On the Senate floor later this afternoon, the Democratic leadership brought forward a sensible jobs bill, which a Republican filibuster promptly killed.

The Dems’ plan deserved better. It was an infrastructure-investment bill — $50 billion in direct spending on transportation projects, $10 billion to get the National Infrastructure Bank up and running — which according to U.S. Department of Transportation estimates, would have created roughly 800,000 jobs. It was fully paid for — not a penny would have been added to the deficit — with a 0.7% surtax on millionaires and billionaires, representing just 0.2% of the population. Polls show broad, bipartisan support for the proposal.

But it didn’t matter. A 51-member majority backed the bill today, but that wasn’t enough to overcome a Republican filibuster. Note, GOP members not only blocked the bill, but also blocked the motion to proceed, preventing a debate on the bill. [Update: how many Republicans voted to kill this popular jobs bill? All of them. See below.]

Today, however, offers a bit of a twist. Instead of just killing popular and worthwhile jobs legislation, Senate Republicans will also get a vote on their alternative jobs package, intended to show that GOP leaders have something constructive to offer when it comes to job creation.

They apparently haven’t read their proposal if they think this is constructive.

The GOP’s legislation, in addition to providing some highway funding, would cut $40 billion in discretionary spending and implement a cockamamie House Republican proposal known as the REINS Act. As ThinkProgress Justice editor Ian Millhiser wrote, the REINS Act would cripple the government’s ability to regulate just about anything.

To call this a jobs bill is an insult to the language. Gutting the EPA is not a serious proposal to lower the unemployment rate.

The contrast between the two parties’ approaches couldn’t be more obvious. Dems offered a real policy, including provisions that have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support, and which polls show the American mainstream backing enthusiastically. Republicans offered a joke.

One party seems to take the jobs crisis seriously, and any media report that says otherwise — be on the lookout for pieces saying the Senate defeated “two jobs bills” today, as they were roughly equivalent — is misleading the public.

* Here’s the roll call on the Dems’ jobs bill. 47 Republicans, one independent (Lieberman), and one Democrat (Ben Nelson) voted to block the legislation, while 50 Democrats, one independent (Sanders), and no Republicans voted for it.

President Obama is on hand for today’s G-20 meeting, giving him a chance to connect with world leaders he’s gotten to know in recent years. This includes Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom Obama hugged, along with several other heads of state.

Turkey, however, has been at odds with Israel recently, which according to the Weekly Standard, makes Obama’s hug of Erdogan a problem. Daniel Halper believes the hug is part of some kind of nefarious campaign scheme — don’t ask; I don’t understand it either — while Michael Goldfarb sees the embrace as an example of Obama “hugging enemies, abandoning allies.”

Dan Drezner is amazed. (via Kevin Drum)

To be blunt about it, is Israel now America’s ally uber alles? If other countries disagree with Israel, does that mean, in Goldfarb’s eyes, that they no longer qualify as either friend or ally? Are there any other of America’s friends that fall into this super-special status? I really want to know.

For many on the right, I don’t think there’s much doubt that Israel is, in fact, America’s ally uber alles.

Consider a recent anecdote that flew largely under the radar. In September, Mitt Romney appeared on a right-wing radio show to discuss the Palestinian bid for United Nations statehood recognition. The Republican candidate said the United States should “reconsider our relationship” with any country that voted with Palestinians at the U.N.

In practical terms, that means Romney, who stands a reasonably good chance of getting elected president next year, would “reconsider” the United States’ relationship with a variety of longstanding U.S. allies — France, India, South Africa — because of their vote on a U.N. resolution recognizing Palestinians.

This did not cause a controversy — but Obama’s hug for the prime minister of Turkey generates complaints from conservatives.

America’s ally uber alles? Apparently so.

Might we see the return of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2013? She believes the pieces are in place.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that Democrats have a shot at taking back the House in 2012.

The former Speaker touted the diversity of the candidates the Democrats have recruited — “two generals, a colonel … legislators, small business people, mayors, many women and minorities” — and noted that the party, despite being the minority, has outraised the Republicans on the campaign trail this year.

“We have definitely put the House in play,” she said during her weekly press briefing in the Capitol.

“From a political standpoint, we’re very proud of the recruitment of candidates — all with the determination to take us off the path that the Republicans have put us on,” she said.

I’m a firm believer in the notion that predictions a year out are a bad idea, since so many factors can and will change, perhaps more than once. But Pelosi’s comments are more than just a boast; there’s reason to think she’s right.

House Dems, who need a net gain of 26 seats next year to take back the House (it will be 25 if Dems win the upcoming special election in Oregon), have fared quite well in recent months, finding success both in recruiting and fundraising.

And then there are the polls. Congress’ approval rating, as is well known, has dropped to a stunning 9% — the lowest since the dawn of modern polling. That, in and of itself, makes electoral volatility rather likely, raising the possibility of the majority and minority swapping roles.

But Dems also fare well in generic ballots. The latest polls from NBC, Reuters, and National Journal all show Americans preferring a Democratic House majority to a Republican one, in margins ranging from two points to eight. When TPM averaged all of the generic-ballot polls, it found Dems with their first lead in nearly two years.

What’s more, the House Majority PAC commissioned surveys from Public Policy Polling in 12 vulnerable Republican districts, and also found Dems looking quite strong.

Like I said, a year is a long time in campaign politics, and there are plenty of variables — retirements, economic conditions, potential scandals, etc. — that are unpredictable. But we know this Congress is extremely unpopular, that Republicans have cast several votes that can come back to haunt (eliminating Medicare, for example), and that Dems have positioned themselves reasonably well to take advantage of the opportunity.

NBC’s Luke Russert had a good question for Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) at his weekly press conference this morning: is Grover Norquist a positive influence on Republicans?

Boehner, apparently unwilling to answer, replied, “It’s not often I’m asked about some random person.”

The problem, of course, is that as far as the congressional GOP is concerned, Norquist isn’t some random person at all — he’s the guy who forces nearly every Republican candidate to sign an anti-tax pledge that, in turn, makes bipartisan attempts at governing practically impossible. The GOP can’t even bring itself to consider compromises because of the handcuffs he asked Republicans to put on.

But as interesting as that was, I actually cared more about an exchange between the Speaker and Dave Weigel at the same press conference.

I asked Boehner a sort of related question, keying off the one-year anniversary of the GOP’s midterm victory. One year in, what had been the impact of austerity and a spending-cut focus on jobs? The job market was stagnant.

“Well,” said Boehner, “I think the budget deficit and our debt serves as a wet blanket over our economy, and had investor concerned about whether we’re gonna deal with this problem. And that’s why getting this deficit and debt under control is so important — because it’ll lead to a better environment for job creation in our country.”

At a weekly presser on the Hill, it’s tough for reporters to seek more in-depth explanations of why leaders believe what they say they believe, but I’d love to see Boehner try to explain his worldview in more detail.

Why, exactly, does he think the deficit and debt are holding back the economy? That’s not to say it’s impossible — under some economic circumstances, a larger deficit can lead to higher interest rates, for example — but in 2011, Boehner’s argument is just absurd. The nation has a large deficit, but we also have low interest rates, low inflation, and plenty of investors around the world who are eager, if not desperate, to loan us money. So how in the world is the budget shortfall “serving as a wet blanket over our economy”?

What’s more, whether Boehner can read economic reports or not, the number one reason the private sector has been reluctant to hire and expand is a lack of demand. Indeed, nothing else comes close — when businesses have more customers, then they’ll hire more workers. Boehner wants “a better environment for job creation”? Then the Speaker should be doing everything possible to boost demand.

Except, he’s doing the opposite. Boehner wants to weaken demand — on purpose — while taking money out of the economy and undermining consumer buying power.

It’s why the larger debate over the economy is so stunted — GOP leaders like Boehner believe strange things and can’t explain why. It’s not exactly conducive to a constructive debate.

A few months ago, soon after the “corporations are people” flap, Mitt Romney made an effort to appear moderate on tax policy. “I don’t want to waste time trying to get tax cuts for wealthy people because frankly, wealthy people are doing just fine,” the Republican presidential candidate said at the time.

Yesterday, he pushed this line again in an interview with a local TV interview in Tampa. “The policies I put forward are tax cuts for the middle class,” Romney said. “I’m proposing no tax cuts for the rich.”

I can understand why Romney would make the claim; more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires isn’t exactly a winning issue when the vast majority of American voters want the exact opposite.

The problem, of course, is that Romney is either lying or he’s not familiar with his own proposals. Pat Garofalo said the candidate’s claim is “simply absurd on its face.”

His tax plan consists of $6.6 trillion in tax cuts, the vast majority of which goes to the wealthy and corporations. In fact, Romney dedicates an entire section of his economic plan to discussing elimination of the estate tax, which only the very richest households in the country ever have to pay (since, right now, an estate must be worth more than $5 million to pay any estate tax at all). Currently, more than half of the estate tax is paid by the richest 0.1 percent of households.

Meanwhile, Romney’s claim that his tax plan cuts taxes for the middle-class has little basis in reality. A ThinkProgress analysis found that the vast majority of middle-class households would get no benefit from Romney’s tax plan, since it’s based on a capital gains tax cut when most middle-class families have no capital gains.

That’s true, and we can go a little further. While Romney’s pitch is focused on “tax cuts for the middle class,” Romney has also said — repeatedly — that he considers it a “problem” that so many working families are not currently eligible to pay federal income taxes. Indeed, he recently told voters, “I think it’s a real problem when you have half of Americans, almost half of Americans, that are not paying income tax.” It’s a problem Romney intends to fix by raising taxes on those least able to afford it, while cutting taxes on those at the top.

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:

* Rick Perry, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, said he was not intoxicated or on prescription medication during his strange speech in New Hampshire yesterday. He characterized his performance as “animated.”

* Herman Cain conceded that he “may have misspoke” when he said China is “trying to develop nuclear capability.” He told the Daily Caller, “What I meant was China does not have the size of the nuclear capability that we have.”

* Rick Santorum this week completed a rare feat: he’s now visited each of Iowa’s 99 counties. It doesn’t appear to be helping — the last Des Moines Register poll found the former senator running seventh with just 5% support.

* A new Franklin and Marshall College poll in Pennsylvania shows President Obama with double-digit leads over all of his Republican opponents, though the percentage of undecided voters remains very high.

* In North Carolina, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Obama leading all of his GOP challengers except Romney, who leads the president by one point, 46% to 45%.

* In Maine, Sen. Olympia Snowe’s (R) shift to the right is helping win over Republican voters. The number of Maine Republicans who support the incumbent senator has jumped from 31% to 47%.

* In Texas’ U.S. Senate primary, featuring a crowded GOP field, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst appears to have the early edge, leading former state solicitor general Ted Cruz by 12 points in a new statewide poll.

* And in the state of Washington, Darcy Burner, a netroots favorite, is launching her third congressional bid, running in a crowded primary to replace Rep. Jay Inslee (D), who is running for governor. In her first two congressional campaigns, Burner came up short against Rep. Dave Reichert (R).

The latest study from Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy should lend credence to the larger “Occupy” movement.

Many of this country’s biggest companies paid no federal taxes — or even made money through credits and refunds from the government — over the past three years by using an array of loopholes and tax breaks, according to a report released Thursday.

The authors examined the finances of 280 corporations from 2008 through 2010 and found that 30 paid zero taxes or used loopholes to wind up with negative tax rates. Local utility Pepco Holdings paid the lowest rate of all the firms investigated, clocking in at nearly minus 58 percent.

Under the federal tax code, corporations are supposed to pay 35 percent of their profits in taxes. But the study found many of the companies used legal tax breaks that allowed them to pay lower rates than ordinary Americans.

Plenty of politicians complain about the larger 35% corporate tax rate, which is high by international standards. But that assumes corporations are actually paying it — and they’re not.

As President Obama put it in his State of the Union address, “[O]ver the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change.”

It’s why the notion of “corporate tax reform” has merit. For the right, the goal is to bring down the 35% rate, but for the left, the goal is to start getting these large, prosperous companies to start paying something.

The Citizens for Tax Justice’s report added, “[J]ust as workers pay their fair share of taxes on their earnings, so should successful businesses pay their fair share on their success. But today corporate tax loopholes are so out of control that most Americans can rightfully complain, ‘I pay more federal income taxes than General Electric, Boeing, DuPont, Wells Fargo, Verizon, etc., etc., all put together.’ That’s an unacceptable situation.”

If there are lingering doubts about the validity of the “no core” criticisms against Mitt Romney, one need look no further than what he communicated to Massachusetts voters before becoming a presidential candidate.

Peter Wallsten and Juliet Eilperin highlight this anecdote, for example, from a meeting Romney had nine years ago with abortion-rights advocates.

[A]s the meeting drew to a close, [Romney] offered an intriguing suggestion — that he would rise to national prominence in the Republican Party as a victor in a liberal state and could use his influence to soften the GOP’s hard-line opposition to abortion.

He would be a “good voice in the party” for their cause, and his moderation on the issue would be “widely written about,” he said, according to detailed notes taken by an officer of the group, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.

“You need someone like me in Washington,” several participants recalled Romney saying that day in September 2002, an apparent reference to his future ambitions.

Romney made similar assurances to activists for gay rights and the environment, according to people familiar with the discussions, both as a candidate for governor and then in the early days of his term.

It’s important to appreciate what, exactly, Romney was saying at the time. His pitch to these center-left advocates was that he, a moderate Republican, could slowly work his way into the national GOP spotlight, and in time become a key player, able to shape the Republican Party’s agenda. And if they supported him, they would help empower Romney to change his party, moving it to the left in the coming years.

As Jon Chait put it, Romney “was promising behind closed doors to act as essentially a sleeper agent within the Republican Party, adopting liberal stances, rising to national prominence, and thereby legitimizing them and transforming the Party from within.”

There are a few key takeaways from a story like this. The first is that Mitt Romney has such deep character flaws, I don’t think Americans have seen a politician this craven in a very long time.

Second, if Romney’s rivals for the GOP nomination don’t immediately pounce on this, they’re guilty of political malpractice on a near-criminal level.

And third, I suspect there will be some Romney-loving Republicans who read the Post article and think, “Boy, Romney sure did pull a fast one on those liberals activists! It was smart of him to use them to get ahead.”

But therein lies the rub: how do they know — how does anyone know — which side Romney is lying to? Was he lying to his Massachusetts constituents about helping move the Republican Party to the left, or is he lying to the GOP base now about helping moving the country to the right?

The fact that no one can say for sure seems pretty important.

When President Obama announced that all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by the end of the year, the response from Republican presidential candidates was immediate: they were outraged. What’s more, the usual suspects — most notably John McCain and Lindsey Graham — made the rounds, telling the broadcast networks that the end of the war is a terrible development.

Their message apparently hasn’t proven persuasive outside their own base.

Americans widely support President Obama’s recent decision to withdraw nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year, with 75% approving. That includes the vast majority of Democrats and independents. Republicans, however, are slightly more likely to disapprove than approve.

These results are based on an Oct. 29-30 Gallup poll…. These findings are consistent with Americans’ long-standing desire to leave Iraq.

Gallup’s analysis speculated that opposition to withdrawal from Republican voters may be “related to their broader disapproval of Obama,” rather than a genuine desire to see U.S. troops remain in Iraq.

Regardless, with 75% of the country on board with the president’s policy, the GOP decision to trash withdrawal was completely tone deaf. Given the focus on the economy, this may not carry major electoral implications, but next year, no matter who wins the Republican presidential nomination, Obama will be right when he says, “I brought the troops home and my opponent wanted to keep them there indefinitely.”

As Herman Cain’s sexual-harassment controversy enters its fourth day, the Republican campaign seems to be spending less time addressing the questions and more time in a desperate search to find someone to blame.

First, the accusations were the media’s fault. Then it was liberals’ fault. Then it was racists’ fault. By late yesterday, it was Rick Perry’s fault.

A defiant Herman Cain accused Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a Republican rival, of orchestrating a smear campaign to destroy his presidential candidacy, as additional accusations emerged Wednesday that Mr. Cain made unwanted sexual overtures to women while he led the National Restaurant Association more than a decade ago. […]

He accused a top political adviser to Mr. Perry of leaking details of one allegation, saying the adviser learned of it while working for Mr. Cain’s failed bid for the Senate in 2004.

The Perry campaign denied being the source of the story (it suggested the Romney camp was responsible) and neither Cain nor his team could offer any proof to substantiate the claim.

At this point, I’m not even sure why this part of the blame game matters anymore. Politico reported that Cain was accused of sexual harassment, and regardless of who first tipped the reporters off to the allegations, Cain really was accused of sexual harassment. Blaming the media, liberals, racists, and/or Perry doesn’t change the underlying facts, nor does it explain why Cain’s version of events has changed so dramatically over the course of a couple of days.

Wildly pointing fingers is absurd. If Cain’s accusers are lying, then they’re to blame; if Cain sexually harassed those women, then he’s to blame. He either committed these misdeeds or didn’t. What difference does it make who tipped off Politico?

Also note, after an off-hand comment made by Cain’s campaign manager, there’s apparently yet another incident in the mix.

POLITICO has learned that the incident involved a staffer for Steve Deace, an influential conservative talk radio host who hosts a nationally syndicated show in Des Moines. And Deace says he did take offense.

Deace, who penned an opinion piece critical of Cain earlier this month, told POLITICO in an email that Cain said “awkward” and “inappropriate” things to the staff at his station.

“Like awkward/inappropriate things he’s said to two females on my staff, that the fact the guy’s wife is never around … that’s almost always a warning flag to me,” Deace wrote.

To one degree or another, the “sabotage” question has been generating some debate for about a year now. It is, admittedly, a provocative subject: are Republicans trying to hurt the nation’s economy on purpose, simply to undermine the Obama presidency?

Over the last few months, the charge has become more common and more mainstream, with the question being raised by leading officials in President Obama’s re-election team, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, and a growing number of pundits and political observers.

What we’ve lacked, however, is polling data. Are Americans actually prepared to believe that Republican officials care more about politics than the nation’s well being? Have we really reached the point at which voters see GOP leaders as willing to sabotage the country?

As best as I can tell, pollsters haven’t even asked. But reader R.B. passed along this new Suffolk University poll of registered voters in Florida, which put the question to respondents. The results were fascinating.

With 51 percent of voters saying that jobs and the economy are the most pressing issues in the nation today, 49 percent said they believe that the Republicans are intentionally hindering efforts to boost the economy so that President Barack Obama will not be reelected. Thirty-nine percent disagreed. As expected, most registered Democrats (70 percent) agreed that Republicans are intentionally hindering the economy and hurting Obama, but independents (52 percent) and even some Republicans (24 percent) also agreed. [emphasis added]

To be sure, this wasn’t a national poll; it only asked voters in one state. But it’s a large, diverse swing state that both parties take very seriously.

And in Florida, nearly half of voters — and a majority of Dems and independents — believe Republicans are so craven, so devoid of a sense of duty to their country, that they’re holding back the economy on purpose because they hate Obama more than the care about the rest of us. Nearly one-in-four Republicans believe this to be true.

I guess this isn’t a fringe idea after all.

Here’s a suggestion for other pollsters: given these results in one of the nation’s largest states, and the fact that the charge has been made by so many prominent political voices, perhaps it’s time to start putting the question to a national audience?

Update: Some good follow-up from Greg Sargent, who tracked down the original wording of the question, and who has some worthwhile analysis of the electoral implications.

As the so-called super-committee continues to sputter, the problem is a familiar one: to achieve a debt-reduction deal, Democrats are willing to make concessions on entitlement “reforms,” if Republicans are willing to make concessions on tax increases on the wealthy. GOP officials, meanwhile, aren’t willing to make any concessions, no matter what Dems offer.

There are two sides to the balance sheet: revenue (money coming into the treasury from taxes) and expenditures (money the government spends). Democrats want a “balanced” approach between the two; Republicans insist the revenue side of the balance sheet be ignored altogether.

Well, most Republicans, anyway. There appear to be some slight cracks emerging in the anti-tax wall.

A group of 40 House Republicans for the first time Wednesday encouraged Congress’s deficit reduction committee to explore new revenue as part of a broad deal that would make a major dent in the nation’s debt, joining 60 Democrats in a rare bipartisan effort to urge the “supercommittee” to reach a big deal that could also include entitlement cuts.

The letter they sent represents a rare cross-party effort for the rancorous House, and its organizers said they hoped it would help nudge the 12-member panel to reach a deal that would far exceed the committee’s $1.5 trillion mandate.

Among those who signed were several dozen Republicans who had previously signed a pledge promising they would not support a net tax increase. Among the Democratic signers were some of the House’s most liberal members who have opposed entitlement cuts.

This group of 100 members didn’t go into too many details, other than to say $4 trillion in debt reduction is a worthwhile goal, and that “all options for mandatory and discretionary spending and revenues must be on the table.”

It’s worth emphasizing that the Republican signatories did not explicitly endorse any tax increases on anyone, only going so far as to say they’re open to additional “revenue.” Presumably, some of the 40 GOP lawmakers are only eyeing closing some tax loopholes and scrapping some tax expenditures, and might very well oppose an agreement that called for even modest sacrifices from millionaires and billionaires.

That said, I’m still inclined to consider this progress — modest, incremental, barely-discernable progress. The fact that 40 House Republicans are willing to say publicly that both sides of the budget ledger “must be on the table” is, for all the caveats, a minor breakthrough.

In fact, I’ve been keeping a fairly close eye on this, and yesterday’s 100-member letter is a piece in a larger picture. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), for example, recently said “prepared to look at” the Buffett rule. Freshman Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) told voters in September he’s willing to talk about higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires. In August, four far-right House Republicans participated in a joint town-hall meeting in a very conservative area, and three of the four said they’re open to additional revenue, while one said he wouldn’t rule out tax increases on those earning over $700,000 a year.

A week later, Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.) was badgered by constituents at a town-hall meeting on the need to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and reluctantly said he’s open to ending oil-company subsidies and closing tax loopholes. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), confronted by 200 angry constituents the same week, said the same thing.

Maybe this is the result of overwhelming public support for increased taxes on the rich; maybe it’s the result of a sincere desire to cut the debt; and maybe some members want to give Congress’ 9% approval rating a boost. Whatever the motivation, it’s probably a step in the right direction.

Today’s edition of quick hits:

* The Fed keeps lowering projections: “The Federal Reserve significantly reduced its forecast of economic growth over the next two years, the latest in a long series of acknowledgements that the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis is taking much longer than it had expected.”

* Greece fuels European turmoil: “With the government teetering on the verge of collapse, the Greek cabinet offered its full support early Wednesday to Prime Minister George A. Papandreou for his surprise plan to call a referendum on the Greek financial crisis.”

* What’s Europe’s Plan B in the event Greek voters reject the deal and move towards leaving the euro? There is no Plan B.

* On a related note, I found Kevin Drum’s “A Conversation About Greece” to be terrific and informative.

* Occupy Oakland: “Thousands of Wall Street protesters marched in the streets of Oakland on Wednesday as they geared up with labor unions to picket banks, take over foreclosed homes and vacant buildings and disrupt operations at the nation’s fifth-busiest port.”

* Auto industry: “U.S. car and truck sales were expected to top 1 million in October, a surprising number for a month when sales are usually slow. When adjusted for seasonal factors, that would be the best pace since the Cash for Clunkers program in August 2009.”

* “What a Jobs Plan Looks Like.”

* Hopefully, no one took Beck’s advice seriously: “Goldline, a company that used endorsements from Glenn Beck and other conservative icons to sell hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers, has been charged with theft and fraud in a 19-count criminal complaint filed Tuesday by local officials in California.”

* Ryan Cooper takes a look at the efforts to save AmeriCorps from the Republican axe.

* Mariah Blake has a great piece on a Ponzi scheme run by a guy named Tom Petters — a story that includes Michele Bachmann, a former U.S. vice president, a one-time governor, a sitting senator, a crafty entrepreneur, an ex-con turned devout Christian, illicit drugs, and a $130,000 airborne sex escapade.

* The right’s ongoing paranoia about Journolist is just sad. (Disclosure: I was on Journolist.)

* An outrageous story about four militia guys in Georgia, busted by the FBI this week, who plotted to launch a biological-weapons attack against Americans.

* And John Bolton believes the United States shouldn’t accept election outcomes in other countries if we believe the outcomes are counter to our interests, even in the case of “free and fair elections.” Remember when Bush/Cheney wanted this guy to represent us at the United Nations?

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

The Associated Press reports this afternoon that a third former female employee of Herman Cain has come forward with sexual-harassment complaints, describing behavior she considered “aggressive and unwanted,” including a “private invitation to his corporate apartment.”

She worked for the National Restaurant Association when he was its head. She told The Associated Press that Cain made sexually suggestive remarks or gestures about the same time that two co-workers had settled separate harassment complaints against him.

The employee described situations in which she said Cain told her he had confided to colleagues how attractive she was and invited her to his corporate apartment outside work. She spoke on condition of anonymity, saying she feared retaliation.

That last sentence is worth keeping in mind, since the other two accusers are not really anonymous — they came forward to complain about Cain’s alleged misconduct at the time of the incidents, and received settlements from the trade association. It’s unclear if this third accuser ever formally raised concerns publicly with the National Restaurant Association.

The Republican presidential campaign did not comment on these latest accusations, and it has also not yet said whether Cain supports freeing one of the first two accusers from her confidentiality agreement, at her lawyer’s request, so she can provide her side of the story.

In the meantime, Chris Wilson, a veteran Republican pollster and former National Restaurant Association employee, also came forward today to say he remembers being present at an incident in which Cain sexually harassed a woman at an Arlington, Va. restaurant in the late 1990s. Wilson is a Perry supporter, so one assumes the Cain camp will call his motives into question.

That said, taken together, it would appear that Cain’s record towards women in the workplace is, to put it mildly, problematic.