Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry held a press conference this afternoon, following the unveiling of his ridiculous economic plan. A reporter started to ask the governor about his conspiracy theories involving President Obama’s birthplace. Perry was clearly annoyed.

For those who can’t watch videos online, the governor interrupted the reporter and said, “You know, I’ll cut you off right there. That is one of the biggest distractions that there is going. We need to be talking about jobs. Somebody wants to see my birth certificate, I’d be happy to show it to ‘em. But the fact is, that is a distraction, and Americans really don’t care about that, if you want to know the truth of the matter. What Americans want to talk about is jobs. Who is going to lay out a plan, which will get America working again.”

What in the world is Perry complaining about? Last week, the governor was the one who started this whole line of discussion, telling a reporter on the record he questions the legitimacy of the president’s birth certificate. Then, in an interview that aired just this morning, Perry went even further, adding, It’s fun to poke at [Obama] a little bit and say ‘Hey, how about let’s see your grades and your birth certificate.’”

Perry went on to say that this is “a good issue to keep alive.”

Now Perry has no use for this issue — the one he wanted to “keep alive” less than a day ago? The one he thinks is “fun”?

“That is one of the biggest distractions that there is going.” And whose bright idea was it to bring up this distraction in the first place?

Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) published a joint op-ed in the Wall Street Journal the other day, calling for new measures to make the legislative process more difficult. No, seriously, that’s what they said.

For two years in a row, the Democratic-led Senate has failed to adopt a budget as required by law. Meanwhile, our gross national debt has climbed to almost $15 trillion — as large as our entire economy. Our bill puts in place a 60-vote threshold before any appropriation bill can be moved through Congress — unless both houses have adopted a binding budget resolution.

We can certainly have a conversation about the breakdown in the budget-writing process, but let’s think about what Snowe and Sessions are proposing here: they want to make it harder for Congress to approve appropriations bills, regardless of the consequences.

Jamison Foser explained, “Republicans, including Sessions and Snowe, have filibustered even the most uncontroversial of measures — and that knee-jerk opposition to just about anything the Senate majority wants to do is a significant part of the reason why the Senate hasn’t adopted a budget. Now Sessions and Snowe cynically use that failure to justify structural changes that would make it harder for the Senate to pass any appropriations bills.”

Snowe and Sessions went on to call for additional “reforms” that would make it far more difficult for Congress to approve “emergency” spending without mandatory supermajorities, too, because they’re horrified by efforts to “spend money we don’t have,” which might “bankrupt the country.”

Of course, Snowe and Sessions see no need for mandatory supermajorities when it comes to tax cuts, alleged “bankruptcy” fears notwithstanding.

But in the larger picture, have you noticed just how far Olympia Snowe has fallen lately? Last week she demanded the administration act with “urgency” to address the jobs crisis, only to filibuster a popular jobs bill just one day later. A week earlier, Snowe prioritized tax cuts for millionaires over job creation. Just a couple of weeks earlier, Snowe tried to argue that government spending is “clearly … the problem” when it comes to the nation’s finances, which is a popular line among conservatives, despite being wrong.

It’s tempting to think the fear of a primary challenge is pushing Snowe to the far-right, but the truth is, the senator’s GOP opponents next year are barely even trying. She may fear a replay of the Castle-O’Donnell fight that played out in Delaware, but all indications are that Snowe really doesn’t have anything to worry about.

And yet, she’s become a shell of her former self, leading to this op-ed — written with a right-wing Alabama senator, no less — demanding that the dysfunctional Senate adopt new ideas that make it more difficult to pass necessary legislation.

There is some prime real estate in the political landscape for genuine GOP moderates who could have a significant impact. Instead, Congress has Olympia Snowe, who now bears no resemblance to the centrist she used to be.

If I had to guess, I’d say most mainstream voters in Maine have no idea of the extent to which Snowe has moved to the right, which is a shame. I wonder how those who supported her in the past would even recognize her anymore.

Gov. Romney, Republican voters booed a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq; are you comfortable with that? No comment.

Gov. Romney, Ohio Republicans are fighting to undermine collective-bargaining rights; do you agree with them? No comment.

Gov. Romney, your top rival for the Republican presidential nomination is questioning the president’s citizenship status; is this a legitimate subject for debate? No comment.

I thought it would be worth asking the campaigns of the two frontrunners — Herman Cain and Mitt Romney —for comment on [Rick Perry’s birther comments]. Are they willing to condemn it? After all, Romney has vouched for Obama’s U.S. citizenship in the past and has made Perry’s unelectability central to his campaign, and it seems likely that Perry’s flirtation with birtherism will fuel doubts about whether he has the gravity and temperament to be a good general election candidate.

No luck.

Both campaigns declined to address Perry’s comments. “We’ll pass,” Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon emailed. A Romney campaign spokesperson also declined comment.

Remember, this isn’t one of those 11th-Commandment-style dynamics; Romney criticizes Perry comments all the time. But when Perry dabbles in unhinged conspiracy theories, the Romney campaign prefers to remain silent.

Greg Sargent added, by the way, that some major players in the party — Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, Karl Rove, and others — have all said Perry’s comments were, at a minimum, out of line.

So where’s Romney as his top rival is taking heat from within the party?

There’s going to come a point next year when the Obama campaign is likely to say, “Mitt Romney lacks the courage and the character to be a leader.” And the criticism will sting because it’s based in fact.

Romney can end this talk very easily and demonstrate that he’s more than a craven empty suit. There are some basic yes-or-no questions — Do you condemn the booing of honorable American soldiers? Would you endorse Paul Ryan’s budget plan? Do you support public workers’ collective bargaining rights? — that the former governor could answer directly without looking for wiggle room and without a bunch of caveats to cling to later.

He just doesn’t seem to have the guts.

I imagine everyone has seen the bumper sticker that says, “Lord, protect us from your followers.” I have an idea for a related sticker that reads, “Republicans, protect us from your elected officials.”

In the existing political landscape, the real problem is not with GOP voters; it’s with GOP policymakers. This isn’t to let the party’s supporters off the hook entirely — they’re the ones who supported and elected the officeholders — but it’s hard to overstate how much more constructive the political process would be if Republican lawmakers in any way reflected the priorities of their own supporters.

Last week, a national poll found that Republican voters broadly support the Democratic jobs agenda — a payroll tax cut, jobs for teachers/first responders, infrastructure investments, and increased taxes on millionaires and billionaires — in some cases by wide margins. This week, Tim Noah noticed this observation can be applied even further.

I’m liking rank-and-file Republicans better and better. Earlier this month we learned that they favor Obama’s plan to tax the rich. Now we learn that a 55 percent majority of them think Wall Street bankers and brokers are “dishonest,” 69 percent think they’re “overpaid,” and 72 percent think they’re “greedy.” Fewer than half (47 percent) have an unfavorable view of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Thirty-three percent either favor them or have no opinion, and 20 percent haven’t heard of them. Also, a majority favor getting rid of the Electoral College and replacing it with a popular vote. After the 2000 election only 41 percent did. Now 53 percent do. How cool is that?

Every one of these positions puts the GOP rank-and-file at odds with their congressional leadership and field of presidential candidates.

I don’t want to exaggerate this too much. The fact remains that the Republican Party is dominated by conservative voters, especially those who participate in primaries and caucuses. I’m not suggesting for a moment that the party’s rank-and-file members are moving to the left.

But the recent poll results are also hard to miss — many if not most GOP voters are perfectly comfortable with plenty of progressive ideas, including tax increases on millionaires and billionaires. It’s starting to look like the party’s rank and file is made up of mainstream conservatives who want their party to help move the country forward.

And yet, when we look to Republican officials in Washington, how many GOP members of Congress are willing to endorse any of these popular measures? Zero. Literally, not even one Republican lawmaker has offered even tacit support for ideas that most GOP voters actually like. In the Senate, a united Republican caucus won’t even allow a vote — won’t even allow a debate — on popular job-creation ideas during a jobs crisis.

If the actions of GOP lawmakers in any way resembled the wishes of GOP voters, our political system wouldn’t be nearly as dysfunctional as it is now.

Congratulations, congressional Republicans. You’re far more extreme than your own supporters.

I can’t relate to Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) right-wing ideology on any level, any more than I can appreciate his love of Ayn Rand novels. But once in a while I’m reminded that the gap between the House Budget Committee chairman and those who appreciate reason goes well beyond political philosophy.

Consider this Ryan quote, flagged yesterday by Alan Pyke:

“Let’s review for a moment the path we are on, where we stand right now. It pains me to say this, but it’s become clear that the president has committed us to the current path: higher taxes, more dependency, more bureaucratic control, inaction on the drivers of our debt — just not even dealing with it — and painful austerity, the kind you see in Europe.”

I was going to write that I have no idea what Paul Ryan is talking about, but it’s far more accurate to say Paul Ryan has no idea what Paul Ryan is talking about.

To characterize President Obama’s “current path” as one featuring “higher taxes” is rather foolish, given that Obama has repeatedly cut taxes — even more than his conservative Republican predecessor did. To complain that Obama refuses to “deal with … the drivers of our debt” is even more bizarre, since the president offered congressional Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction plan (GOP leaders said it wasn’t right-wing enough), and in September, unveiled another, more sensible plan that would achieve $3.2 trillion in debt reduction. This isn’t “inaction” on the issue; it’s the opposite.

But it’s that last line from Ryan that stands out as truly ridiculous. The Republicans’ alleged budget wonk is warning against European-style “painful austerity”? This is just madness.

For months, GOP officials have been praising European-style austerity and demanding that U.S. policymakers follow Europe’s lead on this (except the parts in which Europe reduced their deficits by raising taxes). Now Ryan is warning against it?

More to the point, Ryan is the one pushing for austerity measures, as evidenced by his budget plan that slashed spending, specifically targeting programs that benefit working families, imposing widespread pain in the name of deficit reduction. It was a sham, of course — Ryan also wanted to cut taxes on the wealthy, which made his talk about fiscal responsibility look ridiculous — but he insisted that austerity was necessary to improve economic “confidence.”

And yet, here’s a speech in which Ryan complaining that the Obama White House has the nation on course for “painful austerity.”

Apparently, the House Budget Committee chairman would have us believe we have to accept an austerity agenda in order to avoid accepting an austerity agenda.

Pyke described this as “insane.” I’m very much inclined to agree.

Ohio voters will head to the polls in two weeks and will weigh in Gov. John Kasich’s (R) new law to cut state workers’ collective bargaining rights. Labor and its allies have reason to be optimistic about the vote on SB5 — a Quinnipiac poll released this morning found 57% of Ohioans support repealing the anti-worker law, while only 32% want the law left intact.

A successful repeal effort would be a triumph for unions, who began collecting petition signatures soon after Kasich signed the bill into law in March. Progressive activists quickly formed We Are Ohio and turned in nearly 1.3 million signatures to force the issue onto the November ballot. Kasich is trying to rally support for his SB5 law, but it’s not working — not only does the public oppose the attack on collective bargaining rights, but the governor’s own approval rating has slipped further to 36%.

Mitt Romney, meanwhile, stopped by a Republican campaign office in the state this morning to lend his support — sort of.

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney made a 45-minute visit to a Terrace Park Republican phone bank operation this morning, where volunteers have been making thousands of phone calls to voters urging yes votes on state issues 2 and 3.

But Romney, who would not speak to the media, told Ohio Republican Party chairman Kevin DeWine as he left the building on Wooster Pike in Terrace Park that he was not endorsing either Issue 2 — which would repeal the GOP backed bill that limit collective bargaining for public employees, or Issue 3, which would allow Ohioans to opt out of the mandatory health care coverage portion of the health care law passed by Democrats in Congress last year.

“I’m not saying anything one way or the other about the two ballot issues,” Romney told DeWine. “But I am supportive of the Republican party’s efforts here.”

CNN’s Peter Hamby called it an “incredible moment,” and that seems like a fair description.

Think about what transpired: the Republican presidential frontrunner visited with a Republican phone bank to offer support for the Republican campaign to curtail collective bargaining rights. But Romney refuses to take a position on the issue? He’s “supportive” of their efforts, but he won’t say whether or not he agrees with their efforts?

Seriously?

Putting aside party and ideology, it’s hard to shake the realization that Mitt Romney lacks a certain political courage. He’s so desperate to calculate how every decision might affect his ambitions that he struggles to remember what he believes, and either ends up cowardly ducking issues or taking both sides of nearly every fight. It can be hard to watch, and even harder to respect.

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:

* A new CBS News/New York Times poll shows Herman Cain leading the Republican presidential field at the national level with 25%, up eight points from early October and up 20 points since mid September. Mitt Romney is second with 21%.

* Rick Perry’s presidential campaign this morning began pressing Romney to make his tax returns public — a step Romney refused to take in all of his many previous attempts at public office.

* Perry will kick off his first televised campaign commercials this week, buying ad time in Iowa with 10 weeks to go before the caucuses.

* Perry has also hired Joe Allbaugh, the campaign manager for George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign, to serve as a senior adviser.

* Cain promised yesterday that, if elected, he would sign a constitutional amendment to prohibit abortions. Cain doesn’t realize that presidents cannot sign or veto constitutional amendments.

* Ron Paul’s latest money-bomb effort is going very well, with the congressman raising nearly $3 million in small donations over the five days for his strange presidential campaign.

* Cain and Newt Gingrich will get together for a Lincoln-Douglas style debate in Texas next month. I don’t know why.

* In Ohio, former state Sen. Kevin Coughlin (R) is ending his U.S. Senate campaign, all but assuring a race next year pitting State Treasurer Josh Mandel (R) against incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown (D).

* And in Florida, former Sen. George LeMieux (R), hoping to return to the chamber, announced yesterday he’d like to see college tuition rates become more expensive, not less. That ought to help deliver the youth vote, right?

When it comes to the so-called “super-committee” on Capitol Hill, it’s probably best to keep expectations low. Participants are reportedly trying to identify some kind of debt-reduction compromise, though the odds are against it.

If, however, the panel is going to strike some sort of deal, it seems likely lawmakers will look for significant cuts to Medicare. In a new piece in the print edition of the Washington Monthly, Philip Longman makes the case that the super-committee is looking at this all wrong. The editors’ summary of the story helps set the stage for an interesting piece:

While the partisan gap in Washington is wider than it’s been at any time in living memory, the two parties do have one remarkable agenda in common. Both have proposed cuts in Medicare so drastic that they would have been politically suicidal a decade ago — and may still be. Yet neither party is backing down.

We can be thankful that both sides are sane enough to recognize that the rising cost of healthcare, especially for Medicare, is what’s really driving long term deficits. But here’s the bad news: neither party has a clue how to substantially control costs without wrecking the institution of health care for seniors.

In an important essay in the November/December issue of the Washington Monthly, Phillip Longman tells Congress exactly what it needs to do to save billions and make seniors healthier: announce a day certain and near when Medicare will be out of the business of subsidizing profit-driven, fee-for-service medicine.

Instead, Longman argues, Medicare should contract exclusively with health care providers like the Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente, the Cleveland Clinic, or even the Veterans Health Administration — non-profit, managed care organizations that are renowned for both the high quality and the cost-effectiveness of their work. This track record is no accident: because doctors working at these institutions are not compensated on a fee-for-service basis, they are neither rewarded for performing unnecessary tests and surgeries nor penalized for keeping their patients well.

Industry resistance to such a plan would no doubt be fierce, and seniors are bound to resist changes to the status quo. But Longman’s solution would be far more palatable to older Americans than the Republicans’ proposed system of Medicare vouchers, which simply pass rising health care costs onto seniors, and the notion, suggested by deficit hawks in both parties, of raising the Medicare retirement age to 67. Moreover, unlike these other solutions, it would have the advantage of actually working to control the biggest single driver of federal spending and, at the same time, give Americans better health care in the bargain.

Read Longman’s story “The Cure.”

Last week, Mitt Romney accidentally became the pro-foreclosure candidate.

In a recorded interview with the editorial board of the Las Vegas Review-Journal — no area has been harder hit by this than Las Vegas — Romney was asked about the housing crisis, and the former governor argued that policymakers shouldn’t even try to help.

“Don’t try to stop the foreclosure process,” he said. “Let it run its course and hit the bottom.”

Even Nevada’s Republican governor, Brian Sandoval, said Romney doesn’t “fully understand” what’s going in in the state.

Democrats intend to make Romney pay a price for this one. The DNC has created RomneyHousingPlan.com to highlight the Republican frontrunner’s support for foreclosures; the party put together this web-only video last week, and Dems are launching this ad in Arizona this week, where the percentage of underwater homeowners is one of the highest in the nation.

The attack ad has the added benefit of being true.

In an odd twist, the Romney campaign sent out a press release yesterday, insisting the White House shouldn’t “wait for the housing crisis to run its course.”

So, just last week, Romney said policymakers should let the foreclosure problem “run its course.” This week, Romney is sending out press releases that accuse Obama of wanting to let the foreclosure problem “run its course.”

Does the Romney campaign even read its own materials? Does the former governor listen to his own comments?

The argument coincides with President Obama unveiling a new plan to allow struggling homeowners refinance and bring down their mortgage payments. In states hardest hit by the housing crisis — Nevada, Florida, Arizona, and others — the choice may come down to a candidate trying to stop foreclosures and a candidate who says, “Don’t try to stop the foreclosure process.”

Chris Cillizza noted this morning that Rick Perry “is trying to push the ‘reset’ button on a presidential campaign that has faltered badly after a strong start.” That’s clearly true — the Texas governor has a new economic plan, he recently gave a big energy policy speech, he’s hired a team of new advisers, and Perry appears eager to put the recent collapse of his political standing behind him.

But instead of talking about Perry’s comeback strategy, the governor is stepping all over his own message by peddling “Birther” nonsense — again.

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

Talking to CNBC’s John Harwood, Perry followed up on his questions about President Obama’s birthplace published in Parade over the weekend, rehashing the issue all over again. Perry told Harwood he’s “not worried” about the president’s birth certificate, but he nevertheless kept talking about it and Obama’s college transcript. “It’s fun,” Perry said, “to poke at him a little bit and say ‘Hey, how about let’s see your grades and your birth certificate.’”

Harwood gave Perry a chance to say he was kidding about all of this, but the governor wants to play both sides here — he’s calling it a “distractive” issue, while deliberately signaling to the right-wing conspiracy theorists that he’s sympathetic to their silliness.

Indeed, Perry said plainly that this is “a good issue to keep alive.”

In other words, there’s an actual strategy here. Perry wants the conspiracy theory to get some additional attention. Instead of having the political world spend the day talking about his economic agenda, he’s inviting observers to keep the Birther nonsense in mind instead.

This makes Perry look like a fool to sensible people everywhere, but all things considered, maybe he doesn’t mind — any serious look at Perry’s tax plan arguably makes him look even worse.

For the last couple of months, there’s been a lingering question about Herman Cain and the authenticity of his intentions. Does he really want to be president, or is this campaign little more than an vanity exercise, intended to help Cain sell books, charge more for speeches, and maybe get a media gig?

It would appear the question has been answered. The Cain “campaign” has released this video, featuring chief of staff Mark Block talking directly to the camera, urging supporters to get involved.

For those who can’t watch clips online, you’re missing out. The script isn’t especially important, because Block is generally just saying how great he thinks Herman Cain is (we learn, for example, that Cain will put the “united” back in the “United States of America”). What’s remarkable about the clip, though, is the visuals — bizarre camera work for 40 seconds, followed by several seconds of watching Block smoke a cigarette, followed by 10 seconds of Cain giving the camera a creepy smile.

In all sincerity, there’s no indication that this is a parody or meant to be amusing.

So, Cain’s a laughingstock, right? It would certainly appear that way, except he continues to take steps actual candidates take, including a new 50-state radio campaign, starting today.

As elaborate p.r. stunts go, this one is even bigger than Donald Trump’s silly political flirtation earlier this year.

In the absurd video, Block tells us, “America’s never seen a candidate like Herman Cain.” On this, he and I agree.

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry, desperate to get his flailing campaign back on track, has a new idea. He calls it “Cut, Balance and Grow” (not to be confused with “Cut, Cap, and Balance”), and presents his pitch in a Wall Street Journal op-ed this morning.

While Perry’s plan has some fairly dramatic flaws — it’s a comical right-wing fantasy, built on numbers that don’t add up — I’ll at least give him credit for thinking big. Some candidates would be content unveiling a ridiculous flat-tax proposal, but the Texas governor is pushing a ridiculous flat-tax proposal and a ridiculous plan for partial privatization of Social Security and a ridiculous effort to eliminate the Estate Tax and reducing the capital-gains tax to 0%.

But wait, there’s more. Perry also intends to repeal the entirety of the Affordable Care Act and remove safeguards from the financial industry and amend the U.S. Constitution to require balanced budgets and impose draconian caps on all federal spending.

How would Perry pay for all of these massive tax cuts? He doesn’t say. But don’t worry, the governor believes he can do all of this while also balancing the budget.

Is anyone really supposed to take this nonsense seriously?

I especially enjoyed Kevin Drum’s take.

What can you even say about this? It sounds less like a tax plan than a big ol’ stew pot of right-wing applause lines, all the way up to the inane insistence that eliminating the estate tax has nothing to do with rich people and is only designed to provide “needed certainty to American family farms and small businesses.” Should we laugh or cry? Perry has actually managed to combine two separate conservative memes (the estate tax is all about family farms, uncertainty is hobbling the economy) into one single sentence that makes even less sense than either of them separately. It’s hard not to be impressed.

I’d add, by the way, that the governor chatted with John Harwood about his plan, in an interview that aired this morning on CNBC. When Harwood noted that the plan looks like a massive giveaway to the rich, Perry replied, “I don’t care. I care about them having money to invest.”

In other words, Perry isn’t pretending about his intentions. The goal here is to identify those who already have the most money — and who are already getting richer all the time, consolidating an ever-growing percentage of the nation’s wealth — and shower these fortunate few with even more expansive tax breaks so they’ll have even more riches. Perry will try to pay for some of this by, of course, gutting measures that benefit working families.

This isn’t a tax policy. It’s a bad comedy.

One of the more dramatic drags on the national economy is the ongoing crises in the housing market, with 10 million Americans underwater, owing more on their home than it’s worth. The Obama administration took steps in 2009, including the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), which had a very limited effect.

Yesterday, President Obama unveiled a new, and almost certainly better, initiative as part of the White House’s “We Can’t Wait” campaign. The point to provide assistance to 1 million households, helping them refinance at today’s strikingly-low interest rates and lowering their mortgage payments.

There are, of course, concerns about the scope of the effort. It’s a modest program that won’t directly affect most of those underwater, and there are questions about exactly how much savings the typical participant will find. That said, the administration is also taking steps to improve the existing HARP to provide more options to the rest of the underwater population.

So, will the program help? For those participating, yes, possibly quite a bit. But the larger economic impact is limited because the economy needs a more substantial jolt. Passing the American Jobs Act would be far more significant, but congressional Republicans refuse.

Still, Brian Beutler reports there are some experts who see cause for cautious optimism.

“Under the restrung HARP, I expect an additional 1.05 million [refinancings] through the end of 2012 and 1.6 million [refinancings] through the end of 2013 when the program ends,” said Moody’s top economist Mark Zandi in an email. “While HARP won’t live up to the initial expectations of 4-5 million in refinancings, the program will ultimately provide a meaningful boost to the broader economy as financially stressed households will benefit from much lower mortgage payments. It will also provide a bit of help to the housing market by forestalling some mortgage defaults.”

“While I think this was a very positive step, it isn’t a magic bullet for the housing market and economy,” Zandi added. “Policymakers will thus very likely have to do more to support the housing market and economy.”

Paul Krugman pointed to this analysis from economist Joe Gagnon, who believes the positive impact of the policy may be even more significant.

And, of course, there’s the prospect of an indirect stimulative benefit. If struggling homeowners are able to bring down their monthly payments, they’ll have some additional money in their pocket — potentially, a few thousand dollars a year — that they can spend.

It’s a modest step, but at least it’s in the right direction. Coupled with other steps, we might even start to see some larger progress. It certainly beats watching Congress implode into an obstructionist mess.

Today’s edition of quick hits:

* Tunisia: “A moderate Islamic party appeared to emerge as the big winner in Tunisia on Monday as preliminary results leaked out in the voting for an assembly to draft a constitution and shape a new government in this small North African country, where a revolution in January inspired uprisings across the Arab world.”

* Libya: “Libya’s interim government, under mounting international pressure, said Monday it would investigate the death of Moammar Gaddafi, but authorities remained divided over what to do with the former leader’s decomposing corpse after four days of public viewing.”

* Syria: “Robert S. Ford, the American ambassador to Damascus who has emerged as an outspoken critic of Syria’s crackdown on a seven-month uprising, has left the country after receiving what American officials called threats to his safety.”

* Europe: “As European officials worked Monday to iron out details of a plan to save the euro, fears were growing that the end result might be another example of European leaders doing as little as they think they can get away with.”

* Deadly 7.2-magnitude earthquake devastates eastern Turkey. “The death toll has risen to 279, with another 1,300 injured, Turkey’s semi-official Anatolian news agency reported, citing the country’s disaster management authority. Some 970 buildings are demolished.”

* OWS faces an attack in Portland, Maine: “Occupy Maine protesters say Sunday morning’s attack with a chemical explosive has left them with a mixture of anxiety and resolve.”

* Sgt. 1st Class Kristoffer Domeij, a U.S. Army Ranger, was killed in combat in Afghanistan over the weekend. Domeij was serving in his 14th combat deployment. That’s not a typo.

* Bad move: “NPR will no longer distribute the member station-produced program “World of Opera” to about 60 stations across the country because the show host helped organize an ongoing Washington protest, a network official said Friday evening.”

* Jillian Rayfield reports on the most offensive highlights — or lowlights, as the case may be — of Pat Buchanan’s new book, “Suicide Of A Superpower.” Spoiler Alert: Buchanan prefers an America in which white Christian men control everything.

* And President Obama’s practice of reading 10 letters a day sent to the White House is a pretty fascinating habit. One thing I didn’t know: the president has occasionally written personal checks to correspondents who are facing dire financial straits.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.