year abroad, in order to buttress their ongoing case that Toomey, who worked for banks and traded derivatives, is nothing but a stooge of Wall Street.

I've nailed down what Toomey did during that year: His campaign confirms to me that he did research on capital market formation in southeast Asia for a company owned by the billionaire Chan brothers, one of whom, Ronnie Chan, was a former Enron director who settled a massive $168 million lawsuit brought against the company by shareholders.

Dem Senate candidate Joe Sestak and others have accused Toomey of doing controversial currency swaps during that year in Hong Kong. The Toomey campaign adamantly denies the charge -- and there's no evidence for it.

More broadly, however, Dems are going to go on the offensive against Toomey over his work for Chan.

Chan, Dems argue, is a controversial character, and they're hoping to inject him into the Pennsylvania Senate race. In addition to his link to Enron, Chan has repeatedly scoffed at American hopes for a more democratized China. Even though Toomey did his work for Chan 20 years ago, Dems are going to accuse Toomey of helping build up a Chan-owned company and try to link it to today's fears of Chinese currency manipulation.

The Toomey campaign laughed off the Dems' intention to milk the Chan connection. "The Democrats must be getting pretty desperate to dig up what Pat did twenty years ago," Toomey campaign manager Mark Harris told me, adding that Toomey didn't do any trading, but merely did research on capital formation in southeast Asian countries for the Chan brothers.

"What voters in Pennsylvania are concerned about is Joe Sestak's liberal voting record in the last three years," Harris added.

UPDATE, 11:15 a.m.: The year was actually 1991. I've edited the above to correct.

* Elizabeth Warren speaks: Elizabeth Warren speaks out about her appointment as special adviser to the President and Treasury, tasked with setting up the new consumer financial protection agency. Though Warren doesn't directly address the swirling questions about how much power she'll have, she explains her role and makes it clear she doesn't see it as an issue:

The President and I are committed to the same vision on CFPB, and I am confident that I will have the tools I need to get the job done.

Obama will announce the appointment this afternoon, and presumably will seek to reassure people that Warren will have the independence and clout she needs.

* Or is the White House just kicking the can down the road? CNN reports that White House officials expect her appointment to last months, not years, and that she may not ultimately head the agency, which could anger the left.

* Sage advice that Dems will probably ignore: Paul Krugman argues that Dems need to force the issue on the Bush tax cuts because "this is no time for Democrats to play it safe: if the midterm election were held today, they would lose badly."

* This cycle, no Republican is "unelectable": Indeed, Dems can high-five all they want about how the Tea Party has saddled the GOP with "unelectable" candidates, but until the economy turns around or Dems generate more enthusiasm with the base, that word will continue to have no meaning.

* And: If Ohio is a bellwether for the rest of the nation, Dems are in serious trouble.

* GOP heeding the lessons of history: Unlike Newt in 1994, House Republicans will not invite GOP candidates to attend the unveiling of their nearly-completed contract with America, in order to emphasize that it's a "governing document," and not a political one.

* Give Mitt's speechwriter a raise! Mitt Romney, at the Values Voter Summit today, will roll out some adventurous figures of speech to attack Dems, claiming their "numbers have gone down the chute faster than a Jet Blue flight attendant" and adding that the stimulus was akin to "squirting water from a garden hose" to "put out a forest fire."

Hey, at least Mitt's figure of speech implicitly admits that more stimulus spending would have been more effective...

* Tea Party 2012! In all seriousness, the Values Voter Summit will be interesting to watch as an indication of what the rise of the Tea Party will mean for the 2012 hopefuls and what ignominities they'll be forced to endure in order to remain viable.

* And: Christine O'Donnell is set to speak at today's summit, so watch for that.

* Thomas Jefferson's intellectual heirs: O'Donnell and Sharron Angle? Just as Angle did, O'Donnell is now mangling history to claim herself as a political decendant of Jefferson. Wonder how the two women feel about Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, perhaps the most aggressive executive power grab in American history...

* And who says O'Donnell will be easy to beat? After all, she came up with some awfully shrewd campaign tactics last time she ran:

As the campaign entered the summer season, staff was instructed to compile a 10-page document examining how the distribution of tens of thousands of two-ounce suntan lotion packets could shake up the race, according to several members of O'Donnell's 2008 team.

Talk about greasing the palms of voters. What else is happening?

* Points for honesty: Tea Party Senator Jim DeMint says in a new interview that his goal in the Senate is nothing short of "complete gridlock."

Finally, something DeMint and Mitch McConnell can agree on!

* The other day I reported that Nancy Pelosi and top Dems were debating whether to start using the phrase, "Obama tax cuts for the middle class." Today, Pelosi debuted it in public:

"Without getting into procedure and timing and process, what we're going to do is to say: At the end of the day the extension of the Obama middle-income tax cuts will take place."

* How will groups on the left deal with being heavily outspent by the right? This new MoveOn spot in Kentucky (there's a companion version in New Hampshire) is an answer to that question, using the U.S. Chamber's ad blitz on behalf of Rand Paul against him:

* Chris Dodd isn't too worried about that Elizabeth Warren appointment. He seems to think she isn't going to have too much power. What a relief!

* The White House puts Forbes squarely in the crosshairs over the widely-denounced Dinesh D'Souza article.

* No healing this rift: Mike Castle says he won't endorse Christine O'Donnell because of all the "personal smears," including the reference to him as "unmanly."

* Head spinner of the day: Sharron Angle, in an interview with the Post, blasted critics for painting her as extreme -- and then turned around and said Obama is taking us "toward socialism."

* More than two dozen moderate House Dems write a letter to the Dem leadership urging a vote on extending all the Bush tax cuts, not just the middle class ones.

* Jon Chait has a suggestion for those moderates: Why not hold two votes, one on the middle class cuts and one on the high-end ones?

Which raises another question: If Dems do hold a vote on just the middle class tax cuts, will these moderates really vote No? I think some will, to prove their "independence" and to prove that they're not tax hikers, or something. But I'd bet enough would vote Yes for it to pass.

* Relatedly, a useful running whip count of all the Dems in both chambers who favor Bush tax policy over Obama policy.

* Jed Lewison notes, rightly I think, that Dem chances rest heavily on whether Dems do the work necessary to ensure that enough voters buy that the GOP remains the party of Bush -- hardly a foregone conclusion.

* Dems to roll out more new product? Senate leaders hint at a coming vote on a measure keeping jobs from going overseas.

* No wonder O'Donnell is wary of science -- she appears to believe scientists have created mice with fully functioning human brains.

* And the headline of the day:

Christine O'Donnell '10, A Dry Run For Palin '12

You betcha! What else is happening?

This new ad from Harry Reid, hitting back at an earlier spot from Sharron Angle blasting him over immigration, is the clearest indication yet of what a brutal dogfight the Nevada Senate race has become:

Reid's ad is a response to the Angle spot earlier this week that declared Reid "the best friend an illegal alien ever had."

Reid has come out in support of immigration reform, part of an effort to boost the Latino turnout that will be critical to his chances, but the Reid camp's swift response to the Angle spot illustrates how lethal the politics of illegal immigration remain.

Also note the spot's quick pivot at the end back to one of the core issues in the race: Angle's suggestion of phasing out Social Security. And: After hinting at it for weeks by characterizing Angle as "extreme and dangerous," for the first time, the Reid campaign has come right out and used the word "crazy."

A striking admission from NRSC chair John Cornyn, buried in today's New York Times article about the GOP and the Tea party:

Mr. Cornyn, who has been on the receiving end of anti-establishment anger, argued that the Tea Party had helped Republicans in one important respect, by moving the debate away from social issues. While Tea Party supporters tend to be socially conservative on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, most say they don't want to talk about them; they believe that by spending so much time on those issues, the Republican Party failed to focus on fiscal conservatism.

While social issues tend to be polarizing, Republicans can win on economic issues, Mr. Cornyn said, because the Democrats have been in charge as the economy has gone south.

"As I've traveled," he said, "I've talked to a lot of folks who are basically independents who say: I'm fine with the Republicans as long as we're talking about fiscal responsibility. Where I go off the reservation is when you talk about social issues."

That seems to be a clear admission from Cornyn that the focus on social issues demanded by social conservatives is driving "a lot" of independents "off the reservation." Very candid.

This gets at another interesting irony about the surprise victory of Tea Party-backed Christine O'Donnell and what it means for the GOP. While Cornyn says that the Tea Party has been a force for good, in that some elements of the movement have moved the discussion away from social issues, the Tea Party has also succeeded in securing the nomination in a major Senate race for someone who epitomizes -- in comically grotesque and distorted form -- the very thing Cornyn fears.

O'Donnell, after all, holds an array of views that will force culturally-charged issues to the forefront in a way that risks alienating independents in just the manner Cornyn worries about. She's anti-masturbation, looks askance at evolution, gay rights and modern feminism, thinks Obama is anti-American, etc etc. So you can see why Cornyn would have preferred that she disappear from public life and confine herself to local masturbation control efforts, rather than emerge as the GOP's standard bearer in a nationally watched Senate race.