Associated Press

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.)

It's hardly unreasonable to think the Internal Revenue Service took some serious missteps when it came to groups seeking tax-exempt status, and will need to improve the way the agency is managed. But being critical of the IRS's missteps does not mean one should necessarily start making wild assumptions about imaginary misdeeds.

You may recall last summer, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) caused quite a stir claiming he'd heard from a Bain Capital investor that Mitt Romney hadn't paid income taxes for 10 years. Which investor? Reid didn't say. Why should anyone take the claim seriously? Reid couldn't say. He heard an unsubstantiated rumor, and he passed it along.

Nearly 10 months later, the right has decided to revisit the issue, in light of the ongoing IRS controversy. Last week, for example, the Daily Caller ran a report, based on literally nothing, asking whether "someone at the IRS" leaked Romney's tax information to Reid.

As is often the case, the story worked its way from Republican media to Republican lawmakers. During a congressional hearing today, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) was incensed when former IRS commissioner Doug Shulman said he no idea whether Romney's tax documents had leaked.

"Do you know how Mr. Reid obtained that information? Did you look into this?" he asked Shulman.

Shulman stumbled, then said, "I have no idea."

"Doesn't that alarm you that all of a sudden, this pertinent information comes up, and you're the head of this agency, and you're not asking questions? Shame on you. Absolutely shame on you," Gosar responded.

Look, I criticized Reid at the time for repeating unsubstantiated rumors, which struck me as irresponsible. And if lawmakers want to read IRS officials the riot act over its mistakes on dealing with tax-exempt applicants, more power to 'em.

But Gosar's tirade today wasn't just over the top; it was plainly ridiculous.

Reid said he'd heard a rumor from an investor about Romney. Should the IRS have investigated this? Of course not; that wouldn't make any sense.

Indeed, one need not be a strategic mastermind to understand that if Reid had actual tax materials to bolster his rumors, he would have released them to make Romney look bad.

And while we're at it, let's go ahead and note that Reid was, in fact, wrong -- Romney did pay taxes over that 10-year period. If someone had illegally leaked Romney's returns, they'd show the opposite of Reid's claims.

So, the underlying argument is kind of silly, and is probably evidence of a right-wing congressman looking for an excuse to yell at the IRS. "Absolutely shame on you"? Gosar doesn't seem to have any idea what he's talking about.

Associated Press

In competitive states, we're seeing two kinds of politicians: those who support new measures intended to reduce gun violence and those who pretend to support new measures intended to reduce gun violence.

In New Hampshire, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R), shortly after voting to kill the bipartisan bill to expand background checks, benefited from new ads claiming she voted for "a bipartisan plan to make background checks more effective." In Arizona, Sen. Jeff Flake (R), who voted the way the NRA demanded last month, this month is telling anyone who'll listen how much he loves "to strengthen background checks."

And in Nevada, as Jon Ralston noted today, Sen. Dean Heller (R) is sending out interesting correspondence to his constituents.

"Knowing your interest in gun control, I wanted to give you an update on legislation I have cosponsored and supported recently."

Imagine how Nevadans felt when they received a letter that began that way from none other than Sen. Dean Heller, who voted against the Manchin-Toomey bill, saying he feared a creation of a gun registry despite his general support for the concepts in the measure. He was hailed by NRA types and blistered by gun control advocates.

I wonder how many folks who received that missive fell for the having-it-both-ways Heller approach.

Probably quite a few. That's the point -- politicians who do unpopular things have to cynically hope they can mislead voters, not by explicitly lying, but by taking advantage of public confusion over details.

In this case, Heller's letter (pdf) makes him sound like quite the reformer, boasting of his support for background checks, keeping firearms from the mentally ill, endorsing an amendment sponsored by a Democrat, and cosponsoring "bipartisan" legislation.

The typical person, who may not follow the news closely, would probably have no idea that Heller helped filibuster the bipartisan measure on background checks, and helped kill the entire bill on gun reforms.

But therein lies the point: the Nevada Republican is embarrassed enough to try to give people the wrong impression, and that level of embarrassment tells us something important.

As we talked about the other day, the NRA would have lawmakers believe -- indeed, it would have all of us believe -- that opponents of gun reforms enjoy broad support from the American mainstream. The NRA's allies have nothing to be embarrassed about, and have no reason to fear a public backlash, since freedom-loving Americans have no use for those rascally liberal ideas on gun safety.

But we know they're wrong, not just because of the available public opinion data, but because the senators who voted with the NRA appear to be going out of their way to pretend they didn't.

Getty Images

A week ago, it looked like the Senate was gearing up for some major nominating fights. Richard Cordray's nomination to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was ready to be brought the floor, as were Thomas Perez's Labor Secretary nomination and Gina McCarthy's EPA nomination. The result would some knock-down-drag-out fights that could dictate the future of how the chamber deals with administration nominees.

And then ... nothing. Even Cordray's nomination, which was slated for tomorrow, was pulled from the schedule. What happened? Brian Beutler reports this morning:

Cordray will now most likely get his chance after immigration reform legislation clears the Senate. And not because Reid is giving up on Cordray's nomination, but because he wants to turn Cordray and a handful of other nominees into a test of the GOP's vows to filibuster top Obama picks, including two designated cabinet secretaries.

The move serves two purposes: First, it removes one of the largest pretexts Republicans will have to walk away from immigration reform. Second, it puts Republicans on the spot in an exquisite -- and in Reid's mind necessary -- way, thus providing the nominees their best chance at confirmation, and leaving Democrats little choice, if the GOP blocks them, but to change the rules to immunize executive and judicial nominees from filibuster.

A senior Democratic aide told Brian the idea is to set up "back-to-back-to-back confirmation votes" on Cordray, Perez, and McCarthy. My sources have suggested President Obama's nominees to lead the ATF and sit on the NLRB may also in the mix as part of the same effort.

If the Senate is allowed to exercise its advise-and-consent role, fine -- these nominees will be confirmed and the chamber will move on to other business. If the Republican minority blocks some or all of these nominees, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will, in theory, be able to credibly argue that the GOP has given him no other choice but to pursue the "nuclear option."

Why not do this sooner rather than later? Two reasons.

First, Reid and Senate Dems see immigration as so important, they're inclined to push everything off until the reform bill has cleared the chamber. Once it's done, Democrats will feel freer to use hardball tactics to combat Republican obstructionism -- knowing that forcing the confrontation now would almost certainly derail the bipartisan legislation.

Second, if Reid is serious about the "nuclear option," he's going to need at least 51 votes to pull it off. That may sound easy given that the Senate Democratic caucus has 55 members, but let's not forget that plenty of those 55 have proven to be very reluctant when it comes to changing how the Senate operates. If they were uncomfortable with filibuster reform in January, the "nuclear option" is likely to be a tough sell, too.

Either way, this is a major fight on the horizon. As Brian concluded, "That effectively puts Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on a collision course. If McConnell caves or works out an agreement with Reid, then the nuclear option will become inoperative. But if he doesn't and these confirmation votes fail, then Reid will either have to admit defeat or do ... something. In that sense he's essentially building a 'permission structure' for himself and his caucus to do something about the rules in the event that Republicans make good on their threats."

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 New Jersey, Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Barbara Buono has her first television ad of the cycle. It's generally just a light, bio ad, but note the Andrew Cuomo reference. [Update: It turns out the video below is Buono's first online ad, while this is her first televised spot of the campaign.]

* In Massachusetts' Senate special election, Republican Gabriel Gomez released his first attack ad of the race, though several local reports are drawing attention to the commercial's obvious falsehoods.

* On a related note, Karl Rove's American Crossroads said this week it's "watching" the Massachusetts race "closely," but would not commit to intervening on Gomez's behalf.

* In Minnesota, a new Public Policy Polling survey shows Sen. Al Franken (D) leading each of his potential Republican challengers by margins ranging from 15 to 17 points. He appears to be a safe bet for re-election.

* In Virginia, we continue to learn more about E.W. Jackson, the Virginia GOP's nominee for lieutenant governor, including the fact that he worked to oppose housing desegregation in Boston in 1988.

* Virginia Republicans' gubernatorial nominee, state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, endorsed Jackson publicly yesterday, but said he would refuse to comment on all of the nutty things his new running mate has said over the years.

* In Michigan, a new statewide poll shows incumbent Gov. Rick Snyder (R) with a one-point edge over former U.S. Rep. Mark Schauer (D), who has not yet announced his plans, 39% to 38%. The same poll found U.S. Rep. Gary Peters (D) as the early favorite in the open U.S. Senate race.

* In New York City, former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D) launched his mayoral campaign overnight.

* And the 2014 Senate retirements may not be over just yet: Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) acknowledged this week that he has not yet decided whether to seek re-election next year.

It must be tiresome to have to update political talking points. Partisans go to a lot of trouble to write, poll test, memorize, and repeat them, and when the talking points are no longer accurate, it must be terribly inconvenient to come up with new ones.

For example, Republicans were heavily invested in arguing that the unemployment rate was "above 8 percent of x months," which was fine until the unemployment rate dropped below 8 percent, forcing the right to come up with new talking points.

The same is true on deficit reduction. Conservative condemnations of "trillion-dollar" deficits made more sense right until the point the deficit shrunk below $1 trillion.

Alas, some folks stick to their old talking points, even when they're now wrong.

Now, this is ordinarily the point at which I note that China owns only a small portion of U.S. debt; large deficits are wise under the economic circumstances; and if Sen. Paul is really eager to reduce the deficit, he should endorse some tax increases.

But putting all of this aside, Rand Paul is using out-of-date math. "We are borrowing $4 billion a day"? Let's see -- there are 365 days in a year ... multiplied by 4 billion ... carry the one ... that means we'll have annual federal budget deficit of over $1.4 trillion.

Except, we won't. The latest CBO estimate says this year's deficit will be $642 billion, down $400 billion from last year, and nearly $800 billion from when President Obama took office. Paul's argument, in other words, isn't even close to being accurate -- we're not borrowing $4 billion a day; we're borrowing less than $2 billion a day.

If the right wants to argue that's still too much, fine. I disagree, but we can at least have a debate. But to use talking points from 2009, as if we have haven't already seen the fastest deficit reduction in modern U.S. history, is absurd. What Rand Paul is telling his followers is simply and demonstrably wrong.

Updating talking points may be annoying, but when the facts change, politicians' rhetoric needs to change with them.

Associated Press

When it comes to the IRS controversy, I'm starting to get the impression that the goalposts have moved rather quickly.

The initial allegation raised by the right and other administration critics is that President Obama's White House, if not the president himself, may have been directly involved. As this story goes, Team Obama sent word to an IRS office in Cincinnati to apply extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

When every shred of evidence suggested this allegation is baseless, the charges shifted from "Obama did too much!" to "Obama did too little!"

For example, ABC's Jonathan Karl, who's had a rough go of it lately, said yesterday of the IRS's missteps: "How was this allowed to go on? ... There were public reports that this stuff was going on almost a year before the presidential election.... Is there any responsibility from the administration of saying, 'Hey, IRS, we don't treat groups differently based on politics [instead of waiting] for the report after the election to make a comment?'"

In other words, we've reached the point in the controversy at which critics are raising the opposite of their original charges. "Why did the White House intervene?" has become "Why didn't the White House intervene?"

Jeffrey Toobin's take yesterday rings true.

When you can't prove that the White House did anything wrong, and you can't prove that the White House knew that someone else was doing something wrong, what do you try to prove? That the White House knew there was an investigation into whether someone else was doing something wrong! That may sound scandalous, but, in fact, it's perfectly appropriate. [...]

White House officials seem to have engaged in the opposite of a cover-up. They let the investigation proceed, and let the Inspector General do his job. They let the process play out. They played by the rules, which is what lawyers are supposed to do.

I'd note that congressional Republicans learned about the IG's inquiry last summer -- to use Karl's words, they knew "this stuff was going on almost a year before the presidential election" -- and they too let the process play out, as they should have.

Dave Weigel added, "What started as a question of whether the White House ordered 'Tea Party targeting' has become a Byzantine investigation of on what day which staffers were informed that the inspector general was digging into this."

It suggests the "scandal," such as it is, continues to shrink. This is not to say the controversy is unimportant, but it's clear the goalposts are nowhere near where they were at the outset.

Associated Press

President Obama, at a press conference last week, was asked about possible prosecutorial overreach when it came to subpoenaing reporters' communications as part of leak probes. The president, though not directly involved with the investigations, defended the inquiries.

"U.S. national security is dependent on those folks being able to operate with confidence that folks back home have their backs, so they're not just left out there high and dry, and potentially put in even more danger than they may already be," Obama said. "And so I make no apologies, and I don't think the American people would expect me as Commander-in-Chief not to be concerned about information that might compromise their missions or might get them killed."

The White House's position hasn't changed, but in light of the AP and James Rosen stories, it's worth noting that press secretary Jay Carney adopted a different posture
yesterday.

The White House said on Tuesday that it did not think the Justice Department should threaten criminal action against journalists who report on sensitive national security matters, distancing itself from a recent case in which a television correspondent was targeted as a possible "co-conspirator" in a leak investigation.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said he discussed the situation with President Obama after reports that James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News, was described in criminal terms in an affidavit involving a 2009 article about North Korea posted on the network's Web site.

"I can't comment on the specifics of any ongoing criminal matter," Mr. Carney told reporters. "But if you're asking me whether the president believes that journalists should be prosecuted for doing their jobs, the answer is no."

So, on the one hand, Carney said it's "a serious matter" when "classified information is leaked." On the other hand, he added, it is "vital to our democracy -- and the president believes this deeply -- that the press is allowed to pursue investigative journalism freely."

If a remedy for the conflicting priorities is on the horizon, it might be a media shield law.

The administration reiterated its support for the idea last week, and a day later, the proposal had bipartisan cosponsors -- Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) -- though Republicans have generally been far more skeptical of the bill. The AP subpoenas didn't seem to generate much interest among GOP senators last week, but the fact that a Fox News reporter was targeted might help Republicans take a fresh look at the proposal.

Indeed, while that may sound overly cynical, Graham admitted as much yesterday: "Maybe now that Fox is involved, more [Republicans] will pay attention."

Associated Press

As if Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) didn't have enough troubles, the FBI has reportedly taken an interest in one of her ongoing controversies (via Laura Clawson).

The FBI is investigating complaints of alleged campaign finance violations in Rep. Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign.

The FBI joins the Office of Congressional Ethics, the Federal Elections Commission and an Iowa state Senate ethics committee in probing whether Bachmann's presidential campaign paid an Iowa state senator from her MichelePAC, a fund that should not have been used for campaign expenses, and whether the state senator stole the email list of an Iowa home-school group from another Bachmann staffer, Barbara Hekki, prior to the Iowa caucuses in January, 2012.

About a month ago, after an unrelated press conference, reporters hoped to get some information from Bachmann about the recent allegations. Instead of responding, the right-wing congresswoman literally ran away, while some aides "physically blocked reporters" to keep them at bay, and other aides were seen "pushing reporters out of the way as Bachmann left the room."

And that was before we knew the FBI had taken an interest in one of the Bachmann's controversies.

The story admittedly can get a little convoluted -- Bachmann allegedly paid a Republican state lawmaker $7,500 a month, funneling the money through a business owned by a Bachmann fundraiser -- but it certainly has the potential to do real harm to the Minnesota Republican's career.

Gavin Aronsen has a good overview: "[T]he FBI is investigating allegations that the 2012 presidential campaign of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) violated federal laws by not disclosing payments to an Iowa state senator, improperly coordinated with her PAC, and tried to silence whistleblowing staffers."

Getty Images

In the last Congress, the fight over federal disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy victims was ugly, divisive, and for quite a while, unresolved -- Republican opposition was so widespread, the last Congress ended before an aid package could be approved. It eventually passed in late January, but even then, most GOP lawmakers balked at the emergency funding.

Will we see a replay of the same fight when it comes to helping Oklahoma? Probably not.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) took the first step towards creating a controversy on Monday, arguing just hours after the tornado's destruction that he expects any additional federal aid to be financed by spending cuts elsewhere. By late yesterday, however, his was a minority view.

The two-year-old conservative desire to fully pay for disaster relief by cutting spending elsewhere is hitting bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill, with senior Republicans saying it's more important to get aid to victims of the deadly tornado that wreaked havoc in Oklahoma on Monday.

After GOP-on-GOP warfare dominated the congressional response to Hurricane Sandy, several top House and Senate Republicans were emphatic Tuesday that they won't insist on corresponding budget cuts if Congress needs to move quickly on Oklahoma.

Many prominent Republicans sounded downright Democratic yesterday. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who opposed Sandy relief, said, "Finding some way to offset is not the priority. Meeting the known and immediate needs as quickly as possible is the priority." House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) added, "I really don't think disasters of this type should be offset. We have an obligation to help those people. We'll worry about our budgetary items back here, but the aid has to be there."

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said, "I think they should get every penny they need. I've been through this. We can do the political games later on, the important thing is to get them the aid as quickly as they need it and not to make a political issue out of it." Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) added, "[A]t the end of the day my objective here is to make sure the people here get the help they need in a timely fashion."

It's worth emphasizing that there may not be a fight over disaster relief because a congressional bill may ultimately be unnecessary -- FEMA has not yet exhausted its reserves.

But if a funding bill is necessary, there appears to be little appetite for another political fight like the last one.

Here's hoping we'll see a return to traditional American norms when it comes to post-disaster aid. For generations, Congress didn't fight over offsets in the wake of a crisis, it simply moved to help American communities in their time of need. That changed after Republicans took control of the House in 2010, but given GOP reactions yesterday, we may be seeing the first signs that the party is rethinking the utility of its posture.

Congressional Republicans have created quite a mess when it comes to the federal budget. The fiasco has become so ridiculous that yesterday on the Senate floor, Republican Sens. John McCain and Susan Collins blasted their own party's incoherence.

Without digging too deeply into the budget weeds, the story is relatively straightforward: the House and Senate both passed competing budget resolutions, which means it's time for a conference committee to work on a possible compromise. This was the process Republicans insisted upon.

But when Senate Democrats agreed and passed a budget plan of their own, GOP officials did a 180-degree turn, insisting on behind-closed-doors talks to negotiate what could be included in the negotiations. Specifically, Republicans are afraid the budget talks might include a debt-ceiling increase, which the far-right refuses to consider -- they still hope to hold the debt-ceiling increase hostage later this year, threatening to hurt the country on purpose unless Democrats accept concessions.

Even McCain finds all of this absurd. "What [do] we on my side of the aisle keep doing?" he argued on the Senate floor yesterday. "We don't want a budget unless -- unless -- we put requirements on the conferees that are absolutely out of line and unprecedented."

McCain added that the Republican position on budget talks is "a little bit bizarre."

Taking the other side was a familiar right-wing trio -- Republican Sens. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee -- which presented an argument that was truly amazing, even for them.

Dave Weigel reported yesterday:

What Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Mike Lee want -- and have wanted -- is a guarantee that a debt limit increase cannot be included in the budget agreement that comes out of the House and Senate conference. It only takes 51 votes to pass a budget. Cruz, on the floor, has asked the Senate to preserve the "traditional 60-vote threshold" for raising the debt limit.

This is a strange definition of "tradition."

It is, indeed. Between 1939 and 2010, the debt ceiling was raised 89 times. How many of those increases were subjected to the "60-vote threshold"? Zero. Even earlier this year, a debt-ceiling increase was approved with 52 votes, not 60.

It's possible Cruz doesn't understand what "traditional" means, so let's make this clear: the word generally refers to established or customary patterns of thought, action, or behavior. In this case, the established, customary pattern is for the Senate to vote up or down on debt-ceiling increases, often as part of the budget conference committee process.

What Cruz wants isn't traditional; it's unprecedented. Those tend to be the opposite of one another.

And as of yesterday, even some Senate Republicans are getting tired of this nonsense.

Getty Images

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.)

The question isn't whether comprehensive immigration reform will pass the Senate; the question is when and by what margin.

A sweeping bill to overhaul the nation's immigration system cleared its first major hurdle late Tuesday night, with the 18-member committee charged with completing a first round of legislative edits voting to advance the amended bill to the full Senate.
The vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee was 13-5.

Three Republicans - Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Orrin Hatch of Utah -- joined the panel's 10 Democrats to vote in favor of the bill.

The floor debate will begin shortly after Memorial Day, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters yesterday the Republican leadership will not use procedural tactics to try to block the legislation. It raises the possibility of an extraordinarily rare sight: major legislation receiving an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor without a GOP filibuster.

That said, yesterday's success was not easy, and it came at a cost. Most notably, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) pushed for an amendment to allow U.S. citizens to apply for permanent resident status on behalf of their same-sex partners. Republicans threatened to kill the entire reform package if Democrats approved Leahy's measure, and while Democrats supported the amendment, they weren't willing to derail the entire bill over this provision. Left with no good options, Leahy grudgingly pulled his amendment, rather than force his Democratic colleagues to vote against the measure they liked.

It was a reminder that the bipartisan reform bill, despite its strengths, is "imperfect."

So, what happens now?

The "Gang of Eight" bill is expected to remain intact and appears to be on track for passage. Whether there's a Republican filibuster or not, the votes are in place, and "Gang of Eight" members continue to lobby their on-the-fence colleagues in the hopes of creating an even larger majority.

Why bother if the bill already has the votes needed to pass? Because proponents want to send a signal to the House by running up the score -- it's one thing for the lower chamber to look askance at a partisan bill that ekes out a narrow victory in the Senate; it's something else for the House to kill a bipartisan Senate bill that passes with 70 or more votes.

And at this point, that's apparently the goal. The legislation reportedly enjoys the unanimous support of the Democratic caucus (55 votes), plus the Republicans on the "Gang of Eight" (4 more votes), plus the likely support of some GOP moderates (Collins + Kirk = 2 more votes), and proponents believe as many as 10 other Republicans, including Hatch and Cornyn, are in play.

The goal is to put as much pressure as possible on the House, and at this point, the plan is coming together nicely.

Today's edition of quick hits:

* The reports and images out of Oklahoma are simply heartbreaking.

* The latest from Moore: "Emergency crews in Oklahoma picked through neighborhoods without recognizable streets Tuesday in a grim, house-by-house search of the blasted-out husk of a city left behind by a ferocious tornado. Authorities lowered the death toll to 24, less than half the figure they gave in the initial chaos after the twister, but there was still no full accounting of those missing. Nine of the dead were children, including seven in a flattened elementary school."

* As big as they get: "The massive, mile-wide tornado that ravaged Oklahoma City suburbs on Tuesday with peak winds of over 200 miles per hour has been rated an 'EF5' by the National Weather Service."

* Lois Lerner's lawyers gave her obvious advice: "A top IRS official scheduled to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight committee has notified Congress that she will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions."

* Immigration: "Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) struck a deal Tuesday on visas for high-skilled workers, a major breakthrough for the Senate immigration reform bill. The deal paves the way for Hatch, the most senior member of the Senate Republican Conference, to support the immigration legislation pending in the Judiciary Committee."

* The images we will not see: "Photos of American military personnel burying Osama bin Laden will remain classified, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with the government in finding that the release of postmortem images of the founder and leader of al-Qaeda could cause 'exceptionally grave harm' to Americans."

* Gallup: "U.S. Economic Confidence Reaches Five-Year Weekly High."

* Josh Marshall has an unexpected take on James Rosen: "It's difficult for me not to be more shocked by the self-interested preening of fellow journalists over a comically inept reporter and source than the arguable dangers this episode holds for press freedoms. Indeed, I've failed. I can't."

* Dear Kirsten Powers, please don't compare Fox News to Holocaust victims.

* And the NRA is outraged by the violence that Hollywood peddles and uses to poison our culture. On the other hand, the NRA also thinks violent movies are "cool." Good to know.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.