THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Some of the best economic news in a long while: "The number of people applying for unemployment benefits fell sharply last week, with applications hitting the lowest level in two and a half years. The Labor Department said applications dropped by 34,000, to 388,000, the lowest number since the week of July 12, 2008." In general, applications below 425,000 signal modest job growth.

* Two million American veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan return home and struggle to find work: "Some experts say the grim employment landscape confronting veterans challenges the veracity of one of the central recruiting promises of the nation's all-volunteer force: that serving in the military will make them more marketable in civilian life. "

* One never knows what Joe Miller will think of next, but the Senate race in Alaska appears to be officially over: "The state of Alaska has certified Sen. Lisa Murkowski as the winner of the state's Senate race, allowing Murkowski to be sworn in with the rest of the Senate next week, according to the Associated Press."

* Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) is getting some good news as he walks out the door -- the Senate ethics committee has dismissed a complaint against him.

* MSNBC's Keith Olbermann wants to make it clear that, in his words, "Fox News is 100% bullshit." That seems like a reasonable assessment.

* Lanny Davis was subjected to some rather fierce criticism for taking on President Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast as a client. Yesterday, Davis reversed course.

* Great piece from Ben Smith on Richard Ben Cramer, who apparently isn't fully aware of the fact that his "What it Takes" is "now widely considered the greatest modern presidential campaign book." (I read it -- yes, the whole thing -- in grad school, and still consider it an exceptional piece of work.)

* I'm starting to think Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has a problem with black people. Try not to be surprised.

* Daniel Luzer: "College is still 'worth it' in the long run (the amount of money one pays to attend college will be returned in terms of additional income over a lifetime) but the increasing cost of college means that the payoff now seems to take a damn long time."

* R.I.P., Geraldine Hoff Doyle, best known as the inspiration for "Rosie the Riveter." She died Sunday at the age of 86.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

THE WHO, HOW, AND WHEN OF REFORMING THE SENATE.... With the 112th Congress getting ready to begin quite soon, there are multiple ideas under consideration. The details, of course, matter -- it's one thing for a wide variety of members to agree that the process no longer works; it's something else for them to coalesce around specific changes.

But while there are competing reform ideas, there are also competing conversations about reform ideas. On the one hand, we have Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) working on an ambitious set of changes. Simultaneously, there's a discussion underway with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who are exploring a different approach.

Brian Beutler had a helpful lay of the land today.

Here's how this dynamic evolved. Udall along with several freshman Democrats, and even some senior Dems like Tom Harkin, have been making the case -- and building support -- for rules reform for many months. Their efforts have been successful enough to get just about every Democrat in the caucus on board with the idea of some kind of rules reform. [...]

But there isn't party-wide agreement on what should be reformed, or how extensive the changes should be.

That gave Reid the balance of power in this debate. Armed with the letter, and with the fact that the filibuster can be reformed on a majority-rules basis at the beginning of each Congress, he can get Republicans to negotiate under the credible threat that he and the Dems could go it alone, and change the rules more dramatically.

The likelihood of generating enough support for ending filibusters altogether is extremely remote. At this point, the three main areas that reform-minded senators are focused on are (1) prohibiting filibusters on motions to proceed, which prevent senators from even having a debate; (2) ending the practice of secret holds; and (3) forcing those filibustering legislation to actually stand on the floor and talk endlessly.

Details are scarce, but these Democratic ideas already seem excessive and unnecessary to GOP leaders.

In other words, trying to find common ground with Republicans on improving the way the chamber functions is about as easy as finding common ground with Republicans on anything else.

In the larger context, this may seem like a pretty slow week in the political world, but decisions on possible reforms are coming up very quickly -- as in, next week. The Senate will reconvene on Wednesday, and immediately take up proposals dictating how the institution will work, or not work, for the next two years. Behind the scenes, there have been a slew of communications between members, but it's almost impossible to say with any certainty how these efforts are going, or how close members are to some sort of consensus.

One angle to keep an eye on: what Vice President Biden thinks. As Amanda Terkel noted today, "First, [reform-minded senators] have to convince the Vice President that the Constitution allows senators to adopt rules on the first day of a new congressional session with just 51 votes. Then, the majority must agree on what those changes should be."

MAYBE LAMAR SMITH SHOULD TAKE A CLOSER LOOK.... For about four years, the Bush administration held terrorist Ahmed Ghailani at Guantanamo Bay, and didn't have much of a plan going forward. The Obama administration tried a different approach -- filing charges against Ghailani, subjecting him to the federal criminal justice system, and convicting him on terrorist conspiracy charges. Ghailani will now likely spend the rest of his days behind bars.

The case against him, however, wasn't easy. The accused was acquitted on most of the charges against him because the evidence was inadmissible -- the Bush gang tortured him. Still, a conviction is a conviction.

The right doesn't quite see it that way. Elon Green notes an exchange this week between Hugh Hewitt and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. For Hewitt, the successful conviction of Ghailani was a "fiasco," and asked whether Smith's committee could prevent similar trials in the future. Smith replied:

"Well, as you say, they tried a terrorist in New York City. That was supposed to be their best case, they had their best witnesses. That was the one that they were going to use as an example and say you know, here, yes we can conduct a trial of a terrorist in the United States. And even if they get some rights as citizens, we're still going to be able to find them guilty on all counts.

"Well as you know, this individual was found guilty on one count of, I think, 254. And even though he was found guilty of building the explosives, he wasn't found guilty of killing, I think, 254 innocent people who were killed, among them several dozen Americans. So in that situation, it clearly did not work as the administration had planned, and it kind of blew up in their face, and the judge didn't allow some of the evidence and some of the testimony that would have been allowed if this individual had been tried at Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, the so-called Gitmo."

Fact-checking this is a challenge, only because Smith is so wrong, it's hard to know where to start. Let's stick to the most glaring flaws.

First, the administration never promised a conviction on "all counts"; it promised that following the American rule of law and our system of justice would lead to the appropriate outcome. And it did -- the terrorist is going away. If Smith wanted Ghailani convicted on more counts, he should take it up with the Republican administration that tortured him.

Second, the administration may have intended to use this trial to demonstrate a larger point, and to a very real extent, it worked -- there were no security threats, no opportunities for the accused to use the proceedings as a platform, and stick to the rule of law led to a conviction. The administration wanted a public, transparent, legitimate trial, with lawyers and a jury, to help demonstrate America's commitment to its own principles.

Lamar Smith might not remember, but Republicans used to be for this, too. As Elon noted, "During George W. Bush's presidency, it was not uncommon for terrorism suspects to be tried, convicted and receive lengthy sentences in American courts. These numbers include Mohammed Jabarah, Richard Reid, the 'shoe bomber,' Bryant Neal Vinas, Mohammed Junaid Babar and Shahawar Matin Siraj -- all of whom will be imprisoned for decades."

Smith wasn't complaining at the time. I wonder why that is.

And finally, Smith is also convinced it's preferable to try terror suspects in military tribunals. As the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, it's disconcerting that he doesn't realize how awful tribunals' track record is.

As Colin Powell noted earlier this year, "In eight years the military commissions have put three people on trial. Two of them served relatively short sentences and are free. One guy is in jail. Meanwhile, the federal courts -- our Article III, regular legal court system -- has put dozens of terrorists in jail and they're fully capable of doing it."

OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.... For their first bit of pandering to a confused party base, conservative Republicans will kick off the 112th Congress by reading the Constitution out loud. There's nothing especially wrong this, of course, but it's a rather meaningless stunt.

But wait, there's more. After reading the document aloud, Republicans will then force House members to include a statement from bills' sponsors "outlining where in the Constitution Congress is empowered to enact such legislation."

Ezra Klein asks a good question: "What's the evidence that this will make legislation more, rather than less, constitutional, for whatever your definition of the Constitution is?"

My friends on the right don't like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. Written more than 200 years ago, when America had 13 states and very different problems, it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it. [...]

In reality, the tea party -- like most everyone else -- is less interested in living by the Constitution than in deciding what it means to live by the Constitution. When the constitutional disclaimers at the bottom of bills suit them, they'll respect them. When they don't -- as we've seen in the case of the individual mandate [as part of the Affordable Care Act] -- they won't.

Quite right. The rhetoric about constitutional fealty from the right of late has taken on a certain childish quality -- the founding document supports their preferred policy goals, because they say so. It's the basis for this legislative push -- prove your legislation is constitutional, by including a statement saying it's constitutional.

This is terribly silly. If constitutional law were easy and straightforward, watching the Supreme Court would be exceedingly dull -- the justices would hear a case, read the document, and issue one 9-0 ruling after another.

But that's not the case. Interpreting 18th-century text, applying it to 21st-century law, and considering how and whether to consider framers' intent, context, and forethought is inherently tricky. The far-right Republican Party and its activists are convinced that they know what is and isn't constitutional now -- even on policies where they believed the exact opposite up until extremely recently -- but their rhetoric is painfully shallow.

As Ezra added, "To presume that people writing what they think the Constitution means -- or, in some cases, want to think it means -- at the bottom of every bill will change how they legislate doesn't demonstrate a reverence for the document. It demonstrates a disengagement with it as anything more than a symbol of what you and your ideological allies believe."

To reiterate a point from the other day, I'd add that all of this is part of a larger, misguided push intended to show that conservatives are the Constitution's true champions.

But there's a problem with this: it's crazy. We are, after all, talking about a House Republican caucus with leaders who support allowing states to overturn federal laws they don't like.

In recent years, congressional Republicans haven't just endorsed bizarre legal concepts; they've advocated constitutional concepts that were discredited generations ago.

Worse, they have ambitious plans to shuffle the constitutional deck more to their liking. During the campaign, we heard from a variety of bizarre candidates, many of whom won, who talked about scrapping the 17th Amendment, repealing the 16th Amendment, getting rid of at least one part of the 14th Amendment, "restoring" the "original" 13th Amendment, and proposing dozens of new amendments.

Similarly, these same officials intend to radically transform the country as we currently know it, identifying bedrocks of society, and declaring them not just wrong, but literally unconstitutional.

For these guys to somehow claim they've cornered the market on constitutional fealty is ridiculous, and arguably, backwards. Stunts and legislative gimmicks won't change this.

THE PREDICTABLE RECESS-APPOINTMENT COMPLAINTS.... With the White House announcing six new recess appointments late yesterday, it was only a matter of time before Republicans began complaining. What I was curious to see, however, is what they came up with.

The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin took a crack at it this morning. (via Memeorandum)

On Wednesday, Obama shed any pretense of bipartisanship in making six recess appointments. As were his previous recess appointments, this batch included two individuals whose records are so controversial that they could not obtain confirmation even with 59 Democratic senators.

Hmm. Let's unpack this a bit.

President Obama nominated six qualified officials to fill a variety of executive branch vacancies. These nominations were considered in the respective Senate committees, and approved by committee members. If brought to the floor, each of the six would have been confirmed, most with more than 60 votes. (When Rubin claims they were too "controversial" to "obtain confirmation," this has no relation to reality. She's simply wrong.)

Knowing this, conservative Republicans, who've engaged in obstructionist tactics unseen in American history, placed anonymous holds on the nominees. They could have simply voted against the nominees and urged their colleagues to follow suit, but that wasn't good enough -- Republicans had to shut down the advise-and-consent process altogether.

This, in turn, left the president with a choice: (a) leave the positions vacant until a Senate minority agreed to let the chamber vote up or down; or (b) fill the vacancies with qualified nominees who enjoyed the support of a Senate majority. He wisely chose the latter.

I am intrigued, though, by the notion of "partisanship" as a criticism from a partisan. Let me see if I have this straight -- when Republicans engage in obstructionism, breaking down the confirmation process, that's fine. When the president exercises the power available to him to circumvent this obstructionism, that's "shedding any pretense of bipartisanship"?

It's almost as if Obama is allowed to be affected by institutional abuses, but he's not allowed to respond. There's nothing wrong with political pugilism, just so long as Obama realizes he's not supposed to punch back.

That's quite a standard.

—Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

A TEXTBOOK CASE OF HISTORICAL INACCURACIES.... A few months ago, the Washington Post reported that public school textbooks in use in Virginia told students that thousands of black soldiers fought for the South during the Civil War. That's plainly false. But it led to some interesting questions, such as, what else is wrong in these textbooks?

As it turns out, quite a bit.

In the version of history being taught in some Virginia classrooms, New Orleans began the 1800s as a bustling U.S. harbor (instead of as a Spanish colonial one). The Confederacy included 12 states (instead of 11). And the United States entered World War I in 1916 (instead of in 1917).

These are among the dozens of errors historians have found since Virginia officials ordered a review of textbooks by Five Ponds Press, the publisher responsible for a controversial claim that African American soldiers fought for the South in large numbers during the Civil War.

"Our Virginia: Past and Present," the textbook including that claim, has many other inaccuracies, according to historians who reviewed it. Similar problems, historians said, were found in another book by Five Ponds Press, "Our America: To 1865." A reviewer has found errors in social studies textbooks by other publishers as well, underscoring the limits of a textbook-approval process once regarded as among the nation's most stringent.

"I absolutely could not believe the number of mistakes -- wrong dates and wrong facts everywhere. How in the world did these books get approved?" said Ronald Heinemann, a former history professor at Hampden-Sydney College.

Five professional scholars oversaw the review process. One, historian Mary Miley Theobald, a former Virginia Commonwealth University professor, reviewed a currently-used history textbook and concluded that it was "just too shocking for words." She prepared a list of errors for state officials -- and the list is 10 pages long.

"Any literate person could have opened that book and immediately found a mistake," she said.

The publisher, which hired an amateur who relied on web searches, is clearly responsible for these errors, but it's also worth noting that Virginia officials aren't helping.

Five Ponds Press provides books mainly to the Virginia Department of Education. The department is required to find texts that meet the state's stringent Standards of Learning, which includes lists of themes that each textbook must cover. That disqualifies many books produced for the national textbook market.

The department approves textbooks after panels of reviewers, often elementary school teachers, verify that the books cover each of the Standards of Learning themes.... The creation of Standards of Learning requirements helped create niche markets for smaller publishers, including Five Ponds Press.

Among the restrictions: Virginia requires state textbooks to tell students the Civil War was primarily a matter of states' rights, not a conflict over slavery.

THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Federal law-enforcement officials have launched a criminal investigation into Christine O'Donnell's (R) failed U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware. The allegations are focused on evidence that the extremist candidate used campaign funds for person use.

* In response, O'Donnell, one of the most radical statewide candidates in recent memory, argued that the investigation is the result of an elaborate conspiracy involving the FBI, George Soros, both major parties in Delaware, Vice President Biden, and disgruntled former aides. All of them got together, O'Donnell said, to undermine her "political reputation."

* In Alaska, Joe Miller (R) will host a press conference tomorrow to announce whether to continue his ridiculous legal fight. Miller who lost to Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R) write-in re-election bid, has gone 0-for-4 in the courts thus far.

* Due to population shifts, Ohio is poised to lose two congressional seats. Once the redistricting process is complete, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) fears one of the eliminated seats will be his. The liberal, Cleveland-area lawmaker hopes to rally supporters to prevent that outcome.

* Republican National Committee members will pick their party chair next month, and the early favorite appears to be Wisconsin GOP Chairman Reince Priebus, though a majority of the 168 members on the committee are still undecided.

* Public Policy Polling's latest report shows approval ratings for governors likely to seek re-election over the next two years. The most popular incumbents appear to be Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and Delaware Gov. Jack Markell (D). The least popular is Christine Gregoire (D) in the state of Washington.

* When it comes to Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R) 2012 re-election campaign in Maine, most of the attention is focused on who'll challenge the incumbent in a Republican primary. But what about Maine Democrats? Rosa Scarcelli (D), the CEO of an affordable-housing agency, said this week she's interested in the race, and might run if Snowe moves to the right or it appears likely Snowe will lose to a primary challenger.

POOR STAFFING DECISIONS.... In the wake of the midterm elections, a wide variety of incoming Republican lawmakers needed to put together teams of staffers, and many immediately began hiring corporate lobbyists as their chiefs of staff. It didn't exactly fit in with the anti-establishment, Tea Party-style campaigns that dominated GOP politics in 2010, and vowing to break with the entrenched establishment and its corrupt power structure.

In fairness, though, it's worth emphasizing that some of these new Republican officials aren't hiring lobbyists as chiefs of staff, they're hiring right-wing talk-show hosts.

In mid-November, Rep.-elect Allen West (R-Fla.) announced his choice for chief of staff: a right-wing radio host who hates immigrants, hates Muslims, and has raised the prospect of an armed insurrection against the United States government. (The host soon after said she would not join West's staff after all, but the fact that she was hired in the first place told us a great deal about the congressman-elect's judgment.)

Yesterday, we saw this same dynamic play out again.

Rep.-elect Tim Huelskamp has hired a conservative talk radio host with no Hill experience and a track record of advocating against abortion and gay marriage as his chief of staff.

The Kansas Republican hired Jim Pfaff, who hosts the Denver-based Jim Pfaff Show, to be his top staffer in Washington, D.C., Pfaff said in a phone interview Wednesday.

Pfaff has advocated at the state level against gay marriage, abortion and Democratic policy initiatives and garnered praise from former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed, who told a Colorado newspaper last year that Pfaff is "one of the greatest grass-roots organizers in the country."

The politician and the radio host apparently met through their work with Focus on the Family, a fundamentalist group created by James Dobson. Pfaff has also been part of right-wing activism on a variety of related fronts, including organizing against Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination, against economic recovery efforts, and against efforts to combat global warming.

It's quite a crop of GOP freshman lawmakers we'll see next year, isn't it? Those who aren't hiring corporate lobbyists are embracing extremist media personalities to oversee their congressional offices.

ROOTING FOR FAILURE.... Last year featured one of the more baffling, big-picture political debates in quite a while. Just as President Obama was being inaugurated, conservatives began to explore whether it's acceptable to actively root against America's leader as they dealt with a variety of foreign and domestic crises.

In general, the right seemed to agree that there was nothing especially wrong in hoping for failure. The contingent was led by Rush Limbaugh, who told his audience the day before Inauguration Day, "I hope Obama fails." A month later, Limbaugh, talking about efforts to revive the economy, added, "I want everything he's doing to fail... I want the stimulus package to fail."

We don't hear quite as much about this anymore, but the sentiment hasn't disappeared. The latest CNN poll (pdf) asked respondents a pretty straightforward question: "In general, do you hope that Barack Obama's policies will succeed or do you hope that his policies will fail?" Overall, 61% want the president's policies to work, 27% do not. That's not especially encouraging.

But the partisan breakdown was especially interesting. Among Democrats, 89% are hoping for success. Among self-identified Independents, it's 59%. Among Republicans, a 61% majority went the other way, hoping to see the president's policies fail.

Here's that breakdown in visual form:

I guess this isn't surprising anymore, but I nevertheless find it rather depressing. It's always struck me as the bare minimum of patriotism: don't root against the home team. It's one thing to disapprove of, or even actively loathe, the country's elected leaders. But rooting for their failure has never supposed to be one of the options.

It's really not complicated -- the president's policies, whether wise or not, are at least intended to bolster the economy and strengthen our national security. If those policies fail, Americans will suffer more and the country will be weaker.

And yet, a majority of Republicans are nevertheless rooting for failure?

Several weeks ago, George W. Bush noted, "I want my president to succeed because if my president succeeds my country succeeds, and I want my country to succeed."

I have no idea why this concept is so hard for so many to understand.

THE CABLE NEWS NUMBERS ARE IN.... To note that the Republicans' cable news network is out in front of its competitors is an understatement. In 2010, Fox News had more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined.

But that no longer seems especially interesting. Indeed, it's pretty predictable -- Fox News has cornered the market when it comes to offering misleading, partisan propaganda that leaves its viewers more ignorant than if they received no information at all. It's been this way for quite a while.

Jay Bookman digs a little deeper, though, and finds some interesting related data.

MSNBC beat CNN for the second straight year among viewers 25-54, and for the first time beat CNN among total primetime viewers as well. The numbers for CNN are truly abysmal, not only compared to Fox and MSNBC, but compared to its own numbers of a year ago. Total primetime viewers of CNN fell by 34 percent compared to 2009.

However, Fox viewership fell as well, declining 7 percent in primetime and 8 percent among primetime viewers in the 25-54 demographic. And to put things in some perspective, "The O'Reilly Factor" drew an average of 3.2 million viewers a night. That makes him the king of cable news talk, but well behind network news shows. With roughly 1 percent of America watching, his numbers also put him well behind cable competitors such as his show's spiritual cousin, World Wrestling Entertainment, and Spongebob Squarepants on Nickelodeon, both of which often pull 5 million or more viewers.

In addition, "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart and "The Colbert Report" with Stephen Colbert both regularly outdraw O'Reilly among the younger demographic sought by advertisers. In fact, it's striking how old the O'Reilly audience skews (3.2 million average audience, just 781,000 of them between 25 and 54.)

CNN has to realize that its status quo is untenable. It has some credible programming -- Anderson Cooper really isn't bad -- but if there was ever a line-up in need of a major overhaul, this is it.

As for O'Reilly, I knew his audience was older, but I didn't realize just how skewed his audience really is. Long term, that's not really a recipe for success, either.

A MISGUIDED SENSE OF VICTIMHOOD, CONT'D.... Maybe it's the season that brings out the worst in far-right Christians feeling sorry for themselves.

A couple of weeks ago, Fox News' Gretchen Carlson whined that in American society, it's Christianity that "always seems" to "take the boot." Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), arguably the Senate's most spirited culture warrior, added that "they always pick on the Christians." (It wasn't clear who "they" referred to.)

This week, it's religious right activist/politician Gary Bauer insisting in print that "in a variety of contexts, American Muslims are treated better than American Christians." (via BooMan)

By all indications, Bauer wasn't kidding. To "prove" his case, he listed a series of perceived slights -- the National Endowment for the Arts apparently funds anti-Christian art; Six Flags hosted a "Muslim Family Day"; and late-night comics hurt Christians' feelings -- most of which came across as lazy, trying-too-hard whining.

But there were a couple of Bauer's points that stood out for me. Take this one, for example:

If Christianity were treated like Islam, Christmas and Easter would be publicly celebrated for what they are -- the signature events of Christianity, marking the birth and the death and Resurrection of Christ -- not stripped of all their theological meaning and transformed into secular holidays devoted to crass consumerism.

Bauer's confused. It wasn't non-Christians who stripped these holidays of their theological meaning; it was Christians themselves who stripped these holidays of their theological meaning. Does Bauer really think Jews and atheists got together to ensure that Santa Claus and the Easter bunny replaced J.C. as cultural touchstone of the holidays? That it was non-Christians who made it so that Christmas is celebrated in malls, rather than in churches?

Guess again. Christians did this all on their own. Indeed, part of the drive to secularize Christian holidays came, ironically enough, from those who share Bauer's worldview -- to make it easier for adherents to push these holidays into the American mainstream and grant them official support, Christians had to argue that the holidays weren't especially religious.

Bauer then concluded:

At a time of the year when intolerance for public displays of Christianity is most acute, it is my Christmas wish that Muslims and Christians would be treated equally.

Bauer really needs to get out more. Take a drive around a typical American neighborhood, and count the Christmas trees, wreaths, and Nativity scenes on front lawns. Then go to a public place and count the folks with crosses around their necks. Then turn on television and count the Christmas specials, or athletes praising God during a game, or entertainers thanking God at an awards ceremony, or TV preachers begging for cash.

If there's "intolerance for public displays of Christianity," it's hiding extremely well.

As for the notion of ensuring that Muslims and Christians are "treated equally," when Bauer can point to a national controversy over converting a closed clothing store into a Christian community center, I'll be very impressed.

I continue to marvel at why folks like Bauer wallow in self pity. It's become part of their religio-political identity, but it's as absurd as it is paranoid. Christians dominate American society, in large part because they're a huge majority. The misguided sense of victimhood is getting tiresome.

WHITE HOUSE RESPONDS TO OBSTRUCTIONISM WITH SIX RECESS APPOINTMENTS.... James Cole spent 13 years as Justice Department official, and is an accomplished attorney. When President Obama nominated him to be the deputy attorney general -- the second highest-ranking position in the department, effectively Justice's chief operating officer -- few questioned Cole's qualifications or abilities.

But conservative Republicans didn't like him. In particular, Cole had criticized Bush/Cheney's dubious national security tactics after 9/11, which drew GOP ire. Cole earned the support of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but his nomination languished, waiting for a floor vote since July, the longest delay in history for a deputy AG nominee. The GOP decided it wasn't enough to oppose Cole; it had to stop the Senate from voting at all.

Yesterday, the White House got tired of waiting.

President Obama said Wednesday that he intended to install six appointees -- including James Cole, his controversial pick for the No. 2 spot at the Justice Department -- while Congress is in recess. The move will allow them to serve without confirmation by the Senate, where their prospects will only grow dimmer once Republicans gain strength in January.

Mr. Obama, who is vacationing here on the island of Oahu with his family, made the announcement via news release, without any explanation or comment, other than to say that the posts have "been left vacant for an extended period of time."

All six nominees -- Cole, four ambassadors, and the official who runs the Government Printing Office -- had the support of a Senate majority, but were blocked from receiving up-or-down votes.

Also of note is the president's decision to appoint Robert Ford, a career diplomat, as the U.S. ambassador to Syria, a position that has been vacant since 2005. Republicans didn't object to Ford, per se, but didn't want the post filled at all. The administration insisted that having an ambassador to Syria was integral to U.S. diplomacy in the region.

In the larger context, Obama has shown considerable, almost frustrating, restraint when it comes to recess appointments -- these six bring his total to 28 -- in the face of a nominating process that has become paralyzed by unprecedented obstructionism. Indeed, the president could have been even more ambitious in this new announcement -- there were 73 other administration nominees waiting for Senate floor votes who were denied confirmation and will have to be re-nominated.

I mention this, of course, because Senate Republicans are likely to throw a fit over these six appointments. It's important that they realize that they broke this system, and left the White House with very little choice. The confirmation process wasn't designed to work this way; it didn't use to work this way; and it's simply can't work this way. The executive branch needs to function, and it can't if key, high-ranking posts remain vacant because Republicans are unhappy about losing an election.

As is always the case with recess appointments, these six officials will be able to serve for one year, at which point they'll either have to step down or go through the Senate confirmation process again.

Either way, I'm glad to see Obama use this power available to him. I've generally frowned on recess appointments, in part because the process is too easily abused, but under the circumstances, it's become a necessary response to a very different kind of abuse at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* U.S. Army Col. Viet Luong conceded today that "it has become practically impossible to stop insurgents from slipping across Afghanistan's vast border with Pakistan." If that's true, doesn't that make military success in Afghanistan almost impossible?

* Mosul police commander Lt. Col. Shamil al-Jabouri was a relentless terrorist foe, and was an al Qaeda target for assassination five times, all of them unsuccessful. Today, three suicide bombers wearing police uniforms over vests laden with explosives managed to kill him.

* No, conservatives, snow storms do not cast doubts on the veracity of climate change data.

* On a related note, I tend to think the blizzard in the Northeast is getting far too much attention, but it's probably worth noting that the storm likely delayed $1 billion worth of retail shopping.

* It seems likely that WikiLeaks revelations have severely undermined democratic reforms in Zimbabwe.

* Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Tex.), reflecting on the BP oil spill disaster: "As we saw that thing bubbling out, blossoming out -- all that energy, every minute of every hour of every day of every week -- that was tremendous to me. That we could deliver that kind of energy out there -- even on an explosion." Did I mention that Hall will be the new chairman of the House science committee?

* Remember Judith Miller? Her ignominious career trajectory has managed to take her from the New York Times to Fox News to a fringe, extremist website called Newsmax. Wow.

* The problem with higher-ed in the U.S. isn't more students going to college; it's students and their families having to pay for most of that education themselves, plus interest.

* Congrats to Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D) of Maryland, who's poised to become the longest serving female senator in American history.

* How many times has Politico run a story purporting to show hostilities between the Obama White House and the business community? Would you believe 28 times?

* And Michael Vick's dog-related crimes were awful and he clearly deserved to be punished. But Tucker Carlson thinks the quarterback deserved the death penalty and that strikes me as insane.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... When Fox News personalities start tackling political correctness on the air, they're bound to get into trouble.

Take today, for example. The Society of Professional Journalists is encouraging media organizations to steer clear of phrases like "illegal aliens" in favor of "undocumented immigrant." Fox News anchor/activist Megyn Kelly hosted a segment on the issue, and headed straight for the slippery slope.

"How far could you take this?" Kelly asked. "You could say that a burglar is an unauthorized visitor. You know, you could say that a rapist is a non-consensual sex partner which, obviously, would be considered offensive to the victims of those crimes."

Obviously.

Yes, in Megyn Kelly's mind, there's a reasonable comparison to be drawn between "alien" immigrants and "non-consensual sex partner" rapists.

And lest anyone think the Fox News personality just got caught up in the moment and said something she didn't mean to say, Kelly then pressed a representative of the Women's Media Center on this point, asking, "What if there was a push by the criminal defense... bar to re-brand the use of the word rapist to nonconsensual sex partner?"

In other words, she clearly considered this a fair rhetorical comparison.

Kelly, one of the Republican network's more cringe-worthy figures, went on to lament political correctness in general: "You know, we did a segment earlier in the year on how little people find the term midget offensive, and so you can't say that anymore. There's so many words that are suddenly becoming hurtful, and part of the group thinks it's hurtful, and the other group doesn't, and you're left as a journalist saying, I don't know what to do."

Here's a tip, Megyn: call people whatever they want to be called. It's really not that complicated; even Fox News personalities should be able to keep it straight.

SOTOMAYOR DOESN'T DISAPPOINT.... There were some concerns last year that Sonia Sotomayor might prove to be a disappointment. David Souter had, thankfully, proven to be one of the Supreme Court's reliable center-left votes, and many feared that Sotomayor might actually move the high court slightly to the right.

It's obviously early in the justice's career, but we can start to appreciate Sotomayor's approach to her position based on what we've seen so far. The NYT's Adam Liptak noted this week that she "has completely dispelled the fear on the left" about her judicial ideology.

[F]or anyone looking for insight into the justices, there was much more information to be gleaned from another genre of judicial writing. In the last three months, the court has turned down thousands of appeals, almost always without comment. On seven occasions, though, at least one justice had something to say about the court's decision not to hear a case.

Such writings are completely discretionary, and they open a window onto the author's passions. They are also a good way to keep track of the divisions on the court.

An ideological fault line ran through those seven opinions. Not a single member of the court's four-member liberal wing joined any of the three opinions written by a conservative justice. And not a single member of the court's four-member conservative wing joined any of the four opinions written by a liberal justice. [...]

Justice Sotomayor wrote three of the opinions, more than any other justice, and all concerned the rights of criminal defendants or prisoners.

The piece is worth reading for the details, but given her brief tenure, there can be no doubt that Sotomayor is one of the high court's more forceful progressive voices.

President Obama appears to have chosen wisely. Here's hoping his chances to nominate others aren't over yet.