During the congressional debate over the economic recovery package, Republican lawmakers voiced their opposition to the bill by complaining that it did not focus on housing. For instance, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), who voted against the economic recovery bill, said:

If housing is the problem with the economy that started all of this, if you don’t fix the problem that started it, it is like having a patient that comes into the emergency room with a gaping wound and you put a band-aid on it. … We have a lot of problems, but we need to fix the underlying cancer, and that is the housing crisis.

Were Republicans using the housing provisions as a cudgel to simply stall and defeat the recovery package? Or are they genuinely interested in solving the problems with the housing market? We’ll soon find out.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which President Obama signed yesterday, was not intended to focus on housing. Rather, as Obama noted, the stimulus was just one leg of a three-legged economic recovery stool. In addition to the focus on job creation, “we’ve got to deal with the credit crisis; we got to deal with housing,” Obama explained. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has already unveiled a plan to get credit flowing through the economy. And today in Phoenix, Obama will unveil the third leg — a plan to fix the housing crisis.

ThinkProgress has compiled a video montage recalling the statements of conservatives who, just in the past few days, called for urgently tackling the housing crisis. Typical of the conservative argument, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, “Number 1, we need to go right at the housing problem. That’s what started all this.” Watch the video:

Already, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) signaled his opposition to Obama’s housing plan before even seeing the details of the legislation. Will his fellow conservatives follow in his footsteps and soon forget their concerns about the addressing the “root cause” of the economic crisis?

Transcript: More »« Less

We've periodically polled Connecticut to remind the world that Joe Lieberman's constituents have long since soured on his schtick. We did so several times in 2007, as well as April 2008, July 2008, and November 2008.

We've kept polling a Lamont-Lieberman race to gauge what people would do if they had a chance for a do-over. In that November poll, Lamont would crush Lieberman 51-37.

Last week, Attorney Gen. Richard Blumenthal announced he would run for Senate in 2012, and he won't be the only one in what is sure to be a contested Democratic primary (he passed on a 2006 primary challenge despite heavy lobbying efforts before Lamont jumped in). Republicans will clear the field for Lieberman, as he's their guy. So if Blumenthal is the Democratic nominee, how would he fare against Lieberman? Pretty darn good according to the latest Q-poll.

Quinnipiac Univ.  2/4-8. Registered voters. MoE 2.5% (No trend lines)

Woah. It helps that Blumenthal's approval ratings are an astronomical 79-12, including 66-25 among Republicans. Lieberman, by contrast, is at 45-48, 21-70 among Democrats and 46-48 among the independents he supposedly represents. Not pretty.

We'll be rid of Lieberman after 2012. The only question will be whether it's a voluntary or forced retirement. I'm really, really hoping it's the latter.

The New York Times reports today that shortly after 9/11, the White House met several times with “a delegation of high-level media executives, including the heads of every major studio,” in order to discuss how “the entertainment industry could play a part in improving the image of the United States overseas.” Karl Rove attended at least one of the meetings. One of the participants in the meetings, former RIAA chairwoman Hilary Rosen says Rove “put pressure” on them to “produce propaganda”:

Hilary Rosen, the former chairwoman of the Recording Industry Association of America, who was also present at the post-9/11 meetings, said that Mr. Rove and other White House officials were looking for the kind of support Hollywood gave the United States during World War II.

“They wanted the music industry, the movie industry, the TV industry to produce propaganda,” she said. “Rove was putting a lot of pressure on us.”

Over the weekend, Iraq’s cabinet “overwhelmingly approved a proposed security agreement that calls for a full withdrawal of American forces from the country by the end of 2011.” Noting President Bush’s long-held opposition to “artificial timetables,” one reporter asked at today’s White House press conference if the inclusion of a deadline in the security agreement was a “departure” from or “repudiation” of Bush’s views on Iraq.

Press Secretary Dana Perino demurred, claiming that the security agreement is, in fact, in line with Bush’s views on Iraq because it included only an “aspirational” deadline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq:

QUESTION: The President has said for months that he opposes any timetable and that any decision should be based on the conditions on the ground. How much is the latest agreement a departure, if not a repudiation — ?

PERINO: [W]hen you work with a partner on a negotiation, you have to concede some points. One of the points that we conceded was that we would establish these aspirational dates.

Watch it:

In reality, there is nothing “aspirational” about the security agreement’s withdrawal deadline. Members of the Iraqi government are referring to the pact as a “withdrawal agreement” and the Washington Post reported just how firm the deadline is:

“The total withdrawal will be completed by December 31, 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground,” the [Iraqi government] spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, told Iraqi reporters, pointedly rejecting the more conditional language that the U.S. government had sought in the accord.

In addition, the “Iraqi spokesman noted that his government could cancel the agreement if its own forces became capable of controlling security at an earlier time.”

The agreement guarantees a more complete withdrawal from Iraq than even President-elect Barack Obama proposed. As Spencer Ackerman noted, “Obama’s plan for a 30,000-troop residual force? Officially overtaken by events.” The agreement also prohibits the U.S. military from conducting raids on Iraqi homes “without an order from an Iraqi judge and permission of the government,” and requires U.S. forces to “leave the streets of Iraq’s towns and villages by the middle of 2009.”

The media haven’t been able to get enough Palin 2012 speculation in the run-up to her speech today at the Republican Governors Association (RGA) convention. In almost every interview with GOP governors over the past couple days, hosts have been asking them their thoughts on a future presidential run by Palin. These governors, however, have been less than enthusiastic to embrace Palin as their future candidate:

CNN: So let me ask you point blank, governor. Is she the future of the party?
MARK SANFORD (SC): I don’t think I’d define it that way. [11/13/08]

TIM PAWLENTY (MN): She [Palin] is going to be one of the voices that will help lead the party for months and years to come, clearly. … I also think it is too early to be talking about 2012. My goodness, we just had an election. People are sick of that. [MSNBC, 11/12/08]

FOX: What do you think her future is?
HALEY BARBOUR (MS): Well, I think the future she’s talking about is 2009 and 2010. [11/13/08]

MATT BLUNT (MO): I think Republican governors were surprised when she [Palin] was selected, but at the same time they were impressed. … There are a lot of great candidates out there for 2012. I don’t think the American people want to — want to hear much about that at this point.[Fox News, 11/13/08]

MSNBC: So broad hints there from Palin again today with reporters, certainly with Matt Lauer. Is that the solution?
JON HUNTSMAN (UT): The solutions are going to be many-fold. You can’t look to one personality in particular. [11/12/08]

Watch a compilation:

Yesterday at the RGA convention, many of these same governors and other top GOP figures were reluctant to say that they would have been comfortable with Palin as president.

Some leading conservatives may also be getting jealous of all the attention Palin is receiving. When Newt Gingrich — who is also rumored to be eyeing a 2012 run — was on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes last night, he listed the names of governors who have the potential to “rebuild” the GOP. Gingrich never once mentioned Palin’s name until Hannity pointed out that he had been one of her earliest backers. Gingrich simply replied, “Well, she’s now become, in many ways, a national figure. I’m curious to see what she’ll decide to do.”

DALLAS - According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has a 19-point lead over Republican rival John McCain among U.S. voters who have already cast their ballots.

The Pew poll, released on Tuesday, gels with other reports of a Democratic surge to the polls in states that allow early voting.

“Obama holds a 53 percent to 34 percent lead among the sizable minority of voters (15 percent) who say they have already voted. Among those who plan to vote early but have not yet voted (16 percent of voters), 56 percent support Obama, while 37 percent support McCain,” Pew said.

The election will be held a week from today and most national polls give Obama a commanding lead, although not by the margins suggested by Pew’s survey of early voters. This could well be a sign of energized and enthusiastic Democrats heading to the early polls.

Obama’s lead over McCain has narrowed from 12 points just five days ago to four points, according to the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll. You can see our report on this  here. 

The latest Pew poll gave Obama an overall lead of 52 percent to 36 percent among the 1,325 registered voters surveyed from Oct 23- 26th.