Daily Kos

So, you have your choice of headlines and polls. From Gallup, we have Americans Divided Over Ryan vs. Obama Deficit Plans, noting that Republicans love the Ryan plan, Democrats hate it and indies are split. What is also evident, though not in the headline, is that those making over 75K, whites, and those over 30 prefer Ryan, while 18-29, under 75K and non-whites prefer the Democratic/Obama alternative.

And from this, you might conclude the Ryan gamble is paying off. But not so fast. Check out:

Town Halls Gone Wild

House G.O.P. Members Face Voter Anger Over Budget

Medicare Plan puts GOP on Defensive

GOP lawmaker Dan Webster's town hall turns ugly

Republicans regroup on Medicare, budget plan

Anger Rising Over GOP Budget-Cut Plans

Add to that Greg Sargent:

Paul Ryan heckled by angry protestors: This will generate a lot of chatter today: According to WTMJ in Wisconsin, Ryan himself got a real earful at a town hall meeting from protestors who are furious over his proposal to end Medicare as we know it.

Seniors held up signs saying “hands off my Medicare,” and chanted that Ryan should “stop lying,” according to the report. Also note that Ryan was forced to leave in a different vehicle than he arrived in.

It's early in the process, and when low-information voters are given a choice between a GOP and a Dem alternative, it's easy to pick sides even if you don't know what's in the budget.

After you know? We'll see. But if you want examples of what the public does know, check out the GOP governors who represent the enaction of GOP principles. The latest to poll poorly once he implemented his program is PA's Tom Corbett.

Big Jump In Disapproval For Pennsylvania Governor, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Gov's Budget Unfair, Voters - Especially Women - Sayand if you want to know how the GOP responds to pressure, look no further than John Boehner.

So maybe it wasn’t the best timing in the world: Even as House Republicans face tough questions at their town hall meetings about Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan, Speaker John Boehner has given an interview in which he said Ryan’s plan was an idea “worthy of consideration” and that he wasn’t “wedded to it.”

Pity the poor Speaker. The more the public knows about GOP policies, the worse Republican leaders do with the public, from John Boehner on down.

Visual source: Newseum

NY Times:

Given the fierce insularity of Japan’s nuclear industry, it was perhaps fitting that an outsider exposed the most serious safety cover-up in the history of Japanese nuclear power. It took place at Fukushima Daiichi, the plant that Japan has been struggling to get under control since last month’s earthquake and tsunami.

Poor risk communication in the nuclear industry? Tell me about it.

NY Times:

After 10 days of trying to sell constituents on their plan to overhaul Medicare, House Republicans in multiple districts appear to be increasingly on the defensive, facing worried and angry questions from voters and a barrage of new attacks from Democrats and their allies.

The proposed new approach to Medicare — a centerpiece of a budget that Republican leaders have hailed as a courageous effort to address the nation’s long-term fiscal problems — has been a constant topic at town-hall-style sessions and other public gatherings during a two-week Congressional recess that provided the first chance for lawmakers to gauge reaction to the plan.  

The House GOP message to seniors of "Don't be fooled by Democrats. We aren't going to screw you, we are only going to screw your kids and grandkids" doesn't seem to be selling well.

Ruth Marcus:

I don’t think Trump is going to be president, so we needn’t spend too much time contemplating his comb-over gone gray. Trump is more interesting as a phenomenon of modern celebrity culture than as a serious presidential prospect. He is the ultimate in bread-and­circuses politics: a glittery amusement for voters and an avalanche of free publicity for the man who craves it.

But Trump is polling near the top of the GOP heap. He’s headed to New Hampshire and Iowa. So it is time to look past the birther nonsense he has been spouting to consider the rest of the nonsense he has been spouting.

Harold Meyerson:

Republicans have a problem. Their base is killing them.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour’s announcement Monday that he will not seek the presidency is just the latest sign that politically sentient Republicans fear their party’s voters have moved so deeply into la-la land that winning their support in next year’s primaries could render their nominee unelectable in November. “Friends of Barbour,” reports The Post’s Dan Balz, “said that he had come to the conclusion that Republicans can win only if they are totally focused on serious issues and not distracted by some side issues, such as Obama’s birthplace, that have arisen in the early going.”

But Republicans are massively distracted by birtherism. A New York Times-CBS News poll last week showed that while 57 percent of Americans believe that President Obama was born in the United States, against 25 percent who didn’t, just 33 percent of Republicans believed him American-born, while 45 percent did not. The Republican level of birtherism was effectively identical to that of self-identified Tea Party supporters, 34 percent of whom thought Obama was U.S.-born, while 45 percent did not.

Which is to say that the loopy, enraged divorce from reality of the Tea Potniks has infected the entire party.

Amy Walter:

With two of the more colorful potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates, Rep. Ron Paul and Donald Trump, making so many headlines, GOP establishment types desperate to show their donors and their base that they've got a real shot at beating President Obama in 2012 have to be worried.

Amy is one of the sharpest analysts out there.

Q-poll looks at fun times for the Republican Governor in PA:

While 39 percent of Pennsylvania voters approve of the job Gov. Tom Corbett is doing, 37 percent disapprove, a statistical tie, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. This is a big jump in his negative ratings from a 39 - 11 percent job approval rating in a February 16 survey.

Pennsylvania voters say 50 - 39 percent that Gov. Corbett's budget-cutting proposals are unfair to people like them, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey finds. There is a large gender gap as men say the cuts are fair 45 - 43 percent, a tie, while women say unfair 55 - 34 percent. Republicans say 59 - 27 percent the cuts are fair, but Democrats say unfair 69 - 22 percent and independent voters say unfair 47 - 41 percent.

Still, voters say 55 - 39 percent that balancing the state budget should be done by spending cuts only and not by a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts.

Although 97 percent say Pennsylvania's budget problems are "very serious" or "somewhat serious," and a majority want only cuts to meet the budget gap, 35 percent say Corbett's budget cuts go too far, while 20 percent say not far enough and 31 percent say they are about right.

PA voter: I just want you to balance the budget by leaving my taxes alone and cutting that guy's services over there. Do it, or I'll vote for someone else. meanwhile, Democratic Governors in CT and CA are balancing the the balancing with cuts and taxes (see In California, a more rational approach to budget gap emerges ).

Visual source: Newseum

Haley Barbour edition.

Dan Balz:

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour’s surprise decision on Monday not to run for president set off a scramble inside the Republican Party for pieces of his financial and political network. It also raised questions about the challenges the party may face in trying to unseat President Obama...

Obama, too, is less popular than he was when he was sworn in two years ago. But he comes to the race with the significant advantages of incumbency. As he steams ahead with fundraising and organizing, Republicans are under growing pressure to tamp down concerns about whether they can find a candidate capable of defeating him.

You don't run if you can't win. It's that simple.

Greg Dworkin (that's me):

Haley Barbour, as I and others noted this morning, would have been a candidate who could not have won enough moderates outside the South and might even have lost some tea party conservatives over his establishment ties and lobbyist past. Barbour doesn't need to run. He's had a very good career for himself doing what he's doing.

So, the weak GOP field just got weaker. And if Mitch Daniels declines to run, we'll get the fun of watching Romney and Pawlenty duke it out for "serious candidate" status (Jon Huntsman remains an also-ran) while the "not serious" candidates (Trump, Bachmann) get most of the attention.

Lou Zickar:

Haley Barbour has gone from candidate to kingmaker. Every potential GOP nominee will now be lining up for his endorsement. His name may not be on the ballot in 2012, but his political influence will continue to be felt.

Peter Bergman:

Haley Barbour has taken a bow and gracefully exited the pack of Republican hopefuls, claiming that he has insufficient fire in his belly. Lots of belly, not enough fire.

Haley's no fool. He read the tea party leaves and found no auger of good fortune, even in the dregs, which is where his poll numbers reside. Now, he can go back to what he's really good at -- being the GOP's No. 1 financial flypaper. Roll him out at a Beltway bash, a Hilton Head hideaway or a corporate retreat and Barbour comes back loaded with billionaire bucks and corporate cash, which he dutifully dispenses to his colleagues who have stayed on the stump, taking his vig out in favors down the line.

I suspect that more than one Republican ringleader is not unhappy to see Haley exiting the Big Tent. They must have an inkling of what a haircut the party would take if Barbour made the cut.

Jonathan Capehart:

But as much as I’m happy that Barbour is not running, his departure robs us of what would have been one of the most interesting orations in political history. We all know he has a blind spot the size of the Confederate flag when it comes to race, the civil rights movement and his place during that turbulent time in the South and the United States. So much so that The Post’s Karen Tumulty reported last month that “Barbour . . . is is considering giving a major speech on the subject. The likely venue: a 50th anniversary reunion of the Freedom Riders, set for late May in Jackson.”

No matter what he said, Barbour’s speech would have been fascinating.

Stanley Fish, not about Barbour:

The fact that this realm of the less than fully enfranchised has at times included children, women, blacks, Native Americans, Asians, homosexuals and Jews as well as animals and trees tells us that there is a counter-narrative in which standing has been extended in an ever-more-generous arc. Stone quotes Charles Darwin observing that while man’s sympathies were at an early stage confined to himself and his immediate family, over time “his sympathies became more tender and widely diffused, extending to men of all races, to the imbecile, maimed and other useless members of society, and finally to the lower animals.” In the same spirit, the philosopher Richard Rorty urges that “We should stay on the lookout for marginalized people — people whom we still instinctively think of as ‘they’ rather than ‘us.’” Indeed, we should “keep trying to expand our sense of ‘us’ as far as we can.”

Visual source: Newseum

Paul Krugman:

When I listen to current discussions of the federal budget, the message I hear sounds like this: We’re in crisis! We must take drastic action immediately! And we must keep taxes low, if not actually cut them further!

You have to wonder: If things are that serious, shouldn’t we be raising taxes, not cutting them?

My description of the budget debate is in no way an exaggeration.

Virginia Heffernan:

Every few years, someone tries to tap the widespread American obsession with the Civil War, and transform its history into pop entertainment. Some of these projects, like Ken Burns’s 1990 documentary, “The Civil War,” come to canonical glory. Others, like Disney’s proposed American history theme park, meet bitter defeat. It was inevitable that someone in 2011, for the 150th anniversary of the war, would roll the cultural dice again and try to sell Civil War buffs an iPad app.

Dan Balz on a reluctant Mitch Daniels:

As he deliberates, calls come into his office, and the offices of his political advisers and friends, with words of encouragement. He has drawn praise from a number of conservative commentators. They see him as someone who can espouse conservative ideas but who believes the GOP must avoid appearing harsh or braying.

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush told a Jacksonville audience in February that, among prospective GOP candidates, Daniels was the “only one who sees the stark perils and will offer real detailed proposals.”

Social issues would hurt him with his base, the Bush years would hurt him with everyone else. But a weak GOP field continues to drive casting a larger net.

Peter Morici:

Even before disturbances in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere, economists expected oil prices to increase from their September lows of $75 a barrel to more than $100 a barrel by this summer.

Economic recovery is pushing up gasoline demand and jet travel; President Obama's restrictions on offshore drilling are curtailing U.S. oil supplies; electric vehicles and hybrids won't appreciably dent U.S. gasoline consumption before the end of this decade; and Chinese oil imports are growing 10% a year. All Middle East strife did was accelerate the price surge.

EJ Dionne on rhetorical false choices:

Praising Obama’s George Washington University budget speech earlier this month, Hertzberg said he was relieved that the president did not descend into the worst kind of false choicery. “I know it’s silly,” Hertzberg wrote, “but I was a little worried we might get something uncomfortably akin to ‘We must reject both extremes, those who say we shouldn’t help the old and the sick and those who say we should.’” Me, too; I’m glad Obama didn’t go near that sort of thing.

But if there are false false choices, there are also real false choices. And here I should acknowledge my personal stake in this debate. Twenty years ago, I wrote a book called “Why Americans Hate Politics” arguing that liberals and conservatives often imposed a series of false choices on voters that prevented them from expressing their true preferences. Many voters preferred an intelligent “both/and” politics to an artificially constrained “either/or” approach.

The classic case for me was the phony division of Americans into “feminist” and “pro-family” camps. I noted that most Americans accepted the equality of men and women but were concerned about how new work arrangements were affecting family life.

Here's the Hertzberg piece:

One of the mysteries of the Obama Presidency has been Obama’s inability—or disinclination, I’m not sure which—to give sustained emotional sustenance to a certain slice of his supporters. I don’t mean the “Democratic base,” especially the institutional “interest group” base. And I don’t mean the disillusioned left, which is easily, almost perpetually disillusioned because it has such an ample supply of illusions. (A lot of lefties, notwithstanding their scorn for “the system,” seem to have an implicit naive faith in the workability of the mechanisms of American governance. Hence their readiness to blame the disappointments of the Administration’s first two years mainly on Obama’s alleged moral or character failings—cowardice, spinelessness, insincerity, duplicity, what have you.) Mainly, I guess, the slice I’m talking about is of people like me: liberals who continue to respect and admire Obama; who fully appreciate the disaster he inherited and the horrendous difficulty of enacting a coherent agenda even when your own party “controls” both Houses of Congress; who think his substantive record is pretty good under the circumstances; who dislike some of the distasteful compromises he has made but aren’t sure we wouldn’t have done the same in his shoes (etc.—you get the idea); but who are puzzled that our eloquent, writerly President seems to have done so little to educate the public about his own vision and to contrast it with that of the Republican right—which is to say, the Republicans.

Visual source: Newseum

NY Times editorial:

Default is theoretically possible, though public outrage over the mess would likely compel Congress to raise the debt limit before then. The best approach, the most sensible and mature, would be to pass a clean and timely increase.

However, nothing sensible or mature is on the horizon. Republicans have vowed to extract more heedless spending cuts in exchange for their votes to raise the debt limit. To that end, they seem likely to demand changes to the budget process, like a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or spending caps.

Stephen L. Goldstein talks about

Wealth care vs. health care.

That choice will frame the debate for the 2012 election. As a result, President Barack Obama has already won his second term, and Democrats will recapture majorities in both houses of Congress. Everything until then is a delicious denouement, when tea party extremists will have turned the Republican Party into a blip on the political screen — and Kingsley Guy will beg to become a Democrat.

Whiz kid wannabe, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., will be the unwitting savior of the Democratic Party and cause of his party's humiliating defeat. He issued his penny-pinching "Path to Prosperity" before the president spoke about our debt and deficit. For the unveiling, image consultants gave the Wisconsonite a new hairdo to soften his usual menacing part and ghoulish gaze, but they couldn't change the mean-spirited, elitist strategy to which he committed Republicans: Adiós — Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid; Hola — tax cuts for the drowning-in-money.

Recently, when Kingsley and I were interviewed by Thomas Roberts on MSNBC, I mentioned the obscenity of extending trillion-dollar tax cuts to the richest Americans while bleeding the middle class. But Kingsley saw nothing wrong.

Gail Collins:

Right now you’re probably asking yourself: How are all the angry new governors doing?

Great! Fear and loathing may abound, but it’s business-friendly fear and loathing. In Ohio and Wisconsin, angry new governors John Kasich and Scott Walker are taking economic development out of the hands of state bureaucrats and giving the job to new quasi-private entities that will be much more effective and efficient.

In Florida, where the Legislature did all that in the 1990s, the angry new governor Rick Scott has a bold plan to improve economic development by creating a State Department of Commerce that will be much more effective and efficient.

Dana Milbank on the conservative nutters eating their own. It's so bad even the Villagers have noticed.

Two from the NY Times Room for Debate:

David O. Sears:

Racial resentment more strongly affected evaluations of his opponents, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, than it had before the campaign or since. And it more strongly affected evaluations of Obama’s issue positions on taxes and health care than it had before. The campaign in 2008 was the most racialized in recent history, despite little explicit reference to it during the campaign.

How is that relevant to the birthers? Consider three powerful principles in political psychology: strong prior attitudes can powerfully influence responses to an unfamiliar issue, especially if authoritative sources associate the issue with such attitudes, and if the new issue is inherently ambiguous.

Party identification and racial resentment are perhaps the two most strongly held contemporary political attitudes. But one might protest, no authoritative sources associate Obama with foreign birth. Wrong. The New York Times and other mainstream media are not considered authoritative sources to most birthers, especially compared with many low-level conservative political operatives, or their like-minded social networks.

If you were a birther, would you trust your neighbor who spends his evenings on the Internet and watching Fox News, or the Times? All of us have heard of forged official documents, from under-aged college students’ faked id’s to illegal aliens’ stolen social security numbers. Why not Obama’s birth certificate?

James T LaPlant:

We often ask why do people believe weird or silly things? It can provide them with comfort and consolation in a world that appears increasingly complex, globalized and difficult to understand.

I would also conclude that basic ignorance is at play. A poll of North Carolina voters in 2009 by Public Policy Polling found that 26 percent did not believe Obama was born in the U.S., and 20 percent were unsure. A question later in the poll asked if Hawaii was part of the United States.: 5 percent of respondents said no and 3 percent were unsure.

This is a story Daily Kos covered years ago, right down to the dangers for the GOP in being led by their fringe. This clip is Contributing Editor David Waldman from July 2009:

This graphic from the NY Times about their most recent CBS/NYT poll sums up the problem for Republicans: since the GOP is all tea party all the time (see the media attention given to Eric Cantor, the Donald and the junior and senior Pauls), the candidates whom the GOP really gets excited about can't win the general. In fact, Mike Huckabee (who has never shown himself either an overly hard worker or a good fund raiser) has the best "all voter" favorable minus his unfavorable at an anemic +7, while Republican tea party stalwarts like Palin (-29)  and Gingrich (-14), liked well enough by GOP primary voters, do abysmally with "all voters".

The Donald, the current GOP heart throb and Clown Caucus chairman, comes in at an all-voter -21, so he's in Palin territory but without the love from the GOP. In fact, he barely breaks even there, despite the media attention from the pack animals in the press. The other Clown Caucus members, including Bachmann and Santorum, aren't well known enough to dislike by the general public and even within the GOP don't spark any recognition.

And the Very Serious (But Very Flawed) Candidates? That would be Pawlenty, Barbour, Daniels and Huntsman. It's pretty clear from the polls that no one even knows who they are, and that's even with GOP voters.

Conclusions? It's very hard to find data to support a case that:

• T-Paw has caught fire (or has any chance to do so)
• Romney will be any better liked in the fall than he is in the spring
• Trump is a serious candidate
• Daniels and Huntsman can ride an enthusiasm wave out of obscurity
• Anyone is ahead, and this somehow helps Romney, the likely nominee

I've made an argument elsewhere that Huckabee is the real front runner, but that may be only because he's not running.

Oh, and one more thing: drop the nonsense about birthers being a "small subset" of Republican voters (see Top Republicans try to scotch birther theories.)

The data:

Over all, it showed that Republicans who are considering making presidential bids will have to woo a party that largely identifies with the Tea Party movement — more than half of Republican voters said they considered themselves Tea Party supporters — and has questions about President Obama’s origin of birth.

A plurality of Republican voters, 47 percent, said they believed Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii, was born in another country; 22 percent said they did not know where he was born, and 32 percent said they believed he was born in the United States.

Welcome to the 21st C Republican Party. Two parts ignorance, three parts insanity.

And that's just their economic plan.

Back on 4/11, we noted this story: NJ Gov: The darling of the GOP barely treading water in latest polls. In the post, we highlighted the fact that poster boy Christie (the "new look" for the GOP, and a hot stove candidate for President for the Republican base unenthused about their current choices) was running behind Obama in NJ and had pretty unimpressive polling numbers.

Today, the latest Q-poll is out, and there's more reinforcement for the idea that Christie is more a loser than a winner:

New Jersey voters do not believe Gov. Christopher Christie's claim that he would beat President Barack Obama in a 2012 White House run and back the president over the governor 52 - 39 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. President Obama also tops Gov. Christie in job approval and likeability.

 Gov. Christie's split 47 - 46 percent job approval compares to a 52 - 40 percent job approval in a February 9 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

 In today's survey, men approve of Christie 56 - 38 percent as women disapprove 53 - 38 percent. Christie gets an 80 - 16 percent approval from Republicans and a 55 - 36 percent approval from independent voters. Democrats disapprove 75 - 17 percent.

That's some gender gap between what men and women think. But what's really interesting is this:

"Bully," "arrogant," "good," "aggressive" are among words offered when voters are asked, with no suggestions given, to describe Gov. Christie in one word. Answers include:  
Bully - offered by 140 voters
Arrogant - offered 41 times
Good - 41
Aggressive - 39
Strong - 35
Tough - 34
Determined - 30
Honest/Honesty - 28
Excellent - 27
Bold - 16
Courageous/Courage - 16
Trying - 15
Effective - 13
Forceful - 12  

"Bully" and "arrogant" top the list. Maybe that's the explanation for why Christie is the poster boy for the modern GOP. And for those out there who think he's the ultimate stealth candidate for 2012, don't hold your breath. He'd lose both women and his home state.

In fact, the only reason he's still being talked about is because the rest of the field remains so weak.

Visual source: Newseum

CNN:

Texas firefighters on Wednesday continued to battle blazes that have scorched a million acres and have been burning for more than a week, according to the Texas Fire Service.

"We're actually seeing Texas burn from border to border. We've got it in West Texas, in East Texas, in North Texas, in South Texas - it's all over the state," Texas Forest Service spokeswoman April Saginor told CNN Radio. "We've got one in the Dallas area that's four fires that have actually merged together."

Natural and man-made disasters continue to happen, some on a scale we can't handle. But hey, let's cut the budget anyway.

The budget agreement being finalized this week by Congress includes cuts that could place the country at increased risk in an emergency such as the one that’s unfolding in Japan, disaster preparedness experts say.

They’re particularly troubled by a $786 million cutback in grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to support first responders, a 19 percent reduction from the 2010 budget.

USA Today I:

After BP’s Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico blew out a year ago today, many feared that the resulting oil spill would turn the Gulf into a dead sea, destroy its beaches, kill its vibrant seafood and tourism industries and mortally wound the economies of states from Florida to Texas.

Didn’t happen. The spill’s long-term effects on the environment are still a serious question, but the Gulf turned out to be surprisingly resilient, and so far the news has been unexpectedly good. Most of the oil is gone. Fishing has resumed, the beaches are clean (with some exceptions), tourist bookings are up and Gulf seafood is safe to eat.

USA Today II:

The BP blowout that killed 11 workers and dumped 170 million gallons of toxic crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico resulted from a long train of misjudgments, operational errors, equipment malfunctions and inadequate oversight...

Yet we’ve seen little progress. In fact, in Congress, we’re seeing retreat.

Instead of making offshore drilling safer, the Republican leadership in the House is pushing three bills that would force hasty decisions on drilling permits, shortchange environmental review and mandate new drilling in sensitive ocean areas off our coasts.

And they’re doing this even though the same kind of fatally flawed blowout preventer found on the Deepwater Horizon continues to be used today on other exploratory wells in the Gulf.

OregonLive.com:

In some ways, the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico a year ago seems such a flameout.

While a panicked nation was for weeks held hostage to deep-sea video of a runaway wellhead, much of the oil is now gone or reclaimed. Less than a tenth of some 1,000 miles of sullied shoreline remain. Commercial fishing in most of the Gulf has resumed.

But that's where the good news ends. Nobody really knows the long-term environmental or economic impact of the explosion that killed 11 and loosed nearly 5 million barrels of oil in windblown sheets and current-driven plumes across the Gulf. And there is pitched debate about whether the federal government is any tougher in regulating the offshore drilling industry that started it all.

The result is an uncomfortable truth: What we saw in the Gulf of Mexico one year ago could happen again today.

The Hill:

A survey released on the eve of the BP oil spill’s one-year anniversary shows that support for expanded offshore drilling has bounced back to levels last seen during the energy price spikes of the summer of 2008.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found 69 percent of respondents favor more drilling. Forty-five percent of adults “strongly favor” increased drilling in U.S. waters, while 24 percent “mildly” favor it, according to the poll taken April 9-10.

Mark Bittman:

A year ago, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, gushing nearly five million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico before it was finally capped three months later. It was by most accounts a disaster. But when it comes to wrecking our oceans, the accidental BP spill was small compared with the damage we do with intent and ignorance.

I recently talked about this with two men who specialize in ocean affairs: Carl Safina, the author of “A Sea In Flames” and the president of the Blue Ocean Institute; and Ted Danson, (yes, that Ted Danson), who recently published Oceana (the book) and is a board member of Oceana, the conservation organization he helped found. As Safina said, “Many people believe the whole catastrophe is the oil we spill, but that gets diluted and eventually disarmed over time. In fact, the oil we don’t spill, the oil we collect, refine and use, produces CO2 and other gases that don’t get diluted.”

Visual source: Newseum

WaPo poll on economic anxiety:

In hypothetical matchups for the general election, the president runs ahead of all seven potential GOP rivals tested in the new poll.

If the election were held now, Romney and Huckabee would mount the stiffest challenges, trailing Obama by four and six percentage points respectively, among all Americans as well as among registered voters.

Obama has double-digit leads over the other five tested — a dozen points against Trump and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), 15 against Newt Gingrich and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and 17 points over Palin.

Despite his current advantage over the Republican field, Obama remains vulnerable with an approval rating again less than 50 percent. A majority of those younger than 40 give the president positive ratings, but most of those 40 and older disapprove.

Obama’s standing shows he has lost his post-midterm election gains. His 54 percent rating in January followed a well-received speech at a memorial service for the victims of the Tucson shootings, and came after a lame-duck congressional session during which he scored a series of legislative achievements.

Room for Debate:

What does the S.&P. move say about the economy and deficit fears? Or is it, as Obama administration officials contend, largely a political judgment that doesn't go beyond what we know?

Above link includes (among others) Tyler Cowan, Mark Thoma and Barry Ritholz:

Many people misunderstand the U.S. deficit. First, it is stimulative to both the economy and the markets. Look at what happened under Reagan and Obama and most of Bush II – the economy recovered from recession and the markets rose along with the deficit.

Second, Social Security is fine. Sure, the retirement age will go higher, there will be means testing, and the income cutoff for contributions ($106,000) will likely double. But it will remain solvent. Medicare is much trickier, as the United States pays two times what most countries pay for health care but gets lesser care.

The current debate about deficits looks like more politics.

Eugene Robinson:

It’s time to take Donald Trump seriously as a presidential candidate.

Three, two, one . . . okay, time’s up.

Greg Dworkin (that's me):

Just how seriously should Donald Trump be taken? As seriously as possible for as long as possible. And after he finishes putting one over on the credulous media (or quits because of yet another bankruptcy or worse-than-usual gaffe), you can return to covering Michele Bachmann and the fading Sarah Palin. Unserious as these three candidates are, they are tea party favorites and will always draw a crowd of the know-nothing side of the GOP (alas, ever larger.) It’s important to highlight them so the rest of the country will know what (a large part of) the GOP energy and money comes from – anti-evolution, anti-immigration birther Wackoville (just a few miles to the right of Crazy Town.)

Will that interfere with Republican establishment candidates (the Very Serious People) like Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels and Mitt Romney? Well, that’s up to them to deal with it. They haven’t done so successfully so far, but the onus is on them.

Stephen Stromberg:

But neither the Democratic nor the Republican vision recently articulated is likely to result in the sort of reform needed to fix America's finances in a way that achieves anything but basic solvency, if that. Nor is either party likely to get its way after 2012, anyway. Barring some truly massive electoral landslide or Matt Miller’s third-party groundswell, Republicans will still hate tax hikes, Democrats will still hate entitlement cuts, and the filibuster-era Senate will still be the filibuster-era Senate.

The Gang of Six’s plan might not be perfect. But openness to compromise is critical. For anything big to happen, both parties will probably have to betray some of their most powerful instincts, even after 2012.

Derrick Z. Jackson:

Carl Levin may talk tough, but nothing he says will scare Wall Street — which, despite widespread condemnation, never seems to change its ways.

Visual source: Newseum

NY Times editorial on what's really going on:

Six months after voters sent Republicans in large numbers to Congress and many statehouses, it is possible to see the full landscape of destruction that their policies would cause — much of which has already begun. If it was not clear before, it is obvious now that the party is fully engaged in a project to dismantle the foundations of the New Deal and the Great Society, and to liberate business and the rich from the inconveniences of oversight and taxes.

Jonathan Alter:

Republicans jumped all over President Barack Obama’s budget speech at George Washington University as political, and they are absolutely right.

It was the old Obama, the one who changed history in 2008, and he is back on his game, both thematically and tactically. The domestic debate now is much clearer and the takeaway for Republicans is out of a horror movie: Be afraid. Be very afraid...

Ever since he agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts in a deal last winter, some progressives have doubted whether Barack Obama had the intestinal fortitude to stand up for the great social contract of the 20th century — the one most Americans still support. Now we know.

Same Obama, but maybe the difference between Axlerod and Plouffe?

Boston Globe editorial on RomneyCare:

All in all, then, the role Romney played was of a governor sensitive to business concerns and worried about the state’s business climate. Now, conservatives have come to view that individual mandate as an intolerable imposition on personal liberty, rather than an insistence on personal responsibility. In no small part that’s because such a mandate also plays a central role in Obama’s health care plan. But if they weren’t hyperventilating about the national law, they might come to recognize that the role Romney played on the state level was skillful, creative, and business-friendly.

You can't run from it, Mitt, so embrace it. Conservatives won't like it? Aw, too bad.

John Sununu:

Lastly, the recent battle to settle 2011 spending levels demonstrated that there is an effective process for future negotiations. It’s nice to have this debate off the table, but even more valuable is the working relationship that has been established by Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Set aside partisan perspectives for a moment. This was a tough, complex negotiation where Reid and Boehner represented their members’ interests with determination. Both parties gave something and, arguably, got something. Sure, it was a partisan fight; but the outcome will receive significant bipartisan support in both chambers. Each walked away with even stronger support within his own caucus, a better understanding of his counterpart, and credibility with one another.

Maybe so. Then again, politics is the art of seeing what you want to see.

EJ Dionne:

The American ruling class is failing us — and itself.

At other moments in our history, the informal networks of the wealthy and powerful who often wield at least as much influence as our elected politicians accepted that their good fortune imposed an obligation: to reform and thus preserve the system that allowed them to do so well. They advocated social decency out of self-interest (reasonably fair societies are more stable) but also from an old-fashioned sense of civic duty. “Noblesse oblige” sounds bad until it doesn’t exist anymore.

Check out the featured headlines above from WI and CA: Super rich see big drop in taxes (Their federal income tax rate has dropped from 26 percent to 17 percent in 15 years.)

Paul Krugman:

Last week, President Obama offered a spirited defense of his party’s values — in effect, of the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society. Immediately thereafter, as always happens when Democrats take a stand, the civility police came out in force. The president, we were told, was being too partisan; he needs to treat his opponents with respect; he should have lunch with them, and work out a consensus.

That’s a bad idea. Equally important, it’s an undemocratic idea.

Ah, a member of the reality-based community.

Visual source: Newseum

Hendrik Hertzberg:

By the time the President got to his own four-step proposal, which calls for higher taxes on the rich (euphemized as lowering “spending through the tax code”) the Republican alternative was a smoking ruin. Given the position his own reluctance, until now, to stake out a clear ideological divide had left him in, Obama succeeded in constructing a reasonably solid fortification for the fiscal battles to come. Even Paul Krugman was pleased. Me, too.

Ed Kilgore:

The moral of the story for 2012 is that the presidential campaign trail is brutal and unforgiving—particularly right now, and particularly for Republicans. The early Republican caucuses and primaries will be dominated by conservative activists who want a crusade, not a mere political campaign, and will almost certainly punish candidates who don’t give the impression that they will fight for every vote. This is a very poor environment for a “draft,” or for a politician pretending to run, reluctantly, out of a sense of civic obligation. Even Ronald Reagan got himself into early trouble in 1980 by campaigning as though voters owed him the nomination, with bands playing “Hail to the Chief” before every speech. He lost Iowa that year, and had to run a savagely ideological campaign in New Hampshire in order to recover.

Democracy Corps:

Confidence in Washington is at a low. This new survey shows an electorate increasingly doubtful about the economy and country’s direction, the performance of the president and particularly the ‘Republicans in Congress.’ They are also pretty negative about the Democrats in Congress, the Tea Party movement and above all, the ‘Tea Party Republicans.’

The Republican deficit reduction plan does not even win majority support, but when voters learn almost anything about it, they turn sharply and intensely against it. They have particularly grave concerns about the plan to end Medicare and slash Medicaid spending, pushing seniors into the private insurance market and costing them thousands of dollars more in out-of-pocket expenses.

NY Times:

A Valentine’s Day editorial in the official newspaper of the American College of Surgeons has set off a firestorm of controversy that has divided the largest professional organization of surgeons in the country and raised questions about the current leadership and its attitudes toward women and gay and lesbian members.

Sally Kohn:  

It would be one thing if Republicans were negotiating in good faith, recognizing that reasonable minds can disagree on the matters at hand and that each will have to bend. But the GOP has become so extremist that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) made clear after the 2010 elections that his party’s agenda for the next two years was not governing but ensuring Obama’s defeat in 2012. Meanwhile, as they have for years, Republicans have openly shared their desire to shrink government so much that they can, as anti-tax activist Grover Norquist once promised, “drown it in a bathtub.” Democrats’ tolerance of such destructive positions is a sign not of nobility but of pathetic self-loathing.

Ouch.

Chris Cillizza:

Any time a politician find himself on the opposite end of considerable public opinion on a given issue, it’s a dangerous place to be.

Or as former Fix boss Charlie Cook wrote in a recent column about Ryan’s Medicare proposal: “House Republicans are not just pushing the envelop — they are soaking it with lighter fluid and waving a match at it.”

Major Garrett:

Translation: the Ryan budget not only tees up a clash over entitlements and tax policy, it sets the stage for another shutdown scenario if the House and Senate can't—as is now widely expected—finish its appropriations work by September 30.

Kathleen Parker:

As the number of Republicans declaring themselves potential presidential candidates has begun to look like a conga line without music, hope lingered that somewhere unnoticed was a brilliant dark horse biding his sweet time.

Wherever pundits and pinots merged, a mantra materialized. Surely, a miracle would occur, and The Candidate would emerge at just the right moment to rescue an ennui-stricken electorate from establishmentarians and their Tea-Partying ankle-biters. Cymbals would sound; angels would succumb to arias; Democrats would quake. And prosperity, world peace and well-adjusted children would follow. But who?

Turns out: The Candidate would be tall and rich and sport a coif that defies party identification. He would be a reality TV star. And his name would be known to all, such that even jaded veterans would slap their foreheads as the obvious became clear. But of course!

The Donald.

Visual source: Newseum

Don't miss the special speech round-ups from yesterday by Jed and yours truly.

Nicholas Kristof:

President Obama in his speech on Wednesday confronted a topic that is harder to address seriously in public than sex or flatulence: America needs higher taxes.

We also need to cut spending in some areas, but you can't try to balance the budget without both.

Dan Balz/WaPo:

Obama appeared to have two goals in mind. First, he sought to demonstrate that he is serious about solving the debt and deficit problems that threaten the country’s fiscal future. Second, he needed to prove to Democrats that he is prepared to take on the Republicans and fight for policies that his party has long stood for.

The question is whether he can do both. The angry reaction from many Republicans suggests he may have widened the gulf between the two sides, although bipartisan talks in the Senate continue.

Try and do both. And since the Republicans aren't serious about deficit reduction (if they were, the Bush tax cuts would be on the table), then if you can't do both, do the second. It's not complicated.

LA Times:

Lack of primary competition gives Obama an edge

With no serious challenges for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012, the president can target the independent voters crucial to victory, while his Republican rivals must move right to win their party's nomination.

Room for Debate: Will Voters Accept Tax Increases? including Larry Sabato, Dean Baker and more.

Gail Collins:

Part of the price of keeping the government operating this week is another debate over the financing of Planned Parenthood. Whoopee.

At least it’ll give us a chance to reminisce about Senator Jon Kyl, who gave that speech against federal support for Planned Parenthood last week that was noted for: A) its wild inaccuracy; and B) his staff’s explanation that the remarks were “not intended to be a factual statement.”

This is the most memorable statement to come out of politics since Newt Gingrich told the world that he was driven to commit serial adultery by excessive patriotism.

WaPo:

House Republican leaders maneuvered Wednesday to round up support in the party for two major spending bills. Both are expected to pass the House, but it’s the size and makeup of the coalitions behind the bills that will help shape Washington’s fiscal debate over the next several months.

Politico:

Speaker John Boehner brings his White House budget deal to a floor vote Thursday, predicting success but still battling worrisome new cost estimates and awkward relations with President Barack Obama, who chose to deliver a partisan-tinged deficit-reduction address on the eve of the debate.

Congressional Budget Office data, posted Wednesday morning, credit the Boehner-Obama deal with capping appropriations at a level nearly $38 billion lower than when Republicans took charge of the House in January. But this will have only a minimal impact on outlays or direct spending before the 2011 fiscal year ends Sept. 30. And once contingency funds related to Afghanistan and Pakistan are counted, the news gets worse: The CBO now says that total appropriations outlays for 2011 are higher — not lower — by about $3.3 billion than it had estimated in December.