Early on in his jobs speech to Congress this week, President Obama made the case for infrastructure. “Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us a economic superpower,” Obama said, adding, “And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America?”

To drive the point home, the president noted some specific examples: “There are private construction companies all across America just waiting to get to work. There’s a bridge that needs repair between Ohio and Kentucky that’s on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America.”

Hmm, Ohio and Kentucky. Why do those states seem familiar? Perhaps because they’re home to the two most powerful Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill. This may have been a coincidence — Obama have just been referring to an area where repairs are sorely needed — and it may have been an attempt to remind GOP leaders that this is an issue that should matter to them, because it sure matters to their constituents.

With this in mind, Travis Waldron and Tanya Somanader had a good piece yesterday, noting that Republicans traditionally supported needed infrastructure improvements, and relied on Bureau of Transportation Statistics to show that Republicans still should.

[The] Republican leadership has continually blocked efforts by Obama and Congressional Democrats to invest in infrastructure improvements, and as a result, bridges and roadways in their states are crumbling. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, about 12 percent of the nation’s bridges are considered “structurally deficient,” the same rating given to the Minneapolis bridge that collapsed in 2007, killing 13 people. Roughly another 12 percent are considered “functionally obsolete.”

In four of the five states represented by Republican congressional leadership, the rate of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges outpaces the national average.

In John Boehner’s home state of Ohio, 27% of the bridges are either “structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.” In Mitch McConnell’s Kentucky, it’s 34%. California, home to House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, has a whopping 976 structurally deficient bridges — and 24 of them are in McCarthy’s district.

Since early 2009, Republican opposition to infrastructure investments has been unyielding. In some cases, we’ve even seen GOP leaders denounce projects they used to support. It’s hard to say what’s motivating the opposition — maybe Republicans believe the public investments will do too much to help the economy? — but at a practical level, it doesn’t much matter. Our crumbling infrastructure needs attention, and GOP officials generally don’t seem to care. There’s free money sitting on the table, ready to be put to good use, Republicans don’t care about that, either.

Perhaps pointing to the problems in their own states and districts will help change their minds? Or is saying no to Obama even more important than improving structurally deficient infrastructure for their own constituents?

Postscript: On a related note, Kevin Drum had a compelling piece this week on his trillion-dollar infrastructure plan, inteded “to make us into a first-world country again.” Good stuff.

Second Update: Reader F.B. reminds me there’s a strong argument that infrastructure investment, right now as opposed to years from now, is the fiscally responsible thing to do.

This week, the God Machine takes a look at a growing uproar among religious conservatives over a 9/11 remembrance event tomorrow at Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan.

The second Sunday after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, New York clergy members of many faiths joined elected officials at Yankee Stadium in a city-sponsored memorial ceremony that melded the sacred and the secular, replete with flags, prayers and tears.

Ten years later, any consensus that existed about the appropriate role of religion in public ceremonies marking a monumental American trauma has fallen apart.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has come under attack by some religious and political leaders for not including clergy members as speakers at Sunday’s official ceremony at ground zero on the 10th anniversary of the attacks.

Religious right groups, the Congressional Prayer Caucus, and Fox News have been pretty worked up about this — one Fox News personality seriously argued that a secular service would be “a victory for the terrorists” — but Bloomberg, to his credit, hasn’t budged.

To appreciate why, note that an interfaith prayer service planned for Washington tomorrow did not include a Southern Baptist or other evangelical minister, sparking outrage from evangelical Christian leaders. Inviting one, evangelicals said, should mean inviting all.

Had Bloomberg invited pastors from some faiths to the official ceremony, others would want to know why they were excluded from an event intended to honor victims from a wide variety of backgrounds.

Don Byrd of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty seemed to have the appropriate response: “While a non-sectarian prayer delivered at the event would surely be constitutionally acceptable and appropriate for the event, it is by no means required. Conservative activists who suddenly this year are excited by this decision are mistaken in suggesting it represents some betrayal of duty. Staying away from official prayer — I’m sure there will still be a moment of silence for reflection and prayer by anyone who wishes to pray — avoids all the problems such prayer brings: who will speak? which religious perspectives will be represented? if a distinctly denominational prayer is offered, why wouldn’t followers of other faiths be offended? After all, adherents of many, many faiths were killed on September 11. Is the proper national response necessarily Christian? Why would that be?”

That strikes me as a very good question.

I generally prefer to pretend that Dick Morris doesn’t exist, but reader S.H. noticed an interesting claim in the sleazy conservative’s latest print column.

Morris, of course, was trying to make the argument that President Obama’s policies have been “disastrous,” and points to the latest job numbers to bolster his case.

Buried within the data [published last week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics] is a micro-statistic symptomatic of what is happening in all sectors of the economy. In August, the economy lost 30,000 healthcare jobs, a drop from its recent monthly increments of 10,000 to 15,000 and well down from historical norms of 30,000 new healthcare jobs each month.

Why should healthcare jobs be down? … It is simply because the industry is traumatized and terrified by the impact of ObamaCare.

Now, even on face value, this argument is just foolish. Drawing sweeping conclusions about a law based on one month’s job numbers is lazy thinking, especially since full implementation of the law is still a few years away.

And if this were the only flaw in Morris’ argument, it would hardly be worth mentioning. But there’s an even more hilarious problem with Morris’ piece: he can’t read.

Here’s the latest jobs report from the Labor Department, which Morris used as the basis for his entire column.

Health care employment rose by 30,000 in August. Ambulatory health care services and hospitals added 18,000 and 8,000 jobs, respectively. Over the past 12 months, health care employment has grown by 306,000. [emphasis added]

That’s right, Dick Morris wrote an entire column based on the belief that the health care industry lost 30,000 jobs in August. The report he relied on actually said the health care industry gained 30,000 jobs in August. Morris’ case isn’t just lazy and unserious; it’s backwards.

Morris argues that the only logical conclusion to draw is that the Affordable Care Act is a disaster because the industry isn’t adding 30,000 jobs a month. But it is. It says right there in the black-and-white text: “Health care employment rose by 30,000 in August.” The very report Morris uses as evidence to prove his point is the same report that makes his own column look like a ridiculous lie.

Remember, Morris’ observation, which was the opposite of the truth, was the basis for his entire condemnation of the Obama administration. By his own reasoning, the Affordable Care Act would necessarily have to be deemed a great success, since the health care industry is one of the fastest growing industries for job creation in the nation.

Don’t go away mad, Dick. Just go away.

The flap over the scheduling of President Obama’s jobs speech has largely faded from view, but my friend Elon Green emailed yesterday with an interesting question: did Republicans screw this up?

“I wonder, does the GOP regret forcing the WH to move the date of Obama’s speech? Just imagine if he’d given it the night of the GOP debate. The next day, he’d be splitting the news cycle with Perry and Romney. Now, of course, he’s monopolizing it to the point where even a possible attack on NY isn’t crowding him out.”

The more I think about this, the more I think Elon has raised a good point.

When the White House requested Wednesday night for the jobs speech, the House Republican leadership came up with a bizarre rationale for a delay: there would have to be a lengthy security sweep of the House chamber, and some votes were scheduled for Wednesday afternoon. As it turns out, those votes were two symbolic measures: allowing the Capitol Grounds to be used for a Special Olympics torch run and congratulating a Little League World Series team from North Carolina. These votes, obviously, could have been scheduled anytime.

Of course, we know why GOP leaders wanted the president to move his speech: it was going to conflict with the debate for the Republican presidential candidates. The White House didn’t care, so it accepted Thursday.

But consider Elon’s point: if Obama and the GOP candidates had shared the night, they would have shared the coverage and next-day chatter. Instead, yesterday’s coverage was all about Obama, the American Jobs Act, and the president taking his case on the road with a speech in Richmond. Wouldn’t Republicans have been better off sharing the spotlight?

One could make the argument that Perry, Romney, et al, would have looked even worse had they shared the night with President Obama — he looked big; they looked small. But the truth is, they looked small anyway. Indeed, the eventual contrast wasn’t exactly helpful to the GOP — on Wednesday night, the Republican frontrunner heard applause for executing people; on Thursday night, the president heard applause for demanding job creation.

If they had it to do over again, would Boehner & Co. have taken the White House’s original offer? I bet they would.

As you may have heard, it was another unpleasant day on Wall Street yesterday, with all of the major indexes falling. From a political perspective, consider how some news outlets covered the story — and connected the drop to President Obama.

Fox Nation ran this headline: “Stocks Tumble Worldwide After Obama Speech.” Drudge showed a Dow Jones chart with the headline: “Jobs Plan Tanks.” Politico’s front-page headline told readers: “Markets plunge after Obama speech.”

In fairness, the Politico article was slightly better than its ridiculous headline, but the larger point is the same: these outlets tried to draw a connection between the president’s jobs speech and the one-day drop on Wall Street. After all, Obama spoke on Thursday night, and stocks slipped on Friday morning, ergo, one caused the other.

The problem, of course, is that this isn’t even close to being accurate. We know why the major indexes fell yesterday.

The stock market tumbled again Friday as doubts about the ability of European leaders to address a spiraling debt crisis on the continent overshadowed President Obama’s new proposal to spur U.S. job creation. […]

Juergen Stark, a member of the European Central Bank’s executive board, resigned Friday after raising internal opposition to the bank’s efforts to contain the continent’s debt crisis. In recent weeks, the ECB has been buying large quantities of Italian and Spanish bonds in an effort to prevent borrowing costs for those countries — two of Europe’s largest economies — from spiking to prohibitive levels. […]

Meanwhile, rumors were rampant in financial markets Friday that Greece could default on its debt as early as this weekend.

To suggest to U.S. news consumers that markets were reacting to the president’s jobs speech is absurd, even for conservative media outlets.

That said, it’s probably worth noting that investors may have been bolstered, at least a little, if they thought the American political system were still capable of functioning responsibly, and if the American Jobs Act had a realistic shot of overcoming Republican opposition. In other words, if Wall Street had confidence that Washington could give the economy a boost, the selloff may have been far less severe — but that confidence doesn’t exist.

Remind me: whose fault is that?

Today’s edition of quick hits:

* Terror threat: “Federal and local officials tightened security Friday in New York and Washington as investigators probed a possible al-Qaeda plot to detonate a vehicle-borne bomb around Sunday’s 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. After U.S. officials received word of what they called a credible but unconfirmed threat to use a car bomb in New York or Washington, police and other law enforcement agents in the two cities stepped up checks of bridges, tunnels, airports, bus and rail terminals and other sites.”

* Europe: “Stocks tumbled more than 2 percent on Friday after the top German official at the European Central Bank resigned in protest of the bank’s bond-buying program, which has been a major tool in fighting the region’s debt crisis.”

* Libya: “Libyan rebels attacked the loyalist holdouts of Bani Walid and Surt on Friday night, a day before their own deadline for the surrender of those cities took effect.”

* Disaster aid: “Revising its numbers higher, the White House asked Congress on Friday for an additional $5.1 billion in disaster aid over the next 13 months beyond President Barack Obama’s earlier budget requests. The immediate impetus is the damage wrought by Hurricane Irene along the East Coast, but the cash problems of the Federal Emergency Management Agency have been building for months given the spate of devastating tornadoes and flooding in the Midwest and South this year.”

* Labor: “AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka hasn’t been shy in recent weeks about speaking out against President Obama’s willingness to compromise with Republicans … but last night he seemed elated over Obama’s jobs plan and his pledge to ‘go to the mat’ for workers.”

* Quietly increasing the debt limit: “In a 45 to 52 vote on Thursday night, the Senate failed to advance a resolution that would have disapproved of a pending $500 billion increase in the nation’s debt ceiling.”

* Congress manages to pass a bill: “Congress on Thursday passed legislation that will reform the U.S. patent system for the first time since the Truman administration. In an 89-9 vote, the Senate overwhelmingly agreed to accept the bill, dubbed the America Invents Act. It passed through the House in March with a similarly lopsided 304-117 vote.”

* Support for community colleges is very much a part of the White House’s economic plan.

* And yes, it’s hard not to like sweet pictures of the president and kids.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

A couple of readers asked this afternoon about the unofficial Republican response last night, delivered by none other than Michele Bachmann. There’s a very good reason I haven’t mentioned it today: I forgot it existed.

For whatever reason, the congressional GOP decided it didn’t want to deliver an official response to President Obama’s jobs speech, which was probably a pretty good strategy. But the right-wing Minnesotan, who annoyed Republican leaders with her own freelance State of the Union response earlier this year, announced late yesterday that she wanted to weigh in after the president’s joint session speech.

In case it wasn’t already obvious that Bachmann’s schtick has worn thin, the GOP presidential hopeful — who just three weeks ago looked like she might actually compete for the nomination — spoke in a Capitol Hill studio to a small audience. How many networks covered her remarks live? None. Bachmann spoke for a little while, took a few questions, and left.

Reclaiming the momentum this wasn’t.

As if this wasn’t quite enough, Bachmann used her time to complain that President Obama was mean to Congress.

In his speech, the president said, “The people of this country work hard to meet their responsibilities. The question tonight is whether we’ll meet ours. The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy. The question is whether we can restore some of the fairness and security that has defined this nation since our beginning.”

Bachmann apparently found this offensive.

Did you catch it? Bachmann said contained in that early paragraph was a direct attack on the fine men and women of the House.

“It was interesting to me that if you look at the president’s remarks, almost out of the gate, the president began by insulting members of Congress,” she said. “He invited them to be a part of this address this evening…. And yet he began with an insult — for a circus tent.”

“That isn’t what this is. I don’t consider the greatest, most deliberative body in the United States, the House of Representatives, a circus, a political circus,” Bachmann continued. “It isn’t at all.”

First, Obama didn’t call Congress, as an institution, a “political circus”; he was commenting on the larger dysfunction that’s plagued the political system of late.

Second, Obama would have been perfectly justified if he had criticized Congress this way, because the institution has become farcical — thanks in part to ridiculous members like Michele Bachmann.

Third, I would love to do a poll, asking which of these two approaches is more appealing to the American mainstream: Obama’s call to “stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy,” or Bachmann’s insistence that Congress is a really terrific institution.

There was a line in President Obama’s jobs speech last night that probably went unnoticed by the vast majority of his audience — but which was of particular interest to us here at the Washington Monthly. This was the line:

“My administration can and will take some steps to improve our competitiveness on our own. For example, if you’re a small business owner who has a contract with the federal government, we’re going to make sure you get paid a lot faster than you do now.”

And why would that matter to the Monthly? Because this policy measure — taking action to help small businesses who do business with the federal government get paid faster — originates from our January issue.

Readers of the print edition may recall Jeffrey Leonard, CEO of the Global Environmental Fund, has a great piece on small businesses, which generated a fair amount of attention from the likes of Jon Alter, David Leonhardt, and even Stephen Colbert.

The piece included a few important angles, but chief among them was an idea to address a problem many small businesses face, but which hasn’t generated much in the way of attention: require companies with federal contracts pay their suppliers within 30 days of invoice. The shift would not only improve small business cash-flow, but would also help expand hiring.

Apparently, the suggestion worked its way to the White House, and is now part of the president’s new economic agenda. That’s good for the Monthly, but it’s also good for small businesses and the economy.

Last night, President Obama’s jobs speech was mainly directed at challenging Congress, but towards the end, it included a public appeal: “I also ask every American who agrees to lift your voice and tell the people who are gathered here tonight that you want action now. Tell Washington that doing nothing is not an option.”

The president took his message to the University of Richmond this morning, and again, aggressively pushed for public action.

For those who can’t watch clips online, the video shows the final three minutes of a half-hour speech, during which Obama urges the public to get engaged.

Here’s a transcript of the relevant portion:

“So I’m asking all of you to lift up your voices, not just here in Richmond — anybody watching, listening, following online — I want you to call; I want you to email; I want you to tweet; I want you to fax; I want you to visit; I want you to facebook; send a carrier pigeon. I want you to tell your congressperson, the time for gridlock and games is over. The time for action is now. The time to create jobs is now.

“Pass this bill. If you want construction workers on the worksite — pass this bill. If you want teachers in the classroom — pass this bill. You want small business owners to hire new people — pass this bill. If you want veterans to get their fair share of opportunity that they helped create — pass this bill. If you want a tax break — pass this bill.

“Prove you will fight as hard for tax cuts for workers and middle-class people as you do for oil companies and rich folks. Pass this bill. Let’s get something done.

“We are not a people that just look and watch and wait to see what happens. We’re Americans. We make things happen. We’re tougher than these times. We are bigger than the smallness of our politics. We are patriots and we are pioneers, and innovators and entrepreneurs, who through individual effort and through a common commitment to one another will build an economy that is once again the engine and the envy of the world. And we will write our own destiny. It’s within our power. But we’ve got to seize the moment.”

For what it’s worth, my sense is the president is entirely sincere about this. Obama genuinely seems to believe an engaged electorate, fighting for a just cause, can persuade recalcitrant congressional Republicans to do the right thing — not because they want to, but because the public will tolerate nothing less.

I am, alas, skeptical. It strikes me as far-fetched to think frustrated, disillusioned Americans will get engaged in large numbers, and it’s even harder for me to believe Republicans will care.

That said, GOP leaders care deeply about the polls, and are desperate to do well in 2012. The president apparently hopes to use the American public to give him the leverage he’ll need to boost the economy. It’s a long-shot, but I wish him well.

About a month ago, Drew Westen, an Emory psychology professor, had a fairly long, much-discussed New York Times piece that strongly resonated with many of President Obama’s liberal detractors. It also generated a fair amount of criticism from, among others, me.

Westen continues to defend his premise, though, and wrote another lengthy piece for CNN. Jonathan Bernstein notes a few of the problems with Westen’s latest effort, but there was a separate flaw that caught my eye.

…George W. Bush pushed through virtually every piece of legislation he proposed without ever having more than 52 senators on his side of the aisle. Like most modern presidents, Bush simply appealed over the heads of members of Congress if they wouldn’t move.

Obama’s apologists never address why Democrats require 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation, but Republicans require only 51 — 50 in the case of the disastrous tax cuts that bankrupted our Treasury in the first place, without which we would never have had a trumped-up budget crisis.

It’s hard to overstate how wrong this is, and only reinforces the larger concerns about Westen’s thesis.

First, the notion that Congress approved “virtually every piece of legislation” Bush proposed isn’t even close to being accurate. The failed former president had a handful of legislative accomplishments — most notably, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and the creation of a new cabinet agency — but these successes were largely on Democratic issues, expanded government, and came after the White House made all kinds of compromises (the kind of compromises Westen now believes Obama shouldn’t be making, and wouldn’t have to make if he told better “stories”). What’s more, they came in Bush’s first term, which was followed by an accomplishment-free second term. To argue that Bush batted 1.000 with Congress is silly.

Second, the idea that Bush racked up this non-existent record of accomplishments by occasionally appealing to the public when Congress balked is simply untrue. The only meaningful policy initiative Bush took to the electorate to rally support was his plan to privatize Social Security. If memory serves, the effort didn’t go well.

Third, as striking as this may seem, I get the sense Drew Westen is writing lengthy pieces for major media outlets about the presidency and the legislative process without understanding the basics of the reconciliation process. Look at that pulled quote again: “Obama’s apologists” can’t explain why Bush passed his failed tax policy with a simple majority, but Obama can’t do anything in the Senate unless measures get 60 votes.

Actually, “Obama’s apologists,” along with everyone else who understands the process, “address” this fairly easily. Bush and his Republican allies passed tax cuts through reconciliation — which meant the proposals couldn’t be filibustered. The end.

There are a variety of other problems with Westen’s latest piece, some of which Jon Chait flagged yesterday, but at this point, it’s increasingly difficult to take his critique seriously.

It’s pretty easy to game out what happens next when it comes to Washington and the economy. President Obama has presented the American Jobs Act and urged Congress to pass it. Republicans will say, “No.” The economy will struggle; the White House will accurately blame the GOP; Republicans will falsely blame Dems; and the media will foolishly blame everyone.

We can talk about the merits of the American Jobs Act, what it would do for the economy, and why the public likes it, but so long as (a) Republicans don’t want to act; and (b) Republicans really don’t want to hand Obama a victory, the political process is likely to spin its wheels.

In theory, if American politics still operated by traditional rules, the White House would try to overcome these hurdles by presenting a bipartisan plan, filled with ideas from both parties, to help expand the base of support. This no longer works — Republicans no longer support their own policies, at least not the ones Obama is inclined to go along with.

So, what’s the plan? The White House strategy appears to have two parts: persuasion and blame.

On the first, the president vowed last night to take his message “to every corner of this country,” and urged the public to contact lawmakers in support of the American Jobs Act. Obama made a similar pitch in Richmond this morning, staying very much on the offensive. The point is to try to move public opinion and change the political landscape.

Republicans don’t want to lift a finger to boost the economy? The White House hopes to create the conditions that won’t give the GOP much of a choice — the public demand would be so intense, inaction wouldn’t be a viable option. Republicans aren’t just opponents of the White House, the argument will go, they’re also opponents of an economic recovery.

On the second, the president has positioned himself as the one in Washington fighting for jobs. Republicans, according to the pitch, can either get on board or face the blame. As Jonathan Cohn noted this morning:

Then Obama has at least given the public a clear sense of who stands for what. And make no mistake: That’s a worthwhile endeavor. The approaching presidential election will offer voters stark choices about the country’s future. The best thing Obama can do — not only for the sake of his own candidacy but for the sake of the public discourse — is to make sure the voters understand those choices.

It’s probably worth noting that the GOP response was quite muted last night. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was cautious in his critique, saying the ideas presented by the president “merit consideration.” Similarly, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) added there are “things in the package that we both can agree on.” It’s extremely unlikely GOP leaders are sincere about any of this, but Republicans at least know not to help make Obama’s point for him — last night probably wasn’t the time for GOP officials to immediately refuse to even consider helping the economy.

But in the coming weeks, any semblance of success is still a long shot. I can imagine House Republicans approving some smaller, uncontroversial provisions and saying, “See? Look how responsible we are!” before balking at the most important measures. I can also imagine the House GOP passing a right-wing version of a jobs bill and then pretending to be outraged when the Senate and White House disapprove (see “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act”).

Can I imagine Boehner, Cantor, and Mitch McConnell actually working in good faith to approve an ambitious jobs bill, concluding that it would improve their own standing and make the wildly unpopular Republican Party look better and more mature? No, I really can’t — so long as these guys have a to-do list that ranks destroying the president and undermining faith in public institutions near the top, serious policymaking is probably impossible.

To my mind, it would take a dramatic shift in the polls, accompanied by a major public outcry, and the widespread perception that Republicans are now the Party of the Status Quo to change the equation. That means the White House and progressives in general have an enormous lift ahead of them.

I think they’re learning.

We’ve seen, on more than a few occasions, this White House negotiating poorly, entering a political fight by aiming low in the hopes that Republicans will be receptive. What happens, of course, is that GOP officials invariably hate the administration’s plan anyway, make far-right demands, and end up with a “compromise” that’s too far to the right because President Obama and his team started too far from the left.

With the American Jobs Act, the West Wing is, so far, playing it smarter. Greg Sargent flagged this interesting exchange this morning between MSNBC’s Chuck Todd and White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

For those who can’t watch videos online, the host told Pfeiffer, “So, the bill gets sent to Congress next week. Are you guys assuming that it gets sort of piecemealed, that at the end of the day you’re going to get some of what you want but not all of what you want?”

The typical response would be something like, “We’re willing to work on a compromise plan” or “We hope to find common ground.”

Instead, the White House communications director said, “Well, no, we’re not assuming that. As the president said last night — he said it 16 times, I’ll say it a 17th here today — he wants them to pass the American Jobs Act. That’s the piece of legislation he’s sending up. It’s a simple thing. Puts the Americans back to work and puts more money in the pockets of working families. And so our belief is that everything in this bill is reasonable. Everything in the bill has bipartisan support. Everything will have an effect right now. And so we want them to pass it.”

Good for him. As Greg explained, “In the debt ceiling fight, the White House at first demanded a “clean” extension, only to quickly concede to the GOP demand that it be accompanied by spending cuts. In the days leading up to the construction of the Congressional deficit super-committee, Democrats immediately signaled an openness to negotiate on their core priorities, even as Republicans drew a hard line and said they wouldn’t budge on their principles. But this time — for now, at least — the usual dynamic seems to be reversed.”

Obviously, no one seriously expects Congress to simply take the American Jobs Act and pass it, word for word. If there were Democratic supermajorities in both chambers, that still wouldn’t happen, and in 2011, we see a House led by a radicalized Republican Party, and a dysfunctional Senate that blocks every bill of significance.

But when it comes to setting the stage for a fight, the White House finally seems to realize that firm stands lead to better results, and preemptive concessions don’t.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that won’t necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* The special election in New York’s 9th congressional district appears to be slipping away from Democrats. A new Siena poll, released this morning, shows Robert Turner (R) taking the lead over David Weprin (D), 50% to 44%.

* The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which hoped to win in New York’s 9th fairly easily, is now scrambling. The DCCC has made a $483,500 TV ad buy in the district.

* The National Republican Congressional Committee, which didn’t expect to win this special election and wasn’t willing to spend money there, is now “inquiring about buying advertising time on costly New York City broadcast television from now until the special election on Sept. 13.”

* Karl Rove’s attack operation, American Crossroads, has more than doubled its initial $120 million fundraising goal from earlier this year.

* Jon Huntsman’s presidential campaign, still struggling badly in the polls, is now changing his finance team and moving resources from Florida to New Hampshire. I don’t think it’s going to help.

* Speaking of Huntsman, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R), whose presidential endorsement will be widely sought, said yesterday she won’t even consider supporting Jon Huntsman.

* North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue (D) is still struggling in the polls, but her handling of the Hurricane Irene disaster has given her a boost with her constituents.

* Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says there is a “below zero” chance that she will launch a primary challenge in 2012.

* Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich told supporters last night, “I have people tell me on a regular basis, ‘Gee, are you still running?’” That seems like a bad sign.

With the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks coming up this weekend, it’s not surprising that former President George W. Bush would be back in the news a bit, reflecting on his memories of the tragic day. But that’s no excuse for falsely claiming credit he doesn’t deserve.

Bush said the events that led to the death of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May began during his administration.

“The work that was done by intelligence communities during my presidency was part of putting together the puzzle that enabled us to see the full picture of how bin Laden was communicating and eventually where he was hiding,” he said. “It began the day after 9/11.”

I can understand why Bush would push the argument, but it’s misleading. Sure, there were important post-9/11 reforms that improved U.S. officials’ capacity to acquire and act on intelligence, but when it comes to getting bin Laden, this is generally a subject the former president should try to avoid.

After all, in March 2002, just six months after 9/11, Bush said of bin Laden, “I truly am not that concerned about him…. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.”

In July 2006, we learned that the Bush administration closed its unit that had been hunting bin Laden.

In September 2006, Bush told Fred Barnes, one of his most sycophantic media allies, that an “emphasis on bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.”

And don’t even get me started on Bush’s failed strategy that allowed bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora.

I’m happy to extend plenty of credit to all kinds of officials throughout the government; the successful raid on the bin Laden compound was a team effort. But that doesn’t mean Bush should come around now, looking for a pat on the back.