Following up on an item from a few weeks ago, Emily Heil reported yesterday on the most “taboo topic” at the Republican presidential candidate debates.

Viewers of the approximately 3 million Republican presidential debates so far have come to expect certain things. There’s the regular cast of characters, a moderator struggling to knock the candidates off their talking points, and loads of American flags.

But there’s one thing you’d be hard-pressed to find mentioned at a Republican debate.

George W. Bush? Who?

You’d think that the last Republican president — remember, that two-termer who’s only been out of the White House a scant three years — might come up frequently.

Not so. In fact, George W. Bush is the invisible man of the GOP race, the all-but-forgotten Ghost of Administrations Past. He’s its “He Who Should Not be Named,” in Harry Potter parlance.

There have now been 16 major debates for the GOP presidential field. The candidates have brought up President Obama by name 560 times. They’ve also invoked Ronald Reagan’s name 221 times. And what about the two-term Republican president whose policies these guys are eager to bring back? Poor George W. Bush has only seen his name come up “a pitiful 56 times.”

This, despite the fact that most Americans still hold Bush responsible for the sorry state of the American economy.

Let’s not forget the recent historical context here. Bill Clinton left the White House in January 2001, and in the 2004 race, Democratic candidates were tripping over each other to connect themselves to the nation’s 42nd president. I remember one September 2003 debate in which literally every Dem running for the party’s nomination said they’re the rightful heir to the Clinton legacy.

Al Sharpton, after a while, apparently couldn’t take it anymore. “I know that within the next hour we’ll say that Bill Clinton walked on water,” he joked.

We’re at a comparable point now with regards to Bush — three years after a two-term president left office, his party is looking to nominate a challenger to an incumbent. Dems in 2004 couldn’t stop referencing Bill Clinton, but Republicans in 2012 prefer to pretend Bush doesn’t exist.

This isn’t necessarily surprising. I don’t imagine many would-be GOP presidents were eager to bring up Hoover in the 1936 election, either.

But Bush deserves to be part of the discussion. From Dems’ perspective, there’s value in reminding voters that Bush is responsible for nearly all of the messes Obama is trying to clean up, and nearly all of the Republican candidates are eager to bring return to Bush-era policies — only this time, they’ll be even more right wing.

From journalists’ perspective, there’s no reason to play along with the GOP’s willingness to erase Bush from the larger discussion. Indeed, there are some pretty straightforward questions the Republican field should be forced to answer: Do you believe the Bush presidency was a success? How would your agenda differ from Bush’s if you’re elected?

At times, as far-right personalities go, Mike Huckabee doesn’t necessarily come across like a bad guy. He tells charming stories; he frequently jokes around with Jon Stewart; and he even plays bass. As right-wing preachers-turned-politicians go, Huckabee seems non-threatening, and to some, even likable.

It’s worth pausing from time to time to remember the ugly edge to this guy’s personality.

During a Fox News appearance this evening, Mike Huckabee suggested that Mitt Romney, who has come under fire for refusing to immediately release his tax returns, respond by challenging President Obama to release his college application materials in order to “show whether he got any loans as a foreign student.”

Speaking on The O’Reilly Factor, Huckabee said of Romney, “Let him make this challenge: ‘I’ll release my tax returns when Barack Obama releases his college transcripts and the copy of his admission records to show whether he got any loans as a foreign student. When he releases that, talk to me about my tax returns.’”

Really? College transcripts? “Loans as a foreign student”? This right-wing hackery isn’t just cheap, it’s pathetic. It’s the kind of rhetoric one might expect from random crackpots, not a former governor and presidential candidate.

But it’s also the latest in a lengthy series. Less than a year ago, Huckabee falsely claimed President Obama “grew up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather.” Soon after, he endorsed “death panel” garbage. By the early summer, Huckabee was equating the national debt with the Nazi Holocaust.

For a guy with a jovial reputation, there’s something rather twisted about Mike Huckabee’s worldview.

In August 2009, Huckabee argued on his own radio show that President Obama’s health care reform package would have forced Ted Kennedy to commit suicide. Ed Kilgore argued at the time, “This despicable rant should disqualify Mike Huckabee from any further liberal sympathy, no matter how much he tries to joke or rock-n-roll his way back into mainstream acceptability.”

That’s as true now as it was then.

First up from the God Machine this week is a look at the recent track of the religious right movement and its spectacularly unsuccessful attempts to dictate the Republican presidential nominating contest.

Dana Milbank takes stock today and ponders, “God knows what has become of the religious right.”

The movement of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson has been in decline for some time, but recent events suggest that they are wandering in the political wilderness.

A fresh symptom of the trouble came this month during the meeting of 150 evangelical leaders in Texas, where the deeply divided deacons of the religious right had to take three votes before opting to endorse Rick Santorum, who has no real chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination. […]

Things have not gone well generally in this electoral cycle for the once-vaunted movement. Preferred candidates, particularly Mike Huckabee, didn’t run. The front-runner belongs to a church that some Christian conservatives consider a cult. The one religious conservative remaining in the race, Santorum, has virtually no chance. Michele Bachmann flopped. Rick Perry flamed out — and, upon exiting the race, endorsed Newt Gingrich the same day that the former House speaker was publicly accused by a former wife of seeking an “open marriage.”

We can take this accurate observation much further, though, by looking back at the last several cycles and noticing that this isn’t the first time the religious right has struggled.

In 1980, as the movement was just coming together in earnest, the religious right wasn’t sold on Reagan, and didn’t want to see H.W. Bush on the ticket. In 1988, the movement fought to prevent H.W. Bush from winning the nomination. In 1996, the religious right had no use for Dole. In 2000, the movement desperately wanted John Ashcroft to run, but he didn’t. In 2008, the religious right rallied behind Huckabee in the hopes of derailing McCain.

And in 2012, leading social conservatives threw their support to Santorum, hoping to give him a major boost in advance of the South Carolina primary, only to see him slip to fourth place in the polls.

If readers looked hard enough, I suspect they could find me contradicting myself about the relative strength of the religious right movement, and I’ll concede I go back and forth on this. On the one hand, evangelicals and other social conservatives maintain large numbers, help provide foot-soldiers for the Republican Party, have access to GOP leaders, and can get prominent party officials to routinely pander to them. On the other, Republicans tend not to put the movement’s agenda very high on the national to-do list, and when push comes to shove, the GOP presidential nomination invariably goes to candidates the religious right doesn’t like at all.

But if Santorum continues to fade immediately after a high-profile, enthusiastic endorsement from the movement, it’ll be time for the religious right to pause to consider a disconcerting realization: it doesn’t have the influence it thinks it does.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Church arsonist going away for a while: “A white man who admitted to helping burn down a mostly black church to protest against Barack Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president was sentenced on Wednesday to four-and-a-half years in prison.” (thanks to R.P. for the tip)

* The Roman Catholic Church’s international scandal involving the sexual abuse of children intensified in Belgium this week, when Belgian police “conducted a third day of raids on Catholic church offices on Wednesday as part of an operation targeting priests suspected of child abuse.”

* And Tony Perkins, head of the religious right’s Family Research Council, reflected on MSNBC this week on why social conservative voters can support Newt Gingrich despite his past. “People don’t want to be seen as that judgmental, because they’re not judgmental,” Perkins said. He didn’t appear to be kidding.

The South Carolina Republican presidential primary is obviously today, and will be followed by the Florida primary a week from Tuesday. In anticipation of the fourth nominating contest, there are two debates scheduled for the upcoming week: an NBC debate in Tampa on Monday, and a CNN debate in Jacksonville on Thursday.

There is, however, a problem: the Republican frontrunner won’t commit to showing up.

In fact, there was widespread talk yesterday that Monday’s event had already been scrapped, with NBC concluding the debate isn’t worth holding if Mitt Romney wouldn’t participate. The network denied the reports about a cancellation, but the schedule remains uncertain.

“Preparations for the NBC News, National Journal, Tampa Bay Times debate continue,” NBC spokesperson Erika Masonhall told me. “We fully intend to proceed with this long-planned event and we hope and expect all the qualifying candidates will participate.”

But as of this afternoon, NBC has left the standard Monday program listings in place — “Fear Factor” at 9 p.m. and “Rock Center” at 10 p.m. — a decision the network attributes to an abundance of caution. The network says those listings will be updated with more timely information as it becomes known.

The Romney camp has been hinting all week that it’s grown weary of these events, and may simply choose to stop participating (in some or all). As of yesterday, a spokesperson for the former governor said in a statement, “We have no announcements at this point on upcoming debates.”

One could make the case that Romney and his aides aren’t necessarily hiding, but rather, they just don’t see the value in this seemingly endless stream of debates. The Florida events would be the 17th and 18th debates for the GOP candidates, and by any fair measure, that’s quite a few.

But I think that’s a far-too-generous interpretation. Put it this way: if Romney were excelling in these debates, and wowing Republican voters in every appearance, is there any way in the world he’d consider blowing them off? Of course not. In fact, for months, Romney was seen as easily the best debater in the field, and at the time, it seemed as if he couldn’t wait for the next one.

Then Newt Gingrich started getting standing ovations, and all of a sudden, Team Romney isn’t so sure these debates are such a great idea after all.

The fact that Romney and his staff aren’t willing to commit to more debates isn’t a sign of fatigue; it’s a sign of panic. The frontrunner has apparently concluded that Gingrich benefits more from these gatherings, so Romney wants to stop giving the former Speaker such a platform.

There is, however, a huge risk from backing out. How soon will it be before Republican insiders start asking themselves, “If Romney lacks the confidence to debate Gingrich, what will he do when he’s up against President Obama?”

Update: As of 9:42 a.m., the Romney campaign has confirmed the former governor will attend Monday’s debate. No official word yet on Thursday’s event.

The South Carolina Republican presidential primary has developed an unfortunate reputation for dirty tricks and ugly smear campaigns. The legend, alas, continues.

Twelve years ago, John McCain, fresh off a big win in New Hampshire, ran into some scurrilous attacks in the Palmetto State, where George W. Bush supporters accused McCain of having gone crazy during his imprisonment in Vietnam, McCain’s wife of being a drug addict, and McCain’s adopted daughter from Bangladesh of being a black child McCain had fathered out of wedlock. Bush won by about 11 points.

Yesterday, it was Newt Gingrich who was targeted with a smear campaign in South Carolina, the day before the primary.

Two separate e-mails sent to Republicans here claimed that Mr. Gingrich, a former House speaker, had pressured his second wife, Marianne, to terminate a pregnancy.

One of the e-mails purported to come from Mr. Gingrich’s own campaign press office and contained a fabricated quote from the speaker admitting the allegations.

Disguised as a press release, the message carried the headline: “Newt Gingrich Responds to Abortion Allegations.” … Another e-mail that went to South Carolina Republicans on Friday was made to look like a CNN breaking-news alert. It also made the claim that Mr. Gingrich had pushed his wife into terminating her pregnancy.

The allegations are false, but the fact that they were made at all — the day before voting began, when there’s less time to respond to the lies — suggests some relatively influential party insiders are worried about a predicted Gingrich victory.

I had a chance to talk about the race for the Republican presidential nomination with Ed Schultz last night on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show.” As an added treat, instead of the fake-book backdrop, I appeared from my own living room.

Here’s the first of the two segments:

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

And here’s the second:

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

Today’s edition of quick hits:

* Scariest thing I’ve seen in a long while: “2011 was the ninth-warmest year on Earth since 1880, according to NASA scientists, and this dramatic warming is captured in this visualization.”

* Syria: “The Obama administration is preparing to close the U.S. embassy in Damascus and evacuate all American personnel by the end of this month amid rapid deterioration of the security situation in Syria, senior administration officials said. The embassy will be shuttered, officials said, unless embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad provides enhanced protection that he has so far been unwilling to authorize.”

* U.S. housing market: “Home sales hit an 11-month high in December and the number of properties on the market was the fewest in nearly seven years, pointing to a nascent recovery in the housing sector.”

* Afghanistan: “President Nicolas Sarkozy of France suspended military training and assistance for Afghan forces on Friday and said he would consider an early withdrawal from Afghanistan after an Afghan soldier shot and killed four French soldiers on a base in eastern Afghanistan.”

* Medical malpractice reform, not surprisingly, is still high on the list of things House Republican leaders would love to tackle in this Congress. But it turns out a group of states’ rights advocates within the House GOP caucus are making the process much tougher than the leadership had hoped.

* Shouldn’t this have been a unanimous decision? “An Alabama death row prisoner should not be prevented from appealing because he missed a deadline after his lawyers dropped his case and failed to tell him, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 7-2 vote Wednesday.”

* A problem that can’t be ignored: “Suicides among active-duty soldiers hit another record high in 2011, Army officials said on Thursday, although there was a slight decrease if nonmobilized Reserve and National Guard troops were included in the calculation. The Army also reported a sharp increase, nearly 30 percent, in violent sex crimes last year by active-duty troops. More than half of the victims were active-duty female soldiers ages 18 to 21.”

* This is the first time Newt Gingrich has run for president of the United States, but in 1970, just a year into his first full-time teaching job, he also sought the presidency of West Georgia College.

* And finally, while I’ve generally recognized President Obama as a man of many talents, I had no idea he actually has a nice singing voice, too.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Brian McGrory reports this week on Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) new attack on Elizabeth Warren: she’s apparently an “elitist hypocrite.”

[Brown] seems to be fuming that his main Democratic rival, Elizabeth Warren, has done pretty well for herself financially. A filing publicized last week had her making $700,000 in income over a recent two-year period, and it’s even more than that when you factor in a government salary she received during part of that time.

Whatever the figure, it’s sent Brown over the edge. It caused his campaign manager, a seemingly nice young Vermonter named Jim Barnett, to toss out the “elitist hypocrite” description, like it’s a crime to climb the ladder of success in America and impossible to remember what life is like on the lower rungs.

If I’m correctly reading Brown’s bizarre logic, Warren is guilty of being a class traitor? She shouldn’t be able to make money because she grew up relatively poor? Or once she did make money, she should have become an advocate for the rich?

The National Republican Senatorial Committee began pushing this same line in November, and I continue to find it remarkable.

Warren has, apparently, acquired a fair amount of wealth, after having been raised by a family of modest means, and putting herself through law school. She is now one of the nation’s leading, and most articulate, voices in representing the interests of the middle class.

The right sees this as “hypocrisy” — Warren is wealthy, but she’s championing those who aren’t wealthy. Maybe Warren could use some of her money to buy dictionaries for her critics so they can look up what “hypocrisy” actually means.

Let me put this as plainly as I know how: when rich people support economic policies that bolster working families, that’s admirable, but it’s not hypocrisy. FDR was wealthy, but he fought for the interests of those without. Ted Kennedy fit the same model. Some recent polling suggests many of America’s most wealthy individuals believe their own taxes should be raised for the greater good.

Scott Brown can agree or disagree on the merits of those beliefs, and he and his fellow Republicans are free to argue that fighting for the middle class is a bad idea, but when those with considerable personal resources look at the status quo — a growing class gap, wealth concentrated at the top, rising poverty — and want a more progressive approach, that’s evidence of sanity, not hypocrisy.

McGrory called this an example of Scott Brown’s “crass warfare.” That’s as apt a description as any.

Two weeks ago, I launched a new Friday afternoon feature, highlighting the most offensive Mitt Romney falsehoods of the week. Last Friday’s installment was well received, so let’s keep this going with a third.

1. “The president is planning on cutting $1 trillion out of military spending.”

That’s a Romney favorite, but it’s not at all accurate.

2. “This president has opened up no new markets for American goods around the world in his three years, even as European nations and China have opened up 44.”

That’s not even close to being true.

3. “We’ve got a president in office three years, and he does not have a jobs plan yet. I’ve got one out there already and I’m not even president, yet.”

This one actually includes multiple lies.

4. “Our navy is smaller than it’s been since 1917.”

That’s wildly misleading and intended to deceive.

5. “[D]on’t forget who it was that cut Medicare by $500 billion. And that was President Obama, to pay for Obamacare.”

As Romney almost certainly knows, that’s just not true.

6. “I went off on my own. I didn’t inherit money from my parents.”

Yes, actually, he did.

7. “While we’ve got $15 trillion of debt, [the president] said, ‘Look, I’m going to put another $1 trillion of debt for Obamacare.’”

That’s demonstrably ridiculous. The Affordable Care Act doesn’t add to the debt, it cuts the debt by hundreds of billions of dollars.

8. “I stood as a pro-life governor and that’s why the Massachusetts Pro-Life Family Association supported my record as governor, endorsed my record as governor.”

Actually, Romney was a pro-choice governor until late in his term (right around the time he decided he’s run for president as a culture warrior), and when he was endorsed by the Massachusetts Pro-Life Family Association, Romney forcefully rejected their support.

9. “I’m concerned about the poor in this country. We have to make sure the safety net is strong and able to help those who can’t help themselves. I’m not terribly worried about the very wealthiest in our society; they’re doing just fine.”

In reality, Romney wants to slash spending on programs that benefit the poor, shred the safety net, and give the very wealthiest in our society another generous tax cut.

10. Romney described himself as “someone who’s lived in the real streets of America.”

It’s unclear what constitutes a “real” street in Romney’s mind, but given his wealth and background, this is, at a minimum, entirely misleading.

So far, the political world has been reluctant to call Romney out on his dishonesty, and some in the media even seem taken aback when others, including Republicans, accuse the former governor of being deceitful.

I’m afraid we may be moving deeper into an era of “post-truth politics.”

In August, the Obama administration announced some very good news: thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and following the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine, contraception would be covered by insurance plans as preventive care.

The health care reform law already requires insurers to cover “preventive health services” for free, but the announcement was part of a process that defines what those services will include. According to Health and Human Services, insurers would be required to cover not only contraception, but also HPV testing, breastfeeding support and supplies, and domestic violence screening and counseling.

The news generated an intense lobbying campaign from Roman Catholic bishops and other religious leaders, pushing the administration to curtail the scope of the coverage. As of November, there was a fair amount of talk that Obama’s team might cave on this.

I’m pleased to report that didn’t happen. Religious-affiliated hospitals got a delay, but the administration denied their push for an exemption.

Most healthcare plans will be required to cover birth control without charging co-pays or deductibles starting Aug. 1, the Obama administration announced Friday.

The final regulation retains the approach federal health officials proposed last summer, despite the deluge of complaints from religious groups and congressional Republicans that has poured in since then. Churches, synagogues and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirement, but religious-affiliated hospitals and universities only get a one-year delay and must comply by Aug. 1, 2013.

“This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”

The Obama administration deserves a lot of credit for doing the right thing, especially given the lobbying push. Jessica Arons, the director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress, called this move “a huge victory for women’s health.” She wasn’t the only one praising the decision.

“Birth control is not just basic health care for women, it is an economic concern,” Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. “This common sense decision means that millions of women, who would otherwise pay $15 to $50 a month, will have access to affordable birth control, helping them save hundreds of dollars each year.”

And Nancy Keegan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, praised the administration for standing “firm against intensive lobbying efforts from anti-birth-control organizations trying to expand the refusal option even further to allow organizations and corporations to deny their employees contraceptive coverage.”

“As a result, millions will get access to contraception — and they will not have to ask their bosses for permission,” she said.

This breakthrough will very likely be reversed if President Obama loses in November, but for now, it’s a terrific progressive victory.

The Democratic National Committee sent a press release to reporters last night with an interesting image:

For those who can’t quite make it out, there’s a tropical beach on the left, alongside a parody of Mitt Romney’s official campaign logo. The words “Believe in America” have been replaced by “Believe in the Cayman Islands.”

The point wasn’t subtle. We learned this week that Romney has international investments, including money in the Cayman Islands, and tax experts told the Wall Street Journal Romney’s strategy is likely intended to help him pay less in taxes. It may help explain, among other things, why Romney has been so eager to keep his tax returns hidden from the public.

And so Dems are hitting him over the head with the story. In addition to the mocked up logo, the DNC unveiled this new video overnight.

Pay particular attention to the steel drums playing “America the Beautiful” towards the end of the clip.

I suspect this will come up again as the campaign progresses. As we talked about yesterday, even if we assume the typical voter doesn’t know or care about the nuances of offshore banking strategies, I suspect when the American mainstream hears “guy who stashes cash in the Caymans,” questions about trust necessarily follow.

The tech industry and free speech advocates have been desperately fighting to derail misguided efforts to combat online privacy, and have had extraordinary success just this week raising the visibility of their efforts.

As of this morning, it looks like they’ve won.

At issue are two related bills: the Senate’s Protect IP Act (PIPA) and the even more offensive Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, which enjoy Hollywood support, but which also threaten to stifle innovation, suppress free speech, and in some cases, even undermine national security.

The lingering threat this week has been over whether the bills might advance despite the opposition. The Senate planned to bring PIPA to the floor on Tuesday, and the House Judiciary Committee planned to advance SOPA in a couple of weeks. Earlier today, however, both bills were put on indefinite hold.

Congressional leaders moved to bury a pair of controversial anti-piracy bills Friday after coming under intense pressure from online activists and tech companies.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cancelled next week’s vote on the Protect IP Act (PIPA) Friday morning, and minutes later, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said he would shelve the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

The sudden retreat is a resounding victory for online activists, who mobilized intense opposition to the legislation with a protest Wednesday that featured blackouts across the Web.

Both bills seemed poised to sail through Congress just a few weeks ago and now appear dead.

This is rather extraordinary turn of events. The tech industry is not known for its lobbying prowess, and getting large numbers of American to care quickly about fairly obscure legislation — SOPA and PIPA were not on the mainstream’s radar until very recently — is notoriously difficult.

And yet, here we are.

There’s also a delicious irony to the developments: SOPA and PIPA proponents intended to pursue measures that would restrict the power of the Internet, so opponents used the power of the Internet to restrict the bills.

To clarify, while it’s fair to say SOPA and PIPA are dead in their current forms, supporters still intend to revisit the issue, and believe the legislation can be “fixed” to address critics’ concerns. Those who help scuttle the bills this week would be wise to remain vigilant.

As for the party politics, the partisan divisions have been nothing short of bizarre. The Senate bill was killed thanks to opposition from the far-right, but in the House, it was a far-right Texan who helped lead the charge. There are practically zero instances in which I believe Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is correct and Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) is wrong, but this one issue became the exception.

But I think the suggestion that the GOP has positioned itself as the true champions of online freedom may be overstating matters — the tide turned against these bills in earnest the moment the Obama White House announced its opposition. Republicans in the Senate were instrumental in scuttling the legislation, but it was a Democratic president that gave opponents the initial momentum they needed to have success this week.

Regardless of credit, though, the good news is some bad bills aren’t going anywhere. Online activists who pulled out the stops this week? Take a bow; you’ve earned it.

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:

* In South Carolina, Public Policy Polling now shows Newt Gingrich taking the lead, 35% to 29%, over Mitt Romney. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are tied for third at 15%.

* Romney has quietly been collecting high-profile endorsements, and announcing them when he feels like he needs a positive story about his campaign in the media. This morning, that meant unveiling Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s (R) support.

* Now that Rick Santorum appears to have won Iowa by 69 votes, Romney called the former senator. Santorum said it was a concession call, but Romney said it was a congratulatory call.

* South Carolina State House Speaker Bobby Harrell was supporting Rick Perry. Yesterday, he switched to Gingrich.

* Many religious right leaders continue to rally behind Rick Santorum, and James Dobson announced his endorsement for the former senator yesterday.

* In a rather remarkable display, Elizabeth Warren, the leading Democrat in Massachusetts’ U.S. Senate race, raised over $1 million in just one day.

* In North Carolina, incumbent Gov. Bev Perdue (D) is struggling badly, and PPP now shows her trailing Republican Pat McCrory by 11 points in this year’s gubernatorial race.

* In New Jersey, state Sen. Joseph Kyrillos (R) has kicked off his U.S. Senate campaign. The most recent Fairleigh Dickinson University poll shows him trailing Sen. Bob Menendez (D) by 12 points.

* In Wisconsin, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D), the presumptive Democratic nominee in this year’s U.S. Senate race, raised over $1.1 million in the last quarter, and has been endorsed by the man she hopes to replace, retiring Sen. Herb Kohl (D).

This is a ruling that will have an important impact on House races later this year.

The Supreme Court on Friday instructed a lower court in Texas to take a fresh look at election maps it had drawn in place of a competing set of maps from the Texas Legislature. The justices said the lower court had not paid enough deference to the Legislature’s choices and had improperly substituted its own values for those of elected officials.

The court’s unanimous decision extends the uncertainty surrounding this major voting-rights case, which could help determine control of the House of Representatives.

“To avoid being compelled to make such otherwise standardless decisions,” the Supreme Court’s unsigned decision said, “a district court should take guidance from the state’s recently enacted plan in drafting an interim plan. That plan reflects the state’s policy judgments on where to place new districts and how to shift existing ones in response to massive population growth.”

When the legislature drew its map, officials, not surprisingly, went out of their way to help Republican candidates. A special three-judge federal court said those district lines were discriminatory and drew a fairer map, intended to increase the voting power of Texas’ growing Hispanic population.

The result was a map that likely would have given Democrats at least four additional U.S. House seats, just from the Lone Star State, and in a competitive cycle, that increased the odds of Democrats reclaiming a House majority. Today’s Supreme Court ruling rejected that map.

The process is not yet over — it’s now unclear where Texas’ lines will be for 2012 races — but the high court’s unanimous decision will no doubt come as a relief to Republicans.

Postscript: And by the way, speaking of the federal judiciary, if you’re wondering what the courts might look like if President Obama loses in November, Dahlia Lithwick has a great story in the new print edition of the Monthly.