First up from the God Machine this week is a story out of South Florida, in which a mayoral candidate claimed an unusual political endorsement, which did not turn out especially well.

I've reported on developments at the intersection of religion and politics for a good chunk of my career, but I don't recall ever seeing a politician claim to have been literally endorsed by Jesus Christ. That is, before Anna Pierre, a registered nurse, made the claim in advance of this week's North Miami mayoral race.

"Yes, Jesus endorsed me!" Pierre said during a stop at the Gwen Margolis Community Center Tuesday morning as the polls opened. "I'm not nuts, if I'm a freak and nuts for Jesus, let it be! Let the world know that Jesus is it and when you have Jesus on your side you can go on." Pierre previously claimed she was being intimidated with voodoo tactics.

The Jesus claim was made on a campaign flyer posted to Pierre's Facebook page that reads "Anna Pierre, RN, is endorsed by Jesus Christ" and features a photo of the savior.

Pierre said the endorsement came to her in a revelation while on the campaign trail as she's been competing against six other candidates.

For some reason, local voters were not persuaded -- Pierre came in seventh out of seven candidates, getting slightly less than one percent of the vote.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* The AP reported this week that a prominent American priest of the Legion of Christ religious order has decided to leave the priesthood after admitting he fathered a child years ago. The Rev. Thomas Williams, who had worked as an MSNBC religion analyst, is now eager to care for his son and the mother (thanks to my colleague Vanessa Silverton Peel for the heads-up).

* Remember Harold Camping, who gained notoriety a couple of years ago after predicting the end of the world? This California-based Family Radio ministry has apparently fallen on hard times and begun selling off assets while laying off staffers (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip).

* The town of Muldrow, Okla., is in "turmoil" after the Freedom From Religion Foundation reminded the local public high school that it cannot promote and endorse the Ten Commandments. Many locals have organized large protests, but attorneys representing the school have said the religious displays will have to be removed.

* In Georgia this week, Gov. Nathan Deal (R) this week ordered the state Department of Natural Resources to put Bibles in cabins and lodge rooms at state parks. In a statement, Deal said, "These Bibles are donated by outside groups, not paid for by the state," adding that "any group is free to donate literature" for park cabins and lodges. I'll look forward to seeing which other groups take the governor up on the offer.

* And in Bangladesh, bloggers criticizing the abuse of religion by politicians have been labeled "atheists," and are now facing arrest and death threats.

Today's edition of quick hits:

* It was a lively afternoon on Capitol Hill, where hearings into the IRS controversy began in the House.

* It's tough to imagine an agency this clumsy participating in an effective conspiracy: "The veteran tax lawyer whose pre-arranged question to an IRS official at a panel last week prompted the admission that the agency had targeted conservative groups said in a written statement on Friday that she did not know what the answer to the question would be."

* President Obama spoke in Maryland today about job creation: "I know it can seem frustrating sometimes when it seems like Washington's priorities aren't your priorities," he said at a manufacturing plant in Baltimore. "I know it all seems like folks down there are more concerned with their jobs than with yours. Others may get distracted by chasing every fleeting issue that passes by but the middle class will always be my Number One focus, period."

* Syria: "After more than two years of conflict, Syria is breaking up. A constellation of armed groups battling to advance their own agendas are effectively creating the outlines of separate armed fiefs. As the war expands in scope and brutality, its biggest casualty appears to be the integrity of the Syrian state."

* The 12-week standard is on hold in Arkansas: "A federal judge barred Arkansas from implementing one of the nation's most restrictive abortion laws Friday, calling it 'more than likely unconstitutional.'"

* Oh, now Darrell Issa is willing to hear from Thomas Pickering.

* A crisis that requires follow-through: "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey said Friday that he's looking for 'game changers' from Congress and the military to address the problem of sexual assault in the military."

* Jonathan Cohn takes a look at new Obama administration regulations that may improve child safety at day-care centers. It's a fascinating piece and part of an important story.

* I remember when Bob Woodward was a respected media giant whose perspective was both sharp and important. I miss those days.

* Allen West will be paid to pontificate on Fox News. How perfect.

* Can Nate Silver please respond to every Peggy Noonan column? That would make me happy.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Getty Images

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld apparently isn't done sharing his thoughts with the public just yet -- he'll even be on "Meet the Press" this weekend -- and he's published a new book, "Rumsfeld's Rules: Leadership Lessons in Business, Politics, War, and Life." It includes, without a hint of irony, the former Pentagon chief's belief that "it's easier to get into something than it is to get out."

Taegan Goddard flagged an exchange between Rumsfeld and Kai Ryssdal this week that stood out as especially interesting (thanks to my colleague Tricia McKinney for the heads-up).

Ryssdal: I do wonder whether you read Robert McNamara's memoirs when they came out. Obviously, the secretary of defense during Vietnam.

Rumsfeld: I have not. I served in Congress during that period.

Ryssdal: Here's why I ask: that book was widely seen as an apology for his role in Vietnam. And I looked in this book [Rumsfeld's Rules] pretty hard for any rule that you might have had about apologizing. And I couldn't find one.

Rumsfeld: And? What's your question?

Ryssdal: Did you ever think about apologizing?

Rumsfeld may not have fully appreciated the scope of the question, because his answer kind of meandered a bit. "Well, my goodness," he replied. "As Napoleon said, 'I've been mistaken so many times I don't even blush for it anymore.' Sure, you see things that don't turn out the way you hoped."

I'm not sure this counts as an apology, but for those who look at his Pentagon tenure with sorrow, grief, and crushing disappointment, it'll probably have to do.

Associated Press

I suppose it's only natural to evaluate a president by comparing him or her to previous presidents, and President Obama has been the subject of quite a few of these analyses over the years. Is he Clinton (modern, two-term Dem who bounced back after a rough midterm cycle) or maybe JFK (dynamic young speaker with an ambitious vision)? Is he FDR (leading the nation through an economic crisis and time of war) or LBJ (breakthrough legislative accomplishments)?

For much of the Beltway, however, there's been an ongoing urge to draw parallels between Obama and a much more notorious predecessor.

Back in 2009, the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus was so bothered by Obama's criticism of Fox News that she said the White House had a "Nixonian ... aroma." More recently, a pointless dispute between Bob Woodward and Gene Sperling led to a flurry of equally pointless comparisons between Obama and Nixon, for reasons that still don't make any sense.

And, of course, this week, following the IRS controversy and the Justice Department's AP subpoenas as part of a leak investigation, the Nixon comparisons are practically ubiquitous.

They're also dumb.

Just yesterday, the media's fascination with the bizarre comparison even reached a White House press conference, with this exchange between Obama and Reuters' Jeff Mason.

Q: [H]ow do you feel about comparisons by some of your critics of this week's scandals to those that happened under the Nixon administration?

OBAMA: Well, I'll let you guys engage in those comparisons and you can go ahead and read the history and draw your own conclusions.

Yes, and the conclusion is history points in a very different direction.

There is no comparison. Nixon, in a series of crimes that collectively came to be known as Watergate, directed from the White House and Justice Department a concerted campaign against those he perceived as political enemies, in the process subverting the FBI, the IRS, other government agencies and the electoral process to his nefarious purposes. Mr. Obama has done nothing of the kind.

This is not to say the recent stories are unimportant, but Nixon ran a criminal conspiracy out of the Oval Office, using federal agencies and law enforcement as weapons against his perceived enemies. The fact that some bureaucrats in Ohio asked some Tea Party groups some unnecessary questions in IRS paperwork doesn't even belong on the same page as Watergate.

Is these controversies worthy of investigation? Of course. Are they proof that Obama resembles Nixon? Not if you know anything about Nixon.

Indeed, part of the problem may be that the president's detractors have been so desperate to draw these invisible parallels that the entire exercise has become farcical. Updating a post from October, Republicans think:

* Benghazi is "worse than Watergate." [Update: this argument comes up quite a bit.]

* The IRS controversy carries "echoes of Watergate."

* National security leaks are "worse than Watergate."

* A job offer for former Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) might be "Obama's Watergate."

* "Fast and Furious" might be "Obama's Watergate."

* Solyndra "makes Watergate look like child's play."

* The White House's relationship with Media Matters might be "Obama's Watergate."

Peggy Noonan is so overwhelmed by her contempt for the president, she wrote in her column this morning, "We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate," and then neglected to mention which perceived "scandal" she was even referring to.

Whether you consider the ongoing controversies as serious or trivial, there has to be a smarter way of looking at the news.

Associated Press

The so-called "nuclear option" first came up eight years ago, when Senate Republicans, in the majority at the time, were apoplectic about Democrats obstructing Bush/Cheney nominees. GOP senators considered a sweeping tactical move that would eliminate all filibusters on administration nominees forevermore.

Ultimately, that didn't happen -- the "Gang of 14" struck a deal, which Republicans have since shredded, that put the "nuclear option" back on the shelf -- but the GOP's idea never fully went away. Indeed, now that the partisan tide has turned; there's a Democratic majority and a Democratic White House; and Senate obstructionism has reached a level unseen in American history, the "nuclear option" is suddenly in vogue once more.

Indeed, Greg Sargent has quite an interesting scoop this afternoon.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is increasingly focused on the month of July as the time to exercise the so-called "nuclear option" and revisit filibuster reform, and he has privately told top advisers that he's all but certain to take action if the Senate GOP blocks three upcoming key nominations, a senior Senate Democratic aide familiar with his thinking tells me.

Reid has privately consulted with President Obama on the need to revisit filibuster reform, and the President has told the Majority Leader that he will support the exercising of the nuclear option if Reid opts for it, the aide says, adding that senior Democrats expect the President to publicly push for it as well. "If Senator Reid decides to do something on nominations, the president has said he'll be there to support him," the aide says.

Obviously, Obama would not get a vote, but the White House's support matters more than you might think. For one thing, there would be some members of the Senate Democratic old guard who may be resistant, and presidential nudging could prove important. For another, without digging too deep into the procedural weeds, Vice President Biden's vote would be necessary in his capacity as president of the Senate, so the White House kinda sorta would have a vote.

And why wait until July, when there are so many procedural breakdowns now? A couple of reasons, actually.

First, it's likely Reid and his office see this as an opportunity to send a shot across the GOP minority's bow. "Stop the obstructionism," the argument goes, "or we will." Putting a timeline on this effectively gives Republicans a deadline to stop playing their ridiculous games.

Second, as Greg explained, the idea is to delay a confrontation until after immigration reform is complete. It's called the "nuclear option" because of the fallout -- the minority party will be so outraged by the tactical move that it'll likely be a long while before the Senate even tries to function again. Dems really want to get immigration done, so the idea is to do that first, then consider procedural changes.

Of course, it's worth noting that this would represent a rather permanent change. Yes, President Obama's nominees -- both to the courts and to administration posts -- would be subject to majority-rule, up-or-down votes, which would greatly reduce gridlock in the chamber. But as members of both parties should realize, it would also mean that every future president would be afforded the same opportunity.

Recently, some Senate Dems were cautious about this very point, wanting to preserve the right to block future GOP nominees (as if Republicans wouldn't use the nuclear option the moment they felt it necessary). But that caution is reportedly fading.

With this in mind, keep a close eye on three specific nominations: Richard Cordray (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), Thomas Perez (Labor Secretary), and Gina McCarthy (EPA administrator). Greg's Senate source said if there's Republican obstructionism against these nominees, "then our position will be very easy."

Getty Images

When Time's Michael Crowley reported this week on what we learned from the disclosure of internal administration emails on Benghazi, it noted three larger takeaways, one of which was "Susan Rice got hosed."

That was true before, but it's even more obvious now. Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), set out to destroy the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations last November, blaming her for Benghazi talking points. The campaign against Rice worked -- she was not nominated for Secretary of State -- but it's now painfully clear she "played no role in crafting the talking points," and simply shared with the public the best information available at the time.

Indeed, our friends at Politics Nation are asking a good question: "Where's the apology for Susan Rice?" The Rev. Al Sharpton added, "The GOP smear campaign against Ambassador Rice was vicious, personal, and wrong. That's why she deserves an apology, but I won't hold my breath."

Neither will I, though there will apparently be a consolation in prize.

Insiders with ties to the Obama administration tell The Cable that U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice has become the heir apparent to National Security Advisor Tom Donilon -- a post at the epicenter of foreign-policy decision making and arguably more influential than secretary of state, a job for which she withdrew her candidacy last fall amid severe political pressure.

"It's definitely happening," a source who recently spoke with Rice told The Cable. "She is sure she is coming and so too her husband and closest friends."

"Susan is a very likely candidate to replace him whenever he would choose to leave," agreed Dennis Ross, a former special assistant to President Obama and counselor at the Washington Institute. "She is close to the president, has the credentials, and has a breadth of experience."

The post would not require Senate confirmation, so it wouldn't much matter if Republicans hoped to destroy her again, but Foreign Policy added that "prominent Republicans don't seem inclined to make a fuss" about Rice again.

Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* In Massachusetts' Senate special election, Republican Gabriel Gomez is facing new questions about the generous home tax break he took advantage of. He's also getting slammed for opposing gun reforms in a new ad from his Democratic opponent, Rep. Ed Markey.

* For his part, Gomez is stepping up his own advertising campaign. The election is June 25.

* Remember Karen Handel, who caused all kinds of trouble for Komen For The Cure last year? As of today, she's a Republican candidate for the Senate in Georgia. She joins a crowded GOP primary that already includes U.S. Reps. Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey, and Jack Kingston.

* After House Republicans voted for the 37th time to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched online ads targeting Republican Reps. Chris Gibson (N.Y.), Michael Grimm (N.Y.), Joe Heck (Nev.), Frank LoBiondo (D-N.J.), Gary Miller (Calif.), Steve Pearce (N.M.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Jon Runyan (N.J.), David Valadao (Calif.), and Bill Young (Fla.).

* The Republican Party's pollsters didn't do the party any favors in 2012, with much of the GOP caught off-guard by the election results. National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) this week said the NRCC has taken steps to improve its polling operation, though it's unclear what those steps are.

* And in New Jersey, Newark Mayor Cory Booker appears to be the leading Democratic Senate candidate for the open-seat race in 2014, but Rep. Frank Pallone (D) appears increasingly likely to run, and sent a critical letter to Booker last week accusing him of withholding money from AIDS patients.

Associated Press

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) is one of many congressional Republicans who's openly discussed presidential impeachment.

There's a not-so-subtle theme in much of the day's political coverage, which is tough to miss.

The Hill:

House Republicans say they will not overreach on probing the Obama administration, having learned lessons from investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the Clinton administration.

The New York Times:

The most pressing question for Congressional Republicans is no longer how to finesse changes to immigration law or gun control, but how far they can push their cases against President Obama without inciting a backlash of the sort that has left them staggering in the past.

Politico:

Republicans are worried one thing could screw up the political gift of three Obama administration controversies at once: fellow Republicans. Top GOP leaders are privately warning members to put a sock in it when it comes to silly calls for impeachment or over-the-top comparisons to Watergate. They want members to focus on months of fact-finding investigations -- not rhetorical fury.

As a strategic matter, this certainly makes sense. Congressional Republicans don't have any real incentive to overreach -- much of the media is already eagerly running with the "White House in crisis!" narrative; the GOP base is already riled up; the stories can be dragged out for months with investigations and hearings; and all of this happening despite no evidence of wrongdoing from anyone at the White House.

Indeed, Republican leaders have every reason not to overreach. It's easy to imagine the Democratic base rallying in response to a perceived effort to tear down President Obama, without cause, thanks to dubious scandals embraced by the GOP and the Beltway media. It is, after all, what happened in 1998, so there's recent precedent to be aware of.

What's more, don't underestimate the potential for a backlash from mainstream voters outside either party's base, who may also have a limited appetite for endless investigations. Incumbent Republicans running in the 2014 midterms should probably be cautious about telling voters, "I ignored job creation, but vote for me anyway because I participated in 11 Benghazi hearings."

And yet, despite all of this, many congressional Republicans are already overreaching and the advice about caution is already being ignored.

I can appreciate the image GOP leaders are eager to convey: congressional Republicans are being serious and deliberate, seeking answers to legitimate questions without flying off the handle and making wild, baseless accusations. The more Americans see a reasonable and methodical process, the less likely they are to perceive an unhinged partisan vendetta.

But aren't we well past that point? Can anyone seriously characterize congressional Republicans as "serious and deliberate" when it comes to alleging Obama administration wrongdoing?

TPM ran a list the other day of GOP lawmakers who are already speaking publicly about possibly impeaching President Obama. Has the president committed any high crimes? Well, no. In fact, none of the current controversies seem to relate to the White House at all. But the list of Republicans throwing around the "I" word is already pretty long. Indeed, Republicans can't seem to make up their minds as to why they should impeach the president, but they seem to enjoy talking about it anyway.

It's against the backdrop that Boehner & Co. are urging caution and hoping to avoid overreach? I think it's a little late for that.

Update: GOP lawmakers have spent the last couple of days trying to argue that the IRS mess is a good reason to undermine the Affordable Care Act. That's foolish, but more importantly, it's also a good example of overreach.

Congressional Republicans have no reason to use the debt ceiling to hold the nation hostage again. None. The deficit is already shrinking with remarkable speed; the last GOP debt-ceiling crisis did real harm to the nation; GOP leaders have ruled out default; and Republican lawmakers themselves don't even have anything specific in mind in terms of demands. There's just no need to put Americans through this again.

And yet, there were House Republicans yesterday, meeting in private a few hours before voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the 37th time, "quietly planning their strategy for the next showdown over the debt limit," which will probably come in September or October.

At a two-hour listening session Wednesday afternoon in the basement of the Capitol, rank-and-file lawmakers offered suggestions for handling an event that, in 2011, blew their approval ratings to smithereens.

The good news: This time around, most GOP lawmakers agree that they probably should not block a debt-limit increase, halt Treasury borrowing and let the government default on its obligations. According to GOP aides who attended the meeting, the "hell no" caucus appears to be radically diminished.

The bad news for President Obama: Republicans will demand some kind of prize for voting to raise the debt limit, preferably some policy that serves to reduce the debt.

Just so we're clear, Republicans know they have an obligation to raise the debt ceiling. They know they can't refuse to meet their obligations. They know crashing the economy on purpose isn't a real option. And yet, their official position is, in effect, "Give us a treat or we'll start deliberately hurting Americans. No goodies = no peace."

The GOP's hostage takers seem to have decided on one thing: the value of taking a hostage. They haven't the foggiest idea what to put on the ransom note -- really, no clue -- but they know there will be a ransom note, and they want everyone, from the Oval Office to Main Street, to know that they're prepared to push the nation into default, no matter the consequences, unless they get something that makes them happy.

And on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, we see the White House's position: there will be no negotiations with those holding America hostage. Congress has a job to do, so there's no need to give lawmakers a treat to entice them to do what they already know they must do."

But Republicans just can't seem to help themselves.

At the meeting, 39 lawmakers lined up at microphones to offer suggestions. They ranged from tax and entitlement reform to approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to passage of a bill that would require congressional approval for any federal regulation that would impose more than $100 million in new costs on business.

At least one person wanted to take on late-term abortion in the wake of the murder conviction of Philadelphia doctor Kermit Gosnell. Others suggested repeal or delay of Obama's health-care initiative. But for the most part, lawmakers tried to be "realistic," aides said, suggesting measures that could reasonably be expected to both improve the economy and pass the Democratic-controlled Senate.

At this point, you might be wondering why in the world the White House would enter debt-ceiling negotiations with lawmakers who've already said they can't block a debt-ceiling increase. And I have a strong hunch folks in the West Wing are asking the same question.

Still, Politico reports that House Republican leaders are "considering releasing its debt ceiling plan before the August recess so lawmakers can actively sell it to their constituents."

This is arguably the single stupidest, manufactured, self-imposed crisis imaginable, but at least for now, it's going to happen anyway.

Whether or not an issue is a "scandal" tends to be a subjective question -- one voter's world-changing controversy may be another voter's meaningless distraction. Indeed, the Beltway has spent a week telling the nation that the White House is engulfed in three ongoing scandals, though many of us suspect this analysis is deeply flawed.

But if we're going to talk about real political scandals, can we at least have a conversation about Republicans lying to reporters about Benghazi?

For those who can't watch clips online, CBS's Major Garrett told viewers last night something news consumers don't usually see or hear: House Republicans gave journalists bogus information, apparently on purpose, in the hopes of advancing the right's version of the Benghazi story.

As Josh Marshall explained, "Generally, once partisan, tendentious sources leak information that turns out to be wrong, nothing's ever done about it. That's for many reasons, some good or somewhat understandable, mostly bad. But on CBS Evening News tonight, Major Garrett did something I don't feel like I've seen in a really long time or maybe ever on a network news cast. He basically said straight out: Republicans told us these were the quotes; that wasn't true."

Given what we now know, congressional Republicans saw all of these materials in March, couldn't find anything controversial, and moved on. But last week, desperate to manufacture a scandal, unnamed Republicans on Capitol Hill started giving "quotes" from the materials to reporters, making it seem as if the White House made politically motivated edits of Benghazi talking points.

As Major Garrett reported last night, the "quotes" Republicans passed along to the media were bogus. The GOP seems to have made them up. ABC's Jonathan Karl didn't know that, and presented them as fact, touching off a media firestorm.

Why would Republicans do this, knowing that there was evidence that would prove them wrong?

Probably because Republicans assumed the White House wouldn't disclose all of the internal deliberations that went into writing the Benghazi talking points. When the White House did the opposite on Wednesday, giving news organizations everything, the GOP had been caught in its lie.

And yesterday, Major Garrett was willing to say so.

Maybe this was just an innocent mistake, rather than a deliberate attempt at deception? Nope: "On Monday, Mother Jones noted that the Republicans' interim report included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations."

So, it appears there's a Benghazi scandal after all. It's not the wrongdoing Republicans alleged; it's the wrongdoing Republicans committed.

The question for Darrell Issa is pretty straightforward: when does the investigation begin as to which Republicans lied to journalists and when?

Associated Press

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)

In the Senate, a bipartisan bill on comprehensive immigration reform was introduced several weeks ago, and is already steadily working its way through the legislative process. The package, crafted by the "Gang of Eight," has so far remained intact, and proponents are spending the bulk of their time lining up more support for the bill.

There'd be reason for optimism, were it not for the far-right Republican majority in the House, where there is no bill, and the Senate version already has plenty of critics. Last night, however, for the first time in a long while, reform proponents received some good news from the lower chamber.

A bipartisan group in the House working on an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws reached a deal in principle Thursday evening, aides said. The group plans to introduce its bill in June. [...]

The House group had been meeting and working on a nearly parallel track with a similar bipartisan group in the Senate, which has already introduced legislation that is now before the Senate Judiciary Committee. But until Thursday, the House group had yet to reach an agreement, and earlier this week the Republican members had threatened to walk away and introduce legislation of their own if a compromise could not be reached.

The talks very nearly collapsed, and last night's meeting was widely seen as a last-ditch effort. Apparently, it worked, and an "agreement in principle" was reached.

Of course, as is always the case, the devil is in the details, and as much as I'd like to tell you what's in the reform package, the elements of the agreement have not yet been released. A path to citizenship will reportedly exist, which is important, but it will also apparently be a longer path than is written into the Senate version. We'll know more next week, when the negotiators meet again to put the agreement in legislative form.

While most following the immigration debate expect the House bill to be to the right of the Senate bill -- which is already pretty conservative -- I should note that some reliable progressive reform champions, including Democratic Reps. Luis Gutierrez (Ill.), Zoe Lofgren (Calif.) and Xavier Becerra (Calif.), were part of the negotiations, and probably wouldn't have signed on to a bill that was too far to the right.

Looking ahead, it's easy to imagine some contentious arguments among lawmakers trying to work out differences between the House and Senate versions, but the fact that there will be House and Senate versions makes success more likely than it was 24 hours ago.

Associated Press

As promised, the U.S. House of Representatives voted, once again, to repeal the Affordable Care Act, with a bill passing late yesterday, 229 to 195. Now that House Republicans have held this vote 37 times, is it safe to assume they've sufficiently scratched this itch? Perhaps not.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) left the door open Thursday to holding additional votes to repeal Obamacare, hours before a scheduled floor vote to wipe out the law.

"When we have further votes that we take, we'll let you know," Boehner told reporters.

"We're going to keep the focus on Obamacare," he said.

In other words, don't be too surprised if repeal vote #38 is right around the corner. It's not like these folks have anything better to do with their time (or our government).

Before we move on, however, it's worth pausing to appreciate why these votes matter. At a certain level, it's easy to assume they don't -- even GOP members themselves acknowledge they're trying to make pointless political statements with these 37 votes, and they don't seriously expect to affect public policy. This is just about Republicans trying make themselves feel better about themselves.

Or so the assumptions go. There are, however, some other angles to keep in mind. First, note that after nearly four years of debate and discussion, Republicans are desperate to destroy the progress -- and in the process, strip families of their health care benefits, scrap tax breaks for small businesses, increase the deficit, etc. -- but still haven't come up with a health care policy of their own.

Second, each one of these 37 votes is a reminder that House Republicans not only aren't governing, they don't seem to care about giving the appearance of governing. The legislative process has become something of a laughingstock since Boehner became Speaker, and yesterday was a reminder of a deliberate and unnecessary gridlock.

Third, note that many of the cost-saving provisions in "Obamacare" have been adopted as part of the House Republicans' own budget plan. By voting to eliminate the ACA, Republican lawmakers are also inadvertently trying to gut their own budget blueprint.

And finally, there may also be a real-world policy implication to these ridiculous stunt votes.

Sarah Kliff raised a good point yesterday that I'd overlooked: "This slew of three dozen repeal votes have changed both how the Affordable Care Act works and how the public perceives it."

Last month, the Kaiser Family Foundation polled Americans on whether the Affordable Care Act is still law. Twelve percent of Americans -- that's about one in eight people -- think that Congress repealed the Affordable Care Act. Another 23 percent aren't sure or refused to answer the question.

Congress' repeal votes get media attention and coverage, which probably explains where these numbers come from. After hearing so much about congressional repeal, it's hard to blame Americans who think that the efforts have succeeded.

The uncertainty that these repeal votes have created can have real consequences for the Affordable Care Act. There's fairly comprehensive literature that suggests that when regulations seem like they might get repealed, people resist them aggressively.

This doesn't get much attention, but in order for the Affordable Care Act to work, people actually have to participate -- which is to say, they have to sign up for the benefits to which they are entitled. Ignorance breeds failure -- if ignorance leads to less participation, costs will go up and the strain on the system will take a serious toll.

So, in real-world terms, every person who asks, "Health care reform? Wasn't that repealed by Congress?" is slowly undermining the efficacy of the law itself. House Republicans aren't just spinning their wheels with these dumb votes; they're also slowly making the public more confused, and that confusion carries consequences.