The Plum Line

A few quick items this morning.

* Rachel Maddow has now addressed Keith Olbermann's suspension, arguing his contributions are a no-no if MSNBC wants to be seen as different from Fox.

That seems like a legit case in one sense. Olbermann's posture is that of strongly opinionated partisan, but ultimately I don't think he wants to be seen as a political activist or operative sitting in an anchor's chair. Contributions risk blurring the line between the two.

Opinion journalism requires striking a delicate balance. At a moment when journalistic categories are in flux, and many are questioning the legitimacy of melding opinion with reporting, it seems unwise to do anything that risks casting further doubt on that enterprise.

But even so, the problem remains that the punishment far outweighed the transgression, particularly since the NBC policy Olbermann supposedly violated seems ambiguous, raising questions about the real motives behind his Olbermann's suspension. He should, and I suspect will, be allowed to return.

(Update: I should add that Maddow, too, said Olbermann should come back.)

* Keach Hagey notes that the whole mess shows MSNBC's reluctance to embrace its lefty identity, which has fueled its success.

* Obama, still feeling his way on the new landscape, seeks some sort of common ground with the GOP on extending the Bush tax cuts:

I recognize that both parties are going to have to work together and compromise to get something done here. But I want to make my priorities clear from the start. One: middle class families need permanent tax relief. And two: I believe we can't afford to borrow and spend another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

Obama wants a permanent extension on the middle class cuts and is projecting openness to a temporary extension of the high end ones. But Republicans have already signaled that they want all the cuts to be extended on the same timetable, so they don't have to push for an extension of the high end ones in isolation.

So if Obama is going to stand behind his demand for a permanent extension of the middle class cuts, it's hard to see what the basis for a compromise will be.

* And Lori Montgomery has a good overview of the emerging House GOP agenda and the clashes that lie ahead.

What else is happening?

* Fun read: Michael Cooper skewers the leading mythological interpretations of Tuesday's results.

* Fact-check of the day: Jake Tapper debunks all the nonsense about the cost of Obama's India trip, and notes, crucially, that members of Congress are trafficking in it too.

* Dave Weigel, an MSNBC contributor, looks at the larger media/political context and makes a persuasive case against the suspension of Keith Olbermann.

* Another one: Salon reports that CNBC's Larry Kudlow donated $1,000 to former GOP Congressman Chris Shays in 2009.

* Bernie Sanders is the first elected official to weigh in on the Olbermann firing:

"It is outrageous that General Electric/MSNBC would suspend Keith Olbermann for exercising his constitutional rights to contribute to a candidate of his choice. We live in a time when 90 percent of talk radio is dominated by right-wing extremists, when the Republican Party has its own cable network (Fox) and when progressive voices are few and far between. Keith Olbermann should be reinstated immediately and allowed to present his point of view."

* No, Olbermann's contributions are nothing like those of News Corporation and MSNBC, unlike Fox, does not have multiple potential presidential candidates as on-air personalities.

* Michael Calderone pokes another hole in the Olbermann suspension: "NBC has previously noted differences between what MSNBC hosts and their NBC News colleagues can do."

* Nancy Pelosi speaks to E.J. Dionne, who concludes Dems may support her for Minority Leader because they're "tired of reflexively capitulating to the other side's narrative."

* Blue Dog Dem Jason Altmire says he won't vote for Pelosi, because she doesn't understand "what happened on Tuesday."

* The liberal-versus-moderate battle lines over Pelosi are already drawn, with other Blue Dogs like Dan Boren, Heath Schuler and Jim Matheson coming out againt her, while MoveOn and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee have rallied around.

* History lesson of the day, from Chris Bowers:

Keep in mind that after the 2002 election debacle, we were told making Nancy Pelosi Democratic leader would be a disaster. Supposedly, we would have been better off with Harold Ford Jr.

* Interesting point from Jay Newton-Small about Steny Hoyer's challenge to Jim Clyburn for minority whip, another key race to watch: He "lost much of his power base in the 60+ seats that have been wiped out."

* And there's simply no end to Sarah Palin's phony grievances about the media.

What else is happening?

Check out the fine print of what NBC policy said, as of 2007, about political activities on the part of NBC employees:

"Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee."

Emphasis mine. This is a bit difficult to parse. But this does seem to say that those who are worried that their "standing as an impartial journalist" would be jeopardized by political activity should report it. Last time I checked, Keith Olbermann doesn't pretend to be an "impartial journalist."

Likewise, neither do Joe Scarborough or Pat Buchanan, both of whom have also given political contributions. It seems possible that none of these three would have thought they were violating company policy.

Odder still, an anonymous NBC insider told Gawker that it's common knowledge within the organization that MSNBC's left-leaning personalities aren't necessarily required to follow NBC News rules. That makes sense, since MSNBC is pushing the envelope politically in a way NBC, obviously, isn't.

Again: We don't know yet what happened here. MSNBC's P.R. department is not responding to inquiries about whether Scarborough or Buchanan notified MSNBC brass before making their contributions. But it's certainly fair to ask, if they're axing Olbermann.

The fact that it's not even crystal clear that Olbermann violated NBC policy suggests that this could be a pretext for getting rid of him because he has difficult relations with management, or worse, because MSNBC is terrified of critics who claim it's becoming the lefty version of Fox News.

Until we learn more, the network's case against Olbermann is looking increasingly tenuous.

UPDATE, 6:55 p.m.: More updates on the Olbermann/MSNBC mess right here.

Keith Olbermann's suspension from MSNBC without pay for making $7200 in political contributions is, I think, clear proof that MSNBC brass is extremely sensitive to claims that the network is evolving into the Fox News of the left.

MSNBC has had a policy in place since at least 2007 that bars "anyone working for NBC News" to make political contributions without prior approval of the network's president.

But Olbermann is hardly the first MSNBC personality to make political contributions. As Atrios notes, Pat Buchanan has made over $2000 in political donations. He doesn't have his own show, though, and he's just playing the role of your grumpy conservative uncle. So maybe he doesn't really count, or something.

But Joe Scarborough, too, gave at least $4,200 in 2006, to House GOP candidate Derrick Kitts of Oregon, according to the FEC.

To be fair, Scarborough may have notified MSNBC's president and gotten prior approval. Or maybe this policy didn't exist in 2006. I've asked an MSNBC spokesman for comment and will update if I hear back.

At the same time, even if there's a legit explanation, it doesn't seem like that meaningful a distinction. We know where both these personalities' sympathies lie in any case. If the decision to translate their political leanings into donations is problematic, it's not clear why it would be any less problematic if the boss were notified first.

UPDATE, 2:51 p.m.: Ben Smith notes that Olbermann's suspension undercuts "the source of MSNBC's success, its unabashed liberalism in prime time."

UPDATE, 3:01 p.m.: Check out the Post's story, which has MSNBC's original statement explaining Olbermann's ouster.

UPDATE, 4:29 p.m.: Did Olbermann even violate NBC policy to begin with?

UPDATE, 6:55 p.m.: More updates on the Olbermann/MSNBC mess right here.

Nancy Pelosi has blasted out a letter to colleagues, sent over by a source, laying out her reasons for running for Minority Leader. Her candidacy is partly about protecting the legacy of Dem accomplishments, and partly about ensuring that Dems show the fortitude and spine that will be required to resist the GOP urge to repeal them:

As you know, Democrats have produced historic legislation in the area of health care, veterans' benefits, women's rights, Wall Street reform, and cutting taxes for 95 percent of the American people and millions of small businesses. And we have restored fiscal discipline to the Congress by making the deficit-cutting Pay As You Go rules the law of the land.

These accomplishments have begun the difficult work of recovering from the worst economic collapse since the 1930s and, according to independent reviews, prevented our country from plunging into another Great Depression. As a result, numerous congressional experts call this the most productive Congress in a half century. This was only possible because our Members had the courage of their convictions and put the interests of the Country first.

Our work is far from finished. As a result of Tuesday's election, the role of Democrats in the 112th Congress will change, but our commitment to serving the American people will not. We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back. It is my hope that we can work in a bipartisan way to create jobs and strengthen the middle class.

Many of our colleagues have called with their recommendations on how to continue our fight for the middle class, and have encouraged me to run for House Democratic Leader. Based on those discussions, and driven by the urgency of protecting health care reform, Wall Street reform, and Social Security and Medicare, I have decided to run.

Translation: The GOP is rolling back this Congress's accomplishments over my dead political body.

Of course, while this will galvanize the Dem base like nothing else, it will also fire up the GOP base, too, and touch off another round of recriminations, finger pointing and angst from moderate Dems. And you thought things would slow down after the election.

Nancy Pelosi Tweets that she's running:

Driven by the urgency of creating jobs & protecting #hcr, #wsr, Social Security & Medicare, I am running for Dem Leader.

With moderate Dems howling in terror of a Pelosi candidacy, this will embolden the progressive wing, which is already sensing growing power in the wake of the disastrous losses among Blue Dog Dems, to pressure Obama against being overly conciliatory with the House GOP majority. It will crank up the heat even further on the tensions between moderate and liberal Dems as the debate smoulders over the future direction of the party.

Pelosi is refusing to exit the stage of history quietly. Very interesting move indeed.

UPDATE, 1:22 p.m.: The Progressive Change Campaign Committee hails the move, suggesting her candidacy could be salutary for the party by galvanizing a dispirited base:

"Speaker Pelosi's decision to run for leader is the first bold move we've seen from Democrats since the election, America is better off as a result, and we hope there's more bold Democratic leadership to come. Democrats lost on Tuesday because of Blue Dogs and others who urged Democrats to not fight for popular progressive change -- and the way to re-inspire former Obama voters is to have progressives like Nancy Pelosi boldly fighting the fight."

Many commentators have responded to Tuesday's bloodbath by arguing that Obama now needs to "pull a Clinton." This appears to mean that in order to engineer his comeback, he needs to tack to the middle the way Clinton did with welfare reform and school uniforms, and maneuver GOP leaders into betraying their extremism.

But on a conference call with reporters, two top Dem thinkers made a counter-intuitive case: Clinton's comeback, they argued, was also driven by his success in persuading struggling voters that he was "on their side," by drawing bright lines in defense of popular programs like Medicare and Social Security, and clearly articulating an expansive vision on the economy. "Pulling a Clinton" is as much about populism as it is about centrism.

On the call, Dem pollster Stan Greenberg unveiled a post-election poll designed to show that -- despite the public's deep dissatisfaction with Dems on the economy -- there's no mandate for conservative economic ideas. The poll, he said, shows the public is still receptive to an expansive government role in job creation -- provided it's articulated better than Dems did this year -- particularly on infrastructure spending and reviving manufacturing.

For instance: Greenberg tested messages asking 2010 voters whether they could support Congressional action to rebuild infrastructure via a National Infrastructure Bank that would use public and private money. He also asked whether they'd support Congressional action to "launch a five year strategy to revive manufacturing in America, providing companies incentives to make it in America" and "ending tax breaks that reward moving jobs abroad." Both had solid majority support.

Greenberg also tested various GOP and Dem messages on how to deal with the deficit. A majority supported ending the high-end Bush tax cuts, while only a bit more than a third supported huge cuts in domestic programs, raising the retirement age for Social Security, and turning Medicare into a voucher program.

This suggests a new way to "pull a Clinton," the Dem thinkers suggested: Draw bright lines against the GOP on popular programs, and lay out proposals for a clear, expansive role for government in job creation, and dare Republicans to kill them.

Adam Serwer is a staff writer with The American Prospect, where he writes his own blog.

As Greg pointed out yesterday, the White House has been indicating a willingness to "compromise" with Republicans on the Bush tax cuts, making them permanent for those making more than $250,000 a year.

Notwithstanding Speaker-elect John Boehner and House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's supposed commitment to deficit reduction, what they've committed to here is Keynesian stimulus in the form of tax cuts. The Democrats' preferred path would reduce the deficit, the Republicans' approach would increase it.  As with Boehner's preestablished commitment to more spending on Medicare, political parties put rewarding their constituencies -- in the GOP's case rich people and old people -- above ideology. This is political science 101.

While liberals would prefer to see a fight over extending them only for those making less than $250,000, the administration likely does not want them both to expire allowing Republicans to claim falsely that Obama actually raised taxes. The advantage here is that Republicans could be portrayed as holding middle-class tax cuts hostage to tax cuts for the rich. Might as well show the country that Democrats aren't just whinier Republicans. But given the Democrats' anemic messaging and the poor economy I'd be surprised if it worked out that way.

Last year the president signed a giant tax cut that no one remembers. There must be some temptation in the White House to capitulate knowing that if all the tax cuts are made permanent, the GOP will never let anyone forget that they cut taxes, meaning that this time the administration might actually get credit for them. It would also grant the administration its first major bipartisan accomplishment.

Still, the only thing that matters is the economy. If unemployment is under 8 percent by 2012, Obama could reveal himself to be an advance scout planning a Romulan invasion of Earth and still get reelected. The GOP knows that, which is why, given the logic of their behavior so far, it makes sense for them to say they want to extend all the tax cuts while not actually doing so.

As Jonathan Chait points out, anything the president passes with Republican help will make him more popular. The GOP's desire to put more money in rich people's pockets is in conflict with their stated interest in making Obama a one-term president. Which is why we ultimately may not see anything happen even if Obama gives them whatever they want.

Even if Obama "capitulates" on the tax cuts, then, he wins. The middle class doesn't win. The economy won't be strengthened. But Obama wins, which, from his perspective, makes it worth "losing" this fight. And that's political science 101, too.

* Tea Party to House GOP: Repeal health reform, or we'll stamp our feet and get really, really mad: Ruh roh. In a "confidential" memo to be distributed to House Republicans, chest-thumping Tea Party chieftain Dick Armey lays down the law, saying that repeal is "non-negotiable" and that failure on this front risks "rejection by the voters in 2012."

Key takeaway: Self-declared Tea Party leaders have no intention of being constrained by reality in their expectations of the new GOP House majority.

* No compromise on Bush tax cuts: Jackie Calmes reports that Republicans will not accept a compromise in which the high end cuts would be extended temporarily while the middle class ones would be made permanent. They all must be extended for the same amount of time.

This would allow Republicans to avoid having to undertake the politically difficult task of only extending the tax cuts for the rich later.

* Joe Klein: Mitch McConnell is "vile and graceless": The Time columnist marvels at McConnell's taunting of Obama. The continued "one term president" broadside is, at bottom, all about making Obama look even more weakened by Tuesday's results. Also: Keep an eye on the lack of a concerted Dem response.

* All that secret cash swirls down the drain in Washington state: Senator Patty Murray, as expected, declared victory last night, and the DSCC crows:

Republican third-party groups spent $7 million in their unsuccessful attempt to defeat Senator Murray including $3.4 million from Karl Rove's Crossroad GPS.

* Obama admits error: In an interview with CBS News, the president concedes his failure to communicate:

"I think that, over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that, we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation. That it's a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone."

Of course, his critics won't see this as a concession at all, since he only conceded a failure to sell his agenda, rather than a fundamental public rejection of it.

* A classy sendoff for Nancy Pelosi: Good read from Eugene Robinson, who hits all the right notes: The "San Francisco liberal" caricature is pure B.S.; she was only demonized because she was so effective; she did the right thing and accepted the consequences.

* Pelosi for minority leader? The next frontier for progressives: Getting her elected as a rebuke to the moderates and the Blue Dogs.

* Raul Grijalva hangs on: CNN calls it for the Arizona Congressman, who was a major voice articulating liberal priorities in the House over the last two years.

* And: Grijalva vows to keep on keepin' on, asserting that the House progressive caucus will block any efforts by Obama to be overly conciliatory to the new GOP majority.

* Why Harry Reid survived while so many other Dems perished: Ronald Brownstein maps out how badly Dems got shellacked among heartland whites -- an ominous outcome with potentially far-reaching implications.

Also: He notes that Sharron Angle's race-baiting immigration ads are what helped Reid build a non-white coalition to offset those losses.

* It was liberal apathy and job loss, stupid: Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin dig deep into the demographics to make the case that the elections were not an endorsement of the conservative agenda.

* Takedown of the day: Paul Krugman rips Even Bayh for his meaningless platitude that we should have "focused" on the economy and not health care:

The whole focus on "focus" is, as I see it, an act of intellectual cowardice -- a way to criticize President Obama's record without explaining what you would have done differently.

* And a special bonus takedown of the day: Michael Gerson on how "the GOP's Sarah Palin problem" cost the party key Senate races and could muck things up badly in 2012.

Also: Gerson rips Palin's "odd mix of Tea Party Jacobinism and feminist grievance" and, crucially, notes her complete indifference to the GOP's fortunes. The GOP establishment seems to have concluded that it's all about her, and that this is a major problem that isn't going away.

What else is happening?

* GOP leaders have renewed their vow to repeal health reform, but a new Post analysis finds their chances of actually doing this are slim to none, though they can still gum up the works with a bit of creativity.

* Robert Gibbs dismisses the idea that GOP leaders will be able to get their repeal pledge anywhere near Obama's veto pen.

* Interesting read: Jonathan Bernstein says Dem chances in 2012 may turn partly on whether they can avoid getting into a serious funk about last Tuesday. Good luck with that!

* There is no chance whatsoever, zip, zilch, nada, that Howard Dean will primary Obama.

* Check out this very useful guide to the incoming members of Congress, with profiles of the newcomers that are full of useful info.

* Steve Benen flags a really interesting moment from Mitch McConnell's speech today: He attacked, of all things, the bailout of the auto industry, which is widely seen as a success.

* Jay Newton-Small assures us that John Boehner is keenly aware of the perils of overreach and that he's no bomb-throwing Gingrich type, though the new Tea Party caucus is going to do all it can to make sure he does overreach.

* But Boehner did go out and throw some bombs at Dems today, claiming that they're "in denial" about the meaning of the elections. Keep an eye on how aggressively Dems respond.

* With the 2012 cycle shaping up as a very dangerous one for Senate Dems, is it time to bring Chuck Schumer back as DSCC chair?

* Tuesday was a very good day for neocons who take pleasure in falsely smearing Dems as anti-Israel.

* A Soros in every liberal pot: Big Journalism falsely claims George Soros funds Talking Points Memo. Seeing Soros's shadow everywhere really does wonders for the credibility of Breitbart's empire, which is already doing so well in the wake of the Shirley Sherrod and ABC News fiascos,

* And Sarah Palin's "morning in America" video actually features footage of a sunset in reverse.

What else is happening?