Wash Post:

Opposition to the landmark health care overhaul declined over the past month, to 35 percent from 41 percent, according to the latest results of a tracking poll, reported Thursday.

Fifty percent of the public held a favorable view of the law, up slightly from 48 percent a month ago, while 14 percent expressed no opinion about the measure, according to the poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The approval level was the highest for the legislation since it was enacted in March, after a divisive year-long debate. In April, the poll found 46 percent in favor and 40 percent opposed.

Though the legislative battle is over, the political tug-of-war continues. Democrats and Republicans have been fighting to shape public opinion on the issue in hopes of influencing the fall elections.

Among Republicans, opposition to the law remained steady at 69 percent, but the intensity of that opposition ticked upward. Fifty-three percent of Republicans said they had a "very unfavorable" opinion of the law this month, up from 50 percent in June.

Independents, who can tip the balance in elections, split 48 percent to 37 percent in favor, compared with 49 percent to 41 percent a month earlier. The intensity of opinion among this group showed little change; just less than a fifth expressed a very favorable view, and just more than a quarter expressed a very unfavorable view.

The legislation was passed by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and was signed into law by a Democratic president, and over the past month Democratic support for the legislation grew. Seventy-three percent of Democrats expressed a favorable opinion, up from 69 percent in June. Fifteen percent of Democrats expressed an unfavorable opinion, down from 19 percent in June.

A third of Democrats held a very favorable opinion of the health care overhaul.

The public remains split into rough thirds as to whether the law will leave their own family better off, worse off or unchanged, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported.

The poll found that misconceptions about the legislation persist, including the "death panel" falsehood propagated by opponents of the legislation.

"A year after the town meeting wars of last summer, a striking 36% of seniors said that the law 'allowed a government panel to make decisions about end of life care for people on Medicare', and another 17% said they didn't know," Kaiser Family Foundation chief executive Drew Altman wrote.

Gallup:

Democrats have a 48% to 44% advantage for the week of July 19-25 in Gallup tracking of registered voters' preferences for the 2010 congressional elections. This marks the second straight week in which Democrats have held an edge of at least four percentage points.

Although Republicans have moved to a four-point or higher advantage on three separate occasions, this is the first time either party has held an advantage of that size for two consecutive weeks. Republicans and Democrats have been tied on average across the 21 weeks of Gallup's tracking.

Republicans' Enthusiasm Lead Persists

Republicans continue to be substantially more enthusiastic about voting, as they have been since March. Their current 18-point lead in voting enthusiasm is down slightly from last week's 23-point lead, but it remains slightly higher than the average 16-point lead they have enjoyed since tracking began in March.

Overall enthusiasm for voting was little changed last week. Thirty-four percent of registered voters say they are very enthusiastic about voting, compared with 36% a week prior and an average of 33% so far this year.

Bottom Line

This past week marks the second time since March that either party has held any type of edge on the generic ballot for three consecutive weeks. Exactly what is behind the uptick in support for Democrats is not clear, although last week's gains coincided with the passage of the financial reform bill. Independents continue to be more likely to say they will vote for the Republican rather than the Democratic candidate, while both Republicans and Democrats maintain more than 90% allegiance for their party's candidates.

Democrats' improved position on the generic ballot is counterbalanced by the continuing wide advantage Republicans have in voting enthusiasm. This GOP enthusiasm gap foreshadows a typical Republican turnout advantage in midterm election voting, meaning that Democrats need a substantial lead on the registered voter generic ballot to offset their turnout disadvantage. Still, the results show that expectations of an assured Republican landslide in the congressional elections this fall are not a foregone conclusion.

Gallup's final generic ballot measure, based on likely voters, has since 1950 closely matched the total percentage of votes cast nationally for Democratic and Republican candidates in all 435 U.S. House races -- a statistic that bears a predictable relationship to the number of House seats won by each party. Gallup does not screen for likely voters until closer to Election Day, but historically, Republicans' turnout advantage in midterm elections widens the Republican-Democrat gap in the GOP's favor. Thus, if these numbers held through Election Day, the two parties would likely be closely matched at the ballot box.

Some people have way more patience than I ... an amazing video (how long did it take him to create??):

Wash Post:

"Subjects."

That's what Thomas Jefferson first wrote in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence to describe the people of the 13 colonies.

But in a moment when history took a sharp turn, Jefferson sought quite methodically to expunge the word, to wipe it out of existence and write over it. Many words were crossed out and replaced in the draft, but only one was obliterated.

Over the smudge, Jefferson then wrote the word "citizens."

No longer subjects to the crown, the colonists became something different: a people whose allegiance was to one another, not to a faraway monarch.

Scholars of the revolution have long speculated about the "citizens" smear -- wondering whether the erased word was "patriots" or "residents" -- but now the Library of Congress has determined that the change was far more dramatic.

Using a modified version of the kind of spectral imaging technology developed for the military and for monitoring agriculture, research scientists teased apart the mystery and reconstructed the word that Jefferson banished in 1776.

"Seldom can we re-create a moment in history in such a dramatic and living way," Library of Congress preservation director Dianne van der Reyden said at Friday's announcement of the discovery.

"It's almost like we can see him write 'subjects' and then quickly decide that's not what he wanted to say at all, that he didn't even want a record of it," she said. "Really, it sends chills down the spine."

The library deciphered the hidden "subjects" several months ago, the first major finding attributed to its new high-tech instruments. By studying the document at different wavelengths of light, including infrared and ultraviolet, researchers detected slightly different chemical signatures in the remnant ink of the erased word than in "citizens." Those differences allowed the team to bring the erased word back to life.

But the task was made more difficult by the way Jefferson sought to match the lines and curves of the underlying smudged letters with the new letters he wrote on top of them. It took research scientist Fenella France weeks to pull out each letter until the full word became apparent.

"It's quite amazing how he morphed 'subjects' into 'citizens,' " she said. "We did the reverse morphing back to 'subjects.' "

France said the possibility that the erased word was "subjects" came up during a talk she gave to library donors and visitors about how to study historical documents without harming them. France had determined that a word existed beneath "citizens," and she asked the group for ideas. One woman called out "subjects," and library staff members immediately realized that she was on to something. The intensive work on the document soon began.

The erased word is on the third of the draft's four pages, in the section that addressed grievances against King George III and outlined his incitement of "treasonable insurrections." The sentence is not found in the later Declaration of Independence, but "citizens" is used elsewhere in that document and "subjects" is not.

Scholars previously determined that Jefferson had been writing his early version based on the first draft of Virginia's constitution, where the words "our fellow subjects" appear.

Finding Jefferson's erased word is the library's greatest accomplishment using its new technology, but several other projects are in progress. The imaging device, for instance, found thumb and fingerprints on the Gettysburg Address using infrared light, and library researchers are seeking to determine whether they are President Abraham Lincoln's.

Light outside the visible range has also brought to life details of Pierre L'Enfant's design for Washington and notes on papers of Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

Van der Reyden said the research and discoveries illustrate why it's so important to keep and protect original documents. The erased "subjects," she said, could have been detected only from Jefferson's original draft.

Wash Post:

The health-care overhaul gained popularity from May to June, according to a new tracking poll.

The results suggest that the Obama administration's promotion of the legislation may be paying off or that the public may be warming to the law as early provisions take effect.

The Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 48 percent of the public had a favorable view of the law in June while 41 percent had an unfavorable opinion. A month earlier, the split was 41 percent favorable to 44 percent unfavorable.

The latest survey results were not much different from those in March, shortly before the law was enacted. Then, at the end of a bitter year-long battle, 46 percent said they supported the proposed legislation while 42 percent opposed it.

Since President Obama signed the law, Democrats and Republicans vying for advantage in the fall elections have been fighting to shape how the public perceives the historic legislation. The administration has been spotlighting potentially crowd-pleasing elements as they are phased in, including a provision that will allow many parents to keep young adult children on their insurance policies until age 26, and another provision that is helping some Medicare beneficiaries narrow a gap in their prescription drug coverage.

"Overall, roughly a third of voters say that a candidate who voted for the health reform law will be more likely to get their vote, a third say less likely, and a third say it doesn't really matter," said the foundation, which studies and distributes information about health-care policy.

When voters were pressed to choose the issue most important to them, "economic concerns came out on top, with 29 percent naming either the economy or unemployment," the foundation said. Thirteen percent mentioned dissatisfaction with government, 12 percent mentioned health care, and 9 percent each pointed to the Gulf Coast oil spill and the budget deficit, the survey found.

The full impact of the health-care legislation will not be felt until 2014, when some of the most far-reaching and controversial elements take effect. Those include an end to discrimination by insurers based on preexisting conditions and a requirement that everyone carry health insurance.

The Kaiser tracking poll was conducted June 17 through 22 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points, the foundation said.

Also see Chris Cillizza's more overtly political analysis of the Kaiser poll.

Jonathan Capehart:

Without question, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s “Christmas” retort to Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) will be the most memorable moment of her confirmation hearings. Graham asked, “Christmas Day bomber. Where were you at on Christmas Day?” Kagan, whose day job is solicitor general of the United States, seemed confused by his query and started answering him seriously. But Graham cut her off and said, “No. I just asked where you were at on Christmas.”

Kagan’s response -- "Like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant" -- was brilliant in its humor, timing and the self-effacing manner in which it was delivered. Despite the laughter in the chamber, it was one of those “only in New York” references that might go over the heads of a few folks. Even Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) admitted that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) explained it to him before the hearing. Then Schumer kindly pointed out that Chinese restaurants are the only places that are open on Christmas Day, which is vital in a city where making reservations IS making dinner. For those of you out there who are in need of a similar cultural life raft, take a look at this instant classic video from Saturday Night Live.

Check out Kagan's other funny moments here.

A devastating critique ... what's wrong with us?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
An Energy-Independent Future
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

NY Times (watch their accompanying video report):

Henry David Thoreau was jailed here 164 years ago for refusing to pay taxes while living at Walden Pond. Now the town has Jean Hill to contend with.

Mrs. Hill, an octogenarian previously best known for her blueberry jam, proposed banning the sale of bottled water here at a town meeting this spring. Voters approved, with the intent of making Concord the first town in the nation to strip Aquafina, Poland Spring and the like from its stores.

In orchestrating an outright ban, Mrs. Hill, 82, has achieved something that powerful environmental groups have not even tried. The bottled water industry is not pleased; it has threatened to sue if the ban takes effect as planned on Jan. 1. Officials here have hinted that they might not strictly enforce it, but Mrs. Hill, who described herself as obsessed, said that would only deepen her resolve.

“I’m going to work until I drop on this,” she said. “If you believe in something, you have to persist and you have to have a thick skin.”

Tom Lauria, a spokesman for the International Bottled Water Association, questioned why Mrs. Hill would single out bottled water when there are so many other things packaged in plastic. “Some people in the industry kind of respect her because of her age and her vision,” he said, “but we believe that vision is distorted. There are far worse products to pick on than water.”

Mrs. Hill’s crusade began a few years ago when her grandson, then 10, told her about the so-called Pacific garbage patch, a vortex of plastic and other debris floating between California and Hawaii, thought to be twice the size of Texas.

She researched and homed in on bottled water, finding that millions of plastic bottles were disposed of daily and that most were not recycled. While most opponents of bottled water have sought piecemeal change, like getting government agencies to stop buying it, Mrs. Hill wanted her affluent, erudite town to take a bolder step.

“The bottled water companies are draining our aquifers and selling it back to us,” she said, repeating her pitch from the town meeting in April. “We’re trashing our planet, all because of greed.”

Mrs. Hill’s presentation compelled some 300 voters to support the ban. But days later, town officials said the ban appeared unenforceable. They have asked the state attorney general’s office for guidance.

“It’s our responsibility to carry out the wishes of town meeting, but we’re struggling a little with how to do that,” said Christopher Whelan, the town manager. “It’s still up in the air what will happen on Jan. 1.”

Mr. Lauria said the bottled water association would consider suing if the attorney general’s office signs off on the ban. “It’s a completely legal commodity, and to ban it runs afoul of interstate commerce considerations,” he said.

As for Mrs. Hill, Mr. Whelan said she belonged to a long tradition of town residents channeling Thoreau and other big-thinking forbears.

“She’s the classic Concordian who conceives of an idea and doesn’t take no for an answer,” he said. “She’s a strong-willed citizen who is very committed to the environment, so in a lot of ways she’s typical of this place.”

Mrs. Hill said she developed an activist streak as a teenager during World War II, when she spent a summer working in a New York City parachute factory. She discovered that employees got no paid vacation, and tried to stir a revolt.

“I went to a local union office,” she said. “Here I was, only 16, and they said, ‘Get lost, kid.’ ”

After that, she stopped agitating but read a book a night and honed her research skills as a clerk at Life magazine. She got married and raised four children here, returning to activism only about 15 years ago when she fought a plan to build a visitors center in a historic meadow.

Mrs. Hill’s current battle is lonely, despite the overwhelming support of voters who attended the April meeting. She reached out to Corporate Accountability International, an advocacy group in Boston that gave Mrs. Hill a PowerPoint presentation to help make her case. But most of her work — researching online, passing out pamphlets at church — has been solitary.

She recently organized a screening of “Tapped,” a documentary about abuses in the bottled water industry. A representative from Senator John Kerry’s office came — Mrs. Hill had threatened not to vote for him otherwise — but the crowd she had hoped for did not.

She has critics, including some who dismiss her as a retiree with too much time on her hands.

“Oh, I know,” she huffed, “this little old lady in tennis shoes butting into everyone’s business. It’s annoying and it’s not true. I’m not meddling; I’m trying to accomplish a legitimate goal.”

Mrs. Hill attributes the popularity of bottled water to the widespread belief that everyone needs eight glasses worth a day.

“People thought, ‘Oh God, got to have my water,” she said, waving a hand dismissively. “If you did that, you’d spend the whole day in the bathroom!”

She does not drink enough water herself, she allowed; orange juice, milk and Scotch are higher on her list. For those who do sip water all day, she has some characteristically blunt advice.

“Get yourself a nice Thermos,” she said. “I’ll give you one if you want.”

Mrs. Hill made a point of finding out how many public water fountains Concord has — 11 — and sharing their whereabouts in a letter to the local newspaper, The Concord Journal. She also approached a local merchant to suggest selling Thermoses instead of bottled water.

“He was not impressed by that at all,” she said. “The stores aren’t happy about it.”

Her movement suffered a blowback last month, when a water main break forced a boil-water order in the Boston area for several days. The pursuant clamor for bottled water gave some in Concord, which was not affected, second thoughts about a ban.

Mrs. Hill never flinched.

“People got hysterical,” she said. “All they had to do was boil their water for one full minute and that would be fine.”

In a crisis — or whenever they wanted — the people of Concord could always get bottled water elsewhere, Mrs. Hill said. Nor could the ban stop them from stockpiling water from big-box stores, a loophole that does not vex her for now.

“I’m not prepared to take on Costco at this point,” she said. “Maybe when I get a rest, I will.”

Starting at about 2:30 minutes in ...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Day 62 - The Strife Aquatic
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Wash Post:

In the past year and a half, President Obama has quietly used his powers to expand federal rights and benefits for gays and lesbians, targeting one government restriction after another in an attempt to change public policy while avoiding a confrontation with Republicans and opponents of gay rights.

The result is that scores of federal rules blocking gay rights have been swept aside or reinterpreted by Obama officials eager to advance the agenda of a constituency that strongly backed the president's 2008 campaign.

Among the changes: Gay partners of federal workers will now receive long-term health insurance, access to day care and other benefits. Federal Housing Authority loans can no longer consider the sexual orientation of applicants. The Census Bureau plans to report the number of people who report being in a same-sex relationship. Hospitals must allow gays to visit their ill partners. And federal child-care subsidies can be used by the children of same-sex domestic partners.

On Wednesday, the Labor Department is expected to announce that federal officials have rethought the Family and Medical Leave Act, concluding that under the law, a gay federal employee may take leave to care for a child with a gay partner.

Individually, none of the changes is especially dramatic. But taken together, they significantly alter the way gays and lesbians are viewed under federal law.

The administration's effort, made largely under the radar -- and outside the reach of Congress -- has alarmed opponents of gay rights, who accuse the president of undermining traditional marriage even as he speaks about respecting it.

"He's been a supporter of married mothers and fathers in name only," said Jenny Tyree, a marriage analyst for CitizenLink, an affiliate of Focus on the Family. "He speaks very passionately and touchingly about how he grew up without a father. And yet there is this huge disconnect in how he's undermining that same opportunity for other children."

In a Father's Day statement Sunday, Obama called fathers "our first teachers and coaches, mentors and role models" and said that "nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a stepfather, a grandfather, or caring guardian."

Tyree called the inclusion of "two fathers" in the proclamation a "very troubling" decision to promote a "motherless family."

But gay rights advocates have greeted the changes as evidence that Obama has not abandoned them -- even as he has frustrated some by failing to act quickly on campaign promises to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and bring an end to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

"The administration is moving the executive branch to really provide interpretations that will change the lives of millions of [lesbian and gay] people for the better," said Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign.

Winnie Stachelberg, a senior vice president at the Center for American Progress, praised Obama for finding creative ways to unravel policies that she said have long been unfair to gays.

"This administration has really opened up the toolbox that it alone has access to, to address the problems faced by gays and lesbians," she said.

Obama remains under pressure from some members of the gay community to move more quickly and forcefully on the major battles with Congress. A group of activists interrupted his speech at a Democratic fundraiser in California last month, yelling that he should do more to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

He will probably hear similar complaints Tuesday night, when he hosts a Gay and Lesbian Pride Month event at the White House for the second year in a row.

Administration officials are quick to note their legislative successes. The president signed a federal hate crimes bill into law that for the first time provides protections against crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation. And the Senate is one vote away from ending the military's controversial policy on service by gays and lesbians.

But aides said the administration has purposely sought to take other actions to circumvent those battles.

"While many of the items of concern to the [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] community require Congress to act, the president has also taken many steps that don't require a change in the law," said Shin Inouye, a White House spokesman. "The president and his administration remain committed to achieving equality for all, and it's clear that we're moving forward."

Obama's orders have relied largely on authority the president has to reshape the federal government, much in the way that George W. Bush used the levers of the federal bureaucracy to relax government restrictions on oil and gas exploration on federally protected land. In April, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. reinterpreted the Violence Against Women act to cover partners in a same-sex relationship. In remarks Monday to gay employees at the Justice Department, Holder promised more of the same.

"Too many of the challenges that confronted the LGBT community 16 years ago . . . confront us still today," he said at the department's celebration of gay pride month. "Too many of the same obstacles that existed then remain for us to overcome. Too many talented men and women cannot, in the words of this year's motto, "serve openly, with pride."

Wash Post:

A French drug company is seeking to offer American women something their European counterparts already have: a pill that works long after "the morning after."

The drug, dubbed ella, would be sold as a contraceptive -- one that could prevent pregnancy for as many as five days after unprotected sex. But the new drug is a close chemical relative of the abortion pill RU-486, raising the possibility that it could also induce abortion by making the womb inhospitable for an embryo.

The controversy sparked by that ambiguity promises to overshadow the work of a federal panel that will convene next week to consider endorsing the drug. The last time the Food and Drug Administration vetted an emergency contraceptive -- Plan B, the so-called morning-after pill -- the decision was mired in debate over such fundamental questions as when life begins and the distinction between preventing and terminating a pregnancy. Ella is raising many of those same politically charged questions -- but more sharply, testing the Obama administration's pledge to keep ideology from influencing scientific decisions.

Plan B, which works for up to 72 hours after sex, was eventually approved for sale without a prescription, although a doctor's order is required for girls younger than 17. The new drug promises to extend that period to at least 120 hours. Approved in Europe last year, ella is available as an emergency contraceptive in at least 22 countries.

Ella is being welcomed by many U.S. advocates for family planning and reproductive rights as a much-needed additional form of emergency contraception. Opponents of the drug, however, argue that the French company and the FDA would be misleading the public by labeling ella as an emergency contraceptive. Its chemical similarity to RU-486 makes it more like the controversial abortion pill, which can terminate a pregnancy at up to nine weeks, they say. RU-486 has soared in popularity since approval 10 years ago in the United States, raising the possibility that ella (ulipristal acetate) might become ubiquitous in American women's medicine cabinets.

"With ulipristal, women will be enticed to buy a poorly tested abortion drug, unaware of its medical risks, under the guise that it's a morning-after pill," said Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, which led the battle against Plan B.

Plan B prevents a pregnancy by administering high doses of a hormone that mimics progesterone. It works primarily by inhibiting the ovaries from producing eggs. Critics argue it can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb, which some consider equivalent to an abortion.

Ella works as a contraceptive by blocking progesterone's activity, which delays the ovaries from producing an egg. RU-486, too, blocks the action of progesterone, which is also needed to prepare the womb to accept a fertilized egg and to nurture a developing embryo. That's how RU-486 can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting and dislodge growing embryos. Ella's chemical similarity raises the possibility that it might do the same thing, perhaps if taken at elevated doses. But no one knows for sure because the drug has never been tested that way. Opponents of the drug are convinced it will. "It kills embryos, just like the abortion pill," said Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Critics fear that women who do not realize they are already pregnant will use the drug, unwittingly giving themselves an abortion.

"The difference between preventing life and destroying life is hugely significant to many women," said Jeanne Monahan, director of the Family Research Council's Center for Human Dignity. "Women deserve to know that difference."

They also fear some women will try to use ella to abort a fetus, putting themselves at risk for potentially life-threatening complications that have been reported among a small number of women using RU-486, and possibly damage their developing child if it doesn't work.

Proponents dismiss those concerns, saying that ella has been tested only within five days of unprotected sex and there is no evidence that it works as anything other than a contraceptive. Ella appears to be about twice as effective as Plan B in preventing pregnancy, and its effectiveness remains constant for at least 120 hours. Plan B begins to lose its effectiveness almost immediately and becomes ineffective after 72 hours.

"There is an great unmet need out there for emergency contraception that is effective as this for so long," said Erin Gainer, chief executive of HRA Pharma of Paris. Studies involving more than 4,500 women in the United States and Europe show that ella is safe, producing minor side effects including headaches, nausea and fatigue, she said.

The company has no plans to test ella as an abortion drug, but it did not appear to cause any problems for the handful of women who have become pregnant after taking the drug, she said.

"We're very clear on the fact that this is indeed a contraceptive -- a method of prevention of pregnancy," Gainer said.

But based on the FDA's repeated delays in approving the sale of Plan B without a prescription, Gainer and others said they feared the accusations might influence the agency.

"FDA should be a 'Just the facts ma'am' organization," said Susan F. Wood, an associate professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services who resigned from the FDA to protest delays in making Plan B more accessible. "I'm hoping the FDA will take that position."

"The people who are opposing this are not just opposed to abortion," said Amy Allina, program director at the National Women's Health Network. "They also opposed contraception and they are trying to confuse the issue."

If ella wins approval, it will likely inflame a long-running debate: whether doctors have an obligation to write prescriptions for medication they oppose on moral or religious grounds and whether pharmacists have an obligation to fill them. Many doctors and pharmacists refuse to write or fill prescriptions for Plan B, or refer patients elsewhere for it.

"My suspicion is that more pharmacists will wish to opt out of dispensing ulipristal than any other of the previous drugs," said Karen L. Brauer, Pharmacists for Life International president.

Wash Post:

As voters head to the polls Tuesday for a crucial set of primary elections, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds antipathy toward their elected officials rising and anti-incumbent sentiment at an all-time high.

The national survey shows that 29 percent of Americans now say they are inclined to support their House representative in November, even lower than in 1994, when voters swept the Democrats out of power in the that chamber after 40 years in the majority.

The poll also finds growing disapproval of the "tea party" movement, with half the population now expressing an unfavorable impression of the loosely aligned protest campaign that has shaken up politics this year.

And at a time when Republicans anticipate significant gains in House and Senate elections, there is also fresh evidence of the challenges facing the GOP. Six in 10 poll respondents say they have a negative view of the policies put forward by the Republican minority in Congress, and about a third say they trust Republicans over Democrats to handle the nation's main problems ...

Elected officials nationwide are feeling their constituents' dissatisfaction. In the new Post-ABC poll, 69 percent of all Americans say they are either dissatisfied or angry with the government, and 60 percent say they are inclined to look for other candidates in November, the most ever in a Post-ABC poll.

Democrats are likely to suffer disproportionately from the tough climate: They are in the majority in both houses of Congress and are defending many more districts than Republicans. The public sees little improvement in the nation's direction or the state of the economy. Six in 10 say the country is on the wrong track and 88 percent rate the economy as not good or poor, with just 30 percent saying it is improving.

Yet Democrats maintain at least one advantage: They hold a double-digit edge over the GOP as the party that people trust to handle the country's main problems.

Another big element that may mute the threat to Democrats is that the GOP has not gained significant traction. Most Americans -- including nearly a third of self-identified Republicans -- say they are dissatisfied with or angry at the policies of congressional Republicans. These numbers have changed little since last November, despite the GOP's focus on offering a more concrete agenda rather than simply Democratic proposals.

Obama's overall approval ratings have remained fairly steady.

More than half of those surveyed, 52 percent, say they approve of the way he is handling his job, and for the first time since last fall, half approve of how he is dealing with the economy.

There are new vulnerabilities in public perceptions of the president, however, that may provide fresh openings for Republicans to reframe the debate. Nearly half, 48 percent, now say that Obama does not understand the problems of people like them, the highest of his presidency. For the first time, a slim majority of independents say Obama is out of touch with their problems. Most Americans continue to view the president as a strong leader, but the proportion has declined.

Just as the right fears, it's only a matter of time. Charles Blow:

Last week, while many of us were distracted by the oil belching forth from the gulf floor and the president’s ham-handed attempts to demonstrate that he was sufficiently engaged and enraged, Gallup released a stunning, and little noticed, report on Americans’ evolving views of homosexuality. Allow me to enlighten:

1. For the first time, the percentage of Americans who perceive “gay and lesbian relations” as morally acceptable has crossed the 50 percent mark. (You have to love the fact that they still use the word “relations.” So quaint.)

2. Also for the first time, the percentage of men who hold that view is greater than the percentage of women who do.

3. This new alignment is being led by a dramatic change in attitudes among younger men, but older men’s perceptions also have eclipsed older women’s. While women’s views have stayed about the same over the past four years, the percentage of men ages 18 to 49 who perceived these “relations” as morally acceptable rose by 48 percent, and among men over 50, it rose by 26 percent.

I warned you: stunning.

There is no way to know for sure what’s driving such a radical change in men’s views on this issue because Gallup didn’t ask, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t speculate. To help me do so, I called Dr. Michael Kimmel, a professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and the author or editor of more than 20 books on men and masculinity, and Professor Ritch Savin-Williams, the chairman of human development at Cornell University and the author of seven books, most of which deal with adolescent development and same-sex attraction.

Here are three theories:

1. The contact hypothesis. As more men openly acknowledge that they are gay, it becomes harder for men who are not gay to discriminate against them. And as that group of openly gay men becomes more varied — including athletes, celebrities and soldiers — many of the old, derisive stereotypes lose their purchase. To that point, a Gallup poll released last May found that people who said they personally knew someone who was gay or lesbian were more likely to be accepting of gay men and lesbians in general and more supportive of their issues.

2. Men may be becoming more egalitarian in general. As Dr. Kimmel put it: “Men have gotten increasingly comfortable with the presence of, and relative equality of, ‘the other,’ and we’re becoming more accustomed to it. And most men are finding that it has not been a disaster.” The expanding sense of acceptance likely began with the feminist and civil rights movements and is now being extended to the gay rights movement. Dr. Kimmel continued, “The dire predictions for diversity have not only not come true, but, in fact, they’ve been proved the other way.”

3. Virulent homophobes are increasingly being exposed for engaging in homosexuality. Think Ted Haggard, the once fervent antigay preacher and former leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, and his male prostitute. (This week, Haggard announced that he was starting a new “inclusive” church open to “gay, straight, bi, tall, short,” but no same-sex marriages. Not “God’s ideal.” Sorry.) Or George Rekers, the founding member of the Family Research Council, and his rent boy/luggage handler. Last week, the council claimed that repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would lead to an explosion of “homosexual assaults” in which sleeping soldiers would be the victims of fondling and fellatio by gay predators. In fact, there is a growing body of research that supports the notion that homophobia in some men could be a reaction to their own homosexual impulses. Many heterosexual men see this, and they don’t want to be associated with it. It’s like being antigay is becoming the old gay. Not cool.

These sound plausible, but why aren’t women seeing the same enlightening effects as men? Professor Savin-Williams suggests that there may be a “ceiling effect,” that men are simply catching up to women, and there may be a level at which views top out. Interesting.

All of this is great news, but it doesn’t mean that all measures relating to acceptance of gay men and lesbians have changed to the same degree. People’s comfort with the “gay and lesbian” part of the equation is still greater than their comfort with the “relations” part — the idea versus the act — particularly when it comes to pairings of men.

As Professor Savin-Williams told me, there is still a higher aversive reaction to same-sex sexuality among men than among women.

For instance, in a February New York Times/CBS News poll, half of the respondents were asked if they favored letting “gay men and lesbians” serve in the military (which is still more than 85 percent male), and the other half were asked if they favored letting “homosexuals” serve. Those who got the “homosexual” question favored it at a rate that was 11 percentage points lower than those who got the “gay men and lesbians” question.

Part of the difference may be that “homosexual” is a bigger, more clinical word freighted with a lot of historical baggage. But just as likely is that the inclusion of the root word “sex” still raises an aversive response to the idea of, how shall I say, the architectural issues between two men. It is the point at which support for basic human rights cleaves from endorsement of behavior.

As for the aversion among men, it may be softening a bit. Professor Savin-Williams says that his current research reveals that the fastest-growing group along the sexuality continuum are men who self-identify as “mostly straight” as opposed to labels like “straight,” “gay” or “bisexual.” They acknowledge some level of attraction to other men even as they say that they probably wouldn’t act on it, but ... the right guy, the right day, a few beers and who knows. As the professor points out, you would never have heard that in years past.

All together now: stunning.

It took the Great Recession and a Democratic President but it seems the Defense Dept. might actually start cutting back on the annual growth of its budget. The NY Times:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has ordered the military and the Pentagon’s civilian bureaucracy to find tens of billions of dollars in annual savings to pay for war-fighting operations, senior officials said Thursday.

His goal is $7 billion in spending cuts and efficiencies for 2012, growing to $37 billion annually by 2016.

Every modern defense secretary has declared war on Pentagon waste and redundancy. And there have been notable, but relatively narrow successes, in closing and consolidating military bases or in canceling a handful of weapons systems.

But if Mr. Gates’s sweeping plan is fully enacted, none of the armed services or Pentagon civilian agencies and directorates would be immune from the pain of annual cost-cutting, which would become institutionalized across the Defense Department.

The spending guidelines were delivered orally to senior military officers and civilian officials before Mr. Gates’s departure this week for an Asian security conference in Singapore, and the official signed guidance will be issued over coming days.

The goal is to force all of the Defense Department agencies and organizations, and all of the armed services, to save enough money in their management, personnel policies and logistics to guarantee 3 percent real growth each year, beyond inflation, in the accounts that pay for combat operations.

Current budget plans project growth of only 1 percent in the Pentagon budget, after inflation, over the next five years.

“Given the nation’s fiscal situation, there is an urgency to doing this, rather than shifting more of the nation’s resources toward national defense,” William J. Lynn III, the deputy defense secretary, said in an interview.

Mr. Gates’s spending orders offer a considerable incentive to the armed services. Each dollar in spending cuts found by a military department would be reinvested in the combat force of that branch, and not siphoned away for other purposes.

Senior officials acknowledge that powerful constituencies are expected to line up in opposition to cuts of favorite programs — with criticism anticipated from the defense industry, Congress, military headquarters, Pentagon personnel and retirees.

“We will need to address the reasons things are in the budget in order to be able to reduce overhead,” Mr. Lynn said. “We are going to have to be engaged in dialogue with industry, with Congress, with other agencies, with the White House and inside the Pentagon — all the stakeholders.”

The new directives are aimed at three distinct areas of spending.

The first is management and personnel, overhead, logistics and base operations, and support missions.

The second is the war-fighting accounts themselves. Major targets for the next fiscal year already identified by the Pentagon leadership, and supported by the White House, include canceling a program to buy an alternative engine for the F-35 warplane and ending production of the C-17 cargo aircraft. Officials said a range of lower-priority programs would also be under review.

The third area is Mr. Gates’s own Defense Department staff and agencies.

Pentagon agencies that handle specialized tasks like missile defense and commissaries, as well as Mr. Gates’s directorates for such matters as personnel and readiness, policy, intelligence and public affairs, will be ordered to reduce costs by trimming personnel and streamlining business practices.

Mr. Gates set a deadline of July 31 for receiving details on programs and personnel to be cut and a description of savings in management practices to be included in the budget proposal for the next fiscal year, 2012. Two-thirds of the ordered savings must be an actual money transfer from noncombat accounts to the war-fighting budget, while one-third can be found in efficiencies and eliminating redundancies and overhead.

The specific instructions are included in three unclassified guidance documents signed by Mr. Gates — one to the armed services, one to the Pentagon’s primary agencies and directorates, and one to the global combatant commands.

For fiscal year 2012, the departments of the Army, Air Force and Navy — which includes the Marine Corps — must each find $2 billion in savings, while the rest of the Defense Department must find $1 billion in savings. By 2016, each military department must have $10 billion in savings, with $7 billion across the rest of the Pentagon.

“You are not going to be able to do it just on pure efficiencies,” Mr. Lynn said. “You are going to have to eliminate lower-priority programs. You are going to have to find headquarters that you don’t think you need. You are going to have to find staffs that you think you can cut.”

The drive for finding savings to guarantee real growth in spending on combat missions was first laid out by Mr. Gates in a speech in early May at the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in Kansas.

Among the vexing spending problems identified by Mr. Gates was the continuously rising cost of health care. Mr. Gates said the nation owed quality health care to those in uniform, their families and veterans, but pointed out that members of the military health care system had not been charged increases in premiums for 15 years — even though the program’s annual cost had risen to $50 billion from $19 billion a decade ago.

“Health care costs are eating the Defense Department alive,” Mr. Gates said. Officials said that changes to the military health care program would be considered, but that no decisions had been made.

Wash Post:

The same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal workers can start applying next month for long-term health-care insurance, the Office of Personnel Management said Tuesday.

President Obama signed a memo last June extending some benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers, including access to the government's Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program. On Tuesday, OPM essentially broadened the definition of relatives eligible for the program to include same-sex domestic partners of eligible federal workers, U.S. Postal Service workers and federal retirees.

OPM will not extend access to opposite-sex domestic partners, because they can obtain the insurance through marriage, "an option not currently available to same-sex domestic partners," the agency wrote in Tuesday's Federal Register.

OPM said same-sex couples can visit www.ltcfeds.com to complete a form that states they are each other's domestic partner and intend to stay together indefinitely. The federal worker must submit the form to their employer. Couples will not be required to provide further proof of the relationship, OPM said, because that "would impose a greater burden on domestic partners than other qualified relatives." The agency said it does not ask opposite-sex couples for bank statements or other proof of marriage.

Tuesday's ruling applies only to FLTCIP, no other federal health-care or insurance programs. Same-sex partners must answer the same questions about their health as other qualified relatives, and are not guaranteed to be approved for coverage. Eligible federal workers do not need to be enrolled in FLTCIP in order for a same-sex partner to apply or be eligible, OPM said.

As this NY Times story makes clear, the military is no different than civilian society: no longer being forced into a closet is far from nondiscrimination and equality. "Gays in the military" is going to be a political issue for a long time I beleive.

For opponents of the ban against homosexuals serving openly in the military, the steps by Congress this week to repeal the policy, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” were a major victory. But now they are girding for what may be an equally difficult task: the transition to a force where straight and openly gay servicemen and women live, work and fight alongside one other.

Some homosexuals in the military say they are worried about how that process will work and whether they will be treated differently if they publicly acknowledge their sexual orientation. Some raised concerns about being harassed, assigned to separate barracks or shunned by colleagues who had been friendly before.

“In an idyllic world, getting rid of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and saying ‘Everyone here is welcome’ is great,” said a 29-year-old lesbian in the Army National Guard, who asked that her name be withheld because she could still be discharged under the rule.

“But the policy actually allowed for a lot of protections,” the soldier said. “Getting rid of it completely without modifying it is kind of worrisome. The number of incidents against gays in the military is going to increase.”

Indeed, both opponents and supporters of the ban say a host of thorny practical questions will face the Pentagon if Congress gives final approval to legislation allowing the repeal of the ban, which could happen this summer.

Will openly gay service members be placed in separate housing, as the commandant of the Marine Corps has advocated? What benefits, if any, will partners or spouses of homosexual service members be accorded? Will all military units be required to treat homosexuals the same? And what training will heterosexual officers and enlisted troops receive to prepare them to serve with openly gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines?

“The reality is, getting rid of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ doesn’t ensure that all lesbian and gay service members will be equal on that day,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. “There will continue to be challenges to make full equality for gays and lesbians in the armed forces a reality.”

Similar questions were asked when blacks were allowed to integrate previously all-white units. But that transition was not without its difficulties too, including instances of racial violence.

A Pentagon panel has begun studying the issues around gays serving openly as part of a broad review of homosexuality in the military, which will include surveys of thousands of service members and their families. The panel, led by Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of the United States Army in Europe, and Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon’s top legal counsel, is supposed to deliver its report by Dec. 1.

Under an amendment moving through Congress, once that report is finished, the White House and senior Pentagon leadership must certify that repealing the ban will not be disruptive to the military. Once that certification is made, final repeal will occur within 60 days.

The House approved the amendment on Friday as part of the bill authorizing more than $567 billion in Pentagon programs and spending. The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the amendment on Thursday, and the full Senate is expected to take up the authorization bill later this summer.

“It could be late 2011 before this is implemented,” said Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, a nonprofit organization.

Supporters of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” who still hope they can stop it from being repealed, fear the effect on the military if it is.

Elaine Donnelly, a leading supporter of the ban on homosexuals serving openly, said she expected major fights over housing issues, including whether gay couples should be allowed to live together on bases, as married heterosexual couples are. “Same-sex couples in family housing will become a reason for families to decline re-enlistment or a change in station,” she said.

Ms. Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a nonprofit policy group, also predicted fierce debate over rules governing antidiscrimination policies toward homosexuals. She said she and other supporters of the ban worried that service members who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds would be denied promotions, a policy she called “zero tolerance” toward anti-gay discrimination.

“Over a period of time, not all at once, people who find themselves out of step with zero tolerance will not re-enlist,” she said.

Mr. Nicholson called such concerns “political posturing,” asserting that tens of thousands of gay people already serve in the military, many open to their closest peers, without problems.

Gay advocates said that federal law would prohibit same-sex spouses from receiving the financial and health care benefits that heterosexual spouses receive from the military. But they said some privileges, like hospital visitation rights, might be given to same-sex partners. That issue, too, is likely to be a subject of much debate, they said.

Many service members interviewed this week said they knew homosexuals in the military and did not mind serving alongside them.

“If you trust a soldier with your life, that’s what is most important, not being gay,” said Specialist Kevin Garcia of the Army, who has done two tours in Iraq and is now stationed at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio.

But Keith Johnson, a petty officer first class with the Coast Guard and a former Marine, said he opposed homosexuality on religious grounds and thought repealing the ban would hurt morale. “If I don’t know, it’s a whole lot better than someone parading it around in my face and me having to deal with it,” he said.

More than 13,000 service members have been discharged for homosexuality since the law was enacted in 1993, though the rate of discharges has declined. One of those who was discharged, Joseph Rocha, a former petty officer third class, said he planned to join the Navy again if the ban is repealed. “My heart is set on becoming an officer,” said Mr. Rocha, 24. “Before yesterday, that wasn’t an option.”

This NY Times report on Obama's "New Foundations" strategy makes the diff clear: he is an intelligent, sophisticated thinker not blinded by hegemonic fervor as was his predecessor:

President Obama’s first formal National Security Strategy argues that preserving American leadership in the world hinges on learning to accept and manage the rise of many competitors, and dismisses as far too narrow the Bush era doctrine that fighting terrorism should be the nation’s overarching objective.

In a 52-page document that tries to balance the idealism of Mr. Obama’s campaign promises with the realities of his confrontations with a fractious and threatening world over the past 16 months, Mr. Obama describes an American strategy that recognizes limits on how much the United States can spend to shape the globe.

An America “hardened by war” and “disciplined by a devastating economic crisis,” he argues, cannot sustain extended fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan, while fulfilling other commitments at home and abroad.

“The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone,” Mr. Obama writes in the introduction of the strategy being released on Thursday. “Indeed, our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power.”

That line is just one of many subtle slaps at President George W. Bush. Much of the National Security Strategy, which is required by Congress, reads as an argument for a restoration of an older order of reliance on international institutions, updated to confront modern threats. While Mr. Bush’s 2002 document explicitly said the United States would never allow the rise of a rival superpower, Mr. Obama argues that America faces no real military competitor, but that global power is increasingly diffuse. “To succeed, we must face the world as it is,” he says.

The principal author of the report, Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, noted in an interview that Mr. Obama’s move to replace the G-8 nations with a broader group, called the G-20, that includes China, India and Brazil, recognizes this reality. “We are deeply committed to broadening the circle of responsible actors,” Mr. Rhodes said.

Although the administration has put renewed focus on the war in Afghanistan and escalated C.I.A. drone strikes against militants, the strategy rejects Mr. Bush’s single-minded focus on counterterrorism as the organizing principle of national security policy. Those efforts “to counter violent extremism” — Mr. Obama avoids the use of the word “Islamic” — “are only one element of our strategic environment and cannot define America’s engagement with the world.”

He goes on to argue that “the gravest danger to the American people and global security continues to come from weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons.” And he dwelled on cyber threats, climate change, and America’s dependence on fossil fuels as fundamental national security issues, issues that received relatively little or no attention in Mr. Bush’s 2002 document, although his administration focused on them more in its second term.

“It is a rather dramatic departure from the most recent prior national security strategy,” Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said in an interview.

Mr. Bush’s 2002 document articulated a vision of American power that foreshadowed the American involvement in Iraq. Mr. Obama’s version could fuel the ongoing debate about whether his philosophy expands or constricts American influence.

Critics already argue that Mr. Obama does not place enough importance on fighting terrorism or fully embrace America’s singular role in the world as he seeks the favor and cooperation of other nations.

A section on the use of force makes no mention of pre-emptive attacks against countries or non-state actors who may pose a threat, as Mr. Bush did in 2002, just six months before the invasion of Iraq. But Mr. Obama does not explicitly rule out striking first.

“While the use of force is sometimes necessary, we will exhaust other options before war whenever we can, and carefully weigh the costs and risks of action against the costs and risks of inaction,” he says. When it is necessary, he adds, “we will seek broad international support, working with such institutions as NATO and the U.N. Security Council.”

Mr. Bush’s aides said they would not seek a “permission slip”’ for such actions. Mr. Obama phrases that idea differently, writing, “the United States must reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend our nation and our interests, yet we will also seek to adhere to standards that govern the use of force.”

Mr. Obama also defines national security more broadly than his predecessor did, making the case, for example, that reducing the deficit is critical to sustaining American power. He emphasizes issues like the economy, education, climate change, energy and science. In that way, he tries to draw a broader theme linking his presidency to the notion of a “new foundation,” the phrase he previously has coined as a slogan for his domestic program.

“Our national security begins at home,” the strategy says.

Still, for all its self-conscious rejection of the Bush era, the document reflects elements of continuity. For example, it does not disavow using the state secrets act to withhold information from courts in terrorism cases, although it argues for prudent and limited use. It also insists that “we will maintain the military superiority that has secured our country, and underpinned global security, for decades.”

The document does not make the spread of democracy the defining priority that Mr. Bush did, but it embraces the goal more robustly than is typical for Mr. Obama, a reflection of a struggle within his administration about how to approach a topic that became so associated with Mr. Bush. Mr. Obama commits to “welcoming all peaceful democratic movements” and to “supporting the development of institutions within fragile democracies.” But he also broadens the goal, by saying “We recognize economic opportunity as a human right.”

And the document offers assessments of several flashpoints that seem drawn from wording used by the last administration. For instance, it says that if North Korea and Iran abandon their nuclear programs, “they will be able to proceed on a path to greater political and economic integration with the international community” but if not, “we will pursue multiple means to increase their isolation.”

It calls on China to take on “a responsible leadership role” and vows to “monitor China’s military modernization program and prepare accordingly” while saying that disagreements on human rights “should not prevent cooperation on issues of mutual interest.”

It lays out a vision of a “stable, substantive, multidimensional relationship with Russia” but promises to “promote the rule of law, accountable government and universal values” within Russia and “support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia’s neighbors.” And it reaffirms that the United States is “building a strategic partnership” with India and that “we welcome Brazil’s leadership.”

The bottom line, argued Ms. Rice, is that the security of the United States is inextricably linked to that of people everywhere. “By necessity, we need to build to the greatest extent possible cooperative relationships not only with traditional allies but with new allies,” she said.

In a speech on Wednesday previewing the strategy, John Brennan, the president’s homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, said it offers a sharper definition of America’s struggle with radicalism.

“Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic,” he said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research organization in Washington. “Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear.”

He also rejected the terms jihad, holy war or Islamists because “there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” Instead, he said, “our enemy is Al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates.”

Mr. Brennan noted the spate of attacks and attempted attacks lately inside the United States, some by American citizens or legal residents. “This is a new phase to the terrorist threat, no longer limited to coordinated, sophisticated 9/11 style attacks but expanding to single individuals attempting to carry out relatively unsophisticated attacks,” he said. “As our enemy adapts and evolves their tactics, so must we constantly adapt and evolve ours, not in a mad rush driven by fear, but in a thoughtful and reasoned way.”

Every day, migrants leave their homelands behind for new lives in other countries. Reflecting this desire, rather than the reality of the numbers that actually migrate, Gallup finds about 16% of the world's adults would like to move to another country permanently if they had the chance. This translates to roughly 700 million worldwide -- more than the entire adult population of North and South America combined ...

The United States is the top desired destination country for the 700 million adults who would like to relocate permanently to another country. Nearly one-quarter (24%) of these respondents, which translates to more than 165 million adults worldwide, name the United States as their desired future residence. With an additional estimated 45 million saying they would like to move to Canada, Northern America is one of the two most desired regions.

The rest of the top desired destination countries (those where an estimated 25 million or more adults would like to go) are predominantly European. Forty-five million adults who would like to move name the United Kingdom or France as their desired destination, while 35 million would like to go to Spain and 25 million would like to relocate to Germany. Thirty million name Saudi Arabia and 25 million name Australia.

Roughly 210 million adults around the world would like to move to a country in the European Union, which is similar to the estimated number who would like to move to Northern America. However, about half of the estimated 80 million adults who live in the EU and would like to move permanently to another country would like to move to another country within the EU -- the highest desired intra-regional migration rate in the world.

The Senate on Thursday approved a far-reaching financial regulatory bill, 59 to 39. Democratic Congressional leaders and the Obama administration must now reconcile it with the House bill that was passed in December. Read the news article.

View a graphic that compares the bills. 

See which companies/industries are the winners and which the losers.

Tom Friedman will not be happy. A NY Times analysis:

There is very little upside for the Obama administration in the ecological and economic disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. The government has come under sharp criticism for underestimating the size of the discharge and for coddling the oil industry for too long.

Until now, perhaps distracted by the critics or because it did not appear that his overall energy agenda was moving forward, President Obama has not made use of the disaster in an overtly political way.

But on Friday — a full month after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon — he made clear that he also was not going to let the moment go to waste, announcing plans to impose stricter fuel-efficiency and emissions standards on cars and, for the first time, on medium- and heavy-duty trucks.

He said the oil gushing from the crippled BP well in the gulf highlighted the need to move away from dirty and dangerous fossil fuels toward a cleaner energy future. And he signaled that he intended to use the accident to continue to push his broader policy priorities, including legislation that would put a price on climate-altering emissions and increased federal aid for American industries in the global race to dominate the clean energy technology sector.

“We know that our dependence on foreign oil endangers our security and our economy,” Mr. Obama said in a Rose Garden announcement. “And the disaster in the gulf only underscores that even as we pursue domestic production to reduce our reliance on imported oil, our long-term security depends on the development of alternative sources of fuel and new transportation technologies.”

Put more starkly: the road Mr. Obama is sending us on to his dreamed-of carbon-free future will be slick with oil for many years to come.

Friday’s announcement extended rules on exhaust reduction for cars and light-duty trucks and proposed new greenhouse gas pollution limits for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The new rules build on an agreement the administration reached with automakers a year ago. Mr. Obama was able to broker that deal by taking advantage of existing executive authority and the near-desperate desire of the struggling auto companies for a single national fuel-efficiency standard, rather than a patchwork of conflicting state and federal rules.

Mr. Obama faces a much steeper path to an agreement limiting carbon dioxide emissions from other sectors of the economy, including electric power companies and heavy manufacturers. That will require a negotiated deal with a variety of regulation-averse industries like coal and oil and the lawmakers who represent their interests.

There is no Rose Garden ceremony in sight for that fundamental remaking of the American economy.

There are limits to what the president can do unilaterally, and, as the president himself has acknowledged, getting 60 votes to pass a sweeping energy bill through the Senate will require significant concessions on nuclear power, coal and, yes, offshore drilling.

“This is a small but commendable step,” said Michael Levi, an energy and climate change expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The president should indeed be using the moment to focus people on the need to reduce U.S. dependence on oil, foreign and domestic,” he wrote in an e-mail message.

“Big political moves, though, will require more,” Mr. Levi continued. “They will require sustained and focused advocacy from the president. People will not make any intuitive link between the tragedy in the gulf and legislation that raises electricity prices. For most Americans, the oil spill is tragic, but jobs and the economy are still the clear number one. The oil spill can help focus people’s attention, but it will take something else to close the deal.”

The president’s Friday announcement came against a backdrop of an administration scrambling to both respond to the crisis in the gulf and to appear to be responding to the crisis. There has been a daily drumbeat of press releases, conference calls, denunciations of BP and announcements of investigations and reorganizations intended to showcase the vigor of the government’s action.

Yet even as the oil has continued to gush beneath the gulf, the administration has not been shy about acknowledging the reality that a third of domestically produced crude oil comes from offshore and that undersea reserves will continue to be an important source of American energy for decades. On March 31, Mr. Obama announced a significant expansion of offshore oil development, just three weeks before the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, a policy shift long in the making and unfortunate in the timing.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, charged with both leasing the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling and protecting it from the ravages of oil development, reminded Congress this week that the administration was pursuing what he called a “balanced” energy strategy for the future that included substantial and expanded offshore exploration.

“Offshore development is a necessary part of that future,” Mr. Salazar told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week. But he emphasized that new safety and environmental safeguards would have to be put in place before extensive new drilling was permitted.

Thus the president’s options are both defined and limited. There will be more offshore drilling, but the rules of the game have now changed.

As Mr. Obama put in on March 31, “Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable homegrown energy.”

Wash Post:

The Senate approved far-reaching new financial rules on Thursday aimed at preventing the risky behavior and regulatory failures that brought the economy to the brink of collapse two years ago and cost millions of Americans their jobs and savings.

The final vote, just after 8:30 p.m., was 59 to 39. Four Republicans voted in favor of the bill, and two Democrats opposed it.

"When this bill becomes law, the joy ride on Wall Street will come to a screeching halt," Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said after the vote.

The 1,500-page measure, shepherded through the Senate by Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the banking committee, seeks to reshape both Washington and Wall Street.

In providing for the most profound remaking of financial regulations since the Great Depression, the legislation would create a new consumer-protection watchdog housed at the Federal Reserve to prevent abuse in mortgage, auto and credit card lending. It also would give the government power to wind down large failing financial firms and set up a council of federal overseers to police the financial landscape for risks to the global economy. Moreover, the legislation would establish oversight of the vast market in financial instruments known as derivatives, impose new restrictions on credit rating agencies and give shareholders a say in corporate affairs.

Passage of the measure marks a milestone in President Obama's efforts to tackle the financial abuse and excess that contributed to the crisis and prevent another meltdown.

The vote gives Obama his second major legislative victory of the year, following the March passage of his landmark health-care bill. "Our goal is not to punish the banks," he said in the White House Rose Garden hours before the final vote, "but to protect the larger economy and the American people from the kind of upheavals that we've seen in the past few years."

The bill now appears headed to a House-Senate conference committee, where a handful of lawmakers will work to resolve differences between the two chambers. House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said he aims to wrap up that task in short order.

"I think the president will sign this bill before the Fourth of July," he said.

Thursday's vote hinged in large part on Democrats' ability to win over key Republicans.

Leaders successfully courted GOP Sens. Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, in part by including in the final bill provisions that each wanted. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) also backed the bill. Equally critical was the last-minute push to win over Scott Brown (R), the Senate's newest member.

Brown's vote was secured partly through the help of Frank, his Massachusetts colleague. In an interview, Frank said Brown called him Wednesday evening as Frank was working out on the elliptical machine in the House gym. Brown wanted assurances that Frank would fight in conference to preserve provisions in the House bill that protect large and solvent Massachusetts institutions, such as State Street and Fidelity, from "unnecessary intrusion" by government regulators. Over the next 24 hours, Frank sent Senate leaders two letters stating his position, and Brown indicated that "on that basis, he could vote for cloture," Frank said.

Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and Russell Feingold (Wis.) voted against the legislation because they said parts of it did not go far enough.

Consumer advocates who pressed for tough regulations said that the bill falls short in places but that they are delighted it passed.

"No bill that deals with big issues is ever perfect, but the Senate's Wall Street reform package will go a long way toward preventing the kinds of abusive practices that brought our economy to its knees," Elizabeth Warren, head of the Congressional Oversight Panel and an advocate of the new consumer watchdog, said in a statement.

But financial and business groups called the bill flawed. <Continue reading.>

Republican pollster Glen Bolger's analysis rings very true to me:

Analysts are pointing toward last night’s primary results (the defeat of Arlen Specter, Trey Grayson, and the run-off for Blanche Lincoln) as – when combined with Bob Bennett and Alan Mollohan’s defeats – proof of anti-incumbency and anti-Washington establishment. The top story in the New York Times today is titled “Specter Defeat Signals a Wave Against Incumbents.”

And an anti-incumbent mood definitely exists. Voters overwhelmingly disapprove of Congress, and say all incumbents should be turned out.

However, with the exception of Mollohan, the nomination defeats (or major troubles at this point for Lincoln), are politicians who were punished for their votes and efforts that strayed from the party line. My polling for Republican incumbents who face challengers show that most are in strong shape to win renomination because they are generally perceived as fighting the Obama-Pelosi efforts to increase the size and scope of government, and to spend money in a way that makes previous administrations seem Scrooge-like.

Senator Specter’s loss was actually a double defeat. Because he voted for the stimulus package, he baited Pat Toomey into switching from the Governor’s race to the Senate race. Specter’s poll numbers in a GOP primary were far too weak to win a primary – he choose to switch parties rather than retire. However, his previous support for George W. Bush and other Republicans (and GOP policies) meant Democratic voters couldn’t trust him. Specter’s once legendary ability to both annoy and please conservatives, moderates, and liberals caught up to him in this time of hyper polarization.

Lincoln is facing the same traumas from the left – she is perceived by many unions and liberals as not supportive enough of their agenda, and thus not worthy of renomination.

An incumbent all but in name, Charlie Crist should be in that same body count of politicians who “lost” their party’s nomination for not being orthodox enough. His support for the stimulus package made him persona non grata among a GOP primary electorate looking for someone to fight against the framework of bigger government spending more money.

Not every incumbent is endangered for renomination. However, those who face anger from the grassroots, coupled with a challenger candidate with the resources to get their message out, have challenges.

This post is not to bemoan the choice of BOTH parties’ primary electorate to choose confrontation over compromise. It’s simply analyzing the results from a different angle. It’s not just anti-incumbency coursing through the veins of the primary electorates, but it is supercharged by a distrust of the other side. Like unicorns and rainbows, bipartisanship is going to be rarely spotted over the next few years.

Michael Kinsley nails it:

Now that the sex lives of Supreme Court justices have become grist for commentators, we are finally free to discuss a question formerly only whispered about in the shadows: Why does Justice Antonin Scalia, by common consent the leading intellectual force on the Court, have nine children? Is this normal? Or should I say "normal," as some people choose to define it? Can he represent the views of ordinary Americans when he practices such a minority lifestyle? After all, having nine children is far more unusual in this country than, say, being a lesbian.

Let me be clear: the issue is not the fact that Scalia has chosen to have nine children. That is his personal business. The question is whether he is an extremist advocate of the so-called "Nine Children Agenda." Can he deal open-mindedly with children’s issues when he has so many himself? Can he persuade his children to recuse themselves when appropriate (or, in the vernacular, "Just shut up, will you? I’m trying to write an opinion here.  Sweetheart, could you please come and take him…stop climbing up my leg…watch it with that glass of water, buddy…no, that’s some condemned prisoner’s brief that daddy has to reject, so don’t …would somebody please take this kid…LOOK OUT for the… Jesus H. Christ, how am I supposed to get any work done"?).

Speculation is already rampant about why Scalia chose nine children over a more conventional lifestyle. Is he a sex maniac? That suspicion naturally arises. But perhaps once he started, he just never got around to stopping. Or maybe he just likes children. In recent days, Scalia’s friends have rushed to his defense, going out of their way to portray him as a model of sexual restraint.  "Every Friday a bunch of us used to go down to this bar to pick up women," one of his college roommates recalls. "We’d always ask Nino if he wanted to join us, but he always said he was too busy studying. Frankly, we thought he was gay."

Nate Silver (make sure you read Nate's comments about the most important race of the night at the end, the one with truly November impacting implications):

There were five races that we were tracking closely over the course of the evening -- and I've already seen analysts drawing flimsy conclusions from each of them.

Pennsylvania -- Democratic Senate primary

The results: Joe Sestak defeats Arlen Specter, 54-46.

The conventional wisdom: This was a stunning repudiation of the Democratic establishment.

The reality: Certainly, Specter had the support of a lot of Very Important People, including the President, many unions, and the mayors of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. But in many cases, it seemed perfunctory. The White House elected not to send either Barack Obama or Joe Biden to the state in the closing days. The unions were nominally supporting Specter, but were concentrating their cash in Arkansas and elsewhere. As Sestak began to emerge as the superior general election candidate, their support grew even more tepid. This was an important win, and the netroots progressives who championed Sestak's campaign deserve all the credit in the world. But something can be dramatic without being especially surprising. Joe Sestak is a mainline, lunchpail Democrat who defeated a very unpopular Republican-turned-Democrat who ran an awful campaign and who Pennsylvania Democrats weren't used to punching their ticket for. No huge shock there.

Kentucky -- Republican Senate primary

The results: Rand Paul defeats Trey Grayson, 59-35.

The conventional wisdom: This was a stunning repudiation of the Republican establishment.

The reality: Because of Paul's impressive 24-point margin of victory, almost any explanation you might proffer probably contains some element of truth. But for all his libertarian and tea-party dressing, Paul in fact ran on a fairly conventional, conservative platform. He's pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration ... there are only the faintest hints of libertarianism here. This was probably a good thing for him because Kentucky, which has traditionally been socially conservative but economically moderate, is pretty much kitty-corner to the libertarian side of the political quadrant. This was actually very clever, in a lot of ways -- Paul's last name (and decision to affiliate himself with the tea party) gained him national attention and fundraising and earned media, but to people in Kentucky, he ought to have been a very comfortable choice who was somewhat more fresh-faced than his rival. The branded product beat the generic one.

Paul might have some trouble in general election, especially after somewhat underwhelming turnout in the primary (Democratic turnout was actually 60 percent higher, although Democrats enjoy a substantial registration advantage in Kentucky). But that's more because of his inexperience and standoffishness and less because of his platform ...

Arkansas -- Democratic Senate primary

The results: Blanche Lincoln and Bill Halter head to overtime. Lincoln has 45 percent of votes counted so far tonight, and Halter 43 percent, but a majority was required to avoid a run-off.

The conventional wisdom: Lincoln spent too much time hanging out in the middle of the road and got run over.

The reality: There are parallels between what Rand Paul accomplished in Kentucky and what Bill Halter did in Arkansas. As I mentioned earlier, Kentucky is not a particularly good state for real libertarians. Likewise, Arkansas is not an especially good state for netroots progressives, who are mostly white, liberal, and college-educated, whereas the state's Democratic primary electorate is 61 percent non-college, 64 percent non-liberal, and contains a fair number of black voters.

Halter endeared himself to national progressives and to unions with his vocal support of the public option, giving him money, momentum and media attention. But to Arkansasans, he was a relatively familiar face (as the sitting Lieutenant Governor) who ran a relatively non-ideological campaign, railing against corruption, bailouts, and wishy-washiness, as challengers of all political persuasions are doing. Halter came out against cap-and-trade, on the other hand, and tried his best to avoid taking a position on contentious social issues.

Certainly this is a rough environment for moderates, but Lincoln made matters worse by drawing unnecessary attention to herself on health care, and by picking the wrong issues to moderate upon: yes on TARP, no on the public option is a set of positions that very few rank-and-file Democrats (or voters of any kind) will share. And she was a very incumbent-y incumbent in an environment where incumbents are not popular.

Of course, we should not yet be speaking about her in the past tense; Lincoln could still win the run-off. But I suspect that the presumably superior enthusiasm of Halter's voters will pay off for him in three weeks. Turnout was actually not bad in Arkansas -- in fact, it slightly exceeded turnout in the 2008 Presidential primary -- but I don't know if Blanche Lincoln is the sort of person for whom people are going to get up off the couch to vote for twice in one month.

Pennsylvania 12th Congressional District -- Special election

The results: Mark Critz (D) defeats Tim Burns (R), 53-45.

The conventional wisdom: A big, clutch win for Democrats.

The reality: Neither outcome would have been surprising here. The polling showed a toss-up, and the district (with a PVI of R+1) is close to the national median. There's a lot of variance in open-seat elections for the House; even in an environment like 2008, Democrats would have had about a 30 percent chance of losing this seat, and even in one as relatively poor for them as 2004, they would have had about a 40 percent chance of winning it.

Still, the 8-point margin of victory was surprising. As I wrote yesterday morning: "It's really only if one of the candidates wins by middle-to-high single digits ... that [PA-12] might tell us something", and Critz met that threshold.

Republicans have some decent excuses; they may have been harmed by the fact that there was a contentious Democratic Senate primary occurring at the same time, for instance, and the DCCC seems to have a peculiar knack for winning special elections. The Democratic candidate ran against his party's health care bill! But make no mistake: there are garbage cans being kicked, and consultants being sworn at, at NRCC headquarters right now. And the Republicans may need to engage in some self-reflection about whether nationalizing the race will be the optimal strategy in each of 50 distinct states and 435 distinct Congressional Districts.

Ezra Klein:

The financial crisis and the resulting recession have coincided with a rapid run-up in American -- and global -- government debt. A lot of people, understandably enough, assume that this is the product of government spending. The stimulus was expensive, and the bank rescues seemed expensive, and we just passed a health-care reform plan, and that must be why the deficit blew up.

The IMF, in a new report (pdf), explains that that's not the case. "Of the almost 39 percentage points of GDP increase in the debt ratio, about two-thirds is explained by revenue weakness and the fall in GDP during 2008-09," they write. Check out the graph atop this post: New spending isn't nearly as large a contributor to the increase in debt as reduced revenue is.

The mechanism here is simple enough. As Paul Krugman explains it, "the financial crisis has made us permanently poorer, which among other things reduces revenue." Recessions reduce income, reducing income reduces taxable income, and that in turn reduces the revenue that normally keeps governments out of debt.

This isn't just an interesting explanatory point, though. It's a reminder that the most important thing we can do to reduce the deficit in the long run is to do whatever it takes to get economic growth back up to speed. The more willing we are to accept permanently higher unemployment and permanently lower growth, the harder it's going to be to get our debt under control.

Dana Milbank:

Future historians tracing the crackup of the Republican Party may well look to May 8, 2010, as an inflection point.

That was the day, as is now well known, that Sen. Robert Bennett, who took the conservative position 84 percent of the time over his career, was deemed not conservative enough by fellow Utah Republicans and booted out of the primary.

Less well known, but equally ominous, is what happened that same day, 2,500 miles east in Maine. There, the state Republican Party chucked its platform -- a sensible New England mix of free-market economics and conservation -- and adopted a manifesto of insanity: abolishing the Federal Reserve, calling global warming a "myth," sealing the border, and, as a final plank, fighting "efforts to create a one world government."

One world government? Do our friends Down East fear an invasion from the Canadian maritime provinces? A Viking flotilla coming from Iceland under cover of volcanic ash?

I was pondering this mystery while on the elliptical machine this week and watching Glenn Beck (I find he increases my heart rate), when I heard him inform his viewers that "they" -- President Obama and friends -- "are creating a global governance structure."

"Social and ecological justice and all of this bullcrap," Beck told his viewers, "is man's work for a global government." Beck -- who is second in popularity only to Sarah Palin among the type of Tea Party activists who hijacked the Maine GOP -- tossed out phrases such as "global standards" and "global bank tax" -- all part of a conspiracy by the "global government people." He further provided the news that "Jesus doesn't want a cap-and-trade system."

Not once did Beck refer to the big news events of the day, such as Afghan President Hamid Karzai's visit to the White House or the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. It was as if he had created a parallel universe for his 2-million-plus viewers. Similarly, on Monday, when Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, Beck omitted that news in favor of a fanciful administration attempt to restore the broadcast Fairness Doctrine. On Tuesday, USA Today had the headline "Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950" (the nonpartisan Tax Foundation put it at 1959); Beck skipped that, instead saying he doesn't want changes to the Internet "at least until people aren't worshipping Satan, you know, in office." (Beck maintained later that he really wasn't "saying that Obama was a Satan worshipper.")

Beck justifiably credited his viewers for "what happened to Bob Bennett in Utah." He warned: "People in Washington, you should be terrified."

We should be terrified -- particularly the Republicans, whose party is turning into this One-World-Government, Obama-worships-Satan, Jesus-opposes-climate-bill mélange. And Beck is only part of the trouble. Consider these GOP milestones of recent days:

In the Alabama gubernatorial race, a conservative attack ad charged that a Republican gubernatorial candidate "recently said the Bible is only partially true." The outraged candidate reaffirmed his "belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God."

In Utah, just a couple of days after Bennett's fall, conservative Rep. Jason Chaffetz talked about trying to topple none other than Sen. Orrin Hatch (89 percent lifetime conservative rating) in 2012.

In Arizona, Sen. John McCain, who once said a fence is the "least effective" way to secure the border, continued his fight against a conservative primary challenge by releasing an ad demanding, "Complete the danged fence." ...

The Maine Republicans a week ago rejected a platform proclaiming that "we believe that the proper role of government is to help provide for those who can not help themselves"; that "we believe in ensuring that our children have access to the best educational opportunities"; and that "every person's dignity, freedom, liberty, ability and responsibility must be honored."

In its place, they approved a document invoking the Tea Party movement and Ron Paul and insisting that "health care is not a right." The new platform demands: "Eliminate motor voter"; "Reject the UN Treaty on Rights of the Child"; "Eliminate the Department of Education"; "Arrest and detain . . . anyone here illegally, and then deport, period."

It was a swap they will come to rue